Samples for laboratory analysis were collected from two different
parts of the site. Those upon which most of the present conclusions
are based were taken in continuous two-inch intervals down a vertical
face in Square M11 (see Figs. 7 and 10), very near the back wall of the
rockshelter. They were not collected until after much of the site had
been excavated and it was only near the rear wall that a relatively
complete section could be obtained. Rodents had disturbed the upper
levels and only the profile from 38-102 inches below baseline was
studied. Because the location of this sample might very well reflect
the influence of the overhang on the particle size distribution of the
deposits, another sample section was taken in front of the shelter.
Stratigraphic relations and similarities in the archaeological
materials suggested that the deposits extended essentially horizontally
from the front to the back of the site, and that correlations for
six-inch horizontal levels were generally warranted. The samples
from Square J8 were collected in continuous six-inch intervals from
a point 38 inches below baseline. The expected horizontal variation
with respect to particle size distribution was, in fact, not borne out
by the results of this second sampling. A comparison of the median
diameter and sorting coefficients of the samples suggests that both
samples are generally representative of the deposits and of variations
within them (see Figs. 67, 68):
Median diameter of 7 samples from
the back of the shelter (M11) 0.61-0.75mm.
Median diameter of 4 samples from
the front of the site (J8) 0.60-0.70mm.
Average sorting coefficients of
7 samples from M11 2.20 (relatively well-sorted)
Average sorting coefficients of
4 samples from J8 2.18
One would not expect that the results of the chemical analyses would be
appreciably affected by the location of the sample.