SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION

CONTENTS

page

List of Figures.................................................... 3

List of Tables..................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION....................................................... 5

SETTING ........................................................... 7

Location and Environment....................................... 7

Ethnographic Background....................................... 10

Historic Background........................................... 14

FIELD INVESTIGATIONS.............................................. 16

Methodology................................................... 16

Results....................................................... 17

Stratigraphy.................................................. 23

ANALYSES: PREHIISTORIC COMPONENT.................................. 29

Lithic Technology............................................. 29

Tool Function................................................. 36

ANALYSES: HISTORIC COMPONENT...................................... 43

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION........................................... 46

REFERENCES CITED.................................................. 50

LIST OF FIGURES

page

Figure 1 - Archaeological site 45-LE-285, general location map..... 8

Figure 2 - Location of site on USGS topographic quadrangle......... 9

Figure 3 - Photograph of Test Unit 2 excavation................... 18

Figure 4 - Photograph of Test Unit 2 excavation, view across bridge 19

Figure 5 - Surface artifact distribution, east end of bridge...... 20

Figure 6 - Surface artifact distribution, west end of bridge...... 21

Figure 7 - Topographic map of site 45-LE-285 showing boundaries... 22

Figure 8 - Stratigraphic profile, east wall, Test Unit 1.......... 25

Figure 9 - Photograph of Test Unit 1 at completion................ 26

Figure 10 - Stratigraphic profile, south wall, Test Unit 2........ 28

Figure 11 - Graph of raw material types, site totals.............. 31

Figure 12 - Graph of raw material types, surface/disturbed........ 32

Figure 13 - Graph of raw material types, Test Unit 1 totals....... 33

Figure 14 - Graph of raw material types by level, Test Unit 1..... 35

Figure 15 - Select bifacially flaked stone tools, 45-LE-285....... 39

Figure 16 - Select unifacially flaked stone tools, 45-LE-285...... 42

Figure 17 - Building #1166, the historic log cabin at 45-LE-285... 44

LIST OF TABLES

page

Table 1 - Distribution of recovered lithic material by level ..... 24

Table 2 - Formed tools from 45-LE-285, bifacially flaked ......... 38

Table 3 - Formed tools from 45-LE-285, unifacially flaked ........ 41

Table 4 - Utilized flakes from 45-LE-285 ......................... 41

INTRODUCTION

Investigations at archaeological site 45-LE-285 (Packwood Lake Outlet site) were undertaken in response to plans for replacement of a trail bridge at Packwood Lake, a heavily used recreation area on lands administered by the Packwood Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. The purpose of the work was to determine the archaeological significance of site 45-LE-285 with respect to the eligibility criteria of the National Register of Historic Places and, if the site appeared to meet these criteria, to determine the potential effects of the bridge replacement on that cultural resource property. These procedures are in accordance with the Section 106 compliance process for federal undertakings, as specified under 36 CFR 800.4.

The site was initially recorded in September 1986 by this author, North Zone archaeologist for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, and assistant archaeologist Janet A. Liddle. Field reconnaissance at that time was rather cursory as the investigators were enroute to another project site. More than a year earlier information regarding the site was disclosed by a local artifact collector. John Pollman, of Randle, Washington, reportedly saw “stone chips" in the trail and recovered a flaked uniface ("scraper") there in 1969 or 1970 while on a high school outing. A classmate reportedly found a “spearpoint" in the water below the present trail bridge. It was Pollman's report that prompted the brief reconnaissance of the bridge area in 1986.

A total of 25 surface items, including lithic debitage and one unifacial tool, were observed on the ground surface adjacent to the Trail #78 bridge at the time of the 1986 site documentation. A sketch map and description were prepared. No artifact material was collected. Field data were transferred to a state archaeological site record form. The form was submitted to the Washington Archaeological Research Center in early 1987 and the site registered in state site record files as 45-LE-285.

In March 1987 it was learned that replacement of the existing trail bridge was scheduled to take place during the upcoming summer. Because plans called for the excavation of sediment adjacent to a bridge abutment and the placement of crushed rock fill in the area where surface artifact material had been observed, it became necessary to determine the condition and relative extent of site 45-LE-285. More specifically, there was a need to ascertain whether fill containing lithic artifacts was displaced from cultural deposits immediately upslope from the bridge or, as was the contention of the District Ranger, from a more distant location on the shoreline of Lake Creek.

Funds for the evaluation of the site were provided on 1 April, 1987. Field work began immediately. Equipment was packed into the lake by trail. A site grid was established on 1 April. Test excavation and intensive surface collection and mapping commenced on 2 April. Excavation continued on 3, 4 April. Test units were backfilled on 4 April. Final mapping and surface collection of historic materials was conducted on 5 April. Laboratory processing of recovered material and analyses were carried out during the following two weeks.

Field investigations were directed by this author, ably assisted by Quentin M. Arnold, archaeologist stationed at Wind River Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Field assistants included Chris R. Jensen and Timothy R. Layser, Forest Service Cultural Resource Technicians. Janet M. Healy volunteered her time in surface collection, mapping, and backfilling. Analyses and report preparation were done by this author. Computer graphics were prepared by Jolene Warner, Randle Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

Gratitude is expressed to Edward C. Osmond, Recreation and Watershed Staff Officer for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Ed took an active interest in this project and strongly supported the need for site evaluation. He and James Slagle, Forest Trails Staff, are largely responsible for provision of project funds. Appreciation is also extended to Pam Novitsky, Recreation Forester, Packwood Ranger District, for providing accommodations at the lake during the course of the project. Lastly, Rick Wooten, geologist extrordinaire, Zone I Engineering Office, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, is to be thanked for material identifications of cultural and non-cultural rock specimens.

SETTING

Location and Environment

Archaeological site 45-LE-285, the Packwood Lake Outlet site, is located in the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 21, Township 13 North, Range 10 East, Willamette Meridian, unsurveyed. Situated in eastern Lewis County, Washington, (Fig. 1) site 45-LE-285 is about 13 km (8 miles) west of the crest of the Cascade Mountains. Packwood is the closest town, and lies approximately 6.6 km (4 miles) to the west (air distance). The site is not directly accessible by road. The primary approach to the site, located, as the name implies, at the outlet of Packwood Lake (Fig. 2), is by way of the Packwood Lake Trail (#78). The distance to the lake from the trailhead on Forest Service Road #1260 is 7.2 km (4.5 miles). The trailhead parking area is 9.6 km (6 miles) by road from Packwood.

The elevation of Packwood Lake is 874 m (2,867 ft.) above mean sea level. Elevations of the surrounding ridgetops range from 1,200 m to slightly over 1,500 m (4,000 - 5,000 ft.). Packwood lake encompasses 452 surface acres and is drained by Lake Creek, a tributary to the Cowlitz River. While a number of small streams flow into the lake, the principal source is Upper Lake Creek, originating at the Packwood Glacier on the slopes of Old Snowy Mountain. The lake was formed during the late Pleistocene period by a combination of erosional and depositional processes. The Upper Lake Creek valley glacier deepened the basin and formed a terminal moraine which served to dam the creek as the glacier retreated, thus creating Packwood Lake (Harrison and Powell 1977). Debris from the subsequent Snyder Mountain Landslide, a late Pleistocene catastrophic event, surmount moraine deposits in the area of the present lake outlet.

Bedrock in the area is predominately composed of bedded andesite breccia, andesite, and tuff with some interbedded basalt and mudflows (Hammond 1980; Harrison and Powell 1977). Within the lake basin, deposits of moderately coarse pumice, glacial drift, and andesite alluvium are the dominant soil materials. The local soils are moderately deep (.45 m to 1.20 m) and stony and are classified as relatively unstable.

The blocking effect of the Cascade Mountains on the westerly marine winds and easterly continental air masses influences the climate of the lake basin. Mean annual precipitation is about 279 cm (110 inches), with about 50 percent falling as rain or snow between November and January (Honcharsky n.d.). July and August are the driest months. Average afternoon temperatures range from 40 degrees F. to about 76 degrees F. from January to July. Average night temperatures range from 22 degrees F. in January to 45 degrees F. in July. Temperature extremes range from 0 degrees F to occasionally 100 degrees F. (n.d.) At the time of the field investigations at site 45-LE-285 spring snowpack remained to a depth of .50 m on the north-facing portions of lake shoreline. The site area has a generally south exposure and appears to have been free of snow by mid March.

FIGURE 1. Archaeological site 45‑LE‑285, general location map. Arrow indicates site.

FIGURE 2. Archaeological site 45‑LE‑285, location as plotted on portion of Packwood, Wash. topographic quadrangle (1962). Site is indicated by arrow. Scale: 1 inch = 1 mile.

The lake outlet lies within the Tsuga heterophylla Vegetation Zone. Timber species observed at site 45-LE-285 include mature Pseudotsuga menziesii, (Douglas-fir), Tsuga heterophylla (western hemlock), and Thuja plicata (western redcedar). Acer circinatum (vine maple) occur along the lake and stream margins. Understory flora include Polystichum munitum (sword fern), Berberis nervosa (Oregon grape), Pteridium aquilinum (bracken), Polypodium glycyrrhiza (licorice fern), Linnea borealis, (twinflower), and Fragaria virginiana (strawberry). Historic human disturbance on and adjacent to the site has altered the composition of the local plant community. Flora present in lesser disturbed forest near the site suggest that the area may be classified within the Tsuga heterophylla/Polystichum munitum or Tsuga heterophylla/Berberis nervosa/Polystichum munitum plant associations.

Mammals which frequent the site vicinity include Odocoileus hemionus (deer), Cervus elaphus (elk), Ursus americanus (black bear), Felis concolor, (cougar), Felis rufus (bobcat), Vulpes vulpes (red fox), and Tamiasciurus douglasii (Douglas' squirrel). Birds which have been observed in the area include Pandion haliaetus (osprey), Aquila chrysaetos (golden eagle), Haliaetus leucocephalus (bald eagle), Buteo jamaicensis (red-tailed hawk), Buteo swainsonii, (Swainson's hawk), Accipiter cooperii (Cooper's hawk), Bubo virginianus (great horned owl), Pinicola enucleator (pine grosbeak), Parus rufescens (chestnut-backed chickadee), Regulus satrapa (golden-crowned kinglet), Perisoreus canadensis (gray jay), and Corvus corax (common raven). The lake supports a native population of Salmo gairdneri (rainbow trout).

Ethnographic Background

Data pertaining to Native American use of the Packwood Lake basin are derived from the accounts of three Taitnapam informants, all born in the 19th century. The most extensive information is as yet unpublished and appears in the form of a taped interview with Mary Kiona, born near the present community of Randle in 1856. The interviews concerning Packwood Lake were conducted on 31 September, 1964 and 17 August, 1965 by Martha Hardy, a Bellevue teacher and former student of anthropologist Erna Gunther. During the recorded interview session Minnie Placid (born 1902), daughter of Mary Kiona, and Joyce Eyle (born 1911), a granddaughter, served as translators. Additional information on the lake has come from Jim Yoke, a relative of Kiona (FaBro) who was interviewed by anthropologist Melville Jacobs in 1927 and 1928. Yoke was born in the late 1840s. Myths and texts dictated by him have been published by Jacobs (1934). The third informant, Lucy Tumwater, provided an early account that was published in a Chehalis newspaper (Anonymous 1909).

Mary Kiona reportedly visited Packwood Lake to obtain fish, but unfortunatly provides no information as to when during her life such visits occurred. In the 1964 interview she states that her father's mother was especially familiar with fishing activity at the lake. The 1880 census gives the age of William Yoke, Mary's father, as 35. This is probably in error as it is unlikely he fathered Mary at age 11. He was most likely born in the late 1830s. This suggests that Mary's reference to her grandmother's lake use is to the period from ca. 1820 - 1850. Lucy Tumwater reported that her father and grandfather obtained fish at Packwood Lake. Despite a lack of good genealogical

information, the date of her account (1909) would suggest that use by her relatives as far back as 1850 is probable. Jim Yoke notes only that his ancestors came there to catch fish (Jacobs 1934:232). This could be interpreted to indicate use at least as early as the period suggested by the Kiona data.

The Taitnapam traditionally occupied several villages along the upper Cowlitz River valley. In the settlement and subsistence pattern which can be reconstructed from the available ethnographic and ethnohistoric literature (McClure 1983) it would appear that these villages were primarily occupied between the fall and spring of the year. Travel away from the villages between May and September was designed to take advantage of abundant floral and faunal resources. In the spring shoots, bulbs, and roots were collected from prairie and lowland areas. Groups sometimes crossed the Cascades to obtain roots common to steppe environments. Trips were made to fishing camps for the spring coho salmon runs. Some berries were obtained in lowland areas in early summer. In late summer camps were established at higher elevations to collect and dry huckleberries. Mountain goats were hunted by men based at the berry camps (McClure 1987). Following the berry excursions, task groups again visited fishing camps for the fall salmon runs. Fish were dried and stored for winter consumption. Deer and elk were hunted near villages during the winter months as a supplement to stored foods.

From the accounts of Yoke, Kiona, and Tumwater, it is apparent that Taitnapam people established base camps at Packwood Lake in early summer for the explicit purpose of trout procurement. One historic source (PCSP 1954) identifies an Indian trail from the vicinity of the present community of Packwood to the lake. The trail was apparently rebuilt in 1910 by the Valley Development Company, and later modified by the Forest Service. According to the locations shown on early maps, it would appear that the early trail reached the shore of Packwood Lake at site 45-LE-285. The closest ethnographic village to the lake was cawacas, on Skate Creek near the present town of Packwood about 7 km distant. Other villages in the Cowlitz valley were linked to cawacas by a trail known historically as the “Yakima Trail" or “Cowlitz Yakima Trail". Packwood Lake could have been reached from the Skate Creek village in a day by parties travelling afoot.

Packwood Lake is known as cuyu'ik watem in the Northern dialect of the Sahaptin language. The fish which attracted the Taitnapam to the lake were native trout, referred to by Mary Kiona as ay'witcin. Yoke reports that the trout were caught as they entered a number of small streams which flow into the lake. This was probably during late June to early July when the fish enter the streams to spawn. Recent data (Bob Lucas 1982: personal communication) and historic Forest Service records identify at least four spawning streams flowing into Packwood Lake. The remains of old Game Department fishtraps were found in three of these streams during a 1982 reconnaissance by this author.

Jim Yoke recounted the following tale about the origin of the Packwood Lake trout:

“Five men came from the east. In the country of the pcwa'nawapam (Ellensburg or Kittitas Indians) there is a lake named ka'tsis (Kachees). On their way they came down to the water at that place to bathe. They lay on their bellies in water shallow and up to their knees. Again and again to whatever lake they came, they did the very same thing, to all of them. They had fish, they carried them along."

“Then they reached this lake here (Packwood L.). They lay on their bellies under the water. It was rather deep. They released those fish there, they were so large, about twelve inches in length, five of them. They filled the lake with them. Douglas firs came there. There was an island at the end of the lake, about two or three acres in size. They made little streams flow into the lake there. Those little trout would enter them, for my people to catch.

“My ancestors came there. They made soft baskets. One day when the sun was high but towards evening one of them cried out and asked, 'My anus is this big (i.e. I am hungry), I am hungry. Feed me!' The next day the trout came in the morning, laBeBeBeBeBe, a great many trout. At first the people would go there, and that water would rise just like the ocean (tide). They seized the eldest, the one who made it that way (tides), because they did not want the people to go there. They sent him far away. They told him, 'You are bad. Our people will arrive here, and they will catch fish in quiet, unafraid.' [Jacobs 1934:231-232]."

Yoke's tale seems to relate to Mary Kiona's description, as translated by Minnie Placid, of a ritual performed at the lake by her relatives:

“Them old people used to go up there and camp. And they make a basket when they want to fish. And that's why they go up there. Her, 'specially her dad's mother. She'd go up there and make that basket and she fill it up with the leaves, fill that basket up full. It's a big basket... you see that basket hanging there. They made it something like that. They made it out of cedar roots. It would be something like that one only coarser; big weave, big one. Wouldn't take so long to make big one. Just weave it up."

“Now, when she made this basket and put these leaves in it... she'd go by where the streams running down, and she'd go down and talk to it. That was old time people. She go to talk to that lake I guess what everybody call it. She pour that thing way down that way down that way, that stream, to get it all and tell 'em, ‘Bring me fish 'cause I'm gettin' hungry.' 'Bring me fish.', like that. 'See my big belly (showed that big basket).' 'See my big belly now how hungry I am now my stomach's empty.' you call the basket 'My Stomach's Empty', she'd be holding the basket. The next day you see all them trout."

Kiona's account goes on to describe the methods used to catch and prepare the fish. Apparently, a stream would be dammed and the water diverted by digging "a little ditch". The stream bed below the obstruction would go dry and the fish could then be collected. Rocks were set up over fires to dry the fish; some were also skewered and roasted.

Lucy Tumwater's version of how the trout came to be in Packwood Lake is similar to that of Jim Yoke, yet it contains elements connecting it to Kiona's description of the ritual of the leaf-filled basket:

“Long time ago, 'fore white man, 'fore Indian, dey five sistehs, this sisteh, (counting on her fingers) and this sisteh, and this sisteh, and this sisteh, and this little sisteh; dey came awful long way over mountains and dey all carry baskets of fish. When dey come to lake little sisteh say: 'I's tired, I wants res'.' Oder sistehs say:' No, we don' wam' stop here, we goin' on to big water.' Little sisteh say: 'I's tired, I goin' down in lake to res'.' So little sisteh go down in lake and empty her basket, her back so tired carrying heavy basket, and when she go down in lake, her hair spread out on top of water. Oder sistehs see how pretty her hair look so dey all go down and empty their baskets and spread their hair out on top of water too. Bine-by, oh, awful long time, Indian come. He hungry, nothin' to eat, no berries, no fish, nothin'. Indian starving. He stan' on high rock by lake and see sistehs down in water. He call out: 'Sistehs, I's hungry, I want fish.' Sistehs say: 'Go down where little creek comes out lake - throw leaves, as many leaves as fish, on top of water, den fish come.' So Indian he go down, he throw awful leaves in little creek and den he gets fish, just as many fish as leaves... I didn' use to believe it, but my fahder and grandfahder say it so. Dey been there, sistehs give dem fish [Anonymous 1909]."

Another resource which brought Taitnapam people to the Packwood Lake basin were huckleberries. Joyce Eyle, translating for Mary Kiona (1965), states that,

“They used to go to Packwood Lake and they used to pick huckleberries there a long time ago, and different ones from around here. There's a lot that she's forgotten, their names that used to go up there and pick huckleberries."

It is not likely that trout and huckleberries were procured jointly on excursions to Packwood Lake as the berries do not ripen until August, at least a month after spawning has ended and the trout have returned to the depths of the lake.

The information provided by the Taitnapam informants demonstrates that several food resources were obtained by task groups camped at Packwood Lake. Trout seem to have been the most important, and the above accounts suggest that spawning streams were the focus of procurement and processing related activities and thus should be considered high probability zones for archaeological site occurrence. Cedar roots for basket manufacture would best be obtained along lakeshore or stream bank exposures. Huckleberries, at least in historic times, were probably most available on southern-facing slopes and ridges above the lake. These areas could have been easily reached from lake shoreline camps.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

Packwood Lake was first encountered by Euroamericans sometime in the latter half of the 19th century. Accounts vary as to the circumstances and participants involved. Tompkins (1933:251) reports “...an account of a group of white men chasing an Indian war party into the region of Packwood Lake in 1862". Attempts by this author to confirm the account through examination of Indian agent records and historical documents relating to the "Indian Wars" of the Washington Territory proved futile; no evidence of skirmishes or organized Native American aggression as late as 1862 was found. Another reference (PCSP 1954) reports that William Packwood discovered the lake which is supposedly named for him. Packwood carried out extensive mineral prospecting in the upper Cowlitz River drainage from the 1860s through the 1880s. His son Noah is also credited with the discovery of the lake (Burner 1982). According to his daughter, now living in Randle, Lewis County, Noah Packwood first encountered the lake while tracking a wounded mountain goat (1982). The daughter's account indicates that the lake was named for Noah, not William Packwood.

At the turn of the century (1890s-1900s) Euroamerican settler families were attracted to the lake for some of the same reasons as Native Americans. One historic report (PCSP 1954) notes that,

“They went there for recreation and pleasure as well as to catch large amounts of fish, which they either smoked there or brought home fresh. In the spring the fish would run up the inlets to spawn and in places they were so thick it was impossible to see the bottom of the creek bed. There being no game laws at that time, people would often build a V-shaped dam at some wide, shallow place in the stream and place a sack at an opening of the V. Then the fish were scared down the creek and taken out by the sack full. Many fish have been caught with the bare hands."

A 1909 newspaper account (Anonymous 1909) verifies the early popularity of the lake for fishing.

In 1906 the Valley Development Company, under the direction of engineer Rhode Green, began a feasibility study of the hydroelectric power generation potential of Packwood Lake (PCSP 1954). Green proposed a 100 foot dam at the lake outlet. The proposed dam would back water approximately 5 miles up the valley of Upper Lake Creek. A flume was planned to transport water to a penstock and generating plant near the present town of Packwood. The company hoped to sell the generated power to to the City of Tacoma. In 1907 a survey party began preliminary dam site and flume line surveys.

In 1909 Rhode Green contracted with John Snyder, a local homesteader, to rebuild much of the trail to Packwood Lake (PCSP). This permitted easier access for the crew that came to the lake in the following year to construct a camp for the Valley Development Company workers who were to build the dam. During 1910 a cookhouse, two bunkhouses, and an office were built at the outlet of the lake. All were log buildings with cedar shake roofs. Crews based at the lake camp worked on the upper part of the flume line and conducted test drilling at the proposed dam site. The 1910 construction at the lake and power plant caused an influx of workers to the area, resulting in the establishment of the original townsite of Lewis, now Packwood.

Due to funding problems, the Valley Development Company's Packwood Lake camp was largely unoccupied in 1911. A small crew returned in 1912 to continue test drilling and flume line work, but sometime during the year City of Tacoma officials determined that the hydroelectric project was unfeasible. No further construction took place, but watchmen were stationed at the Packwood Lake camp until the early 1920s. Aside from tasks related to camp security and maintenance, the watchmen obtained regular flow readings from water gauges near the lake outlet.

By 1917 the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake and at the same time assumed ownership of the Valley Development Company holdings at the lake. The former company office was converted to use as a Forest Service guard station, and was used each summer until 1964 for this purpose. The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921. The proprietor of the resort, M.O. Higgins, in addition to providing meals, had handmade rowboats available for rent. In 1935 Ralph and Agnes Neeley and R. Sawyer purchased the concession and converted the covered tent platforms to cabins, constructed a lodge, a floating dock, a boathouse, and had new rowboats packed in to the lake on the backs of mules (Anonymous 1935; Ralph Neeley 1982: personal communication). The concession is still in operation, and has changed hands several times since the Neeleys held the sole interest from 1936 to 1946.

Although the early plans of the Valley Development Company never materialized, the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) began re-evaluating the power generating potential of the lake in the 1950s. Their hydroelectric project, much smaller in scope than that envisioned earlier by Rhode Green, became reality in 1963. From an historical perspective, this project has probably had the most significant impact of any human activity at the lake. The WPPSS dam is located 110 meters downstream from the lake outlet. The concrete structure is 27 meters long, spanning Lake Creek, and rises about 7 meters above the high water level of the lake. A pipeline from the dam extends to a penstock on the slopes of Snyder Mountain, above Packwood. Water drops from from the penstock to the powerhouse, on private land near Packwood. The present maximum lake level is about 2.4 meters above the pre-dam normal elevation.

Recreation, important since the early 1900s, remains the primary reason that people visit the lake. Four campsites along the shore of the lake are used by overnight visitors and the Forest Service stations a recreation guard at the lake during the summer. Data collected in 1986 indicate 22,560 visits to the lake in that year, and recreation personnel report between 200-300 visitors usually visit the lake each weekend during the summer. Except for a period of several years following the eruption of Mount St. Helens, visitor use has steadily increased over the last several decades (Honcharsky n.d.). The majority of people come to the lake to sightsee, fish, or camp overnight. The Packwood Lake Trail (#78) also serves as an important entry route to the Goat Rocks Wilderness.

FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

Methodology

The specific purpose of the archaeological investigations at site 45-LE-285 was to determine if intact cultural deposits existed in the vicinity of the proposed trail bridge project, to assess the significance of the site in terms of the eligibility criteria of the National Register of Historic Places, and to determine if site 45-LE-285 would be affected by the proposed project. Several methods were used in the field to obtain data pertinent to these management objectives. Intensive surface collection and mapping were done to determine the approximate spatial distribution of cultural material. Test excavation was oriented toward finding and sampling an intact portion of the site as well as determining the nature of the sediments immediately adjacent to the bridge abutment. It was hoped that limited subsurface testing would provide sufficient information to evaluate site significance and to assess the probability and extent of project effects on the site.

Initial surface collection involved close examination of the ground surface in the vicinity of the existing bridge, beginning with the general locations that had been plotted on the site sketch map made in September 1986. All lithic artifact material was marked with wire flags and collected. A grid was temporarily established on the site to facilitate mapping of the surface assemblage. The grid was divided into 1 x 1 m and 2 x 2 m squares, the smaller division used where artifact material was densely concentrated. The grid was aligned with the bridge axis so that a test excavation unit could be placed directly against the east end abutment to provide a cross section of sediments in the bridge approach. Changed weather and lighting conditions enhanced detection of surface artifact material. Surface mapping began on a clear, bright, sunny day. On subsequent rainy, darker days more debitage, particularly very small pressure flakes, was also found due to reflection. Surface floral debris at the west end of the bridge made it necessary to adopt a "hands and knees" search strategy on that portion of the site. Artifact material collected from beneath the water along the shore of Lake Creek was included in the surface assemblage.

Two test units were excavated at the site. Test Unit 1 measured 1 x 1 m in size. Test Unit 1 was located to the northwest of the deeply eroded trail approach to the east end of the bridge. It was judgementally located in a relatively flat area immediately adjacent to what appeared to be remnant tread of the abandoned lake trail. Placement was based upon lack of localized disturbance and distance from several large trees (to avoid the possibility of encountering large roots). It was thought that the terrace remnant adjacent to the eroded trail held the greatest potential for intact cultural deposits because surface artifact material seemed to be most heavily concentrated in an erosional contact zone where the trail cuts through the terrace. Test Unit 1 was intended to verify this supposition, sample the contents of the site, and provide a stratigraphic context for the archaeological materials.

Test Unit 2, 1 x 2 m in size and divided into Test Unit 2A (1 x 1 m), dug to 90 cm below unit datum and Test Unit 2B (1 x 1 m), dug to 80 cm below unit datum, was excavated concurrently with Test Unit 1. Test Unit 2 was judgementally located adjacent to the east end abutment of the existing trail bridge (Fig. 3). This unit was designed to sample the approach fill to the bridge and determine, as best as was feasible, the origins of that material. The excavation of Test Unit 2 was planned to provide a good cross section profile of the extent of the fill and its contact with original bank sediments.

An elevation datum was established for each test unit. Zero elevation for Test Unit 1 was exactly 1 meter below a spike driven into a nearby tree as a semi-permanent site datum. The elevation datum for Test Unit 2 was independent of that for Unit 1. Each test unit was excavated by arbitrary 10 cm levels and all sediment screened through 6 mm (1/4 inch) mesh hardware cloth. Test Unit 1 was excavated exclusively by hand trowel. For Test Unit 2, skim-shoveling was used when possible, but much of the excavation was also by hand trowel. Rainfall necessitated the erection of clear polyethylene tarps over the excavation units (Fig. 4).

Excavation was relatively rapid, but an attempt was made to obtain specific provenience for formed tools encountered in Test Unit 1. Once cultural deposits were encountered in Test Unit 1, bulk sediment samples of 10 x 10 x 10 cm in size were collected from each arbitrary level for the purpose of fine screen analysis. Notes summarizing sediment changes, level contents, and general observations were kept during the excavation of each unit. Select stratigraphic profiles of unit walls were drawn and photographed upon completion of the excavation and sediment samples were collected from profile walls. Test Unit 1 was arbitrarily terminated at 1 meter depth because large rocks comprised much of the floor of the unit at that elevation and little unconsolidated sediment was recoverable. Unit 2 was terminated largely for reasons of time, but had provided sufficient data toward answering the questions at hand by that point in the excavation. No excavation units were placed on the west side of the bridge as project plans called for no ground disturbance in that area. The content of Test Unit 1 was thought sufficient for demonstrating that site 45-LE-285 meets the National Register eligibility criteria.

Results

The distribution of surface artifact material covers an area of 13 x 15 m on the east side of the present trail bridge (Fig. 5) and was scattered over an area 30 x 36 m in size on the west side of the bridge (Fig. 6), indicating an approximate site size of 1,200 square meters (Fig. 7). A total of 369 lithic items were recovered from the surface, 326 from the east side of the bridge and 43 from the west side. Twenty-two formed tools, utilized flakes, or tool fragments are included in this assemblage, the remainder being comprised of debitage. A total of 33 historic artifacts and fragments were recovered from the surface on the west side of the trail bridge. The majority of the surface lithic material was found in the bed of the trail at the approach to the east end of the bridge. Material was also dispersed within the shoreline lag deposits beneath and downstream from the bridge, normally under water, but exposed at the time of the visit by an annual draw-down. Some lithic material was also recovered from the steep banks above the shoreline.

FIGURE 3. Test Unit 2 excavation. Trail bridge decking is at left,
wooden culvert at right crosses a corner of the test unit.

FIGURE 4. Test Unit 2 excavation. View is to west across trail bridge. Wire flags at lower right mark locations of surface artifacts.

FIGURE 5. Surface lithic artifact distribution and test unit locations, east end of trail bridge. Dots mark locations of individual artifacts; those with "FT" are formed tools.

FIGURE 6. Surface lithic artifact distribution, west end of bridge. Dots mark locations of individual artifacts.

FIGURE 7. Archaeological site 45-LE-285, topographic map showing estimated site area, indicated by shading. Contour intervals are 10 feet. Lake level is shown at normal pool elevation.

Test Unit 1 yielded a total of 362 lithic items, 8 of which are formed tools, utilized flakes or tool fragments. While an entire cubic meter was excavated for this unit, as much as 30 - 40 percent of the volume containing cultural deposits was comprised of large rock. Cultural material was recovered from 20 to 100 cm below the unit datum, which was situated at ground level. A combined total of 168 lithic items was recovered from Test Unit 2, a total of 10 formed tools, utilized flakes, or tool fragments included in the total. All excavated levels in Test Unit 2 contained lithic artifact material. Table 1 summarizes the material recovered in testing and surface collection.

Stratigraphy

Six distinct natural strata were identified in Test Unit 1 (Fig. 8). The Stratum I matrix is medium sandy loam containing some organic material such as needles, bark, cones, and twigs but is largely composed of tephra from the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. Stratum IIA and IIB are almost entirely organic, and appear to be decaying wood interlaced with numerous roots of variable size. Beneath this is Stratum III, tentatively identified as a primary airfall deposit of Mount St. Helens tephra set Wn (Fig. 9). The textural class of the Stratum III matrix is coarse sand. Stratum IV is a medium sandy loam deposit underlying the tephra. This stratum contains the largest amount of cultural material recovered in Test Unit 1. Stratum V, also classified as sandy loam, contains more rock than Stratum IV and is not as compact. It contains cultural material. Stratum VI is a dense compacted pebbly sandy loam deposit encountered below Stratum V where rocks did not obscure the test unit floor at 1 m depth. It appears to be culturally sterile.

Formal analyses of the Stratum III tephra using electron microprobe or visual means of heavy mineral identification have not been conducted. However, the tentative identification of the deposit as tephra set Wn is made with a high level of confidence due to personal knowledge regarding the distribution, relative stratigraphic position, and physical characteristics of Mount St. Helens tephra in the eastern portion of Lewis County. Preliminary mapping of Wn tephra by Mullineaux (1983) indicates that deposit thickness in the Packwood Lake vicinity should be about 5 cm. This is the approximate thickness of the Stratum III deposit. Color, lapilli size, and depth below the ground correspond well with published descriptions of the Wn tephra as reported from other locations in eastern Lewis County (Mullineaux et al. 1975; Mullineaux 1983). The deposit is dated to A.D. 1479-1480 on the basis of tree-ring dates (Yamaguchi 1983).

The tephra layer was uniformly deposited across the test unit. Two pieces of debitage were encountered above the tephra and are probably the result of transport through bioturbation as they were associated with the woody debris and roots of Stratum II. All of the other lithic material in Test Unit 1 was recovered from below the tephra deposit. Assuming that the identification of the tephra as Mount St. Helens set Wn is correct, the occupation of site 45-LE-285 represented by the cultural material in Strata IV and V certainly occurred prior to the time of the eruption, at least 470 years B.P. on the radiocarbon scale. At present, the relationship between Strata IV and V is unknown, other than that Stratum V is presumed to be older than Stratum IV,

TABLE 1

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 45-LE-285
SUMMARY OF RECOVERED CULTURAL MATERIAL

Unit	Level	Debitage	Tools	Historic
1	1 (0-10 cm)	0	0	1
1	2 (10-20 cm)	0	0	0
1	3 (20-30 cm)	2	0	0
1	4 (30-40 cm)	37	0	0
1	5 (40-50 cm)	47	3	0
1	6 (50-60 cm)	97	4	0
1	7 (60-70 cm)	40	1	0
1	8 (70-80 cm)	63	0	0
1	9 (80-90 cm)	60	0	0
1	10 (90-100 cm)	8	0	0
2A	1 (0-10 cm)	0	0	0
2A	2 (10-20 cm)	0	0	0
2A	3 (20-30 cm)	16	2	2
2A	4 (30-40 cm)	21	1	1
2A	5 (40-50 cm)	12	1	0
2A	6 (50-60 cm)	19	0	0
2A	7 (60-70 cm)	14	1	0
2A	8 (70-80 cm)	9	3	0
2A	9 (80-90 cm)	8	0	0
2B	1 (0-10 cm)	0	0	0
2B	2 (10-20 cm)	18	1	1
2B	3 (20-30 cm)	27	0	0
2B	4 (30-40 cm)	8	1	0
2B	5 (40-50 cm)	8	0	0
2B	6 (50-60 cm)	4	0	0
2B	7 (60-70 cm)	1	0	0
2B	8 (70-80 cm)	4	0	0
surface (east)		147	10	/
surface (west)		41	2	33
SITE TOTALS:		711	30	38

NOTE: Debitage totals include material recovered from Test Unit 1 bulk samples.

FIGURE 8. Representative stratigraphic profile, Test Unit 1.

FIGURE 9. Test Unit 1 at completion of excavation. View is of east wall. White tephra layer, tentatively identified as Mount St. Helens set Wn, is indicated by arrow.

based upon stratigraphic position. Cultural material in these two strata may possibly represent separate periods of site occupation. Excavation by arbitrary levels has resulted in the mixing of artifact material from the two strata in at least one arbitrary level (50 - 60 cm). This eliminates the possibility of a reliable comparison of the cultural content of the two strata.

Five distinct strata were identified in Test Unit 2 (Fig. 10). Stratum I is identical to Stratum I in Test Unit 1. Stratum II is a deposit classified as sandy loam. Lapilli presumed to be that of tephra set Wn is scattered throughout the deposit with organic matter, debitage, and recent historic glass and plastic. This suggests that Stratum II is redeposited sediment and has originated from upslope. It is probably a combination of fill placed for the bridge approach in 1963 and subsequent slope washed sediments from the eroding trailbed. Stratum III is a deposit of sandy loam with many rocks. The rocks all appear to be andesite typical of the Snyder Mountain Landslide material. Stratum III appears to be a natural deposit. The slope of the upper contact of this stratum seems to reflect the original topography of the bank prior to the construction of the trail bridge. A few pieces of debitage were encountered in this deposit.

Stratum IV is a dark organic-rich layer that includes much decomposing woody material, some of which has burned. It is probably a root cast. Stratum V is a sandy loam deposit that is nearly identical to Stratum II except for a slightly higher silt/clay content and the presence of medium size rocks. The arrangement of the rocks suggests intentional layering type placement in the fill. The deposit adjoins the wooden facing of the bridge end, and appears to be contained within large stacked rocks immediately adjacent to the north and south of the test unit. Prehistoric cultural material was found throughout Stratum V. The sediments which comprise Stratum V were probably dug from what was in 1963 an intact portion of site 45-LE-285 and is now a deeply eroded trailbed east and upslope from the bridge.

Text Box: FIGURE 10. Stratigraphic profile, Test Unit 2. Strata
II and V are presumed to be fill deposited
for bridge approach in 1963.

ANALYSES: PREHISTORIC COMPONENT

Lithic Technology

The first stage in any lithic reduction technology is the acquisition of the raw material through selective collecting, quarrying, or importation (Collins 1975). Logistically organized semi-sedentary hunter/gatherer societies such as those which presumably occupied the flanks of the Cascade Mountains tend to obtain the raw materials for tool manufacture incidentally to subsistence-related tasks (Binford 1979). Among such groups, expeditions away from residential localities for the explicit purpose of obtaining lithic raw materials were unlikely. Variability in the types of raw materials present in a given archaeological assemblage may then represent the range of the habitat exploited from the site location, or serve as a relative measure of the mobility and range of the group involved (1979; Gramly 1980). The varieties of raw materials represented in the assemblage from site 45-LE-285 were examined with these patterns in mind.

The lithic raw materials represented in the 45-LE-285 collection may be classified into three basic categories: andesite, cryptocrystalline silica (CCS), and obsidian. The andesite identification was based on the character of feldspar crystals observed in the microscopic examination of recovered specimens. The visual appearance of the andesite in the collection is quite variable. Some of the material is light grey and relatively coarse-grained while other examples are dark grey, almost black, and very fine-grained. A few examples exhibit flow banding. The varied color and texture of the andesite is probably based on location within a particular flow and, to a lesser degree, weathering. Local geologic mapping (Swanson and Clayton 1983) suggests that the andesite may be derived from Pleistocene or Pliocene flows of pyroxene andesite which outcrop in the Lake Creek and Upper Lake Creek drainage. The archaeological andesite is easily distinguished from andesite occurring naturally in the soils at the site. The naturally occurring andesite is greenish in color, coarse-grained, and originated from lava flows on Snyder Mountain. This material was deposited in the site vicinity as a result of a post-glacial landslide.

The CCS category of lithic raw material is comprised of compact microcrystalline siliceous rocks such as chalcedony and jasper. These rocks are formed through precipitation. Their microcrystalline structure is quartz. Chalcedony is identified by fine grain, a waxy luster, and is transparent to subtranslucent. Jasper has a dull luster, is opaque, and is frequently coarser-grained than chalcedony. Both types have a wide range of color variation. For the purposes of this analysis subdivision of the CCS category was not done. Little is known about the local distribution of naturally occurring CCS, but it is associated with volcanic strata in other parts of the upper Cowlitz River drainage. Jasper and chalcedony pebbles are found on Cowlitz River cobble bars, and it is assumed that such bars served as prehistoric quarrying locations. Deposits of anber, light brown and yellowish

jasper and chalcedony occur near the summit of Johnson Mountain 6.4 km southeast of Packwood Lake. The CCS specimens in the 45-LE-285 collection are visually dissimilar from the Johnson Mountain material.

The third category of lithic raw material identified in the 45-LE-285 assemblage is obsidian. This type of stone is a naturally formed volcanic glass with the same mineral composition as basalt. Obsidian is generally black to smokey gray, but may exhibit red or brown coloration. The material is transparent in thin flakes. One of three known obsidian sources in Washington is situated near the crest of the Cascades 11 km southeast of the Packwood Lake Outlet site. Obsidian was collected and reduced by prehistoric people at the source location on an alpine ridge overlooking the Upper Lake Creek basin. X-ray fluorescence analyses of debitage specimens from five archaeological sites in the upper Cowlitz and Cispus River valleys have demonstrated that the obsidian from this source was transported at least 42 km distant (McClure 1987), perhaps as tools or blanks. The obsidian is characterized by the presence of small white spherulites. obsidian recovered at site 45-LE-285 is visually similar to examples collected at the nearby source. No sourcing analyses of the 45-LE-285 material has been conducted yet, but it is highly probable that it originated at the alpine quarry location.

Andesite dominates the lithic assemblage at the site, and is at least three times more abundant than CCS, the next most common stone type (Fig. 11). Obsidian is the least abundant raw material type at 45-LE-285. Twice as much obsidian was found in Test Unit 1 as was recovered from the surface of the site and mixed (disturbed) deposits of Test Unit 2 (Fig. 12 & Fig. 13). This difference maybe the result of preferential collection by 20th century recreationists. In contrast, nearly three times as much CCS occurs in the surface/disturbed assemblage as was produced in the excavation of Test Unit 1. Such differences could be the result of temporal or spatial variation in stone selection or discrete reduction loci at the site.

The high percentage of andesite at site 45-LE-285 is significant because frequencies of non-CCS materials are much lower at other sites in the upper Cowlitz River drainage, excluding a series of lithic scatters surrounding the previously mentioned Cascade crest obsidian quarry. Quantitative data from other sites are limited, but percentage figures from two sites on Forest Service land near Randle (Fig. 1) illustrate the comparative differences in material frequencies. Testing at site 45-LE-223, a cave occupied around 6,000 years B.P., yielded an assemblage with 68 percent CCS, 30.4 percent basalt (may include andesite), and 1.6 percent obsidian (McClure 1986a). A 800 to 1,000 year old component at one of two rockshelters at site 45-LE-222 yielded 58.6 percent as, 40.7 percent basalt (may include andesite), and .6 percent obsidian (McClure 1986b). Since raw material procurement was probably an embedded strategy within the local prehistoric societies through time, material type frequencies may reflect degree of local availability.

On the basis of local area reconnaissance, it would appear that relatively fine-grained pyroxene andesite like that utilized by the occupants of site 45-LE-285 is in local abundance. Cobbles and larger size rock of this material are common along the shoreline of Packwood Lake. The material was probably transported into the lake basin from source areas in the Upper Lake Creek valley with glacial outwash. Pebbles or cobbles of CCS material were not observed in shoreline deposits, nor was obsidian noted in natural deposits near

FIGURE 11. Pie graph showing relative percentages of raw maternal types represented in the total lithic assemblage from site 45-LE-285. Formed tools are included in counts.

FIGURE 12. Pie graph showing relative percentages of raw material types represented in the surface and disturbed (Test Unit 2) lithic assemblage of site 45-LE-285, including formed tools.

FIGURE 13. Pie graph showing relative percentages of raw material types represented in lithic assemblage from all levels in Test Unit 1, site 45-LE-285. Formed tools are included.

the site. CCS materials may well have been carried to the site from the Cowlitz River valley. The obsidian in the 45-LE-285 assemblage was most likely carried from the alpine source near the Cascade crest.

Because Test Unit 1 represents the only vertical sampling of intact cultural deposits, raw material frequencies were also examined by arbitrary levels as a method of detecting any pronounced variation that might reflect temporal changes in stone preference or use. Figure 14 illustrates the distribution for debitage. No major shifts in material types are evident, but Level 6 (50-60 cm) is interesting because of the quantity of andesite recovered. Three formed tools and two utilized flakes of andesite were also recovered from this level.

The volume of lithic debitage recovered at 45-LE-285 indicates that the reduction of stone through flaking occurred at the site. Typical reduction sequences (Collins 1975; Flenniken 1981; Sullivan and Rozen 1985) begin with initial decortication of acquired stone at or near the material source. Cortex is generally believed to be undesired for tool making. Raymond (1986) reports that percentages of cortex as high as 25 percent in a lithic assemblage imply that the material source lies relatively close to the archaeological site. Cortex occurs on 4 percent of the specimens in the 45-LE-285 collection. Most examples are andesite.

With the process of decortication and continued reduction of the stone, flakes are produced that may be discarded, utilized, or further reduced into formed tools (Collins 1975; Flenniken 1981). Flake size generally diminishes as reduction proceeds. The core from which flakes are removed may be utilized in unmodified form or eventually shaped into a tool. Artifact #45LE285-1-5-3, from Test Unit 1, is an andesite flake core. Large flakes initially removed from a core and intended for further reduction are often referred to as "blanks". Several large (30 to 55 mm length) andesite flakes in the 45-LE-285 assemblage may have been produced during early stages of core reduction. These specimens are of a size suitable for use as blanks (Raymond 1986).

Successive reduction stages may include shaping, edging, and thinning of the blank or core. The early stages of bifacial tool manufacture are frequently characterized by direct-freehand percussion. Debitage produced through tool manufacture exhibits comparatively high percentages of: (1) flake fragments (no platform present) and (2) broken flakes (platform intact) (Sullivan and Rozen 1985). This is in contrast to debitage resulting from core reduction, which includes relatively high percentages of: (4) debris (angular shatter) and (5) complete, unbroken flakes (1985). Complete flakes and debris (n = 281) comprise 43.4 percent of the total site assemblage while broken flakes and flake fragments (n = 366) make up 56.5 percent. The results suggest that both core reduction and tool manufacture were intensively pursued by site occupants.

The final manufacturing stages for such uniaacial and bifacial tools as end scrapers, knives, and projectile points usually involve pressure-flaking. Virtually all of the debitage resulting from this reduction technique are smaller than 6 mm (J. Jeffrey Flenniken, personal communication 1986), the standard screen size utilized in the excavations at site 45-LE-285. This suggests that most of the excavated broken flakes or flake fragments are the result of percussion flaking. To determine if smaller, pressure-size flakes occur in the cultural deposits, bulk samples were wet sieved through 1 mm mesh. A few flakes less than 6 mm (to 2 mm x 2 mm) in length were among the 23 that

Figure 14. Graph showing relative percentages of lithic raw materials for each arbitrary level excavated in Test Unit 1, site 45-LE-285.

were recovered in bulk samples. A few flakes of this size class were also collected from the surface. Quantities are so few that little can be inferred beyond the indication that some pressure- flaking did occur at the site. Andesite, obsidian and CCS materials are represented in the pressure flake size class.

Bifaces and blanks broken during the thinning process may also serve as evidence for tool manufacture at the site. Two of the artifact specimens in the site collection (#45LE285-1-7-1 & #45LE285-2A-4-1) may have been discarded as a result of such failures. The former, an obsidian artifact, is probably a quarry blank intended for reduction at site 45-LE-285. Initial edging of the blank has occurred, removing the thinner, original flake margins to create steeper, more robust edges. End shock has caused a lateral or snap fracture, essentially breaking the blank in half. The other specimen appears to have passed through more of the reduction process as it is quite thin and exhibits more flake scars. It was originally ovate or leaf-shaped and has also suffered a lateral fracture. No final thinning and sharpening of the margins has occurred, suggesting that the artifact was broken in the process of manufacture. Most other broken tools in the site collection appear to have been in relatively finished form and their breakage is probably a result of use or rejuvenation.

A variety of other analyses relating to lithic technology could have been undertaken had time and additional expertise been available. Such analytic possibilities suggest the information potential of the existing collection and the unexcavated portion of the site. The quantification of discrete platform features, for example, could generate data regarding specific reduction stages at the site as well as permit inferences regarding the tools used by the prehistoric occupants (Patterson and Sollberger 1978). The quantification of debitage size and weight could serve a similar purpose. The role of heat treatment in improving the workability of CCS materials in the assemblage is also worth pursuing through experimentation and analysis, especially since subtle luster differences observed on some flake surfaces may be evidence for this (Rick and Chappell 1983). Most needed is a replicative systems analysis - in effect, reproducing the site assemblage - as a means of identifying more precisely the reduction techniques used prehistorically, and determining how the overall technology was integrated into local adaptive strategies.

Tool Function

The determination of the function of a given formed tool usually requires an examination of edge damage or wear (Keeley 1980; Tringham et al.; Wylie 1975). Artifact morphology appears to be a less important determinant of tool function, although shape may be an indicator of one of several possible uses. Bifaces classified as projectile points, for example, may also have been used for cutting, scraping, or perforating. The form of an artifact may also reflect the general type of use, as in unifacial tools with steep-edged convex margins, usually classified as end scrapers. To more specifically determine whether wood, bone, or hide was the material scraped, or if a projectile point was used to cut or perforate such material, wear characteristics (i.e., type, location, combinations) must be quantified in conjunction with the microscopic examination of utilized edges and surfaces (Keeley 1980; Odell 1980; Trigham

et al. 1974). The functional classes of artifacts represented in a given assemblage should reflect localized resource procurement activities, thus, as environmental parameters differ, so should the functional makeup of an assemblage (Thompson 1978).

Because a microscopic examination of tool edges was not undertaken, only a portion of the possible uses for the 45-LE-285 artifacts can be inferred at this time. The lithic use-wear analyses of various researchers (Keeley 1980; Odell 1980; Trigham et al. 1974; Wylie 1975) have demonstrated that some artifact form and function correlates do exist, and may correspond to traditional ethnographic functional categories. For the purposes of this study, it is necessary to rely heavily on the published results of such experiments and analyses while at the same time understanding the limitations of the approach.

Most bifacially flaked stone tools or fragments from the site (Table 2; Fig. 15) can be classified as projectile points, although it is likely that points used in conjunction with three possible weaponry systems are represented. Small notched or stemmed triangular bifaces and fragments indicate the use of a bow and arrow weapon system by site occupants. Artifacts #45LE285-S-2, #45LE285-2A-3-2, and #45LE285-2A-7-1 can be assigned to this functional grouping. Arrow points are identified by shape, and distinguished from dart points on the basis of size and neck width (Corliss 1972; Thomas 1978). Artifact #45LE285-S-2 exhibits an impact fracture which has removed the tip. This form of use-damage substantiates the function of the specimen as a projectile point (Flenniken and Raymond 1986; Wylie 1975). Artifacts #45LE285-S-8 and #45LE285-1-6-4 are also triangular stemmed or notched bifaces and are classified as dart points due to neck width and thickness. They were presumably used in conjunction with an atlatl weapon system. Artifact #45LE285-S-8 exhibits a small impact fracture.

A third functional group of projectile points is comprised of lanceolate or leaf-shaped bifaces and fragments. Artifacts #45LE285-S-5, #45LE285-S-7, and #45LE285-1-6-3 are assigned to this group. Flenniken (1985) has experimented with the use of lanceolate projectile points as tips for dispatching spears. His recent work with the lithic assemblages from two upper Cowlitz area sites (45-LE-222 and 45-LE-223) suggests that such spears may have been an important part of the tool kit of local prehistoric hunters (J. Jeffrey Flenniken, personal communication 1987). The morphology of the 45-LE-285 specimens is similar to that of projectile points made by Australian aborigines for hunting spears (Tindale 1985). Although it is possible that lanceolate points were used as atlatl dart tips, their width precludes effective use as arrow points. Although lanceolate or leaf-shaped bifaces were used prehistorically as knives, Walker (1978) has shown that they have a relatively short functional life. None of the specimens from site 45-LE-285 exhibit obvious macroscopic margin damage that would suggest cutting or sawing use. One of the points, #45LE285-S-7, has an impact fracture.

Experimental study and analyses of unifacially flaked stone tools suggests that a wide range of functions were served by this technological class of artifacts (Keeley 1980; Siegel 1984; Wylie 1975). Among these are adzing, chopping, hard scraping (wood, bone), soft scraping (hide), cutting, drilling,

TABLE 2

ARCHAEOLAGICAL SITE 45-LE-285
FORMED TOOLS - BIFACIALLY FLAKED ARTIFACTS AND FRAGMENTS

#45LE285-S-2: Triangular contracting stemmed projectile point; incurvate margins; lenticular x-section; stem contracts to point; distal step fracture; white chalcedony; surface. L=20mm; W=17mm; T=4mm.

#45LE285-S-3: Biface midsection fragment; excurvate margins; lenticular x-section; red jasper; surface. L=18mm; W=17mm; T=6mm.

#45LE285-S-4: Projectile point tip fragment; excurvate margins; lenticular x-section; andesite; surface. L=12mm; W=11mm; T=4mm.

#45LE285-S-5: Biface midsection fragment; excurvate margins; excurvate serrate margins; lenticular x-section; potlid fractures; red jasper; surface. L=20mm; W=18mm; T=6mm.

#45LE285-S-6: Biface base fragment; excurvate margins; rounded base; lenticular x-section; purple chalcedony; surface. L=8mm; W=16mm; T=3mm.

#45LE285-S-7: Lanceolate projectile point; excurvate margins; rounded base; lenticular x-section; purple-grey chalcedony; potlid fractures; surface. L=40mm; W=19mm; T=6mm.

#45LE285-S-8: Triangular side-notched projectile point; excurvate margins; lenticular x-section; concave base; small distal tip fracture; red jasper; surface. L=24mm; W=18mm; T=7mm; neck width=l4mm.

#45LE285-S-9: Biface base and stem fragment; excurvate margins; lenticular x-section; slightly contracting stem; straight base; andesite; surface. L=44nm; W=35mn; T=9mm.

#45LE285-1-5-1: Biface midsection fragment; excurvate margins; lenticular x-section; andesite; Test Unit 1, Level 5. L=20mm; W=19; T=5mm.

#45LE285-1-6-3: Lanceolate projectile point; excurvate margins; lenticular x-section; slightly contracting base; andesite; Test Unit 1, Level 6. L=46mm; W=18mm; T=6mm.

#45LE285-1-6-4: Triangular stemmed projectile point; excurvate margins; lenticular x-section; contracting stem with straight margins; andesite; Test Unit 1, Level 6, 54 cm below datum. L=30mm; W=19mm; T=8mm.

#45LE285-2A-3-1: Biface margin fragment; excurvate margin; lenticular x-section; white jasper; Test Unit 2A, Level 3. L=15mm; W=12mm; T=6mm.

#45LE285-2A-3-2: Projectile point fragment (portion of contracting stem); margins of stem are incurvate; biconvex x-section; red jasper; Test Unit 2A, Level 3. L=8mm; W=10mm; T=4mm.

#45LE285-2A-4-1: Biface fragment (portion of ovate or leaf-shaped biface); excurvate margins; lenticular x-section; transverse and diagonal fractures; white/rose chalcedony; Test Unit 2A, Level 4. L=26mm; W=21mm; T=5mm.

#45LE285-2A-7-1: Biface fragment (margin and shoulder portion of stemmed biface); excurvate margin; lenticular x-section; brown chalcedony; Test Unit 2A, Level 7. L=19mm; W=24mm; T=5mm.

#45LE285-2A-8-1: Biface fragment; incurvate and straight margins; biconvex x-section; brown/grey chalcedony; Test Unit 2a, Level 8. L=28mm; W=24mm; T=5mm.

L = length W = width T = thickness

FIGURE 15. Select bifacially flaked stone tools from archaeological site 45-LE-285.

and awling. Tools with relatively steep-edged convex margins (Table 3, Fig. 16) tend to exhibit damage associated with hard or soft scraping, and if large in size, chopping or adzing (Siegel 1984; Wylie 1975). Lower-angled tools with straight margins tend to show more wear indicative of cutting, but also exhibit scraping wear. Unifacial tools with margins shaped to form a point frequently exhibit edge damage indicative of drilling or awling.

As Table 3 shows, at least three of the unifacial tools in the 45-LE-285 collection appear to be scrapers. Without the benefit of a microscopic examination, however, it cannot be determined whether the tools were actually used, or if used, what kind of material was being scraped. Artifact #45LE285-2A-8-2 may have been intentionally shaped to serve as a drill, awl, or perforator. Four probable utilized flakes were also identified in the site collection. While edge damage resulting from post-depositional trampling is usually difficult to distinguish from that of use-wear (Flenniken and Haggarty 1979), patterned rather than random distribution of the damage on a flake may indicate actual use. The four specimens catalogued as utilized flakes (Table 4) were isolated on this basis. Margin damage suggests that cutting, scraping, or chopping activities could have been performed with the flakes.

TABLE 3

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 45-LE-285
FORMED TOOLS - UNIFACIALLY FLAKED ARTIFACTS AND FRAGMENTS

#45LE285-S-1: Excurvate flaked margin on distal flake end (end scraper); brown chalcedony; surface. L=42mm; W=32mm; T=14.

#45LE285-S-10: Retouched incurvate portion of flake margin; andesite; surface. L=19amn; W=8mm; T=3mm.

#45LE285-1-5-3: Flake core; unflaked plane is platform - flake scars radiate from platform; distal cortex; andesite; Test Unit 1, Level 5. L=31mm; W=73mm; T=50mm.

#45LE285-1-6-1: Excurvate continuously flaked margin of flake (scraper); diagonal fracture; andesite; Test Unit 1, Level 6. L=20mm; W=l9mm; T=4mm.

#45LE285-1-7-1: Flake blank fragment; unifacial edging flakes removed; transverse hinge fracture; biconvex x-section; obsidian; Test Unit 1, Level 7. L=33mm; W=35mm; T=12mm.

#45LE285-2A-8-2: Point formed by intersection of two incurvate flaked margins (drill/perforator); biconvex x-section; red jasper; Test Unit 2A, Level 8. L=21mm; W=35mm; T=12mm.

#45LE285-2A-8-3: Excurvate continuously flaked margin of flake (scraper); biconvex x-section; red jasper; Test Unit 2A, Level 8. L=15mm; W=7mm T=3mm.

#45LE285-2B-2-1: Excurvate continuously flaked steep-edge margin on flake; discoidal shape; plano-convex x-section; red and white chalcedony; Test Unit 2B, Level 2. L=24mm; W=21mm; T=8mm.

#45LE285-28-4-1: Core fragment (possible micrcblade core); unflaked plane is platform, small portion of margin with possible blade scars intact; brown chalcedony. L=9mmn; W=21mm; T=15mm.

TABLE 4

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 45-LE-285
UTILIZED FLAKES

#45LE285-1-5-2: Bifacial step and scalar fractures on margin; andesite; Test Unit 1, Level 5. L=29mm; W=17mm; T=8mm.

#45LE285-1-6-2: Continuous bifacial lunate fractures on margin; andesite; Test Unit 1, Level 6. L=58; W=41mm; T=9mm.

#45LE285-1-7-2: Unifacial step fractures and crushing on short incurvate margin; brown chalcedony; Test Unit 1, Level 7. L=16mm; W=14mm; T=3mm.

#45LE285-2A-8-4: Crushing and conchoidal fractures along portion of margin; jasper; Test Unit 2A, Level 8. L=l6mm; W=8mm; T=3mm.

L = length W = width T = thickness

FIGURE 16. Select unifacially flaked stone tools from archaeological site 45-LE-285.

ANALYSES: HISTORIC COMPONENT

The most obvious manifestation of this component at site 45-LE-285 is the log cabin (Fig. 17). Listed in the Packwood Ranger District maintenance records as building #1166, the cabin is a single detached, rectangular, one story building of peeled log construction. The cabin is 18 X 20 feet in size and has about 400 square feet of interior floor space. The logs are joined at the corners with sharp round "V" notches. The gable ends are 15 logs high and side walls are seven logs high. Wall logs range from 8 1/2 to 12 inches in diameter. Gaps are chinked with quarter-round cedar. Sill logs are supported by wooden blocks. The medium gable roof consists of six rows of cedar shakes laid directly onto purlins. Eaves project slightly, and verges are projecting, with purlins exposed. The cabin front has one fixed, single sash, single pane window on each side of the doorway. Centered in the north wall is a horizontal sliding, double sash, single pane window. A plain vertical plank door is centered in each gable end. The main doorway is covered by a small gable roof.

The interior walls of the cabin are bare logs chinked with quarter-round cedar. The interior is open from the milled lumber floor to the ridge pole, a height of 11 feet 6 inches. The four cross girts are 6 feet 1 inch above the floor. An iron woodburning cookstove bearing a 1929 manufacturer's date is situated in front of the closed-off rear door of the cabin. The stovepipe projects from the roof just below the ridgeline on the south slope of the roof. Wall cabinets are made of split cedar boards. An outhouse (pit toilet) formerly associated with the building was razed in the early 1970s.

The cabin was one of the four built at Packwood Lake in 1910 by men employed by the Valley Development Company (PCSP 1954). All four of the cabins were constructed of peeled cedar logs. Two of the buildings served as bunkhouses, one as a cookhouse, and the fourth as an office. Based on the organization of cabin features, building #1166 probably served as an office. A photograph taken in 1910, presently owned by a Randle area resident, shows a crew of four men working on one of the cabins with double-bitted axes and other hand tools. The logs were notched and set into place before peeling. Herb Sethe is the only menber of the crew that is identified in the early photograph.

A second cabin is shown adjacent to the south of building #1166 in a photograph dated 1935 or 1936. The building, which was used by the state game department for a nunber of years, was destroyed in the 1940s or 1950s according to former concessionaire Ralph Neeley (personal communication 1982). There is no surface evidence of this cabin. No photograph of the remaining two cabins has been found yet, but Neeley reports that they were located southeast of the existing cabin and situated on the lake shoreline. Neeley dismantled the two cabins in the 1930s. They were apparently connected by a short, covered walkway and were used as bunkhouses for Valley Development Company crews.

FIGURE 17. Building #1166, the log cabin constructed in 1910 by a a Valley Development Company crew. This view of the cabin front (east elevation) is from Trail #78 (April 1987 photo).

Judging by its present appearance in comparison to the 1930s photograph, little external modification of the historic log cabin has occurred since that time. The small roof now covering the front entrance does not appear in the photograph, and a stovepipe exits closer to the front of the cabin. The roof has probably been replaced several times since 1910. From the late 1910s to 1964 the cabin was used periodically as a Forest Service guard station. Plans to dispose of the building were abandoned in 1969 when Packwood area residents petitioned the Forest Supervisor to preserve the building for its historic value. The local Lion's Club maintained the cabin for several years, replacing the roof in 1971 and a sill log in 1973. The cabin is in surprisingly good condition although sill logs show some evidence of deterioration.

A small amount of historic archaeological debris was encountered during the field investigations at site 45—LE—285. Two bottle bases, three bottle neck/lip fragments, a cylindrical bottle body, a ceramic insulator, and an enamelware coffeepot handle were among the items recovered. The only items that can be dated to the Valley Development Company occupation period are fragments of two amethyst—colored bottles. Rock (1980) reports that bottle glass manufactured in this country between 1880 and 1916 was made by adding manganese dioxide as a decolorizer. According to Rock (1980), "This glass when exposed to the sun turns amethyst. The purple color varies with the amount of manganese used. The supply of manganese from Germany was interrupted by World War I. American glass makers then changed to selenium, which often turns amber with age."

Virtually all of the historic material collected at the site came from the shoreline lag deposits southeast of the cabin. The items may have been deposited there or eroded from bank sediments. A large amount of relatively recent trash such as broken beer and pop bottles, cans, plastic, and fishing gear occur in the lag zone. Items thought to be older than 50 years were collected on the basis of such attributes as glass color, bottle shape, and glass imperfections. At least seven different bottles are represented and in addition to the amethyst specimens include clear, green, and blue tinted glass. Both patent and threaded lip types occur in the collection. No identifiable manufacturer's marks were present on bottle bases.

Some small earthenware cup and plate or saucer fragments were also collected. The insulator from the lag zone is one half of an oval, brown glazed ceramic type used by the Forest Service for telephone lines up to the 1950s. Although the proximity of the historic artifacts to the location of the Valley Development Company camp suggests possible deposition by camp occupants, it is also possible that some of the material was discarded by other visitors to the lake before and after the period of company use. Evidence for intact buried historic refuse deposits is lacking, but not surprising given that subsurface testing was not conducted on the side of Lake Creek once occupied by the company camp.

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION

The legal definition of archaeological site significance, as stated in 36 CFR 60.4, includes a set of criteria established to determine the eligibility of cultural resources to the National Register of Historic Places. Prehistoric and historic properties may be considered significant if they possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

a) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

b) are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

c) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

d) have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The first three criteria are predominately applied to cultural resources of the historic period. Evaluation of prehistoric archaeological sites is usually based upon Criterion d.

The historic log cabin at site 45-LE-285 was formally evaluated against the National Register criteria in 1982. The Chief of the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation concurred with the Forest Service determination that the cabin meets the eligibility criteria. An attempt to nominate the historic property to the National Register became mired in bureaucratic procedure. The eligibility of the cabin was based on a high level of integrity as well as the ability to meet Criterion c. The cabin exemplifies a vernacular, utilitarian architectural form that has often failed to survive physically or in historical documentation. It is representative of a building type in common use during the early period of Forest Service administration in the western United States. The construction reflects both the remoteness of the location and the resourcefulness of the builders. The Packwood Lake cabin is the oldest standing log building on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

At the time that the log cabin was determined to meet the National Register eligibility criteria, the existence of the adjacent prehistoric and historic archaeological components was unknown. Eligibility status applies only to the building itself. Because site 45-LE-285 extends far beyond the cabin, it is necessary that the significance of the archaeological portion of the site be evaluated. Nationally, archaeological research models developed through the Resource Protection Planning Process (RP3) have been useful in determining the ability of a given site to yield "information important in prehistory or history", as stated in Criterion d, above. In the RP3 process data are

organized and protection priorities are set within defined geographic or temporal study units on the basis of research themes identified for those units (WARC 1984). In Washington, RP3 has not yet reached the point of defining study unit research models. However, a series of data categories have been developed as an outline to guide model building (1984). They are used here as a tool for posing more localized research questions and evaluating the potential of site 45-LE-285 to address them.

Evolutionary Human Ecology

This major data category includes topics relating to population size and structure, community size and organization, settlement patterns, resource use, storage, nutrition, health, and intergroup relations. Data generated under other topic areas may ultimately be used to address larger, more generalized questions relating to the evolution of societies and human ecology. At a more basic level it may be asked, what was the role of site 45-LE-285 in the local settlement and subsistence system? How does this system compare with others hypothesized for southwest or south-central Washington, including systems documented for ethnographic groups in the area? Activities inferred through artifact assemblages and the intrasite patterning of cultural debris may be useful in addressing the former, and eventually the latter. The seasonality of activities represented at the site may also aid resolution of questions concerning the function of the site. Intrasite patterning can also contribute to an understanding of task group size, which is linked to an understanding of community/population size. Intergroup relations may be inferred through the comparative study of artifact types, technologies, and raw materials represented in the assemblage. The presence of floral or faunal remains could be of use in addressing localized resource use, including the role of storage in the procurement strategies.

The most significant data from 45-LE-285 of use in addressing topics under this category are derived from the study of lithic artifact material. The proportions of raw material types found at the site are quite different than proportions evident in other archaeological sites in the upper Cowlitz drainage. These differences may reflect differences in the land areas utilized by groups during different time periods and thus may be of value in detecting changes in settlement patterns or resource use through time. Raw material frequency comparisons between 45-LE-285 and other sites may also be used to determine approximate geographic or seasonal limits of the home range of the group which occupied the site. The local pyroxene andesite and nearby Goat Rocks obsidian may contribute to this and other inferences pertaining to group movement or intergroup relations. Functional analyses of tools present in the site deposits may provide information on resource use. The remaining cultural deposits could contain fire hearth areas. Such features may have the only potential for faunal or floral remains in western Cascades open sites like 45-LE-285. The presence of such remains could aid in the evaluation of the ethnographic model of lacustrine resource use. It is probable that the excavation of remaining site deposits could also yield spatial data relevant to understanding task group size and structure.

Cultural/Historical Material

Research topics under this category include cultural chronology, stylistic analysis, technological analysis, functional analysis, art/symbolic

interpretation, exchange, burial patterns, migration, architecture, oral history collaboration, and document collaboration. While some of these topics are obviously inapplicable to site 45-LE-285, the results of test excavation suggests that artifact analyses and geoarchaeological investigations may generate data pertinent to others. The antiquity of the site has not been clearly defined, but the potential exists for resolution of this problem. Information regarding the temporal span of site use can be applied to research relating to the antiquity of human occupation in the area and relationships to regional cultural sequences. Lithic materials from the site can be analyzed to generate data relating to raw material procurement, possible changes in procurement strategies through time, and culturally or functionally distinct technological systems. If exotic stone materials occur at the site, the potential for understanding prehistoric exchange networks exists.

The stratigraphy at site 45-LE-285 indicates that occupation occurred prior to A.D. 1479-1480, the age of the tephra deposit tentatively identified at the site. Both dart points and arrow points occur in the assemblage. The presence of arrow points suggests that occupation probably took place subsequent to about 2,500 years B.P., the approximate time that a bow and arrow technology began to appear in this portion of the Pacific Northwest (Cressman 1979; Galm et al, 1985; Webster 1980). The occurrence of the two weapon forms at the site could indicate concurrent use by site occupants or may be interpreted as evidence for more than a single prehistoric component. Further investigations, including radiocarbon dating, could resolve this issue, crucial to cultural/historical research topics. The functional analyses of artifacts may be useful in evaluating the ethnographic model of lake basin resource exploitation. Some valuable information pertaining to lithic material procurement was derived from the results of test excavation. Further excavations and lithic analyses, framed within a subregional context, can assist in the evaluation of a hypotheses for an "embedded" lithic procurement strategy. The analysis of obsidian from 45-LE-285 will probably be of great importance in understanding the prehistoric use of the quarry site situated on the Cascade crest.

Paleoenvironments

Sediment analyses, geomorphological analyses, faunal analyses, botanical analyses, and tree ring analyses may be applied to an understanding of past environments. Potentially all but tree ring analyses could be done with materials at 45-LE-285, providing that at least some preservation of pollen, floral material, and faunal material exists in features. Sediment analyses may result in reconstruction of the local depositional history and can be combined with geomorphological studies to provide a greater understanding of the age and effects of the Snyder Mountain landslide. Analyses relating to paleoenvironments may aid in the correlation of cultural and environmental periods, recognition of microenvironnental change, and evaluation of the regional Holocene environmental model from a localized perspective. The presence of what appears to be Mount St. Helens Wn set tephra demonstrates the applicability to tephrachronology studies.

Management Studies

This category includes topics which may contribute to the understanding of post-depositional effects and site formation processes such as water erosion,

inundation, wind deflation, bioturbation, fire effects, and vandalism. The value toward general cultural resource management through use in sampling design development, applicability of remote sensing, or the contribution to the development of curation techniques is also important. Clearly, the physiographic position of 45-LE-285 will be important in updating the current Gifford Pinchot National Forest predictive model. Further excavation could serve as a vehicle for innovative intrasite sampling design development. The presence of potlid fractures in the lithic assemblage and burned tree roots within the cultural deposits demonstrate the potential of the site to yield information relating to fire effects. The distribution of artifact material, particularly between the terrace remnant edge and Lake Creek, may be an indicator that information relating to erosion and artifact displacement can be obtained through spatial analysis.

In historic times, a number of events have had an effect upon the integrity of site 45-LE-285. It is possible that portions of the prehistoric deposits at the west end of the bridge were disturbed as early as 1910 when the Valley Development Company camp was built. Most disturbance was the result of 1963 trail bridge construction, primarily on the east side of Lake Creek. Stratigraphic data, surface artifact distribution, and local erosional patterns clearly demonstrate that contractors dug away a portion of the site to use as bridge approach fill. Subsequent erosion and trampling have continued to have an adverse effect upon the cultural deposits at the site, displacing cultural material downslope toward the bridge. A narrow trench was later dug through the site to accomodate the concessionaire's telephone and power cables.

Despite these disturbances affecting the integrity of location, the results of Test Unit 1 excavation demonstrate that some of the cultural deposits remain intact, unaltered by historic activities. Although the setting has been altered somewhat by the bridge construction, the dredging of Lake Creek, and the log cabin building, there has been almost no alteration of the local flora. The WPPSS dam is out of view of the site, thus integrity of feeling is maintained at a relatively high level. It is further augmented by the superb view across Packwood Lake toward the craggy peaks of the Goat Rocks Wilderness. The boat rental concession is also out of view from most of the site.

Because site 45-LE-285 has yielded, and has the potential to further yield information of importance in prehistory (and for the cabin, history) and possesses some level of integrity, it is the opinion of this author, representing the USDA Forest Service, that the site meets the eligibility criteria of the National Register of Historic Places.

REFERENCES CITED

Anonymous
1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers. Bee- Nugget, December 10, page 10. Chehalis.

Anonymous
1935 Article on Packwood Lake Resort. Morton Mirror. Friday February 15, No. 37, page 1.

Binford, Lewis R.
1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies Journal of Anthropological Research 35(3):255- 273.

Burner, Dell
1982 Packwood's Granddaughter Lives a Dream. The Journal, Thursday August 12, page 7. Morton.

Collins, Michael B.
1975 Lithic Technology as a Means of Processual Inference. In Lithic Technology: Making_and Using Stone Tools, edited by Earl Swanson, pp. 15-34. Mouton. The Hague.

Corliss, David W.
1972 Neck Width of Projectile Points: An Index of Culture Continuity and Change. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum, 29. Pocatello.

Cressman, Luther S.
1979 Prehistory of the Far West. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City.

Flenniken, J. Jeffrey
1981 Relicative Systems Analysis: a Model Applied to the Vein Quartz Artifacts From the Hoko River Site. Washington State University Laboratory of Anthropology, Reports of Investigation No. 59. Pullman.

1985 Stone Tool Reduction Techniques as Cultural Markers. In Stone Tool Analysis edited by M. Plew, J. Woods, and M. Pavesic. pp. 265-276. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque.

Flenniken, J. Jeffrey and Man W. Raymond
1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication Experimentation and Technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51(3):603-614.

Galm, Jerry, Glenn D. Hartmann, and Ruth A. Masten
1985 Resource Protection Planning Process, Mid-Columbia Study Unit. Washington State Department of Community Development, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia.

Gramly, Richard M.
1980 Raw Material Source Areas and "Curated" Tool Assemblages. American Antiquity 45(4):823-833.

Hammond, Paul E.
1980 Reconnaissance Geologic Map and Cross Sections of Southern Washington Cascade Range. Department of Earth Sciences, Portland State University.

Harrison, Charles A. and William O. Powell
1977 Packwood Lake Geology and Shoal Stability. Materials Engineering and Geologic Services, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Letter report on on file.

Honcharsky, Susan
n.d. Packwood Lake Scenic Area, Draft Management Plan. Ms. on file, Packwood Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

Jacobs, Melville M.
1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts. Part I. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1). Columbia University Press. New York.

Keeley, Lawrence H.
1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

McClure, Richard H., Jr.
1986a Layser Cave (45 LE 223), Prelimary Examination of a Prehistoric Cispus Valley Site. Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Randle.

1986b Judd Peak Archaeological Site, 45-LE-222, Report of Test Excavation and Significance Evaluation. Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Randle.

1987 Alpine Obsidian Procurement in the Goat Rocks Wilderness: Preliminary Research. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Northwest Anthropological Conference, 22-24 March, Gleneden Beach, Oregon.

Mullineaux, Donal R.
1983 Letter to David K. Yamaguchi pertaining to distribution of tephra in eastern Lewis County, Washington, with attached map copies.

Mullineaux, Donal R., Jack H. Hyde, and Meyer Rubin
1975 Widespread Late Glacial and Postglacial Tephra Deposits From Mount St. Helens Volcano, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey, Journal of Research (2)3:329-335.

Packwood Community Study Proceedings (PCSP)
1954 Packwood on the March, Part 4, History Committee Report. University of Washington Community Development Bureau. Seattle.

Patterson, L.W. and J.B. Sollberger
1978 Replication and Classification of Small Size Lithic
Debitage. Plains Anthropologist 23:103-112.

Raymond, Anan W.

1986 Flaked Stone Technology at the East Bug-A-Boo Site (35 LIN 260) Linn County, Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Willamette
National Forest. Eugene.

Rock, Jim
1980 American Bottles. In Identifying Archaeological and
Historical Remains edited by Joan Peter. USDA Forest Service, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Seattle.

Siegel, Peter E.
1984 Functional Variability Within an Assemblage of Endscrapers. Lithic Technology 13(2):35-51.

Smith, Allan H.
1964 Ethnographic Guide to the Archaeology of Mount Rainier
National Park. Mimeographed Ms. on file. National Park Service - Washington State University. Pullman.

Sullivan, Alan P., III and Kenneth C. Rozen
1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation.
American Antiquity, 50(4):755-779.

SWDFG (State of Washington, Department of Fisheries and Game)
1920 28th and 29th Annual Reports of the State Fish Commissioner, 1917-1919. State of Washington Department of Fisheries and
Game. Olympia.

Swanson, Donald and Geoff A. Clayton
1983 Generalized Geologic Map of the Goat Rocks Wilderness and Roadless Areas (6036, Parts A, C, and D), Lewis and Yakima
Counties, Washington. USGS Open-File Report 83-357.

Thomas, David H.
1978 Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. American Antiquity 43(3):461-472.

Thompson, Gail
    1978   Prehistoric Settlement Changes in the Southern Northwest
        Coast: A Functional Approach. University of Washington,
        Department of Anthropology, Reports in Archaeology, 5.
        Seattle.

Tindale, Norman B.
1985 Australian Aboriginal Techniques of Pressure-Flaking Stone Implements: Some Personal Observations. In Stone Tool Analysis edited by M. Plew, J. Woods, and M. Pavesic. pp. 1-33.
University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque.

Tompkins, Walker A.
1933 The Big Bottom (Lewis County) 1833-1933. Washington
Historical Quarterly 24:250-257.

Trigham, Ruth; Glenn Cooper; George Odell; Barbara Voytek; and Anne Whitman
    1974   Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A Nea
        Approach to Lithic Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology
        1:171-196.

Yamaguchi, David K.
1983 New Tree-Ring Dates for Recent Eruptions of Mount St.
Helens. Quaternary Research 20:246-250.

Walker, Phillip L.
1978 Butchering and Stone Tool Function. American Antiquity
43(4):710-715.

WARC (Washington Archaeological Research Center
1984 RP3 Conference Synopsis. The Thunderbird 5(1):5-11.
Washington Archaeological Research Center. Pullman.

Webster, Gary S.
1980 Recent Data Bearing on the Question of the Origins of the Bow and Arrow in the Great Basin. American Antiquity
45(1):63-66.

Wylie, Henry G.
1975 Tool Microwear and Functional Types from Hogup Cave, Utah. Tebiwa 17(2):1-31.

SHPO CONSULTATION FORM

CRITERIA						SHPO OPINION
Site Name	none	a	b	c	d	concur	do not concur
45-LE-285 (prehistoric & historic)					x	ü
Packwood Lake Outlet Archaeological Site (USFS #13N10E-21/15)
Packwood Lake Guard Station (USFS #13N10E-21/01) – previously determined eligible

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION

OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE 45-LE-285

Location and Environment

Methodology

Results

Stratigraphy

Lithic Technology

Tool Function

Evolutionary Human Ecology

Cultural/Historical Material

Paleoenvironments

Management Studies