How deep to dig in the low-grounds?

[Huzzah!]

First, new guy here, so please redirect if you know this question has already been discussed. The majority of where I hunt is in low-grounds and it's not uncommon to find a point or tool on the surface after a spring tilling or just walking around. But at this point I'm interested in going deeper, yet am questioning how deep is necessary--especially when digging above the flood-plain I've had to go no more than 10" to find red clay that produces nothing. Being in this flood-plain I've discovered the bottom of the A-Horizon to be anywhere from 3' to 5'+ down. I figure diggin in low-grounds is a game changer in terms of my test hole dimensions, but don't want to waste my time. Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Insults?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Twitch]

If you're finding them on the surface you shouldn't have to dig very deep (obviously). I'm not a digger so I really don't know.

 

[quito]

Where I hunt and find things on the surface there were archeological digs done back in the 70’s. A friend who was in high school at the time had volunteered to help. He said that 4 foot down they had revealed fire rings.
But I have a feeling it’s different everywhere.

 

[mainejman]

In Maine the deepest I go is about 2'.. This is at a site that I have found surface finds...It's near a stream and lake and on a hill...But it would have to be different everywhere...My site is mostly late to middle Archaic..mjm

 

[arrow86]

It’s probably gonna be different pretty much site to site not sure there’s a good way to figure it out besides probing and digging test pits , maybe look for any archeological digs done nearby see what depths they found artifacts.

 

[Huzzah!]

Thanks for the insight and the direction yall. I figure there is no rule of thumb--esp. when it comes to flood plain. Place is right next to a river that will flood 9 times some years and other years it won't flood at all. People tell me all kinds of depths, so I'm often left thinking that there is nothing wrong with going further. One thing I have noticed is that the points found on the surface are never archaic from what I can tell, but I and another digger have found archaic pieces above the flood plain in that area; makes me think digging further is the way to go, just how deep. Also, right next to a granite quarry with veins of quartzite among others. Again, thanks.

 

[Peyton Manning]

You sound like you went to college, I can’t help you

 

[joshuaream]

The Gault Site in Texas was a pay dig for the better part of 50 years, and the paleo layers were essentially untouched in many areas because collectors and early archaeologists simply did not dig deeper than the Archaic midden. (A few did, but it was hit or miss.)

I know several collectors in Kentucky who have great collections redigging cave sites that have been dug for years, they just have to use jacks & winches to move rocks that have fallen or simply have to dig through a sterile layer that people never bothered to punch through.

All of that said, you are likely going to find the highest concentration of artifacts in more recent/shallower deposits. Digging 1x1 hole 5 feet deep is a lot harder to do than a 5x1 hole one foot down. If the soil is right many of us just dig a wall and then collapse that wall backfilling as we go. (You use a pick more than the shovel, the shovel is just for cleaning up the loose dirt.)

 

[Huzzah!]

thanks joshuaream--good point. I guess if I get into some thick traffic I can always go deeper.

 

[tnmudman]

When I stop seeing any signs of occupation or debitage, that is as deep as im going. I will do a test every so often and dig deeper to make sure. You can never know with certainty there is nothing deeper but its hard to keep going when you arent seeing anything in it.

 

[catherine1]

Your not going to find very many artifacts digging on a flood plain because they never lived there. Mostly artifacts from hunting or fishing next to the river. I plowed a test spot on the flood plain below my campsite, and found one artifact. I plowed test spots above the flood plain and found abundant evidence of habitation in every test plow. Yes there are artifacts in the flood plain. But not enough concentrated in one spot worth digging. If you want to dig a flood plain, start at the flooded waterline, and dig above it. I have found many artifacts on the bank heading down to the flood plain from my campsite. Good luck digging near a flood plain.

 

[joshuaream]

Your not going to find very many artifacts digging on a flood plain because they never lived there.

It sounds like you are testing, which is important.

In my experience, it's worth remembering that ancient flood plains could be very different beasts than modern ones. Some of it was cyclical climate related, Cahokia and some other big mound cities didn't see much flooding for a couple hundred years during their big growth phases, but probably saw regular flooding afterwards. In many other areas modern leeves, cities, farm fields with drainage tiles, modern straightened rivers, and fewer wetlands, etc. all push water down river quicker than before. Natural forests and wetlands can absorb a 20" rain with moderate local flooding. Drop 20" of water along the Mississippi river today, and that water will push down stream and literally pile up like it did back in 1993 with a historic flood.

 

[ToddsPoint]

The soil in the floodplain of the IL River is deep. Each time the river floods, soil is added to the floodplain. When they put in the new Eagle Bridge over the IL River on I-72 they dug a borrow pit over 100' deep in the flood plain on the east end of the bridge. As the pit slowly filled, a friend of mine used a small boat and hunted artifacts along the walls of the pit. He found lenses of charcoal (campfire remains viewed from the side) over 50' down. The newest charcoal lens, which contained Mississippian triangle arrow points was 17' below the current surface. So at that particular location you'd have to dig 17' to find anything at all. Gary

 

[joshuaream]

Gary,

Jeez, I thought Archaic material at 8’ down along the Wabash River was deep. Can you imagine how deep paleo would be at that site?

Joshua

 

[catherine1]

Right Josh. I'm sure the river flooding was different thousands of years ago. But I have noticed that all of my local archaic sites that I find artifacts are miles away from the large rivers. And most of the places people find older artifacts digging are in rock shelters also. I don't know where you could find the actual flood plain levels from back in the day, but it would be some valuable information. The flooding here along the Ohio seems to be the same as two thousand years ago. The woodland sites that I know of are all above the flood plain today, even with the dams controlling the water.