Kris,

Relative to my experiences in Michigan and more particularly here in
Illinois, ... plow drag of artifacts is an absolute red herring, i.e., the
amount of plow drag of artifacts -- even after 150 years -- is negligible
and really not worth worrying about. However, if you are asking whether
the "whole" site could be in the plowzone, with no subplowzone features,
that is possible but pretty unlikely.

As it sounds like you are working entirely in a plowzone setting, the
trick is going to be defining the limits of your artifact scatter(s). You
may be able to define those areas using a shovel test strategy -- I would
think a 10-m grid interval would give you reasonable control, although
7.5-m would be better. Although you might want to dig a couple of 1-m
squares as stratigraphic control units, any attempt to try to find
features using that strategy is really not very effective, and ultimately,
very expensive.

Unless this is a VERY early site, and you are concerned about
sampling/recovering the plowzone, I would recommended defining your
activity areas, and then use controlled backhoe stripping of the plowzone
using something like 10-m blocks to look for subsurface features within
those areas, and then proceeding from there in whatever fashion you deem
appropriate.


It sounds like you have two scatters ... Since I am usually trying to
define domestic use areas, I tend to focus on those areas where refined
ceramics are present. Obviously, remember that you may be looking at two
sites, not just one.  In pre-Civil War settings, the actual farmstead area
tends to be pretty small, probably no more than 100-200 ft in diameter.

In terms of contacts in Michigan, you should be getting in touch with
Scott Beld at Central Michigan University, who has done extensive
excavation on what sounds like a very similar site; then Dean Anderson at
the SHPO's office; and I would certainly touch base with Sean Dunham at
CCRG in Jackson.

These are just my thoughts, and I put them down pretty quickly, so
obviously I am skimming over a lot of subtext, but if you need any further
help, please feel free to contact me off-list.

Good luck, Mark
___________________________________

Mark C. Branstner, RPA
Historic Archaeologist

Illinois State Archaeological Survey
Prairie Research Institute
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
209 Nuclear Physics Lab, MC-571
23 East Stadium Drive
Champaign, IL 61820

Phone: 217.244.0892
Fax: 217.244.7458
Cell: 217.549.6990
[log in to unmask]

"Memory vectors collective success for any people."
--- Randall Robinson.







On 11/21/11 6:47 AM, "Kris Oswald" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Morning to all
>
>
> I have just begun site testing(stp work) of a Pioneer cabin site in
>Michigan and have a couple questions if I may, the wheat field that it
>is located in is approx 80 acre's and has not been dragged/ plowed or
>tilled in many years and the wheat for winter is resting a foot high. A
>metal detector survey of the site was done a couple of years back with
>some good results but conflicts with the Families story on where the
>cabin was located.I have brick fragments on the highest elevation as
>well at the lower section closest to original road bed where most of the
>personal artifacts have been recovered. I am looking for any resource
>materials on Michigan Pioneer Cabin Excavation. the concentration
>level's of material from the STP's are light at best, is it possible
>that the only remains of the site are articulated across the field?. I
>feel that until the soil has been turned  to expose more surface
>artifact my STP work will take forever. Any thoughts on this?  I value
>your opinions
>P.S.  not sure when the field will be worked again
>
>Thanks in Advance
>
>Kris Oswald
>Linden Mi
>WILLIAMS INTERNATIONAL                               A COMPANY WITH A
>VISION     
>
>This email message and any attachment(s) are for the sole use of the
>intended
>recipient(s) and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information
>which may
>be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
>
>Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
>If you are
>not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply email
>and destroy
>the original message and any copies of the message as well as any
>attachment(s)
>to the original message.
>
>This email message does not form a binding contract or contract amendment
>with
>the sender, unless it clearly states in writing that it is a contract or
>contract amendment.