The Manis Mastodon and Wenas
Creek Mammoth Sites:
A
Comparison of Methods Used for Two Archaeological Field Projects in Washington State.
A term research project comparing the recording and publishing methods of two possible pre-Clovis dig sites in Washington state written during the course of Anthropology 204 - Archaeology in Winter of 2011.
On a recent note, new research published in late 2011 supports the assertation that the Manis Mastodon site is indeed archaeological.
click here to link to article on Pre-Clovis evidence at Manis site:
On a recent note, new research published in late 2011 supports the assertation that the Manis Mastodon site is indeed archaeological.
click here to link to article on Pre-Clovis evidence at Manis site:
The Manis Mastodon and Wenas Creek Mammoth Sites
_______________________________________________________________________________
The Manis Mastodon Site and the Wenas Creek Mammoth Site are
located in the state of Washington.
In beginning this project, it was my fanciful hope that in researching the data from the Manis Mastodon Site that I would perhaps satisfy the mystery of the “possible projectile point” embedded in the mastodon rib; I would investigate the supposed Clovis Bias in the Archaeological community, either disproving or proving the presence of pre-Clovis presence in WA State -- and this is not what happened at all. The object in the rib, which at first seemed to be what it was all about, became less important than so many other findings. My aim in this report is to describe what I did learn and why it is important.
In seeking out a topic for research, I came across an intriguing scrap of information that led me in a direction which I had not intended. Originally, my premise had been to learn more about the Ozette Indian Village Archaeological Site, located on the west-north-western edge of the Olympic Peninsula, and to report my discoveries. What interested me about Ozette was the large catalogue of preserved artifacts, made possible by the 18th century mudslide that had buried the settlement. However, while I was scanning through an online search for “Olympic Peninsula Archaeology” I read a few words about mastodons, projectile points and possible pre-Clovis human artifacts (Paulson 2002; Arksey 2008; Mackie 2010). The articles were elusive, third-hand tidbits of information, and I was intrigued. I had never heard of the Manis Mastodon site before, and I wanted to know more.
After tracking the trail of hearsay and speculation, I did find the two original published reports written from the archaeological dig. What I read in these papers left me with more questions than answers. In particular, what motivated the researchers to focus on certain findings over others? The initial report was brief; was this typical of papers of this type? Was the brevity of their publication due to lack of findings, or lack of funding? Was this because of something else entirely?
I wondered if other sites in the area had similar findings; I decided to investigate the methods used at another site in order to have a point of reference. In this paper I propose to describe, compare and interpret findings from these two projects. In addition, I will offer my interpretation on the effectiveness of the reporting methods used, in regards to the assumed goals of the researchers.
In beginning this project, it was my fanciful hope that in researching the data from the Manis Mastodon Site that I would perhaps satisfy the mystery of the “possible projectile point” embedded in the mastodon rib; I would investigate the supposed Clovis Bias in the Archaeological community, either disproving or proving the presence of pre-Clovis presence in WA State -- and this is not what happened at all. The object in the rib, which at first seemed to be what it was all about, became less important than so many other findings. My aim in this report is to describe what I did learn and why it is important.
In seeking out a topic for research, I came across an intriguing scrap of information that led me in a direction which I had not intended. Originally, my premise had been to learn more about the Ozette Indian Village Archaeological Site, located on the west-north-western edge of the Olympic Peninsula, and to report my discoveries. What interested me about Ozette was the large catalogue of preserved artifacts, made possible by the 18th century mudslide that had buried the settlement. However, while I was scanning through an online search for “Olympic Peninsula Archaeology” I read a few words about mastodons, projectile points and possible pre-Clovis human artifacts (Paulson 2002; Arksey 2008; Mackie 2010). The articles were elusive, third-hand tidbits of information, and I was intrigued. I had never heard of the Manis Mastodon site before, and I wanted to know more.
After tracking the trail of hearsay and speculation, I did find the two original published reports written from the archaeological dig. What I read in these papers left me with more questions than answers. In particular, what motivated the researchers to focus on certain findings over others? The initial report was brief; was this typical of papers of this type? Was the brevity of their publication due to lack of findings, or lack of funding? Was this because of something else entirely?
I wondered if other sites in the area had similar findings; I decided to investigate the methods used at another site in order to have a point of reference. In this paper I propose to describe, compare and interpret findings from these two projects. In addition, I will offer my interpretation on the effectiveness of the reporting methods used, in regards to the assumed goals of the researchers.
Emmanuel Lewis posing on his backhoe with two mastodon tusk pieces found in his yard, circa 1977. Photo courtesy of the Sequim-Dungeness Valley Museum & Arts Center Manis Mastodon exhibit. |
The first journal submission (Gustafson et al. 1979:157-164) is a brief 8 pages in length, while the second (Petersen et al. 1983: 215-231) fleshes out the story with an additional 15 pages of soil and vegetation analysis and theory. The Manis Mastodon Site seems to be a preliminary report of initial findings and several suppositions of the researchers, or perhaps even a proposal to gain support for further research. It was published two years after the initial reported discovery of the mastodon tusks on the Manis property. The first paper briefly states what artifacts and ecofacts were found, what soils were present, and where the materials were recovered in relation to the alluvial and ash striations which were used for preliminary dating along with floral records.
The second publication outlines the botanical history of the Olympic Peninsula by comparing pollen and macroflora samples taken to data from other sites in
2 cm deep in one of the mastodon rib bones (figure 2). This is the interesting part; what was a paleontological site is now a potential anthropological site, and dated to a time measurably earlier than was previously believed to be the period of occupation by humans on the Olympic Peninsula (Gustafson et al. 1979:158; LeTourneau et al.).
Figures 1 and 2: Detail of mastodon rib bone and possible projectile point. Courtesy of the Center for the Study of the First Americans; date unknown. Mastodon molar found by D. Gilbow at the Manis Site (Gustafson, et al. 1979:159)
The mastodon skeleton was found above a layer of unsorted glacial till at a depth of six meters and was preserved within a brownish alluvial layer. This lies beneath successive layers including clay, peat, and a layer of ash from
(figure 2). The Gustafson paper also mentions in its summary that some artifacts made from bone and tusk were found as well (Gustafson et al. 1979:157). Maddeningly, these artifacts are not discussed in the body of the paper. It is not even mentioned whether the artifacts were found in the same layer as was the mastodon.
One point of interest was the methods used to predict where
to search for artifacts. A series of sediment columns were taken to find out if
any changes in grade or elevation had occurred at this site since the
deposition of the mastodon. The columns and trenching revealed an increase in
elevation sloping away from the mastodon, towards a place which they believed
would have been at an advantageous height for a vantage point to ambush game.
After digging an additional trench on this knoll, they recovered a series of
charcoal deposits, one above the other in the stratified layers. The uppermost
was superimposed on the tephric layer. A projectile point was found in this
striation. The paper later describes this point as Olcott in nature (Gustafson et
al. 1979:163), dating the find to 5000-7700 BP (LeTourneau et al.; Zdanowicz et
al. 1999). Immediately beneath the volcanic ash was a
second charcoal deposit, dating it to approximately 6700-7700 BP (Zdanowicz et al. 1999; Petersen et al. 1983:220). A
third layer of charcoal lies some 11 cm beneath the ash layer. However, the
report fails to state the location of the third layer in vertical proximity to
the mastodon skeleton. The report proposes that in the future, the team planned
to trench the area between the skeleton and this bottom layer of charcoal, in
hopes to find if a direct stratigraphic correlation between the two exists (Gustafson
et al. 1979:162).
The mastodon died at the northern edge of what had been a pod, approximately 60 m in diameter; evidence suggested that the animal was butchered by humans (Gustafson et al. 1979:158). There was no deciding information given as to cause of death. It is believed that the mastodon did not die from the wound inflicted by the foreign body embedded in its rib; the bone demonstrated scarring comparable to 4 months time. The researchers dated the mastodon to approximately 45 years of age at death (Gustafson et al. 1979:162). This number was based on dental wear in comparison to modern elephants and to mastodon fossils fromMissouri
The Manis paper being my first read in an archaeological journal, I had no point of reference as to what constituted a thorough report. Still, it seemed brief to the point of sparse. The citations numbered only four papers, including a report by Gilbow and Gustafson entitled, The Manis Mastodon Site (45CCA218) a preliminary appraisal. This report was referenced in support of the following statement:
The mastodon died at the northern edge of what had been a pod, approximately 60 m in diameter; evidence suggested that the animal was butchered by humans (Gustafson et al. 1979:158). There was no deciding information given as to cause of death. It is believed that the mastodon did not die from the wound inflicted by the foreign body embedded in its rib; the bone demonstrated scarring comparable to 4 months time. The researchers dated the mastodon to approximately 45 years of age at death (Gustafson et al. 1979:162). This number was based on dental wear in comparison to modern elephants and to mastodon fossils from
The Manis paper being my first read in an archaeological journal, I had no point of reference as to what constituted a thorough report. Still, it seemed brief to the point of sparse. The citations numbered only four papers, including a report by Gilbow and Gustafson entitled, The Manis Mastodon Site (45CCA218) a preliminary appraisal. This report was referenced in support of the following statement:
| ‘…
hydraulic sorting through the backdirt culminated in recovery of several
hundred bone fragments which
included fossil bison … muskrat [and] mastodon. In addition to the bone
“projectile point”, an altered bone object … and several pieces of worked
bone and tusk were recovered. This initial endeavor provided the first
direct evidence for association of early man with mastodons anywhere north
of Mexico and the earliest evidence of man in Washington … (Gilbow et al.
1978)’ (Gustafson et al. 1979:157). |
It certainly is open to debate whether sorting through many layers of soils removed from provenience is direct evidence; in any case, citing one’s own report on the topic at hand does not seem a valid means for substantiation of claims.
Instead of finding out what had happened at Manis, I had many more questions than answers after reading. What had become of the worked bone and tusk pieces? What of the altered bone object? What research had been conducted after that which was reported initially? What were the lab results? Why was the paper published in
One drawing of a stone possibly worked by humans does appear in the document (figure 3). It is of a “flaked cobble spall” found in association with the mastodon bones (Gustafson et al. 1979:163). The writers do not mention it further, and the impression is that they did not see enough characteristics in the stone piece to justify speculation. Unfortunately, Mr. Manis had been mining the peat and boggy soils above the layer containing the tusks and selling it for garden soil, thus disrupting the provenience of the materials (Gustafson et al. 1979:157). There can be no definitive statements as to the age of the cobble due to this secondary deposition of the matrix.
In summary, the secondary Manis report (Petersen et al. 1983: 215-231) did provide extensive data analysis of the pollens and plant debris samples from the site. This information, while not in direct support of the presence of man in the region at that time, did give an in depth analysis of the diet of the mammoth, and relevant climatic information for the northeast Olympic Peninsula circa 12,000 BP. Had the two been published in concert, they would have made a more substantial paper with a weight akin to that of the Wenas Creek report.
The Wenas Creek Site: By contrast, the paper The Wenas Creek Project: 2008 interim
Archaeology Report on excavations at 45YA1083 had an immediate effect on
the reader by its size alone. A substantial 41 pages in length, it contains
relevant, good quality photos as well as diagrams and tables. There is a great
deal of writing dedicated to setting the scene, geographically and
geologically. It spends the first 6 pages describing the terrain and
vegetation. There is more writing devoted in the Wenas report to the topography
of the site than there is in the entirety of the Manis report.
The Wenas paper describes the initial find of a mammoth humerus bone on lands located betweenYakima
Figure 4: Map detail showing the approximate location of the Wenas Creek Site (Lubinski 2009:3).
Figure 5: Site location map of the Emmanuel and Clare Manis property (Gustafson et al. 1979:158): no scale is given.
find its exact location with a phonebook, or by asking directions at a café. One might speculate that perhaps a certain naivety among the public in 1978 lent itself to the broadcasting of this location. In contrast, by 2008 when the Wenas Project began, a whole generation of archaeologists and the public had the benefit of the evolution of laws controlling protocol of artifact recovery. The Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) in 1979 had already signaled a collective shift of thought regarding the protection of potential native artifacts and sites. In addition, it enforced protection for the first time with penal and punitive damages. The addition of the Cultural Property Act (CPA) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) further reflected an important change in consciousness for professionals and the public alike. One can infer that the institution of these laws, the contemporaneous public relations events such as Kennewick Man (McManamon 2004), and perhaps the proximity and familiarity with the Yakama Nation all contributed to support the professional execution of the Wenas dig.
In the field at the Wenas Creek site, circa 2008: photo courtesy of CWU Wenas Creek Mammoth Project
The Field School of Central Washington University (CWU) in Ellensburg was a primary source for research labor for the Wenas project. Work began in the summer of 2005 with the two-pronged goal of documenting the geological record of the site as well as searching for more mammoth remains. The paper describes in great detail the methods used in preparation for the excavation. Ground penetrating RADAR (GPR) was used in the initial survey and showed several anomalies; none of which appeared to be mammoth bones (Lubinski 2009:8). A 37 m long trench was dug by backhoe and hand excavation was also done (figure 6). The trenching was primarily to examine the geological stratified materials; the handpits were dug to search for bones. Hundreds of bone fragments were discovered, but no human bones or artifacts were found. Another mostly intact mammoth humerus bone was located in this season. Its provenience to the first found bone was not stated, nor was it specified if it was believed to be from the same specimen. Sediments were sampled to be used to study pollen, soil types and opal phytoliths.
Figure 6: Map detailing locations of excavation, specified by year (Lubinski 2009:10).
Field research continued in 2006 with focus of the dig on the areas that contained bone as well as the areas that demonstrated anomalies using GPR. This second time around, mammoth and bovid bones (thought to be bison) were discovered. When a translucent chert flake was found (Catalog number 176, FS261), digging ceased until temporarily extended permission was allowed by the Assistant State Archaeologist, Stephenie Kramer, under the condition that no additional materials of possible artifact status were found (figure 7). The flake was recovered approximately 15cm above mammoth-type metapodial bone fragments, and approximately 23cm below the present soil line (Lubinski 2009:27) (figure 8).
It is interesting to note the notification process in regards to the chert flake found at Wenas after reading the Manis reports. The process mentioned in the Wenas paper clearly stated steps taken after the chert flake was found; this is presented with a sense of gravity. Although the report is generally written in a thorough
The Wenas paper describes the initial find of a mammoth humerus bone on lands located between
Figure 4: Map detail showing the approximate location of the Wenas Creek Site (Lubinski 2009:3).
Figure 5: Site location map of the Emmanuel and Clare Manis property (Gustafson et al. 1979:158): no scale is given.
find its exact location with a phonebook, or by asking directions at a café. One might speculate that perhaps a certain naivety among the public in 1978 lent itself to the broadcasting of this location. In contrast, by 2008 when the Wenas Project began, a whole generation of archaeologists and the public had the benefit of the evolution of laws controlling protocol of artifact recovery. The Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) in 1979 had already signaled a collective shift of thought regarding the protection of potential native artifacts and sites. In addition, it enforced protection for the first time with penal and punitive damages. The addition of the Cultural Property Act (CPA) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) further reflected an important change in consciousness for professionals and the public alike. One can infer that the institution of these laws, the contemporaneous public relations events such as Kennewick Man (McManamon 2004), and perhaps the proximity and familiarity with the Yakama Nation all contributed to support the professional execution of the Wenas dig.
In the field at the Wenas Creek site, circa 2008: photo courtesy of CWU Wenas Creek Mammoth Project
The Field School of Central Washington University (CWU) in Ellensburg was a primary source for research labor for the Wenas project. Work began in the summer of 2005 with the two-pronged goal of documenting the geological record of the site as well as searching for more mammoth remains. The paper describes in great detail the methods used in preparation for the excavation. Ground penetrating RADAR (GPR) was used in the initial survey and showed several anomalies; none of which appeared to be mammoth bones (Lubinski 2009:8). A 37 m long trench was dug by backhoe and hand excavation was also done (figure 6). The trenching was primarily to examine the geological stratified materials; the handpits were dug to search for bones. Hundreds of bone fragments were discovered, but no human bones or artifacts were found. Another mostly intact mammoth humerus bone was located in this season. Its provenience to the first found bone was not stated, nor was it specified if it was believed to be from the same specimen. Sediments were sampled to be used to study pollen, soil types and opal phytoliths.
Figure 6: Map detailing locations of excavation, specified by year (Lubinski 2009:10).
Field research continued in 2006 with focus of the dig on the areas that contained bone as well as the areas that demonstrated anomalies using GPR. This second time around, mammoth and bovid bones (thought to be bison) were discovered. When a translucent chert flake was found (Catalog number 176, FS261), digging ceased until temporarily extended permission was allowed by the Assistant State Archaeologist, Stephenie Kramer, under the condition that no additional materials of possible artifact status were found (figure 7). The flake was recovered approximately 15cm above mammoth-type metapodial bone fragments, and approximately 23cm below the present soil line (Lubinski 2009:27) (figure 8).
It is interesting to note the notification process in regards to the chert flake found at Wenas after reading the Manis reports. The process mentioned in the Wenas paper clearly stated steps taken after the chert flake was found; this is presented with a sense of gravity. Although the report is generally written in a thorough
  Figure 7: shown left. Artifact FS 261 (catalog# 176). This is a flake fragment from in situ in XU 12, Level 5, about 15 cm above mammoth-size metapodial FS 279. The dorsal aspect is shown. The bars at base are 1 cm each. Photo by Jake Shapley (Lubinski 2009:28, 29). Figure 8: shown right. Detail of XU 12 where Artifact FS 261 was found. Four vertebrae, a “mammoth-size” metapodial, phalanx and a bovid cannonbone are shown. The pink tape in the wall indicates the find location of the flake (mislabeled FS 259 on the photo board). Photo by Melissa Hogrefe (Lubinski 2009:28, 29). |
style, the wording here is even more specific and suggests that the writer was not merely noting the find, but also documenting that proper protocol was followed for future reference. Only after the Assistant State Archaeologist was consulted and an extension was issued did the dig continue. At this point, the report also states that the Yakama National Cultural Resource Program was notified regarding the find, and representatives from the Nation visited the site (Lubinski 2009:9). This contrast with the methods used at Manis is an important improvement in archaeological research, not only in following the legal and moral responsibilities. This thorough documentation, resulting from formatted protocol outlined by ARPA, NAGPRA and CPA, assists the researchers by formatting a clear method for research and publication. In other words, it’s easier to do the right thing when we know what the right thing is.
The school performed yet a third dig in 2007. The documented recovery of materials is brief: non-human bones and a “single probable artifact” (Catalog 327, FS479; found in soils from XU 20) were recovered using screens to sort material found in association with the area above the mammoth bone-bearing level (figure 9)
 Figure 9: Artifact FS 479 (catalog #327). This flake was found during the screening of debris in XU 20, Level 10. The ventral aspect is shown. The bars at base are 1 cm each. Photo by Jake Shapley (Lubinski 2009:28) |
In 2008 a fourth dig occurred, operating under a Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) Permit. The state of
  Figures 10 & 11 Lithic Sample FS 584 (catalog# 470), petrified wood; interpreted as possible flake. The dorsal aspect is shown at left. The bars at base are 1 cm each. Photos by Alfred Keller (Lubinski 2009:21). |
The 2008 season yielded 28 in situ bones including a mammoth sized femur (FS546) in sections XU 21 & 28, an atlas vertebra (FS59) in section XU 25 and carpals in section XU 21 (figure 12 ). Initially, the vertebra was thought to be a small sample when a portion of it was uncovered in the wall of section XU 4 in 2005. However, in 2008, it was found to be complete, intact and a surprising 39 cm in length (Lubinski 2009:23). The remainder of the Wenas Creek report describes laboratory and preservation methods, such as in depth analysis of the fractures and chips in the flakes and analytic suppositions regarding the bones and soils.
After comparing the Manis and Wenas research, I have found several points for comparison. Most notably, while the two sites have yielded similar finds, the latter was written in such a thorough manner that it lends the impression of being much more reliable, concrete and believable. In fact when looking at the basic data, Manis may have indeed yielded more stuff of archaeological interest: a nearly complete skeleton with evidence of butchery, the “Olcott” point, the chert cobble, the bone “projectile point” imbedded in the rib, the reported worked bone and ivory pieces and the evidence of successive firepits, demonstrating periodically reoccurring use. Several groups appeared to find the knoll to be a strategic vantage-point.
Figure 12: Map showing bones and artifact found in situ 2005-2008. Points
of interest include the flake in XU 12, humerus in XU 11, scapula in XU 14,
femur in XU 21, and atlas in XU 25. Map produced by Tom Winter (Lubinski
2009:31).
|
The thoroughness of a report does not necessarily insure complete accuracy. Just as a report written by Gustafson, Gilbow and Daugherty is used in support of their own findings (Gilbow et al. 1978; Gustafson et al. 1979:157), there is suggestive evidence that the Wenas report may also manipulate the reader with the use of citations. In its introduction, the Wenas report mentions several digs in
In conclusion, I cannot say with any conviction that there is proof of anything supporting human coexistence with megafauna on the
One thing that can be said with complete conviction after conducting this research project; the importance of detailed recording of information on site cannot be overstated. Once the materials of a site are excavated, they cannot be excavated a second time. Everything at a site is a part of the site, from opal phytoliths to mastodon tusks, and everything -- including the in-between -- in between. Nothing, no matter how inconsequential it may seem, should be dismissed as unworthy of recording.
__________________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
Anderson, David G., D. Shane Miller, Stephen J. Yerka, and Michael K. Faught
(2005). Paleoindian Database of the
Arksey, Laura (2008) Emanuel Manis finds mastodon tusks in Sequim on
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
Retrieved
<http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=8511>
Becker, Paula (2006). Moises Aguirre and Mark Mickles discover prehistoric
<http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=7966>
Blukis Onat, Astrida R., President, BOAS, Inc and Anna K. Fern (2011) Personal correspondence.
Retrieved March 8, 2011
Center for the study of the First Americans (No Date Given).
Photo Gallery: Manis Mastodon,
Photo retrieved
<http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/gallery/gallery-manis.php>
Croes, Dale R., S. Williams, L. Ross, M. Collard, C. Dennler and B. Varge (2008). The projectile point sequences in the Puget Sound Region. In: (R. Carslon and M. Magne eds.) Projectile point sequences in northwestern North America. Simon Fraser University Archaeology Press: 105-130.
Photos: cover and page 9, retrieved
<http://www.cwu.edu/~mammoth/> <http://www.cwu.edu/~museum/>
Gilbow, Delbert and Carl E. Gustafson (1978). The Manis Mastodon Site (45CCA218) a preliminary appraisal. 31st Annual Northwest Anthropological Conference,
Gustafson, Carl E., Delbert Gilbow and Richard D. Daugherty (1979). The Manis Mastodon Site: Early Man on the Olympic
Gustafson, C.E., S.C. Hess, J. D. Gallison, and
LeTourneau, Phillippe and Robert Stone (No Date Given). Archaeological Investigations at Stuwe'yuq - site 45K1464,
Retrieved
<http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/collections/archaeology/research.php>
Lubinski, Patrick M., (2009). The Wenas Creek Mammoth Project: 2008 Interim Archaeology Report on Excavations as 45YA1083. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
McManamon, F.P., (2004)
Retrieved
<http://www.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/>
Mackie, Quintin (2010) Puget Sound
Retrieved:
<http://qmackie.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/puget-sound-clovis/>
Mackie, Quintin (2010) Yank that sucker out! Northwest Coast Archaeology
Retrieved January 13, 2011
<http://qmackie.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/manis-mastodon-site-picture-gallery/>
Mehringer, P. J., Jr., (1988). Clovis cache found: Weapons of ancient Americans National Geographic Magazine, 174 (4):500-503
Museum & Arts Center Sequim-Dungeness Valley (No Date Given) Manis Mastodon exhibit
Photo retrieved: January 13, 2011
<http://www.macsequim.org/exhibits/45-manis-mastodon.html>
Paulson, Tom (2002).Still unresolved: The puzzle of the mastodon's bones:
Site of Sequim find and its pointed stone is donated to conservancy
Retrieved
<www.seattlepi.com/local/82038_mastodon09.shtml>
Petersen, Kenneth L., Peter J. Mehringer, Jr. and Carl E.
Gustafson (1983). Late-Glacial Vegetation and Climate at the Manis Mastodon
Site, Olympic Peninsula , Washington
(RCW 27.44 and RCW 27.53).
Department of Archaeological and Historic Preservation
RetrievedMarch 3, 2011
<http://www.dahp.wa.gov/pages/Archaeology/Permitting.htm>
(RCW 27.44 and RCW 27.53).
Department of Archaeological and Historic Preservation
Retrieved
<http://www.dahp.wa.gov/pages/Archaeology/Permitting.htm>
No comments:
Post a Comment