02-10-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

p f areas with good site potential. The upland hillslope is divided into five components; in descending order, these components are the summit, shoulder, backslope, footslope, and toeslope (Figure 9). Summits, the upper portion of the landform, tend to be fairly stable, but are subjected to minor eolian deposition and some erosion. Shoulders are formed by the gradual cutting back of the hillslope and are generally convex with a low degree of slope. Backslopes are erosional features formed by the cutting back of the valley wall. Footslopes are the lower remnant of the hillslope. This eroded surface is often covered by colluvial materials from the shoulder and backslope. Toeslopes consist almost completely of colluvial material at the base of the upland. Because of their low degree of erosion and relative flatness, summits and shoulders have a high site potential. These landforms are capable of containing intact, shallowly buried archeological materials. Likewise, footslopes and toeslopes are considered to have good site potential because they are depositional in nature and generally have a low degree of slope. Backslopes, because of the steep slope and high degree of erosion, rarely contain intact, primary context archeological materials. Investigation Techniques The fieldwork was conducted on November 19-23, 1996 by BCA staff. Initially, the project area was walked in order to look for mounds, depressions, foundations, and other surface visible sites. During this initial walkover, the historic sites were located, and areas that required shovel testing were identified. Because of the snow cover, shovel testing was deemed necessary across the project area (Plates 1 and 2). Low, wet areas, heavily disturbed land, and slopes greater than 15 percent (State Historic Preserv’ation Office (SHPO) 1993) were not shovel tested (Figures 3a and 3b). Shovel tests were excavated at fifteen meter inter\'als acro*^s the relatively level uplands. The number of shovel test transects was dependent on the width of the landform. Table 2 details the eleven shovel test areas that are plotted on Figures 3a and 3b. Two sites, three properties, and a farmstead with four structures older than 50 years were located and recorded during the fieldwork. As a part of recording the sites and properties, shovel tests were excavated at five meter interv'als across each site’s area. Following the fieldwork, site and structure forms were submitted to the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office and the Office of the State Archeologist (OSA) (Appendix A).