I have always had a fascination with the field of archaeology and wanted to gain as much knowledge and experience in that field as I possibly could. I chose the Center for Archaeological Studies because the work done there would give me an example of what archaeologists generally do, what procedures are followed, and how research and field work is conducted. I knew that working in such an environment would give me the skills, practice, and education that I could use as I further my studies and career as an archaeologist.
The Center for Archaeological Studies (CAS) is located on the main Texas State University-San Marcos campus, next to the offices of The Gault School of Archaeological Research, another archaeological research lab on campus. The center was over seen by director Dr. John Lohse. At first glance, the CAS lab appeared to be cluttered and disorganized, with boxes, books, bags full of artifacts, and animal bones occupying the tables. After an explanation, it became clear that the lab was an extremely busy environment, with staff members often working with several collections and on several projects simultaneously. Located in the Trinity Building, the small lab contained a secured archiving room, in which collections that have been curated or are in the process of curation were housed, five small offices, a long open work space, and an outside shed for the storage of field work supplies. There were five long tables throughout the work space and the walls were lined with bookshelves filled with scientific journals and books about archaeological techniques and discoveries, in different areas in Texas and the south, as well as books for cultural references.
My internship involved a very interesting and exciting experimental archaeology project that was also a part of the habitat restoration project at the Aquarena Center. During summer 2011, CAS conducted an archaeological survey and test excavation where the new center would be located before any construction was conducted in that area. The soil taken from the test pit became the focus of my project that I was allowed to work on while being supervised by staff archaeologist David Yelacic. The experiment involved comparing the data gathered by using dry screening, wet screening, and flotation to sort through the test pit soil, as well as comparing the pros and cons of the archaeological techniques. My role in the experiment included preparing small selections from the soils collected for permanent storage before dividing each of the remaining samples in half. I then performed dry screening on the first set of divided samples, breaking each one down into smaller groups based on size before each of those was searched for any botanical, biological, or lithic remains. I also performed flotation and water screening on the other set of divided samples and the contents that were separated from the soil were categorized as botanical, biological, lithic.
Although I was unable to finish the experimental project, I was involved enough to compare and contrast the three techniques commonly used to recover archaeological materials and data. The dry screening process was extremely time consuming and would not be a desirable technique to use if there were a set time line that needed to be met. However, the dry screening technique would be appropriate with dry and sandy type soils, if a steady water supply was not available, or if there was enough time allowed to effectively shift through the samples for finds. Also, there is next to no loss of artifacts or ecofacts; although, some may be become damaged if a machine were used to dry screen the soils.
The flotation and wet screening processes were extremely quick compared to the dry screening process, so it would be more appropriate for a project with a time limit like my internship. Wet screening and flotation would be more suited for dense, clumpy, and water-logged soils and would work in an area with access to a water hose, river, or any other body of water. Large and very delicate items could be found un-damaged, as well as the items that would normally be hard to find if the sample were dry, like very thin pieces of debitage. While this process is fast and easy, it can be very wasteful when it comes to small artifacts and ecofacts. When wet screening, the screen has to be small enough to catch any items that try to pass through it, but large enough to allow the soil and water to flow through. Small fragments of bone or small teeth can be washed away with the excess soil and water and be lost forever.
I really enjoyed my time working at CAS and I plan on returning to volunteer during the coming semester. I’m extreme thankful for the opportunity to learn and expand my knowledge of the archaeological processes used in a lab such as CAS. I will be able to use the critical thinking and problem solving skills that I learned while participating in the experimental archaeological project as I finish my undergraduate degree and continue on to gain my Master’s and complete graduate school. I strongly recommend an internship with CAS or anywhere to expand your knowledge and passion in your choice of career.