Day 13 saw us continue down the path toward wrapping up our excavations for the semester. The "upstairs" is going along willingly, the "downstairs" . . . not so much.

As I wrote last week, we wrapped up level excavations in Unit 4 and 6 and had just a few loose ends (final scraping and mapping of floor, etc.) in Unit 5. Today's goals were to finish the level excavations in Unit 5 and document the walls of the block by photographing and making profile drawings.  I took my own notes on the sediments in the profiles and collected a charcoal sample from one of the probable features exposed in the floor of Unit 4. The block was crowded.

Profile drawings are key to understanding the deposits from which we removed artifacts. It is often easier to understand the stratigraphy in profile (i.e., in a vertical plane) than in plan (as you're excavating through it). This is very true at this site, where the loose sand dries out quickly and makes it more difficult to move in the unit without disturbing artifacts and obscuring variation in the exposed sediments.

Drawing a profile uses many of the same skills the students learned while piece-plotting artifacts and making horizontal maps. The big difference is that one of the dimensions is elevation. The traditional way of drawing a profile is to establish a level line along the plane that you're drawing, measuring in everything in relation to that line. Setting a level line is simply a matter of stretching a string tightly between two anchoring points (typically gutter spikes or chaining pins), using a simple mason's line level to make the string level. ​

By the end of the day, the students had completed all the work in the "upstairs" block and had gotten much of the backfilling done. To protect the floors and walls until I can open the excavation again, we lined everything with landscape fabric and placed pieces of chipboard along the walls. The landscape fabric provides a marker between what's been excavated and what hasn't and, unlike plastic, allows water to pass through. The purpose of the vertical wood panels is to allow us to shovel right up to the walls when the fill is removed in the future. The whole enterprise will be filled and buried.

While everything went smoothly in the "upstairs," the "downstairs" portion of the site continued to fight back. DuVal and I visited the site mid-week to deliver a load of lumber for building the buttressing that will protect the profile wall until I can return to it again. I took that opportunity to try to salvage a decent photo of the deposits exposed in the wall after the collapse -- DuVal and I scraped it as best we could and waited for the sun to move to provide natural shade (early afternoon). It's not a perfect picture, but it wasn't a perfect situation. 

On Friday, Jim Legg completed his profile drawing of the intact north wall of Unit 9 and drew the profile exposed by the wall collapse. You can't really tell from the photo, but the surface is fairly irregular. In order to make it possible to build a wooden structure to protect the profile from further damage, I had some students cut back some portions of the lower zones to produce a surface closer to a vertical plane.  We screened the sediment. I was hoping that perhaps we'd finally get a diagnostic artifact from those lower zones. But, alas, no.

By the end of the day this coming Friday, the excavated portion of the "downstairs" profile wall will be protected behind wooden buttressing, one way or another. We'll line the wall with landscape fabric, install vertical wooden panels, and then fill the space between the two with sand. It would have been a lot easier to do this, of course, if the Unit 9 wall had not collapsed. The more irregular the wall, the more sand is required to fill in the spaces. More sand means more pressure on the wall, which requires more strength. The Unit 1 and 2 walls were already uneven, and the bottom part of the reconstructed buttressing there suffered a blowout during backfilling. I think we'll end up piling sand on the bottom portion of the buttressing to counter-act the pressure pushing outward. If there's one thing we have a lot of, it's sand.

Finally, I was happy to get a group photo with everyone in it. Good job, 2017 Broad River Archaeological Field School!

If you've ever done any kind of fieldwork, you know that collecting data out in the real world is different from collecting data in the lab.  You control what you can control, but the real world will always be unpredictable and sloppy in ways that are usually not helpful.  An important part of learning to do field archaeology is learning to plan, anticipate, prepare, and quickly adjust to figure out how to meet your goals even when the real world doesn't seem to want to cooperate.

Yesterday was one of those days when the real world threw us an elbow.

For the most part, things have been going surprisingly smoothly during this field school: the students have been great, the information we're collecting is of significant value, and we've barely lost any time to weather. As I wrote last week, I formulated a plan to wind down and close things out in good order over the remaining field days. Some parts of that plan still hold. Other parts now require substantial re-working. 

Let's do the good news first.

In the "upstairs' excavation block, Units 4 and 6 and have been leveled off at 100 cmbd (centimeters below datum), the base of level 8. There is lot of material in the floor at this depth that will have to wait until excavations are re-opened at some point in the future. Additionally, the final floor scrape revealed several roughly circular areas of darker, charcoal-flecked sediment that are almost certainly the tops of cultural features. Large pieces of fire-cracked rock are scattered around on the floors of the units. 

Unit 5 is also coming to a close. The base of that unit will rest at 80 cmbd.  The large rocks in the floor will remain until the next time the unit is opened.

And now for the bad news.

The beautiful 3m-long profile wall that Jim Legg has been working on all semester suffered a major collapse while we were gone during the week.  It doesn't look to me like the severe weather we had on Wednesday had anything to do with the collapse: there was no evidence that water had come in from the top or eroded the wall at the bottom. It appears, rather, as though the soft sands of Zones 3 and 4 just decided they didn't want to be on the wall anymore. They may have lost their cohesion as they dried out, sloughing off about 25-50 cm of the wall into a large pile of slump.

The collapse came at a particularly painful time, as we were planning cleaning and photographing the entire 5m profile that morning in preparation for drawing the whole thing. I was even planning on taking the field school photograph with the beautiful profile wall as a backdrop.  Obviously, a change of plans was required both for the day and for the field school exit strategy.

The first thing to do was deal with the sediment from the collapse. We moved some screens into place and pulled some students from the "upstairs" block to move and screen the dirt. Even though the artifacts were now out of vertical context, anything in the slump still has the potential to tell us something about the occupations of the site (we still don't have any diagnostic artifacts from context in the lower deposits, for example, so an Archaic projectile point from the slump would help us understand the sequence of deposits even if we didn't know exactly where it came from). We went ahead and chopped out the overhanging near-surface sediments, as their presence would make protecting the profile more difficult.

The profile of Units 1 and 2 (protected behind plywood since last May) still needed to be dealt with, and the north wall of Unit 9 was intact. DuVal and I removed my plywood buttressing from the Unit 1/2 wall and found that it was pretty much as I left it, which was a relief. Also, the nest of snakes that I had dreamed would be behind the wall was absent. Jim Legg scraped down that surface (which was partly excavated on the 1000 E line and partly a concave surface left by the original machine excavation) and two students made a profile drawing after we photographed it in the afternoon.

Needless to say, the circumstances we faced yesterday in the field were not what I would have chosen. My vision of having that entire 5m profile all open and clean at once decisively (and literally) collapsed. It's a setback, of course, but in reality we didn't lose that much information. As it stands now, the 3m profile can still be cleaned, photographed, and described in a way that will add significantly to what we know about the deposits at the site and provide context to the artifacts recovered through the excavation of Unit 9. It won't be as nice as having a profile all along the 1000 E line, but I'm not sure it will make a whole lot of difference in the long run. I'm formulating a plan for dealing with the profile that will allow me to securely protect it until I can return to it with a crew again and get it all in good shape for the future.

On another "glass half full" note, I want to say that I was very happy with the way my students handled themselves yesterday. I asked several of them to switch gears several different times to help out as we dealt with the collapse and the aftermath. They all responded, pitched in, and helped when and where requested. The students "upstairs" finishing up the block units did almost everything on their own, from uncovering the units in the morning to covering them back up at the end of day. I went up there sporadically to assess things, make strategic decisions, and give tactical advice.  But for the most part they did it themselves. As a teacher, it's a great feeling to see them at this level of competence and independence -- they've come a long way from what they could do on that first day we went out there. That's a win.

It's the end of March, which means the dogwoods are blooming, the dragonflies are back, and it's time to start sweating. After an early morning thunderstorm, the temperature cracked 80 degrees on Friday.

As I wrote last week, the last days of this endeavor will be devoted to collecting some final, crucial pieces of information and then buttoning up the site so that the deposits are protected until we're ready to excavate again.

In the "upstairs" block, it's now evident that excavations in Units 4 and 6 will terminate at the base of level 8 (100 cm below datum [cmbd]). I had hoped to get one more 10 cm level done in those units, but the density of artifacts to piece-plot has not decreased and the best thing to do is to aim for a good ending with a flat floor at the end of the levels.  

We're also preparing for the endgame in the "downstairs" portion of the site. Jim Legg finished his excavation of Unit 9, exposing a full 3 m of clean, plumb profile wall. On our next day in the field we'll dismantle the wooden buttressing that has been protecting the 2 m section of wall to the south of Unit 9. We'll clean and document the entire 5 m at once. It will probably take most of a day to prep and photograph the wall, and at least another day to draw and describe everything.

In conjunction with analysis of the artifacts excavated from the "upstairs" units and Units 8 and 9, the new wall profile will help us add considerable detail to our understanding of how this landform developed and change through time. I'm hoping to have money for several radiocarbon dates to help nail down the absolute chronology of the upper 2.2 meters of deposits.

What lies below the exposed profile remains an open question. The excavation of Unit 7 demonstrated both that artifacts are present and the lamellae cease within about 60 cm of the base of the profile. I had hoped to take Unit 7 down farther to get a better look at what's down there, but water damaged the unit two weeks in a row. The sand is very loose, and the ground surface at the base of the profile is the lowest spot around.  Water collects in the area during a heavy rain, and it takes very little water to erode the unit walls. After deciding that a "deep look" would require a concerted effort that would us to excavate quickly and continuously, we lined the remains of Unit 7 with landscape fabric and filled it back in. I hope to return a later date with a small crew and make a concerted effort to go deep and see if there's an Early Archaic component hiding down there.

Our tenth day in the field was unusual in that the focus of the day (for me, anyway) was a site visit by the board of the Archaeological Research Trust (ART), the landowner and family, and other guests. As I wrote last December, funds supplied by ART are supporting staff wages in the field and laboratory, as well as the costs of expendable field supplies and the lumber required to build protection for the vulnerable parts of the site. It was my pleasure to show them their money in action and try to communicate why what we're doing is worthwhile.

In terms of the archaeology, we're now to the point were we need to dial in the exit strategy for the semester. We've got four field days remaining, weather permitting.

"Upstairs," the last day will be spent backfilling the units and making sure everything is buttoned up and protected until the next opportunity to excavate. The second-to-last day will be devoted to drawing profiles of all the unit walls. That leaves us just two more days to excavate. Although I'm very curious to see what the deposits look like below the Mack zone, I'm not prepared to alter the piece-plot strategy at this point in order to speed things up. I think continuing to gather high resolution information as we excavate the Mack component will pay off during analysis. At the rate we're going, we may finish just one more 10 cm level in each of Units 4, 5, and 6.

"Downstairs," the end game will include cleaning, photographing, drawing, and describing the 5 m-long, 2.2 m-high profile that will be exposed when Jim Legg completes the excavation of Unit 9. With only one or two more levels to go to expose the base of the profile in Unit 9, we hope to be prepared to remove the wooden buttressing from Units 1 and 2 and clean and photograph the entire profile after one more day in the field. Drawing the profile will take at least a day. Constructing the buttressing to protect the entire 5 m will take at least part of a day. With luck, we'll be done with the downstairs before we're done upstairs.

I'm also starting to formulate my future plans for work at the site. I'll write about those plans when they're done cooking.

After a week off for spring break, the field school returned to the Broad River to continue excavations at 38FA608. We're in the thick of things now. Unfortunately, the student who brings a coffee maker was absent.

It's slow going in the excavation block. During our previous day in the field, we began getting into what appeared to be a Late Archaic / Early Woodland deposit in Units 4 and 6. That day ended with numerous artifacts marked in place on the floors of those units. The crews in those units spent most of the latest field day dealing with those artifacts, plotting and collecting each one. ​

Unit 6 (upper left in the photo above) produced the bases of two heavily reworked Mack points in context, along with numerous pieces of chipped stone debris and fire-cracked rock. We've seen nothing yet in those units that suggests a discrete feature. Unit 4 has produced some ceramic debris in the "Mack" deposit, but I have yet to see any large pieces or pieces with decoration (that doesn't mean we won't found them or even that we haven't already -- the students are plotting hundreds of artifacts and I'm not looking at each one as it comes out of the ground).

Progress in Unit 5 was slowed by the presence of two small features (Features 7 and 8). Feature 7 was a small deposit of dark, charcoal flecked sediment that appears similar to Feature 6 that we encountered in Unit 6. Only a portion of Feature 7 was visible in the floor of Unit 5, with the remainder extending into the unexcavated portion of Unit 3.  We documented and removed the portion in Unit 5, and we will catch the profile of the feature in the wall of the unit.

Feature 8 was a circular area of light sediment. We documented it in plan and then bisected it. It appears to be a circular pit with relatively straight sides that extend at least 15 cm from the depth at which the feature was defined. Based on the light fill of the feature, its shape in plan and profile, and the fact that it appeared within Zone 2 (the buried plowzone), the feature is almost certainly a historic period post or auger hole of some kind. We'll need to scoop out the remaining fill to keep any intrusive artifacts from plowzone from contaminating the prehistoric deposits.

Work resumed on the "downstairs" portion of the site with the return of Jim Legg. Jim and a student continued excavating Unit 9 to produce a straight profile wall. There were no diagnostic artifacts and no sign of any features associated with the presumed Middle/Late Archaic deposit, which was a bummer.  There's still a chance we'll find something in what's left of Unit 9 that can give us a firm handle on time/culture deep in the profile, but it's not looking good at this point. Jim wore black instead of paisley, and I can't completely let go of the idea that his wardrobe choice might have hurt our efforts. (Update [3/21/2017]: Legg has promised to return to paisley when we go in the field this Friday.)

It is March, and we have entered pine pollen season here in the South Carolina midlands. For the next few weeks, everything will be dusted yellow. 

In more exciting news, at site 38FA608 on the Broad River we have entered what appears to be an intact Late Archaic/Early Woodland midden in our excavation block.  If my initial diagnosis is correct, we're now (literally) scraping the top of a buried occupation zone that dates to around 1000 BC (i.e., about 3000 radiocarbon years before present, give or take). We've encountered this zone at about 95-100 cm below datum, which translates to roughly 65-70 cm below surface in the block. There is no sign of a heavy occupation zone in the existing vertical profile wall at that depth, so we may be dealing with something that is fairly limited in size (or at least was not distributed evenly across the ground surface that was present 3000 years ago). In that regard, this was a bit of a surprise, but it's the good kind of surprise: we're learning more about the kinds, dates, and extents of deposits at this site with every shovel-full of dirt.

​First, the "downstairs." We were without Jim Legg, so work was paused on the profile wall excavation (Unit 9). Two students finished up level 4 of Unit 7, the 1m x 2m unit being excavated to explore below the exposed profile. As I wrote last week, Unit 7 succeeded in locating the termination (or at least a hiatus in) the lamellae that presumably formed as a result of a process of particle migration/accumulation caused by water percolation. In other words, the end of the lamellae may be telling us something about the position of the water table. 

I'm not done with Unit 7 (I want to take it as far down as I can, as long as things are safe), but I needed to shift people up to the block to finally start excavating Unit 3. Unit 3 is the northeastern 2m x 2m unit in the block.  It has so far remained untouched. As the other units in the block get deeper, they are getting more difficult to enter and exit safely (and without putting stress on the walls). So we began excavating the eastern half of Unit 3 to serve as a step down in the other units. Now that we know the top two zones are plowzones, we can excavate them as natural levels. So it was a return to battling roots for DuVal and a couple of lucky students.

Things got interesting in the block fairly quickly. Mid-morning, the students working in Unit 6 (shovel scraping through the last bits of their level 7, 75-90 cmbd) exposed a projectile point in the floor of the level. Their instructions for this level were to shovel scrape/skim at moderate speed, watching for stains and color changes and inspecting artifacts they encountered but only marking things for piece-plotting if they were large and/or interesting (i.e., diagnostic artifacts). I'm really happy that the student caught the point in the floor and it was left in place, as it gives us our first lithic diagnostic down in context in the block.

I think it's a Late Archaic / Early Woodland stemmed form, what we might call "Gary" in the Midcontinent but what is commonly known as "Mack" here. At first glance, the point has the basal shape of a Morrow Mountain (a Middle Archaic form), but I think it's much too high in the deposits to be that old. There is some unfortunate morphological overlap between Early Woodland and Middle Archaic point forms here. I'm going to be exceedingly lazy and just paste in a few paragraphs from Daniel Elliot and Ken Sassaman's (1995) Archaic Period Archaeology of the Georgia Coastal Plain and Coastal Zone (pages 44 and 45): 

After documenting the base of level 7 (at 90 cmbd), the students in Units 4 and 6 moved into the excavation of level 8. At the base of level 7 in Unit 6, the sediment appeared to be darker in the southeast corner of the unit. The boundary was too diffuse to define it as a feature, though, so I had the students map and describe it as a separate sediment zone. Scraping the floor at the beginning of level 8 immediately produced a good amount of material in that corner, including another point with a contracting stem. In Unit 6, they started encountering some large pieces of fire-cracked rock and lots of flaking debris. At first I thought we were might be coming down on a couple of features (one in each unit). After investigating further, however, it appeared more likely that we were just hitting the irregular top of a continuous zone that probably extends across the entire block. It was time to put on the brakes and return to a slower, more intensive piece-plotting strategy. Given that all the students have now experienced the joys of piece-plotting by hand, I'll probably fire up the total station next time we're out and begin using it to collect piece-plot coordinates electronically. 

Excavations in Unit 5 are a currently about 20 cm behind those in Units 4 and 6. Given what we now know is on the horizon for Unit 5, my plan is to continue the intensive piece-plotting excavations in that unit all the way down. At 75 cmbd, there's a possible feature to deal with (it looks fairly similar to Feature 6, the small charcoal-flecked basin we excavated in Unit 6 last week). The large, plow-sheared rock in Unit 5 remains in the floor, as we still haven't reached the surface that it's sitting on (thankfully, no-one has tripped over it yet). It will be interesting to see what, if anything, is around it when we reach the depth that would have been the surface when it was deposited.

Finally, we encountered our third serpent of this field school: a tiny snake that was sleeping under one of our plywood edge protectors. I moved it to a safe spot.

Last Friday marked the halfway point of the field school. We have accomplished a lot in seven days of work, and it's a pleasure to watch the students continue to become more and more comfortable and competent with the strategies, methods, and techniques of basic archaeological excavation.

In the "upstairs" portion of the site, excavations in Units 4 and 6 continued into the deposits beneath Zone 2. In Unit 6, we dealt with a small feature (designated Feature 6) that appeared beneath Zone 2.

A cultural "feature" is basically an immovable artifact -- an "in place" deposit created by human activity. In this part of the world, cultural features include the remains of such things as hearths, storage pits, cooking pits, postholes, burials, etc. Because intact features contain a record of a discrete set of human activities that occurred over a relatively short span of time, they hold valuable clues about what people were actually doing at a site. We love features because they give us specific information that other kinds of deposits cannot.

As you can see from the photo above, Feature 6 was a rather unspectacular stained area that contained a moderate amount of charcoal. We used standard feature excavating techniques to document and remove the feature: (1) mapped and described it in plan view; (2) bisected it to expose a profile, screening the sediment through 1/4" mesh; (3) documented the profile; (4) removed the remaining portion of the feature as a flotation sample. There wasn't much cultural material in the feature, but there were lots of large chunks of charcoal. In profile the feature appeared to be a shallow basin with a fairly regular shape, and there was no evidence that it was a root stain or rodent burrow.

The excavation to expose Feature 6 in profile went down to about 90 cmbd (centimeters below datum), so that seemed like a good target for the bottom of level 7 in Units 4 and 6. By the end of the day, Unit 6 was well on the way to being there, with no sign of cultural features. We're using a shovel-scraping methodology that, hopefully, strikes a good balance between speed and control. I want to go slow enough to recognize cultural features if they're present, but fast enough to end up with some good data on what we're dealing with as far as the horizontal and vertical distribution of prehistoric materials.

Meanwhile, in the "downstairs" portion of the site, work resumed on the excavation of Unit 9 (the 1m x 3m unit placed to extend the profile wall. As excavations near the top of the (supposed) Middle/Late Archaic zone, Jim Legg dazzled the students with yet another paisley shirt. Work also continued in Unit 7, a 1m x 2m unit being excavated to explore what lies beneath the exposed profile.

The last level of Unit 7 contained very little material. It did reveal, however, that the lamellae (the dark bands of sediment caused by the downward migration and accumulation of clay particles) appear to end rather suddenly. The base sediment remains coarse sand. It's possible that the abrupt ending of the lamellae is telling us something about the level of the water table: saturated sediment would presumably not facilitate the downward migration of clay particles. This will be something we can investigate with sediment analysis once we've got a nice profile exposed that we can sample. In the meantime, I've got my fingers crossed that we don't get a significant rainfall that presses the pause button on Unit 7.

On of the main questions in play over the last couple of days in the field concerns the nature of Zone 2, the dark zone of sediment present immediately beneath the plowzone. I vacillated on whether it was a second, buried plowzone or an intact, prehistoric cultural deposit (i.e., a thin midden). Because I wasn't sure either way, I erred on the side of excavating it as though it was an unplowed deposit, having the students shovel skim and piece-plot.

This Friday, we finally got to the bottom of Zone 2 in two of the block units (Units 4 and 6). Lo and behold . . . plow scars. So it looks like Zone 2 has been plowed after all. 

Calling Zone 2 a "plowzone" doesn't end my questions about it. For one, there are subtle lenses within the zone (visible in profile) that seem inconsistent with a plowzone and need to be explained.  For two, the variable nature of the boundary between Zones 2 and 3 suggests that, if Zone 2 was originally accumulated as a surface midden, there is the distinct potential that unplowed pockets of the midden remain intact. For three, we need to explain the origin of all the lighter sediment that was somehow deposited on top of Zone 2, burying it and shifting the modern plowzone upward. While I'm not sure we'll be able to answer those questions this field season, I am happy that we've recovered what appears to be a nice little assemblage of Mississippian-age ceramic and lithic debris. 

We're removing the last remnants of Zone 2 with a shallow level (Level 6, about 5 cm in depth) intended to get rid of the plowscars and level the units off at an even 75 cm below datum. As of the end of the day on Friday, Level 6 was in progress in Units 4 and 6. Unit 5 was finishing up the last of their Zone 2 level (Level 4 in that unit).

With work just beginning below Zone 2, it already looks different. In Unit 6, the top of Zone 3 has revealed a couple of large (golf ball-sized) pieces of fire-cracked rock and a charcoal-rich stain that could be the top of a cultural feature. We'll learn more about Zone 3 during our next day in the field.

Meanwhile, in the "downstairs" portion of the site, we finally opened Unit 7 (Jim Legg could not join us, so work on Unit 9 was paused). Unit 7 is a 1m x 2m unit placed to investigate what, if anything, is beneath the deposits exposed in the machine cut.  While the short answer, so far, is "not much," the deep sediments are not sterile: there was at least one piece of fire-cracked rock in the second level of Unit 7. I'm not anticipating we'll run into a heavy prehistoric deposit, but at this point we don't have any data about what's down there other than a single exploration I did with a 3" bucket auger.  A few more levels in Unit 7 have the potential to tell us quite a bit, as even a relatively sparse occupation will probably be detectable in levels from a 1m x 2m unit.

We had another sunny Friday with highs in the mid-50's. I saw a bee over the weekend, so it looks like the worst of another brutal South Carolina winter is behind us.

As I wrote last week, my hope for this Friday was that we would end the day being able to say with some confidence whether Zone 2 (the dark zone beneath the plowzone) is a buried plowzone or an intact cultural deposit. Unfortunately, I still don't have definitive evidence either way.  Based on the day's work, however, I'm now leaning more toward the idea that we are, in fact, dealing with an unplowed prehistoric deposit.

If Zone 2 is a buried plowzone, we'll expect to see some evidence of plowing (e.g., plow scars or plow-truncated features) at the interface between the base of the zone and the underlying sediments. We're not to that interface in any of the block units yet, however.

Because I don't know what Zone 2 is, I had the students excavate it using a shovel-skim/piece-plot methodology. Shovel-skimming involves using shovels to carefully remove thin (e.g., 1/4" to 1/2") slices of sediment. This technique allows you to leave larger artifacts in place as you find them and keep an eye out for changes in sediment color and texture that could be associated with cultural features such as hearths, pits, or postholes. I had the students leave artifacts in place as they encountered them, marking them with a piece of orange flagging tape stuck in the ground with a nail. When the floor became too cluttered with artifacts, artifacts were piece-plotted (mapped individually) and removed. All the sediment that was removed with shovels was passed through 1/4" screen to catch smaller artifacts that weren't detected during the shoveling.​

If Zone 2 turns out to be a buried plowzone, our careful excavation of it will have been largely an educational exercise (shovel skimming and piece-plotting are techniques that the students need to learn regardless, so that's fine). If it turns out to be an intact Mississippian midden deposit, however, I'll be happy that we excavated through it in a way that may help us learn something about its formation. The deposit has produced several rim sherds and at least one fragment of a pipe bowl. So far, there has been no sign of features originating within the deposit.

One of the pieces of information that has me thinking that Zone 2 may be a prehistoric midden is the view now available in the wall of Unit 9.  Last week, I pointed at a small section of the base of Zone 2 and noted that it was more abrupt than one would expect in a naturally-formed sediment zone. On Friday, however, I took another look at the Unit 9 wall that Jim Legg is working on and it appears that that abrupt "straight" segment is more the exception than the rule. There also appear to be thin horizontal lenses of sediment within Zone 2, the presence of which seems inconsistent with a plowed deposit.

As shown in the photo, the excavation of Unit 9 is now down into the portion of the profile where lamellae become visible. These lamellae -- thin layers of clay-enriched sediment -- become thicker and more pronounced with depth in the profile.  They are formed by the movement and accumulation of clay particles (here is an online article to get you started if you want to learn more about lamellae). Jim's excavation has yet to produce any diagnostic lithic artifacts (he's below the depth at which we're still expecting to find pottery) or evidence of intact features. He'll be down to the depth of what I think is a Middle/Late Archaic zone in a few more levels.

This is just a quick post to point you in the direction of the student blog section of the Broad River Archaeological Field School website. Blog posts from our first three days of work are online.

Three students are assigned to write posts for each day we're in the field. Their posts from the previous week are due on Thursday morning, so typically I'll hope to have them posted by the end of the day on Thursday. An emergent issue kept me busy last Thursday, but the new posts from Day 3 are up now. Enjoy!