Field Work || Part 3 – Flotation

Posted on by Theo Chiang

On Tuesday, field students belonging to my group of units went to a separate location to filter out flote bags. In the flotation facility, there was one room of shelves full of flote bags tagged with information, one room where paperwork was done, and an outside area where two pits of water served as the flotation stations. Two groups cycled between flotation and documentation. The paperwork consisted of checking in flote bags and artifact trays.

In our group of three, one of us would do paperwork at a time, which entailed recording every action performed in the flotation facility. The other two students would grab artifact trays from the shelf that contained the dried remains of flotation. These trays would include two products from flotation — a cheesecloth bag containing fine botanical samples and a newspaper with hard artifacts — both of which needed to be prepared for tabbing.

Although this system was difficult initially, it only took about twenty minutes for us to become reasonably efficient.

The flotation station outside consisted of two barrels of water with a pipe leading excess muddy water down a ramp towards a creek. We would first remove the information tags from the flote bags, then pour the contents of the bag into a metal container with a filter screen on the bottom. When placed into the water, loose mud from the artifacts would sink through the screen while larger artifacts would stay in the container. Stray plant samples from the flote bags would float to the top of the barrel, where it was led out of the barrel into a basket. The basket held a cheesecloth that would only trap small sediments and botanical samples. Once dirt and mud were removed from the container, the container would be removed and its contents would be poured on a newspaper into a tray where the cheesecloth would also be placed. This tray would be placed on the shelf inside where it would dry and then be bagged for tabbing. Overall, I enjoyed this flotation process and discovering what items could be found in each flote bag. It was also enjoyable to learn and work with new peers.

Field Work || Part 2 – Excavation

Posted on by Theo Chiang

Due to rain, the only real day of excavating was Monday. Using ground penetrating radar (either with total system or mlit), archaeologists surveyed the field and found several hotspots across the meadow containing structural details and artifact deposits. I was assigned to one which originally contained the supportive, wooden post of a structure that left a colored impression in the surrounding soil. We were tasked with marking the outline of this 3D impression on a vertical and horizontal plane, recording it, and then excavating it.

Although the features my partner and I excavated were different from surrounding units which contained lithics, bones, and other objects, the processes of excavation, maintenance of walls, and shoveling and sharpening of trowels were similar. Like every group, we were required to write down and sketch every action we performed in our notebook and paperwork. Excavated objects had information tags with varying colors. Yellow indicated “all clear”, blue indicated “context obscured”, and red indicated “careful handling”.

At the end of excavation, a representative from each unit would participate in check-in, where every flote bag or artifact would be cataloged and documented for future reference. Because it rained on Thursday and Friday, we spent hours dredging our sites using empty cartons and sponges. During this time, we were not allowed to step into the units to preserve their structural integrity. This made cleaning out deep cavities very difficult. Some parts of our wall collapsed during this process.

All in all, excavation proved to be a laborious yet rewarding task.

Field Work || Part 1 – Introduction

Posted on by Theo Chiang

The German site in Kampsville, Illinois is a remarkable archaeological site within the Lower Illinois Valley. It belongs to a series of Late Woodland (Jersey Bluff) and Mississippian sites that are vital to Midwestern archaeological studies. Within a week of working in the Center of American Archaeology Highschool Field School, I gained an immense appreciation for the many methods through which archaeologists can retrieve valuable history from the ground.

Field school accommodations are pretty accommodating. The Center for American Archaeology Field School ran for four weeks, during which 15 - 25 students would be split into rooms with 2 to three students. Men and Women had respective dorms and bathroom facilities which had showers and multiple toilets. One of my favorite features of the dorm was the fact that it contained the laboratory. Every day during downtime students could go and explore for themselves many artifacts that were on display such as massive spear points and old ceramics. During downtime, students could play cards (there were nearly unlimited board games), grab a book from the shelves containing archaeological literature, or watch a movie. The dorm was located in a sizable meadow and a small creek where students could explore. There was also a barn that acted as a storage unit.

There was also a nice, shaded walking trail that meandered into the forest, but this was off limits. Breakfast and dinner were usually eaten at a local restaurant called The Landing where we would have unique breakfast and buffet options everyday. For lunch in the field, there would be a cooler available with different food options. I usually had several ham and cheese sandwiches.

The week’s schedule was uncertain due to environmental conditions, but we were still able to participate extensively in the field. We worked on a variety of tasks to gain a working knowledge of how artifacts are classified and transported from ground units to archaeologists, as well as what archaeologists then go on to do to study those objects. On Monday, Thursday, and Friday, we studied the procedures and logistics archaeologists follow to excavate the site itself to produce artifacts and flote bags. On Tuesday, my assigned group studied floating, the process in which bags of soil collected from the site are sifted through for artifacts and organized for bagging. On Monday and Thursday, I participated in organizing the products of flotation into neat bags. For the whole week, I helped with tabbing, where the bagged artifacts are manually classified into distinct categories (ie flakes, burnt bones, cultural shatter, etc) and then placed into containers ready for analysis. On Wednesday, we visited the massive mounds of Cahokia and listened to a lecture by Jason King where we gained an understanding of the analysis that takes place with those artifacts we so carefully prepared. All elements of this process required meticulous recording to ensure the preservation of original contexts. For instance, after each excavation session, students were required to tarp all units to prevent any environmental interference and submit a notebook containing all the actions taken in the unit. We later learned that the artifacts themselves hold less importance than their historical background. Once the origin and background of a specimen are lost, then the artifact is deemed “out of context” and removed from the archaeological process, even if the artifact itself is intact.

Next blog, we will discuss excavation in the CAA Field School

A Midnight Musing || PT 1

Posted on by Theo Chiang

A Midnight Musing On July 3rd, 2022, I was scheduled to arrive at the CAA Field School, my flight was scheduled to arrive by roughly 2:00 pm local time in Missouri. Due to airline issues, I arrived at around 10pm at the St. Louis Lambert International Airport where I met my professor. During the two hour commute to Kampsville in rural Illinois, we had many worthwhile musings and discussion points I thought would be interesting to share. Many of them share connections to topics outside archaeology, including politics, preservation, finance, and science.

Section 1: Money, Politics, and Historical Preservation

Outside of Saint Louis, we encountered moderate traffic across an elegant white bridge called the Stan Musial Veterans’s Bridge which connected Saint Louis, Missouri and St. Clair County, Illinois across the Mississippi river. My professor pointed it out, and explained that it was a relatively recent addition which was halted several times. He explained that while constructing the bridge, the remnants of a millennium old village were discovered on the banks of the river. Because resources had already been invested in the construction of the bridge by the Missouri and Illinois state governments, the structure was planned to continue construction into the ancient settlement. Government archaeologists were sent to study the site before it became obstructed.

Unfortunately, the extent of archaeological work ends where politics begin. Archaeologists are only responsible for the extraction and research of historical information from sites, but the application of this knowledge is left up to authorities. As a result, those who create legislation regarding the treatment of historically relevant sites are often not those who truly care about history, sometimes leading to the valuing of money over our nation’s own heritage.

Laws surrounding historical preservation are determined by local governments, and therefore depend on the political compasses of local populations. Although not always the case, blue states tend to lean towards preservation movements while red states do not. Supposedly, Illinois is not only a blue state, but is progressive in advocating for historical preservation in relation to neighboring states. Because of this, projects such as the Center for American Archaeology are able to base themselves in the state. All in all, I was told that the United States is poor in sustaining historical preservation compared to the rest of the world. Examples of countries that are ahead in this respect are the United Kingdom and Italy, both of which are strong countries for archaeology.

Stay tuned for part two!

 

Discussing Early Humans with Nicolas Zwyns PT 3: Biological advantages of modern humans

Posted on by Theo Chiang

Because of the invention of language and written thought, humans have been able to experience a generally linear (or exponential) trend of technological development. This is generally not consistent with other human species such as neanderthals who often backtracked and were volatile to external factors. This may have been one reason we outlasted them. Neanderthals had the same size brain as us, yet still disappeared (or perhaps interbred into our lineage). According to Dr. Zwyns, neanderthal’s technological development was not at its peak towards the end, but instead during a previous spike. It largely depended on their environment and optimum climate at the time. Dr. Zwyns mentioned that environmental pressure also plays a large role in innovation trends.

The adaptation of a more nutritious diet also allowed for humans to develop their greatest weapon — their brain. The addition of more meats, bone marrow, and other high fat + protein foods greatly developed the human brain, allowing for rapid innovation. A downside, however, to this new advantage was the vast amount of blood and nutrients needed. When provided with the necessary fat and proteins, the brain would provide great cognitive ability. However, this massive dietary need was also a huge burden. For instance, during pregnancies, the baby and its brain would require massive amounts of nutrients to power. Because of inadequate healthcare, the placenta of the baby would often break. Any break would be fatal due to the high pressure of blood flowing within.

Dr. Zwyns ends by explaining that the glorious brain, along with humans’ powerful, bipedal legs, were our greatest biological innovations, which sparked further evolution. Our need for more meat also caused us to have to compete with other carnivores, forcing us to develop further technology to hunt.

Discussing Early Humans with Dr. Nicolas Zwyns || Part 2 – How Early Humans Gained an Advantage Over The Rest of the Animal Kingdom

Posted on by Theo Chiang

Dr. Zwyns first clarifies that the topic of intelligence is subjective. There are many different components of intelligence to look at. Some organisms may have a higher cognitive capacity or quicker thought but have other limitations. In Early humans, intelligence is often looked at through technological innovation such as lithic technologies or complex diets. 

Human species have been constructing tools for millions of years, far before the advent of homo sapiens (modern humans). Denisovans, from the previous blog, are associated directly with stone tools. Stone tools were very prominent on the archeological record. Oftentimes, remnants of lithic objects were found even without accompanying human fossils.

As human social groups increased in population, intelligence also increased as a consequence. With more people, came specialization of tasks, which allowed for all to contribute and advance in a single task to help maintain their civilization. This allowed for all to have more expendable time as well, allowing for the pursuit of new innovations and activities such as philosophy. With more diverse demographics, there was also a higher incidence of abnormally smart people, and thus a higher incidence of technological revolutions. Lastly, a greater population would mean more stability, and a lower chance of the whole population suddenly dying off. 

The development of language also contributed to accumulation of smarts and knowledge. The evolution of linguistics allowed for humans to effectively transfer complex thought, and the invention of writing allowed for this meaning to be more permanently recorded. This is why there is a drastic shift in historical knowledge between recorded and pre-recorded history; the efficacy of writing is this significant.

Despite similarities between the Denisovans and Homo Sapiens, we still outlasted them. The brain and hand sizes of Denisovans were very similar to ours, suggesting that they had similar intelligence, technology, and tool-making abilities. Like early homo sapiens, they took major hits in population many times. This is seen in the archeological record as many dips and rises. When they finally disappeared from history, they were still on a population rebound. Dr. Zwyns stated that it was possible that they fully bred into our lineage.

Discussing Early Humans with Dr. Nicolas Zwyns || Part 1 – An introduction to Denisovans and their Phylogenetic history

Posted on by Theo Chiang

Dr. Nicolas Zwyns is an archeologist at the University of UC Davis. He wrote his thesis on the dispersal of species 50000 years ago. He specializes in ancient human species in Asia — especially Denisovans. He specializes with the specific time range when modern humans come in and when older hominids began going extinct. 

The name “Denisovan” implies that this group of hominids is just one population or species. In reality, Denisovans were more of what Dr. Zwyns referred to as a “metapopulation”. Early Denisovans existed nearly half a million years ago, and subsisted for quite some time after encountering modern humans. They are believed to have existed from the Middle East down to Southeast Asia. The Denisova Cave, the site from which Denisovans were originally discovered, is in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, Russia. During their time coexisting with modern humans, Denisovans are theorized to have interbred with Homo Sapiens. Some archeologists attribute modern tibetans’ ability to survive at high altitudes to Denisovan genetics.

The name “Denisovan” implies that this group of hominids is just one population or species. In reality, Denisovans were more of what Dr. Zwyns referred to as a “metapopulation”. 

Image from international journal "Nature"

Early Denisovans existed nearly half a million years ago, and subsisted for quite some time after encountering modern humans. They are believed to have existed from the Middle East down to Southeast Asia. The Denisova Cave, the site from which Denisovans were originally discovered, is in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, Russia. During their time coexisting with modern humans, Denisovans are theorized to have interbred with Homo Sapiens. Some archeologists attribute modern tibetans’ ability to survive at high altitudes to Denisovan genetics.

The biological similarities and phylogenetic relationships between the Denisovans and humans are slightly complicated. The definition of two distinct species is that they are reproductively separate, caused by some sort of isolation — probably geographic in the case of modern humans. So how could many groups of humans (within the genus homo) breed? Nicolas Zwyns conveyed that the defining boundaries between human species were very obscure — even the definitions of reproductive isolation are not concrete. It takes a long interval of time for this separation to occur. So, despite Homo Sapiens and Denisovans being detached long enough for some diversity to occur, they were still biologically similar enough to mate. In this way, Denisovans were similar to neanderthals, who also interbred with humans. 

Dr. Zwyns mentioned that the classification of biological organisms today into phylogenetic relationships is different than with ancient organisms. For old specimens, archeologists and paleontologists can only use bone structures and other phenotypic features from fossils which give less details than tissue samples. This causes some complexity in the classification of hominids. For instance, for just Homo Sapiens, or modern humans, there is great diversity in physical (phenotypic) features. People all around the world may look drastically different. However, among all these people, the real biological and phylogenetic (genotypic) difference is minimal. So, depending on physical characteristics may be unreliable. 



ARCHAEOLOGY Magazine Discussion Nov-Dec 2021

Posted on by Theo Chiang

Note: This is the first entry in a series of posts in which I will share my thoughts on every bimonthly edition of the Archaeology Magazine by the Archaeological Institute of America. More information is available in the description of the ARCHAEOLOGY Magazine Discussion. 

This is one of the first publications of Archaeology that I’ve personally read in depth. In the November-December issue, Ghost Tracks of White Sands, Karen Coates describes prints left by early animals over ten millennia ago in the White Sands National Park in the Tularosa Basin, New Mexico. 

Today, the geography of White Sands is remarkably drier than in prehistoric times. According to Karen Coates, the area used to be submerged in Lake Otero, which evaporated 10 millennia ago. During this brief period in time, much of Tularosa Basin’s landscape became boggy and impressionable; the movement of many of the region’s inhabitants left accurate tracks which were then recorded in the ground as Lake Otero dried. From these remnants, Matthew Bennet of Bournemouth University and his team were able to gain a glimpse into the lives of several creatures. For instance, archeologists were able to study the strides of a giant sloth and an early human who was chasing it at a mildly rapid speed. The longer journey of a mother and her child were also recorded, as well as evidence of a group of children jumping and sloshing around in the mud, and a wandering mammoth. More details are available in the article itself. 

As valuable as the White Sands tracks sites are, their tracks are quickly being lost to environmental factors. 

This article raises the Issue of fragility. Although new tracks are being revealed by wind and erosion, other tracks are rapidly being lost. To combat this rapid degradation of archeological artifacts, archeologists document tracks as quickly as they can. To locate artifacts both above and below ground, Magnetometry and ground-penetrating radar are used to find all possible tracks. Plaster casts and 3d-models are then used to preserve these valuable tracks both physically and digitally. The strategies used to generate 3d-models are not stated. However it is possible that they used photogrammetry — a method of creating 3d digital depictions using photos — which I discussed in a previous blog. 

Besides the issue of environmental change causing the loss of potential artifacts, Coates also mentions another important concept in archeology. In many instances, archeological sites take place on the land of and handles the property of people whose culture is entangled with the excavation. In the example of the White Sands Tracks, the National parks service works in conjunction with the Acoma Tribal Historic Preservation Office board to consider indigenous peoples who may be affiliated with the tracks; Interestingly, through this connection, archeologists are able to not only better preserve and respect the assets of these peoples, but consult them as well to gain a more sophisticated understanding of a location. This provides a fascinating mutualistic relationship that benefits the knowledge of all parties. 

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this issue of Archaeology. Besides Ghost Tracks of White Sands, the articles were geographically diverse and discussed really interesting periods of history. My favorite aspect of the Magazine were the numerous labeled photographs of archeological artifacts which offered visual glimpses into various pockets of history. The article as a whole was well structured in a clear and interesting way, providing unique sections rather than article after article of entries. I am happy to write more about this particular article in the future. 

CAD and Photogrammetry

Posted on by Theo Chiang

Being able to accurately model archeological artifacts is significant to the field for a multitude of benefits. It allows for a more durable preservation of historically relevant artifacts, It allows for the widespread sharing of unique artifacts, and it allows for historians to use computational analyses. While having pictures of historically significant objects is useful for disseminating information, 3d models allow for a more complex depiction of artifacts. Last year, I spent some time last year exploring CAD (Computer Aided Design) by trying to recreate historical artifacts digitally. I began with the least sophisticated method of modeling to the most complex. I used these techniques to model a Viking Era ship called the Gokstad Ship.

The least efficient method of modeling I found was using an online 3d graphing calculator called Geogebra. It is unlikely that any field besides mathematics would genuinely use this as a functional means of creating a model as it is very inefficient. I used mathematical equations to create lines in a 3d environment that resembled the general skeleton of the Gokstad ship. This was a very painstaking process due to each line of the model requiring a specific pair of equations. A cross section of the Gokstad ship resembles two mirrored tangent functions. I used a 2D calculator, Desmos, to manipulate two tangent graphs a bit to resemble the ship more. Transformations applied included a translation and a horizontal expansion. The result was then translated to Geogebra where I attempted to sculpt the whole hull of the ship. I was not able to achieve this however, due to issues with the software.

Screen Shot 2021-12-22 at 9.15.00 PM
Screen Shot 2021-12-22 at 9.14.51 PM
Screen Shot 2021-12-22 at 9.14.44 PM

Early in the winter, I began to experiment with a CAD software called Fusion 360. This software is more commonly used in mechanical engineering to digitally plan projects; However, it can be applied to certain parts of archeology such as experimental archeology. With CAD, I was Able to construct the hull as well as the keel, or the bottom piece of the ship. A comparison of the real Gokstad ship and my creation are shown below. The software itself requires very specific measurements and definitions in order to create a working model without errors. Although this was beneficial for this project because it compelled me to get a better grasp of the structural traits of the ship, this trait would be less useful for depicting artifacts since it would require the user to build the artifact from scratch. Using photogrammetry solved this issue.

Screen Shot 2021-12-23 at 1.48.54 PM
Screen Shot 2021-12-23 at 1.46.22 PM
Screen Shot 2021-12-23 at 1.46.14 PM

Fusion 360 was moderately intuitive to learn; It took only a couple of hours to grasp a basic understanding of its mechanics. In my opinion, although this software is less present in the field of archeology, it is a relatively useful software for organizing and visualizing ideas. Although the interface is complex at first, it doesn’t take long to learn required functions either online. Fusion 360 also supports a search bar command accessible by tapping the “s” key. Overall, it took around 10 hours to produce the work shown in the accompanying images. The only real issue I encountered was the level of specificity each design required to be legitimate. Each element of the design required a specific length and angle measurement to be “defined”. Other than this, Fusion 360 is a solid software. 

The last mode of 3d modeling I explored was photogrammetry, in which a general digital figure is assembled from a collection of hundreds of pictures. Using a software called Agisoft Metashape which was recommended to me by Stanford Professor, John Rick, I was able to create a number of different replicas easily. Although I did not purchase the full software, a demo version was sufficient to create the models. For the models, I gathered random objects available to me with wide cultural or historical significance. Modeled objects included a wooden carving of a giraffe, a collection of heirloom porcelain vases, a faberge egg replica, and a wooden sculpture of a monk, all of which yielded successful models. The giraffe was a souvenir picked up two decades ago in Southern Africa. The faberge egg was a gift picked up on a trip to Russia. The vases have been in my maternal family for a century and exhibit an old style of pottery. The monk statue belongs to my paternal grandfather. This diverse collection allowed for thorough experimentation with Agisoft Metashape as they all sported unique shapes, colors, sizes, and textures. 

The software was relatively easy to learn. To create accurate models, Agisoft Metashape undergoes three processes: creating alignment, generating a 3d polygonal mesh, and generating an orthomosaic model. In alignment, the pictures inputted into Agisoft Metashape are aligned in a virtual environment and similar points from each image are organized virtually. After this stage, stray points should be cropped out of the design. The 3d mesh created provides an actual object from the points that at least provides a solid object from the images. 

From here, the orthomosaic model incorporates textures and specific details into the model. Each process takes potentially hours to undergo in exchange for astounding precision. After the final model is created, further functions are available such as point certainty which reveals where the software is most and least confident about the outputted predictions. A more specific explanation is provided in the Agisoft Metashape User Manual – Professional Edition. This result is extremely accurate when the provided images cover all angles and have good quality. When creating a model, consistent, quality lighting should also be used. The images to the right demonstrate the development of models by Agisoft Metashape. 

The one downside of the program is that building the model takes a lot of time to process, which is expected. Overall, all three methods of 3d modeling have their merits in different fields, and could be used in different settings. I would encourage anyone willing to experiment with them all, especially the second two. 

Confidence Model
Confidence Model
Close up of the Monk Statue
Close up of the Monk Statue
Texture Model of the Vase
Texture Model of the Vase
Final of the Vase
Final of the Vase
Buddhist Bell
Buddhist Bell

Petroglyphs || Bishop, California

Posted on by Theo Chiang

The petroglyphs reside in a 371200 acre area of a series of Volcanic ash flows from the eruption of California’s long valley volcanoes 8,000 centuries prior in Owen’s valley – the expanse that spans from Southern Oregon to Death Valley. Several sources also attribute these intense geologic activities to a number of slip earthquakes. The Tablelands are visible from the Glyph route in the far distance to the North as a vast area of brown rolling hills and plateaus with little to no vegetation as seen in the photo to the right. The surrounding Mountain ranges reach up to 14000 feet in elevation and also contain some curious areas such as Mount Whitney and the Bristlecone forest which contains some of the world’s oldest trees. If you’d like to read more about them, you can find articles in the research section of the EN website. 

On the opposite side of Route 6 from the Glyph trail, there is a short strip of green wetlands with a good amount of vegetation. Considering the fact that this location is essentially a vast expanse of dry desert, there is a considerable amount of culture here. The glyphs are traced into dark volcanic rocks and include many intricate designs. According to The Sierra Web, the local descendants of these people – The Shoshone – have declined to release too much information regarding the meaning and location of the glyphs, but images of the glyphs are available online.

As you visit the sites, you may also notice many glyphs being repeated; Some common ones include: A circle with a cross in the middle, a grid, and webs of circles connected by lines. We have also provided a map in the hopes that more people may appreciate the sites, but please keep in mind that any act of vandalism or destructive action is a felony and is punishable by way of fines or prison time. If you are a member of the local tribe and would like this information to be taken down, please contact us through our website.

In these sites, the Glyphs aren’t the only evidence of the presence of people. Within the sites there are also small indents carved within rocks which are referred to as kitchen holes. According to local visitor centers, these holes were used as mortars to grind different substances and can be seen throughout the sites. Most of them are found in sheltered areas or under rock overhangs. There are many small cavernous spaces that can be found throughout which may contain kitchen holes. They are also usually found in small clusters as seen in the above image.

Guide to the Glyphs:

There are three notable areas in the Owens Valley Petroglyph route; There is the Fish slough, the Chicado Canyon sight, and the Red rock Canyon site. The order of the sites varies depending on which end of the trail you enter. For further information, hotels, and food, you can visit any of the visitor centers in Bishop. Google searches and advisors may be helpful but the visitor centers will be more so. The brochure provided on this site is the most important piece of information you’ll need. You can also refer to our photo gallery that we provide to learn different landmarks or just admire the landscape. Please note that the site is at least one thousand times more magnificent in person. The actual sites are discernable by wooden fences that mark the general location of the petroglyphs as seen on the left. Some petroglyphs are not visible right away, so some exploration is necessary.

If you find the correct trail, you will see that it is not smooth at all or paved. Despite this, you will not need a vehicle with four wheel drive to access it. Along the path, there may be some wildlife such as deer, birds, and hares. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to capture any photos of wildlife, but we did notice an abundance of rabbits. Be sure to take in the grandeur of the desert, which is especially brilliant during the evening or the morning. Their beauty is definitely not captured in my photos; It’s definitely a sight you would have to experience firsthand to fully appreciate. The petroglyphs aren’t the only attractions that people can enjoy!

You may have read about a site known as the “Yellow Jacket Site” online near Mono Lake a little ways outside of The Bishop area. Consider this a warning: This trail is very inaccessible and dangerous to access. It is very easy to get caught in the roads as they mainly consist of only gravel. The site was also closed during the Covid-19 Crisis.

Note: Be Mindful! Don’t touch, just view them, most glyphs aren’t visible unless you look for them, make sure prepared, the road is bumpy. Bring lots of water. Remember #1 rule of archeology

 

Bibliography + Good Resources to see:

  • Also a great guide to the glyphs: 

https://thesierraweb.com/generalinfo/petroglyphs.cfm

  • Info On Owen’s Valley

https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=GNISPQ:3:::NO::P3_FID:272823

  • Owen’s valley Wikipedia: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owens_Valley

  • Bureau of land management

https://www.blm.gov/visit/fish-slough-petroglyphs