Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations at Justiceburg Resevoir on the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River, Garza and Kent Counties, Texas Volume II

• Main Authors: Boyd, Douglas K., Freeman, Martha Doty, Blum, Michael D., Quigg, J. Michael, Prewitt, Elton R.
• Format: Text
• Language: unknown
• Published: SFA ScholarWorks 1989
• Subjects: Texas Archeology; Garza County; Kent County; American Material Culture; American Studies; Anthropology; Archaeological Anthropology; Environmental Studies; History; History of Art; Architecture; and Archaeology; Other American Studies; Other Arts and Humanities; Other History of Art; United States History; Archeological Survey
• Online Access: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol1989/iss1/16; https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1682&context=ita

The prehistoric site descriptions are divided into three sections: Garza County, Kent County, and Isolated Finds. All sites are described fully in a telegraphic format in order to conserve space. The descriptions are organized by county in alphabetical order and in numerical order of site within each county. Information for each site 1s organized into six headings: location, description, features, cultural materials observed/collected, shovel test data, and assessment/recommendations. The determination of the percentage of the site remaining intact is based on in-field observations of the postulated original areal extent of the site versus what is still potentially intact. Assessments are based on each site's individual merits and are stated in terms of eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. These assessments were made by the Project Archeologist and the Principal Investigator based on a site-by-site review. Two categories of eligibility include: potentially eligible (sites with excellent to unknown research potential) , and not eligible (sites with little or no further research potential). Research potential is derived from each site I s potential to contribute to the resolution of the questions posed in the Research Design (Chapter 5). While most of the research potential categories are reasonably clear, the "unknown" category should be more fully explained. Sites with unknown potential are those that are buried, lack exposed features, and failed to yield temporally or functionally diagnostic materials. The "unknownII designation refers to the inability (based on extant data) to specify which research questions a site may appropriately address rather than a lack of any research potential. Assessments also may refer to exotics. This term is used to identify materials or artifacts that were imported into the local area. Included are such items as obsidian, Alibates agate, Tecovas jasper, and nonlocal ceramics. Recommendations are provided on the basis of each site's assessment. These do not consider the suggested sampling strategy described in Chapter 13, Recommendations/Treatment Plan. Isolated Finds were thoroughly documented in the field and were assigned trinomial site numbers to facilitate record Jceeping; however, they are not felt to be worthy of extended descriptions for reporting purposes. Therefore, this category of sites is treated in highly abbreviated form in a separate section following the site descriptions. Information provided for Isolated Finds includes: site number, location, landform, elevation, area, description, and material type. Isolated finds are defined as any single surface artifact or feature with no associated materials or features, or surface sites with a density of cultural materials less than one item in 20 rna. These finds generally are highly disturbed, redeposited, or lack intact context. No shovel testing was done at Isolated Finds, except at sites 41GR411, 41GR482, 41GRS19, 41GRS32, 41KT46, and 41KT71, where all tests excavated were negative. Only three of these Isolated Finds are dated. These sites are considered to retain little interpretive value beyond the survey level, and none require further work. Because of this, Isolated Finds are not considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Finally, abbreviations are used throughout the site descriptions. Those referring to roads, distances, elevations, and cardinal directions are self-explanatory. However, two others require explanation. GRC refers to Grand River Consultants, Inc., a firm located in Grand River, Colorado, which performed limited archeological survey at Justiceburg in 1982. NRHP refers to the National Register of Historic Places; this phrase is abbreviated to save space since it must be used in the assessments of each individual site.