The 1964 Excavation
John Combes (1969) describes the process of excavating the cave. Combes served as the field director for the project. Access was difficult and the fine, dry fill made it necessary to install a generator-powered blower system as well as lighting (Combes 1969:6). Combes and his crew excavated 21 units ranging in size from 1 meter square to about 2 meters square. Most excavation was done in 20 cm levels. All eight storage pits were located in the uppermost stratigraphic level, which consisted of layers of dried grass within loess (Endacott 1992:34). The seven excavated pits were lined with grass, cedar, stones, and woven and woven and sewn matting, either alone or in various combinations. Four of the pits (numbers 2, 3, 4, and 7) represented either a single use or had been completely cleaned prior to reuse. Pits number 1 and 5 had five distinct layers indicating that reuse was shallower. Pit number 6 had four layers.
Endacott’s Reanalysis
Combes (1969) submitted a preliminary report to the National Park Service. Dr. Neal Endacott (1992), then a graduate student at WSU, reanalyzed 165 of the 421 artifacts recovered. He submitted samples of plant remains which had served as lining for four storage pits for radiocarbon dating and obtained absolute dates ranging from 1750±150 B.P. to 405±80 B.P. He integrated this information into inferences about site function and its relationship to other sites along the Lower Snake River and concluded that pre-contact use of the site took place primarily during the Harder Phase (2500 B.P. to 700 B.P.). Possible earlier use during the Tucannon Phase is based on projectile points found below the radiocarbon dated material (see Leonhardy and Rice 1970 for Lower Snake River Typology).
Storage Pit Dimensions (source: Endacott 1992:41, Table 1; modified from Combes 1969:8).
| Pit # | Maximum Depth Below Surface (m) | Diameter (m) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.01 | ~ 1.5 | Five or more grass-lined layers; 1A Elymus sp.; 1D Equisetum sp.; Deeper (earlier) layers had larger diameters |
| 2 | 0.70? | ~ 1.9 | Maximum depth uncertain; Lined with grass, matting, and possibly sagebrush bark (Artemisia sp.) |
| 3 | 0.52 | ~1.0 | Line with sewn tule (Scirpus sp.) |
| 4 | 0.70 | 0.25 | Small pit, placed in Pit #6 |
| 5 | 1.20 | 1.5 | Five or more successive layers; one burned grass liner found; Layer 1 lined with unidentified grass; layer 3 lined with Elymus sp. Deeper (earlier) layers had larger diameters |
| 6 | 1.00 | ~1.3 | Four layers; lined with grass, wood, and stone; Deeper (earlier) layers had larger diameters |
| 7 | 0.46 | 1.3 | Grass-lined; reached bedrock |
| 8 | ? | ? | Railroad fill and unstable sediments; not excavated |
Faunal Remains
Most faunal remains from Squirt Cave were not analyzed in detail and remain unanalyzed. Endacott (1992) briefly inspected these in order to describe the kinds of remains recovered. These include medium and large mammal bones which had been butchered but not charred. One bison bone, a second phalanx, was identified and suggests local procurement of bison.
Other fauna recovered include freshwater mussels, a coyote skeleton, rodents and other small mammals. Twelve fish vertebrae were recovered, of which eleven are from salmon. One of these came from storage pit number 5; the others could not be clearly associated with a storage pit.