It’s that time of year again! Living in Alberta, we all know how disastrous a forest fire can be. No one wants to see fires tear through their homes and communities, like what has happened previously to Fort McMurray or Slave Lake. These fires are dangerous, unpredictable, and destructive. Many of us at Tree Time have walked though the remains of a burned forest and have seen what is left behind. So here are some tips to remember while you are out camping and enjoying your campfire.
Building your fire:
Check for a fire ban in your area. May can be a dry month, and it only takes one spark to start a forest or brush fire.
Use an existing fire ring if you can, rather than build a new one. Make sure all vegetation or flammable materials (like leaves, sticks, spruce/pine needles, etc) has been cleared away up to 10 ft.
If you have to build a new one, dig a pit 1 ft into the ground first and circle it with rocks.
Select an open area with no overhanging branches, dense dry grass, logs, etc.
NEVER LEAVE IT UNATTENDED!
Putting out your fire:
Use water to douse that fire. If the fire burns too hot, it can still catch fire when the wind picks up, so make sure everything that remains is soaked through.
Use shovels or a stick to stir the contents making sure everything gets wet and cools down.
Touch it to be sure! People might think that they put out their fire, but debris (roots, moss etc) on or under the ground can catch on fire and spread the fire beyond the stone rings. You can see in the pictures that the area around this abandoned campfire has been burned.
That is why it is so important to make sure that you have properly put out your fire. Please check out the Alberta Parks Website for great advice on campfire safety.
Also if you need to report a wildfire, call 310-Fire (3473). Never put yourself in danger.
We thought we would share this story in advance of the long weekend to remind people about campfire safety. Alberta is a great place and camping is an amazing way to experience it. So from us at Tree Time, we sincerely wish you a great long weekend and happy, safe camping.
The religious tradition of designating a patron saint to a profession or activity is a long standing one, and it is of no surprise that a heavenly protector, or advocate, has been claimed by archaeologists. When it comes to patron saints, archaeologists, like many other professions have claimed more than one patron. Some consider St. Helena of Constantinople (Emperor Constantine the Great’s mother) to be the patron saint of archaeology, since she was attributed to finding and excavating the True Cross. However, other archaeologists feel that they are more than mere excavators of history and are a part of the larger scientific community. Such archaeologist may chose to claim the patron of the natural sciences as their own. It just so happens that Kurt (our TTSI division manager) lives in a town that chose the same patron saint as its namesake, St. Albert. So who was St. Albert and why was he chosen from amongst hundreds of saints to be the heavenly guardian of those who chose to practice the natural sciences, and thus, archaeologists.
Albertus Magnus (c. 1200 – November 15, 1280), also known as Saint Albert the Great, Albert of Cologne or Albert of Lauingen, was a German Catholic Dominican friar and bishop, who spent his life teaching, writing and investigating the natural world. Early in his life, Albert attended university in Padua, Italy and joined the Order of St. Dominic. He gained his Doctorate while in Paris and taught theology at several universities. He was appointed to many positions within the Catholic Church, including the Master of the Sacred Place (the Pope’s theologian) and the Bishop of Ratisbon. However, Albert never remained in these positions for long as he did not wish to be away from teaching and his work. He is most well known as the mentor of St. Thomas Aquinasand for the wealth of knowledge that he provided for future generations, most of which is considered to be very accurate even by modern standards.
Although Albertus Magnus was known during his lifetime as a Doctor universalis, he was not beatified until 1622 and was not canonized as a saint until 1931. In 1931 he was also distinguished as one of 36 Doctors of the Catholic Church, which is one of the highest post-humus honors that may be bestowed upon a saint, and was declared to be the patron of the natural sciences in 1941. St. Albert’s feast day is on November the 15, which commemorates his death and the end of his inspiring career.
The reason why he is chosen as the patron saint of the natural sciences is simple: he dedicated his life to investigating the natural world. St. Albert was avid reader of philosophy and extensively studied the works of Aristotle. He is attributed with preserving much of Aristotles writings, and in an age mostly governed by mysticism, he utilized the teachings of the ancient philosophers to study the natural world and critically examine the assumptions of others. His prolific writings were collected in 1899 and placed into 38 volumes, which range in topics from zoology and chemistry to love and friendship. He stated that “the aim of natural philosophy (science) is not simply to accept the statements of others, but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature”
St. Albert was truly a great man, and considered by some to be one of the greatest minds in history. Since excavating the past is only a small part of the profession, and the modern archaeologist must have at least a working knowledge of many different disciplines within the natural sciences, I find Albertus Magnus to be a very fitting patron. Whether you are a religious person or not, I believe that his contributions to philosophy, science, and humanity deserve a toast from all us archaeologists on his next feast day!
Now that all the reporting is done, we thought it was a good time to look back on some of the exciting sites we worked on from the past year. We usually find over 100 sites every year but these sites stand out either because we found interesting artifacts or the site is unique compared to the sites we generally find. It doesn’t matter how many points an archaeologist has found throughout their career, they will still get really excited when they pull a projectile point out of the their screen! In fact, compiling this list got me really excited to get out of the office and back into the field where an archaeologist belongs.
ElPs-56: Found while assessing a proposed cutblock for Sundre Forest Products near the South James River. It’s located on a distinct corner, so we couldn’t miss the landform. What makes this site exciting is that Brian found a Beasant point! We don’t often find these during a shovel test program (compared to excavations). It was likely dropped there by a past hunter while looking out over the valley below. We also found several flakes and a hammerstone which suggests people were also making tools at this location.
Point found at ElPs-56
Hammerstone found at ElPs-56
FePr-4: Found while assessing a proposed cutblock for Weyerhaeuser Pembina Timberlands. The site was located on terrace edge overlooking an old oxbow of Wolf Creek. The site has a very diverse artifact assemblage consisting of various materials including mudstone, petrified wood, chalcedony, and quartzite. The most interesting find was a piece of obsidian. Obsidian is volcanic glass and only comes from areas with volcanic activity. The presence of obsidian suggests either long distance trade outside of Alberta, or long distance movement of people.
Obsidian piece found at FePr-4
Elenore digging at FePr-4
GfQa-5: Found while assessing a proposed cutblock for North Central Woodlands. At this site we found a salt-and-pepper quartzite spear point preform on a small ridge in the Swan Hills. The point likely broke in half during the manufacture of the tool. The site is interesting because spear points such as Alberta or Hellgap points (which are similar to this point stylistically) are typically dated to approximately 10,000 to 8,000 years ago. Also recovered at the site were the molars of an adult moose but unfortunately in a different context than the point. Further testing at the site may recovered datable materials that can be associated with the point.
Point from GfQa-5
Moose teeth found at GfQa-5
GiPl-13: This site was found near Howard and Fawcett Lake by the layout crew of Tolko Slave Lake Industries. We visited the site to document and confirm what type of site the flagging crew found. Upon visiting the site we found six collapsed structures, five mounded rectangles, and lots of mechanical and other types of debris. Our initial interpretation was that the site was an old forestry camp. Further background research revealed that area was known to have a WWII prisoner of war camp, where POWs often worked for the forestry sector. It’s possible this camp may have been related to the work they did. We analyzed the artifacts identified at the site and found one of the pieces of ceramic had a makers mark that read “Medalta Made In Canada.” This ceramic seal dates to between 1937 and 1943. Further research is needed at the site to confirm it is a POW camp from WWII. If it is, the site is very significant for learning how POW’s were treated, lived, and contributed to industry during WWII.
Faint maker’s mark on bottom of ceramic
Reference mark from Getty and Klaiman 2017
Remains of structures at GiPl-13
Remains of structures at GiPl-13
KkDo-1: Kurtis and Vince spent a week excavating a sod house on a remote part of Baffin Island in the Qaummaarviit Territorial Park last October. This was a unique opportunity for us because we typically only work in Alberta. However, Vince’s experience from his graduate research on a historic Inuit house in Newfoundland made him well suited to the project. While excavating the house they found spears, harpoons, and projectile points while working along side the local descendant community. In fact, one of the Inuit team members, Naulaq Inookie, is a direct descendant of the people who lived there. The sod house dates to between 1200-1800 AD and will be eventually reconstructed as a tourist attraction.
While working on my Master’s in Anthropology at the University of Alberta, I had the privilege of being a member of the Vulture Archaeological Project. During the summers of 2009 to 2012, in the town of Rionero, Italy, I was part of an international team of academics and students attempting to gain a better understanding of this region’s past. The project is named after the dormant volcano, Monte Vulture, at the base of which lies the beautiful town of Rionero.
This archaeological endeavor was conducted under the direction of Dr. Richard Fletcher, aimed to investigate the Vulture zone of the Lucanian Frontier as a sphere of pre-Roman cultural interaction and Late Roman Stability. The project consisted of an archaeological survey of the region around the volcano and the excavation of a Roman villa (large industrial farm) and its associated cemetery. While the survey aimed to identify important sites in the surrounding area and collect data on land use and settlement patterns from the Early Iron Age to the Late Roman period, the excavation attempted to determinewhen the site was used, its economic importance, and gain a glimpse into the lives of the people that inhabited it. The project is responsible for recording numerous new sites in the area, and excavating approximately half of the villa (80×40 m). The project was funded through contributions from the Comune of Rionero in Vultur, the Comunità Montana Vultur and from the instruction fees paid by the students attending the field school.
Although I am not a Classical Archaeologist by training, I was able to apply my skills in a variety of ways. My pre-archaeological career involved a substantial amount of time in a supervisory role so I started my time at the Vulture Project as a Field Supervisor. My training in Human Osteology was an asset and I was not only responsible for overseeing cemetery excavations, but also conducting skeletal inventories and primary analysis of the human remains that were recovered. Since archaeological regulations in Italy state that excavated sites must be preserved, I was also in charge of the restoration and preservation of the site’s integrity. This involved applying mortar and concrete to unearthed structures, and generally making the site presentable by Italian standards.
My time with the Vulture Project still remains one of the highlights of my archaeological career. Although it was no vacation, and excavating in 40°C with no shade will discourage even the most seasoned shovel bum, I feel fortunate and grateful that I was able to experience the beautiful southern Italian countryside and touch its past. Due to this project, I have friends from all corners of the globe and memories that will last a lifetime.
If you ever want to have a similar experience, I highly suggest that you become involved in an archaeological dig either where you live, or abroad. Many field schools do not require any previous training, and at many digs, volunteering will only cost the price of room and board. While traveling, it is actually a very cost effective way to become intimately familiar with a region and become submerged in the local culture.
Back in 2015 I was dropped off by a helicopter in the middle of a large muskeg to assess a cutblock for Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries. After trudging my way through the swamp to the cutblock, I found a very prominent but small hill. I put my shovel in the ground and I found one large, beautiful flake. I tested out the rest of the landform but found nothing else. I flagged the site for avoidance by harvesters and made my way back through the muskeg to be picked up by the helicopter.
When I got there I told the pilot that I found a site. He responded “Really? This is the middle of nowhere. Why would anyone be out here?” To which I replied, “People were everywhere, man.” The pilot was skeptical and asked to see what I found. He said, “That’s just a rock that was broken by your shovel.” I responded by saying, “I can give you eight reasons why this is a legitimate artifact…”
The above artifact is the “textbook flake” that I found that day. It has all the features that we typically look for in determining if it is natural or a rock that was broken by a human in the past. These features are:
1. Bulb of percussion: A bulb that forms directly below where the hammerstone struck the core. This is what causes the flake to be popped from the core. If a rock is broken by heating or freeze-thaw this bulb will not be present.
2. Platform: The flat area where the flintknapper would strike the core to pop the flake off. These areas are sometimes prepped to be struck by rubbing the hammerstone on the edge to strengthen the edge and remove any micro-fractures that may cause the rock to break in an unintended way.
3. Percussion waves: Caused by the force travelling through the flake.
4. Eraillure Scar: Small flake scar on the ventral surface of the flake which is the result of the rebounding force from the percussive force.
5. Termination: This flake has a feather termination. This is a perfect detachment of a flake from a core. Desirable because the end of the flake is sharp without need to resharpen or retouch. This means that the flake is a ready tool that can be used to cut or scrape. Other types of terminations include: hinge, step, and overshot terminations. These are usually an error by the knapper or flaws in the core.
6. Flake Scars: Areas on the dorsal surface of the flake where flakes were knocked off during earlier stages of tool making process. The coincidence of these being present on a naturally broken rock are impossible.
7. Material: The material of this flake is a fine grained chert. This is not a rock that would naturally be found in this immediate area. There were also no other rocks present in the shovel test or any of the other shovel tests that were dug that day.
8. Context: Sometimes when rocks are crushed by heavy equipment they can break in a similar fashion but this was found pre-disturbance. Additionally, the force from me putting my shovel into the ground could never possibly break a rock in this fashion. I am not that strong.
It is not often that we have all of these flake features present. Sometimes if a flake is broken we might not be able to see the bulb and platform or the termination. We usually try to find at least two of these features to call something an artifact. To convince a non-archaeologist a flake is genuine you might need all these features present. I feel like I convinced the pilot that this was a real artifact but I think he only responded by saying “interesting.”
Back in September of 2017, I found what would probably be one of the coolest artifacts that I will ever find in my field survey career. My coworker Vince and I got up one fateful morning and set out on our four hour quad ride into one of the most beautiful areas in Northern Alberta: the Swan Hills. I have been working in the Swan Hills area for a few years now and every time I come back, I am always amazed by the broad vistas and pristine valleys that cut through this segment of the Alberta Foothills.
We were checking out a cutblock on the edge of a broad muskeg flat with a small stream. It was pretty swampy on the way in, but once we got closer to the stream, the land rose up into a nice, narrow little ridge that gave a good view over the stream. After walking around for a bit, Vince and I settled on a place to start digging. Normally, it takes a bit of time going through the screen before you can find the small stone flakes that we typically find. This time, I only had to flip over the root mat to see the top half of a stone blade stuck in the rootlets. A few seconds later, I pulled out the base of the same blade from the loose sediment, revealing a complete spear point buried only a few centimeters below the surface.
You can only imagine my excitement once I pulled this beautiful specimen out of the ground (I think I was making noises akin to Homer Simpson drooling over a doughnut). It is hard enough to find artifacts in the Boreal Forest, let alone to find a tool! My first thought as soon as I pulled it out was that I had found an Alberta Point. This is a type of projectile point that dates to around 9500 and 8000 years ago and is part of what is known as the Cody Complex. Alberta Points commonly have square stems that would have been hafted into a spear shaft, along with broad distinct shoulders and wider tapered blades. It seemed to be a good fit for the style of the point that I had found so I put Alberta Point in my notes and went about my day.
Back at the lab, I started flipping through my reference books. I began to realize that what I had found didn’t really fit with what we know about Alberta Points. The shoulders weren’t as square as other Alberta Points and the blade was a little too broad and less lance-like. I also noticed that the shape of the point closely resemble ones found at Hell Gap sites, dating to between 10,000 and 9,000 years ago (before the Alberta points and the Cody Complex). During this period, we see that First Nations ancestors were making similar large spear heads, but with a broader blade and slight, indistinct shoulders. So the spearhead that I found could also belong to this time period. However, the story doesn’t end there. To complicate matters more, there are also similar kinds of projectile points being made around Lake Athabasca in the northeast corner of the province. During the Early Taltheilei Phase (2600 to 1800 years ago), the caribou hunting people living on the shores of Lake Athabasca were making similar looking large spear and atlatl dart points. The point I found could fit into any one of these three possibilities.
So what kind of projectile point had I found? If we can identify the style, we can make inferences on the age and archaeological culture that was present at the site. Being able to place an age on a site is often difficult to do for Alberta sites, especially sites in the Boreal Forest. The lack of organic preservation at many sites means that radiocarbon dating is often not possible. Also, most archaeological sites in northern Alberta have very little stratigraphy, meaning that you will find 13,000 years of history in about 20 cm of soil. Even this artifact, which may be anywhere from over 10,000 to 2000 years old, was found only 5 cm below the surface. So if I were to determine how old this site was, I would need to be able to positively identify the type of projectile point that I had found. So what did I find? How was it made? Where did it come from? The answers to these questions can tell us about the people who made the artifact.
First off, the material. The point is made of fine-grained quartzite, a lithic raw material that was frequently used in Alberta all throughout history. There are a lot of advantages to working with quartzite. As a material it is very strong and durable, which means that the edge of the blade will hold longer than other materials like obsidian. This also means that it is extremely difficult to work with. When we try our hand at flintknapping today, we often start with obsidian, chert, or flint because these materials will fracture more easily and predictably than others. Pick up a raw quartzite cobble, and you’ll find that you be bruised from trying to crack it open.
Quartzite is also very common. Almost every stream, creek, and river valley is filled with a variety of quartzite cobbles. You don’t need to import it thousands of kilometers, unlike Knife River Flint or obsidian. Not all quartzite is the same quality, but there are well documented sources of high quality quartzite and sandstone throughout the province, like the top of the Grizzly Ridge by Swan Hills or in the Oil Sands around Fort McMurray.
In fact, this point is made from a type of quartzite that is commonly known as ‘Salt-and-Pepper’ because of the small black specks in the largely white stone. This material has been found all over Northern Alberta, but it is most commonly reported around Fort McMurray. While no source has been officially documented, archaeologists who work in the Oil Sands region often report seeing raw cobbles and boulders of ‘Salt-and-Pepper’ quartzite in the creeks flowing into the Athabasca River. It is very likely then that this point was made from a cobble that came from the Fort McMurray region. Whether the person who made the point carried from Northeastern Alberta or if it made its way by trade, we don’t know. However, it does show us the vast ancient networks that connected the First Nations across Alberta.
So we know where the raw material for the point came from, what about how it was made? What can the shape and design tell us about the people who made it? One way to study this is to look at the flake scars, the ridges and concavities left when pieces of quartzite were struck from the point. Most of the time with finished projectile point, or those that have reached the end of their life as a usable tool, we will see that the edges will be very uniform and straight, with small flake scars along the blade where the tool was resharpened. However, this artifact is very rough, the edges are irregular and chipped and the blade has large long flake scars covering the surface. Based on these traits, it appears that this point was unfinished, and looking at where the break is, it was likely broken when they were trying to make the blade thinner. This point is what would be called a ‘Preform’, a roughly worked projectile point that has not been attached to a haft yet. Preforms can take a variety of shapes and forms, but they often resemble the final point style.
So now that we understand that we are looking at an unfinished point, it better explains why the shape of the artifact does not perfectly match other Alberta points. However, that doesn’t help us to determine if it is an Alberta, Hell Gap, or Taltheilei projectile point. The implications of assigning the point one of these time periods is significant, because it would move the occupation of the site from a period where Giant Bison and Ice Age mammals roamed Alberta during the Hell Gap Phase, to an environment more similar to what we see today during the Taltheilei Phase. Personally, I think that the point from GfQa-5 is more similar to projectile points and preforms that have been dated to the Hell Gap period. The shape of the shoulders, base, and the blade all seem to better match the style of these points than Alberta Points, and the points found at Taltheilei sites tend to be smaller and narrower. A cache of similar looking spear points were found near Eaglesham in northwestern Alberta, and the archaeologists who studied these points concluded that they were likely unfinished Hell Gap points. It seems likely then that the spear point I found would fall into this time period. However, this is still based on very general characteristics, and it could still easily fit within all three of these categories. Until we have more information, and we excavate more archaeological sites, we are often left with our best guess.
In 2016 two members of the public contacted Tree Time Services to report archaeological sites that they had discovered. Our Archaeological Roadshow was being hosted by the Sundre Museum, during which we were approached by the first person who had found a side-notched projectile point while planting her garden. We arranged to meet her at her home to record the site. We took photos of her garden and recorded the location using a hand-held GPS unit of where she recalled finding the projectile point. We also took photos of the projectile point itself. Our time with her allowed us to collect the data we needed to report the site as EkPp-18. While the site is highly disturbed due to the construction of the subdivision it is still important to record the location of her site and what was found. This information will help future archaeologists to predict where other similar sites in the area can be found.
The second community member to contact us got in touch with Kurtis to let him know about six sites he found while hiking and hunting in the region. Teresa and I took a day off from working for our client to spend with him visiting the sites he had found. While we were there, we recorded the locations of where he had found artifacts, took photos and conducted surface inspections resulting in the identification of additional artifacts. The artifact collection is being catalogued by Tree Time so that we can record data to the standards required by the Royal Alberta Museum. This way we can submit site forms to the government of Alberta, just as we did for the previous person’s site. These site forms will have a detailed description of the archaeological sites found and a full listing of the number and types of artifacts found at each site. A copy of these catalogues will be sent to the Royal Alberta Museum when we have completed the reporting process. The museum needs a copy of the catalogue so that if any future work is completed at these sites they will be able to provide the researchers with a starting catalogue number, avoiding duplicates in the database. This way it is easy for researchers to know how many and what kinds of artifacts have come from a particular site, even if the museum doesn’t have the artifacts themselves.
We are always happy when people are willing to share their archaeological finds with us because the government cannot protect sites they don’t know exist. Researchers also need this information to build predictive models and to choose what areas would be interesting to conduct more research at.
If you have found an archaeological site and would like help to record it please contact Kurtis at 780-472-8878 or email [email protected].