Michael-  I hope this does not betray another misunderstanding of your
question.  As I understand it you are conducting archeological work to remove
artifacts from the surface of a blacksmith's workshop as an effort to defeat
recognition of the site by illicit collectors.  You also will be conducting
sample excavations of the site to assess the layout of the site for in situ
conservation measures and potential future problem oriented research.  You are
concerned that the surface collection will expose additional surface artifacts
because the site appears to have little sediment covering artifacts.  You are
concerned that the surface collection will destroy microstratigraphy.  If this
is a somewhat accurate characterization of the sitation, would it be possible
to do your surface collection without collecting the specimens?  You could
perform infield analysis of the surface layer of artifacts to accomplish your
distributional mapping.  From the surface inventory you could then select your
test units to confirm subsurface activity areas, micro-stratigraphy and
preservation conditions.  Presumably this would leave a lot of artifacts on the
surface that might still be attractive to collectors.  The agency could
possibly deal with this by periodic monitoring of the site for damage from
illicit collection and continued observation of natural site deterioration
process or might consider artificial fill as a site protection measure?
    I am very interested in how your project proceeds.  We have some similar
site management concerns along the Pony Express National Historical Trail in
East Central Nevada.  Don Hardesty, Tim Scarlett, Dick Goddard and Melissa
Farncomb at the University of Nevada, Reno have conducted several years of work
at sites along the Pony Express/Central Overland Trail.  One of these sites
includes a Blacksmith's Workshop which was excavated.  There was not nearly the
amount of surface archeology that I am envisioning at your site.  Perhaps the
UNR folks have some suggestions for us based on this recent experience.  Tim I
know was out there in HISTARCH land.  Look forward to your response.-Mark
Mark Henderson
Ely, Nevada, USA
 
Michael LaRong wrote:
 
> Hello again Histarchers,
>
>         Thanks to everyone who has responded so far.  However, there seems
> to be some questions as to the clarity of my terminology in my question, so
> before things get to out of hand let me clarify.  First, by stockpile I
> meant a pile of new stock.  As Lester Ross pointed out that is a key
> distinction.  I agree and am aware that there is most usually an area of
> the shop dedicated to recycling.  These sorts of differences are exactly
> what I wish to address in my methodology.  As to the appropriateness of
> intrusion of the sub-surface, in this particular case the Forest Service
> has expressed an interest in minimal sub-surface intrusion, but also wishes
> a 100% surface collection to prevent further loss to looters.  It is
> therefore important that I figure out what parts of sites are most
> appropriate for an above ground stratigraphy strategy and which are not.
> It would probably have been better for me to ask what areas of a blacksmith
> shop are more likely to exhibit a clear depostional stratigraphy on the
> surface?  Further, this methodology is only an important part of my grant
> propsal and not the final product.  Additionaly I welcome any input as to
> comparative sites my biliography is already seven pages, including much of
> David S. Rotenstein's bib off of Tenesse Archnet, but there is always a
> rosetta stone somewhere out there for every project.  I have, in the past,
> been fairly accused of asking to broad a question so I hope this clears
> things up a bit.  Thanks again for all you're help.
>
> Michael LaRonge