Environment, Prehistory & Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park, Washington
Greg C. Burtchard

Chapter 4:
THE 1995 MOUNT RAINIER ARCHEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE
(continued)

SITE VERIFICATION AND RECONNAISSANCE PROCEDURES

Reconnaissance fieldwork was completed between August 7 and September 21, 1995 by Stephen Hamilton and the author. Assistance was provided by Park archaeologist Gregg Sullivan and IARII's Randall Schalk with additional help from Emma Krzeminski and Michelle Morseth. Because of limited survey time and logistical difficulty inherent in conducting fieldwork around Mount Rainier, the project emphasized documentation of prehistoric archaeological remains. Locations of historic period debris were noted in the field, but only two of the most substantial historical complexes were documented formally as archaeological sites (FS 95-02 [45PI427] and FS 95-09 [45PI428]) and described in the 1995 Reconnaissance Data volume (Burtchard and Hamilton 1998).

Recognizing our inability to examine all previously reported finds and conduct a meaningful level of new site survey within a six week field effort, the reevaluation/site verification portion of the project emphasized reported multiple artifact concentrations for which at least approximate map data were available. Our intent was to focus on prehistoric remains most plausibly associated with sustained or redundant prehistoric use; that is, the most probable site rather than simpler isolated find localities. These efforts resulted in reevaluation of five of the eight previously documented sites; formal documentation of four previously reported but unverified sites, and documentation as isolates of seven previously reported finds. These 16 verified or reevaluated sites and isolates, plus the three previously documented but not reevaluated sites, are identified by the field site (FS) and isolated find (IF) prefixes on Tables 3.1 through 3.3 in Chapter 3.

New field reconnaissance was completed for approximately 3,550 Park acres. Inventory areas were divided among four quadrants; selected to maximize landform variability, open sediment exposure and access efficiency (see fold out Figure 4.2). In effect, this focused approximately 70% of the new survey on alpine tundra and subalpine parklands with open to patchy forest cover and substantial moderate gradient terrain. [25] Because such areas also tend to be associated with relatively high densities of exploitable floral and faunal resources (e.g., goats, elk, marmots, deer, bears, game birds, huckleberries, alpine lilies, etc.), it is likely that these zones also were among the most heavily used throughout the prehistoric past. [26]

To accommodate small crew size and site discovery difficulties posed by variably dense ground cover and repeated volcanic deposits, particular attention was given to exposed mineral sediments, erosion scars and potential rockshelter locations at cliff bases. The term reconnaissance used to characterize this project throughout the report reflects the extensive character of the effort as opposed to more intensive archaeological survey with team members walking at closely spaced, regular transect intervals.

Basic documentation procedures were identical for both reevaluated and newly located sites. After discovery of the initial artifact or feature, intensive survey was conducted outward from that point until no additional materials could be located. Pin flags were used to mark artifacts and features. Localities with three or more visible artifacts were documented as archeological sites. Localities for which only one or two artifacts could be found were recorded as isolated finds. Descriptive site and local environmental data were entered onto forms adapted from and approved by the Washington OAHP. An abbreviated form was used to record isolated localities. Universal transmercator (UTM) coordinates for datum points at both sites and isolated finds were obtained using a global positioning system (GPS) receiver. These location points later were entered into the Park's geographic information system (GIS) and plotted onto the color Park quadrant maps included as Figures 2.10 through 2.13 in Chapter 2. Sketch maps illustrating artifact and cultural feature distributions relative to local terrain features were prepared for site localities only. Both sites and isolates were plotted onto USGS 7.5 minute topographic quad maps. Finally, sites and prominent terrain features were photographed and cataloged to the appropriate sites. Full descriptive results are included in the 1995 Reconnaissance Data volume (Burtchard and Hamilton 1998), and are on file at OAHP and at Mount Rainier National Park headquarters in Longmire.

In order to provide as objective a descriptive system as practical, a field lithic assemblage inventory was completed for all prehistoric sites and isolates investigated in 1995. Our intent was not only to develop a replicable recording system, but to provide quantitative means to isolate site variability on the basis of surface evident remains. The basic procedure employed for each lithic locality was to flag artifacts as noted above, then investigate all flagged items by isolating artifact type (debitage, core or tool/preform), then tally a set of technical attributes by raw material (see Appendix B). When appropriate, comments on specific artifacts, assemblage character, visibility and other variables were recorded. Artifacts and preforms also were drawn and photographed. Site specific tabular results are included on individual site forms and in the Site Data volume. General implications for use of the Park are discussed in a later section of this chapter.

In sum, the 1995 field research was geared both toward consolidating the Park's preexisting suite of prehistoric sites and expanding it as practical within the bounds of a limited field effort. Special note should be made regarding the character of the present inventory. While we have confidence that the Mount Rainier reconnaissance was thorough and provides useful new site distribution information, it is important to recognize that it does not constitute full or final survey of the landforms inspected. Almost certainly intensive survey, particularly if supplemented by subsurface sampling techniques, will identify additional prehistoric sites. For the present, however, reconnaissance data provide a preliminary view of site distribution on these landscapes and expands the existing site database in a manner that allows us to consider site distribution patterns in the Park.