Cultural Resource Investigations Near White Crack, Island-In-The-Sky

I 29.86/3: 1

Cultural Resource Investigations Near White Crack, Island-in-the-Sky District, Canyonlands National Park, Utah PUBUC DOCUMENTS DEPOSITORY ITEM by JAN 15 1999 CLEMSON Betsy L. Tipps, Andre D. La Fond, and Robert I. yirnie library

CULTURAL RESOURCE SELECTIONS No. 11 INTERMOUNTAIN REGION 1996 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 30273-101 - REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1. REPORT NO. 3. Recipient * Accession No PAGE 411-02-9617

4. "Title and Subtitle 5. Report Data Cultural Resource Investigations Near White Crack, September 1996 Island-in-the Sky District, Canyonlands National Park, Utah

7. Authors) 8. Performing Organization Rapt. No. Betsy L. Tipps, Andre' D. La Fond, and Robert I. Birnie CRR 411-02-9617

». Performing Organization Nam* and Address 10. Proi*ct/Te»k/Work Unit No.

P-III Associates, Inc. 11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) 2759 South 300 West No. Salt Lake City, UT 84115 (O CX 1200-4-A063

(G)

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report A Period Covered National Park Service 1991-1996 Intermountain Regional Office Final Report 12795 West Alameda Parkway 14. Lakewood, CO 80225

IS. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)

This document is the final report of cultural resource inventory, limited testing, and collections research in the Island-in-the- Sky District, Canyonlands National Park, Utah. The area has a high site density that appears to be related to the presence of a major access route and the abundance of natural chert sources. Most sites are short-term camps or limited-activity loci associated with the use of the local toolstone sources. Many were also used for domestic activities and restocking mobile toolkits. The lack of permanent water sources, arable land, and firewood, and the exposed project setting were major deterrents to long-term occupation. Use was probably during the warm seasons and timed to coincide with the availability of water in potholes. Research issues are addressed regarding Chronology and Cultural Affiliation, Settlement Patterns, and Environmental Adaptation. The results challenge many earlier interpretations about area prehistory, particularly regarding chronology, resources, and settlement patterns. A model of toolstone procurement and use is presented. The Canyonlands toolstone typology is revised and problem areas are identified. The results of radiocarbon and flotation studies on open lithic sites are given. Finally, the usefulness of the Gateway Tradition for interpreting prehistoric sites in the park is assessed.

17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors /cultural resources inventory /cultural resources testing/archaeology /archaeological studies/prehistoric remains/field investigations/historic preservation/lithic studies/ lithic analyses

b. Identifiers/Open Ended Term* /Canyonlands Archeological Project/Southwestern Archaeology /Canyonlands National Park/ Island-in-the-Sky/Archaic/Formative/Chipped Stone Analyses

c. COSATI Held/Group "• A*....*"* stataman; Available from National Technical 19. Security Class (This Report) 21. No. of Pages Information Service, Operations Division, 5285 Unclassified Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161 20. Security Class (This Pago) 22. Price Unclassified

(SMANSt-Z39.lt) See Instructions on Reverse OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-; (Formerly NTIS-35) Department of Commerce Cultural Resource Investigations Near White Crack, Island-in-the-Sky District, Canyonlands National Park, Utah

Betsy L. Tipps, Andre D. La Fond, and Robert I. Birnie

with contributions by

Susan C. Kenzle, Nancy J. Coulam, Daniel K. Newsome, and Scott M. Whitesides

Submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract CX 1 200-4-A063

National Park Service Intermountain Regional Office P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225

Submitted by

P-III Associates, Inc. 2759 South 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 841 15-2932

Cultural Resources Report 41 1-02-9617 Permit U-90-PD-161N

1996 White Crack project area and surround- Cover Illustration: Artistic landform map showing the the right of the drawing. Adapted from An ing areas of Canyonlands National Park. North is to Floyd Sharrock, University of Utah Archeological Survey of Canyonlands National Park, by University of Utah Press. Anthropological Paper 83, 1966. Map appears courtesy of the FOREWORD

The National Park Service, Intermoun- Almost all of the recorded sites are lithic tain Region, is pleased to present this scatters or lithic source sites. Lithic scatters volume as the latest in a series of reports are the most common type of archeological concerning prehistoric and historic cultural site in the park, and indeed in most parks in resources in regional parks. This volume is the Intermountain West; yet, they are often the third in the series to report on archeologi- overlooked in favor of more spectacular sites cal investigations in Canyonlands National with architecture and ceramics. This report

Park. The two earlier volumes concerned the demonstrates that there is tremendous vari- archeology of the Needles District; this vol- ability within this site category. It also docu- ume presents new data on the lesser known ments that such sites have significant

Island-in-the-Sky District. The results of the research potential and that their study is es- work significantly challenge earlier interpre- sential to understanding the full range of pre- tations regarding the chronology of occupa- historic lifeways in the region. I am pleased tion, the cultural groups that occupied the to make this information available to other area, and the types of activities that took researchers and the interested public. place. Despite the small size of the project and insubstantial nature of most sites, detailed site recording and thoughtful analyses that incorporated ethnographic models allowed the researchers to derive more substan- John E. Cook tive interpretations and conclusions than is Regional Director typical for such projects. Intermountain Region

Mission: As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural and cultural resources. This includes fostering wise use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The Department also promotes the goals of the Take Pride in America cam- paign by encouraging stewardship and citizen responsibility for the public lands and promoting citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a major responsibility for American

Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. Admini- stration. NPS-D-1 17.

in IV ABSTRACT

This document is the final technical tools, and restocking mobile toolkits. Forag- report of archeologicai investigations ing, with planned use of the lithic sources in the White Crack Area, Island-in-the-Sky embedded in the season round, is inferred as District, Canyonlands National Park, Utah. the primary mode of adaptation during most

This work was undertaken as part of a multi- of prehistory. The area is not suitable for ag- year contract being conducted by P-III Asso- riculture. This, the lack of permanent water ciates, Inc., for the National Park Service. sources, the exposed environmental setting, The goals of the multiyear project are to col- and the lack of plants suitable for firewood lect information to improve the park's inter- were major deterrents to long-term or year- pretive program and guide management round occupation. Most prehistoric use was decisions, and addressing scientific research probably during the warm seasons and timed issues. to coincide with the reliable availability of

The project involved inventory of 726 acres water in potholes along the White Rim. on and below the White Rim, limited testing Research issues are identified and ad- of eight features on five sites, and reanalysis dressed in three major problem domains: of an existing lithic collection recovered from Chronology and Cultural Affiliation, Settle- a large open site by the National Park Ser- ment Patterns, and Environmental Adapta- vice. Almost all of the recorded sites were tion. The results substantially challenge many lithic scatters or lithic source sites dating of Sharrock's (1966) interpretations about from the Archaic through the Late Prehistoric/ Island-in-the-Sky prehistory, particularly re-

Protohistoric periods. The inventory revealed garding chronology, site function, settlement a relatively high site density that appears to patterns, and toolstone availability. Toolstone be related to the presence of an access route procurement and processing strategies are between the White Rim and the subrim can- analyzed and reconstructed to develop a yons and benchlands, as well as the abun- model of toolstone use in the project area. In dance of numerous Cedar Mesa Chert and addition, the Canyonlands chipped stone raw Chalcedony sources on the benches below material typology developed during earlier the White Rim. phases of the project is revised, and problem

Despite the high site density, occupation areas requiring additional research are identi- was short term and intermittent during all pe- fied. The report also includes the results of riods. Most sites are camps or limited-activity additional radiocarbon and flotation studies loci associated with the procurement, reduc- on hearths and a cultural stratum on open tion, heat treatment, and manufacture and lithic scatter sites. Finally, it provides an as- maintenance of tools from the local toolstone. sessment of whether the Gateway Tradition is

Many sites were also used for domestic ac- a useful concept for interpreting prehistoric tivities such as cooking, repairing broken sites in the park. Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation

VI http://archive.org/details/culturalresourceOOtipp ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work reported here was funded by Botts. We appreciate their speedy response to the National Park Service, Rocky our request and willing cooperation. Mountain Regional Office, under contract Many of P-III Associates' permanent and CX-1200-4-A063. We especially thank seasonal staff members worked on the pro- Adrienne B. Anderson, the contract officer's ject. We especially thank the field crew, technical representative, for her active inter- K. Renee Barlow, Larry L. Hause, and Gary M. est in the project. She not only provided tech- Popek, and volunteer Steven J. Manning for nical advice, she visited the crew in the field, doing an excellent and efficient job. They did assisted with the hearth testing, and helped high-quality work and maintained their sense pack flotation samples up the steep trail out of humor despite the heat, the driving rains, of White Crack Canyon. Former Canyon- and a vicious June snowstorm with 100-mile- lands archeologist Chas Cartwright coordi- per-hour winds that flooded our camp, shred- nated our work with the park, gave us the ded our tents, and left us wishing for home. best campsite in the Island, and spent a day In the laboratory, Mr. Popek prepared the working with the field crew. Nancy J. project topographic maps, calculated loca- Coulam, the current Canyonlands archeolo- tional information, edited and checked the gist, analyzed the flotation samples and wrote site forms and photographs, coded the site up the results for inclusion in this report. She data, compiled the figures, and performed nu- also reviewed the report and provided com- merous other laboratory tasks. Artifacts from ments. We appreciate her help. the White Crack site were analyzed by During the last few days of the field- Kenneth L. Lawrence, M. Kate Stratford, and work, we were joined by the Northern Ari- Scott M. Whitesides under the direction of zona University paleoenvironmental team Andre D. La Fond. Mr. La Fond subse- composed of Larry D. Agenbroad, Jim I. quently prepared a chapter on the analysis Mead, and several of their students. Besides for inclusion in this report. Douglas W. entertaining the crew with stories of ground Bird and Katharine C. Stroh floated the bulk sloths and mammoths, they collected and samples. analyzed pack rat middens from the project Robert I. Birnie researched and wrote area. The results of their study are incorpo- a chapter on the environmental setting. rated in the paleoenvironmental reconstruc- Susan C. Kenzle summarized the field notes tion in Chapter 2. on features for a section in Chapter 4. As part of the project, we were asked to Daniel K. Newsome conducted various labo- reanalyze an assemblage of artifacts collected ratory tasks and wrote a description of the

from the White Crack site by archeologists project's legal location based on the field from the National Park Service, Midwest Ar- topographic maps prepared by Mr. Popek.

cheological Center. The loan was graciously David A. McCullough cataloged the artifacts approved by F. A. Calabrese, arranged by and samples into the National Park Service

Ralph J. Hartley, and processed by Rene ANCS database. Sheryl D. Dowden handled

VII ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ANCS and other database compilation and also helped with editing and proofreading the processing. report and compiling the site forms. Our

Lisa M. Jarrow, Ms. Kenzle, and Greg H. thanks to all of these staff members for their

Miller drafted the figures and maps. Jeremy J. contribution to the project.

Main prepared the cover art. Michelle A. Sanders typed and proofread the site forms and other project records. Debbie A. Fluckiger and Julie A. Mann performed Betsy L. Tipps, Project Director word processing and desktop publishing for Alan R. Schroedl, Principal Investigator the final report. Ms. Fluckiger and Ms. Stroh 1996

VIII .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD iii

ABSTRACT v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi

LIST OF FIGURES , xv

LIST OF TABLES xvii

Chapter

1 INTRODUCTION (by Betsy L. Tipps) 1

Project Location 2

Project Background 4

Culture Historical Overview 5

Paleoindian Period 6 Archaic Period 6 Preformative Period 10

Early and Late Formative Periods 13 Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Period 14 Historic Period (by Susan C. Kenzlej 15

Methods 16

Field Procedures 16 Laboratory Procedures 17

Curation 19

Report Organization 19

2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (by Robert I. Birnie) 21

Geologic and Physiographic Setting 21

Water Resources 25

IX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (continued)

Climate 26

Soils 27

Vegetation 30

Fauna 32

Paleoenvironmental Studies 32

Pack Rat Midden Studies 39 Paleoenvironmental Summary 40

Summary 41

3. RESEARCH ORIENTATION (by Betsy L.Tipps) 43

Chronology and Cultural Affiliation 45

Settlement Patterns 48

Environmental Adaptation 51

4. SUMMARY OF THE SITES (by Betsy L. Tipps) 53

Summary of the Sites by Descriptive Type 55

Lithic Scatters 56

Lithic Scatters with Features 58 Lithic Source Areas 59

Other Site Types 60

Summary by Age and Cultural Group 61

Site Occupational Histories 63

Summary of Activities Represented 66

Lithic Procurement Strategies 66 Raw Material Procurement and Reduction 68 Heat Treatment of Toolstone 68 Retooling and Restocking of Mobile Toolkits 70 General Camping and Subsistence Activities 70 Ranching Activities 72

Final Comments 72 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

5. SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES (by Betsy L. Tipps) 73

Artifacts 73

Chipped Stone Artifacts 74 Groundstone Artifacts 97 Miscellaneous Stone Artifacts 98 Ceramic Artifacts 98 Modern Euroamerican Artifacts 99 Summary and Discussion 99

Features (by Susan C. Kenzle) 102

Hearths 102

Rock Concentrations 1 04

Fire-cracked Rock Concentration 1 04 Smoke Blackening 104 Midden 104 Cultural Stratum 105

Petroglyph Panel 1 05 Surface Structure 105 Tent Platform 105 Wood Pile 106 Conclusions 106

6. RESULTS OF THE TESTING (by Betsy L. Tipps) 109

Site42SA21285 110

Site42SA21291 Ill

Site42SA21267 113

Site42SA21263 116

Site42SA21269 118

Macrobotanical Remains and Prehistoric Plant Use (by Nancy J. Coulam) 121

Results 121

Flotation Analysis Summary and Conclusions 124

Descriptive Summary 125

XI TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

7. REANALYSIS OF THE WHITE CRACK SITE CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE (by Andre D. La Fond) 127

Introduction (by Betsy L. Tipps) 127

Site Description and Setting 127 Summary of Previous Work 129 Constraints on the Reanalysis 130 Synopsis of the Results 131

Research Issues 131

Chronology and Cultural Affiliation 132 Settlement Patterns 132 Environmental Adaptation 134

Methodological Perspective 134

Raw Material 135 Chipped Stone Tools 136 Cores 137 Debitage 137

Analytical Methods 137

Raw Material and Heat Treatment Analysis 137 Chipped Stone Tool and Core Analysis 139 Chipped Stone Debitage Analysis 142

Results 144

Chipped Stone Tool and Core Results 144 Chipped Stone Debitage Results 152

Spatial Analysis Results 159

Research Results 1 70

Chronology and Cultural Affiliation 170

Settlement Patterns 1 70 Environmental Adaptation 173

8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS (by Betsy L. Tipps) 177

Management Recommendations 181

Research Results 182

Chronology and Cultural Affiliation 1 82 Settlement Patterns 192

XII TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS (continued)

Environmental Adaptation 199

REFERENCES CITED 203

Appendix

A. LEGAL LOCATIONS OF THE INVENTORY AREA (by Daniel K. Newsome) (Limited Distribution) A-l

B. CORRELATION OF TEMPORARY FIELD NUMBERS AND PERMANENT SMITHSONIAN SITE NUMBERS B-l

C. TABULAR SITE DATA C-l

D. CATALOG OF ISOLATED FINDS D-l

E. DESCRIPTION OF RAW MATERIALS IN THE WHITE CRACK SITE CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE (by Scott M. Whitesides) E-l

XIII XIV .

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. General location of the White Crack Area, and several other places mentioned

in the report 3

2. View of the White Rim Uplands Parcel showing the gently sloping tablelands on

the White Rim and the predominately blackbrush vegetation 22

3. A cliff face and talus slope in the White Rim Uplands Parcel 23

4. View of the White Crack Benchlands Parcel showing the bedrock outcrops, the

sparse Mormon tea and shadscale vegetation, and lag deposits of Cedar Mesa

Chert 24

5. Overview of the White Crack Benchlands Parcel showing the dissected

topography and lag outcrops of Cedar Mesa Chert 25

6. Potholes filled with water in the White Rim Uplands Parcel 26

7. Sheet sands and grassland vegetation on the White Rim 28

8. Shallow soils overlying bedrock on the White Rim 29

9. Lenticular bed of Cedar Mesa Chert in the White Crack Area 77

10. Close-up of a Cedar Mesa Chert outcrop in the White Crack Area 78

1 1 Selected projectile points discovered on sites in the White Crack Area 85

12. Selected scrapers from the White Crack Area 92

13. Selected modified flakes from the White Crack Area 93

14. Flaked and battered pebble from site 42SA2 1275 98

15. Petroglyph panel at site 42SA2 1262 106

16. View of Feature 9, slab-lined hearth at site 42SA21291 after partial excavation . . 1 14

xv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

17. Plan map and profi'e of Feature 9, slab-lined hearth, and Feature 11,

unlined hearth, at site 42SA2 1291 115

18. Plan map and profile of Feature 1, slab-lined hearth, at site 42SA2 1267 117

19. Plan map and profile of Feature 15, unlined hearth, at site 42SA2 1267 118

20. Plan map and profile of Feature 2, slab- lined hearth, at site 42SA21263 1 19

21. View of Feature 2, slab-lined hearth, at site 42SA21263 after excavation of the

northwestern quarter 120

22. Selected projectile points 147

23. Selected indeterminate projectile point or projectile point preform tips 148

24. Edged flake blank 148

25. Selected bifaces 149

26. Late-stage projectile point preforms 151

27. Expedient perforator 151

28. Random core 152

29. Distribution of White Crack Area radiocarbon dates by temporal period 192

XVI .

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Cultural chronology used to place sites in a cultural and temporal framework ... 6

2. Summary of Oshara Tradition cultural periods (Irwin-Williams 1973) 8

3. Summary of Archaic-age Uncompahgre Complex phases and assemblages

(Buckles 1971) 9

4. Summary of northern Colorado Plateau cultural periods (Schroedl 1976, 1992) . . 9

5. Summary of Anasazi periods 13

6. Summary of San Rafael Fremont phases (Black and Metcalf 1986) 14

7. Summary of Eastern Ute phases (Reed 1988) 14

8. Plant taxa identified in the project area 31

9. Mammals known to inhabit Canyonlands National Park 33

10. Birds known to inhabit the Canyonlands area 35

1 1 Radiocarbon dates from pack rat midden samples collected in and near the

White Crack Area, Canyonlands National Park, Utah 40

12. Frequency of sites and recognized components by age and cultural affiliation ... 55

13. Frequency of sites and components by time period and descriptive site type .... 57

14. Sizes of prehistoric sites in the White Crack Area 65

15. Summary of isolated finds discovered in the White Crack Area 75

16. Number and percent of sites by selected chipped stone materials and relative

abundance 83

17. Frequency and percent of bifaces by stage and completeness 88

18. Dimensions of bifaces by material type and stage 89

19. Debitage abundance by I MACS types on sites with debitage 96

xvii LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

20. Dimensions of discrete features tested in the White Crack Area Ill

21. Radiocarbon dates from the White Crack Area 112

22. Provenience of flotation samples from tested features in the White Crack Area ... 122

23. Burned macroplant remains identified in flotation samples from tested hearths in

the White Crack Area 123

24. Type, material, and measurements of chipped stone tools and cores, White

Crack site 145

25. Fragment, fracture, retouch, and heat treatment data for chipped stone tools and

cores, White Crack site 146

26. Frequencies of all debitage by material type and debitage type, White Crack site . . 153

27. Frequencies of diagnostic debitage by material type and debitage type, White

Crack site 154

28. Frequencies of heat-treated debitage by material type and debitage type, based

on strict criterion of differential luster, White Crack site 158

29. Frequencies of chipped stone tools and cores by type and major provenience

unit, White Crack site 161

30. Frequencies of diagnostic debitage by material and debitage types for major

provenience units, White Crack site 163

31. Debitage counts and weights by major provenience unit, White Crack site 166

32. Counts and weights of diagnostic debitage by debitage type and major

provenience unit, White Crack site 167

33. Frequencies of diagnostic Cedar Mesa Chert debitage by debitage type in

Units 76, 78, and 79 of Transect 2, White Crack site 168

34. Counts and weights of diagnostic Cedar Mesa Chert debitage by debitage type

in Units 76, 78, and 79 of Transect 2, White Crack site 169

B-l. Correlation of temporary field numbers and permanent Smithsonian site numbers . . B-3

C-l. Location of each site by inventory area and geographic location C-3

XVIII LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

C-2. List of sites and their cultural affiliation and age C-4

C-3. List of sites and their descriptive types C-5

C-4. Number and type of artifacts on prehistoric sites and components C-6

C-5. Number and type of features on prehistoric sites C-8

D- 1. Catalog of isolated finds (IFs) in the White Crack Area D-3

XIX XX Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

by Betsy L. Tipps

This report documents two aspects of open lithic scatter. This assemblage com- the Canyonlands Archeological Pro- prises 18 tools, 2 cores, and 9269 pieces of ject: a cultural resource inventory and limited debitage. These laboratory tasks were under-

testing project in the Island-in-the-Sky Dis- taken during the last half of 1995 and the

trict of Canyonlands National Park, and re- first half of 1996. analysis of a lithic artifact assemblage The Canyonlands Archeological Project

collected by the Midwest Archeological Cen- is a multiyear cultural resource program that

ter from the White Crack site (42SA 17597), P-III Associates, Inc. (P-III Associates), is

which is adjacent to the inventory area. The undertaking on behalf of the National Park

fieldwork involved pedestrian inventory of Service in Canyonlands National Park, south-

726 acres near White Crack on and below the eastern Utah. The primary focus of this cul-

White Rim, and limited testing of eight fea- tural resources program is collecting tures. The crew discovered and recorded 37 archeological information that will enhance

sites, mostly open lithic scatters, and 44 iso- the park's interpretive program and increase lated finds; testing was conducted on 4 slab- visitor understanding and appreciation of the lined hearths, 3 unlined hearths, and a park's human past (National Park Service cultural stratum. The fieldwork was con- 1984). Other objectives of the project are ducted by a crew of four to five archeologists evaluating the existing database, collecting

between April 19 and May 4, 1990. basic descriptive and comparative informa- The laboratory phase of the investigation, addressing scientific research questions, tions involved analysis and write-up of the and providing data for planning and manage-

field inventory and testing, as well as reanal- ment actions. Field inventory is the founda- ysis and write-up of the chipped stone assem- tion for accomplishing these goals, but the

blage from the White Crack site, a large, Canyonlands Archeological Project also INTRODUCTION

includes archival research, analyses of exist- in northwestern San Juan, eastern Wayne,

ing collections, and limited testing of discrete and extreme northeastern Garfield counties in

features such as hearths, accompanied by ra- southeastern Utah (Figure 1). The park com- diocarbon dating and flotation analysis. The prises three districts: the Needles, east of the project is being conducted under Contract Colorado River in San Juan County; the CX-1 200-4-A063 between the National Park Maze, west of the Colorado and Green rivers Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, in Wayne and Garfield counties; and Island- and P-III Associates. in-the-Sky, the large, triangular area between

The Canyonlands Archeological Project the Green and Colorado rivers in San Juan

is part of a larger, multidisciplinary, multi- County. The project area discussed in this re-

contractor research program that has been un- port lies in the southern part of the Island-in-

dertaken in the park during the past 1 5 years. the-Sky District.

To date, the multidisciplinary efforts have in- Positioned between the confluence of the

cluded paleoenvironmental investigations Green and Colorado rivers, the Island-in-the-

(e.g., Agenbroad et al. 1990; Agenbroad and Sky District has immense topographic vari-

Mead 1992), ruins stabilization (e.g., Firor ation, much of which resembles a two-tiered

1986a, 1986b, 1988; Firor and Eininger 1987; wedding cake. The highest and smallest tier

Gaunt and Eininger 1987; Metzger et al. is formed by a gently undulating upland mesa

1989), rock art documentation (Noxon and top, the Island-in-the-Sky, and its southern Marcus 1982, 1985), historic site studies extension, Grandview Point. The intermediate

(Mehls and Mehls 1986), large-scale invento- level is a relatively narrow benchland known ries (Griffin 1984; Hartley 1980; Osborn et as the White Rim. Below the White Rim are

al. 1986), and data recovery excavations canyons, ledges, benches, and dissected to- (Dominguez 1988, 1990, 1991, 1994; Horn pography leading down to the Green and

1990; Osborn 1995; Reed 1993). To date, Colorado rivers. Vertical cliffs restrict access

P-III Associates' contribution to this effort in- between the various levels to only a few

cludes cultural resource inventory in the Salt trails. The project area is on the southern end Creek Pocket (Tipps and Hewitt 1989) and of the White Rim and extends into the rugged Butler Flat (Tipps 1996) areas; inventory and benchland and canyon country below the rim

limited testing in the Squaw Butte (Tipps (see Figure 1). The area above the White

1995), Devils Lane (Tipps and Hewitt 1989), Rim is referred to here as the White Rim Up- and Big Pocket and Upper Salt Creek (Tipps lands Parcel, whereas the area below the rim

and Schroedl 1990) areas in the Needles Dis- is called the White Crack Benchlands Parcel.

trict; limited testing of site 42WN1666 in the These contiguous parcels together compose Maze District (Brown 1987); evaluations of the White Crack Area reported on here. De-

existing records and collections at the park tailed descriptions of the project area are pre-

(Lucius 1989): and investigations regarding sented in Appendix A. Maps showing the

the age of the Barrier Canyon rock art style exact location of the inventory area are cu-

(Tipps 1995). rated at the Southeast Utah Group Museum

in Arches National Park, Moab, Utah, and the Project Location National Park Service, Midwest Archeologi- cal Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Canyonlands National Park surrounds the Throughout this report, "Island-in-the- confluence of the Colorado and Green rivers Sky" and "the Island" apply to the National INTRODUCTION

Figure 1 . General location of the White Crack Area, and several other places mentioned in the report. INTRODUCTION

Park Service Island-in-the-Sky District. Ref- there than in the other park districts. The Na- erences to the mesa forming the highest tier tional Park Service decided that collecting

of the Island-in-the-Sky District, which is the baseline data and comparative information

Island-in-the-Sky, always include a descrip- from a lesser known district was a higher pri- tion or qualifier noting that reference is being ority for the last year of fieldwork on the

made to the highest mesa in the district, not Canyonlands Archeological Project than ob- the district itself. "Island-in-the-Sky uplands" taining additional information from the Nee- designates the upper level of the Island-in- dles. Island-in-the-Sky was chosen instead of the-Sky District and the adjacent uplands the Maze because much more inventory work

north of the park (e.g., along State Route had been conducted in the Maze (Hogan et

313). "The project region" refers to a loosely al. 1975; Losee and Lucius 1975) than Island- bounded area that extends approximately in-the-Sky (Sharrock 1966). 40 km in each direction from the White Relatively few cultural resource projects

Crack Area. had been carried out in the Island-in-the-Sky District before our investigations, and spe- Project Background cific information on the extant types of prehistoric sites and cultural manifestations was The National Park Service selected in- limited. The previous projects included early ventory areas and work tasks for the Canyon- reconnaissance inventories (Gunnerson 1958, lands Archeological Project for management, 1969; Losee and Lucius 1975; Rudy 1952; interpretive, or comparative purposes, or a Sharrock 1966), stabilization efforts (Firor thereof. Areas selected for man- combination and Eininger 1987; Gaunt and Eininger agement reasons were scheduled for con- 1987), and compliance inventories for fences, struction of facilities or subject to such new roads, campgrounds, and other facilities heavy visitation that an inventory of the sites (Anderson 1986; Cartwright 1987, 1988; their condition was needed and assessment of Lindsay and Madsen 1973; Vetter 1985a, for use in formulating and implementing 1989; Vetter and Osborn 1993), but none of resource protection plans. Areas de- sound these provided a detailed or thorough per- lineated for interpretive reasons were sus- spective on Island-in-the-Sky archeology. information that could be pected to contain The multiyear, Island-in-the-Sky road used to improve the park's interpretive pro- project included several inventories gram. Finally, areas chosen for comparative (Calabrese 1984; Hartley 1980; Lindsay and reasons were poorly known, and work in Madsen 1973; Thiessen 1984; Vetter 1985b, those areas was expected to help identify 1986) and three seasons of data recovery ex- overall variability in the park's archeological cavations (Osborn 1995). A 241 -acre inven- record. tory was carried out by a University of The work reported in this volume was Nebraska field school in conjunction with the conceived primarily for management and road project to obtain comparative informa- comparative reasons. Most recent archeologi- tion (Osborn 1984, 1995:1). This work initi- cal in the park, including almost all work ated a modern foundation on open site previous investigations conducted as part of archeology in the Island-in-the-Sky District. the Canyonlands Archeological Project, had However, it, like most other previous archeo- taken place in the Needles District, so much logical projects in Island-in-the-Sky, took more was known about prehistoric occupation place on the mesa forming the upper layer of INTRODUCTION the district. As a result of the previous work, Culture Historical something was known about the archeology Overview of the Island-in-the-Sky mesa top and the Green and Colorado river corridors, but very Numerous studies conducted in the pro- little was known about the White Rim level, ject region have defined the broad parameters and even less was known about the rugged of area history and prehistory (e.g., Berry canyon country between the White Rim and 1975; Black et al. 1982; Copeland 1986; the rivers. This lack of existing information Davis and Westfall 1991; Davis et al. 1989; and the heavy increase in visitor use of the Hogan et al. 1975; Hohmann and Hotopp

White Rim trail are why the National Park 1990; Horn 1990; Keller 1975; Lipe 1975; Service chose the White Rim and subrim Louthan 1990; Lucius 1976; Montgomery canyon country for our investigations. 1989; Montgomery et al. 1982; Osborn 1995;

The National Park Service decided to fo- Reed 1990, 1993; Tipps 1991, 1995, 1996; cus our work in the White Crack Area of the Tipps and Hewitt 1989; Westfall 1987). A White Rim for several practical reasons. brief, general outline of local culture history is presented to set the context for the First, it is one of the few places where there below is access between the White Rim and the research design presented in Chapter 3. This subrim, canyon-benchland environment; this outline mentions all major culture historical led the National Park Service to suspect that schemes that have been applied to the area by the White Crack Area would have a large past researchers, even though some are of number of sites. Second, our work could be questionable utility for describing, under- compared with that recently conducted by the standing, or explaining the local situation.

Midwest Archeological Center at the nearby The appropriateness of these schemes will be

White Crack site (Vetter 1987, 1989; Vetter discussed in the final chapter. More informa- and Osborn 1993). Because of the limited tion on local prehistory can be found in size and scope of both projects, focusing our Davis et al. (1989), Lindsay (1976), Pierson investigations in the same area would provide (1981), and Reed (1990). Mehls and Mehls an opportunity to integrate the results, and al- (1986), Osborn (1995), Pierson (1981), and low us to develop a more comprehensive Tanner (1976) discuss local history in greater view of local prehistory than could be detail. achieved by either project alone. Reanalysis Previous investigations in the project re- of the lithic assemblage from the White gion have documented a relatively high site

Crack site was included in the project scope density and a long history of human occupa- to facilitate integration of the project results. tion stretching from the Paleoindian period

Finally, the campground at White Crack is through modern times. The general area is very popular and the National Park Service thought to have been occupied at various wanted to find out what cultural resources times by Paleoindian, Archaic, Anasazi, Fre- exist near the campground and whether they mont, Ute, Southern Paiute, and Euroameri- are being impacted by park visitors. can peoples, with the majority of known sites dating to the last two millennia.

Table 1 presents the cultural chronology used for our Island-in-the-Sky investigations.

The periods and ages presented in the table are consistent with those used on other INTRODUCTION

Table 1 . Cultural chronology used to place sites in a cultural and temporal framework.

General Time Period Possible Cultural Affiliations Approximate Calendrical Age Paleoindian Paleoindian 12,250 B.C. 7800 B.C. Early Archaic Archaic 7800 B.C. 5100 B.C. Middle Archaic Archaic 5100 B.C. 3300 B.C. Late Archaic Archaic 3300 B.C. 1500 B.C. Terminal Archaic Archaic 1500 B.C. 300 B.C.

Pre formative Archaic, Basketmaker II, 300 B.C. A.D. 500 ancestral Fremont, other

Early Formative Anasazi, Fremont, other A.D. 500 - A.D. 1000

Late Formative Anasazi, Fremont, other A.D. 1000 - A.D. 1300

Late Prehistoric/ Ute, Paiute, Navajo, Hopi A.D. 1100 - A.D. 1775 Protohistoric

phases of the Canyonlands Archeological Regional Paleoindian subsistence-

Project (e.g., Tipps 1995, 1996; Tipps and settlement systems are thought to have em- Hewitt 1989), with a few minor changes. The phasized a highly mobile, big game hunting starting and ending dates for each period are strategy (Schroedl 1991:9) but probably in- approximations, especially in situations cluded the use of other resources to varying where the diagnostic traits of a succeeding degrees. Artifacts diagnostic of the Paleoin- period were adopted gradually. dian period have yet to be found with the remains of Pleistocene megafauna on the Paleoindian Period northern Colorado Plateau, but numerous Pleistocene megafauna localities are known The earliest archeological remains in the (Agenbroad 1991; Schroedl 1991: Figure 6), project region are assigned to the Paleoindian and their distribution is approximately coinci- period, which dates from approximately dent with that of the Paleoindian artifacts 12,250 to 8,000 B.C. This poorly understood (Schroedl 1991:9). Based on the geographic period is presently known on the basis of propinquity of diagnostic Paleoindian arti- only two sites (Davis 1985, 1989; Davis and facts and megafauna remains, Schroedl Brown 1986) and a few dozen Paleoindian (1991) hypothesizes that the canyon environ- projectile points from isolated locations and ment in the dissected Canyonlands area sites of more recent age (e.g., Black et al. would have been ideal for megafauna and, by 1982; Copeland and Fike 1988; Hauck 1991; implication, should have been an important Hunt 1953; Hunt and Tanner 1960; locus of Paleoindian occupation. Montgomery et al. 1982; Schroedl 1991; Senulis 1987; Steward 1933; Tipps 1995; Archaic Period Tripp 1966). Diagnostic Paleoindian artifacts include various fluted points, and several va- The Archaic period dates from approxi- rieties of constricted base and shouldered mately 7800 to 300 B.C. and was charac- points. terized by a more broad-based adaptation to

an essentially modern environment. There is INTRODUCTION insufficient evidence to identify whether of numerous seasonally available plant and there was continuity between Paleoindian and animal resources. Regional variants, several

Archaic peoples, but the Archaic lifeway be- of which potentially occur in or around the gan earlier in some portions of the northern project region, were subsequently defined by

Colorado Plateau than others. Schroedl researchers working in different areas (e.g., (1991) implies that people practicing Paleoin- Buckles 1971; Irwin-Williams 1973). More dian and Archaic lifeways may have coex- recently, researchers have increasingly em- isted on the northern Colorado Plateau at phasized the role of climatic fluctuations, re- approximately 8000 B.C., each occupying a gional environmental differences, and varying different environmental niche. In this sce- resource availability in identifying local nario, the people practicing a Paleoindian adaptive strategies through time. lifeway are inferred to have occupied well- Several cultural-historical frameworks watered canyons and high altitude refugia are said to be potentially applicable to that could still support Pleistocene mega- the Archaic remains of the project area. fauna, while the people following an Archaic Montgomery (1989:16) notes that artifacts lifeway occupied more open, desertlike set- from the area "... show cultural and techno- tings. logical similarities with the Plains Archaic,

Not too many years ago, it was com- Desert Archaic Tradition, Uncompahgre monly believed that large areas of the project Complex, and Oshara Tradition." The Oshara region were unoccupied during the Archaic Tradition (Irwin- Williams 1973), one of the period (e.g., Jennings 1966). This view has primary cultural-temporal classification sys- dramatically changed with the stratigraphi- tems used for the Archaic period in the Four cally controlled excavations of several cave Corners area, was originally defined on the and rockshelter sites (e.g., Ambler 1984; De- basis of inventory and rockshelter test exca-

Bloois 1979; Jennings 1980; Jennings et al. vations in the southeastern San Juan Basin in

1980; Lindsay et al. 1968; Lindsay and Lund northwestern New Mexico (Irwin-Williams

1976; Martin et al. 1983; Winter and Wylie 1973). Irwin-Williams (1973) viewed the 1974), and the development of a projectile Oshara Tradition as part of the larger pan- point typology and chronology (Holmer southwestern Archaic, but considered it suffi-

1978, 1986) that has allowed identification of ciently different to distinguish it as a separate numerous Archaic period sites on inventory entity. The Oshara Tradition has been criti- projects (e.g., Black et al. 1982; Black and cized on a variety of grounds (e.g., Matson Metcalf 1986; Geib 1993; Hauck 1979a, 1991; Stuart and Gauthier 1981; see also

1979b; Kearns 1982; Montgomery et al. Hohmann and Hotopp 1990:9), still has not

1982; Thomas et al. 1981; Tipps 1988a). been defined to most archeologists' satisfac-

The Desert Culture or Desert Archaic tion, and is in need of revision. However, it (Jennings 1957; Jennings and Norbeck 1955) continues to be used as a loose framework was conceived to interpret Archaic period for Archaic period research in the Four Cor- sites in the desert west, emphasizing the ners area (e.g., Burchett et al. 1994; Dyke- similarities and de-emphasizing the differ- man 1995; Geib and Warburton 1991; Hogan ences across this vast and variable terrain. etal. 1991; Kearns 1992). The Desert Archaic lifeway was charac- The Oshara Tradition has been identified terized by a broad-based hunting and gather- north (Montgomery et al. 1982) and not far ing economy oriented toward the exploitation south (Hicks 1976) of the project area, and INTRODUCTION

recently has been considered in projects near on Archaic-age Uncompahgre Complex near Island-in-the-Sky (e.g., Davis and West- phases and assemblages. fall 1988a; Davis et al. 1989; Montgomery The Uncompahgre sequence has numer- 1989; Reed 1990). In the context of inven- ous problems and subsequent research has tory, the Oshara Tradition is usually defined not supported the proposed chronology

solely by the presence of distinctive projec- (Gooding and Shields 1985; Horn et al.

tile point styles, which occur over a much 1987). Though the concept is still used by larger area than where the tradition was origi- some investigators in west-central Colorado

nally defined (the Arroyo Cuervo region). (cf. Reed 1984) and the potential for its pres-

Table 2 provides a summary of the Oshara ence has been noted in recent Island-in-the- Tradition cultural periods. Sky area work (Davis et al. 1989;

The Uncompahgre Complex was origi- Montgomery 1989), Horn et al. (1987) sug-

nally defined by Wormington and Lister gest it be discarded; that suggestion is fol- (1956) as a variant of the Desert Culture lowed here. based on excavations at four rockshelters on Based on the University of Utah's work the northeastern slope of the Uncompahgre at Sudden Shelter and Cowboy Cave, and a Plateau in west-central Colorado. Due to a review of literature on cave and rockshelter

lack of chronometric data, no temporal excavations on the Colorado Plateau in Utah framework was delineated. Buckles (1971) (plus a few from Colorado), Schroedl (1976) expanded the Uncompahgre Complex con- proposed and recently revised (Schroedl cept based on investigations of numerous 1992) a phase system for the Archaic on the sites on the plateau, many of which were ex- northern Colorado Plateau. This sequence has cavated to varying degrees, ultimately defin- five phases: Black Knoll, Castle Valley, ing eight phases and four tool assemblages, Green River, Dirty Devil, and the recently which he believed to span an 8000-year pe- added Escalante Phase. The Escalante Phase riod. His definition follows Clarke's (1968) covers the Preformative period (discussed be- technocomplex paradigm, causing some re- low) and is geographically restricted com- searchers to use the term Uncompahgre pared to the earlier phases. The northern Technocomplex (Gooding and Shields 1985). Colorado Plateau projectile point chronology Many of his named projectile point styles are (Holmer 1978), which forms an important ba-

similar to (or the same as) those in Holmer's sis for Schroedl's sequence, includes types

(1978) northern Colorado Plateau sequence found on the Plains and in the Great Basin, (see below). Table 3 summarizes information and some unique to the northern Colorado Plateau. Table 4 summarizes the northern

Table 2. Summary of Oshara Tradition cultural periods (Irwin-Williams 1973).

Phase Name General Time Period Age Range

Jay Early Archaic 5500 B.C. - 4800 B.C.

Bajada Early Archaic 4800 B.C. - 3300 B.C.

San Jose Middle Archaic 3300 B.C. - 1800 B.C.

Armijo Late Archaic 1800 B.C. - 800 B.C.

En Medio Late Archaic/Basketmaker II 800 B.C. - A.D. 400 INTRODUCTION

Table 3. Summary of Archaic-age Uncompahgre Complex phases and assemblages (Buckles 1971).

Phase or Assemblage Name General Time Period Age Range Buttermilk Assemblage Multiple 8000 B.C. -3000 B.C. Monitor Mesa Phase Middle Archaic 3500 B.C. -1500 B.C. Shavano Phase Middle Archaic 3500 B.C. -1000 B.C.

Roubideau Phase Middle-Late Archaic 3000 B.C. - 500 B.C.

Horsefly Phase Late Archaic 500 B.C. -A.D. 1

Colorado Plateau Archaic sequence. This se- heart of Schroedl's northern Colorado Pla-

quence has also been criticized (e.g., Berry teau, so it is not surprising that Geib identi- and Berry 1986). However, most researchers fied the same diagnostics (plus a few new agree that Holmer's (1978) projectile point ones) and general cultural patterns for the Ar- chronology, which serves as an important ba- chaic on the central Colorado Plateau as

sis for Schroedl's sequence, is valuable. Schroedl (1976) recognized on the northern Geib (1995) recently analyzed data from Colorado Plateau. Geib (1995:94) acknow-

a geographically limited subset of the sites ledges the applicability of Schroedl's system

Schroedl (1976) used to derive his phase se- to his study area, but prefers generic terms

quence, plus many new sites investigated (such as initial, early, middle, late, and termi-

since Schroedl's work. Based on this analysis, nal Archaic, etc.) instead of phase names un-

he suggests that the Archaic within an area til more information is available. Use of

he calls the central Colorado Plateau be di- generic time periods, rather than Schroedl's

vided into seven periods. This area extends phases, is in line with most researchers work- "from the Rainbow Plateau and Monument ing in the general area (e.g., Dominguez Valley on the south to the Fremont River and 1990, 1991; Horn 1990; Reed 1990, 1993; Orange Cliffs on the north and from Boulder Tipps 1995). Mountain and Kaiparowits Plateau on the Geib's (1995) suggestion that we study

west to the Abajo Mountains and Comb the local Archaic in shorter increments may

Wash on the east" (Geib 1995:92). It includes be worthwhile, but subdividing the Archaic most of Canyonlands National Park, includ- into seven periods will be difficult based on

ing the project area (Geib 1995: Figure 1). inventory data because most of his diagnostic

More than 80 percent of Geib's central artifacts occur in more than one period; it

Colorado Plateau study area lies within the will also require substantially more excavation

Table 4. Summary of northern Colorado Plateau cultural periods (Schroedl 1976, 1992).

Phase Name General Time Period Age Range Black Knoll Early Archaic 6350 B.C. 4250 B.C. Castle Valley Middle Archaic 4250 B.C. 2550 B.C. Green River Late Archaic 2550 B.C. 1350 B.C. Dirty Devil Terminal Archaic 1350 B.C. 450 B.C. Escalante Terminal Archaic 450 B.C. A.D. 500 INTRODUCTION data than currently exists. However, the collective Archaic period, though perhaps benefit of defining a "central Colorado Pla- possible for some individual time periods teau Archaic" out of the heart of the northern within the Archaic. Therefore, we are not Colorado Plateau is less apparent because recognizing the central Colorado Plateau Ar-

Geib's (1995:Figure 1) central Colorado Pla- chaic as a distinct cultural entity in this re- teau is arbitrarily bounded (it is rectangular) search. and does not appear to correspond to a dis- In passing, it should also be noted that crete cultural entity with diagnostic artifacts Hunt and Tanner (1960) defined two Archaic and cultural patterns distinct from adjacent or assemblages, the Moab and La Sal com- other areas of the northern Colorado Plateau. plexes, around Moab and in the La Sal

Schroedl (1976) never stated that Ar- Mountains, respectively. The former is repre- chaic peoples who inhabited the northern sented by the association of Folsom and

Colorado Plateau formed a cohesive cultural Pinto points, the latter by the association of group with traits distinctive from surrounding Pinto and Gypsum points. These associations areas, but this has been assumed, at least im- and complexes are based on fortuitous sur- plicitly, by some researchers, most notably face associations and have been discounted

Jennings (1980). However, diagnostic arti- (Berry 1975; Schroedl 1976), although the facts and the gross cultural patterns do appear point styles do indicate the presence of to be similar across Schroedl's (1976) study Paleoindian and Archaic peoples in the area. area, and perhaps beyond (Nickens 1982:17), Table 1 shows the names and ages of the Ar-

suggesting a shared Archaic lifeway across chaic periods recognized for this project. an area at least the size the northern Colorado Plateau. The nature of these lifeways changed Preformative Period through time and it is virtually certain that The Preformative period is defined here their geographic extent was also temporally as the transitional era between the end of the variable; to date, this issue has not received Archaic and the beginning of the Formative, much formal attention due to the paucity of a time when economies shifted from hunting appropriate data. However, the important and gathering to food production. As defined point is that the shared cultural patterns for here, the Preformative begins with the intro- the collective Archaic period appear to ex- duction of corn and ends with the introduc- tend over a much larger area than Geib's tion of pottery, ca. A.D. 400-500. Habitation (1995) central Colorado Plateau. structures occur throughout the Preformative; Defining a "central Colorado Plateau Ar- bow and arrow technology was introduced chaic" in an arbitrarily bounded, geographi- late in the period, ca. A.D. 100-200 (Geib cally limited portion of what has already and Bungart 1989; Schroedl 1992; Tipps been defined as the northern Colorado Pla- 1992). teau does not clarify our understanding of The Preformative period began by at prehistoric behavior unless the area has a dif- least the second millennium B.C. on the ferent culture-historical sequence, different southern Colorado Plateau (Smiley 1994), but cultural patterns, or was inhabited by a dif- appears to be much later on the northern ferent social, cultural, economic, or ethnic Colorado Plateau. Radiocarbon dates on corn group than the surrounding areas. Given what from several sites in central, south-central, we know about the Archaic on the northern and southeastern Utah (e.g., the Alvey Site, Colorado Plateau, this seems unlikely for the

10 INTRODUCTION

Clydes Cavern, Cowboy Cave, Dust Devil cultural affiliations during the Preformative Cave, Triangle Cave) provide solid evidence period, better accommodates the possibility that domesticates were in use on the northern of multiple contemporaneous lifestyles and Colorado Plateau during the first few centu- archeological cultures, and reminds us to ries A.D. (Geib 1993; Jennings 1980; Lind- search for differences between Archaic- and

say et al. 1968; Winter and Wylie 1974). Preformative-age sites that will help us better Evidence for earlier corn use on the northern understand the transition to a horticultural

Colorado Plateau (e.g., Jett 1991; Schleisman lifeway.

and Nielson 1988) is still tentative, but cer- Huckell (1995) recently proposed use of tainly possible given the 175 B.C. maize date the term "Early Agricultural period" for the

from the Elsinore Burial (Wilde and Newman time period between the first use of agricul-

1989). The Elsinore Burial is in the eastern ture and the introduction of pottery. In the

Great Basin, but is no farther from the pro- past, this period has been frequently referred ject area than some of the other northern to as "Basketmaker II." Use of a neutral term Colorado Plateau sites with early corn. At that does not come with interpretive baggage present, the earliest documented use of do- regarding cultural association, lifeways, and

mesticates in the immediate area of Canyon- subsistence practices seems highly reasonable

lands National Park occurs sometime in light of the considerable confusion and de-

between A.D. 660 and 970 at the Dunes site finitional problems that surround use of the

(42SA8506) in Island-in-the-Sky (Osborn "Basketmaker II" label in the Southwest (see 1995). Several researchers have observed that Tipps 1995:143-146). In a recent report

a hunting and gathering lifeway persisted (Tipps 1995:146), I advocated the use of a

throughout the preformative time period in generic term to describe this period, such as

portions of the project region (e.g., Black et "Preformative" following Geib et al. (1987)

al. 1982; Davis and Westfall 1988b; Tipps or "Preceramic" following Fairley et al. 1995; Tipps and Hewitt 1989). (1994). For the work reported here, as well as

In previous work on the Canyonlands Ar- other work I recently reported in the nearby

cheological Project, I included the time span Butler Flat Area of the Needles District

composing Preformative as the latter part of (Tipps 1996), I have used and prefer "Prefor- the Terminal Archaic period (Tipps 1995; mative period" to "Early Agricultural period"

Tipps and Hewitt 1989), rather than a sepa- because the name of the latter still has conno-

rate period. I did this "because sites dating to tations about subsistence practices and diet

this period in the greater Canyonlands area that may or may not apply to specific por-

primarily appear to represent a hunting and tions of the project region.

gathering rather than horticultural lifeway ..." The Preformative period discussed here

(Tipps 1995:9). While this still appears to be coincides with what Black and Metcalf

the case, and I still subscribe to the view that (1985) have termed the "Proto-formative"

Preform ative-age sites investigated thus far in Phase, although the White Crack Area lies

Canyonlands are best understood within the east of its original geographic range. The framework of Archaic settlement and subsis- Proto-formative Phase dates from A.D. 150

tence patterns, I now believe it is more ap- to 700 and is defined as a time of increasing

propriate to consider this transitional phase as sedentism when hunting and gathering pur- a separate period. This encourages an open suits were gradually supplemented by corn mindedness regarding lifestyles and potential horticulture. Diagnostic artifacts include Elko

11 INTRODUCTION and Rose Spring projectile points and, late in and Berry 1976; Davis and Westfall 1988a; the phase, Emery Gray pottery. Black and Horn 1990). Matson (1991:xi) defines Bas-

Metcalf (1985) view this phase as nascent ketmaker II as the earliest agricultural stage Fremont. on the northern Colorado Plateau. He consid-

Schroedl (1992) objects to the use of ers Basketmaker II people as fully maize de- "Proto-formative" for a phase name and pro- pendent (Matson 1991:101; Matson and poses the Escalante Phase instead. He de- Chisholm 1991) and argues that nonmaize- fines the phase much like Black and dependent peoples probably are not Basket-

Metcalf s (1986) "Proto-formative" Phase, but maker II (Matson 1991:101). Basketmaker II begins it earlier and terminates it with the in- peoples also grew squash, used weedy plants troduction of pottery. Schroedl (1992:8) be- that thrive in cultivated and abandoned fields, lieves that the Escalante Phase "begins about and did some hunting (Lipe 1993:6-7). Bas-

300 B.C. with the introduction of corn into ketmaker II material culture in the project re-

the region . . . [and] terminates with the be- gion includes a rich array of perishable ginning of pottery manufacture in the area by objects, such as twined cord bags, sandals, about A.D. 700." Believing that the local cul- and two-rod-and-bundle coiled basketry, San ture is not "Fremont" until the introduction of Juan Anthropomorphic Style rock art, and pottery, he considers the Escalante Phase an dart points that resemble the Elko corner- and Archaic manifestation (1992:14). More recent side-notched varieties. The beginning date of work along Interstate 70 indicates that the Basketmaker II is a topic of continuing re-

Archaic lifeway terminated before A.D. 700 search. Recent investigations suggest that it

(Greubel 1996). Although it is normally part began by 600 B.C. or earlier (e.g., Geib of any phase definition, Schroedl ( 1 992) does 1990; Smiley 1994), several centuries earlier not define the geographic extent of the Esca- than previously believed. It terminates with lante Phase. However, based on the locations the introduction of true pottery ca. A.D. 400- of sites included in his discussion, the Island- 500. Although some researchers have applied in-the-Sky project area would be included. the Basketmaker II term to sites in the pro- Based on the Interstate 70 excavations, ject region, including Canyonlands, Tipps

Greubel (1996:355-357) proposed the Con- (1995:143-146) believes it is inappropriate fluence Phase to supersede Black and Met- for most of the Canyonlands area. calf s (1986) Proto-formative Phase. He does Whether there was continuity between this "... primarily because this period is Archaic and later peoples is still a matter of characterized by a true Formative-stage adap- debate (e.g., see Aikens 1972; Janetski 1993; tation, rather than the pattern implied by and Marwitt 1970 versus Berry and Berry Black and Metcalf (1986:13) of essentially 1976; Gunnerson 1969; and Madsen and

Archaic foragers who were beginning to ex- Berry 1975). The situation is much more periment with maize." He dates this phase complex than originally conceived, and it is from approximately A.D. 200 to 700 and in- becoming increasingly clear that different ex- dicates that it occurs in central Utah, specifi- planations may apply to different parts of cally within the area later inhabited by the southern Utah. San Rafael Fremont. The other archeological construct that has been applied to Preformative-age sites in the project region is Basketmaker II (e.g., Berry

12 INTRODUCTION

Early and Late Formative (Kidder 1927a, 1927b). These subdivisions Periods were originally conceived as developmental stages, but now are mainly used as dated pe- In most culture-historical frameworks, riods. They should be seen as arbitrary points the Formative period (ca. A.D. 500-1300) is along a continuum rather than as clearly de- characterized as a period of strong reliance fined episodes. In addition to their chrono- on agriculture, permanent or semipermanent logical component, they are defined by habitation, and ceramic production. However, changes in ceramic styles, architecture, site in recent years, many researchers have come size, site structure and level of aggregation, to realize that there was less dependence on geographic extent, and elevational range of agriculture in the area north of the core occupation. There are seven periods in the Anasazi territory, including most of the pro- Pecos classification, Basketmaker II and III ject region (e.g., Black et al. 1982; Fetterman and Pueblo I-V. Basketmaker II was dis- and Honeycutt 1990; Reed 1990, 1995; Tipps cussed as part of the Preformative period, 1995; Tipps and Hewitt 1989). In some areas, above. Some researchers (e.g., Lipe 1970; the hunting and gathering lifeway may have Suhm 1959) regard the small quantities of persisted well into the Formative period (e.g., yellow ware sherds in southern Utah as evi- Black et al. 1982; Davis et al. 1989; Tipps dence of Pueblo IV period Hopi hunting or 1995, 1996; Tipps and Hewitt 1989). trading parties. Others, such as Lucius In the traditional view, the Formative (1983), suggest they could be tradewares stage in the project region is represented by used by Numic speakers after A.D. 1400. the Anasazi and Fremont (Jennings 1980). Pueblo V does not occur in Utah. Table 5 Montgomery (1989:16) characterizes the pro- shows the five periods potentially relevant to ject region as the "hinterland of the Northern the project area. San Juan Anasazi and the San Rafael Fre- The project area lies just east of the ." mont cultural spheres. . . Reed (1990:15) southeastern edge of the geographical area suggests that the Colorado River forms the defined for the San Rafael Fremont (Marwitt approximate boundary between the Anasazi 1970). The Fremont are differentiated from and Fremont, but acknowledges the potential the Anasazi by their pottery, basketry, moc- for overlap, and identifies two Fremont sites casins, rock art, anthropomorphic clay figu- east of the river. rines, and architecture. Though broadly Investigators commonly organize discus- perceived as horticulturalists by many re- sions of Anasazi occupation around the Pecos searchers, accumulating evidence suggests classification, which comprises seven subdivisions that Fremont peoples employed a variable

Table 5. Summary of Anasazi periods.

Period Age Range

Basketmaker II ? - A.D. 500 Basketmaker lH A.D. 500 - A.D. 800

Pueblo I A.D. 800 - A.D. 1000

Pueblo II A.D. 1000 -A.D. 1100/1150

Pueblo III A.D. 1100/1150 -A.D. 1300

NOTE: Age ranges were derived from Geib (1993), Lipe (1967, 1970), and Tipps (1995).

13 INTRODUCTION subsistence strategy that incorporated both Madsen and Rhode 1994). Historically, the crop production and hunting and gathering Southern Paiute lived to the southwest (Euler (Simms 1986:206). Black and Metcalf (1986) 1966; Kelly 1964; Kelly and Fowler 1986), propose a three-part phase sequence for the but they and/or their cultural antecedents may

San Rafael Fremont, which is summarized in have also ventured into the project region

Table 6. The "Proto-formative" Phase was (Davis et al. 1989). The early Numic speak- discussed earlier. ers of eastern Utah were probably indistin-

In portions of eastern Utah and western guishable as Ute and Southern Paiute until

Colorado, which include the project area, the introduction of the horse after approxi- Formative-age sites lack key elements of mately A.D. 1650 (Reed 1990:17; Schroeder both the Anasazi and Fremont cultural tradi- 1965). They may have migrated into the tions, leading some researchers to postulate greater project area by A.D. 1100, making the presence of an unnamed cultural group in them contemporaneous with extant Formative- the transitional area between the Anasazi and age peoples (Reed 1994:196).

Fremont. Reed (1995:3) recently named this Pre-A.D. 1650 Numic speakers in the agglomeration of traits the Gateway Tradi- greater project area had a hunting and gather- tion. This tradition is characterized by limited ing lifeway (Reed 1990). Common types of reliance on domestic crops, very low frequen- material culture include Desert Side-notched cies of Anasazi pottery, which was probably and Cottonwood Triangular projectile points, obtained through trade, and relatively ephem- brown ware pottery, and ephemeral wickiup eral sites that were used for short periods of structures. Later Numic speakers had a time. Noncontiguous, circular habitation Plains-influenced, equestrian culture, used structures with low walls are relatively com- both tipis and wickiups, and increasingly in- mon; roomblocks are less abundant than in tegrated Euroamerican trade goods into their the Anasazi core area, and sites lack the typi- cultural repertoire at the expense of tradi- cal Anasazi layout. Kivas are said to be en- tional artifact types. Their economy was tirely lacking. Gateway Tradition rock art based on bison hunting, raiding, and gather- incorporates elements of both the Anasazi and ing, and some groups practiced horticulture

Fremont styles. The tradition is tentatively (Reed 1990; Stewart 1942). dated between 500 B.C. and A.D. 1250. Reed (1988) defined four phases of East- ern Ute culture history that are potentially Late Prehistoric/ relevant to the project area (Table 7). He sub- Protohistoric Period sequently dropped the earliest and most tentative phase, Chipeta (Reed 1990:104). The project area lies in the historical range of the Ute (Callaway et al. 1986;

Table 7. Summary of Table 6. Summary of San Rafael Eastern Ute phases (Reed 1988). Fremont phases (Black and Metcalf 1986) Phase Name Age Range

Phase Name Age Range Chipeta A.D. 1250 - A.D. 1400

Proto-formative A.D. 150 - A.D. 700 Canella A.D. 1400 - A.D. 1650

Muddy Creek A.D. 700 - A.D. 1000 Antero A.D. 1650 - A.D. 1880

Bull Creek A.D. 1000 - A.D. 1200 Reservation A.D. 1880 - Present

14 INTRODUCTION

Historic Period built stock trails to make the area more accessible. The most prominent examples in- by Susan C. Kenzle clude the Lathrop, Shafer, and White Crack This section provides a brief history of trails, which are now jeep, mountain bike, or the White Rim area, with an emphasis on the hiking trails. These access routes may have White Crack Area. It is not meant to be an also been used by the prehistoric inhabitants exhaustive review of the history of Canyon- as suggested by the high frequency of sites lands National Park or of the Island-in-the- near them (cf. Osborn 1995; Pierson 1985:4- Sky District as this information is presented 5). During the 1920s and 1930s, at least five by Mehls and Mehls (1986) and Osborn ranchers used the White Crack trail to access respectively. (1995), a grassland north of the confluence of the The earliest recorded use of the White Green and Colorado rivers (Osborn 1995). Rim is by ranchers who grazed cattle and Grazing in Island-in-the-Sky ceased in 1983 sheep during the late nineteenth and early when all grazing permits expired (Osborn twentieth centuries (Osborn 1995:7; Sheire 1995:10). White Crack Area may have 1972:24). The United States Geological Survey been used for winter range only (Osborn (U.S.G.S.) geologists undertook oil and gas 1995). Winter grazing on White Rim and the exploration in Island-in-the-Sky in the 1920s canyons below required the constant move- and 1930s (Pierson 1985). During the 1950s, ment of cattle from one grazing area to an- numerous seismograph roads were built dur- other and from one bedrock pothole water ing the course of such exploration, and their source to another. When water reserves in the remnants are still visible in the White Rim potholes were exhausted, the cattle were area. The oil and gas wells drilled in Island- taken down to the rivers (Osborn 1995:9). in-the-Sky during this time were soon The exact number of livestock grazed in the plugged and abandoned after low production White Crack Area is unknown, but 25-500 resulted in the cessation of exploration (Os- head of cattle and possibly as many as 1000 born 1995). A potential well site at White sheep may have been grazed as far south as Crack may actually be a stratigraphic test ex- White Crack (Osborn 1995:10; Sheire cavated by uranium miners in the 1950s, a 1972:24-25). Those tending the herds brought time during which the Atomic Energy Com- only what they could carry on horses or mission (AEC) was actively promoting the mules (including drinking water), leaving exploration and mining of uranium due to in- little evidence of their presence relatively creased demand (Osborn 1995:12). Numerous (Pierson 1985). They established line camps rock formations in the Island-in-the-Sky Dis- and short-term field headquarters in caves, trict, and especially in the White Rim area, in the open, preferably under overhangs, or contain uranium deposits (Osborn 1995). The large juniper trees (Pierson 1985:4). They "C" group, at the base of Lathrop's trail, was subsisted on products that did not leave much the largest mine in the White Rim area. The ura- archeological evidence such as dried fruit, nium boom resulted in the development of many salted bacon, cured ham, and potatoes, roads in this area, including improvements to although canned goods were also utilized old livestock trails such as the Lathrop, (Sheire 1972:25). Shafer, and White Crack trails, and the con- there are few access routes from Because struction of new roads. This activity made White to the canyons below, ranchers Rim the White Rim area accessible to the public.

15 INTRODUCTION

Cabins and an airstrip were built along some search for additional materials and determine of the roads. By the late 1950s, the large if the materials constituted a site or an iso- stockpile of uranium by the U.S. government lated find. Artifacts, artifact concentrations, resulted in abandonment of the mines in and features were marked with pin flags to Island-in-the-Sky. With the formation of determine the frequency and extent of the ex- Canyonlands National Park in 1964, new tant remains. mining leases cannot be issued, although ex- In accord with previous work on the isting leases can be worked (Nancy J. Cou- Canyonlands Archeological Project (Tipps lam, personal communication 1996). 1995, 1996; Tipps and Hewitt 1989), sites

were defined as (1) any concentration of 10 Methods or more artifacts or cultural items in a discrete scatter, (2) concentrations of fewer than The field and laboratory methods used 10 artifacts accompanied by at least one fea- for this project are essentially the same as ture, (3) isolated architecture, and (4) isolated those used for previous years of work on the rock art. If the observed cultural remains Canyonlands Archeological Project (Tipps were insufficient to warrant definition as a 1995; Tipps and Hewitt 1989). They are site, they were recorded as an isolated find. briefly presented here for the reader's con- Isolated finds were assigned a sequential venience. The methods used to reanalyze the number, briefly documented on a list, and chipped stone assemblage from the White then plotted on the U.S.G.S. topographic map Crack site follow those used for the small as- of the project area. semblage of chipped stone recovered from Sites were recorded, as discovered, using in the Butte Area of the tested sites Squaw Intermountain Antiquities Computer System Needles (La Fond and Tipps 1995); they are (IMACS) site forms. These forms have detailed in Chapter 7. spaces for administrative and environmental information, as well as descriptions of the Field Procedures cultural remains. The IMACS attachments for

A crew of four to five people spaced rock art, prehistoric architecture, and assessments of stabilization needs were used on ap- 1 5 m apart inventoried the White Crack Area on foot, in adjacent transects. Sweeps were propriate sites. In addition, the crew recorded oriented relative to a pin flag line marking the condition of each site using a Rocky the edge of the previous transect. The flags Mountain Region Archeological Site Status were always retrieved on the return sweep. A Evaluation form. concerted effort was made to use easy- Because the project was a noncol lection to-relocate natural or cultural features for the inventory, all but a few artifacts were identi- project area boundaries (e.g., cliff edges, fied and described in the field. A concerted prominent drainages, etc.). These boundaries effort was made to locate, plot, and carefully were marked on U.S.G.S. 7.5' topographic record each formal lithic tool. Diagnostic maps as the inventory proceeded. projectile points were illustrated, as were a When cultural materials were identified, sample of other tools and artifacts. Debitage, the crew stopped, marked their position on the largest class of artifact on the sites, was the inventory line, and converged on the inspected to ascertain material types, tech- location of the discovered cultural remains to nologies, and flaking stages, as well as

16 INTRODUCTION

overall abundance. Due to their small num- State Historical Society, Antiquities Section.

bers, all sherds were examined and recorded Appendix B provides a correlation of the

on an individual basis. To the extent possible temporary and permanent site numbers.

in a field situation, pottery was classified into Procedures used for the limited testing

types established by Breternitz et al. (1974), at the conclusion of the inventory were the Colton (1955, 1956), and Madsen (1977) same as those employed during previous with the aid of a hand lens. work (Tipps 1995). The testing began with

Features were assigned unique feature photographing and mapping the surface indi-

numbers on a site-by-site basis (e.g., Feature cation of each feature. This preliminary docu-

1, Feature 2) and recorded individually. mentation was followed by excavation and Hearths were probed to assess their depth and the collection of radiocarbon and flotation their potential for containing datable material. samples. In compliance with National Park

A sample of hearths and all examples of Service preservation policy, less than one-

other feature types were illustrated, photo- half of each hearth was excavated, except in

graphed, or both. Site depth was estimated by one case where the intact portion of the fea-

evaluating topographic location and deposi- ture was much smaller than suggested by its tional setting, by examining cutbanks and ro- surface indications; this feature was exca-

dent hole backdirt, and by probing selected vated in its entirety. Testing of a cultural de- features. posit involved the excavation of a short,

All sites were photographed using black- narrow probe using a trowel. After the exca-

and-white print film. Some sites, features, vation and sampling were complete, each fea-

and artifacts were recorded with color slide ture was photographed, drawn, and profiled,

film. All photographs were documented on as appropriate, and then backfilled.

log forms that are part of the permanent project record curated at the Southeast Utah Laboratory Procedures Group Museum in Arches National Park. Previously published reports on the Can- Sites were plotted on U.S.G.S. topo- yonlands Archeological Project provide defi- graphic maps. This process was relatively nitions of site, feature, and artifact types trouble free due to the availability of 7.5' (Tipps 1995; Tipps and Hewitt 1989). These maps and the considerable topographic vari- will not be repeated here because most are ation in the White Crack Area. A plan map basic archeological categories that are self- was prepared for each site using a compass explanatory. Site age and cultural affiliation and pacing. The site plan maps show the extent were assigned as with previous projects, with of surface artifacts, artifact concentrations, chronological periods following Table 1, tool locations, features, roads, natural phe- above. nomena (e.g., drainages and cliffs), the location^) and direction(s) of the site Dates photograph(s), and the positioning of the site As with preceding reports, radiocarbon datum. The site datum for each site is com- years are presented as uncalibrated B.P. posed of an aluminum tag inscribed with dates. References to calendar ages (B.C./A.D. "P-1II Associates, 1990" and the temporary dates) are always calibrated. Calibrations fol- site number (e.g., 6-1, 6-2). At the conclu- low Stuiver et al. (1993), Talma and Vogel sion of the project, permanent Smithsonian (1993), and Vogel et al. (1993) and were site numbers were obtained from the Utah

17 INTRODUCTION

computed by Beta Analytic, Inc., Miami, of this analysis is to determine prehistoric hu- Florida. man plant use or ethnobotany, the emphasis

is on plants that are presumed to be burned Macrobotanical Analysis or charred as a result of prehistoric cooking by Nancy J. Coulam or plant-processing accidents. Plants Were identified with the aid of a Flotation Sample Processing modern reference collection and plant identi- The flotation samples were processed in fication manuals such as Martin and Barkley the laboratory following a consistent series of (1961) and Parker (1972). Plant taxonomy steps. First, water was placed in a froth flota- follows Welsh et al. (1987), except for the tion apparatus and air was bubbled up from taxon cheno-ams, which represents seeds of the bottom of the apparatus. Second, a 1 -liter either Chenopodium or Amaranthus. sediment sample was poured into the bub- Quantification bling water and stirred into solution. Since While counts of each identifiable plant the specific gravities of mineral and biotic part are presented in Chapter 6, these counts material are different (Southwood 1966), the tend to represent differential preservation of heavy inorganic matter sank while the lighter the burned plants recovered from the flota- organic matter floated to the surface. Third, tion samples. To compare prehistoric plant the light fraction was retained while the liq- use, processing, and discard between cultural uid was drained out of the flotation appara- features and sites, ubiquity measures are cal- tus. Fourth, the heavy sediment remaining in culated. Ubiquity measures are defined as the the bottom of the flotation apparatus was re- proportion of the total number of samples or moved and searched for artifacts, bones, or features that contain that taxon. Thus, if a large plant remains, and once these speci- taxon is present (regardless of abundance) in mens were extracted, the heavy fraction was 4 of 10 samples, it has a ubiquity of 40 per- discarded. Fifth, the light fraction was air cent (Hubbard 1980). It is assumed that high dried and examined under a binocular micro- ubiquity means the plant was likely used as a scope with 10-45x magnification power. All prehistoric plant resource. The reason for this potentially identifiable plant remains were re- assumption is that plants are preserved in moved from each light fraction flotation sam- open archeological sites primarily through ple and placed in glass vials. These vials are carbonization, and carbonization usually oc- curated in the Southeast Utah Group Museum curs as a result of cooking or roasting acci- storage facility in Moab, Utah. dents or fuel use (Hubbard 1980; Minnis Macrofossil Identification 1986). Hence, ubiquity measures provide an As Minnis (1986:209) explains, after approximate, semiquantitative measure of the separating and identifying seeds and other plants most often parched or cooked over a plant parts, the first major problem facing the fire, or plants used for fueling a fire. archeobotanist is isolating prehistoric plants Diversity measures also help reveal the from modern contaminants. Following Min- number of different plants utilized prehistori- nis and other ethnobotanists (e.g., Hubbard cally. The four replicate flotation samples 1980), unburned or uncharred plants are con- from Feature 1 at site 42SA21267 are com- sidered modern contaminants, probably bined in this report. Thus, diversity and ubiq- brought into the site by roots, rodents, seed uity measures are calculated and results rain, or other natural agents. Because the goal presented for seven different cultural features

18 INTRODUCTION

(rather than ten samples) from the five sites area, with an emphasis on identifying re-

in the Island-in-the-Sky. sources and conditions that might have affected the prehistoric inhabitants. Chapter 3 Curation presents the research design, whereas Chapter 4 discusses the sites and the isolated finds. All original topographic maps, photo- The first part of Chapter 5 presents informa- graphs, negatives, and other records gener- tion on the artifacts; the second part, by ated by the project are curated at the Susan C. Kenzle, describes the features. The Southeast Utah Group Museum. Duplicate testing results compose Chapter 6. Chapter 7, copies of the maps and site forms are on file most of which was written by Andre D. La at the National Park Service, Midwest Ar- Fond, details our reanalysis of the lithic col- cheological Center. Copies of the site forms lection from the White Crack site, are also stored at the Utah State Historical 42SA 17597, which was partially surface col- Society, Antiquities Section. Artifacts and lected and tested by the Midwest Archeologi- samples not consumed by analysis were cata- cal Center (Vetter 1987, 1989; Vetter and loged into the National Park Service Auto- Osborn 1993). Chapter 8, the final chapter, mated National Catalog System (ANCS) summarizes the work and discusses the re- database and are curated at the Southeast sults of the project relative to the White Utah Group Museum with the original pro- Crack Area research design presented in ject records. Chapter 3, and the lithic analysis research de-

sign presented in Chapter 7. Appendices A-F Report Organization provide supporting information.

Chapter 2, by Robert I. Birnie, summa-

rizes the environmental setting of the project

19 20 Chapter 2

THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

by Robert I. Birnie

The Island-in-the-Sky District of Can- steep, highly dissected canyons that extend yonlands National Park provides a down to the Colorado and Green rivers. The diverse geologic, topographic, and biologic highest tier is formed by a large, dissected setting within which prehistoric and historic mesa, called the Island-in-the-Sky, and its humans lived. This section presents a sum- southern extension, Grandview Point. Junc- mary of the geologic, pedogenic, hydrologic, tion Butte is an isolated remnant of this high climatic, and biologic settings of the project plateau. The intermediate plateau between the area, concentrating on the late Quaternary en- dissected canyons and the higher mesa top is vironments. Significant changes during the known as the White Rim. The White Rim is late Pleistocene and Holocene in these envi- a relatively flat bench of variable width on ronmental records will also be discussed. the eastern, southern, southwestern, and west- southwestern margins of Island-in-the-Sky. Geologic and Access routes between the tiers is limited to Physiographic Setting a few localities, restricting free travel between the various resource zones. The project

The project area is located in the Island- area is composed of two parcels, one on and in-the Sky District of Canyonlands National one below the southern end of the White Park, in the Inner Canyonlands subdivision of Rim, south of Junction Butte. the Colorado Plateau physiographic province The two inventory parcels are in different (Hunt 1974; Stokes 1977). On a large scale, physiographic positions; one, designated the the Island-in-the-Sky District has a two- White Rim Uplands Parcel, is on the White tiered, flat-topped, layer-cake physiography, Rim. The other, labeled the White Crack consisting of an upland mesa and an interme- Benchlands Parcel, extends south and south- diate benchland, below which are a series of east below the White Rim. The White Rim THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Uplands Parcel is an undulating tableland small rockshelters are present in these talus with gentle gradients, shallow soils, and slopes and along the cliff faces. Figure 3 sparse vegetation (Figure 2). Elevations range shows a typical cliff face and talus slope in from 1524 to 1585 m above mean sea level the White Rim Uplands Parcel. (amsl) over most of the parcel. The few The White Crack Benchlands Parcel ex- drainages have intermittent flow and are rela- tends south and southeast below the White tively shallow with poorly defined channels. Rim into a series of dissected benches,

Two sides of this parcel are formed by the slopes, and canyons (Figures 4 and 5). Eleva- edge of the White Rim. One side is a steep tions range from 1340 to 1572 m amsl. This upward slope, with elevations up to 1680 m area is steep, dissected, and eroded, with ex- amsl, which is the edge of a small tableland. tensive bedrock exposures and little vegeta-

The boundary of the remaining side is on the tion; however, there are numerous, relatively tableland formed by White Rim and Moenk- small and flat, bedrock benches, interfluves, opi sandstones. and benches with shallow soils. Drainages

An unnamed butte (1 100 m long and 75- have intermittent flow and are limited to 80 m high) dominates portions of this inven- short, deeply incised, flat-bottomed canyons tory parcel. Elevations on the butte range up that flow into a larger unnamed, intermittent to 1661 m amsl. The butte and the slopes on drainage at the southern end of the parcel. one edge of the parcel have steep cliff faces Although the route is steep and difficult, this and talus slopes with large boulders. Some drainage provides a travel corridor between

t.i*~*0

Figure 2. View of the White Rim Uplands Parcel showing the gently sloping tablelands on the White Rim and the predominantly blackbrush vegetation.

22 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Figure 3. A cliff face and talus slope in the White Rim Uplands Parcel.

the Green River and the White Rim. A series Mesa Sandstone and Organ Rock Shale, Or- of small, shallow alcoves and rockshelters gan Rock Shale, and White Rim Sandstone that may have provided shelter and access to (Huntoon et al. 1982). lithic raw material resources are present The Cedar Mesa Formation consists of

along the cliff faces. white to pale reddish-brown, massive and

Bedrock in the White Crack Area and on cross-bedded sandstones interbedded with the Island-in-the-Sky mesa and Grandview red, gray, green, and brown sandstones. This

Point consists of flat-lying, Permian- and sandstone forms steep cliffs and dissected es-

Triassic-age sedimentary rocks (Huntoon et carpments when eroded. This formation is

al. 1982). Jurassic-age sedimentary rocks are present in the White Crack Benchlands Par- limited to the Island-in-the-Sky mesa and cel and along the dissected edge of the White Grandview Point. Quaternary deposits are Rim. Extensive lag deposits and lenses of

limited to eolian sheet sand, dunes, collu- Cedar Mesa Chert associated with this forma- vium, and thin alluvium. tion were identified during the inventory, par- Permian-age rocks are limited to forma- ticularly in the White Crack Benchlands

tions from the Cutler Group. These include, Parcel (see Figures 4 and 5). Osborn (1995) from oldest to youngest, Cedar Mesa Forma- reports the presence of a discontinuous chal-

tion sandstones, a zone where Cedar Mesa cedony lens in Cedar Mesa Sandstone located

Sandstone is undifferentiated from other near White Crack. More detailed descriptions members of the Cutler Group, a transitional of Cedar Mesa Chert are provided elsewhere

zone that includes undifferentiated Cedar in this report.

23 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Figure 4. View of the White Crack Benchlands Parcel showing the bedrock outcrops, the sparse Mormon tea and shadscale vegetation, and lag deposits of Cedar Mesa Chert.

The undifferentiated Cedar Mesa-Cutler Sandstone, forms the tablelands along the Group zone consists of red, arkosic sand- White Rim. stones and white sandstones interbedded Triassic-age sedimentary rocks in the vi- with red shales (Huntoon et al. 1982). Red- cinity include the Moenkopi Formation, the dish-brown siltstones and sandy shales of Chinle Formation, Wingate Sandstone, and Organ Rock Shale overlie the Cedar Mesa the Kayenta Formation. The predominant

Formation and are exposed in a relatively bedrock in the White Rim Uplands Parcel is narrow band of dissected slopes in the White reddish-brown, cross-laminated sandstone Crack Benchlands Parcel just below and and siltstone of the Moenkopi Formation. along the edge of the White Rim. White Rim The Moenkopi Formation weathers to form

Sandstone is the youngest formation in the tablelands, slopes, and ledges. Sandstones

Cutler Group and is visible on the upper and siltstones of the Chinle Formation occur edge of the White Rim. This light-gray to north of the White Rim Uplands Parcel. yellowish-gray, fine-grained, cross-bedded These variegated red, green, purple, and yel- sandstone forms tablelands and steep, over- low bentonitic clayey sandstones and silt- hanging and vertical cliffs when eroded. stones erode to form relatively steep slopes.

This sandstone is present in both inven- Wingate Sandstone and the siltstones, lime- tory parcels and, along with Moenkopi stones, and shale of the Kayenta Formation

24 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Figure 5. Overview of the White Crack Benchlands Parcel showing the dissected topography and lag outcrops of Cedar Mesa Chert.

are present on Junction Butte, north of the these rivers is 7.6 km to the south-southwest. White Rim Uplands Parcel. The project area ranges from 150 to 425 m

Navajo Sandstone is the only Jurassic- above the rivers and there are no readily ac- age formation present in the vicinity. This is cessible routes to either river from the imme- a buff to pale orange, fine- to medium- diate project area. grained, massive, sandy limestone. It is lim- All drainages in the project area are in- ited to the Island-in-the-Sky mesa and termittent. The drainage pattern in the area is

Grandview Point and does not occur in the bedrock controlled. Drainages in the White project area. Crack Benchlands Parcel are located on the edge and below the White Rim. These are Water Resources relatively short and deeply incised. The drainages in the White Rim Uplands Parcel Water is a scarce resource above the are on the tablelands formed by the White Colorado and Green rivers throughout most Rim and are relatively shallow with poorly Island-in-the-Sky District and is even of the defined channels. more scarce on the White Rim and in the The extensive bedrock exposures, large project area. The Colorado River, 5 km to the areas with shallow soil, and the absence of south and 3 to the east, and the Green km springs and marsh or cienega areas indicate River, 1.5 km to the west, are the closest per- that groundwater is not present in significant water confluence of manent sources. The amounts. The extensive bedrock exposures

25 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

and shallow soils also indicate that there fieldwork (Figure 6). Mead and Agenbroad would be relatively high runoff during pre- (1992a: 101) report the presence of a deep cipitation events. The absence of ground- pool of water in one pothole. It is possible water sources, the shallow nature of the soils, that some of the larger potholes may have and the expected high runoff following pre- held water for relatively long periods of time. cipitation indicate that it is likely that the drainages would have flow only after major Climate precipitation events. Canyonlands National has a The contacts between White Rim Sand- Park semiarid continental climate with low humid- stone and the Cutler Formation and between ity and low annual average precipitation. Wingate Sandstone and the Chinle Formation Two weather stations are located near the are reported as the location of springs and project area. One is at the Needles District seeps (Osborn 1995). No seeps or springs Ranger Station located 13.67 km southeast. were observed during the inventory, but they The second is at the Island-in-the-Sky Dis- may have once been present along cliff faces trict Ranger Station approximately 21.72 km and in rockshelters. Water also would have north-northeast. Data from both weather sta- been available in bedrock hollows and de- tions are reported because the project area is pressions following precipitation events (rain- situated in an elevation range (1524-1680 m) storms or snow). Many small potholes filled between and below the elevations of the two with water were observed during the weather stations; the Needles District Ranger

Figure 6. Potholes filled with water in the White Rim Uplands Parcel.

26 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Station lies at 1536 m and the Island-in-the- The summers are hot. At the Needles

Sky District Ranger Station is at 1799 m. The District Ranger Station, temperatures in July, record from the Island-in-the-Sky station is the warmest month of the year, average short, four years, and may not provide an ac- 25.8° C (78.5° F) and generally range from curate measure of long-term climatic condi- 16.4° C (61.6° F) to 35.2° C (95.3° F). Daily tions. highs from June to August often exceed Climatic data recorded from a 20-year 37.7° C (100° F). Extreme highs of 41.67° C period (1965-1984) at the Needles station in- (107 F) have been reported in July (Lam- dicate an average of 22.02 cm of precipita- mers 1991:Table 1). The growing season ex- tion per year (Lammers 1991:Table 1). Data tends from May through September. The from the Island-in-the-Sky station indicate an winters are cold with December and January average of 20.50 cm of precipitation per year being the coldest months. January tempera-

(Osborn 1995:Table 1). It is likely that pre- tures average -2.7° C (27.9° F) and range cipitation in the project area has an annual from -9.67° C (14.6° F) to 4.05° C (39.3° F). average between these two figures. Most of Temperatures in December average -1.2° C the precipitation at both stations occurs from (29.8° F). Extreme low temperatures of

July through November. January and Febru- -26.6° C (-16° F) have been recorded in ary are the two driest months at the Island-in- January and December (Lammers 1991:Table the-Sky station, with each averaging 0.8 cm 1). The temperature record from the Island- of precipitation. December, is the third driest in-the-Sky District Ranger Station is incom- month with 0.9 cm of precipitation. January plete and is also relatively short. Osborn and June are the driest months at the Needles (1995) reports that the mean annual tempera- station with 0.99 and 1.24 cm, respectively. ture is 52 F (11 C). No figures are pre-

However, January and February is the driest sented for the average seasonal temperatures. two-month period at the Needles station and Temperatures in the project area are probably

February is the third driest month with very similar to those from the Needles station

1 .32 cm of precipitation. June, July, and Au- because these areas are relatively close and gust are the wettest months at the Island-in- have similar elevations. the-Sky station with 0.24 cm, 0.20 cm, and 0.36 cm of precipitation, respectively. The Soils wettest months of the year at the Needles sta- Soils in the project area have formed pri- tion are August, September, and October marily in eolian sheet sands (Figure 7) and with 2.48, 2.67, and 2.99 cm of precipitation, discontinuous eolian sediments over shallow respectively. bedrock (Figure 8). The six identified soil as- Summer precipitation occurs primarily sociations include: Rock Outcrop, Rock Out- during afternoon thundershowers (Jeppson et crop-Moenkopie, Moenkopie-Rock Outcrop, al. 1968) and results in high runoff levels. Moenkopie Very Gravelly Sandy Loam, Winter precipitation is usually associated Nakai Fine Sand, and Thoroughfare Fine with frontal storms (Greer et al. 1981). The Sandy Loam (Lammers 1991). winters have relatively little snowfall. Snow- The entire White Crack Benchlands Par- fall averages 40.3 cm per year at the Needles cel and approximately 10 percent of the and Island-in-the-Sky stations (Lammers White Rim Uplands Parcel are included in 1991:Table 1; Osborn 1995:87). the Rock Outcrop Association. More than

27 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Figure 7. Sheet sands and grassland vegetation on the White Rim.

90 percent of the area mapped as this asso- dry weight per acre per year. Primary taxa ciation consists of exposed bedrock with little are blackbrush (55 percent of the total pro- to no vegetation. Sparse plant species include ductivity), galleta grass (10 percent), Indian

Utah juniper, bitterbrush, and mountain ma- ricegrass (5 percent), shadscale (5 percent), hogany. Pinyon pine is also reported to grow Mormon tea (5 percent), and snakeweed on these soils (Lammers 1991), but none was (5 percent) (Lammers 1991:Table 4). observed in either inventory parcel. Soils of the Moenkopie-Rock Outcrop The Moenkopie Very Gravelly Sandy Association occupy approximately 3 percent Loam Association occupies less than 5 per- (20 acres) of the White Rim Uplands Parcel cent (28 acres) of the White Rim Uplands and are restricted primarily to the tablelands Parcel. Moenkopie soils are classified as on the top of the White Rim near the parcel's loamy, mixed (calcareous), mesic, lithic torri- southern edge. Approximately 55 percent of orthents and are shallow, well-drained soils this association is Moenkopie sandy loam, that have formed in residuum. The depth to 30 percent is exposed bedrock, and the re- bedrock ranges from 7 to 50 cm. The soil's maining 15 percent is small areas of other agricultural potential is limited by its shallow soils such as Sheppard fine sand and Arches nature, loamy fine sand texture, low organic fine sand. Soil characteristics and vegeta- content (1 percent), and low water capacity tional productivity of the Moenkopie sandy (5 cm) (Lammers 1991:52). The potential loam soils are the same as those discussed natural vegetation on Moenkopie soils has an above for the Moenkopie very gravelly sandy average vegetational productivity of 90.9 kg loam.

28 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Figure 8. Shallow soils overlying bedrock on the White Rim. Note the sparse blackbrush vegetation.

Soils of the Rock Outcrop-Moenkopie (10 percent), and Moenkopie gravelly loam

Association occupy approximately 24 percent sand (5 percent). Nakai fine sand is classified (136 acres) of the White Rim Uplands Parcel. as a coarse, loamy, mixed, mesic, typic cal- Approximately 60 percent of the area ciorthid (Lammers 1991). They are deep, mapped as this association is exposed bed- well-drained soils that have formed in eolian rock, 25 percent is Moenkopie gravelly and alluvial sediments. Agricultural produc- loamy sand, and the remaining 1 5 percent in- tivity is limited by the low organic content cludes small areas of other soils: Trail fine (1 percent) and low available water capacity sand (5 percent), Thoroughfare fine sandy (15.3-20.3 cm) and averages 204.5 kg dry loam (5 percent), and Sheppard fine sand weight per acre per year. Under natural con-

(5 percent). Soil characteristics and vegeta- ditions, primary taxa include Indian ricegrass tional productivity of the Moenkopie very (35 percent of the total productivity), galleta gravelly sandy loam were discussed above. grass (15 percent), dropseed (10 percent),

Soils of the Nakai Fine Sand Association saltbush (10 percent), Mormon tea (5 per- occupy approximately 13 percent (72 acres) cent), globemallow (5 percent), and winterfat of the White Rim Uplands Parcel. Soils in (5 percent). this association include Nakai fine sand The sixth soil association is Thorough- (62 percent of the mapped area), Bluechief fare Fine Sandy Loam, which occupies ap- fine sandy loam (10 percent), Thoroughfare proximately 44 percent (255 acres) of the sandy loam (10 percent), Sheppard fine sand White Rim Uplands Parcel. Soils in this

29 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING association include Thoroughfare fine sandy In summary, soils in the project area are

loam (83 percent of the area mapped as this predominantly shallow soils formed in eolian soil association), Trail fine sand (10 percent), sediments overlying shallow or exposed bed- and Bluechief fine sandy loam (7 percent). rock. Extensive bedrock exposures are pre- Thoroughfare fine sandy loam soils are clas- sent in the White Crack Benchlands Parcel sified as coarse to loamy, mixed (calcareous), and in a significant proportion (38 percent) of mesic, typic torrifluvents (Lammers 1991) the White Rim Uplands Parcel. Small areas and are deep, well-drained soils formed in al- of alluvial sediments are present on the floors

luvial sediments. of the drainages, but they do not form a sig-

The identification of this soil association nificant soil component.

in the project area is somewhat problematic because of the shallow nature of soils in the Vegetation project area and the presence of few streams The Island-in-the-Sky District and the that would have transported alluvial sediment project area are in the Great Basin Desert- to the area. In addition, surface sediments ob- scrub Biome (Turner 1982). Variation in ele- served during the inventory were identified vation, geologic formations, and sediment as eolian sand in small dunes and sheets. The types, in association with climatic factors, re- surface soils appear to be more similar to sult in different vegetational communities, all soils of the Nakai Fine Sand Association than of which are xeric in nature. Modern vegeta- to soils of the Thoroughfare Fine Sandy tion maps of Canyonlands National Park Loam Association. Detailed soil mapping and show two vegetation communities in the descriptions have not been undertaken at a project area. These include the blackbrush/ fine scale in the project area and there has Mormon tea/galleta grass community on the been no evidence collected that would re- White Rim (see Figures 2 and 8) and the solve this issue. Agricultural productivity of snakeweed/Mormon tea association on the Thoroughfare sandy loam is limited by the slopes below the White Rim (National Park low organic content (1 percent) and low Service 1985). The top of Junction Butte is available water capacity (12.7-20.3 cm) and dominated by species of the pinyon/juniper averages 204.5 kg dry weight per acre per community. However, this community is out- year. Under natural conditions, primary taxa side of the project area and is not likely to include Indian ricegrass (35 percent of the to- have provided a useful resource base because tal productivity), galleta grass (15 percent), of its inaccessibility. An area dominated by dropseed (10 percent), saltbush (10 percent), species of the galleta grass/Indian ricegrass Mormon tea (5 percent), globemallow (5 per- community is located a short distance east of cent), and winterfat (5 percent). the project area. The White Rim Area is extremely mar- A list of plant taxa identified during the ginal for prehistoric agriculture because of inventory is presented in Table 8. The pri- the extensive bedrock exposures, shallow mary taxa identified in the White Rim Up- soils, low available water capacity and pre- lands Parcel are blackbrush, shadscale, cipitation, the low vegetation productivity, narrowleaf yucca, Indian ricegrass, and and the absence of any permanent or reliable prickly pear cactus. Indian ricegrass is most water sources. Most precipitation would be common in patchy areas in dune deposits lost as runoff because of the extensive bed- (see Figure 7). These species are also present rock exposures and shallow soils.

30 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Table 8. Plant taxa identified in the project area.

Common Name Scientific Name Apache plume Fallugia paradoxa Bitterbrush Purshia tridenta

Barrel cactus Ferocactus sp. Beeweed Cleome sp. Blackbrush Coleogyne ramosissima Bladderpod Lesquerella spp. Buckwheat Eriogonum spp. Bud sagebrush Artemisia spinescens Cheatgrass Bromus lectorum Claret cup cactus Echinocereus melanacanthus Cliffrose Purshia mexicana Currant Ribes cereum Dropseed Sporobolus sp. Dune broom Parryella filifolia Fishhook cactus Sclerocactus pubispinus Fleabane Erigeron annuus Four-wing saltbush A triplex canescens Galleta grass Hilaria jamesii Gilia Gilia spp. Globemallow Sphaeralcea sp. Goldenweed Haplopappus spp. Hackberry Celtis reticulata Indian ricegrass Stipa hymenoides Locoweed Astragalus sp. Mormon tea Ephedra sp. Mountain ash Sorbus scopulina Narrowleaf yucca Yucca angustissima Newberry twin pod Physaria newberryi Paintbrush Castilleja spp. Pinyon pine Pinus edulis Prickly pear Opuntia spp. Primrose Onagracea sp. Princes plume Stanleya integrifolia Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus sp. Sand sagebrush Artemisia filifolia

Sego lily Calochortus flexuosus Serviceberry Amelanchier utahensis Shadscale A triplex confertifolia Singleleaf ash Fraxinus anomala Snakeweed Gutierrezia sp. Spurge Euphorbia sp. Squawbush Rhus trilobata Sunflower Helianthus sp. Utah juniper Juniperus osteosperma Winterfat Eurotia lanata Wolfberry Lycium pallidum Yellow cryptantha Cryptantha flava NOTE: Taxa were identified in the project area by the field crew during the inventory.

31 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

in the White Crack Benchlands Parcel. Juni- species inhabit or pass through the area on a

per, mountain ash, and currant are common, seasonal basis (Table 10). Among the avian especially along the rim edge. Below the taxa are many species of waterfowl, such as White Rim, the vegetation is fairly consistent herons, geese, ducks, rails, etc., that are with the communities on the White Rim. found predominantly along the Colorado However, Mormon tea and shadscale replace River. Birds of prey include the turkey vul-

blackbrush as the dominant species (see Fig- ture, bald eagles, golden eagles, hawks, fal-

ure 4). cons, and owls. Nearly 100 other bird

Sheep and cattle were seasonally grazed species, (e.g., swallows, woodpeckers, wrens,

in the inventory area from the 1890s to 1975 nuthatches) have been reported in the region and on a smaller scale, with fewer animals, (see Table 9) and may be present, at least on until 1983 (Osborn 1995). Tipps and Heath a seasonal basis, in the project area. Game (1995) indicate that the dominance of blackbirds include Gambel's quail and mourning brush, sagebrush, and cheatgrass in the doves. Few reptiles are present in the area

Squaw Butte area may be related to the ef- and these are limited primarily to a few liz- fects of grazing rather than a natural plant ard and snake species. successional sequence. A similar situation, Animals observed during the inventory relative to the presence and numbers of these were few in number and sightings were lim- species, may also have occurred in the inven- ited primarily to birds, rabbits, small rodents, tory area. Cheatgrass is an introduced species rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis), and horned that has replaced a number of the native spe- lizards (Phrynosoma spp.). Taxa known to

cies, whereas blackbrush and sagebrush are have been present during the Late Prehistoric, native taxa. Species that may have provided Protohistoric, and the early historic periods, food and other resources for prehistoric peo- but not present in the area today, include ples include beeweed, buckwheat, currant, gray wolf, mountain sheep, and bison. Fish,

cliff-rose, dropseed, hackberry, Indian rice- muskrat, and beaver are present in the Colo-

grass, prickly pear cactus, rabbitbrush, sage- rado River, but not in the project area. Large brush, saltbush, serviceberry, Utah juniper, game species economically important to pre- and wolfberry. Galleta grass, Indian rice- historic people include mule deer and poten-

grass, snakeweed, globemallow, winterfat, tially, pronghorn antelope, mountain sheep, Mormon tea, blackbrush, sagebrush, and and bison. Smaller game animals such as de- other grasses would have provided forage for sert cottontail, Nuttall's cottontail, and the wild or domesticated animals. black-tailed jackrabbit are present and may also have been important resources. Fauna Paleoenvironmental Canyonlands National Park is in the Grand Valley subcenter of the Canyonlands Studies Province in the Colorado Plateau Faunal area Paleoenvironmental reconstructions and

(Durrant 1952). Animals documented in the studies in the region have focused on investi- region during the late Holocene include nu- gations of pack rat middens (Betancourt merous species of bats, rodents, and carni- 1984; Mead and Agenbroad 1992a, 1992b), vores, and several species of lagomorphs and the alluvial record (Agenbroad and Mead artiodactyls (Table 9). A diversity of bird 1992; Anderson 1991), the eolian record

32 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Table 9. Mammals known to inhabit Canyonlands National Park.

Common Name Scientific Name CHIROPTERA—Bats Vespertilionidae-Insectivorous Bats

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus Long-legged bat Myotis volans California bat Myotis californicus Small-footed myotis Myotis subulatus Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Western canyon bat Pipistrellus hesperus Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Red bat Lasiurus borealis Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Townsend's big-eared bat Plecotus townsendii Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus

Molossidae-Free-tailed Bats Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis

LAGOMORPHA—Rabbits and Hares Leporidae-Rabbits and Hares

Nuttall's cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus

RODENTIA—Rodents Sciuridae-Squirrels White-tailed antelope squirrel Ammospermophilus leucurus Rock squirrel Spermophilus variegatus Spotted ground squirrel Spermophilus spilosoma Abert's squirrel Sciurus aberti Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Colorado chipmunk Eutamias quadrivittatus Least chipmunk Eutamias minimus

Whitetail prairie dog Cynomys leucurus Gunnison's prairie dog Cynomys gunnisoni Yellow-bellied marmot Marmota flaviventris

Geomyidae-Pocket Gophers Botta pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides

Heteromyidae-Pocket Mice and Kangaroo Rats Apache pocket mouse Perognaihus apache

Ord kangaroo rat Dipodomys ordii Silky pocket mouse Perognathus flavus

Castoridae-Beaver Beaver Castor canadensis

33 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Table 9. Mammals known to inhabit Canyonlands National Park (continued).

Common Name Scientific Name Cricetidae-New World Rats and Mice Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis Canyon mouse Peromyscus crinitus Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Brush mouse Peromyscus boylii Pinon mouse Peromyscus truei Northern grasshopper mouse Onychomys leucogaster Long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus

White-throated wood rat Neotoma albigula

Desert wood rat Neotoma lepida

Mexican wood rat Neotoma mexicana Bushy-tailed wood rat Neotoma cinerea Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Erethizontidae Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

CARNIVORA—Carnivores Procyonidae-Racoons Ringtail Bassariscus astutus

Mustelidae- Weasels, Skunks, Badgers, etc. Badger Taxidea taxus Eastern spotted skunk Spilogale putorius Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis

Canidae-Coyotes, Wolves, and Foxes Coyote Canis latrans

Gray wolf (e) Canis lupus Kit fox Vulpes macrotis Red fox Vulpes vulpes Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Felidae-Cats Cougar Felis concolor Bobcat Felis rufus

ARTIODACTYLA—Deer, Antelope, Mountain Sheep, and Bison Cervidae-Deer Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

Antilocapridae-Pronghom Pronghorn Antilocapra americana

Bovidae-Bison and Sheep Mountain sheep Ovis canadensis Bison Bison bison SOURCES: Field notes and Burt (1976), Durrant (1952), and Van Gelder (1982). Taxonomy follows Shaffer and Baker (1992). (e) = Extirpated.

34 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Table 10. Birds known to inhabit the Canyonlands area.

Common Name Scientific Name PODICIPEDIIFORMES—Grebes Podicipedidae-Grebes Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

CICONIIFORMES—Herons, Bitterns, Ibises, and Storks Ardeidae-Herons and Bitterns Great blue heron Ardea herodias

ANSERIFORMES—Ducks, Geese, and Swans Anatidae-Ducks, Geese, and Swans Canada goose Branta canadensis

Green-winged teal Anas crecca Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Northern pintail Anas acuta

Blue-winged teal Anas discors

Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera Gadwall Anas strepera American wigeon Anas americana

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula Common merganser Mergus merganser Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis

FALCONIFORMES—Hawks, Vultures, Falcons, and Eagles Cathartidae-Vultures Turkey vulture Cathartes aura

Accipitridae-Hawks and Eagles Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus

Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii Northern goshawk Accipiter gentHis Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos

Falconidae-Falcons American kestrel Falco sparverius Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus

GALLIFORMES—Fowl-like birds Phasianidae-Fowl-like birds Gambel's quail Callipepla gambelii

35 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Table 10. Birds known to inhabit the Canyonlands area (continued).

Common Name Scientific Name GRUIFORMES--Rails and Cranes Rallidae-Rails and Coots American coot Fulica americana

Virginia rail Rallus limicola Sora Porzana Carolina

CHARADRIIFORMES—Plovers, Sandpipers, Avocets, etc. Charadriidae-Plovers Mountain plover Charadrius montanus Killdeer Charadrius vociferus

Recurvirostridae-Stilts and Avocets American avocet Recurvirostra americana

Scolopacidae-Sandpipers and Phalaropes Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia Common snipe Gallinago gallinago

COLUMBIFORMES—Pigeons and Doves Columbidae-Pigeons and Doves Mourning dove Zenaida macroura STRIGIFORMES—Owls Tytonidae-Barn Owls Barn owl Tyto alba

Strigidae-Typical Owls Great Horned owl Bubo virginianus Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Long-eared owl Asio otus Short-eared owl Asio jlammeus Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus

CAPRIMULGIFORMES—Goatsuckers Caprimulgidae-Goatsuckers Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor

APODIFORMES—Swifts and Hummingbirds Apodidae-Swifts White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis

Trochilidae-Hummingbirds Black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Broad-tailed hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus

CORACIIFORMES—Kingfishers and Woodpeckers Picidae- Woodpeckers Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Northern flicker Colaptes auratus

36 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Table 10. Birds known to inhabit the Canyonlands area (continued).

Common Name Scientific Name

PASSERIFORMES—Flycatchers, Larks, Chickadees, etc. Tyrannidae-Flycatchers Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii Hammond's flycatcher Empidonax hammondii Dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Cassin's kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Say's phoebe Sayornis saya

Alaudidae-Larks Horned lark Eremophila alpestris

Hirundinidae-Swallows Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripermis Cliff swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota Barn swallow Hirundo rustica

Corvidae-Jays, Magpies, and Crows

Steller's jay Cyanocitta stelleri Scrub jay Aphelocoma coerulescens Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Clark's nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana Black-billed magpie Pica pica American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Common raven Corvus corax

Paridae-Chickadees and Titmice Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus Mountain chickadee Parus gambeli Plain titmouse Parus inornatus

Aegithalidae-Bushtit Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus

Sittidae-Nuthatches Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea

Certhiidae-Creepers Brown creeper Certhia americana

37 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Table 10. Birds known to inhabit the Canyonlands area (continued).

Common Name Scientific Name Troglodytidae-Wrens Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus Canyon wren Catherpes mexicanus House wren Troglodytes aedon Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris

Muscicapidae-Kinglets, Gnatcatchers, and Thrushes Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Western bluebird Sialia mexicana Mountain bluebird Sialia currocoides

Townsend's solitaire Myadestes townsendi Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus American robin Turdus migratorius

Mimidae-Mimic thrushes Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus

Bombycillidae-Waxwings Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus

Laniidae-Shrikes Northern shrike Lanius excubitor Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Vireonidae-Vireos

Solitary vireo Vireo solitarius Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus

Emberizidae-Warblers, Grosbeaks, Sparrows, and Blackbirds Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata Black-throated gray warbler Dendroica nigrescens Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens Blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus Rufous-sided towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Song sparrow Melospiza melodia White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys

38 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Table 10. Birds known to inhabit the Canyonlands area (continued).

Common Name Scientific Name Emberizidae- Warblers, Grosbeaks, Sparrows, and Blackbirds (continued) Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater Northern oriole Icterus galbula

Scott's oriole Icterus parisorum

Fringillidae-Finches Rosy finch Leucosticte arctoa Cassin's finch Carpodacus cassinii House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra Pine siskin Carduelis pinus Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertina

Passeridae- Weaver Finches House sparrow Passer domesticus

SOURCES: Field notes and Hayward et al. (1976) and Peterson (1990).

(Ahlbrandt et al. 1983; Hall 1990; Stokes et from niches, overhangs, and rockshelters in al. 1991; Wells et al. 1990), the faunal record White Rim Sandstone outcrops located in or

(Madsen et al. 1976; Mead and Agenbroad near the White Crack Benchlands Parcel.

1992a; Mead et al. 1991; Mead, Stuart, and Eleven middens were radiocarbon dated. Six

Agenbroad 1992; Miller 1979), mollusks date to the Holocene (Table 1 1). One dates to (Mead, Agenbroad, and Nittmann 1992), pol- the Late Pleistocene and the remaining four len (Mehringer 1985), and arthropods (Elias date older than 29,000 B.P. The pack rat

et al. 1992). Because most of these studies midden data indicate that there was a signifi- have focused on other portions of Canyon- cant vegetational shift between 9500 and lands National Park or the Colorado Plateau, 8800 B.P. (Mead and Agenbroad 1992a).

there is little specific information available Species adapted to more mesic conditions for the Island-in-the-Sky District. However, a (e.g., Rocky Mountain juniper [Juniperus

pack rat midden study by Mead and Agen- scopolorum], Douglas fir [Pseudotsuga broad (1992a) was based on 12 middens from menziesii]) are present in middens dating be- the immediate vicinity of the project area. fore 8800 B.P. but are not present in middens post-dating 8800 B.P. These taxa appear to Pack Rat Midden Studies have been replaced by species adapted to a more xeric climate (e.g., blackbrush, As part of the multidisciplinary approach shadscale, Utah juniper). to the Canyonlands studies, Mead and Agen- The pack rat midden record has a large broad (1992a) sampled 12 pack rat middens gap between 8440 and 4370 B.P., and the

39 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Table 1 1 . Radiocarbon dates from pack rat midden samples collected in and near the White Crack Area, Canyonlands National Park, Utah.

Uncorrected Radiocarbon Date Laboratory Midden Number (Years B.P.) Sample Number 9 380 ± 70 Beta-37966 4 1560 ± 60 Beta-37959 5 4370 ± 90 Beta-37960 1A 8440 ± 120 Beta-37956 6A 8800 ± 90 Beta-37961 2 9570 ± 110 Beta-37957 3 12,170 ± 110 Beta-37958

three samples that date to the mid- to late presence of springs and seeps) has not been Holocene have a relatively wide distribution. collected. The presence of extensive bedrock

Thus, the resolution of the pack rat midden exposures and shallow soils indicates that al-

record is relatively coarse grained. Additional luvial evidence of any hydrologic changes investigations may provide finer resolution would most likely not be preserved in the

and more detailed information pertaining to project area. It is possible that springs and the Late Pleistocene and Holocene vegetation seeps were more prevalent along the pre- record. Mead and Agenbroad (1992a:99-102) viously mentioned bedrock contact points argue that the modern vegetation community, during more mesic periods (e.g., the Late with the exception of historically introduced Pleistocene, Early Holocene, the Neoglacial

species and pinyon pine, was in place by ap- periods, and during the Little Ice Age). How-

proximately 8440 B.P. Pinyon pine is not ever, no evidence has yet been collected indi-

present in the project area and has not been cating whether or not this occurred.

identified in pack rat middens or from any Several investigators (Currey 1990; Cur-

other contexts in Canyonlands National Park rey and James 1982; Dean et al. 1985; Euler

that predate 5150 B.P. (Mead and Agenbroad et al. 1979; Spaulding et al. 1984; Thompson 1992a, 1992b). 1984) propose that the Early Holocene (10,000 to 6,500 B.P.) on the Colorado Pla- Paleoenvironmental Summary teau was a time when precipitation patterns were changing from a winter-dominated an- The geologic record of the area and na- nual pattern to a summer- and cool-season- ture of the landforms has remained essen- dominated pattern. This period is proposed to tially unchanged throughout the Quaternary have been cooler than the present but with period. There has been no significant alluvial more effective precipitation. Temperatures activity. Eolian activity has been limited to became warmer and precipitation decreased the formation of climbing and descending during the Early Holocene until environ- dunes against cliff faces, and sheet sands and mental conditions characteristic of the small linear dunes on the White Rim. Evi- mid-Holocene and Altithermal periods dence of any significant changes in the hy- were reached. During this time, vegetation drologic regime (e.g., streamflow and the

40 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

communities shifted from more mesic to (Mead and Agenbroad 1992b), but is not pre- more xeric adapted species (see "Pack Rat sent in pack rat middens from the project Midden" discussion, above). By the mid- area. The faunal assemblage, with the excep- portion of the Early Holocene (i.e., 8440 tion of historically extirpated species (e.g.,

B.P.), the vegetational assemblage was essen- gray wolf, bison) was the same as at present. tially the same as the modern assemblage. Antelope and deer may have been present in The Pleistocene megafaunal extinction the area throughout the Holocene, although

(e.g., musk ox [Symbos spp.], horse and on- not in large numbers. ager [Equus spp.], Harrington's mountain With several minor fluctuations, environ- goat [Oreamnos harringtoni], camel mental conditions during the Late Holocene [Camelops cf. hesternus and Hemiauchenia (3500 B.P. to present) were the same as the spp.], Columbian mammoth [Mammuthus co- modern environment. For example, relative to lumbi], bison [Bison antiquus and Bison the modern environment, the area may have spp.]) occurred during the terminal portion of had cooler temperatures with more effective the Late Pleistocene and was completed dur- precipitation during the Neoglacial period ing the Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene (approximately 3500-1800 B.P.) and the transition (Agenbroad and Mead 1992; Mad- Little Ice Age (A.D. 1400-1850). Soil devel- sen et al. 1976; Miller 1979), although some opment on dune sands indicates that eolian species may have survived into the Early activity was relatively stable during the be-

Holocene in favorable areas of the Colorado ginning of this period. Increased eolian activ-

Plateau (Agenbroad and Mead 1992; Mead ity is proposed at approximately 2200 B.P. in and Agenbroad 1992a, 1992b; Schroedl other portions of the Colorado Plateau (Ahl-

1991). By the end of the Early Holocene, the brandt et al. 1983; Stokes et al. 1991; Wells remaining faunal species and their distribu- et al. 1990). No evidence has been collected tion was similar to the modern faunal assem- that would indicate if similar processes were blage. occurring in the project area. The vegeta- During the mid-Holocene or Altithermal tional and faunal assemblages were essen- period (approximately 6500 to 3500 B.P.), tially identical to the modern assemblages, temperatures were warmer with less effective with the exception of historically introduced precipitation than at present. Increased eolian and extirpated species. activity, as evidenced by the erosion and Native species such as Indian ricegrass, deposition of dune sands, occurred in some blackbrush, shadscale, saltbush, and juniper portions of the Colorado Plateau (Hack 1942; may have been more prevalent than at pre-

Hall 1990; Wells et al. 1990). No formal in- sent. The dominance of several species in the vestigations of the eolian stratigraphy in the modern vegetation communities (e.g., cheat- project area have been undertaken. Thus, no grass, rabbitbrush, sagebrush) may be the re- evidence has been collected that would indi- sult of overgrazing and widespread human cate if similar processes were occurring in disturbance rather than a natural succession. the project area. The vegetational assemblage during this period was the same as the mod- Summary ern one, except for modern introduced spe- A number of natural resources may have cies. Pinyon pine is present in pack rat attracted prehistoric people to the White Rim midden samples that date to 5150 B.P. from area. Lithic resources (e.g., Cedar Mesa other portions of Canyonlands National Park

41 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Chert) suitable for the manufacture of observed during the inventory. The shallow chipped stone tools are available in lenses soils and low water availability indicate that within the Cedar Mesa Sandstone and as ex- prehistoric agriculture was probably not fea- tensive lag deposits. Raw material suitable sible. for use as groundstone tools is also present in The soils in the area support a diverse, these formations. The cliff faces and talus although sparse, floral assemblage that pro- slopes contain small overhangs and rockshel- vides a number of plant resources that could ters that provide shelter. High points on the have been used by aboriginal people. The bedrock formations provide suitable lookout seasonal availability of seeds and other plant locations that could be used when hunting resources might have composed a predictable game animals. The rock faces also provide resource base. Indian ricegrass, prickly pear locations for the execution of rock art. cactus, saltbush, shadscale, serviceberry, The absence of permanent water sources wolfberry, and cliffrose provide desirable is a limiting factor on the vegetation, fauna, plant foods. Other plant resources include and possible human occupation of the area. Mormon tea and buckwheat. Plants in the

Water is available in drainages, bedrock de- area may also have provided nonfood re- pressions, and hollows following precipita- sources such as fibers, fuel, construction mation events, and may be present in larger terial, paint, and medicinal remedies. bedrock potholes over a longer period of Potentially exploitable faunal resources in- time, but no springs or permanent streams are clude cottontail and Nuttall's rabbits, jackrab- present. Seeps have been reported along the bits, and a variety of rodents, in addition to

White Rim and may have been present in the larger game animals such as deer, antelope, inventory area at one time, but were not bison, and bighorn sheep.

42 —

Chapter 3

RESEARCH ORIENTATION

by Betsy L. Tipps

As noted in Chapter 1, the primary of topics but was deliberately general so that goal of the Canyonlands Archeo- all types of data recovered from the investi- logical Project, as articulated by the National gations could be easily accommodated.

Park Service (1984), is to enhance the park's The original research design for the Can- interpretive program concerning human pre- yonlands Archeological Project established history. Collecting basic descriptive and com- four broad and somewhat overlapping re- parative data on the archeological record and search domains—Chronology and Cultural addressing scientific research issues are Affiliation, Settlement Patterns, Environ- among the secondary goals. These objectives mental Adaptation, and Cultural Interaction are interrelated in that collection of baseline to structure all subsequent investigations data is a prerequisite to developing interpre- (P-III Associates 1984). Although these do- tive information and examining research mains are fixed for the duration of the pro- problems. As such, a large portion of this re- ject, research issues and topics within these port simply documents the extant archeologi- domains are established on a project-by- cal record. We attempt to achieve the other project basis, depending on research potential two goals by presenting and addressing a and the types of remains anticipated in the project- specific research design. particular inventory area. For the work at The remainder of this section presents White Crack, research issues were identified the research design that was used to structure in the first three domains. No research ques- our investigations in Island-in-the-Sky, to de- tions were posed for the Cultural Interaction velop interpretive information for park visi- Domain because the sites were not expected tors, and to help place our work within the to yield the appropriate types of data. larger context of archeological theory and re- The White Crack Area research design gional knowledge. It includes a wide variety was developed by identifying important RESEARCH ORIENTATION regional research topics through a review of between approximately 3000 and 2000 B.P. previous work in the project region, including (ca. 1250 B.C.-A.D. 50). those topics that might be addressed with the Research issues in the Settlement Pat- data types expected from the White Crack terns Domain involved characterizing settle-

Area. This review suggested that open lithic ment patterns, generally based on Binford's scatters would be the most common type of (1979, 1980) forager-collector model, for site, with the possibility of some granaries, each time period and cultural group. Among rock art, lithic source areas, habitation sites, other things, addressing this topic required an and small farming communities (e.g., Davis assessment of site types, duration and inten- and Westfall 1991; Firor and Eininger 1987; sity of occupation, the potential that sites

Gaunt and Eininger 1987; Hartley 1980; Os- were reused, mobility patterns, and site sea- born 1995; Sharrock 1966; Tipps 1991; Vet- sonality. Another related issue was identify- ter 1987, 1989). Therefore, the research ing the character of the social groups that topics outlined at the start of the project fo- used the sites. The final topic in this domain cused on what could be learned from these was evaluating the applicability of settlement types of sites. Consistent with the mission of models proposed by Sharrock (1966) based the project, the research design attempted to on his reconnaissance inventory and Osborn focus on topics of intrinsic interest to visi- (1995) based on the Island-in-the-Sky road tors, and this report is written at a level ap- project excavations. propriate for the interested public. In the Environmental Adaptation Do-

The Chronology and Cultural Affiliation main, the first major focus was assessing the

Domain included investigations of the fol- availability of critical resources (e.g., food, lowing topics: (1) the ages of sites in the water, and raw materials) and local agricul- White Rim area, with a particular focus on tural potential, and identifying what con- identifying and characterizing the non-Pueblo straints the local environmental situation

II-III occupation; (2) whether occupation was might have presented prehistoric populations continuous or sporadic; (3) which cultural- using the project area. The second major fo- temporal framework best explains and helps cus was prehistoric subsistence, including us understand the local Archaic occupation; characterization and identification of subsis-

(4) the cultural affiliation of Preformative- tence practices, particularly the types of re- age cultures; and (5) what Formative period sources used, the relative importance of wild tradition(s) (e.g., Anasazi, Fremont, etc.) oc- versus domestic foods, storage behavior, and cur in the project area. In line with work con- whether a particular resource or group of re- ducted since the inventory, an additional sources was a major reason for occupation of research topic was added to this domain: the area. We also planned to examine the na- evaluating the efficacy of Reed's (1995) ture and timing of the local transition to agri- Gateway Tradition for understanding Forma- culture. The third major focus in this domain tive period culture in the park. Finally, we concerned technology, such as: what raw ma- also proposed to evaluate Tipps' (1995) hy- terials were used, how and where they were pothesis that the lack of mutually exclusive obtained, and how technology was used to- diagnostic artifacts and the greater use of ward the goal of successful adaptation. Finally, open sites, not a lack of occupation, created we intended to assess the utility of Tipps and the appearance of an occupational hiatus Hewitt's (1989) raw material typology and

44 RESEARCH ORIENTATION classification developed for the Needles Dis- coupled with the lack of previous work in the trict. Island-in-the-Sky and along the White Rim. Many of these issues are overlapping and Fortunately, these problems can be overcome interrelated, and addressing some research somewhat through a broader regional per- questions is dependent on others. Also, these spective. Because our work was restricted to issues are not exhaustive, but they do repre- one portion of the White Rim, and because sent a large body of those that can potentially this area is atypical in having an access route be addressed with the types of data expected to the lower canyons and benchlands, consid- from the project. erable caution must be used in extending our

A plan for reanalysis of the lithics from results to other areas of the White Rim unless the White Crack site was not included in the other projects confirm similar patterns. original White Crack Area research design The final limitation on the types of re- because we were not then aware that the research that could be conducted was the na- analysis would be included in the project. ture of the sites themselves. Based on Consequently, a research plan was developed previous work in the surrounding region, we before initiation of the reanalysis based on suspected that the majority of sites would be the general research design in this chapter. open lithic scatters, few of which would be

This plan is presented in Chapter 7. datable from surface indications. Thus, our The nature and extent of research that orientation and focus were different than they can be done on any project is constrained by would have been if we expected numerous time, funding, and a variety of other project- Anasazi or Fremont structural sites. specific factors. The types of research that could be conducted for this project were lim- Chronology and Cultural ited the following. First, the project was by Affiliation primarily an inventory, with only minimal testing and reanalysis of an existing artifact Culture history is the descriptive outline assemblage. This restricted the types of data of prehistoric human cultures and adaptations available for study. Second, because of the in an area through time as determined by the stipulation that artifact collections be mini- chronological and spatial ordering of archeo- mized, few artifacts from the inventoried logical data. Culture history is not a proces- sites were available for detailed laboratory sual issue. It is not very useful for explaining analysis. Third, although artifacts from the cultural processes or the causes of major de-

White Crack site were reanalyzed, the collec- velopments in prehistory, but it is the basic re- tion is small, mainly from the surface, and foundation of such deductive, processual less than ideal because the site was sampled search. A considerable amount of work has unevenly and using a variety of different, been done in the region, but as Montgomery noncomparable collection techniques (see (1989:49) notes, "Basically, there is minimal pertaining cultural- Chapter 7). Fourth, we made an effort to fo- concrete information to the cus on research topics that might be interest- temporal sequence and cultural continuity of ing to visitors. Their interests revolve around prehistoric populations in the Moab area." topics such as who were the first people to Given the current lack of basic knowledge occupy the area, how did they live, and such. about the area, and the many unresolved Further limiting the scope of possible re- questions regarding regional culture history, search was the small size of our project area it is appropriate that some effort be directed

45 RESEARCH ORIENTATION at addressing culture-historical issues. In ad- 1990; Osborn 1995; Reed 1993; Tipps 1995, dition, culture-historical questions of the 1996; Tipps and Hewitt 1989; Vetter 1989) who, what, and when variety are those most and immediately adjacent areas (e.g., Davis frequently asked by park visitors. et al. 1989; Hohman and Hotopp 1990; The first and most basic research topics Louthan 1990; Montgomery 1989; Reed concerned the dates of prehistoric occupation 1990; Tipps 1991; Westfall et al. 1987), we and whether that occupation was intermittent suspected that Island-in-the-Sky experienced or continuous. Based on his reconnaissance a much wider range of occupation than Shar- inventory of the Needles and Island-in-the- rock (1966) envisioned.

Sky districts, Sharrock (1966:63) concluded Indeed, radiocarbon dates from the that most occupation dates to late Pueblo II- Midwest Archeological Center's work on early Pueblo III. He states: the Island-in-the-Sky road project, a prelimi-

nary list of which was available before our

Pottery types . . . indicate that all major work began (Midwest Archeological Center

1989:Table 1), suggested occupation from at sites date to the late Pueblo II-early least Terminal Archaic through Protohistoric

Pueblo III periods, roughly A.D. 1075- times; projectile point types recovered during

that project potentially extended the occupa- 1 150. . . . Some sites, or site components, tional range as early as the Early Archaic undoubtedly are earlier or later, but the (Ralph J. Hartley, personal communication

major influx into, and habitation of, the 1989). Existing chronological information for the White Rim was scant before the project area falls roughly into the A.D. 1075- began, but the White Crack site adjacent to

1150 time span. It is doubtful that sig- the inventory area was known to have been occupied during the Terminal Archaic and nificant occupation began much before Protohistoric periods at a minimum (Vetter A.D. 1075, but complete abandonment of 1989). We proposed to further investigate the

ages of sites on the White Rim, and to con- the area may not have occurred until ap- firm and expand upon the previously reported proximately A.D. 1200-1250. chronological patterns, particularly focusing

on the periods before and after late Pueblo

Sharrock (1966:72) reports "scant evidence II-early Pueblo III, as they were the least

..." known. Work on the Island-in-the-Sky road of material . . . earlier than late Pueblo II and that "significantly earlier material was project (Midwest Archeological Center not encountered." He also indicates that "sig- 1989:Table 1) and in the uplands north of the nificant aboriginal use of the Park following park (e.g., Davis et al. 1989; Montgomery the 13th century exodus of the San Juan 1989; Reed 1990; Tipps 1991) led us to sur-

Anasazi from the Four Corners is scant. mise a relatively heavy occupation during the Southern Paiutes may have wandered through Terminal Archaic, Late Prehistoric, and Pro- tohistoric periods, with more moderate evi- the area . . . The area is within the Ute range dence of other Archaic and Formative period . . ."(Sharrock 1966:62). Based on the results of more recent reuse.

search in other parts of Canyonlands (Horn Sharrock (1966:72) reported that Can- yonlands was "occupied only as population

46 RESEARCH ORIENTATION pressures from the south and east reached (e.g., Berry and Berry 1986; Madsen and maximum intensity" during late Pueblo II. In Berry 1975). contrast, the more recent research cited above The cultural affiliation(s) of the suggested that occupation of Island-in-the- Preformative-age cultures was also a topic of

Sky might have been relatively continuous interest, again because it concerns the origins throughout prehistory. There were, however, of agriculture and the Formative lifeway. The

some gaps in the scant radiocarbon record of labels Basketmaker II, nascent Fremont, and the immediate area, and it was not known Archaic have all been applied to Preformative-

how well the pattern observed in the area age sites in the project region (e.g., Horn around the park might apply to the White 1990; Reed 1990; Tipps 1995). Again, the

Rim. Thus, another focus of this domain was range of opinions regarding cultural affili-

investigating whether occupation of the ation may indicate that (1) people belonging

White Rim was continuous or sporadic. Es- to more than one archeological tradition in-

sential to this investigation was assessing habited the area during this period; (2) there how the geomorphic history of the project are problems with the definitions of these ar-

area might have effected the visibility and cheological manifestations; (3) investigator

preservation of sites of various ages. orientation biased interpretations; or (4) some The other focus of this domain was in- combination of these factors applies. Provid-

vestigating cultural affiliation during all ma- ing that sites of Preformative age were dis- jor time periods of prehistory. As discussed covered in the project area, we proposed to

in the culture history overview in Chapter 1, investigate which, if any, of the labels best two sequences, the Oshara Tradition (Irwin- describe the sites and lifeways of the people Williams 1973) and Schroedl's (1976) se- who inhabited them.

quence for the northern Colorado Plateau, Canyonlands lies in what has tradition- have been applied by various researchers to ally been viewed as a transitional zone be-

Archaic manifestations in the project region. tween the northern San Juan Anasazi and the The identification of two different traditions San Rafael Fremont cultural spheres (Jen-

in the area may be because (1) the territories nings 1980; Rudy 1955). This view was of various Archaic traditions overlapped, modified somewhat by Sharrock (1966:63), either contemporaneously or noncontempo- who concluded that the park was primarily

raneously; (2) different investigators have occupied by the Anasazi. He states:

different orientations and biases; or (3) problems exist with the definitions and existence the northern boundary of the late Pueblo of the traditions themselves. Identifying II - early Pueblo III Mesa Verdean ex- which, if any, of these sequences applies to

the project area is important not only for the pansion may safely be extended to in-

but because it sake of cultural systematics, clude the whole of Canyonlands National may help us evaluate the applicability of the Park. Although Fremont and Anasazi various models regarding the origin of agri-

culture; that is, whether agriculture was people may have alternately used chip- adopted by Archaic peoples already living in ping and hunting grounds within the Park the area (e.g., Aikens 1972; Janetski 1993;

Marwitt 1970; Schroedl 1976) or introduced . . . there is no indisputable evidence.

by a fully agricultural people through migration

47 RESEARCH ORIENTATION

Presumably, the line between the Fremont a lack of occupation, created the appearance of a hiatus between approximately 3000 and and San Juan Anasazi cultures will be found 2000 B.P. (ca. 1250 B.C.-A.D. 50). Knowl- south of the Cliffs and north the Book of edge of this time period is critical to under- northern boundary of the Park. standing the transition to and the origins of

agriculture because it includes and immedi-

ately precedes the early agricultural era. More recent work hinted that Anasazi and Fremont peoples may have both used the Settlement Island-in-the-Sky area on an intermittent ba- Patterns sis. Based on excavations at several sites ap- Settlement patterns, as used here, refer to proximately 35 km north of the project area, the spatial distribution of human occupations just north of the park, Reed (1990:130) sug- and activities across the landscape during gests that "the Fremont may have occupied each time period. Settlement patterns are de- the project area up until about A.D. 950, termined by many factors, such as the distri- when the Anasazi may have expanded their bution of food, water, and other natural range to include the project area. Following resources in the environment, economic

A.D. 1 100, the Fremont may once again have strategies, technological skills, and, in some claimed the project area, only to have aban- cases, sociopolitical considerations and popu- doned it by the time Numic peoples arrived." lation density. Settlement pattern studies are Therefore, an important research topic pro- a valuable tool for helping understand past posed for the project was investigating human behavior because they can inform on whether Anasazi or Fremont people occupied economic practices, including the seasonal the White Crack Area, and if they did so at cycle of food procurement, mobility patterns, the same or different times. prehistoric use of the natural environment,

As noted in the culture history overview and past social systems. Studies in this do-

in Chapter 1, Formative-age sites in the pro- main were directed at several of these topics ject region lack key traits of either the in addition to identifying the basic settlement Anasazi or Fremont cultural traditions. Reed patterns during each time period. (1995) calls this archeological manifestation Basic settlement pattern studies require the Gateway Tradition. This tradition tenta- assessments of site types (e.g., lithic procure- tively dates between 500 B.C. and A.D. 1250, ment loci, hunting camps, gathering camps,

covering the Preformative and Formative pe- seasonal farming sites, etc.), intensity and du-

riods defined for this project (see Table 1). ration of occupation, whether the sites result

Because the White Crack Area lies within the from single or multiple occupations, whether

territory defined for the Gateway Tradition, occupation was seasonal or year-round, sea-

evaluating the efficacy of the Gateway Tradi- son(s) of use if a seasonal pattern was ob- tion for understanding Formative period cul- served, mobility patterns, and potential size ture was added as an additional research of the annual range. We proposed to assess

issue. these issues for the various time periods rep-

The final research topic in this domain resented by project sites. We also intended to was evaluating Tipps' (1995) hypothesis that investigate whether the typical Archaic pat- the lack of mutually exclusive diagnostics tern of seasonal mobility persisted into the

and greater use of open, insubstantial sites, not block of time designated for this project as

48 RESEARCH ORIENTATION the Formative period. Finally, we proposed to particular food resources at varying locations examine the size and nature of the social or elevations throughout the year. Binford groups that used the sites (e.g., task groups, (1980:17) calls these people serial foragers. nuclear family groups, etc.), and whether A collecting strategy is expected when they changed through time. resources are unevenly distributed through Consistent with previous work on the space or time (seasonally). To compensate

Canyonlands Archeological Project (Tipps for such resource incongruity, collectors es- 1995), a middle range theoretical model tablish residential bases near key resources known as the forager-collector continuum such as water and fuel, and send task-specific

(Binford 1979, 1980) provided the theoretical activity groups on logistical forays to procure framework for identifying the settlement pat- specific resources and bring them back to the terns practiced by each cultural group during residential base. Collectors rely on stored each time period. This model describes two food to help them accommodate temporal extremes of hunter-gatherer settlement strate- and spatial variability in resource availability. gies that occur on a worldwide level. It is In general, foragers have high residential based on the premise that large-scale differ- mobility (they move their residence often) ences in the environment, and in particular and invest little time in logistical activities. the distribution of food and water resources, Collectors make fewer residential moves, in- create regular patterns in the way hunter- stead initiating frequent logistical forays. gatherers organize their behavior to adapt to However, the relative mobility and frequency the environment. Topographic and climatic of moves in both the forager and collector conditions play a large role in the distribution categories depend on food density and distri- and availability of food resources. bution in a particular group's environment

At one end of the continuum are foragers (Kelly 1995:120, Table 4-1). It should be em- who access resources through residential mo- phasized that these two settlement types are bility, that is, moving consumers to the re- at opposing ends of a continuum and that source. At the other end of the continuum are prehistoric hunter-gatherers probably used a collectors who access resources through lo- combination of foraging and collecting tactics gistical mobility, that is, using individuals or to accommodate spatial, seasonal, and long- task groups to procure resources and trans- range fluctuations in resource abundance and port them to the consumers (Binford 1980). availability. Among ethnographic hunter-

A foraging strategy is expected in areas of gatherers in the Desert West, a common low environmental variability where critical adaptational pattern involved high-mobility, resources are evenly spread through space warm-season foraging and lower mobility, and time and can be obtained within the for- cold-season collecting (Kelly 1964; Steward aging radius of a residential base. Foragers 1938). In the Island-in-the-Sky area, the sea- acquire resources within a short distance sonality and distribution of key plant re-

(usually 10 km) of their residential base sources and water were probably the critical camp and move the camp when the resources factors in mobility strategies, and thus, in the are depleted. Because food is procured on a settlement patterns. day-to-day basis, foragers typically have little The forager-collector model was developed need for storage. In cooler, nontropical cli- to help understand hunter-gatherer settlement mates, foragers may coordinate their residen- strategies, which, in the traditional view, would tial mobility to the phased availability of restrict its use to the preagricultural era.

49 RESEARCH ORIENTATION

However, with the increased recognition of would be much more numerous than reported

settlement and subsistence variability in local by Sharrock (1966), and that the lithic scat-

Formative-age cultures (e.g., Reed 1995; ters would include a wider array of site types Simms 1986; Tipps and Hewitt 1989), as- than just "chipping areas" or "hunting

pects of this model were considered poten- camps". We also anticipated rock art, lithic tially useful for elucidating agricultural source area sites, and rockshelter habitations. cultures (Osborn 1995; Tipps 1995). Given the appropriate environmental condi- The next research topic in this domain tions, there was also some potential for small was evaluating Sharrock's (1966) conclusions habitation sites and farming communities.

regarding site types and settlement patterns in As a final research topic in this domain, Island-in-the-Sky. In Sharrock's (1966:71) the National Park Service requested that we opinion, "Difficulty of access, limited evaluate Osborn's (1995) model of aboriginal

amounts of arable land, and a lack of water land use in southeastern Utah, a draft copy of supply other than seasonal potholes militated which became available after the fieldwork

against any significant use of the Island in was complete. Under the aegis of the forager- the Sky District." These environmental condi- collector continuum, Osborn (1995:59) pro-

tions are: poses that prehistoric peoples in southeastern Utah had a two-part land-use strategy. During

reflected in the number and nature of the the growing season, they covered huge territories and had an "extensive land use strategy sites - chipping areas and a few grana- based on highly mobile residential groups in-

ries. Apparently, very limited agriculture ." volved in plant exploitation and caching . .

In the fall and winter, they used a logistical was practiced by people living in a few strategy to exploit restricted areas better situated with re-

spect to water. Chipping debris sites collapsed home ranges centered on high

probably result from hunting camps. Sig- plateaus and/or isolated mountain ranges

nificant occupations within the Island in such as the Uncompahgre Plateau, Mesa

the Sky District are limited to the inner Verde, or the La Sal, . . . Abajo, or

gorges of the Green and its tributaries Henry mountain ranges. Winter herds of

upstream from the White Rim barrier and ungulates were hunted during the winter

a few bars, or bottoms, where access was on a 'day-to-day' basis, and plant foods

were retrieved from caches at lower ele- possible . . . there, the river bars were ar-

able and water plentiful; and there, the vations (Osborn 1995:67).

few habitation sites of the Island district Due to the small size and noncollection na- area found (Sharrock 1966:58). ture of our inventory and the absence of any

high-elevation winter range (cf. Osborn 1993,

Based on more recent work undertaken in the 1995) in the White Crack Area, only very surrounding region, we suspected that sites limited testing of this model was anticipated.

50 RESEARCH ORIENTATION

Environmental None of the pothole water supplies would Adaptation be adequate for permanent occupation.

This domain is concerned with how peo- There is even less water on the White ple made a living and adapted to their envi- Rim. Hence, while land was available in ronment. In the past few decades, increased understanding of ecology and how it relates the Island district, an adequate water sup- to archeology have led archeologists to seek ply was not. explanations of cultural process and change using a cultural-ecological approach. Culture These observations suggested that the ecology provides a means of understanding environment presented significant constraints to how human populations adapted to and trans- occupation and that occupation was probably formed their natural and cultural environ- short term and seasonal. However, the known ments. Central to this approach is the study presence of granaries along the White of interrelationships between the various sub- Rim (Sharrock 1966) and small habitation sites on systems of the overall ecosystem. Successful the highest mesa of the Island-in-the-Sky adaptation to an environment can be achieved District (Osborn 1995) suggested the possi- in a variety of ways, but depends on effective bility of limited horticulture and longer term subsistence strategies and technologies, with occupation. The presence of Cedar Mesa social organization and religious beliefs play- Sandstone, which contains chippable chert in ing an integrative role. Using a cultural- other areas of the park (Horn 1990; Tipps ecology framework as the theoretical orienta- 1995; Tipps and Hewitt 1989), and the pres- tion for this project, investigations in this ence of known toolstone sources in and domain focused on three main topics: envi- around the project area (e.g., Davis and ronment, subsistence, and technology. Westfall 1991; Vetter 1987, 1989), led us to Regarding environment, the focus was on suspect that the project area might contain investigating the nature and availability of significant lithic raw material sources that critical resources such as water, food, and made it attractive for groups wishing to re- lithic resources, local agricultural potential, tool and refurbish their toolkits. and constraints the environment might have Research regarding subsistence practices presented to prehistoric human populations. was directed at identifying the types of re- Sharrock (1966:58) states: sources used, whether a particular food re-

source^) was a major reason for being in the The factors of arable land and a perennial project area (e.g., spring occupation for In- water are crucial to the culture supply dian ricegrass exploitation, summer occupa-

history of the Island in the Sky District. tion for raising corn), the relative importance of agriculture and wild food gathering within Precious little water is available on top the overall diet, whether corn was grown in except ground water which supports juni- the area, and storage behavior. We also planned to look at whether these changed pers and grasses. Potable water is limited through time, particularly between the Ar-

to potholes in the Navajo sandstone. . . . chaic and Formative periods. The final research topic concerning subsistence was

51 RESEARCH ORIENTATION

investigating the nature and timing of the during all periods focused on wild plant gath- transition to agriculture. Recent research has ering and some hunting. Based on the use of demonstrated much earlier use of domesti- corn elsewhere and the known presence of

cates than previously accepted in the south- scattered granaries in Island-in-the-Sky, lim- ern Southwest (Smiley 1994). However, the ited horticulture was also a possibility for the

earliest firmly established evidence of corn in Formative period.

Utah is during the first few centuries A.D. on Previous research in the project region the Colorado Plateau (Geib 1993; Jennings suggested that lithic scatters would be the

1980; Lindsay et al. 1968; Winter and Wylie most common type of site in the project area

1974) and the first few centuries B.C. in the and that lithic artifacts would be the most

Great Basin (Wilde and Newman 1989). Re- common artifact type. It followed that acqui-

searchers working in the project region have sition, processing, and use of lithic artifacts noted that a hunting and gathering lifeway were important prehistoric activities. As

persisted well into the Formative period in such, research regarding technology was di-

some areas (e.g., Black et al. 1982; Tipps rected at identifying what materials were 1996), so there was a possibility that corn used, how and where they were obtained, and

was not used until later in the Canyonlands how technology was used toward the goal of

area. The earliest known use of corn in Can- successful adaptation. We also planned to test

yonlands is sometime between A.D. 660 and the raw material typology for chipped stone 970 (Osborn 1995). Based on the findings of established by Tipps and Hewitt (1989) and Sharrock (1966) and Osborn's (1995) land later revised by Tipps (1995, 1996) for the use model, we anticipated that subsistence Needles District.

52 Chapter 4

SUMMARY OF THE SITES

by Betsy L. Tipps

This chapter summarizes the sites observed in the Squaw Butte and Devils Lane documented during the inventory. areas inventoried in the Needles District

The first sections are primarily descriptive. (Tipps 1995; Tipps and Hewitt 1989), it is

They review the descriptive site types and still high relative to surrounding areas of chronology of occupation in the White Crack southeastern Utah that have also been subject

Area. Next is a preliminary assessment of to block area inventory. It is approximately whether the sites represent single or multiple one-third higher than that in Lisbon Valley occupations. This section is included as back- (Black et al. 1982), southeast of the project ground information for understanding the na- area, more than double that in the Salt Creek ture and chronology of project area use, the Pocket Area in the eastern Needles District intensity and duration of occupation, and mo- (Tipps and Hewitt 1989) and the Indian bility and settlement patterns of the prehis- Creek Planning Unit between Moab and toric peoples. The chapter concludes with an Monticello (Thompson 1979), almost two attempt to identify common prehistoric ac- and one-half times that in the Ten Mile tivities that took place in the White Crack Potash area north of the park (Montgomery et

Area. Information and results presented in al. 1982), and more than four times that of other chapters are incorporated, as appropri- the Castle Valley Planning Unit northeast of ate, to better elucidate past human adapta- Moab (Thompson 1979). tions in the White Crack Area. Other areas of the White Rim and the

A total of 37 sites and 44 isolated finds subrim canyon-benchlands are poorly known (IFs) was documented in the 726-acre White archeologically, but based on a few compli- Crack Area, for an average of 0.05 sites and ance inventories, ranger reports, and personal

0.06 IFs per acre, or 33 sites and 39 IFs per observations, site density appears to be

mi . Although site density is lower than that highly variable. This variability seems to be SUMMARY OF THE SITES

directly correlated with the availability of possibly approximating that found by

critical resources such as food, water (pot- Montgomery et al. (1982) in an almost 9000- holes or seeps), toolstone sources, and arable acre survey just north of the park. land. Some of the known sites in the White Thirty-six of the sites recorded during the

Rim and subrim canyon-benchland environ- inventory are prehistoric and one is modern. ments are even less substantial than those in These 37 sites have 40 identifiable compo- the White Crack Area (Cartwright 1987; nents, although as discussed in greater detail

Vetter 1989:4-5), although granaries occur, below, many sites are probably palimpsests particularly in the canyon-benchland envi- that lack diagnostic surface evidence of addi-

ronment above the Green River (Nancy J. tional components and occupations. Of the Coulam, personal communication 1996), and 40 identifiable sites and components, only several relatively substantial sites occur 14 (35 percent) are of known age or cultural in overhangs just below the White Rim affiliation; most of these were identified on

(Adrienne Anderson, personal communica- the basis of one or two diagnostic surface ar- tion 1990). One such site is an "alcove habi- tifacts (e.g., a dateable projectile point, a few tation" with 18 circular structures of upright pieces of pottery) or one or two radiocarbon sandstone slabs, one of which has "a grass dates on wood charcoal.

'roof or super-structure," a 12-row corncob As noted in previous reports on the Can- fragment, and scattered perishable debris yonlands Archeological Project (Tipps 1995;

(Hartley 1980:176). Tipps and Hewitt 1989), this practice can re-

The relatively high density of sites in the sult in misclassifications because of prehis-

White Crack Area may be related to (1) the toric artifact scavenging, recycling, and abundant availability of Cedar Mesa Chert curation, site reoccupation, post-occupation

and Chalcedony, and (2) the existence of an deposition that buries chronologically diag- access route between the White Rim and the nostic site elements, and illegal artifact col-

subrim canyons and benchlands. The Cedar lection, etc. Radiocarbon dates can also be

Mesa Formation is only exposed on the problematic because of built-in age (the old southern end of Island-in-the-Sky (Huntoon wood effect), the cross-section effect, and

et al. 1982), limiting the potential availability many other factors (Smiley 1985). However,

of Cedar Mesa Chert and Chalcedony to this radiocarbon dates, diagnostic surface arti-

part of the district. As noted in Chapter 1, facts, and time-sensitive features were the access routes between levels of the Island-in- only pieces of information regarding possible

the-Sky District are limited to a few loca- age and cultural affiliation of the sites avail- tions. Given the patchy distribution of able for collection during the project. Ignor-

attractive natural resources in the district, and ing them would eliminate all interpretations

the somewhat marginal nature of its environ- regarding the chronological dimension of hu-

ment in terms of plant and animal biodiver- man occupation in the area. Because the pro-

sity, available water, and agricultural ject is primarily an inventory designed to

potential, access to resources on different lev- collect initial data and generate ideas that can

els of the district was probably crucial to suc- be tested by more intensive work in the fu-

cessful adaptation. ture, it seems appropriate to accept the risk of

Overall site density for the White Rim misclassifying some sites.

and subrim canyon-benchlands is probably Based on several radiocarbon dates and

much lower than in the White Crack Area, the scant assemblage of diagnostic surface

54 SUMMARY OF THE SITES artifacts, seven sites discovered during the in- Prehistoric sites in the project area are ventory are Archaic, with dates in the Mid- small and simple, consisting mainly of lithic dle, Late, and Terminal Archaic periods scatters, lithic scatters with a few features,

(Table 12). An additional Terminal Archaic and lithic source area sites. Other prehistoric component is present on the adjacent White site types—sherd and lithic scatter, masonry Crack site (see Chapter 7). One site is Prefor- architecture site, and rock art—are repre- mative but its cultural affiliation is unknown. sented by one or two examples each. All of Five sites date to the Formative era. Ceramic these sites are insubstantial, suggesting short- technology suggests that three of these were term, transient occupation sometime during occupied by either the Anasazi or people who the warm part of the year by people practic- had access to western Anasazi pottery. Cul- ing a mobile lifeway. tural status of the other two is unknown. The The single modern site is a Euroamerican remaining 26 prehistoric sites and components camp associated with short-term livestock give no indication of age or cultural status. herding. Diagnostic surface artifacts suggest No definitive evidence of Late Prehistoric/ occupation sometime between the A.D. 1950s Protohistoric occupation was noted during the and 1970s. inventory, but the White Crack site, adjacent to the inventory area, has a Late Prehistoric/ Summary of the Sites by Protohistoric component (see Chapter 7). In Descriptive Type addition, a small, shieldlike petroglyph at one of the indeterminate sites could be Late This section summarizes the descriptive

Prehistoric/Protohistoric. Given what is site types based on the descriptive site type known about local culture history, these sites typology developed during previous work on may have been used by early Numic speakers the Canyonlands Archeological Project or Ute people. Recognizable evidence of (Tipps 1995, 1996; Tipps and Hewitt 1989). Paleoindian, Fremont, and other Late It is intended to convey a basic understanding

Prehistoric/Protohistoric occupation is en- of how the artifacts and features discussed in tirely lacking. the next chapter combine to form sites.

Table 12. Frequency of sites and recognized components by age and cultural affiliation.

Time Period Archaic Anasazi Aboriginal Euroamerican Total

Middle Archaic 1 1 Late Archaic 2 2

Late-Terminal Archaic 1 1

Terminal Archaic 3 3

- Preformative 1 1

- Formative 1 1

- Late Formative 1 4 Prehistoric - 26 26

- Modern 1

Total 29 40

55 SUMMARY OF THE SITES

Simple open lithic scatters, often with modified flakes (21 percent) and cores (11 per- chipped stone tools, are the predominant site cent). Collectively, a total of eight tool type in the White Crack Area, accounting for classes occur on the lithic scatters, but the approximately 38 percent of the total (Table modal value is three and the maximum on

13). Lithic scatters with features account for any one site is six. Collectively, all stages of another 28 percent. The features on these chipped stone reduction, from decortication

sites are usually the remains of hearths or to final shaping and maintenance of tools,

probable hearths, but also include smoke took place on the lithic scatters, although blackening, a fire-cracked rock concentration, flaking appears to have emphasized secon- a concentration of unmodified toolstone, a dary reduction. Secondary flakes predominate

small, shallow midden, and a cultural stra- on all sites. Decortication and tertiary flakes tum. Sites with natural occurrences of tool- are rare to common on approximately half of

stone compose 23 percent of the total. One of the sites, and absent on the others. One lithic the lithic source sites also has a small scatter scatter each dates to the Middle Archaic and

of sherds. There are also two sherd and lithic Formative periods. The others lack any evi-

scatters, a small architectural site, a rock art dence of age or cultural affiliation.

site, and a modern campsite. Site 42SA21264 is an example of a

The succeeding sections discuss charac- small, undated, lithic scatter. It measures

teristics of each major site type. Repre- 18 m north-south by 10 m east-west and is sentative sites in each category are also adjacent to a hoodoo on the toe slope of a

individually described for illustrative pur- mesa, atop the White Rim. The site consists poses. of approximately 30 pieces of Cedar Mesa Chert debitage, a random (multidirectional) Lithic Scatters Cedar Mesa Chert core, and a late-stage, Ce- dar Mesa Chert biface fragment. Secondary The 1 5 sites and components charac- flakes are the most common debitage type, terized as lithic scatters are mostly in the with some shatter and a few bifacial thinning White Rim Uplands Parcel on a variety of flakes. The debitage appears to have been depositional settings including dunes or shal- produced during a single core reduction epi- low eolian sheet sands, colluvial deposits, sode. outcrops, and residuum. Site size ranges from Site 42SA21271 is a medium-size, mod- a minimum of 38 m to a maximum of erately dense, undated lithic scatter located

20,027 m , although one multicomponent site on a low, sandy ridge approximately 300 m covers 223,210 m . Including the large, mul- from the White Rim. It measures 80 m north- ticomponent site, only four sites and compo- south by 120 m east-west and is composed of nents cover more than 5400 m . Twelve of 100-500 pieces of debitage, 1 large projectile the lithic scatters have one or more chipped, point blade, 4 modified flakes, and 5 bifaces. ground, or pecked stone tools. Not counting Additional items may be buried in the shal- the obvious multicomponent site, which has low sandy deposits. Three concentrations 45 tools, tool frequency ranges from 1 to 18 contain most of the artifacts, although scat- with an average of 6.9 on sites with tools. tered flakes occur between them. The pri- Bifaces are the most common type of imple- mary toolstone type is Cedar Mesa Chert, ment, accounting for approximately 55 per- which was flaked through all stages of biface cent of the tool assemblage, followed by reduction. Cedar Mesa Chalcedony occurs

56 i

SUMMARY OF THE SITES

*-> 'Lo

o O a!

C O

OI- eg -C ^ Uco -a < -a c a -o .2 < u _o J '£ E •4-> >> X5 C o IS £ c "H *-»- cc (N (N a> o c J 00 o Q. E _c o -*-- o CO £ s_ I-. c -h — 1 B (N rn ^f co 03 03 OJ O U-, 'cO on <4-iO >> o o o ^-> IS a ' r*-> c -^J ca

o on o '3

c_> < 3 -o _o .a S ^ u "3 ~~E '-5 ° ° U 2 Uh E E ^ i c~~

57 SUMMARY OF THE SITES mostly as secondary flakes; Summerville smoke blackening, a fire-cracked rock con- Chalcedony is represented only by tertiary centration, a midden, a cultural stratum, and a flakes. concentration of unmodified toolstone. All of The most unusual of the simple lithic the latter features, except for the midden, oc- scatters is site 42SA21275, located on a talus cur on a small, multicomponent rockshelter slope under and adjacent to a series of shal- site (42SA21291) that also has seven hearths. low overhangs formed by a hoodoo and sev- Thus, on all but two sites of this type, the eral large boulders. This medium-size, features consist only of hearths and possible moderately dense, undated lithic scatter hearths. measures 40 m north-south by 44 m east- Chipped stone tools and cores occur on west. Surface artifacts comprise 100-500 all but one of the sites in this category. Ex- pieces of debitage, 3 bifaces, 5 modified cluding the three definitely multicomponent flakes, 1 pecking stone or hammerstone, 3 sites, tool and core frequency ranges from scrapers, and 2 unifaces. There are also two 1 to 29 with an average of 8.2 on sites with cores. This site differs from most lithic scat- such implements. Including the three sites ters because it has (1) a higher diversity of with definite multiple components, tool and artifact types, especially given its small size, core frequency rises to 15.5 per site, with a

(2) a larger than usual number of scrapers range of 1 to 45. Bifaces are the most com- and unifaces, (3) a high frequency of tools mon tool type, accounting for 62 percent of relative to debitage, and (4) more varied tool- the total. Modified flakes and cores account stone types, including some that are unique to for 15 and 10 percent, respectively. Other the site or occur on only one or two other tool types are scrapers, projectile points, uni- sites in the project area. Most of the debitage faces, and groundstone. Seven different tool is from bifacial thinning, but flakes from all and core types collectively occur on the lithic stages of bifacial reduction are present, as are scatters with features, with diversity on indi- some flakes indicative of a core-flake reduc- vidual sites approximately evenly spread be- tion technology. tween one and six. Most debitage on these

sites was produced using a bifacial reduction Lithic Scatters with Features technology, with an emphasis on secondary reduction. However, shatter and decortication Eleven sites and components are lithic flakes are abundant on more than half of the scatters with features. These sites occur in sites, indicating a considerable amount of both the White Rim Uplands (n = 7) and early-stage reduction; tertiary flakes are also White Crack Benchlands parcels (n = 4), al- common, indicating that tool finishing or most always on or in eolian deposits. Site maintenance were also important activities. size ranges from a minimum of 19 m to a 2 Six of the lithic scatters with features are Ar- maximum of 223,210 m , but only three sites 2 chaic and one is Preformative; the ages of the cover more than 20,000 m , and the rest are 2 others are unknown. less than 10,000 m . One of the smaller, less complex sites The sites have a total of 56 features or an categorized as a lithic scatter with features, average of approximately 5 each, with a 42SA21269, lies in blackbrush-covered dunes range of 1-17. Most of the features are above the White Rim. This medium-size, hearths (n = 28) or possible hearths (n = 23); medium-density lithic scatter measures 105 m there are also individual occurrences of north-south by 85 m east-west and dates to

~~58 1~~

SUMMARY OF THE SITES the Preformative period. Three hearths and covers 20 m north-south by 54 m east-west in four rock concentrations that could be de- and adjacent to a small overhang. It is a flated hearths are visible on the surface, but dense lithic scatter with 32 tools and 1 artifacts and features are primarily concen- known features. The features are smoke trated in blowouts, suggesting a high poten- blackening and a cultural deposit in the over- tial for additional buried remains. The artifact hang, and the following features outside the assemblage consists of 1 dart point, 2 bifaces, overhang: a concentration of unmodified 2 cores, 2 modified flakes, and more than toolstone, a fire-cracked rock concentration, 500 pieces of debitage. High-quality Cedar and seven hearths, four of which are slab

Mesa Chalcedony is the most common tool- lined. Tools are 1 mano fragment, 1 metate stone type with lesser amounts of low-quality fragment, 21 bifaces, 1 scraper, 1 uniface, 3 white chalcedony and some Cedar Mesa modified flakes, and 4 cores. The site surface

Chert. The Cedar Mesa Chalcedony debitage is littered with unreduced and minimally re- is mostly from late stages of biface manufac- duced clasts of Cedar Mesa Chert, including ture and/or maintenance. The few early-stage some of extremely low quality. These were flakes are all of Cedar Mesa Chert. apparently brought to the site from nearby

An example of a large lithic scatter with sources for later reduction. All stages of bi- features is site 42SA21263, which dates to face manufacture appear to have been under- the Terminal Archaic. This site covers 130 m taken at the site. Numerous bifaces were north-south by 225 m- east-west on a series of broken during manufacture and discarded, eolian ridges and knolls on the White Rim. It but a few were abandoned whole because of abruptly terminates at the edge of the eolian manufacturing errors that made them difficult deposits. The site consists of a sparse to to thin. There is also evidence of core reduc- medium-density lithic scatter with 6 hearths tion at the site. Besides Cedar Mesa Chert, and 1 1 rock concentrations that could be de- there are small amounts of Cedar Mesa Chal- flated hearths. The definite hearths are eroded cedony and white chalcedony. and only represented by tabular sandstone associated with stained soil and occasional Lithic Source Areas charcoal. The artifactual assemblage is com- Nine sites are Cedar Mesa Formation posed of more than 500 pieces of debitage, lithic source areas consisting of lag deposits 14 bifaces, 6 modified flakes, 3 scrapers, and overlying bedrock, or occasionally colluvium, 6 cores. Most of these are clustered in four residual soil, or eolian sand. These sites are depressions that may be the result of all in the White Crack Benchlands Parcel erosional processes. Cedar Mesa Chert is the where the Cedar Mesa Formation is exposed most common toolstone but Summerville, in thin lenses and bands (see Chapter 5). Site rose-white, and brown chalcedony are also size ranges from a minimum of 5 m to a present. The site exhibits the full range of 2 maximum of 19,792 m , but only two sites flaking stages, including tiny pressure 2 are larger than 3,500 m . Cedar Mesa Chert flakes, bifacial thinning flakes, decortication lag deposits and portions thereof were only flakes, and shatter, but secondary flakes pre- recorded as sites when there was definite evi- dominate. dence of human utilization (e.g., debitage The most substantial site recorded in the with platforms, tools, cores, etc.). There are White Crack Area is 42SA21291 in the numerous additional lag deposits in the White Crack Benchlands Parcel. This site

~~59 SUMMARY OF THE SITES~~

~~White Crack Benchlands Parcel that show no the evidence of human utilization. The~~

conclusive signs of human use. definite cultural assemblage comprises less All nine source area sites have debitage than 100 pieces of debitage, primarily decor- as well as tested nodules that can definitely tication flakes, one whole and one broken be attributed to human manufacture. Eight early-stage biface, and four random (multidi- also have some form of tools or cores. The rectional) cores. There are numerous pieces

~~frequency of tools and cores ranges from 1 to of shatter and tested nodules, an unknown~~

7, with an average of 4.7 per site. Cores are percentage of which are cultural. The site ap- the most common, accounting for 5 1 percent. pears to have been used to procure, test, and There are a few bifaces (n = 8) and modified partially reduce toolstone clasts using both

~~flakes (n = 6), as well as one uniface and one bifacial and core-flake reduction technologies.~~

scraper. One site also has four sherds. Collec- Another lithic source area is site tively, there are six artifact types in addition 42SA21295. This site consists of an 87-m to debitage on these sites, but most sites have north-south by 120-m east-west lithic scatter only two types, usually bifaces and cores. associated with a natural deposit of Cedar

~~The presence of modified flakes, a uniface, a Mesa Chert. The chert occurs in two forms:~~

scraper, and some sherds suggest that activi- (1) as large, angular boulders and (2) as ties other than raw material procurement, smaller, tabular to subangular clasts covered testing, and reduction occasionally took place with dark black cortex. Material quality is

at the sites. highly variable. Some pieces are grainy, frac- As expected on sites where the most tured, and unusable; others are fracture-free common activity was procuring, testing, and and of high quality. Color also varies greatly,

~~initially reducing toolstone, shatter and but the majority of toolstone is red, mottled decortication and secondary flakes are the yellowish orange, reddish orange, and red~~

most common debitage types. A few tertiary grading to purple. Maximum clast size is flakes are present on two sites but they were 30 cm. Definite cultural items consist of not observed on the others, suggesting that decortication and secondary core reduction tool maintenance and final stages of tool flakes, a few bifacial thinning flakes, and six

~~manufacture were infrequent activities. Other randomly reduced cores. The presence of~~

~~than four Anasazi sherds on one of the lithic these items indicates that both core-flake~~

~~source area sites, there are no indications of and bifacial reduction strategies were used~~

~~site age or cultural affiliation. It is likely they at the site. Angular chunks, nondiagnostic were used throughout prehistory. shatter, and flaked nodules, some of which~~

~~Site 42SA21287 is a Cedar Mesa Chert are probably cultural, also litter the site's~~

~~and Chalcedony lithic source area measuring surface.~~

80 m north-south by 55 m east-west. It consists of residual clasts of chert and chalced- Other Site Types ony strewn across a 20-m-wide sandstone Site types other than those described bench. The source is adjacent to a chert and above are rare and occur in frequencies of chalcedony lens eroding out of the Cedar only one or two. The single rock art site is a Mesa Formation. Much of the chert has frac- shield petroglyph on a large boulder atop the ture planes and calcite and crystalline inclu- White Rim. It was probably used for some sions making it unflakeable, but some clasts are of higher-than-average quality, explaining

~~60 SUMMARY OF THE SITES~~

~~form of communication, perhaps to mark ter- true for many of the sites without lithic~~

~~ritory or an access route or trail. sources.~~

~~The one masonry architecture site con- Radiocarbon evidence and several diag-~~

~~sists of a small, D-shaped structure abutted to nostic projectile points (San Rafael Side- the back of a shallow overhang and a frag- notched and Gypsum) were used to identify~~

~~mentary late-stage biface of local Cedar seven sites and components as Archaic. One Mesa Chert. The feature's small size, wet-laid each dates to the Middle and Late-Terminal~~

~~or dry-laid/mudded construction style, as well Archaic, two are Late Archaic, and three are as the lack of smoke blackening and an inte- Terminal Archaic. An additional Terminal~~

~~rior thermal feature, suggest a storage func- Archaic component is present on the adjacent~~

tion. The feature is crudely constructed, White Crack site (see Chapter 7). In addition, however, and would not have been suitable the presence of an isolated possible Sinbad for long-term food storage unless the food Side-notched point may indicate Early Ar-

~~was stored in sealed containers. chaic occupation (see Chapter 5). Counting~~

~~The only other prehistoric sites are two the White Crack site, seven of the Archaic~~

~~sherd and lithic scatters, both of which have properties are lithic scatters with features and~~

bifaces, sherds, and other chipped stone tools. one is a lithic scatter. The predominance of 2 2 One measures 1320 m , the other 8443 m . Archaic sites with features is because six of The more substantial of these, site these properties were identified as Archaic

~~42SA21260, is described in more detail in based on radiocarbon evidence from hearths.~~

~~Chapter 5. It is likely that some of the lithic scatters~~

~~The final site is a modern camp associ- without features and lithic source areas are~~

ated with livestock herding. It comprises the also Archaic. Gypsum points are common on remains of a tent platform and a woodpile of the northern Colorado Plateau; San Rafael ax-cut juniper, as well as scattered trash con- and Sinbad side-notched are also northern

~~sisting of evaporated milk cans, tobacco tins, Colorado Plateau types. The distribution of~~

a sardine can, a coffee can and coffee can lid, Sinbad Side-notched appears to be focused in a few sanitary cans, some milled wood with central Utah, in and around the San Rafael wire nails and staples, and a milled wooden Swell.

~~tent stake. There are 48 features among the Archaic~~

sites and components; the number of features Summary by Age per site ranges from 1 to 17 on sites with fea- and Cultural Group tures. Forty-four of the features are hearths or probable hearths; the other features, all of

Table 12 presents the frequency of sites which occur on a small rockshelter site, are a and recognized components by time period fire-cracked rock concentration, a concentra- and cultural affiliation. Due to the extreme tion of unmodified toolstone, smoke blacken- scarcity of time- and culture-sensitive arti- ing, and a cultural stratum. facts and features in the White Crack Area, Evidence for Preformative occupation

~~these ascriptions are tentative. In addition, comes from a radiocarbon date on a lithic the source area sites are believed to have scatter with features. Surface manifestations~~

~~been used on multiple occupations by a vari- of the site are analogous to those of Archaic~~

~~ety of different cultural groups. The same is age, suggesting a similar adaptation. The flotation results (see Chapter 6) also reveal that~~

~~61 SUMMARY OF THE SITES~~

the site inhabitants were practicing a hunting art made by Numic speakers is poorly known and gathering lifeway at the time of occupa- and difficult to distinguish from other abo- tion. As such, it is doubtful they were Bas- riginal rock art (Noxon and Marcus ketmakers, but their cultural affiliation 1982:266), and typologies of post-equestrian,

~~remains unknown. The scope of Preformative- Ute rock art use horses, tipis, guns, and other age occupation in the White Crack Area may historic phenomena as the identifying diag-~~

~~not be adequately reflected by the presence nostic traits (Buckles 1971:1065-1084; Cole of only a single site in this age group. In the 1990:225-251). However, Buckles~~

~~Canyonlands area, Preformative sites lack di- (1971:1125) does state: "As the result of de-~~

~~agnostic artifacts and features that might be tailed analysis of the [shield figure] motif . . .~~

found during inventory (Tipps 1995). They it is apparent that the motif was made by a can only be identified through radiocarbon large number of peoples over a wide area evidence, and, therefore, are probably more from the Plateau to the northern Plains and to

~~common than indicated by present evidence. the Southwest but most consistently with ar-~~

Five sites were occupied during the For- eas occupied by Numic speaking peoples his- mative period, three based on ceramic evi- torically." dence and one each based on architectural Loendorf and Connor (1993) recently ob- style and groundstone type. The ceramic sites tained three accelerator mass spectrometry were used during the Late Formative either (AMS) dates on a painted rawhide shield

~~by the western Anasazi, or by people who (CRNP No. 191) that was found in a cache of~~

~~had access to western Anasazi pottery via three shields near Torrey, Utah, in 1925. The trade. Temper types and paste characteristics age and cultural origin of these artifacts,~~

~~suggest that the pottery was manufactured in known as the Pectol shields, have been de- the Elk Ridge Plateau area, south of Canyon- bated since their discovery (Loendorf and~~

lands. The two other Formative sites are of Connor 1993:216-218). The AMS dates indi- uncertain cultural status, but one dates to the cate that the shield was made at approxi- Late Formative based on the architecture, a mately A.D. 1500. While the cultural origin

~~D-shaped storage structure abutted to the of the shields is still uncertain, this age is~~

~~back of a small overhang. This is the only well within the Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric~~

~~known feature among the sites of Formative period (ca. A.D. 1 100-1775). This new dating~~

~~age. The other is Formative based on the pres- information, as well as the presence of a pos-~~

~~ence of a two-hand mano. There is no defini- sible feather design element on another shield~~

~~tive evidence of occupation by Fremont people. from the cache (CRNP No. 11; see Loendorf~~

~~Twenty-six other prehistoric sites are of and Connor 1993:Figure 1), may lend cre- uncertain age and cultural affiliation. The dence to the interpretation of the shield petro-~~

source areas among these may have been glyph at site 42SA21262 as Late Prehistoric/ used throughout prehistory. The others likely Protohistoric. date to a variety of time periods. One of The possibility of Late Prehistoric/ these, a petroglyph depicting a shield with Protohistoric occupation in the White Crack

~~possible feather decorations (see Chapter 5), Area is plausible because a probable Late may have been made by early Numic speak- Prehistoric/Protohistoric component was~~

~~ers or Ute people, as it is unlike any known identified on the adjacent White Crack site Fremont shields or shield figures (Cole based on the presence of a Desert Side-~~

~~1990; Schaafsma 1971). Pre-equestrian rock notched projectile point (see Chapter 7). In~~

62 SUMMARY OF THE SITES addition, recent investigations on the highest palimpsest than we ever imagined (La Fond tier of the Island-in-the-Sky District (Osborn and Jones 1995; Schroedl 1995; Tipps 1993), 1995) and in the uplands north of the park leading to a greater awareness that the occu-

(Reed 1990; Tipps 1991) suggest use during pational histories of even small, simple sites this period. As noted earlier, these people must be researched and identified before at- may have been early Numic speakers or Ute tempting to interpret prehistoric settlement people. and adaptive strategies.

~~The only other site is a modern camp. Knowledge of whether sites are the result~~

~~Time-sensitive artifacts place site occupation of single or multiple occupations is essential sometime between the A.D. 1950s and 1970s. to correctly assessing site function because~~

This site has a probable Euroamerican cul- sites with multiple overlapping occupations tural affiliation based on historic records of can easily be confused with single-occupation park use. sites inhabited for long periods of time. Cor-

Lacking in the assemblage of sites is evi- rect assessments of site function, in turn, are dence of Paleoindian and Early Formative critical to assessing regional settlement pat- occupation, as well as Formative occupation terns and mobility strategies, population lev- by the Fremont. Due to the geomorphic set- els, and social organization (Graham 1994). ting (primarily bedrock and shallow dunes), it Determining occupational intensity, dura- is unlikely that sites in these categories were tion, and the presence of single or multiple once present but buried or eroded away by occupations can be difficult on open lithic natural forces. However, it is possible that scatter sites, even in the context of complete such sites exist but could not be distinguished excavation (Schroedl 1995), let alone a sur- from the surface evidence. In the Squaw face inventory like the current project. De- Butte Area, Tipps (1995:104) identified three spite this difficulty, a preliminary examination

Early Formative sites based on radiocarbon of this issue is attempted here because of its evidence alone. She notes that "Surface importance to understanding local prehistory. manifestations of these sites are almost iden- Two lines of evidence are used for this tical to those of the preceding Archaic pe- assessment: (1) radiocarbon dates and diag- riod, and given the complete absence of nostic artifacts and features and (2) site size surface diagnostics, the age of these sites relative to that observed on ethnoarcheologi-

~~would have gone unknown without the . . . cal sites. All sites were evaluated for evi- testing program." dence of multiple components using the~~

traditional archeological approach, that is, as- Site Occupational sessing whether artifacts, features, and radio- Histories carbon dates are contemporaneous or could represent more than one time period or cul-

In the past, many researchers, including tural group. As noted earlier in this chapter, myself, have assumed that small open lithic this approach carries risks because of illegal scatters are the result of single, short-term artifact collection, prehistoric scavenging and occupations. With the advent of cultural re- artifact recycling, uneven erosion and deposi- source management work, more and more of tion, the lack of nonperishable, diagnostic ar- these small sites have been excavated and tifacts for some time periods and cultural analyzed. The results have shown many of groups, and various problems with radiocar- these sites to be far more complex and bon dating. In addition, some sites (e.g., lithic

~~63 SUMMARY OF THE SITES~~

~~source areas) probably had few or no diagnostic occupied for short periods of time, usually~~

artifacts or features to begin with because of two months or less. Semipermanent settle- the types of activities performed. ments like those of the Alyawara (O'Connell This traditional assessment resulted in the 1987) are omitted. Cross-cultural data from a identification of three sites that might have variety of desert, tropical, subtropical, and been inhabited on more than one occasion. arctic environments are used to help over- Site 42SA21267 has a hearth dating to the come special factors that may have affected a Terminal Archaic and a Middle Archaic San single group. Rafael Side-notched point. Site 42SA21269 Short-term, transient, or overnight camps has a Preformative period radiocarbon date average 45-70 m among the Kua San (Bar-

~~and a Late Archaic Gypsum point, and site tram et al. 1991:Table 3), are typically no 42SA21291 has two noncontemporaneous more than 30 m among the Ache (Jones~~

~~hearths that date to the Late-Terminal and 1983, 1993:Table 6-1), and range from 5 to~~

Terminal Archaic. Of course it is possible 85 m among Australian aborigines studied that the points on the first two sites were by Nicholson and Cane (1991:Table 2). The scavenged during the later occupations and Mask Site, a short-term Nunamiut field that the radiocarbon dates on the last site are camp, measures approximately 100 m (Bin- not contemporaneous because of the old ford 1978:Figure 17). In these examples,

~~wood effect. However, on the latter site, a the size of short-term camps ranges be-~~

~~hearth superimposed over an earlier hearth tween 5 and 100 m . strongly suggests reoccupation. !Kung residential base camps studied by~~

~~Another, more indirect means of examin- Yellen (1977: Appendix C) cover 59-581 m ,~~

ing this issue is assessing whether the sizes whereas those studied by Gould and Yellen 2 of the sites are analogous to those of hunter- (1987:Table 2) range from 175 to 896 m . gatherers studied in ethnoarcheological situ- Among the Kua San, residential bases aver- 2 ations. Direct comparison of archeological age 264-457 m , depending on the season

~~and ethnoarcheological site sizes is of course (Bartram et al. 1991:Table 3). Hadza base~~

~~simplistic and does not consider why site size camps studied by O'Connell et al. (1991 Ta-~~

~~may differ. Nor does it account for variation ble 1) vary from 575 to 1250 m . Efe camps~~

~~in site size between modern groups as a re- range from 44 to 532 m (Fisher and Strick-~~

sult of factors particular to each cultural land 1991:218, 220, Table 2). Basarwa and group, their environment, and their cultural Bakgalagadi camps studied by Kent practices. Although these topics are impor- (1991:Tables 5 and 8) range from 188 to

~~tant, and have been the subject of ongoing re- 1400 m . These examples suggest that~~

search (e.g., see Gould and Yellen 1987 and short-term residential bases occupied by Kent 1991:43-44), the primary purpose here modern hunter-gatherers normally range be- 2 is simply to examine whether prehistoric site tween 44 and 1 400 m . However, the Ngatat- sizes in the White Crack Area are even jara Aborigines of Western Australia provide within the range of those observed among an outlying example: the size of their sites 2 modern hunter-gatherers. Because occupation ranges from 9,497 to 152,776 m (Gould and

~~in the White Crack Area was short term and Yellen 1987:Table 1). temporary, the ethnoarcheological examples Table 14 shows the sizes of the prehis-~~

~~used for this comparison only include short- toric, nonsource area sites in the White Crack~~

~~term camps and residential bases that were Area. Sites were recorded in the smallest~~

~~64 SUMMARY OF THE SITES~~

~~Table 14. Sizes of prehistoric these were felt to most closely approximate~~

~~sites in the White Crack Area. site occupational histories.~~

All but five sites are larger than any of Site Number Site Size (m ) the ethnoarcheological examples for short- 42SA21262 1 term, transient, and overnight camps. This 42SA21261 8 does not appear to be a case of erosion 42SA21284 19 spreading out the archeological remains, be- 42SA21296 38 cause the majority of archeological sites ex- 42SA21274 100 ceed the ethnoarcheological examples by 42SA21264 142 multiple orders of magnitude. If the archeo- 42SA21277 205 logical situation is analogous to the eth- 42SA21292 475 noarcheological one, the majority of White 42SA21273 785 Crack Area sites are not short-term 42SA21291 848 or over- 42SA21275 850 night camps, or they represent multiple, over- 42SA21260 1320 lapping occupations that are partially 42SA21294 1525 spatially coincident. 42SA21279 2638 Fifteen of the White Crack Area sites ex- 42SA21272 3024 ceed the maximum size of base camps noted 42SA21265 3358 for all groups except the Australian aborigi- 2 nes. One exceeds it by less than 200 m 42SA21271 3975 , 42SA21270 4750 whereas the others are 2-159 times larger. 42SA21266 5300 Given the magnitude of the differences, these

~~42SA21269 7010 sites may be too large to represent single oc-~~

42SA21278 8443 cupation sites if the archeological situation 42SA21283 9190 approximates the ethnoarcheological one. 42SA21282 9425 Switching to the Australian example as the 42SA21268 20,027 standard of comparison, many of the largest

42SA21263 22,973 White Crack Area sites could be single com- 42SA21285 23,562 ponent sites, but one is so far outside the 42SA21267 223.210 range it is probably the result of multiple occupational episodes. These simple comparisons do not con- units possible; in other words, items in a clusively demonstrate any multiple occupa- continuous surface scatter were considered tions. What they do is heighten our part of the same site. Items in scatters sepa- awareness that multiple occupations are rated by areas devoid of artifacts were re- likely based on a worldwide scale of com- corded as separate sites unless there was parison, force us to consider this possibility good reason to suspect that cultural material in archeological reconstructions and interpre- continued between them in buried contexts, tations, and demonstrate that this issue war- for example, artifacts in two adjacent blow- rants additional consideration during future outs. By splitting rather than lumping, we at- research. tempted to separate the cultural remains into the smallest interpretable units possible, as

~~65 SUMMARY OF THE SITES~~

Summary of Activities taken place in the project area. This is fol- Represented lowed by a short concluding summary that points out possible differences in activities During earlier phases of the Canyonlands and behaviors through time. Archeological Project, we subdivided sites into three functional site types— limited- Lithic Procurement Strategies activity sites, camps, and habitations (Tipps The absolute availability of toolstone is 1995; Tipps and Hewitt 1989), generally fol- determined by nature, but its effective avail- lowing Binford's (1980) ethnoarcheologically ability is dependent on extractive technolo- based model of site types for foragers and gies, and on the settlement, mobility, and collectors, with some modifications to adjust procurement practices in place at the time of for the field situation and sites used by non- use. Toolstone resources can be exploited on hunter-gatherers. This was done in an attempt an opportunistic, encounter basis, or through to better understand subsistence patterns, set- deliberate planning using a diurnal, residen- tlement strategies, and the types of activities tial, or logistical strategy (Elston et al. 1992). that took place in the park, as well as to ac- Factors such as the distribution, density, and commodate a request by the National Park quality of regional raw material; the distribu- Service to update and expand Sharrock's tion and abundance of other critical re- (1966) original Canyonlands site typology. sources; scheduling demands for the While the three site types can appropri- procurement of other critical resources; the ately categorize the cultural properties thus availability of downtime; the season of far reported by the Canyonlands Archeologi- source area use, etc., probably affected which cal Project, neither previous application of strategy was used at which time. It is likely the typology was entirely satisfactory because that a combination of tactics was employed possibly unwarranted assumptions had to be to improve overall toolstone availability and made about the archeological record (see Tipps accommodate its procurement within existing 1995:94). In addition, there was no way to ac- settlement and subsistence strategies (Elston count for (1) illegal surface collection that etal. 1992:55). might have reduced the range and frequency The simplest strategy for toolstone pro- of surface artifacts, (2) geomorphological curement is the opportunistic collection of processes that might have buried or damaged raw material found in the course of normal critical portions of a site, and (3) complicated travel or foraging. This strategy can occur site use-histories (cf. O'Connell 1987:90-91) any time suitable material is discovered, but that could not be recognized from surface it is most effective among people traveling evidence. There were also practical difficul- from one place to another (Elston et al. ties separating reused camps from base 1992:55). Encounter procurement is advanta- camps and seasonal habitations. geous because no time is spent searching for Because of these problems, sites in the or specifically traveling to the lithic resource. White Crack Area were not categorized into However, it is unplanned and unpredictable, functional site types, although most, if not and would probably have been insufficient to all, of the sites would be characterized as fulfill the toolstone needs of mobile people camps and limited-activity loci were the ty- inhabiting an environment with patchy lithic pology applied. Instead, this section outlines resources. the types of activities that appear to have

~~66 SUMMARY OF THE SITES~~

Toolstone procurement in areas lacking supply. Mobile peoples could have only ubiquitous, high-quality raw material sources maintained an adequate supply through prior may have instead been planned, at least planning. In addition, there are few access loosely, and accomplished by either collect- routes between the White Rim and the ing raw material on or near the residence or subrim canyons and benchlands. Given this by dispatching logistical parties to procure environmental constraint, it is doubtful that material and carry it back to the habitation. many people came upon the White Crack The former can be accomplished on a diurnal sources through happenstance. Anyone who basis, that is, by traveling from the residential used the area regularly must have known base to the source, collecting the raw mate- about the access route, and thus, the adjacent rial, and transporting it to the residential base lithic source sites. Therefore, the lithic in one day (a diurnal strategy) or by actually sources in the White Crack Area are inter- locating the residence at the source (a resi- preted as examples of what Gould (1978:818) dential strategy) (Elston et al. 1992:56). Diur- calls definite quarries, that is, "specific locali- nal procurement is advantageous when other ties where usable stone is available which are critical resources such as food and water are known to the aborigines and are revisited by not spatially coincident with the lithic them." The White Crack Area lithic sources sources because the residential base can be could have easily been incorporated into a positioned near the most critical resource(s). seasonal round or biseasonal residence pat- However, time and effort must be spent trav- tern that was timed and arranged to take ad- eling to the source and carrying back the vantage of local seasonal food sources. fruits of the procurement effort. Residential Determining whether the planned use strategies eliminate this time and effort ex- was primarily of the diurnal, residential, or pense, but are inconvenient in other ways un- logistical variety is difficult in the context of less the raw material source coincides with an inventory, and following interpretations the location of food, water, and other key re- should be viewed as tentative until tested and sources. confirmed through additional investigations.

The other deliberate toolstone procure- It is suspected that most procurement was ac- ment strategy consists of special task groups complished using a diurnal or residential making overnight or multiday trips to a strategy rather than a logistic one because the source and transporting the material back to local material is of variable, but overall mod- the residential base. Travel and transport erate, quality. Logistical procurement of tool- costs are high for this type of procurement stone is costly in terms of time and human unless it can be accommodated in other ac- labor and is most likely to occur when tool- tivities such as resource monitoring or food stone is of high quality. In addition, although procurement (Elston et al. 1992:58). knowledge of the White Rim and the subrim

Encounter procurement was probably canyons and benchlands is admittedly poor, used by groups happening on the sources in large residential sites of the type that might the White Crack Area, although it is not support logistical forays seem to be rare. likely to have left a distinct archeological sig- Residents of habitation sites along the Green nature. However, planned procurement was and Colorado river corridors (see Firor and probably much more common because tool- Eininger 1987; Gaunt and Eininger 1987) stone, although regionally abundant, is would have had immediate access to tool- patchy, and on the White Rim, it is in short stone of equal or higher quality in the river

67 SUMMARY OF THE SITES terraces (see Losee and Lucius 1975), so they favored, but lower quality deposits were also would have had little need to procure tool- used on occasion. No excavation or quarrying stone from the White Crack Area on a logis- was necessary to obtain flakeable material tic basis. Likewise, residents of habitation because toolstone is readily available on the sites on the highest mesa of Island-in-the-Sky surfaces of all sites. (Osborn 1995) would have had access to Clasts were usually assayed or assayed more immediate sources (e.g., Davis and and partially reduced at the source sites. The

Westfall 1991; Montgomery et al. 1982) of resulting raw material was then transported to equal- or higher quality material, also obviat- nearby campsites (manifest as a lithic scatter ing the need for logistical trips to the White with features) for further processing and re-

~~Crack Area. duction. Most of these campsites are in the~~

Diurnal and residential procurement White Rim Uplands Parcel. It appears that strategies form a continuum, from being di- raw material was usually transported from rectly on the source site to a maximum of ap- the source area sites in the form of assayed proximately 10 km away from it; 10 km is nodules, cores, or flake blanks, but occasion- the maximum distance most researchers as- ally as early-stage bifaces and in at least one sume that aboriginal people can travel, do instance, as completely unreduced nodules. business, and return the same day (Elston et After the raw material was transported to the al. 1992:52). With the White Crack Area campsites, it was reduced into formal tools camps less than a kilometer from the sources, such as early- and late-stage bifaces, quarry procurement could be characterized as either bifaces, and knives, and expedient tools such diurnal or residential, depending on what dis- as scrapers, unifaces, and modified flakes. tance cutoff is used between diurnal and resi- These tasks were accomplished using core- dential procurement. Regardless of whether flake and bifacial reduction technologies. the procurement tactic is called diurnal or Some of these implements were used in the residential, the strategy is clear. Site residents project area for domestic activities, whereas collected, assayed, and partially reduced ma- others were transported away in mobile terial at the source sites, and then transported toolkits as discussed later. it to the nearby basecamps for additional processing and reduction. Heat Treatment of Toolstone

~~The chipped stone tool manufacturing Material Procurement and Raw process must have included some heat treat- Reduction ment because refined flaking of Cedar Mesa~~

A major activity in the White Crack Chert cannot be accomplished without it. In Benchlands Parcel of the project area appears some instances, heat treatment was accom- to have been the procurement, testing, pro- plished early in the reduction process before cessing, and reduction of naturally available much reduction had taken place. At other

Cedar Mesa Chert and Chalcedony toolstone times, it was delayed until well into the bi- from the Cedar Mesa Formation. The first facial reduction process (see Chapter 7). step in acquiring suitable toolstone appears to Few clearly defined, single-function, heat have been selecting a lag deposit with treatment features have been identified adequate-quality raw material. Natural depos- archeologically (Elston 1992:789; Griffiths et its with higher quality toolstone were usually al. 1987), and it may be that heat treatment

68 SUMMARY OF THE SITES was often accomplished in regular, multipur- The practice of heat treatment may expose firepits like those common on campsites plain the large number of slab-lined hearths in the White Crack Area. There are many in the White Crack Area. Based on more than ethnographic examples of heat treatment be- 50 experiments with Tosawihi Chert and ing accomplished in firepits or tools being Opalite, Elston (1992:789) reports that heat buried in the soil beneath a fire (see Man- treatment is more labor-intensive with sage- deville 1973; Olausson and Larsson 1982), brush than pine fuel wood because large the archeological manifestation of which in amounts of sagebrush (two pickup truck the sandy sediments of the White Crack Area loads per firing) are needed to maintain the might resemble an eroded, unlined firepit. fire and attain a sufficient temperature. It is

~~There are also several archeological examples also less successful with sagebrush because~~

~~of heat treatment occurring in firepits. At the sagebrush produces "a great deal of . . . ash~~

~~East Short Pines Quarry in South Dakota, which appeared to insulate the pit bottom,~~

~~Keyser and Fagan (1987:240) report on a with the result that only bifaces at the top of firepit that was used to heat treat Tongue the pit were well treated." This problem can~~

River Silicified Sediment. This pit was un- be overcome by heat treating the toolstone lined and measured approximately 40 cm in "in a special heat-treating earth oven lined diameter and 35 cm deep. At the Tosawihi with stones, perhaps with a preliminary firing

~~Quarries in north-central Nevada, Leach et al. to heat the pit" (Elston 1992:789-790).~~

(1992:385) document a well-preserved hearth As noted in Chapter 2, pine is lacking in that contained "a few charred, edible seeds" the White Crack Area today and juniper is as well as "small bits of crumbled and heat- exceedingly sparse. Juniper was only recov- crazed opalite, indicating probable use of the ered from one of the ten flotation samples facility for heat-treatment of toolstone." Heat processed from the project area, suggesting it treatment experiments at the Tosawihi Quar- was also sparse prehistorically. Heat treat- ries led Elston (1992:789) to conclude ment may have had to be done with less efficient fuel such as blackbrush, shadscale, or that most heat-treatment occurred in ordinary currant. If so, it would have been advanta-

~~geous to line the firepits with sandstone slabs campfire hearths, a few artifacts at a time. to increase the efficiency of the fire and re-~~

~~One of Steward's (1941) Reese River duce the amount of required fuel. It is also~~

possible that slab linings were not just advan- Shoshone informants recalled that flint was tageous but essential to the heating process placed under the campfire for five days. We because the critical threshold for successful believe, however, that, under ideal condi- heat treatment of Cedar Mesa Chert is probably higher than that of the Tosawihi materi- tions, in a campfire tended continuously, it is als due to its grainy nature. Lining the possible to heat-treat sets of up to six bifaces firepits with sandstone slabs may have al-

lowed the fires to reach the critical tempera- in a few hours (cooling is riskier), so that one ture for heat treatment. Use of the firepits person might be able to fire a dozen artifacts for heat treatment does not preclude their use for other generalized camp functions in one day. such as cooking, heating, and lighting. As

~~noted above, Leach et al. (1992:385) found~~

~~69 SUMMARY OF THE SITES~~

~~evidence of a hearth being used to cook seeds bifaces, and occasionally as flakes and cores. and heat treat toolstone. Some toolstone was also transported away as~~

In two archeological examples of heat projectile points, and probably as quarry bi- treatment taking place in firepits, the investi- faces and other finished tool types. There- gators recovered small pieces of crazed tool- fore, the restocking of mobile toolkits stone, apparently the remains of unsuccessful involved the production of flake blanks and heat treatment (Keyser and Fagan 1987; cores, the primary manufacture of early- and

Leach et al. 1992). No pieces of crazed tool- late-stage bifaces, and the repair and mainte- stone were discovered in any of the hearths nance of bifacial tools. Projectile points were tested during the project (see Chapter 6), nor sometimes manufactured to replace those were potlids, which can also result from heat broken during earlier hunting episodes and

~~treatment. However, potlids and crazed tool- refitted in the atlatl shafts (see Chapter 5).~~

stone would only be expected if heat treatment was unsuccessful. Therefore, it is General Camping and possible that hearths in the White Crack Area Subsistence Activities were used for heat treatment. Confirmation of A broad variety of domestic activities this hypothesis awaits future research. took place in the project area including collection of water from local potholes, manu- Retooling and Restocking of facture of tools for immediate use, tool Mobile Toolkits maintenance, and the acquisition, processing,

~~Much of the lithic procurement, process- and consumption of various food resources. ing, and reduction activities noted above ap- The presence of expedient tools, which are~~

~~pear to have been directed at restocking the usually "manufactured" on the spot for imme-~~

~~chipped stone artifacts in mobile toolkits (cf. diate use and discarded when the task is done Kuhn 1994:437). This practice refers to mo- (Gould 1978:817, 819), attest to a wide array~~

~~bile peoples assembling a lightweight, versa- of cutting, scraping, planing, and shredding~~

~~tile, and adequate supply of tools and tasks in the White Crack Area. While expedi- toolstone that they could easily transport and ent technologies are often linked with seden-~~

~~use to fulfill their chipped stone raw material tary populations (Parry and Kelly 1987), needs until they reached the next suitable Kelly (1988) reports that highly mobile peo-~~

~~toolstone source in their annual round. Mo- ple might have employed an expedient~~

~~bile toolkits are thought to have primarily in- chipped stone technology when they were in cluded portable, flexible, and efficient forms areas of abundant toolstone. This appears to~~

~~of toolstone such as bifaces (Kelly 1988). be the case in the White Crack Area because~~

~~They may have also included less efficient there is no evidence of long-term use or forms such as quarry bifaces and cores be- sedentism.~~

~~cause of their increased versatility, or flakes Subsistence activities are difficult to de-~~

~~because of their extreme utility per unit of fine given the absence of faunal remains and~~

~~mass (Kuhn 1994:435-437). scarcity of plant remains in project area~~

~~Based on the inventory data, which is ad- hearths (see Chapter 6), the virtual absence~~

~~mittedly tentative, toolstone appears to have of groundstone, and the small projectile point~~

~~been transported away from the White Crack assemblage observed on the inventory sites.~~

~~Area primarily in the form of early-stage The presence of isolated, use-broken projectile~~

70 SUMMARY OF THE SITES points in the White Crack Area and evidence cactus pads and fruits, or fresh foods such as for projectile point retooling (see above) indi- wolfberry or currant berries. Cactus pads, cate that at least some hunting took place, but spring greens, or berries may have been more range site data (Lammers 1991) suggest that likely because root procurement and process- wildlife was never very abundant during the ing is usually associated with large amounts Holocene. All soils in the project area are of fire-cracked rock, large cobble and flake rated as very poor for wetland and openland tools, edge-ground cobbles, tabular knives, wildlife such as duck, mink, beaver, and cot- pestles, mauls, or grinding slabs (Prouty tontail, and very poor to poor for woodland 1995; Thorns 1989), none of which occur in and rangeland wildlife such as deer, antelope, significant amounts in the project area. sage grouse, and coyote (Lammers 1991:Ta- Formative people are traditionally associ- ble 6). Animal populations, like human popu- ated with an agricultural subsistence strategy, lations, would have also been limited by the and although they may have raised crops seasonal availability of water. Even though elsewhere, it is doubtful that agriculture fieldwork was undertaken when the potholes could have been practiced successfully any- were brimming with water, wildlife sightings where in the White Crack Area due to shal- were few and much less frequent than in low soils and low water availability (see other areas of the park. No Late Prehistoric/ Chapter 2). Because the Formative occupa- Protohistoric sites were discovered during the tion was short-term and transient, they may inventory, but information from the adjacent have relied on the same types of hunted and

White Crack site (see Chapter 7) suggests gathered foods indicated above, stored agri- that hunting may have been relatively more cultural foods they carried with them, or a important during this period than during ear- combination of the two. The presence of a lier periods. storage structure suggests that they may have The paucity of groundstone needed to cached food to supply parties traveling process hard seeds such as goosefoot, drop- through the area. Or, the feature may have seed, and Indian ricegrass suggests that seeds been used for temporary storage of food be- were not as important a food source as they ing transported from its production locus to were at sites in the Needles District (Tipps its use site (Gilman 1983:129).

1995; Tipps and Hewitt 1989). It seems un- Long-term or year-round residential use likely that these seeds were used in large of the project area seems highly unlikely due amounts, but processed by some other means to the reduced availability of food resources because the White Crack Area hearths also relative to other areas of the park that were contained fewer seeds and seed taxa than also used on just a seasonal basis. In addi- those in the Needles District (see Chapter 6). tion, water, a critical element for survival, is In addition, many of the commonly used seed only reliably available during winter and plants are either lacking in the project area summer on the White Rim. The scarcity of

(e.g., goosefoot) or growing in much lower fuel wood, the exposed nature of the project amounts than other areas of the park (e.g., area, and the lack of facilities for surviving dropseed, shadscale, Indian ricegrass). There- the long, cold winters suggest that winter use fore, people in the White Crack Area may was improbable, if not impossible. Therefore, have relied on plant foods they could bake or most occupation was probably timed to coin- cook in or over hearths, such as spring cide with the availability of water during greens, roots, sego lily bulbs, or prickly pear the summer months. The two sites with

71 SUMMARY OF THE SITES accumulated cultural deposits appear to be cooked over or in the hearths, but food that the result of repeated occupation or a specific had to be ground was apparently uncommon. type of activity occurring rather than long- Formative-period people may have used term or year-round use. the project area somewhat differently, and

less frequently or at least in ways that left Ranching Activities less archeological evidence. They were clearly aware of the lithic source areas and The modern site appears to represent gen- used the Cedar Mesa materials to make eral domestic and camping activities under- chipped stone tools. However, none of the taken while tending livestock. The evidence of sites identifiable as Formative have large a temporary shelter and firewood suggests cold numbers of hearths suggestive of heat treat- season use, and the lack of significant amounts ment and intensive retooling events, although of debris points to short-term occupation. it is possible that some of the undated lithic

~~scatters with hearths date to this period. This Final Comments possibility should be investigated.~~

~~In summary, the majority of occupation In most culture-historical frameworks, the~~

~~in the White Crack Area appears to have Formative period is characterized by in- been short-term and seasonal, represented by creased sedentism, permanent or semiperma-~~

limited-activity sites and camps. Most occu- nent habitation, and a strong reliance on pation was probably timed to coincide with agriculture. These traits do not appear among the reliable availability of water during the the few Formative-period sites recorded in the

~~summer months, but visits during other time White Crack Area, suggesting a different~~

periods cannot be ruled out. Winter occupa- adaptive strategy and lifeway. One of the tion is unlikely, however, due to the long, Formative-age sites is a rockshelter that may cold winters and lack of evidence for shelters have been used for extended or repeated or other winter-surviving strategies. camping, but there is no evidence of even sea- Most use of the project area appears to sonal residence, and the other Formative- have been by mobile hunter-gatherers who period sites are even more ephemeral. These stopped briefly to retool and gear up while sites may have been stopover points, created traveling through the area during the course by Formative-age peoples traveling between

~~of their seasonal round. This pattern typifies farmsteads along the river and residential sites~~

at least the Archaic and Preformative periods on the highest mesa of the Island-in-the-Sky, based on the available evidence, and may or between other locations and site types. The also apply to the Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric presence of a storage structure may indicate

~~occupation represented at the White Crack repeated use of the access route and White~~

~~site. In general, the Archaic and Preformative Crack Area by a single group. This feature~~

sites seem to represent short-term, limited- may have been used to supply agricultural activity loci and camps related to the pro- parties routinely traveling through the area, or curement and processing of Cedar Mesa Chert to help solve problems of time and transporta- and the manufacture of chipped stone tools. tion in moving food from a production site to

Acquisition and use of animals is indicated by a use location (cf. Gilman 1983:129). Given the presence of use-broken projectile points. the marginal nature of the soils and limited Plant foods may have also been gathered and availability of water, it is unlikely that crops were ever grown in the project area.

~~72 Chapter 5~~

~~SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~by Betsy L. Tipps~~

This chapter summarizes the artifacts on a Euroamerican site along with a small as- and features recorded during the in- semblage of recent artifacts. ventory. Artifact counts and types discussed in this chapter do not include those from the Artifacts White Crack site, as they are reported sepa- The prehistoric artifact assemblage re- rately by La Fond in Chapter 7. However, corded on the sites consists of 211 chipped relevant information from the White Crack stone tools, 3 grinding implements, 2 pecked/ site artifact reanalysis is incorporated into battered stone tools, and 12 sherds. Forty- this chapter, when appropriate, to bolster in- four cores and utilized cores, as well as thou- terpretations and promote a better under- sands of pieces of debitage, were also noted. standing of the range of artifact variability Artifacts were found on all prehistoric sites and human adaptation in the White Crack except one, which was composed only of a Area. small petroglyph panel. Chipped stone is the The artifact assemblage observed during most common artifact class; debitage and the inventory includes chipped, ground, and chipped stone tools occur on 94 and 72 per- battered stone artifacts and a very small ce- cent of the prehistoric sites, respectively. Pot- ramic assemblage. No perishable items were tery is present on 8 percent of the sites. noted. Features are limited to only a few Groundstone and pecked stone implements types, mainly hearths of various varieties, occur on just 5 percent. with one occurrence each of smoke blacken- Eighty-six additional prehistoric artifacts ing, rock art, a midden, a cultural stratum, were discovered as isolated finds in the and a structure. Two modern features, a tent White Crack Area. Artifact and material platform and a woodpile were documented types in this assemblage are approximately SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES analogous to those in the site assemblages, artifact collection by Moab residents in with the sole addition of one named point nearby Arches National Park. type (possible Sinbad Side-notched). Secon- Several factors appear to discourage sur- dary flakes of local Cedar Mesa Chert pre- face collection among current park visitors. dominate, distantly followed by other flake Most visitors to the White Crack campground types, bifaces, modified flakes, and cores arrive by mountain bike. These visitors are

(Table 15; see also Appendix D). Isolated normally tired as a result of the long dis- finds of other materials are less common and tances between campgrounds; they make din- the majority are flakes, with a few chipped ner, socialize around a campfire, and go to stone tools, a core, a battered cobble, and bed. The field crew observed very little ex- three sherds. No isolated groundstone was ploring on the part of visitors, a pattern con- observed. Artifact summaries and discussions firmed during subsequent personal visits to in the remainder of this chapter are based on the project area. Providing the long distances the combined site and isolated find assemblage. between designated campgrounds are main- A small group of modern artifacts was tained and layover days are not permitted at discovered on one recent site. This assem- the White Crack campground, illegal artifact blage includes cans, nails, staples, batteries, collection may not be a significant problem. charcoal, miscellaneous metal, and wood. These items are discussed in greater detail Chipped Stone Artifacts below. Chipped stone is the most common arti- As noted in Chapter !, the noncollection fact category in the White Crack Area. Debi- nature of the inventory required that artifact tage accounts for the majority of items, descriptions and analyses be made in the distantly followed by bifaces (n = 149), cores field. As a result, the information presented (n = 51), modified flakes (n = 50), scrapers in this chapter is general and based on field (n = 10), projectile points (n = 9), and uni- observations. All trends and interpretations faces (n = 6). Tested cobbles were also ob- reported here require further investigation served on many sites, especially the lithic and verification through detailed analyses of source area sites, but not recorded individu- artifacts in the laboratory. ally due to time constraints and difficulties It should also be noted that illegal artifact distinguishing cultural from natural flaking. collection by park visitors, and by ranch Most chipped stone artifacts are made from hands before the creation of Canyonlands local Cedar Mesa Chert and materials that National Park, may have biased the repre- may lie within the range of Cedar Mesa sentation of certain artifact classes and re- Chert. A few artifacts are made from nonlo- duced the frequency of points, other chipped cal materials that were apparently transported stone tools, and painted pottery. There was into the area by prehistoric peoples. less evidence of illegal surface collection To provide a background for under- (e.g., collectors piles) than in the Squaw standing lithic raw material procurement Butte Area inventoried during an earlier practices and use in the White Crack Area, phase of the Canyonlands Archeological Pro- the next section discusses the types of raw ject (Tipps 1995), but the amount of pre- and materials used for chipped stone artifacts. post-park illegal surface collection is un- The succeeding sections describe each major known. Berry (1975:72) notes rampant illegal artifact class. Illustrations, tabular summaries.

~~74 <~~

~~SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~IBJ01~~

~~^J9»Od i i i (N —i~~

~~ajizyeno ^bjq~~

~~Auop90|Bl{3 SnO9UB||90SIJ/\I i i i i i i CS~~

~~I I I I I I I I i 1—1 Xuop30|Bq3 aso^j I I I i i i i~~

~~i ^^ i i i i i i Xuop30|Bq3 sjiqAV i i i u~~

~~Xuopso|Bq3 3|[iAj9iuuins i i i i i i i i i ^^ i i~~

~~^uopao[Bq3 BS9j/\[ jeps^ i i i i i i i i i (N i i i i i CS~~

~~> yaq3 sno3UB||99si^M i i i i i i i i i i i n o o~~

~~i i i i i i i i i i i I T— I r i T3 ysq3 Xbjo C~~

~~i i i i i i i ,— i (*) i i^-i i i i U3M3 ajiqAV o to~~

~~^T^r-)(N ' —~~

~~.5 CO Q.~~

-o ^ u ^^ oo o 1) «S cu o o u. CO o o o o X CO l_ c c c o "cO X) o X 1> CO < I en o o c X o -a c £ E o _o t3 o -T3 "co o b o o CO o "53 ,2 b o — -a -o b sJ > cu c CO wa D o — -« 'o CU CO 60 00 5 T3 ^ o o to o t. CO e co ca -b w 'S CO C o J J 0Q *> Oi D Q CQ (- 7) h (/) CQ

~~75 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

and interpretations are presented as appropri- classification scheme is expanding the range ate. Artifact frequencies by type for each site of variability of Cedar Mesa Chert. In addi- are given in Appendix C. tion, Cedar Mesa Chalcedony source area sites were located and documented for the

~~Chipped Stone Lithic Materials first time, allowing better characterization of~~

Knowledge of lithic source locations is the nature and form of this high-quality raw important to reconstructing prehistoric settle- material. A potential problem with the identi- ment and mobility patterns, subsistence fication of Summerville Chalcedony was also strategies, and trade systems, and under- detected, as discussed in greater detail below. standing how prehistoric peoples interacted After presenting a summary of each major with and adapted to the environment. As material type, the remainder of this section such, identifying and characterizing lithic provides interpretations and suggestions for sources have been important continuing em- additional research. phases of the Canyonlands Archeological This summary is based on (1) general ob-

Project. Using data from the first season of servations of toolstones on the sites and local inventory in the Salt Creek Pocket and Devils geology, (2) information on the site forms for Lane areas, a preliminary and tentative lithic source area and nonsource area sites, chipped stone material classification was de- and (3) the raw materials analysis of the veloped for the Needles District (Tipps and White Crack site, which is reported in greater

Hewitt 1989). It was later revised and ex- detail in Chapter 7 and Appendix E. For the panded based on subsequent work in the reader's convenience, the section on Cedar Squaw Butte Area (Tipps 1995). Because the Mesa Chert also duplicates and paraphrases majority of raw materials used for chipped relevant information from the Squaw Butte stone artifacts in Canyonlands appear to be Area report (Tipps 1995) rather than referring locally derived and the same geologic forma- the reader to that report. As with the previous tions are exposed throughout much of the inventory work, material types were deter- park, we surmised that the Needles classifica- mined through visual inspection of color, lus- tion scheme would be applicable to the White ter, texture, and inclusions, and comparisons Crack Area. Assessing the applicability of the to a modern reference collection as well as the lithic area typology and revising and updating it as nec- specimens observed on source essary were among the research goals for the sites in the field. project (see Chapter 3). Cedar Mesa Chert and Chalcedony Observations made during the inventory Cedar Mesa Chert is the predominant as well as during reanalysis of the chipped toolstone in the White Crack Area; it occurs stone assemblage from the nearby White on every site with chipped stone artifacts and naturally in multiple thin lenses and Crack site (see Chapter 7 and Appendix E) outcrops are demonstrate that the Needles chipped stone bands in the project area. These lenses the in the material classification can be applied to the exposed below White Rim, White White Crack Area with very few modifica- Crack Benchlands Parcel, where they are as- ledges sandstones tions. Material types occur in different fre- sociated with narrow of shales in the Formation. quencies than in project areas inventoried in and Cedar Mesa the Needles, but most types are the same. The chert lenses are usually no more than The most significant modification to the 10-15 cm thick, and often less, potentially limiting the size of flake blanks and tools

76 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES that could be made. However, one chert lens, although a few occur on small, shallow sand on site 42SA21287, ranges up to 40 cm thick. accumulations. The residual deposits are typi- Tipps (1995:38) believes that Cedar Mesa cally adjacent to the chert lenses, and there-

Chert in the Squaw Butte Area formed by sil- fore, are often on narrow ledges at differing ica replacement of carbonate rocks such as elevations in the White Crack Benchlands limestone. The same process appears to be Parcel. At one large source area site, the re- responsible for the formation of Cedar Mesa sidual chert occurs on ledges, a knob, and in

Chert in the White Crack Area, as most chert the surrounding basin. Natural erosion has lenses are associated with blue-gray lime- transported most chert fragments only mini- stone, and oolites are sometimes present. mal distances from their point of origin.

The in situ lenticular chert beds are The horizontal extent of the residual de- rarely viable toolstone sources because the posits varies tremendously, from 4 to 180 m narrow bands of chert would be very difficult in maximum dimension. Not all such deposits to extract from the cliff faces. Instead, Cedar contain usable pieces of Cedar Mesa Chert,

Mesa Chert was probably obtained from the and not all deposits with flakeable toolstone local residual deposits. These deposits show evidence of utilization. Therefore, de- formed when the less resistant sandstone and spite fairly extensive use of the sources limestone matrix eroded away, exposing the throughout prehistory, a good supply of rea- chert lenses, which subsequently broke into sonably sized pieces of toolstone persist in clasts (Figures 9 and 10). Most of the resid- the White Crack Area today. ual deposits are on sandstone bedrock

~~Figure 9. Lenticular bed of Cedar Mesa Chert in the White Crack Area.~~

~~77 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~Figure 10. Close-up of a Cedar Mesa Chert outcrop in the White Crack Area. Scale is a 6-inch ruler.~~

~~Cedar Mesa Chert in the residual depos- quartzitelike, yellow to black layer. This tran-~~

its is often tabular and blocky, clearly having sitional layer may be only a few millimeters broken off a bedded deposit. C lasts are pre- thick or compose almost the entirety of dominantly angular to subangular, with very pieces that were incompletely silicified. few rounded specimens. Toolstone masses Sometimes, the cortex consists of only a vary considerably in size but are rarely larger slight dulling of the finish. than 30 cm across and 10-15 cm thick. Struc- Like other areas of the park, the quality, tural and other flaws limit the size of usable luster, and texture of Cedar Mesa Chert are packages to no more than 20 cm across, usu- extremely variable. Material may be free of ally less. fractures and inclusions, and well suited to

Cortex resulting from chert diagenesis is flaking. Or, it may have cracks and fracture common. Because cortex is the interface be- planes, or contain dendrites, calcite or crys- tween the chert and its surrounding matrix, it talline inclusions or crystals, or oolites mak-

~~may exhibit characteristics that are transi- ing it marginally flakeable. It may be highly tional between the two (Luedtke 1992:72). siliceous, or limey, grainy, or quartzitelike,~~

~~Cortex on the Cedar Mesa Chert commonly diminishing its flakeability. Another problem~~

~~grades between chert, sandstone, and lime- that affects some pieces is incomplete silicifi-~~

~~stone. In these cases, it consists of a smooth cation resulting in textural and compositional~~

~~to highly textured and pitted, carbonate to gradations between the inner and outer sections~~

78 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES of the clast. Such pieces typically grade from Cedar Mesa Chert. The highest quality mate- a heterogeneous carbonate or quartzitelike rials are purple, red, and maroon with blue composition with a dull luster on the exterior spots. The orange and lavender varieties tend to a more homogeneous and highly siliceous toward a limey composition, whereas the material on the interior. Although these gra- white specimens sometimes have dendrites, dations reduce the workability of the clast as inclusions, or a grainy texture. a whole, small pieces of high-quality material Toolstone in several residual deposits can still be obtained from the clast interior. grades into high-quality Cedar Mesa Chal-

In spite of the variation, most nodules do cedony. This material is only present in a few share a slightly grainy texture and are some- lenses and residual deposits in the White what tough in their natural, unheat-treated Crack Area, and never in large fragments. In- state. stead, it co-occurs with Cedar Mesa Chert on

Material quality varies greatly at most individual pieces, making it somewhat diffi- sources and even within individual pieces, cult to isolate for flaking. Cedar Mesa Chal- making assessment of quality and flakeability cedony was observed in several residual on a clast-specific basis a necessity. All fac- deposits that showed no evidence of utiliza- tors considered, Cedar Mesa Chert available tion, but it was clearly procured at the source in the White Crack Area is of moderate qual- area recorded as site 42SA21287, and it ap- ity, though individual pieces range from un- pears as debitage on nine sites in the project usable or poor to excellent quality. area. Most of the Cedar Mesa Chalcedony is

~~Red and red-orange are the predominant purple or red-purple, but it occasionally color varieties of Cedar Mesa Chert in the transforms into clear, orange-pink, or grayish~~

White Crack Area. Red-brown, orange, orange- orange. Sometimes it grades into or contains white, mottled orange, red-purple, dark red, patches of white chert. The purple and red and purple are dominant on some sites, but coloring may permeate the entire stone or be overall, are less common. Varieties that pre- represented by only swirls and dots within a dominate on a just a few sites include red- clear matrix. Cedar Mesa Chalcedony is a yellow, white with light orange mottling, and very high-quality material, far exceeding the white, sometimes with red or orange mottling flakeability of the Cedar Mesa Chert, al- or black inclusions. Less common colors of though it sometimes contains small oolitic in- Cedar Mesa Chert are brown, orange-purple, clusions. light purple, lavender, and lavender-white. A White Chert few specimens were also observed in the fol- White chert occurs in small to medium lowing colors: yellow, tan, purple with white amounts on 1 1 sites in the White Crack Area. mottling, maroon with blue dots, mottled It is sometimes grainy and occasionally con- gray with red dots, granular gray to red, and tains black dendrites or other inclusions mak- red to gray. Some of the gray material has ing it a moderate- to high-quality toolstone. fossiliferous inclusions. One piece of red Many specimens grade into Cedar Mesa Cedar Mesa Chert abruptly turns into mottled Chert. However, some examples transition to gray chert with a thin yellowish band separat- pinkish white chert or have dark gray streaks. ing them; there is no texture change at the These characteristics have not (yet) been as- color change. As in other areas of the park, sociated with Cedar Mesa Chert, suggesting colors vary tremendously at both the source the possibility of a second, non-Cedar Mesa area sites and within individual pieces of Chert source. At the White Crack site,

~~79 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

reported in Chapter 7, the reduction profile of does not outcrop in or near the White Crack white chert is consistent with a nonlocal Area (Huntoon et al. 1982). Considering the source. local geology, the Cedar Mesa Formation Summerville Chalcedony and White seemed a more likely possibility. Chalcedony The residual deposits of Cedar Mesa Summerville Chalcedony is the most Chert below the White Rim were checked for common exotic material in the Salt Creek evidence of the grainy white chalcedony.

~~Pocket and Squaw Butte areas of the Needles None was found in the outcrops, but several~~

District (Tipps 1995; Tipps and Hewitt flakes on site 42SA21263 grade from dark- 1989), so the presence of clear to white chal- red and red-orange Cedar Mesa Chert into cedony in the White Crack Area came as no grainy white chalcedony, clearly indicating surprise. However, the first day of the inven- the Cedar Mesa Formation as a possible tory, the crew noticed two "types" of white source. On the same site, another flake of or- chalcedony, one high-quality and analogous ange Cedar Mesa Chert with white mottling to the Summerville Chalcedony observed in transitions into red-orange chert and clear the Needles District and one of lower, more chalcedony. After these finds, it was sus- grainy quality, with occasional black den- pected that (1) the high-quality material, drites or red splotches. Because the "varie- which mainly occurs as bifacial thinning or ties" were so different, it was suspected that tertiary flakes, is imported Summerville they might be from different sources. There- Chalcedony, (2) the grainier white chalced-

~~fore, a very cautious approach to identifying ony, which is generally from earlier reduction~~

Summerville Chalcedony was implemented; stages, is from the local Cedar Mesa Forma- the Summerville label was reserved for high- tion, and (3) the absence of the grainy chal- quality, clear to white pieces, often with cedony in the White Crack Area source sites

translucent orange coloring, analogous to is because it only occurs in limited locales those recorded as Summerville Chalcedony within the formation, just like Cedar Mesa during previous work on the Canyonlands Chalcedony.

~~Archeological Project. All other pieces were Later in the project, this theory was recorded as white chalcedony to facilitate called into question when the crew discov-~~

further investigation of this issue. Using these ered a piece of fine white chalcedony on site definitions, Summerville Chalcedony was 42SA21285 that abruptly turns into grainy documented on eight sites, white chalcedony white chalcedony. The issue of multiple on nine sites. sources for the white chalcedony could not The low quality of the grainy material, as be resolved during the inventory due to the

well as the presence of large, partially re- noncollection policy and requires further in- duced clasts and predominance of early-stage vestigations. white chalcedony flakes, suggested a nearby Algalitic Chert

~~source. While the grainy material appears Algalitic Chert is only present in small~~

~~analogous to much of the Summerville Chal- amounts on seven sites in the White Crack~~

~~cedony at source sites near La Sal Junction Area but it has the same color, texture, and and in northeastern Arches National Park range of variability as recorded during the~~

~~(Berry 1975), the geologic formation that Salt Creek Pocket and Devils Lane area in-~~

~~contains Summerville Chalcedony (the Tid- ventories in the Needles District (Tipps and~~

~~well Member of the Morrison Formation) Hewitt 1989). It is distinguished by its~~

~~80 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~two-toned yellow and brown coloring. The why this might be the case for Cedar Mesa~~

~~brown component is lustrous and highly sili- Chalcedony. The same explanations apply to~~

ceous, whereas the yellow component is rose chalcedony. more limey as a result of incomplete chertifi- Brown Chalcedony cation. The presence of early- and middle- Brown chalcedony was observed in mod- stage reduction flakes may indicate a local erate amounts on two sites recorded during

~~source. Tipps (1995:42-43, 1996:72) suggests the inventory. It is banded, lustrous, and of~~

~~that Algalitic Chert may be from restricted high quality. It is probably from a nonlocal locales within the Cedar Mesa Formation. source. A variable, poor- to high-quality,~~

~~None was observed in the White Crack Area brown to grayish brown chalcedony with a~~

~~source sites, but this accords well with its dull to dull/earthy luster was recovered from~~

~~low frequencies. the White Crack site (see Appendix E). It Gray Chert sometimes grades into Cedar Mesa Chert~~

Gray chert is relatively uncommon in the suggesting local availability. White Crack Area and may be from more Other Materials than one source. It occurs on five sites, usu- Multicolored chalcedony is the dominant

~~ally in small amounts, although it is one of material at one small site in the White Crack two primary materials on one site. Most gray Area but comprises only five pieces. Due to~~

~~chert is mottled and of moderate quality, with the small size of the assemblage and the indi-~~

~~occasional fossiliferous inclusions. Several vidual specimens, this material cannot be re-~~

examples of this material grade into Cedar liably described. Mesa Chert as noted previously, and may Brown chert analogous to that recorded have come from the local residual deposits. in the Salt Creek Pocket and Squaw Butte ar-

~~Another variety is of higher quality and lacks eas of the Needles was noted in a small~~

~~mottling. It only occurs as very fine, late- amount on one site. It ranges from pale stage bifacial thinning flakes suggesting a brown to grayish brown to reddish brown,~~

~~possible nonlocal origin. has a coarse- to fine-grained texture, and is~~

~~Rose to Rose-white Chalcedony of variable quality. It appears to be Cedar A small amount of rose to rose-white Mesa Chert.~~

~~chalcedony was observed on four sites in the Gray quartzite is rare in the project area,~~

~~White Crack Area. This material is fine occurring in small amounts on just three~~

grained, glossy, and of very high quality. One sites. It ranges from light gray to light cortical piece grades into grainy white chal- brownish gray to blue-gray and may be from cedony and could be a variety of local Cedar multiple sources. The light brownish gray va-

~~Mesa Chalcedony. Another piece has incipi- riety is fine grained, slightly glossy, and of ent cone cortex suggesting procurement from relatively high quality for quartzite.~~

~~an alluvial source. At the White Crack site, No siliceous limestone was observed as a~~

~~rose chalcedony is mainly represented by chipped stone raw material on sites recorded~~

~~late-stage biface thinning flakes, leading La during the inventory, but one piece was re-~~

~~Fond to suggest a nonlocal source (see Chap- covered from the White Crack site (see Ap-~~

~~ter 7). It is possible that this material is from pendix E). This specimen is pale orange with~~

~~the Cedar Mesa Formation but, like Cedar distinctive olive bands suggesting it is not~~

~~Mesa Chalcedony, mainly represented by late from the local Cedar Mesa Formation.~~

~~reduction stages. La Fond (Chapter 7) discusses~~

~~81 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~No obsidian was documented on any to homogeneous with well-defined conchoi-~~

sites recorded during the inventory, but it dal fracturing properties." At a site in Bartlett may have been overlooked due to low fre- Flat, Tipps (1991:30) identified a local mate- quencies or small flake size as four pieces rial she describes as follows: "an opaque, occur in the White Crack site assemblage fine-grained, and usually mottled chert rang-

~~(see Appendix E). Three of the White Crack ing from white to pink to light purple to yel-~~

~~site specimens are solid black and one is lowish. . . . Many pieces have black veins." transparent gray with translucent black inclu- She subsequently located two source sites of~~

~~sions. Obsidian is not local to the Canyon- this material north of The Knoll. In general,~~

~~lands area, indicating a nonlocal origin for the material at the source sites was low to these artifacts. moderate grade and had numerous fracture~~

~~One artifact of petrified wood was also planes. This latter material is distinctive and,~~

~~documented at the White Crack site. It is a thus, was easy to identify in the White Crack~~

moderate-quality raw material with a dark Area chipped stone tool assemblage. It is rep- gray groundmass and thin brownish yellow resented by a single biface, but the presence growth rings (see Appendix E). of this biface indicates that at least one group

There are numerous toolstone sources in of people visited stone tools sources north of the Island-in-the-Sky uplands north of the the park before coming to the White Crack park, most apparently consisting of chert Area. float from the Entrada Sandstone Formation Discussion or other members of the San Rafael Group Prehistoric flintknappers in the White

~~(e.g., see Davis and Westfall 1991; Keller Crack Area relied heavily on local raw mate-~~

1975; Lipe 1975; Montgomery et al. 1982; rial, especially Cedar Mesa Chert that is Tipps 1991). Some of these have been available in residual deposits throughout the loosely labeled as Bartlett Flat (Tipps 1993) White Crack Benchlands Parcel (Table 16). or Dubinky (Davis and Westfall 1991) chert, Cedar Mesa Chert occurs on every site with although formal, detailed descriptions have chipped stone artifacts in the White Crack

not been made. The materials from the vari- Area. It is the only material on almost 43 per- ous sources are highly variable. At one cent of the sites, the dominant material on source, Lipe (1975) describes a "colorless another 46 percent, and present as one of two translucent material" and a "white chert" that dominant materials on approximately 6 per- "resembles cherty white limestone." He also cent of the sites. On only two sites (less than

~~mentions "red and purplish chert, some white 6 percent) is it a minor or moderate material. chert mottled with red, and some dark mot- Cedar Mesa Chalcedony, also from the~~

tled gray chert." At another location, he de- local residual deposits, is of higher quality scribes a "thin float of pink chert." Keller than Cedar Mesa Chert, but less common, (1975) describes a site with "natural chert presumably due to its more limited availabil- nodules and fragments" of "opaque to near- ity. Other material types are infrequent, and opaque purplish white stone of what appears generally present in only small to medium to be good working quality." Davis and amounts on 25 percent of the sites, or less. Westfall (1991:98) recorded several source Most of the uncommon materials are poten-

area sites with "red to reddish-brown chert." tially from the Cedar Mesa Formation, signi- They indicate that the material "ranges in fying an even greater emphasis on local texture from grainy with numerous impurities material despite its variable, but usually only

~~82 ' <~~

~~SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~Orfr-t~^o\om ,^-r~~o\~~

~~•o -i » a oo h ifl "0- rj — CO ~~~

~~^S | (N — ^OOsoor--^-rJ-(N *£ T3~~

~~i- O ON v-i in 2 C £ ° 5 Si u c Crt ~o a> o, .2- ISo On T3 O a c4 u 4->o • 5 iu U a> CO~~

~~vo ' ~~~

~~CO CO U •a uCl> O~~

, c D. 3 CO T3 o to C 2 0- o 03 0D i- a> > o -a it S >% CO co >» C c c o CO E H o "0 o •a T3 u U 'J 43 _o 1) >^ _o >* Ct-I c 03 c OJ co c -C CO O Hi 43 .c o 2 o JZ a. U U T3 u c T3 u >^ Cl> CO U O £ o u _o £ 2 OJ o o o L* 0) i— m :j^ C o CO CO E '~ "2 03 >% %> =J TD T3 £ 00 U CO o "3 U rr* u :> 00 < O Od 03

~~83 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

moderate, quality. This reliance may be be- outcrops, but only in small interior patches on cause Cedar Mesa materials are the only larger clasts of Cedar Mesa Chert. The posi- chippable toolstones available in the immedi- tioning and small size of the patches and its ate vicinity of the project area. The nearest higher quality relative to Cedar Mesa Chert known sources of other materials are a long may explain why it mainly occurs as late- way or difficult to reach from the project stage debitage despite its local availability. area: gravels along the Colorado River Future investigations should more thor- (Losee and Lucius 1975), Dubinky or Bartlett oughly examine the possible sources of Sum-

~~Flat Chert in the Island-in-the-Sky uplands merville Chalcedony and the grainy white north of the park (Davis and Westfall 1991; chalcedony, and whether they are the same or~~

~~Lipe 1975; Tipps 1991), and Summerville different materials. The outcome of such re-~~

~~Chalcedony at La Sal Junction and in north- search will allow a better understanding of eastern Arches National Park (Berry 1975). prehistoric mobility patterns, and the size and~~

~~In addition, patient and persistent nodule test- positioning of annual territories.~~

ing can result in the procurement of high- quality material from the Cedar Mesa Tools Formation, which can subsequently be im- Projectile Points proved through heat treatment. As noted in A total of six projectile points was re- Chapter 7, heat treatment appears to have corded among four sites during the inventory: been an integral part of Cedar Mesa Chert one San Rafael Side-notched, two Gypsum, use. Despite the emphasis on local material, two large side-notched, and one large indeter-

there was some use of nonlocal materials, minate point (Figure 11). Three additional and those that could be identified derive from points—one small lanceolate point, a possi- sources north and east of the park. ble Sinbad Side-notched, and two indetermi- To conclude, the toolstone classification nate dart points—were discovered as isolated devised in the Needles District applies to the finds. Projectile points occur in relatively low

~~White Crack Area, but Cedar Mesa Chert has numbers in all areas previously inventoried in a wider range of variability, and potentially Canyonlands National Park (Griffin 1984;~~

incorporates most raw materials observed on Hartley 1980; Hogan et al. 1975; Losee and sites in the project area. The narrower range of Lucius 1975; Sharrock 1966; Tipps 1995, material types in the White Crack Area sug- 1996; Tipps and Hewitt 1989), but they are

~~gests restricted access to other toolstone types, particularly infrequent on sites in the White~~

~~probably as a result of the geographic position- Crack Area. It was initially suspected that the ing of annual territories relative to toolstone paucity of projectile points might be due to~~

sources. Cedar Mesa Chert may be the main illegal surface collection during the prepark material available in areas visited before reach- ranching era because the area was so heavily ing the White Crack Area. If so, exhausted and used. broken tools and resharpening debris of nonlo- However, on the adjacent White Crack

~~cal Cedar Mesa Chert is probably present on site, Vetter (1989; Vetter and Osborn 1993) the sites but could not be distinguished from recovered five projectile points during lim-~~

~~that of local Cedar Mesa Chert. ited surface collections in and immediately~~

~~Work in the White Crack Area also adjacent to the National Park Service camp-~~

~~showed that Cedar Mesa Chalcedony is avail- ground (see Chapter 7 for point description). able in local Cedar Mesa Chert residual~~

~~84 '~~

~~SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~Broken~~

~~Slight hint of notches~~

~~Figure 1 1 . Selected projectile points discovered on sites in the White Crack Area, a, San Rafael~~

~~Side-notched, site 42SA21267; b, Gypsum, site 42SA21269; c, Gypsum, site 42SA21285; d, large side-notched, 42SA21267; e, large other, site 42SA21271; f, small lanceolate, IF 18.~~

Because her work was in an area of the site projectile points were once more numerous that has probably been heavily collected by on the White Crack site. park visitors, it seems likely that points were It seems unlikely that illegal collection of originally more common. Indeed, a tour projectile points would have been more in- guide who visited the site during the project tensive on all sites in our inventory area than told one of his clients that the campground on the White Crack site, which contains a area "is a good place to collect arrowheads." popular campground. Therefore, the scarcity

~~This anecdotal evidence also suggests that of points on the inventory sites relative to the~~

~~85 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

White Crack site may relate to diachronic An isolated projectile point may be the change in projectile point use. The five speci- oldest point discovered during the inventory. mens recovered from the White Crack site It is a small, slender lanceolate specimen are all arrow points, three of which are or with slightly convex blade margins, a straight could be Desert Side-notched points dating to to slightly concave base, and a thick, lenticu- the Late Prehistoric or Protohistoric periods. lar cross section (see Figure 1 1 f). The lateral All projectile points observed on during the margins are slightly constricted near the inventory are dart points dating much earlier. proximal end creating shallow side notches. Even though projectile points are rela- Made from mottled lavender-white Cedar tively common in the inventory area, evi- Mesa Chert, this point exhibits fine work- dence in the projectile point assemblage manship and flaking. Tipps (1988a) defined suggests that hunting implements were re- similar points in the San Rafael Swell as tooled in the project area, that is, broken Sinbad Side-notched. Based on few occur- point bases were removed from their hafts rences and surface associations with Pinto, and the hafts were refitted with new tips. Pre- Humboldt, and San Rafael Side-notched, she historic hunters are believed to have recov- tentatively suggests that Sinbad Side-notched ered serviceable hafts still containing broken points date to the Early Archaic. Black and projectile point bases and curated them until Metcalf (1986:100) accept the type as valid, a convenient time for retooling. This often but suggest a Formative period, Fremont ori- resulted in the point bases being discarded at gin based on its small size. the retooling locus, rather than the hunting The base of a Middle Archaic, San Rafael locus (Keeley 1982; Odell 1980). Rejuvena- Side-notched point (cf. Holmer 1978) was tion of hunting kits is thought to have taken found on a large lithic scatter with features in place at base camps or at least on sites where the White Rim Uplands Parcel. Made from the necessary time, materials, and facilities Summerville Chalcedony, this point has high,

~~(e.g., a campfire for heating mastic) were shallow side notches and a deeply notched available (Binford 1979:269-270; Keeley base (see Figure 11a). Five San Rafael Side-~~

1982:804). Four of the six points recorded on notched points were recorded in the Butler sites during the inventory are use-broken Flat Area of the Needles District during an proximal fragments that could have been earlier phase of the Canyonlands Archeologi- brought to the sites while still in the haft. All cal Project (Tipps 1996). They have also four occur on sites that appear to have been been found in the La Sal Mountains (Hunt used at least overnight for camping instead of 1953), and in the Island-in-the-Sky uplands momentary stopovers, making them ideal north of the park (Montgomery et al. 1982). places for retooling. One isolated point has San Rafael Side-notched points date between

1 an impact fracture and was probably lost dur- 3400 and 2000 B.C. on the northern Colo- ing a hunting event; fracture types on the rado Plateau (Holmer 1978:69). Holmer other specimens are indeterminate. The pres- (1978:69) suggests that San Rafael points ence of bifaces suitable as projectile point may indicate a Plains association due to the preforms is additional evidence of projectile similarity of the form to Mallory Side- point manufacture in the project area. notched (Holmer 1986:104).

~~These dates were determined by calibrating Holmer's original B.P. date range of 4600-3700 B.P.~~

~~86 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~Two lithic scatters with features in the B ifaces White Rim Uplands Parcel each contained Bifaces are formal tools that have been~~

~~the base and midsection of a Late Archaic flaked across both faces but lack a haft ele- Gypsum point (cf. Harrington 1933). The ment. They can represent finished tools,~~

points have large triangular blades, wide cor- blanks or preforms for finished tools, cores, ner notches that form shoulders, and contract- manufacture failures, or a combination of ing stems. One Cedar Mesa Chert specimen these.

~~(see Figure lib) has a small notch in the A total of 144 bifaces was recorded on~~

~~base of its otherwise convex stem. This notch 25 sites (69 percent of the prehistoric sites).~~

~~appears deliberate but its function is un- Biface frequency on these sites ranges from~~

~~known. The notch may relate to some secon- 1 to 32, but 2 is the modal category and only dary use after the point broke. The other 2 sites have more than 20 specimens. Five~~

~~Gypsum point (see Figure lie) is made from additional bifaces were documented as iso-~~

~~Algalitic Chert and may have been reworked. lated finds for a total of 149. The high fre- Gypsum points are one of the more common quency of bifaces and biface manufacturing~~

point types on the northern Colorado Plateau, debris (see Debitage, below) indicate that this where they date between 3500 and 1500- technology was the primary and presumably 1000 B.C. (Berry and Berry 1986:309-310). most advantageous means of exploiting the

~~The site with the San Rafael Side- local lithic resources. notched point also contains the base and Bifacial technology has been convinc-~~

~~midsection of an indeterminate, serrated, ingly associated with high-mobility settle-~~

side-notched dart point made from white ment patterns because it is convenient, chalcedony (see Figure lid). This point has a conserves toolstone, and provides flexibility slightly concave base and would be typed as to overcome toolstone shortages encountered

~~Elko were it not for the serrations. Another during the course of a group's annual round~~

~~point on this same site is the base and mid- (Bamforth 1986; Kelly 1988; Parry and Kelly~~

~~section of a white chert side-notched dart 1987). It may also have been used by less~~

~~point. mobile populations who lived in or ventured~~

~~Another indeterminate point on a differ- into toolstone-poor areas because it allows ent site is represented by the broken, triangu- efficient use of a scarce resource (Andrefsky~~

~~lar tall, slender blade of a large dart point. 1994; Kelly 1988). The emphasis on bifacial The proximal end of the specimen has a technology in the White Crack Area appears~~

~~slight hint of notches, suggesting that it was to result primarily from a high-mobility set-~~

~~side notched. Flake scars on one face of the tlement pattern because toolstone is abundant~~

~~point are vaguely collateral. This point is in many areas of Canyonlands and the Island- made from local Cedar Mesa Chalcedony. in-the-Sky uplands (Davis and Westfall 1991;~~

The remaining points were discovered as iso- Losee and Lucius 1975; Sharrock 1966; lated finds; they are a large corner-notched Tipps 1995; Tipps and Hewitt 1989; Vetter point of white chalcedony and a large-side 1989; Vetter and Osborn 1993; see above). notched point of Cedar Mesa Chert. Due to However, the local shortage of raw material

~~their fragmentary nature and/or aberrant sources on the White Rim may have also inform, these points could not be classified to a fluenced use of this technology to a lesser de- named type. gree.~~

~~87 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

Approximately 79 percent of the bifaces and projectile point tips and midsections (see are made from local Cedar Mesa Chert, and Chapter 7 for definitions). The preponderance another 7 percent are from materials that may of early-stage bifaces, especially of the local also be local (e.g., gray chert, white chert, Cedar Mesa Chert, suggests that primary brown chalcedony, etc.). Twelve percent are manufacture of early-stage bifaces for use, made from materials whose sources are un- transport, or both was more common than fi- known. Less than 2 percent are from definite nal manufacture and maintenance of bifacial nonlocal materials (Dubinky or Bartlett Flat tools; it also implies that toolstone trans- chert and Summerville Chalcedony). The ported away from the project area was pri- high percentage of Cedar Mesa Chert bifaces marily in the form of early-stage bifaces.

is not surprising given the natural occurrence Toolstone may have also been exported as of this material in and around the project flakes, as discussed in the section on cores, area. What is surprising is the low percentage below, and possibly as flake blanks, although of definite nonlocal materials because items this is difficult to evaluate using inventory made at toolstones sources encountered ear- data.

lier in a group's annual round tend to be dis- The vast majority of bifaces are broken, carded during retooling episodes at sources but the percentage of broken specimens is encountered later in the annual round higher among late-stage bifaces than early-

~~(Gramly 1980). The scarcity, of identifiable, stage bifaces (see Table 17). Most display nonlocal materials may indicate that Cedar bending or snap fractures, which can occur~~

~~Mesa Chert is the main material available in during either manufacture or use. However, portions of the group's annual range visited given that manufacture of early-stage bifaces~~

~~before the White Crack Area. As noted pre- was a common activity in the White Crack~~

~~viously, discarded tools and resharpening de- Area, it is likely that the majority of broken~~

~~bris from nonlocal Cedar Mesa Chert would early- stage bifaces are manufacture failures.~~

~~be very difficult to distinguish from similar Assessment of this possibility would require~~

~~artifacts of local Cedar Mesa Chert. detailed laboratory analysis of collections,~~

As shown in Table 1 7, the majority of bi- which was beyond the scope of the project. faces are early stage, with significantly fewer The percentages of early- and late-stage late-stage bifaces. Early-stage specimens are and complete and fragmentary bifaces are analogous to Callahan's (1979) Stage 2 and 3 similar between Cedar Mesa Chert and non- bifaces. Late-stage specimens comprise Cal- Cedar Mesa Chert materials. However, this

~~lahan's Stage 4 and 5 bifaces and include similarity may be due to the inclusion of un-~~

~~knifelike bifaces, projectile point preforms, recognized Cedar Mesa Chert materials in the~~

~~Table 17. Frequency and percent of bifaces by stage and completeness.~~

~~Whole Fragmentary Total Biface Stage n % n % n % Early stage 22 21 84 79 106 71 Late stage 2 5 40 95 42 28~~

~~Indeterminate stage 1 100 1 1~~

~~Total 24 16 125 84 149 100~~

~~88 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

non-Cedar Mesa Chert category and the use they are relatively numerous (x = 8.6). Early- of a somewhat gross, two-stage typology for stage bifaces are much more common than recording biface manufacture stage during the late-stage bifaces (78 percent versus 22 per- inventory. Non-Cedar Mesa Chert bifaces are cent). The high frequency of bifaces on these significantly smaller than the average for all sites, combined with the preponderance of Cedar Mesa Chert specimens, and somewhat early-stage bifaces and common presence of analogous to the late-stage Cedar Mesa Chert decortication flakes on these sites (see Debi- specimens (Table 18), suggesting different tage, below), suggest that a large amount of reduction trajectories and that some may biface reduction and primary biface manufac- have been transported into the area as staged ture was accomplished in camp settings. Ap- bifaces from other locations. parently, this reduction focused on reducing Bifaces occur on only four of the nine flake blanks, cores, and occasionally early-

~~lithic source area sites, where they number stage bifaces transported from the lithic~~

~~no more than 3 per site, and have an average source area sites. Delaying most reduction of 1.1 per site. This scarcity suggests that until after the raw material had been trans-~~

~~material was frequently transported away ported to the camps (lithic scatters with fea-~~

~~from the lithic source area sites as assayed tures) may have better accommodated the nodules, cores, or flake blanks rather than as heat treatment process. As noted by La Fond~~

bifaces; if early-stage bifaces were being pro- (1995a and Chapter 7), Cedar Mesa Chert duced at the source area sites in large num- must be heat treated before refined bifacial bers, a larger number of specimens broken flaking. This heat treatment would have been during the manufacturing process should be less costly to undertake at a campsite than at

~~present (Keyser and Fagan 1987:252). How- a source locale because it could have been ever, when bifaces were produced at the easily embedded in camp activities by plac-~~

~~source area sites, they were usually early ing a few flake blanks or bifaces into a~~

~~stage. Bifaces on the lithic source area sites campfire and then directing attention to other~~

~~are all early stage with the exception of one tasks (Elston 1992:790). This scenario is sup- biface made of exotic material, which was ported by the lack of features that could have~~

~~probably discarded at the site because it was been used for heat treatment on the source~~

~~being replaced. sites, the higher average frequency of bifaces~~

~~Bifaces occur on eight of nine sites clas- on lithic scatters with hearths (Y = 8.6) than~~

~~sified as lithic scatters with features, where lithic scatters without hearths (x = 2.9), and~~

~~Table 18. Dimensions of bifaces by material type and stage.~~

~~Length (cm) Width (cm) Thickness (cm) Material Type and Stage Range Average Range Average Range Average Cedar Mesa Chert - 3.5-13.0 6.5 2.1-11.0 4.3 0.4-4.5 1.2~~

~~early stage~~

~~Cedar Mesa Chert - 4.5 4.5 1.3-5.20 2. 0.2-1.0 0.5~~

~~late stage Non-Cedar Mesa Chert - 2.7-6.4 4.8 1.1-4.8 2.7 0.2-2.4 0.7~~

~~all stages~~

~~89 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~the fact that a higher percentage of the lithic Unifaces scatters with hearths has bifaces (89 percent) Only six unifaces were observed during~~

~~than lithic scatters without hearths (71 per- the inventory. They occur on four sites: two~~

~~cent). Also, lithic scatters with hearths have a multicomponent Archaic sites and two sites~~

~~higher percentage of early-stage bifaces than of unknown age. These expedient artifacts~~

~~lithic scatters without hearths (78 versus were made by unifacially retouching large,~~

~~66 percent). Because the majority of lithic secondary reduction flakes. Five are made of~~

~~scatters with hearths date to the Archaic or Cedar Mesa Chert and one is of Algalitic Preformative periods, the procurement and Chert. One of the Cedar Mesa Chert speci-~~

reduction patterns described above may pri- mens, from a site of unknown age, is very marily apply to the Archaic and Preformative large, measuring 13.0 cm long, 6.0 cm wide, time periods. and 1.5 cm thick. Another, also of Cedar

~~There are too few Anasazi sites with bi- Mesa Chert, is 8.3 cm long, 4.2 cm wide, and~~

faces (n = 3) to characterize Anasazi procure- 2.4 cm thick. It was observed on a site with ment and reduction patterns with any multiple Archaic components. Two speci- confidence, although late-stage bifaces out- mens on the other multicomponent Archaic number early-stage bifaces (56 percent versus site are 3.8-5.0 cm long, 2.7-5.2 cm wide,

~~44 percent) in the sample of 17 specimens. and 0.9 cm thick. The final two unifaces,~~

~~Twelve of the bifaces occur on one Anasazi both from an undated site, are much smaller,~~

site, 42SA21260. This site lacks surface evi- 2.0-3.4 cm long, 3.5-5.5 cm wide, and 0.5- dence of hearths, but is in a small overhang 0.7 cm thick. These expedient tools may have with shallow deposits and has a good poten- been used for various tasks (Gould 1978:819). tial for hearths, which could have been used Scrapers for heat treatment. Two different biface re- Formal scrapers have one or more steep- duction trajectories appear to be represented ly beveled working edges that were usually at this site. One is manifest by crude chunky produced through unifacial retouch (Crabtree bifaces made from thick interior flakes. The 1972:60, 90). The functional edge(s) may oc- other, very different, biface reduction trajec- cur on the end or lateral margin of the tool, tory is represented by small bifaces made and are often convex in plan. Most formal

from tiny, thin biface reduction flakes. The scrapers are only retouched on the dorsal sur- crude bifaces may have been made from rela- face, but have carefully shaped nonfunctional tively unreduced pieces of toolstone that margins. The nonfunctional proximal ends were brought to the site for heat treatment may also be thinned to facilitate hafting.

~~and further reduction. Several appear to have Scrapers may have been used to work hides been broken during manufacture, suggesting or perform other tasks (Gould 1978:820;~~

~~they were made, or at least reduced, at the Hayden 1979a; Shafer and Holloway~~

~~site, not brought to the site as staged bifaces 1979:396).~~

in their current state. As the site appears to Though formal scrapers are infrequent in have been used as more than just an over- the White Crack Area, they are more com- night stop for retooling, the small bifaces mon than in other areas inventoried as part of

~~may have been made for use on the site as the Canyonlands Archeological Project~~

~~well as for inclusion in a mobile toolkit. (Tipps 1995; Tipps and Hewitt 1989). Ten scrapers were recorded on a total of six sites:~~

~~three each on an Archaic site and a site of~~

90 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES unknown age, and one each on three sites of from one to six. Because modified flakes can unknown age and a site with multiple Ar- be difficult to quickly locate and identify dur- chaic components. Eight specimens are made ing inventory, they are probably more com- from materials that are or could be local: Cedar mon than these numbers indicate. Five

Mesa Chert (n = 3), Algalitic Chert (n = 1), modified flakes were also noted as isolated white chert (n = 1), brown chert (n = 1), finds, bringing the total to 50 modified white chalcedony (n = 1), and brown chal- flakes. cedony (n = 1). One each is of rose chert The modified flakes are made on inde- and multicolored chalcedony. Several of the terminate (n = 28), thinning (n = 12), and scrapers are illustrated in Figure 12. early-stage (n = 10) flakes. Approximately Five of the specimens are end scrapers, 72 percent are of Cedar Mesa Chert and two are side scrapers, and two have func- Chalcedony. There are also a few modified tional elements on an end and one or both flakes of other, possibly local, materials (e.g., sides; the other is indeterminate. One end white chert, brown chert, and rose chert) and scraper made from a Cedar Mesa Chert sec- materials of distant or unknown origin (e.g., ondary flake has retouch along the lateral Summerville Chalcedony and miscellaneous margins suggesting possible additional use as chalcedony). Examples of two modified an expedient flake tool (see Figure 12a). Fig- flakes are illustrated in Figure 13. Modified

~~ure 12b illustrates a fragmentary Cedar Mesa flakes occur on sites of both Archaic and Chert side scraper with functional elements Anasazi origin but are almost twice as com-~~

~~along both lateral margins. An example of an mon on the former as the latter. They may~~

~~end and side scraper is shown in Figure 12c. have been used for a variety of expedient cut-~~

~~This implement is made from a secondary ting, planing, incising, shredding, scraping, or flake of white chalcedony. A relatively for- boring tasks. mally shaped, snub-nosed scraper with func-~~

~~tional elements along the end and both sides Cores and Utilized Cores~~

is shown in Figure 12d. This specimen is Cores are remnant masses of toolstone made from multicolored chalcedony. Four of that have been flaked to obtain blades, the five end scrapers occur on Archaic sites. blanks, and flakes to make tools. Although The other types were found on sites of un- they are not generally tools, cores can be known age and cultural affiliation. used expediently for cutting, chopping, scrap-

~~Modified Flakes ing, and such, and are sometimes reduced The modified flakes consist of flakes into tools themselves. The core assemblage~~

~~with retouch, usewear, or both on one or on the sites comprises 44 specimens. These~~

~~more margins. A relatively large number of artifacts occur on 19 sites (53 percent of the~~

~~these expedient tools was discovered in the prehistoric sites) at an average of 2.3 per site.~~

~~White Crack Area compared to other areas Frequency ranges from one to six. Approxi- inventoried during the Canyonlands Archeo- mately half of the cores occur on seven of~~

~~logical Project (Tipps 1995; Tipps and the nine lithic source area sites. The remain-~~

~~Hewitt 1989). A total of 45 such tools occur der are scattered on various other site types,~~

~~on 14 sites (39 percent of the prehistoric where they usually appear in lower frequen-~~

~~sites) in the White Crack Area. The average cies than on the lithic source area sites. Cores~~

~~number of modified flakes on sites with occur on Archaic and Anasazi sites, as well modified flakes is 3.2. Frequency ranges~~

~~91 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~Figure 12. Selected scrapers from the White Crack Area, a, site 42SA21263; b, site 42SA21273; c, 42SA21273; d, 42SA21277.~~

~~as the Preformative-age site of unknown cul- unidirectional conical, discoidal, and bidirec- tural affiliation, but are most common on the tional. Random (multidirectional) cores were~~

Archaic sites. Seven cores were documented reduced in an expedient, opportunistic man- as isolated finds, increasing the total to 5 1 re- ner by detaching flakes from naturally occur- corded during the inventory. ring platforms on the toolstone surface. The

~~Four core types were documented during resulting flake scars are oriented in multiple the inventory: random (multidirectional). directions across the core surface. Random~~

~~92 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~Proximal end Platform present~~

~~Dorsal surface of flake~~

~~Figure 13. Selected modified flakes from the White Crack Area, a, site 42SA21290; b, site 42SA21271.~~

cores have an irregular globular form. They the presence of a core-flake technology, the are the most common core type in the White purpose of which was to produce flakes for Crack Area, accounting for 71 percent (n = 36) use as expedient tools, reduction into formal of the total. tools such as bifaces, or both.

The random cores vary tremendously in Unidirectional conical cores were re- size, from 3.6 to 16.0 cm long, 3.0 to 14.0 cm duced in a somewhat controlled, sequential wide, and 1.5 to 12.0 cm thick. Flakes large manner by detaching flakes unidirectionally enough to produce the most common types of from a single platform (Crabtree 1972:97). chipped stone tools found in the White Crack The resulting flake scars extend the length of Area could have been comfortably produced the core. Unlike polyhedral cores, where the from the largest of these. The last series of detached flakes are parallel sided for their en- flakes removed from the smallest cores could tire length, flakes removed from the unidi- have only yielded blanks for small flake rectional cores converge toward the distal tools, but these cores would have produced end. Unidirectional conical cores account for larger flakes earlier in their use-lives. All of 16 percent (n = 8) of the assemblage. Six are the random cores are made of materials that made of Cedar Mesa Chert and one core each were or could have been locally obtained is of grainy gray chert and white chalcedony. (Cedar Mesa Chert, n = 31; Cedar Mesa The unidirectional conical cores are 4.9-

~~Chalcedony, n = 2; brown chert, n = 2; and 7.9 cm long, 4.8-5.9 cm wide, and 2.0-5.5 cm white chert, n = 1). The random cores indicate thick. Unidirectional core technology was~~

~~93 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~normally used to produce blades (Crabtree evidence of use as tools in addition to use as~~

1972:43, 46, 55) or standardized flakes that cores. The random core is battered; the unidi- could be used as expedient tools or made into rectional core has retouch on one edge. In the formal tools. The unidirectional cores in the small White Crack Area sample, core type

White Crack Area were reduced more expe- does not correlate with age or site type. All diently than the ones illustrated by Crabtree core types occur on both source area and (1972:55). nonsource area sites in the White Crack Discoidal cores are normally round in Area.

~~plan and biconvex in cross section. Flakes or The presence of multiple core forms in~~

blades were detached unidirectionally toward the White Crack Area assemblage appears to the end of each core from a central platform result from constraints imposed by the raw edge encircling the core (Crabtree 1972:38- toolstone morphology and quality, the types 39). Discoidal cores account for 6 percent of desired products, transportability, and an- (n = 3) of the White Crack Area core assem- ticipated need for flexibility. The primary

~~blage. They are 6.0-8.4 cm long, 5.5-5.7 cm goal of reducing almost all of the cores ap- wide, and 1.1-2.8 cm thick. Two are made pears to have been producing flakes for use~~

~~from Cedar Mesa Chert; the other is made as expedient tools and flake blanks for reduc-~~

~~from multicolored chalcedony. Although dis- tion into formal tools using a bifacial reduc-~~

coidal cores may be reduced in a carefully tion technology. Because of the chunky form controlled, systematic manner and associated of the local Cedar Mesa Chert, simple ran- with the production of blades or standardized dom reduction utilizing natural platforms ap-

~~flakes (Crabtree 1972:39), those in the White pears to have been the most expedient means~~

~~Crack Area are expedient. of achieving this goal. Due to the sometimes~~

Bidirectional cores, as used here, are tabular nature of the local chert, bifacial re- tabular pieces of local Cedar Mesa Chert duction was an occasionally effective strategy toolstone that have been reduced on both for producing the desired products. sides from opposing margins. They account Unidirectional and discoidal technologies for 8 percent (n = 4) of the White Crack Area are usually used to maximize the amount of core assemblage. They are 7.0-12.0 cm long, usable edge obtained from a toolstone mass 4.6-6.0 cm wide, and 2.1-2.8 cm long. Al- or to produce standardized flakes or blades though these cores were reduced bidirection- (Crabtree 1972:39, 43, 46, 55). Maximization ally, they do not appear to represent a of toolstone may seem an inappropriate ex- specialized technology for producing blades planation for the six unidirectional and dis-

~~or specialized flakes. Instead, the bifacial re- coidal Cedar Mesa Chert cores because this~~

~~duction appears to result from the prehistoric material is so abundant in and around the~~

~~flintknappers trying to efficiently utilize natu- project area and only of moderate quality.~~

ral platforms on tabular pieces of Cedar Mesa However, the quality of Cedar Mesa Chert is Chert toolstone. Thus, the purpose of these highly variable and the prehistoric flintknap- cores appears to have been the same as for pers might have wanted to increase output the random cores, production of flakes for from particularly high-quality pieces.

expedient tools or flake blanks for further re- Use of an efficient reduction technology duction. may also relate to heat treatment. La Fond re- Two of the cores described above, one ports the heat treatment of an early-stage

~~random and one unidirectional, show obvious Cedar Mesa Chert core at the White Crack~~

~~94 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

site (Chapter 7), as well as early-stage core are specifically produced for use as tools, reduction and decortication flakes of Cedar transportable cores, or both. As tools, they Mesa Chert in the Squaw Butte Area of the are versatile implements that can be used for Needles (La Fond 1995b: 139- 140). Based on heavy-duty chopping, cleaving, and pound- these finds, he concludes that heat treatment ing, or for cutting, scraping, or planing. As of Cedar Mesa Chert was sometimes con- cores, they can provide flakes for expedient ducted early in the manufacturing process, tools and flake blanks for reduction into for- despite the increased risk of heat treatment mal tools, or they can be reduced into a vari- failure. Given the time invested in selecting ety of bifacial tool forms themselves. Elston and heat treating the toolstone, and the dif- (1989, 1992) believes that quarry bifaces are ficulty of successfully accomplishing heat a convenient means for mobile people to treatment on large masses of toolstone carry toolstone.

(Crabtree 1966:17; Luedtke 1992), it might No quarry bifaces were noted during the have been sometimes advantageous to reduce inventory, but a quarry biface was recovered successfully heat-treated cores using tech- from the White Crack site (see Chapter 7). Its nologies that maximized the amount of us- presence signals a different goal and techno- able edge. Testing these ideas will have to logical strategy than is indicated by the ran- await laboratory analyses of the appropriate dom, unidirectional, discoidal, and specimens. bidirectional cores. Specifically, it indicates The other possible explanation for the that some prehistoric flintknappers were con- unidirectional and discoidal technologies, the cerned with versatility and flexibility when production of blades or standardized flakes equipping their mobile tool kits (cf. Kuhn for specialized flake tools, is difficult to sup- 1994:437). It also suggests they expected port given the absence of blades and special- toolstone shortages during the course of their ized flake tools in the site assemblages. annual round. Quarry bifaces, unlike most Blades or specialized flake tools could have other cores, would be transported away from been made for transport away from the pro- their point of manufacture. This practice may ject area. From an energetic standpoint, Kuhn explain their absence on sites in the project

(1994:435) believes that it would have been area. more efficient for highly mobile people to stock their toolkits with small flake tools than Lithic Debitage cores. However, at least a few of these Lithic debitage is the most common arti- should have been discovered in the project fact type in the White Crack Area. It occurs area if this was the case. on all but two of the prehistoric sites (94 per-

Quarry bifaces (cf. Brown et al. 1989) cent), a Pueblo II-III masonry architecture are large, thick, roughly flaked, early-stage site and a rock art panel. It is also lacking at bifaces derived from a core-biface reduction the modern Euroamerican camp. Among the trajectory. Although technologically bifaces, sites with debitage, those with 10-25 and they are mentioned here because they may 500+ pieces of debitage are the most com- have been used as cores in addition to bi- mon, accounting for 32 and 29 percent, re- facial tools (Ataman and Bloomer 1992; spectively. Sites with 25-100 and 100-500 Kelly 1988; Kuhn 1994; La Fond 1995c). pieces of debitage are approximately Unlike other core types, quarry bifaces are equal with 15 and 18 percent each. Two not manufacturing byproducts. Instead, they

~~95 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

sites (6 percent) have less than 10 pieces of frequency categories. General trends observed debitage. More than 60 percent of the sites during the inventory can be more valuable have maximum artifact densities of less than for understanding the prehistoric technology. 2 or equal to 7 items/m , but density ranges as These trends are summarized below. 2 high as 125 items/m . There is a strong cor- The types and quantities of lithic debi-

relation between higher quantities of debitage tage indicate that, for all materials, making and higher artifact density. The modal artifact and/or maintaining bifaces and bifacial tools density value is three per square meter. Debi- were the primary activities involving chipped tage is also common as isolated finds. Iso- stone in the White Crack Area. Core reduc- lated flakes and pieces of shatter account for tion was also undertaken to obtain flakes, but approximately 70 percent of the isolated arti- less common. One bipolar flake, from a tiny facts. pebble, was also noted.

~~Using the IMACS flake type categories, As expected given its immediate avail-~~

~~secondary flakes are the most frequent debi- ability, flakes from all stages of reduction tage type; they occur on all sites with debi- and biface manufacture were noted for Cedar~~

~~tage and are the dominant type approximately Mesa Chert, from initial procurement of the 85 percent of the time (Table 19). Decortica- raw materials to final shaping and mainte-~~

~~tion flakes and shatter are relatively common, nance of finished tools. Decortication flakes,~~

~~but only rarely a dominant type; they were secondary flakes, and shatter are dominant to~~

~~recorded as common on approximately 44- common on the lithic source area sites, indi- 59 percent of the sites and rare on 21-29 per- cating the acquisition, assay, and reduction of~~

cent of the sites. Decortication flakes are ab- clasts into at least flake blanks and, some- sent 26 percent of the time. Tertiary flakes times, early-stage bifaces. Final shaping are the least frequent type. They were re- and/or maintenance activities, as indicated by corded as common 26 percent of the time, the presence of tertiary flakes, are rare to ab-

~~rare 29 percent of the time, and absent 44 per- sent on the source area sites, but relatively~~

~~cent of the time. common on sites that were used for camping~~

~~The IMACS flake type data, as summa- (lithic scatters with hearths). These data sug-~~

~~rized above, give a very broad overview of gest that Cedar Mesa Chert procured in and~~

~~the lithic technology, but as noted by Tipps around the White Crack Area was partially~~

~~(1995:60-61), they are of limited utility for reduced on the source area sites and trans-~~

understanding lithic procurement and tech- ported to the camps for additional reduction. nology through time due to the general and Final shaping and maintenance were also un- overlapping nature of the types, the absence dertaken on the campsites.

~~of key diagnostic types in the typology, and Cedar Mesa Chalcedony is much less~~

~~the nonmutually exclusive nature of the common, but also shows a full range of flaking~~

~~Table 19. Debitage abundance by IMACS types on sites with debitage.~~

~~Type Dominant Common Rare Not Present Total~~

~~Decortication flakes 3 15 7 9 34~~

~~- Secondary flakes 29 4 1 34~~

~~Tertiary flakes - 9 10 15 34~~

~~Shatter 2 20 10 2 34~~

~~96 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~stages, with an emphasis on the production of 1996; Tipps and Hewitt 1989). We consid-~~

~~bifacial tools. Because it outcrops in the pro- ered the possibility that groundstone was ject area, decortication and early reduction more common than indicated by the low fre-~~

~~flakes occur on the source area sites, but quencies in the White Crack Area because~~

~~away from these sites, Cedar Mesa Chalced- the local tabular sandstone exfoliates into~~

ony almost always consists of late-stage bi- thin sheets that disintegrate into small bits facial reduction and resharpening flakes. The when trampled by livestock or wildlife. From material classified as white chalcedony ap- the turn of the century until the formation of

~~pears to have been reduced primarily through Canyonlands National Park, ranchers regu-~~

~~early reduction stages in the project area. larly used the White Crack trail to move their~~

~~Most Summerville Chalcedony is from late- livestock between the White Rim and the~~

~~stage biface manufacture and maintenance. If lower canyons (see Chapter 1). Because the~~

~~these materials are one in the same, reduction trailhead is in the project area, livestock~~

~~through all stages is indicated for the project would have had to travel through the project~~

~~area. Other toolstone materials in the project area whenever they used the trail. Below the~~

~~area occur in such low frequencies that no rim, the trail is well defined and livestock definitive statements can be made regarding were probably confined to a relatively narrow~~

~~their use. impact zone. This is not the case above the~~

rim in the White Rim Uplands Parcel. There Groundstone Artifacts is no defined trail in this area and livestock probably congregated as they waited their Only three pieces of groundstone were turn to go down, or waited at the top for oth- found in the White Crack Area, two in a ers to come up. These actions probably re- small overhang site that has multiple Archaic sulted in extensive trampling of some, if not components and one on an Anasazi site of many, sites in the White Rim Uplands Parcel. unknown age. The Anasazi artifact is a mini- We dismissed the trampling explanation mally ground, subrectangular two-hand mano for two reasons. First, although metates in the made of spalled and pecked medium-grained Canyonlands area are commonly made from sandstone. This complete specimen is 1 7.5 cm tabular sandstone, manos are usually made long, 10.4 cm wide, and 2.5 cm thick. from cobbles that would be less susceptible Groundstone in the overhang site comprises a to breakage from livestock trampling. There- small corner of a one-hand mano and a frag- fore, if groundstone were originally more ment of an indeterminate metate, both made common, a larger number of manos should of tabular sandstone. The mano was deliber- have been found. Second, it is doubtful that ately shaped and is well worn. The metate such a friable sandstone would have been fragment is lightly ground on a single face used to make grinding implements, and and shows no evidence of margin shaping. groundstone artifacts of higher quality sand- All groundstone implements are made from stone would likely have been preserved. materials that are available in the project Therefore, the paucity of groundstone is area. taken as strong evidence that grinding activi- The scarcity of groundstone in the White ties were relatively unimportant in the White Crack Area stands in marked contrast to Crack Area. other areas inventoried as part of the Canyon- lands Archeological Project (Tipps 1995,

~~97 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~Miscellaneous Stone Artifacts Ceramic Artifacts~~

~~This category comprises three artifacts. Fifteen sherds were noted in the project~~

One is a hammerstone made from a gray area, 12 on sites and 3 as isolated finds. Four quartzite cobble measuring 6.4 cm long, 4.9 cm sherds were noted on each of three Anasazi wide, and 3.8 cm thick. It is battered on both sites: two sherd and lithic scatters and a lithic ends. The artifact was discovered on a small source area and sherd scatter. One site has Anasazi site associated with a shallow over- four small, corrugated, dark-paste sherds with hang. crushed andesite/diorite porphyry and rounded

Another miscellaneous stone artifact is a quartz sand temper. These sherds appear to small, brown chert, river pebble that is flat in be from a single utility vessel. The assem- cross section and oval in plan. One end is blage on another site comprises four small battered from use as a pecking stone or ham- corrugated sherds from at least two separate merstone and the other is flaked (Figure 14). jars. Two have light paste and crushed andesite/ This artifact was observed on a small, un- diorite porphyry temper. The other two have dated site associated with a shallow over- dark paste and are tempered with crushed hang. The third item, discovered as an andesite/ diorite porphyry and rounded quartz isolated find, is a possibly battered cobble of sand. The third site has four white ware, gray chert. dark-paste, bowl sherds tempered with crushed sherds, crushed andesite/diorite porphyry, and rounded quartz sand. No design elements are present on the small pieces.

~~Figure 14. Flaked and battered pebble from site 42SA21275.~~

~~98 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

Two of the isolated specimens are white ware containers, wood, nails and staples, batteries, bowl body sherds with andesite/diorite por- and a wooden tent stake. The assemblage of phyry temper; paste color was not recorded tobacco tins contains six specimens. Five for these two sherds. No details were re- have crimped lids and measure 4 1/4 inches corded for the third isolated sherd. high, 17/18 inches thick, and 3 inches wide.

The presence of andesite/diorite porphyry One has a flanged lid attached by small metal temper in the all specimens with known tem- tabs that are bent over. These cans are flat per type indicates that they were produced by and lack strike plates. "PRINCE ALBERT" is people using a Mesa Verde Anasazi ceramic embossed on the bottom. Painted letters on technology. The ten sherds with dark paste the backs of two tins state "Prince Albert To- appear to represent the distinctive dark-paste bacco is prepared for smokers under the ceramic complex produced by the Anasazi in process discovered in making experiments to the Elk Ridge Plateau region (Hurst produce the most delightful and wholesome 1995:68), south of the White Crack Area. tobacco for cigarette and pipe smokers. Pro-

Based on preliminary research, this complex cess patented July 30th, 1907. R. J. Reynolds is tentatively characterized by dark-paste util- Tobacco Company Winston-Salem N.C. ity vessels and light-paste serving vessels USA. DOES NOT BITE THE TONGUE." from Basketmaker through mid-Pueblo II Food and beverage containers comprise a

~~(A.D. 600-1050±) and light-paste utility ves- rectangular sardine can (4 1/4 inches long by sels and dark-paste serving vessels during 5/16 inch high), a 2-lb coffee can (6 1/2 inches~~

~~Pueblo III and possibly late Pueblo II (Hurst high by 5 1/8 inches in diameter), a coffee~~

1995:68-70). If these general trends are sup- can lid, several sanitary cans, and six 12-oz ported by future research, the presence of condensed milk cans. One sanitary can is dark-paste, corrugated gray wares may indi- 4 7/16 inches high by 2 15/16 inches in dicate occupation sometime during the early to ameter. It has a cut-completely-around open- mid-Pueblo II time frame, whereas the lighting suggesting that it contained items that paste gray wares and dark-paste white wares required a large aperture for extraction, prob- may date to late Pueblo II or Pueblo III. ably fruit or vegetables. Two of the evaporated

There is no indication that any pottery was milk cans are 3 15/16 inches in diameter and manufactured in the project area; most, if not 2 15/16 inches high, dating them to modern all, probably came from the Elk Ridge Pla- times (Simonis n.d.). One was modified into teau area to the south. a strainer by piercing holes in the bottom. The absence of pottery displaying a Fre- The wood comprises two pieces of mont ceramic technology accords with the re- milled lumber with six penny nails and sta- sults of the Island-in-the-Sky road project ples in them. They are 13 1/2 inches long by (Osborn 1995). On that project, the over- 7/16 inch thick and may be lathes. whelming preponderance of pottery was Mesa Verde Anasazi, with smaller amounts Summary and Discussion of Kayenta and Paiute sherds. Diagnostic artifacts observed in the White Crack Area are suggestive of occupa- Artifacts Modern Euroamerican tion during the Middle and Late Archaic,

~~Artifacts on the one Euroamerican site Pueblo II-III, and the recent past. The few~~

~~include tobacco tins, metal food and beverage projectile points are typical of those found on~~

99 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES the northern Colorado Plateau (Holmer 1978) several types of cores were used to make and include one possible type (Sinbad Side- flakes for expedient tools or flake blanks for notched) whose known geographic range is reduction into formal tools. The occurrence primarily the San Rafael Swell region, north- of multiple core types appears to result from west of the project area. The very small ce- prehistoric flintknappers attempting to utilize ramic assemblage indicates that Formative raw material clasts in the easiest or most effi- period occupation was by people who pos- cient manner possible given constraints im- sessed a western Mesa Verde Anasazi ce- posed by their size, quality, and ramic technology or were able to obtain such configuration. Random, unidirectional, and pottery through trade. Supporting Sharrock's discoidal cores were used to produce flakes (1966) earlier observations, the artifact as- suitable for as-is use as tools or for flake semblage provides no definitive evidence of blanks that could be reduced into formal Fremont occupation. Artifacts diagnostic of tools such as projectile points or knives. This

Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric occupation practice represents a flake-core reduction tra- were also lacking on sites recorded during jectory. For flakes intended as flake blanks, the inventory, although a Desert Side-notched the flake-core reduction trajectory preceded a point, which may signify Late Prehistoric/ flake blank-biface reduction trajectory. The Protohistoric occupation by Numic speakers, presence of bidirectional quarry bifaces sug- was identified in the reanalyzed collection gests a different reduction strategy and goal from the White Crack site (see Chapter 7). of lithic reduction, that of equipping a mobile

With only minor exceptions, most arti- toolkit with a highly flexible core that could facts appear to have been fashioned from lo- also be used for heavy-duty chopping, pound- cal raw materials, primarily Cedar Mesa ing, cutting, scraping, or planing. Late-stage Chert and Chalcedony, and other materials bifaces were also manufactured, refined, potentially available from the Cedar Mesa and/or maintained in the project area, for use,

~~Formation. Residual deposits of these materi- in anticipation of transport, or both. als abound in the White Crack Benchlands Models of resource use based on optimal~~

~~Parcel of the project area. Sources of the only foraging theory suggest field processing of definite nonlocal materials, Summerville resources at or near the procurement loci to~~

Chalcedony and Bartlett Flat or Dubinky improve the utility of the item transported chert, exist within 30-45 km of the project and reduce overall transportation costs area, a two-day walk at most. The observed (Barlow and Metcalfe 1993:26-30; Elston pottery types are known to have been manu- 1992:790-798; Metcalfe and Barlow factured in the Elk Ridge Plateau area, south 1992:352). In general, this theory is sup- of Canyonlands (Hurst 1995). As there is no ported by ethnoarcheological research (Bin- indication of local ceramic manufacture, the ford and O'Connell 1984:418; Gould

Elk Ridge Plateau area is the suspected origin 1977:164). However, the amount of field of the few ceramic vessels represented by the processing depends on numerous and com- White Crack Area assemblage. plex factors, including some of a nonener-

Primary manufacture of early-stage bi- getic nature. faces from the local chert appears to have Field processing of lithic resources be- been a major activity in the White Crack fore initial transport appears to have been

~~Area. These artifacts may have been intended commonplace in the White Crack Area. The and used as both tools and cores. In addition. types and frequencies of bifaces, cores, and~~

100 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES debitage on the various site types suggest that appears to have been undertaken at the camp- raw material procured at the source area sites sites. This suggests a concern for transport was partially reduced into flake blanks and costs and maximizing the utility of toolstone 2 expedient cores , and occasionally early-stage packages, conditions consistent with high bifaces, and then transported to nearby camp- mobility and anticipated travel over long dis- sites for further processing, reduction, and tances. possible use. The low frequency of manufac- Also suggesting a mobile settlement ture rejects on the source area sites and high strategy is the predominance of a bifacial re- frequency of early-stage bifaces and debitage duction technology. As noted previously, bi- on the campsites suggest only limited field face technology is usually associated with processing at the source area sites before in- people practicing a mobile settlement strat- itial transport. While deferred processing can egy because it is convenient, conserves tool- have high costs and risks (Elston 1992:799), stone, and provides flexibility to make several factors may have made it desirable, needed tools when traversing portions of an or even advantageous, to transport relatively annual territory that lack suitable raw materi- unreduced raw material to local campsites. als (Andrefsky 1994; Bamforth 1986; Kelly

Cedar Mesa Chert must be heat treated 1988). It may also be used by sedentary peo- before refined flaking. Such heat treatment ples while they are on logistical forays, sea- would have been less costly to undertake at a sonally mobile groups establishing temporary campsite than at a source area site because it residence in toolstone-poor areas (Kelly could have been easily embedded in other 1988:719-721), and sedentary peoples who camp activities (Elston 1992:790). In addi- inhabited areas lacking suitable toolstone tion, the campsites would have provided a (Andrefsky 1994:31). While the conditions more comfortable location to process tool- vary under which a bifacial technology might stone. They are closer to the ephemeral pot- be used, all appear to be associated with im- hole water sources, contain the camp food mediate or anticipated toolstone shortages supply, and the majority are on the White and most are associated with some form of Rim where afternoon breezes keep the bugs mobility. at bay and temperatures in a comfortable Because the local toolstone supply is range. Finally, all of the recorded campsites abundant, and the project area appears to are only a short distance from the source area have been used on a short-term, ephemeral sites, a 5- to 20-minute walk at most. Trans- basis (see Chapter 4), the best explanation for port costs between the source sites and the the strong focus on bifacial technology is that campsites were almost negligible, so field people using the White Crack Area were processing at the source sites need only have highly mobile and that they expected raw involved locating the higher quality clasts, re- material shortages in the areas they planned moving some cortex, and making sure that to visit or traverse after leaving the White piece had adequate platforms and suitable Crack Area. Most likely, they used the White faces to establish flaking control. In contrast, Crack Area to gear up (cf. Binford 1979), a considerable amount of field processing that is, retool hunting implements and restock

Although expedient cores are not manufactured in the same sense as tools, clasts of toolstone intended as cores were probably assayed and partially reduced to insure adequate material quality, and that suitable platforms were either present or could be generated.

101 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES their toolkits with enough toolstone in suffi- whereas one site has five features. The ciently flexible forms to accommodate broad, Euroamerican site has two features, a tent changing, and sometimes unanticipated needs platform and a wood pile. Most of the fea- until they reached another toolstone source tures are in open settings, although a few

and could resupply. features are in sheltered locations under over- Artifacts directly indicative of subsis- hangs. tence practices, such as projectile points and Thermal features (hearths, smoke black-

~~groundstone, are so rare that it leads one to ening, and fire-cracked rock concentrations)~~

~~ponder how the prehistoric people subsisted suggest the occurrence of activities involving~~

in the project area. The absence of these tools burning and/or heating. Rock concentrations may indicate rampant illegal surface collec- may also be the weathered byproducts of tion, or that subsistence activities focused on thermal events that no longer have evidence foods that could be acquired and processed of burning. The remains of other domestic with mainly bifaces and modified flakes. Ad- activities consist of a midden and a surface

~~ditional investigations, including excavation structure on prehistoric sites and a tent plat-~~

~~and laboratory analysis of suitable artifact as- form, a wood pile, and domestic refuse on a~~

~~semblages, are necessary to further investi- Euroamerican site. The presence of nondo-~~

gate this issue. mestic activity is implied by a petroglyph panel. Features Hearths by Susan C. Kenzle The 28 hearths discovered in the inven- A total of 60 features was discovered tory area include 9 unlined features, 9 slab- among 1 2 sites during the inventory. Most of lined hearths, and 10 hearths with rock these are characterized only on surface evi- concentrations. Unlined hearths appear in dence so it is not possible to clearly deter- plan view as dark, circular to oval, ash and mine the nature of some features, particularly charcoal stains. Slab-lined hearths comprise those that are badly weathered or almost fully upright slabs arranged in circular to oval pat- buried. However, limited testing provided terns around charcoal and ash stains. Hearths data that enabled the classification, interpre- with rock concentrations are ash stains with tation, and absolute dating of some features. associated surface fragments of tabular sand- This testing is discussed in Chapter 6. Trowel stone. These features may be variants of the and pin flag probing were also conducted in unlined or slab-lined hearths but cannot be some features. put into one of these two other categories Twelve of the 37 (32 percent) sites in the without excavation data. inventory area have features. All but one of the known Archaic sites and components Unlined Hearths have features. The total number of features at Two unlined hearths are on each of these sites is 48, with the number per site three multicomponent Archaic and Archaic/ ranging from 1 to 17. The Preformative site Preformative sites, whereas one hearth each has seven features. One of the five Formative is on three aboriginal sites of unknown affili- period sites has a surface structure. Five of ation. Most are on sites in open settings, but the 26 aboriginal sites of unknown age have two are in a small shelter. features; three sites have one feature each,

~~102 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

The hearths on the Archaic and Archaic/ surface of two features, whereas large frag- Preformative sites have mean dimensions of ments are present on the surface of one other approximately 52 by 43 cm with an average hearth. Pin flag probing revealed obstructions depth of 1 1 cm. Four of these features are in three of these features, suggesting the pos- associated with tabular sandstone and lime- sible existence of rock fill or slab-lined stone fragments that are either lying on the bases. present ground surface on or near the stains The slab-lined hearth on the aboriginal and/or are within the fill. Testing and probing site of unknown age consists of four, par- failed to uncover fragments of in situ slab- tially buried, upright, nonarticulating sand-

~~lining in any of these four hearths, demon- stone slabs arranged in a circular pattern~~

strating that the associated slabs are not around a dark gray, ashy stain. A dense con- construction elements. centration of tabular sandstone occurs on and The hearths on the aboriginal sites of un- beside the stain. The feature measures 120 m known age average 62 by 43 cm and have a in diameter with a depth exceeding 24 cm. mean depth of approximately 12 cm. One of The upright slabs range from 17 to 48 cm these features has a few small pieces of tabu- wide by 3-8 cm thick. It has a possible slab-

~~lar sandstone lying on its stained surface. lined base. The large size of this feature sug-~~

~~Small pieces of charcoal are present on the gests a roasting pit function. surfaces of two hearths. Hearths with Rock Concentrations~~

~~Slab-lined Hearths Ten hearths identified during the inven-~~

~~Eight slab-lined hearths are on four Ar- tory consist of dark, oval, organic stains with~~

~~chaic sites; one each is on two sites, two are horizontal, tabular sandstone fragments either~~

~~on one site, and four others are on one site. on or adjacent to their surface stains. Nine of~~

~~One slab-lined hearth is also on an aboriginal these features are on four Archaic and Archaic/~~

~~site of unknown affiliation. The site with four Preformative sites, with the number of fea-~~

~~slab-lined features is in a small shelter. The tures per site ranging from one to five. One~~

~~other sites with slab-lined hearths are in open hearth is also on an aboriginal site of un-~~

~~settings. known affiliation. All but one of these fea-~~

~~Most of the hearths on the Archaic sites tures are in open settings. The lack of~~

~~appear in plan view as one to four, partially excavation data means that the relationship of~~

~~buried, upright, sandstone slabs and some as- the sandstone fragments to the features is un-~~

~~sociated flat-lying slabs surrounding a dark clear. However, the large size (e.g., 1 7 by 1 5 by~~

~~stain. One slab-lined hearth appeared on the 2 cm) of some of the associated slabs sug- surface as a black organic stain with small, gests that they are lining stones that are no~~

~~flat-lying, angular sandstone slabs measuring longer in situ. Other, small pieces of tabular~~

1.3 by 1.2 m. sandstone may be the remnants of large slabs As a group, these circular to oval hearths that exfoliated into thin sheets, which were have average dimensions of 92 by 63 cm and then broken into small fragments by livestock

a mean depth of approximately 17 cm. The trampling. Other hearths in this category may upright slabs range from 10 to 49 cm wide be unlined features that are coincidentally as- by 1-4 cm thick and some are thermally al- sociated with small pieces of naturally occur- tered. Small charcoal particles occur on the ring sandstone.

~~103 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~The features on the Archaic and Archaic/ slabs were burned. One concentration on an~~

Preformative sites appear in plan view as aboriginal site of unknown affiliation is 46 by dark, often mottled, organic stains associated 58 cm, whereas the other is 2 by 3 m. Most with concentrations of sandstone slabs. The of these features are similar in appearance stains have mean dimensions of approxi- and size to hearths with rock concentrations, mately 88 by 86 cm with average depths of suggesting that they may be eroded hearths about 8 cm. Two of these features have no (B. L. Tipps, personal communication 1995). visible surface stains, although trowel prob- One concentration on a multicomponent,

ing revealed buried organic material in both sheltered Archaic site consists of 17 whole, cases. The associated slab concentrations av- red and yellow, Cedar Mesa Chert nodules. erage 2.8 by 2.2 m. Burned sandstone slabs Although none of the nodules appear to be of are on the surface of at least three of these high-quality material, this concentration may hearths. be a pile of untested toolstone. On the surface, the hearth on the aboriginal site of unknown age appears as a large Fire-cracked Rock scatter of tabular sandstone with no associ- Concentration ated surface stain. The scatter measures 1.5 by One fire-cracked rock concentration is 2.5 m. Probing revealed the presence of a present on a multicomponent Archaic site, 20-cm-thick buried stain composed of dark approximately 4 m in front of an overhang grayish black, mottled, sandy fill with some containing a cultural deposit. This concentra- small charcoal fragments. tion is composed of ca. 15 pieces of reddened

tabular sandstone in an area measuring 190 by Concentrations Rock 80 cm. It may be the remnants of more than Twenty-four rock concentrations were one eroded thermal feature. noted. All but one of these features consist of clusters of less than 10 to more than 20 flat- Smoke Blackening lying, unburned, sandstone slabs that lack as- One occurrence of smoke blackening is sociated stained sediment, charcoal, or present on a multicomponent Archaic site. It artifacts. The other consists of a cluster of is on the ceiling of a shallow overhang, unmodified chert nodules. Twenty-one sand- above a cultural stratum. No structural re- stone concentrations are on 3 Archaic and mains or hearths were visible within the shel- Archaic/Preformative sites, with the fre- ter.

quency of features ranging from 4 to 1 1 per site. Two sandstone concentrations are also Midden on an aboriginal site of unknown affiliation. is site of abo- All of the features are in open settings. The midden on a unknown The sandstone rock concentrations on the riginal affiliation, just outside an overhang surface of human use. Archaic and Archaic/Preformative sites ap- that has no evidence is black, ashy deposit. pear as clusters of tabular, horizontal sand- The midden a dark

fill is fine-textured sediment that ranges stone. The concentrations average 1.6 by 1.1 m. The black to light gray and lacks char- The stones within the clusters range from less from dark part of this feature is 5 by than 10 to approximately 25 cm long. Due to coal. The exposed 2 and has a maximum depth of 7 cm. exfoliation, it is difficult to determine if the m

~~104 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~Cultural Stratum Petroglyph Panel~~

~~As noted by Tipps (1995:75): One petroglyph occurs on a boulder at an~~

~~aboriginal site of unknown affiliation. The~~

"all sites with features or artifacts, other panel measures 99 by 75 cm and is approximately 63 cm above present ground surface. than sites with only rock art, technically It appears as a circle with numerous lines in-

have cultural deposits but these deposits scribed in its lower half (Figure 15). Some of the lines extend beyond the sides were only recorded as separate features and base of the circle and may depict feathers. when ... the cultural deposits composed

~~a definite stratum that was visibly stained Surface Structure~~

~~with ash, charcoal, and decomposed or- One small, D-shaped, partially intact,~~

~~wet-laid or dry-laid/mudded structure is un- ." ganic debris . . or when the deposits der an overhang on a Formative period site.~~

~~"consisted of buried cultural strata fortui- It measures 140 cm long and 95 cm deep.~~

~~The structure is made of unshaped, tabular, tously exposed on the surface regardless blocky, and irregular sandstone pieces~~

~~of whether they contained visible ash, stacked in a semicoursed manner. The stone~~

sizes vary greatly. mortar is full of shale charcoal and decomposed organic debris. The inclusions, probably derived from a seam The cultural status of these buried strata within the site's boundary. The structure is

~~was minimally defined by the presence of located on bedrock and abuts the back of the~~

~~overhang. The eastern wall is 63 cm high and artifacts and/or a feature eroding out of a is nearly intact; the overhang's roof is 69 cm~~

~~profile or cutbank." from the floor. The southern wall is approxi-~~

~~mately half of its original height and the~~

western wall is only one course high. There The one cultural stratum documented in is no indication of an entry. The structure's the White Crack Area fits the first definition. crude construction style suggests hasty erec- It appears as a dark black, oval, ashy stain tion. The feature's small size, lack of smoke with numerous pieces of lithic debitage and blackening or visible interior thermal feature, some tools. It measures approximately 9 by and presence of mortar suggest a storage 3 m. Trowel probes in the eastern portion of function. Given the poorly sealed nature of the deposit revealed fine, dark brown, sandy this structure, it may have been used to store to ashy fill that is at least 20 cm thick. A items other than food. However, it is also probe in the western portion of the deposit possible that food was stored in sealed con- revealed less than 2 cm of fill, lacking char- tainers within this structure. coal. This scant amount of fill is likely due to erosion. This feature occurs on a multicom- Tent Platform ponent Archaic site under an overhang. A tent platform on an open Euroamerican

~~site consists of three stacks of flat, tabular~~

~~sandstone arranged in a rectangular fashion.~~

~~105 —~~

~~SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

~~Figure 15. Petroglyph panel at site 42SA21262.~~

These rock stacks were presumably the cor- Conclusions ners of the platform. A pile of 10 rocks The types of features in the White Crack which may represent a collapsed fourth Area indicate that limited or short-term, pri- stack—is between 2 of the stacks. An addi- marily domestic activities have been con- tional six rocks may also be part of the plat- ducted in this area since the Archaic period. form. The platform occurs on a level area of However, the presence of a petroglyph panel a ridge. Numerous domestic Euroamerican also implies the occurrence of nondomestic artifacts surround the feature. activities. The high number of features on

~~Archaic sites may suggest a heavier usage of Pile Wood this area during this interval than during any~~

~~A wood pile on a Euroamerican site con- other time. This idea can only be confirmed~~

~~sists of a collection of ax-cut juniper. Ap- by excavation data. proximately 40 m to the east-northeast of this The features in this area are not the sub-~~

~~feature is a live juniper that has had several ject of high investments in materials or labor. branches removed with an ax. This feature Indeed, many of the phenomena, such as the~~

may be contextual ly related to the tent plat- slab-lined hearths, could have been quickly form. constructed with materials close at hand. Fur- thermore, the high frequency of thermal features implies that the provision of heat for warmth and cooking was one of the most common activities conducted in this area.

~~106 SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS AND FEATURES~~

Limited evidence of short-term habitation oc- suggests that storage occurred in this area, al- curs on some prehistoric sites (a midden, a though the nature of the stored material is un- cultural deposit, a surface structure, smoke known. Because this structure may have held

~~blackening) and the single Euroamerican site perishable items in sealed containers, the (a tent platform, domestic refuse, a wood poorly sealed nature of this structure does not~~

~~pile). A surface structure on a Formative site preclude a food storage function.~~

~~107 108 Chapter 6~~

~~RESULTS OF THE TESTING~~

~~by Betsy L. Tipps~~

~~Testing, although limited in scope, three unlined hearths, and one cultural stra- was an integral part of the White tum. Testing procedures followed Tipps~~

Crack Area investigations, just as it was for (1995) and Tipps and Hewitt (1989). most other field efforts conducted as part of In general, the hearths were in only fair the Canyonlands Archeological Project to moderate condition because of postdeposi- (Tipps 1995; Tipps and Hewitt 1989). Five of tional erosion, livestock trampling, rodent the 37 sites discovered during the inventory disturbance, or a combination of these. The were tested. On most sites, this testing en- unlined hearths were partially deflated. Fram- tailed sectioning one or two hearths and col- ing stones on the slab-lined hearths were lecting radiocarbon and flotation samples. In often displaced. The tabular sandstone used compliance with National Park Service pres- to constructed most of the slab-lined hearths ervation policy, excavation was restricted to exfoliates into thin sheets that are highly sus- one-half or less of each feature. One excep- ceptible to breakage by livestock or wildlife tion occurred when the in situ portion of the trampling; as a result, the displaced framing feature proved to be less than half the size of stones had usually been reduced into small its surface manifestation. In this case, be- tabular bits scattered around the feature. In cause the feature was completely exposed some cases, the upper portions of all framing and thus more susceptible to erosion, it was stones had been broken off, trampled, and excavated in its entirety. Besides sectioning broken so it was not possible to discern if the hearths, one cultural stratum in a small over- feature was slab lined based on the surface hang was probed to explore its nature and evidence. vertical extent and obtain a radiocarbon sam- Preservation of plant macrofossils within ple. Eight of the 60 features recorded during the features was limited, but consistent with the project were tested: four slab-lined hearths, that encountered in analogous features on RESULTS OF THE TESTING similar sites in southern Utah (e.g., Bungart Hewitt 1989). Thus, there was no time to 1990; Bungart and Geib 1987; Horn 1990; evaluate data from the sites and write a sepa- Reed 1993; Tipps 1995; Tipps and Hewitt rate research plan for the testing. Conse- 1989). Five of the seven hearths yielded at quently, the testing was accomplished under least a small assemblage of charred macro- the overall research design for the White plant parts. Collection and processing of mul- Crack Area inventory (see Chapter 3) and tiple flotation samples from each feature relevant parts of the research design for pre- would have probably increased the number vious testing in the Squaw Butte Area of the and diversity of recovered plant taxa, but this Needles District (Tipps 1995). was only possible for one feature given the Features were selected for testing based available time and funding. However, at the on their potential to provide information rele- conclusion of the fieldwork, at least one-half vant to one or more research questions speci- of the fill in most hearths was still intact and fied in those research designs. In addition, available for additional sampling. No faunal given the eroded nature of most features, a remains were discovered in any of the fea- deliberate effort was made to choose features tures. with above-average preservation. One slab-

Consistent with the assumed functions of lined feature was included in the testing be- the features, artifacts were scarce to absent in cause it was threatened by immediate the hearths but abundant in the cultural stra- erosion. tum. The few artifacts recovered from hearth The remainder of this chapter briefly de- fill were collected and are reported in this scribes the sites, features, field and laboratory chapter. At the direction of the Contract Offi- methods, and descriptive results. A short de- cer's Technical Representative, who assisted scriptive summary is provided at the end of with the testing, artifacts discovered in the the chapter. Interpretations and discussions cultural stratum were not collected, but in- relative to the research issues are included in stead reburied in the probe. Chapter 8 with the results from the overall Samples from the cultural stratum and White Crack Area investigations. Metric data six of the seven hearths were submitted for for the hearths are presented in Table 20. Ra- radiocarbon dating. Wood charcoal was the diocarbon data are given in Table 21. Analy- only dateable material in the features, and sis of the few recovered artifacts followed the sometimes, it was lacking in sufficient quan- procedures discussed in Chapter 7 for reana- tity for normal processing. In one case (site lysis of the White Crack site lithic assem-

42SA21267, Feature 1), extended counting blage. was used to reduce the standard deviation on a small charcoal sample. In two other situ- Site 42SA21 285 ations, a combination of charcoal and burned Site 42SA21285 is a large, diffuse to sediment from the feature was used for dat- dense lithic scatter with one visible feature ing. situated on colluvial and eolian deposits on Because funding was limited and the the tablelands of the White Rim. Recent dune field aspect of the multiyear project was sand is intermittently present across the site coming to an end, the testing had to be ac- and may have buried some site elements, in- complished at the end of the inventory phase cluding additional features. instead of at a later date as had been done during previous years (Tipps 1995; Tipps and

~~110 RESULTS OF THE TESTING~~

~~Table 20. Dimensions of discrete features tested in the White Crack Area.~~

~~Surface Dimensions Excavated Dimensions Site Feature Feature Length Width Length Width Depth Number Number Type (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)~~

~~42SA21285 1 Slab-lined hearth 190 145 _ 62 7 42SA21291 9 Slab-lined hearth 65 - 89 81 25 42SA21291 11 Unlined hearth - - 39 32 18~~

~~42SA21267 1 Slab-lined hearth 110 100 110 100 29 42SA21267 15 Unlined hearth 122 80 - - 12 42SA21263 2 Slab-lined hearth 126 122 56 40 27~~

~~42SA21269 1 Unlined hearth 100 50 29 26 9~~

As manifest on the surface, the site con- burned sandstone slabs. The slab lining is sists of a hearth, a Gypsum point, two bi- poorly preserved, and it is uncertain if the faces, two modified flakes, and several bottom of the pit was ever lined, although it thousand pieces of debitage in a 200-m is oxidized from exposure to a hot fire. A flo- northwest-southeast by 150-m northeast- tation sample from this feature yielded 2 southwest area. Artifacts are sparse (1-2/m ) charred seeds of cheno-ams, ROSACEAE, throughout most of the site area, but exceed Sphaeralcea sp., and Stipa hymenoides, as

50/m in blowouts at the southern end of the well as a burned Sphaeralcea sp. seed pod. A site. The debitage assemblage reflects both radiocarbon date on charred wood from the core and bifacial reduction, with all stages of hearth dates to the Late Archaic (see Table tool manufacture represented. Cedar Mesa 21), which corresponds with the Late Archaic Chert and Cedar Mesa Chalcedony are the date suggested by a Gypsum point from the main toolstone varieties, but there are small site. amounts of other materials. The testing program was limited to exca- Site 42SA21 291 vating the eastern half of the hearth, Feature Site 42SA21291 is a small, dense lithic 1. One flotation sample and one charcoal scatter with numerous tools and features as- sample were collected. No artifacts were en- sociated with an overhang and a dune in the countered during the testing. rugged canyon country below the White Rim. Before excavation, Feature 1 appeared as The site measures approximately 20 m north- a large, dense, oval concentration of approxi- south by 54 m east-west and closely corre- mately 1 00 pieces of thin, tabular sandstone sponds to the area in and immediately slabs lying flat on the ground over and adjacent to the small shelter. around a mottled, diffuse, black ashy stain. Ten features were observed on the site The sandstone slabs measured less than 12 cm surface: smoke blackening on the ceiling of long, 10 cm wide, and 1 cm thick; some were the overhang, a cultural deposit, a rock con- fire blackened or burned. centration, a fire-cracked rock concentration, Upon excavation, the feature proved to and six hearths, four of which are slab lined. be a shallow, oval to oblong slab-lined hearth Another unlined hearth was discovered dur- filled with charcoal, blackened sand, and ing the testing, and there is good potential for

~~111 i i ii~~

~~RESULTS OF THE TESTING~~

~~o '5 J3o »-> o o o ^ 'cOc0 '3 '3 TD •73 •*= -^ X t> 2 u o o o ;- 2 « £ 'u, - .£ 23 23 Hi S "S < < < < £ H Xi CO CO CO c < H -S .S u <& E E -•—» -*—> *— *— JCO JCO H~~

uuu U U o CD CC CQ CQ CQ <» « o o o o o T3 d) IT) Tf — en 4> 00 CN OO 0O CN CN co c < ON i- ON X) c4 "3 U U U u U U U < CQ OQ CQ CQ CQ CQ o o o o o o lO i- CO o o CN •— « n N O 3 cO 00 E op -a T3 T3 -a c -^ G -*-• C c 'c/5 T3 CO C CO C cO c CO i 1> X) X > C ^^ to o c rS w co i_ — CO ^ cs CO CO ° o 00 O O O O o o o CD 3 C O ON C7\ OO NO NO NO co 00 o 1 ^ * X^—1 X -H -H -H -H -H -H -H m cj cO -H o o o o o o o ON 00 o .— 0O NO in CN o Cu — CN ON C ^- -H Q\ OO en m On — CO X • J- T3 CQ m m cn cn CN CN ~ CO —: T3 04 CO u 1 fcJ C/5 CJ 3 cN en On -^ fr o m i^ tN CN N > CN •-H CN oo rt o CJ en en co on en m m o '(-> *-> *-» -^ CO Z CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ cj cj CJ J CQ CQ CQ CQ OQ CQ CQ oo

1> c — CJ CJ x _o oo '^ CO e — ' ON ~ CN CN CO 1 1- CJ 3 T3 CJ li- X z "3 CO U Xi— v> >-^ r-- en r-~ On u OO ON NO NO ON NO NO "3 o X) CN CN CN CN CN CN CN W H CJ S CN CN CN CN CN CN CN O x CO 3 < < < < < < < _+-» z 00 CO t/) OO OO 00 Z oo CN CN CN CN CN CN CN

~~112 —~~

RESULTS OF THE TESTING additional buried features. The surface arti- Cedar Mesa Chert, are common in the cul- fact assemblage on this site is richer and tural deposit. This feature was not sampled more varied than those on other sites re- for flotation, but a radiocarbon date on wood corded during the project, and is extremely charcoal and burned sediment dates to the dense, up to 76/m . This assemblage includes Terminal Archaic period (see Table 21).

21 bifaces, 1 scraper, 1 uniface, 3 modified As initially observed, Feature 9 consisted flakes, 4 cores, and thousands of pieces of of two upright sandstone slabs offset at a lithic debitage, most made of local Cedar slight angle, as though they might outline the Mesa Chert, as well as two groundstone frag- northern and northwestern sides of a slab- ments. There are also numerous nodules of lined hearth. Testing revealed a fully slab- Cedar Mesa Chert that appear to have been lined hearth (Figure 16); the southern brought to the site from nearby lag deposits two-thirds was excavated and sampled. The in anticipation of future reduction. feature contains reddish brown to brown fine

~~Flintknapping activities at the site appear sand mixed with charcoal bits, and a large to have involved the reduction of Cedar Mesa amount of sandstone debris, presumably~~

Chert nodules using both core and bifacial re- pieces that broke off the upright slabs outlin- duction technologies. Bifacial reduction was ing the feature. The upright slabs and dis- clearly emphasized, and a major activity ap- placed slab fragments are burned, fire pears to have been the production of bifaces reddened, or both, several extensively. This for transport to other locations. hearth dates to the end of the Late Archaic Testing involved digging a small trowel and beginning of the Terminal Archaic probe in the cultural stratum (Feature 2), and (see Table 21). It yielded several burned partially excavating a slab-lined hearth (Fea- Sporobolus sp. seeds. ture 9) and an unlined hearth (Feature 11) A small, unlined hearth, Feature 11, was discovered in the fill of the slab-lined hearth. encountered approximately 9 cm below the Two charcoal samples—one each from Fea- modern surface in Feature 9. This feature tures 2 and 9—and two flotation samples postdates the original construction and use of

1 one each from Features 9 and 1 —were col- Feature 9, and extends through its base (Fig- lected during the investigations. Numerous ure 17). The eastern half of this feature's artifacts were encountered during the limited southern two-thirds was excavated and sam- testing, but were not collected as noted pled. Feature 1 1 has sloping sides and a above. rounded, basin-shaped bottom. It contains

~~Feature 2 is a cultural stratum covering a black sandy fill with minute charcoal flecks,~~

9- by 3-m area beneath the overhang. It is a and a few fire-blackened rocks. This feature dark black, ashy stain containing numerous was not radiocarbon dated but postdates Fea- pieces of lithic debitage and tools. As part of ture 9, which dates to the Late or Terminal the testing procedure, a short, narrow, test Archaic. The flotation sample yielded one probe measuring 43 cm long, 1 1 cm wide, charred Sporobolus sp. seed. and 30 cm deep was excavated through the deposit. The fill consists of approximately Site 42SA21 267 20 cm of dark organic material interspersed Site 42SA21267 is a very large, sparse to with light gray ashy soil and pockets of red moderately dense lithic scatter with 12 fea- sand, overlying a sterile red sand layer. Arti- tures situated in a large dune field on the facts, primarily bifacial thinning flakes of

~~113 RESULTS OF THE TESTING~~

~~Figure 16. View of Feature 9, slab-lined hearth at site 42SA21291 after partial excavation. The~~

~~stain in the center of the Feature 9 is a later unlined hearth, Feature 1 1, before excavation.~~

White Rim. Artifacts and features are con- The surface artifact inventory includes centrated in blowouts and degraded areas be- 3 dart points, 32 bifaces, 5 modified flakes, tween knolls and ridges; there is scarce 2 cores, 2 unifaces, 1 scraper, and thousands cultural debris on the youngest series of of pieces of debitage. On-site flaking activi- dunes that cover portions of the site. These ties focused on middle- to late-stage bifacial conditions suggest a large amount of material reduction, although there is some evidence of

is buried. late-stage tool manufacture and early-stage The assemblage of surface-visible fea- decortication. A small amount of bipolar tures comprises two slab-lined hearths, two technology was also noted. Local Cedar unlined hearths, two hearths associated with Mesa Chert accounts for the vast majority of small pieces of tabular sandstone, and six raw material, with a few other materials also

~~tabular sandstone concentrations. The fragile present. The distribution of surface-visible ar-~~

~~nature of the sandstone used to construct tifacts and features appears to be the result of~~

~~most of the intact slab-lined hearths in the erosional patterns, with more artifacts and~~

~~White Crack Area and the suboptimal nature features in deflated areas and fewer in nonde-~~

of sandstone for stone boiling purposes sug- flated areas. As a result, artifact density is gest that the tabular rock concentrations and extremely variable, ranging from less than 2 2 sandstone bits surrounding two of the hearths 1/m to almost 50/m .

~~may be fragments of slab-lined hearth fram- Testing at this site consisted of excavating stones. ing the southeastern portion of two hearths.~~

~~114 RESULTS OF THE TESTING~~

~~Upright Slab Exposed on Surface A~~

~~30 I cmi i~~

~~Extent of Subsurface Stain~~

~~Upright Slab Exposed During Excavation~~

~~Slab Exposed During Excavation Unexcavated Area~~

~~F9 Slab-lined Hearth~~

~~F1 1 Interior Hearth~~

~~Figure 17. Plan map and profile of Feature 9, slab-lined hearth, and Feature 1 1, unlined hearth, at site 42SA2 1291.~~

~~one slab lined (Feature 1) and one unlined the testing. No artifacts were encountered in~~

(Feature 15). Five flotation samples (four either feature. from Feature 1 and one from Feature 15) and Before excavation, Feature 1 was a dark, three carbon samples (two from Feature 1 circular charcoal stain, the western to south- and one from Feature 15) were collected during western perimeter of which was outlined by

115 RESULTS OF THE TESTING three upright sandstone slabs. Small pieces of Site 42SA21 263 tabular sandstone, presumably eroded and Site 42SA21263 is a large, broken framing stones, surrounded the north- sparse- to medium-density lithic scatter with 17 ern and western sides of the stain (Figure surface features located on the White Rim. It covers 18). Upon partial excavation, Feature 1 130 m north-south by 225 east-west, al- proved to be a slab-lined hearth. It contains m most perfectly coinciding with the limits of dark gray to very dark gray, silt to medium an eolian sheet sand deposit overlying resid- sand fill and pieces of displaced framing uum. Portions of the site are buried recent stones. The combined flotation samples from by dune deposits. this feature yielded charred seeds of The features comprise 6 hearths and Sporobolus sp. One of the two radiocarbon

1 1 concentrations of tabular sandstone. The samples collected from this feature was pro- hearths are represented by circular to oval cessed. It dates to the Terminal Archaic pe- charcoal stains associated with small pieces riod (see Table 21). of tabular sandstone lying horizontally on the Before excavation, Feature 1 5 was a dark ground. Testing revealed that one of black, ashy organic stain associated with these hearths is slab lined; thus, some or all of the tabular pieces of flat-lying sandstone. Suban- other five hearths may also be slab lined. The gular pieces of sandstone, some burned, were rock concentrations are similar to the hearths scattered over the feature's surface (Figure except that they lack a visible stain. Consid- 19). Testing revealed art unlined, basin- ering the heavily eroded nature of the site, shaped, oxidized hearth originally formed by the rock concentrations may be deflated scooping out an informal pit. The fill consists hearths. of dark black, ashy organic silt to medium The surface artifact assemblage consists sand mixed with small pieces of burned sand- of 14 bifaces, 6 modified flakes, 3 scrapers, stone. A flotation sample from this feature 6 cores, and thousands of pieces of debitage, yielded the following burned macroplant re- most made of local Cedar Mesa Chert. Sum- mains: an Atriplex sp. leaf, a cheno-am seed, merville Chalcedony and brown chalcedony and a twig of Juniperus osteosperma. A ra- occur in small quantities. Most of the debi- diocarbon sample from this feature suggests tage results from bifacial reduction, with sec- usage during the Terminal Archaic (see Table ondary flakes the most common, but a small 21). amount of core reduction was also under- The radiocarbon samples from Features 1 taken at the site. Maximum artifact density is and 1 5 both date to the Terminal Archaic but

1 1/m . No significant patterns were observed are significantly different at the 95-percent in the distribution of surface artifacts or fea- confidence level (Stuiver and Pearson 1993), tures. essentially ruling out contemporaneity. This Testing activities at this site were limited fact, and the presence of a Middle Archaic, to excavating the northwestern quarter of one San Rafael Side-notched point, suggest that hearth, Feature 2. One charcoal sample and the site is a palimpsest, used by different one flotation sample were collected. No arti- groups on multiple occasions during at least facts were encountered. the Archaic period. The site's very large size, testing, Feature 2 was a dark black 490 m north-south by 580 m east-west Before circular stain associated with small angular (223,210 m ), supports this interpretation sandstone slabs (Figure 20). The investigations (see Chapter 8).

~~116 RESULTS OF THE TESTING~~

~~Sandstone A Slab Debris ^~~

~~J 30~~

~~,o- I L cm Oh Sandstone Slab Debris~~

~~Extent of Surface Stain~~

~~<3? Sandstone Slab~~

~~1\ \] Excavated Area~~

~~3 Unexcavated Area~~

~~B Stratigraphic Unit~~

~~Figure 18. Plan map and profile of Feature 1, slab-lined hearth, at site 42SA21267.~~

~~117 RESULTS OF THE TESTING~~

~~I \ \ / \ O \~~

~~1 1 cm~~

~~Extent of Surface Stain O Surface Stone l\\l Excavated Area~~

~~\+yy\ Unexcavated Area CD Rock~~

~~A 1~~

~~jk A~~

~~Figure 19. Plan map and profile of Feature 15, unlined hearth, at site 42SA21267.~~

revealed a basin-shaped hearth, partially lined indeterminate flake fragment of Cedar Mesa with burned sandstone slabs (Figure 21). The Chert. A radiocarbon assay from this feature floor of the feature is burned but not oxi- dates to the Terminal Archaic (see Table 21). dized, and unlined. The fill is light gray to very dark gray, loose silt to fine sand, discon- Site 42SA21 269 tinuously mottled with reddish brown sand. Site 42SA21269 is a discrete lithic scat- The only plant macrofossils recovered ter with features on a longitudinal dune on from the feature are unburned, modern con- the White Rim. Artifacts are concentrated in taminants. The bulk sample also contained an blowouts and deflation basins revealing that

~~118 RESULTS OF THE TESTING~~

~~I L~~

~~Extent of Surface Stain~~

~~CZ^) Surface Stone~~

~~k \1 Excavated Area~~

~~: :-: : : [: : :] Unexcavated Area~~

~~B Stratigraphic Unit~~

~~Figure 20. Plan map and profile of Feature 2, slab-lined hearth, at site 42SA21263.~~

the density and distribution of the surface ar- Three hearths and four concentrations of tifacts are primarily the result of erosion. The sandstone bits, which could be the remains of eolian setting of the site indicates good po- deflated hearths, compose the surface-visible tential for buried deposits, including addi- feature assemblage. Artifacts consist of a tional features. Gypsum point, two bifaces, two cores, two

~~119 RESULTS OF THE TESTING~~

~~Figure 21. View of Feature 2, slab-lined hearth, at site 42SA21263 after excavation of the northwestern quarter.~~

modified flakes, and thousands of pieces of As first observed, Feature 1 was a dark lithic debitage distributed over a 105-m black, ashy, organic stain covering a 50- by north-south by 85-m east-west area. Cedar 100-cm area. Excavation was originally

Mesa Chalcedony is the primary toolstone on planned for the eastern half of the feature, the site, though white dendritic chalcedony but when this half was excavated, it was dis- and Cedar Mesa Chert are also present. Most covered that, because of natural postoccupa- of the debitage is from the late stages of bi- tional processes, (1) the upper fill from the face manufacture and appears to result from a feature was spread over a larger area than the refined bifacial reduction technology. The actual feature, and (2) the lower intact por- few early-stage reduction flakes are limited tion of the feature was confined entirely to to one material type, a white-orange mottled the area below the eastern half of the surface chert that could be a variety of Cedar Mesa stain. Because the feature had been com-

~~Chert. Artifact density ranges as high as pletely exposed, it was excavated in its en- 2 39/m . tirety.~~

Feature 1, a hearth, was excavated in its The feature is a circular basin-shaped entirety as part of the White Crack Area test- hearth with sloping walls and a flat to ing program. One flotation sample, one char- slightly rounded floor. The floor is not oxi- coal sample, and one lot of debitage were dized or hardened, but denoted by only a retrieved from the feature. change in color from the dark interior fill to

~~120 RESULTS OF THE TESTING~~

~~the sterile underlying sand. The fill is dark the-Sky mesa (Sharrock 1966) bear evidence~~

grayish black sand mixed with charcoal bits. of storage of surplus crops by ancestral Pue- The flotation sample contained no identi- bloans; so, one question to be addressed by fiable plant macrofossils but yielded four the analysis of flotation samples was whether late-stage biface reduction flakes of Cedar there was evidence showing use of domesti- Mesa Chert. A radiocarbon date on charcoal cated crops during the Terminal Archaic, Pre-

~~and burned fill from the hearth dates to the formative, or Formative periods. While Zea Preformative period (see Table 21). Consid- maize would not be expected during the Late~~

~~ering that a Late Archaic Gypsum point was Archaic period, there is a possibility for its observed on the site surface, this site may be presence in the Terminal Archaic and Pre-~~

multicomponent. formative periods (cf. Geib et al. 1995). Analysis of three Terminal Archaic and one Macrobotanical Remains Preformative period cultural features pro- and Prehistoric Plant Use vided no evidence of Zea maize or other domesticated plants.

~~by Nancy J. Coulam~~

~~Ten flotation samples were analyzed Wild Plant Use~~

~~from seven different cultural features on five Because the flotation samples are from~~

~~archeological sites in the Island-in-the-Sky slab-lined hearths and unlined hearths in five~~

~~District of Canyonlands National Park. The sites on the White Rim, they provide an op- flotation samples were analyzed to provide portunity to examine which plants were con-~~

~~information about prehistoric human plant sistently burned as fuel or roasted over fires~~

~~use in the White Crack Area of Island-in-the- in this rocky, arid, mid-elevation area within~~

Sky. Four of the ten flotation samples are Canyonlands National Park. As shown in Ta- replicate samples of a slab-lined hearth at site ble 23, none of the identified prehistoric 42SA21267; these replicates are treated as a plant remains had a high enough ubiquity

~~single sample in the results presented here. measure to indicate consistent use in either The proveniences of the samples are shown type of cultural feature. Of the burned prehis-~~

in Table 22. toric plants, seeds of Sporobolus sp., found in three of the seven sampled features, were the Results most common, with a ubiquity measure of 43 percent. Cheno-ams were the only other Table 23 presents the results of the flota- burned plant found in more than one feature, tion analysis. Although the number of sam- but they occur only in two, or 29 percent, of ples is limited, the results indicate that the the seven sampled features. prehistoric site occupants roasted and ate the Burned plants with a ubiquity measure of seeds of wild plants, including Sporobolus one are Atriplex sp. leaves, Juniperus sp., cheno-ams, and Stipa hymenoides. The osteosperma twigs, Sphaeralcea sp. seeds fires for roasting the seeds were fueled by and a seed pod, Stipa hymenoides seeds, and Juniperus osteosperma and Atriplex sp. a seed tentatively identified as a Absence of Maize Agriculture ROSACEAE, possibly Coleogyne ramosissima. With such low ubiquity measures, Masonry granaries present along the there is no discernible or consistent pattern White Rim and on the top of the Island-in-

~~121 '~~

~~RESULTS OF THE TESTING~~

~~CJ 'cd J3~~

~~cd cd — <~~

~~cd cd .5 S (-~~

~~O <-> <-> <-> O O ^5; 03 03 CQ 03 03 o -o o o o s- Q n t u /"» O ON r- cn m NO ON~~

~~o o o o o VO vo 00 ON On~~

~~O-H O-H o-H o-H — in 00 On cd Cn) CN "cL cd >* £ r C ^3 cd cd 3 « i c .o a T3 C cd c 4> _o td oo D oo oo i_ CO X> o Id 55 o u Cu JO sfr PQ m o CN u 0J3 I 2 S T3 -° (L> P — >/"!~~

~~a> 3 T3 cd 1)~~

~~On r~ m r- — — >/*> NO ^O NO ^O ON On 00 cd CN CN CN CN CN CN CN 0B tS M N (N (N (N fS c CO 3 <<<<<<< cd OO OO OO OO OO OO OO u. (N N (N N (N (N N iu ^f ^t * t t OB f ^ cd T3 c o 2~~

~~o 1- — cn ro -d- >o no r-- Id •2 « -g a. c E E -£ 3~~

~~122 I C i —<~~

~~RESULTS OF THE TESTING~~

~~I l(Nl I ,— | _ _| , IfNjlO~~

~~MD ^O i .~~

~~i- o~~

~~3 I c~~

~~> r i i s i i cn • — c co _e -o I— V.a~~

~~c\ s i i~~

~~3| C O co~~

~~4-" O 3 O~~

~~i -d 55 .2" ~ o4 —i ~h i _* — i i m — _d o T3 -a 5 so~~

~~E o 3 Q. CQ 1 a. T3O o en a> u. CO o »3 a Q. a. E JO w CO 1/5 a. 33 < LL) CO s w CU u Q 5 < V g <*> i o ^ P > s 55 1 & O < Ig 5~~

~~123 RESULTS OF THE TESTING~~

of prehistoric plant use, processing, or dis- time period is that no Sporobolus sp. seeds card represented in the cultural features aside were found in the two oldest features, nor in from the use of local wild plants. the two youngest; rather, Sporobolus sp. was extracted from two features dating to 3180 Results by Feature Type and 2910 B.P., and one feature dating to the

Flotation samples were recovered from Late to Terminal Archaic. This could indicate three unlined hearths and four slab-lined that the White Rim or White Crack Area was hearths. Plant diversity in slab-lined hearths traversed in spring or early summer, as ranges from zero to five, whereas the diver- Sporobolus sp. seeds tend to ripen and be the sity in unlined hearths ranges from zero to first grass seed available. However, the sug- in three, so there is no significant difference in gestion of a pattern plant selection would the diversity of plants present by feature need additional samples to be considered type. With both diversity and ubiquity meas- more than mere chance. ures so low, there are no discernible patterns in types of plants present or absent in the Flotation Analysis Summary slab-lined and unlined hearths. and Conclusions

~~Ten flotation samples from seven cultural~~

~~Results by Time Period features on five archeological sites were ana-~~

~~Burned prehistoric plant remains were re- lyzed to shed light on prehistoric plant use in covered from one Late Archaic feature (site the White Crack Area. The flotation samples~~

~~42SA21285, Feature 1), two Late or Termi- date to the Late and Terminal Archaic and nal Archaic features (site 42SA21291, Fea- Preformative periods. These are among the~~

~~1 tures 9 and 1 ), and two Terminal Archaic most poorly understood time periods in the~~

~~features (site 42SA21267, Features 1 and 15). archeoethnobotany of the Colorado Plateau~~

To determine whether significant variation in (cf. Coulam 1988; Van Ness 1986), largely prehistoric plant use by time period or radio- due to the lack of analyzed flotation samples. carbon date exists, the features were arranged Therefore, the samples analyzed here add to

~~in chronological order and examined for any the limited database on plant use during these~~

patterning in diversity, ubiquity, and types of time periods on the Colorado Plateau, a sig- plants present. No patterns by time period nificant contribution of the White Crack Area were present. Diversity of prehistoric plants archeological project. ranged from zero to three in the Terminal Ar- While the flotation data make a valuable

~~chaic features, one in both the Late or Termi- contribution to the larger ethnobotanical data-~~

~~nal Archaic features, and five in the single base for these time periods, the interpretive~~

~~Late Archaic feature. Because the greatest di- value of the flotation samples is somewhat~~

~~versity was in the oldest sample (n=5) and limited. The flotation samples contain only a the next greatest diversity (n=3) was in one few wild plants, with no apparent consistent~~

~~of the most recent features, in this small sam- patterns of plant use by time period or cul-~~

ple of cultural features, diversity of prehis- tural feature type. This may be due to poor toric plants from slab-lined and unlined preservation or may reflect a true picture of hearths does not vary with time period. limited prehistoric plant resource use. Never-

~~The only possible pattern in the presence theless, the analysis of the ten flotation sam- of particular plants or plant assemblages by ples does allow some conclusions about~~

~~124 RESULTS OF THE TESTING prehistoric plant use in the White Crack with one to many unlined and slab-lined Area. hearths, numerous pieces of debitage, a small~~

~~First, while domesticated plants such as to large assemblage of chipped stone tools,~~

Zea maize and Curcurbita sp. may have been and very occasional groundstone. All sites utilized by Terminal Archaic-age populations lack pottery. The fifth site is in a small over- living to the south (e.g., Geib et al. 1995), hang located in the rugged canyon country there is no evidence of domesticated plant below the White Rim. This site has more use at this time in Island-in-the-Sky. Second, substantial deposits than any other site re- based on the flotation samples analyzed here, corded during the inventory, and may have it appears that Late and Terminal Archaic been repeatedly occupied by small parties of and Preformative-age gatherers were not at- mobile hunter-gatherers over a period of tracted to the White Crack Area due to the many years. All sites appear to have been oc- availability of a single desirable plant spe- cupied for short periods of time, although cies, or a consistent set or assemblage of some are palimpsests resulting from multiple plant resources; rather, the lack of patterning short-term occupations. A primary activity at in the plant remains recovered from the cul- all of these sites appears to have been the tural features suggests that the gatherers were manufacture of bifacial tools from local Cedar in the area for resources other than locally Mesa Chert and Chalcedony. These were ap- abundant or available plants. Of course, the parently crafted for transport to other locations. low ubiquity and diversity measures and lack Seven hearths, four slab lined and three of patterning might also reflect poor preser- unlined, and one cultural stratum were tested. vation in these open archeological sites. Only Two hearths were tested at each of two sites, additional sampling of cultural features along and one hearth was tested at each of the other the White Rim, along the river bottoms, and three sites. The cultural stratum occurs at one on the Island-in-the-Sky mesa top will clarify of the sites where two hearths were tested. our understanding of Late and Terminal Ar- One to four flotation samples from each fea- chaic and Preformative period plant use in ture except the cultural stratum were collected the Island-in-the-Sky District. and analyzed, for a total of ten samples. All features, except one unlined hearth inside an Descriptive Summary earlier slab-lined hearth, were sampled for radiocarbon dating. Because two samples each To help place the White Crack Area in- were collected from two hearths, a total of ventory in larger culture-historical context a nine radiocarbon samples was collected; and gather information relevant to research seven of these were dated. The two undated issues pertinent to Canyonlands prehistory, samples will be curated for possible process- limited testing was undertaken at five sites. ing in the future. The fieldwork involved sectioning hearths The unlined hearths are approximately and trowel probing a cultural stratum, empha- circular with maximum dimensions ranging sizing identification of feature types (e.g., un- from 29 to 39 cm. They are deflated to vary- lined hearth, slab-lined hearth, etc.), and ing degrees, but the deepest is a maximum of collecting radiocarbon and flotation samples. 18 cm deep. The slab-lined hearths are larger Four of the sites are situated on the than the unlined hearths, slightly oval, and benchlands composing the White Rim. These range from a minimum of 56 by 40 cm to a sites are typical of the area open lithic scatters — maximum of 110 by 100 cm. Depths are

~~125 RESULTS OF THE TESTING~~

~~from 7 to 29 cm deep. The fill in all features ROSACEAE family. No bone was encoun-~~

is native sediment incorporating varying tered. amounts of ash, charcoal, or both. Burned The seven radiocarbon dates are clustered rock, other than that displaced from slab lin- during the last two millennia B.C. and the first

ings, is scarce. The hearths showed no evi- few hundred years A.D. One is Preformative, dence of long-term use, reuse, or deliberate four are Terminal Archaic, one is Late- filling upon abandonment. Terminal Archaic, and one is Late Archaic. Artifactual and bioarcheological remains Information relevant to most aspects of recovered from the hearths are relatively the research design was obtained during the scant. Artifacts comprise a few small frag- testing, despite the limited scope of the pro- ments of local Cedar Mesa Chert debitage. ject. The results of the testing relative to the

Plant macrofossils are few in number, but do research issues discussed in Chapter 3 are represent seven taxa: Atriplex sp., cheno-am, presented in Chapter 8 with the overall pro- Juniperus osteosperma, Sphaeralcea sp., ject results. These results support and bolster Sporobolus sp., Stipa hymenoides, and the other testing results from nearby projects.

~~126 Chapter 7~~

~~REANALYSIS OF THE WHITE CRACK SITE CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE~~

~~by Andre D. La Fond~~

Introduction but were limited by the noncollection nature of our contract. The Midwest Archeo- by Betsy L. Tipps logical Center collected information from chapter presents a reanalysis of This only a single site, but recovered an artifact the chipped stone assemblage recov- assemblage that could be analyzed to test ered from the White Crack site by the Na- hypotheses about site function, settlement tional Park Service, Midwest Archeological patterns, mobility, toolstone procurement, Center during a limited testing and surface and lithic technology. The National Park collection project undertaken in 1985 and Service also wished to assess the research 1987 (Vetter 1989; Vetter and Osborn 1993). value of the collections from the site, and The site is on the White Rim, surrounded by wanted a more detailed technological lithic the White Crack inventory area. analysis than was completed with the lim- The National Park Service requested the ited funds available to the Midwest Archeo- reanalysis for several reasons. Foremost was logical Center. to facilitate comparison and integration of our White Crack Area inventory results with Site Description and Setting the Midwest Archeological Center's surface collection and testing results at the White The White Crack site, 42SA 17597, is a

Crack site. They hoped this would enhance large open lithic scatter occupying more than our interpretations because the two projects 600,000 m . The site reports characterize it had very different emphases and analytical as "an intensive and extensive lithic reduction perspectives. We gathered inventory data on area" (Vetter 1989:7; Vetter and Osborn many sites, which allowed an areal perspective, 1993:50). Artifact density varies across the CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS

site, with numerous concentrations separated hearths, roasting pits, and possibly, storage by sparse artifact scatters. The western part receptacles. The site's exposed location is of the site "commonly [exhibits] pockets over also a noteworthy aspect of its environmental

100 sq m in area with densities greater than setting. Summer breezes make it attractive 100 pieces [of debitage] per square meter" during gnat season and the heat of the sum- (Vetter and Osborn 1993:50). These concen- mer, but the site bears the brunt of storms trations contain "many cores and decortica- moving through the area and is easily flooded

." tion flakes not seen in . . other parts of the by heavy rains and melting snow, making it a site (Vetter and Osborn 1993:51). A dark, miserable place to camp during inclement diffuse, charcoal stain is the only visible fea- weather. Modern vegetation is predominantly ture (Vetter 1989:13). blackbrush, with scattered juniper, yucca, and Chronological information from the site prickly pear cactus (Vetter 1987:2).

is limited—a radiocarbon date on wood char- The site has been impacted by the White coal from the feature and a single Desert Crack vehicle campground and its associated Side-notched projectile point—but indicates two-track access road. This road originally occupation during at least two different time connected the White Rim and White Crack periods. The Desert Side-notched projectile trails. Although the campground occupies point may be indicative of Late Prehistoric/ only a small portion of the overall site (a Protohistoric occupation sometime between 700-m parking area plus the defined camp-

~~A.D. 1100 and 1700 (Holmer 1986:107; site), its presence has resulted in extensive~~

~~Reed 1994:191). The radiocarbon date is damage to the site. The charcoal stain is bi-~~

~~2990 ± 70 B.P. (Vetter 1989:27), which has sected by the access road, and at the time of a tree-ring corrected age range of 1410- our work in 1990, a portatoilet was posi-~~

1000 B.C. at 2-sigma (Pearson and Stuiver tioned on and adjacent to part of the stain. 1993; Stuiver and Pearson 1993; Stuiver and This portatoilet was moved around the gen- Reimer 1993). This date suggests occupation eral area of the feature several times during during the Terminal Archaic period as de- our month stay at the campground. One eve-

fined for this project (see Chapter 1). ning, while our crew was stationed at the Located on the edge of the White Rim, campground, a local tour operator arrived the site has a commanding view of the rug- with a group of visitors and told them that he ged canyon country below the rim. A prehis- had found "a lot of arrowheads" around the toric (and now enlarged, modern) access stain and that it was a good place to collect

~~route connects the site with the subrim can- them. Because the Midwest Archeological yons and terraces, which offer abundant raw Center's investigations were completed before~~

~~toolstone. Another attractive aspect of the site our visit to the site, it is difficult to judge the~~

~~location is the numerous potholes in the impacts of illegal surface collection, although~~

~~sandstone outcrops (see Figure 6); these hold they did not recover many projectile points or water for up to several weeks after precipita- other tools. However, collectors piles were~~

tion events. The depositional context consists noted in several locations across the site, and of exposed White Rim Sandstone intermit- tools were noticeably lacking. tently covered with shallow sheet sands (up The impacts of the campground and in-

~~to 30 cm thick). Given the nature of the de- creasing visitor use provided the impetus for~~

~~posits, additional features, if present, are the original Midwest Archeological Center likely limited to small phenomena such as investigations in 1985, and the follow-up~~

~~128 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS investigations in 1987 (Vetter 1987, 1989; reanalysis of the White Crack site materials~~

~~Vetter and Osborn 1993:49). Based on the re- would be included in the Canyonlands Ar- sults of the investigations, the National Park cheological Project. Therefore, P-1I1 Associ-~~

Service decided not to close the popular ates' investigations of the site were limited to campground. However, to lessen its impact very casual reconnaissance incidental to stay- on the site, they reduced the number of ing at the campground within the site. campsites to one and restricted use of the To provide a background for interpreting campground to a single group each night the results of the reanalysis discussed below, (Chas Cartwright, personal communication to especially the spatial analysis, the remainder Betsy L. Tipps, 1990). of this section discusses major provenience units used by the Midwest Archeological Summary of Previous Work Center, and how the artifacts were collected in each one. This discussion also sets the The White Crack site was first investi- stage for the succeeding section, which out- gated in 1985 by a Midwest Archeological lines constraints on the analysis imposed by Center crew as part of an inventory of vehi- the amount and type of fieldwork conducted cle campgrounds along the White Rim road at the site. The following discussion is based (Vetter 1989; Vetter and Osborn 1993). The on information presented in Vetter (1987, crew returned to the site in 1987 and under- 1989) and Vetter and Osborn (1993). took limited additional investigations. The Artifacts recovered from the two sessions 1985 work was directed at documenting the of fieldwork at the site are grouped into six site, defining its boundaries, and collecting major provenience units: (1) Campground artifacts from the area of direct visitor im-

Collection; (2) Transect 1 ; (3) Transect 2; (4) the pact, the campground. The 1987 follow-up Core/Tool Grab Sample; (5) Excavation Unit work focused on obtaining a larger sample of 1; and (6) Excavation Unit 2. The Camp- artifacts from other parts of the site, assess- ground Collection is composed of surface ar- ing the subsurface deposits, and investigating tifacts collected in and within 10 m of the the stain bisected by the road. This work was 700-m campground parking area. The re- accomplished by surface collection of ran- ports indicate that these items were collected dom units along two transects across the site, from 174 circular units measuring 1 m in di- collecting several tools and cores as a grab ameter. Because the total area covered by the sample, and investigating two test units, one circular units is much smaller than the camp- of which was centered over the feature (Vet- ground parking area (174 m of 700+ m ), ter 1987, 1989; Vetter and Osborn 1993). the collection appears to represent a sample; The majority of the artifacts recovered from the method used to position the circular units the site derive from the site surface because (e.g., random, systematic, etc.) is not re- very little excavation was done. Our reanal- ported. The purpose of the Campground Col- ysis included all chipped stone artifacts re- lection was to retrieve artifacts from the area covered during both phases of site of direct visitor impact. Because of their pro- investigation. venience, all artifacts in this assemblage are P-II1 Associates was not contracted to from disturbed contexts and were thus treated conduct additional investigations at the site as a single group for our reanalysis. and, at the time of the White Crack Area

~~I he Transect 1 and 2 assemblages are field inventory, had not been informed that also from the surface. The transects, each~~

~~129 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~measuring 2 m wide and 318 m long, were the constraints related to sampling procedures~~

laid out in an east-west direction, north of the are discussed below. This discussion is not campground. They were subsequently divided intended to criticize the Midwest Archeologi- into 159 2- by 2-m units each; a 20-percent cal Center's work, but to help the reader

~~random sample of the units in each transect place our results and interpretations in proper (32 units per transect) was completely sur- perspective.~~

~~face collected. The purpose of these transects Because of funding limits, only five field~~

~~is unspecified but appears to have been to days with a small crew were available to re-~~

~~sample artifact variability across the site. The cord, assess, and investigate the site on two~~

~~location of Transect 1 was apparently se- different occasions (Vetter 1989). Therefore,~~

~~lected because it "offered the greatest diver- the overall field investigations were some-~~

~~sity in vegetation and soil across the site" what cursory, resulting in spotty and incom-~~

~~(Vetter and Osborn 1993:52). plete knowledge about the site, very little in~~

~~The two transects missed the areas of the way of excavation or site structure infor-~~

~~highest artifact density on the western edge mation, and a relatively small artifact assem- of the site and, thus, did not sample the cores blage that may not be representative. In~~

and decortication flakes unique to that area. addition, the 1985 investigations lacked a re- To partially rectify this situation, the Mid- search design and the benefit of preproject west Archeological Center crew collected a planning because the campground surface judgmental sample of cores and large bifaces collections had to be done the same day the

~~from one or more concentrations in this area site was discovered and recorded.~~

~~(Vetter and Osborn 1993:52-53). The accom- Another problem is that the major prove-~~

~~panying debitage was not sampled. The arti- nience units were sampled in different ways~~

~~facts in this provenience unit compose the and in different amounts; this also limits the~~

~~Core/Tool Grab Sample. research potential of the collection for rea-~~

Two 2- by 2-m test units "were placed in sons of comparability. For example, most the areas identified as favorable for subsur- major proveniences were surface collected, face deposits" (Vetter and Osborn 1993:53), but only one was surface collected and exca-

~~Excavation Unit 1 in a proposed privy loca- vated. One major provenience unit (Excava-~~

~~tion, Excavation Unit 2 over the charcoal tion Unit 1) may have had the surface~~

~~stain. Excavation Unit 1 was excavated in 5-cm artifacts incorporated into the excavated as-~~

levels to bedrock, a total of 30 cm. Excava- semblage. The surface collection techniques tion Unit 2 was completely surface collected, also varied between proveniences. Complete, followed by excavation of a single 1- by 1-m random, grab, and possibly systematic collec- quadrant. The 1- by 1-m unit was excavated tion techniques were used. Collections were

~~in 5-cm levels, 25 cm to bedrock. Sediments done in 1-m diameter circles and 2- by 2-m~~

~~from both units were screened through one- squares. Sampling of the various areas is~~

~~eighth-inch hardware cloth. therefore uneven and not directly comparable.~~

The paucity of excavation data is also a Constraints on the Reanalysis limitation because small artifacts, which can have an important bearing on functional in- Our reanalysis was constrained by the terpretations, are probably underrepresented small amount of work conducted at the site in the surface collection proveniences (cf. and the site sampling techniques. Some of Osborn 1995:344). Their quantities cannot be

130 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS reliably estimated from the excavation data Synopsis of the Results because only a small amount of total area The reanalysis was directed at charac- (5 rrT) was excavated in a single portion of terizing the technology of the assemblage and the site. The limited amount of excavation addressing research questions in three of the also precludes meaningful analyses of verti- major research domains established at the cal or stratigraphic differentiation. outset of the Canyonlands Archeological Pro- Functional and activity area interpreta- ject. Research in the Chronology and Cultural tions based on the collection are difficult be- Affiliation Domain focused on identifying cause the major provenience units, with the whether the site was occupied on more than exception of Excavation Unit 2 and two 2- by one occasion or by multiple groups, and de- 2-m collection units in Transect 2, do not ap- termining the age and cultural affiliation of pear to correspond to archeologically mean- site components. Settlement patterns studies ingful artifact scatters, concentrations, considered the function(s) of the site relative activity areas, or even depositional sets (Carr to Binford's (1979, 1980) forager-collector 1984). None of the major provenience units continuum model, the potential territory used adequately sample any one activity area, and by site inhabitants as indicated by the loca- it is likely that that the transects and camp- tions of sources for nonlocal toolstones at the ground collection sampled multiple, unrelated site, and mobility patterns indicated by tech- activity areas. nological strategies. Finally, research in the Finally, the definition of the site itself is Environmental Adaptation Domain was di- a constraint to comparisons with the White rected at identifying how local toolstones Crack Area inventory data. Using eth- were procured, their relative importance, and noarcheological data as a guide, we would the technology used in their reduction. have split the site into multiple smaller sites, A total of 9289 chipped stone artifacts each with a greater possibility of representing was reanalyzed from the White Crack site. a single occupational episode with greater in- These artifacts include 18 tools, 2 cores, and terpretability. This is not a criticism of the 9269 pieces of debitage. Although this Midwest Archeological Center's recording chipped stone assemblage is relatively small, procedure because different researchers have the reanalysis provided meaningful data re- different philosophies and research orienta- garding chronology of site occupation, raw tions, which are also constrained by time and material availability and procurement, mode budgetary factors. Rather, it is to point out of raw material transport, range of toolstone how different site definitions can affect site acquisition, heat treatment of raw materials, interpretations. We view the site as repre- and lithic reduction technologies. In addition, senting multiple occupations, some of which the data provide some insight into group mo- are spatially discrete and some of which are bility and subsistence strategies of the occu- palimpsests. While these could theoretically pants of the White Crack site. be identified despite the inclusive site definition, it is not possible in this instance due to the lack of large-scale, areal investigations Research Issues and the specific sampling strategies that were Among the primary objectives of the reused by the Midwest Archeological Center. analysis of the White Crack assemblage are providing an interpretation of the chipped

131 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS stone technology system used at the site and stylistic and morphological attributes. Stylis- identifying site function as indicated by the tic attributes of chipped stone tools, particu- assemblage. Any one site represents only a larly projectile points, might also reflect single facet of an overall adaptive strategy, cultural traditions and ethnicity (Close 1978; and the role of that site cannot be understood Sacket 1982; Shackley 1996; Young and by viewing its assemblages in isolation. Bonnichsen 1985). The projectile point data Therefore, the methodological perspective will be used to address the issue of whether and analytical techniques used in this reanal- the White Crack assemblage represents a sin- ysis were designed to allow for interpretation gle or multiple component occupation. It will of the White Crack site within a framework also be used to help establish the temporal of regional research issues for the Canyon- range of occupations and the occupants' cul- lands area as outlined by Tipps and Hewitt tural affiliation. (1989), explicated by Tipps (1995), and discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3. Data Settlement Patterns from chipped stone assemblages are particu- Identifying the settlement patterns for larly valuable for addressing questions in each time period and each cultural group that three of the four regional research domains inhabited the area is an important element in established at the outset of the Canyonlands interpreting shifting adaptive strategies in re- Archeological Project (P-III Associates sponse to the physical environment (Tipps 1984): Chronology and Cultural Affiliation, 1995; Tipps and Hewitt 1989). The forager- Settlement Patterns, and Environmental Ad- collector continuum model developed by Bin- aptation. The research design that guided the ford (1979, 1980) provides the theoretical analysis is briefly discussed below. framework for P-III Associates' investiga-

~~tions of settlement patterns in the project Cultural Chronology and area. Identification of functional site types Affiliation and recognition of subsistence range and mo-~~

Establishing the chronology of occupa- bility patterns are key to interpreting settle- tion and identifying the cultural affiliations of ment patterns within this theoretical Canyonlands area prehistoric occupants are framework (Binford 1982; Thomas 1983; key research goals of the Canyonlands Ar- Tipps 1995). When present in sufficient cheological Project (Tipps 1995; Tipps and amounts, data from chipped stone assem-

Hewitt 1989; see Chapter 3). Chronological blages can be particularly useful in address- control is essential to interpreting adaptive ing all these aspects of settlement patterning. strategies employed during the various phases On sites with sufficiently large chipped of the region's prehistoric occupation. Tem- stone assemblages, data from the combined porality of individual artifact assemblages debitage and tool categories can be used to must be established to investigate shifts in interpret site function. The range of diagnos- settlement patterns and adaptations in re- tic debitage types and tools broken during sponse to changes in the physical environ- production reflect the manufacturing activi- ment. Temporally diagnostic chipped stone ties accomplished at the site. Manufacturing tools can provide one means of establishing activities vary according to functional site chronology. Specifically, projectile points can type. For example, Thomas (1983:78) be- be assigned to temporal ranges based on lieves that most primary manufacture takes

132 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS place at residential base camps, and that field of, frequency of access to, and geographic camp assemblages should be characterized by distribution of toolstones of various qualities limited debris from tool repair or from manu- (Andrefsky 1994; Bamforth 1986; Kelly facture involving tool preforms staged else- 1988). Kelly (1988) indicates that a techno- where. Sites that functioned primarily as logical system with an emphasis on formal extractive locations for the procurement of curated tools (i.e., bifaces) might be adopted toolstone should consist almost exclusively of by highly mobile hunter-gatherers when dis- manufacture debris with a strong emphasis tances between toolstone sources are great or on early stages of reduction. when toolstone is unevenly distributed rela- The range and relative importance of tive to subsistence resources. However, Kelly various maintenance and processing activities (1988) also provides an archeological exam- at a given site are often indicated by the fre- ple of reliance on formal tool technologies at quency and types of utilized and discarded a long-term residential base camp in an area tools. Residential base camp assemblages where local raw materials were unavailable. should have the widest range of functional In each case, biface technology is an adapta- tool types indicating a variety of camp- tion to restricted access to toolstone resulting related maintenance and processing activities from the mobility patterns of the populations. (Thomas 1983:76-79). Field assemblages Technologies emphasizing expedient tool should reflect limited camp-related mainte- production and utilization are generally in- nance and processing activities. However, the dicative of low residential mobility in an area functional tool types should be biased toward where ample local raw materials are available those utilized in the procurement and pro- (Christenson and Parry 1985; Parry and Kelly cessing of a specific target resource (Thomas 1987). However, in situations where tool-

1983:79-81). Extractive locations associated stone is abundant and evenly distributed in with procurement of faunal or floral re- relation to subsistence resources, expedient sources, should have a very limited set of tool technologies might be also be adopted functionally specific tool types and/or small by highly mobile hunter-gatherers (Parry and amounts of debitage resulting from mainte- Kelly 1987:300). Understanding the organiza- nance of such tools (Thomas 1983:84-85). tion of chipped stone technology in relation

Because toolstone procurement is often to the distribution, abundance, and relative embedded within foraging or logistic forays quality of toolstones can provide insight into targeting subsistence resources (Binford the mobility patterns of prehistoric popula-

1979), identification of nonlocal raw materi- tions. als in chipped stone assemblages can help es- Investigation of the chipped stone assem- tablish the territory included within a blage from White Crack will include assess- population's subsistence range. Therefore, ments of site function, and of the subsistence identifying the source area(s) of nonlocal ma- territory and mobility patterns of the site oc- terials in a site assemblage is critical to in- cupants. These are key aspects in under- vestigating regional settlement patterns. standing the settlement patterns practiced by

Ethnographic and archeological models the occupants of the site. It should be suggest that mobility patterns directly affect stressed, however, that settlement patterning the organization of chipped stone technology is a regional research issue. No single site because technological strategies must be tai- can fully indicate the overall settlement pat- lored to accommodate the relative abundance tern during a given time period nor the

133 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS overall settlement pattern of a specific cul- Investigation of the chipped stone assem- tural group. However, interpretation of site blage from the White Crack site will empha- function and identification of mobility pat- size an assessment of the technologies and terns from the White Crack site assemblage reduction trajectories involving local raw ma- will help build an understanding of settle- terials. These technologies will be compared ment patterns on a regional scale. and contrasted to those involving nonlocal raw materials and the relative importance of Environmental Adaptation the various toolstones in the technology system will be assessed. These studies will lay Tipps and Hewitt (1989) and Tipps the foundation for investigating the overall (1995) indicate that determining how and to adaptive strategy employed by the prehistoric what extent local resources were utilized are occupants of the site. major goals under the regional research issue of environmental adaptation for the Canyon-

lands Archeological Project. Therefore, re- Methodological search efforts in this domain will focus on Perspective understanding how local toolstones were pro- For this analysis, lithic technology is cured, their relative importance, and the tech- viewed as a complex system of interrelated nology involved in their reduction. processes that transform raw material into a Technological studies will include investiga- finished tool or product. This system begins tions of reduction techniques, reduction with the acquisition of suitable raw material. strategies, and ancillary processes such as After procurement, the raw material might re- heat treatment of toolstone. quire heat treatment to render it suitable for Tipps (1995:6) indicates that such inves- reduction. The raw material is then reduced tigations have a high degree of interpretive through a series of stages utilizing one or value "because studies of chipped stone tech- more reduction strategies until a desired tool nology and methods of quarry utilization can is obtained or the piece is broken and dis- provide insights into prehistoric economy, carded. If reduction is successful, the result- craft specialization, settlement strategies, pat- ing tool may be used to perform a task or terns of mobility and sedentism, and trade combination of tasks until it is broken or ex- ." networks. . . Understanding the nature and hausted and discarded. In addition, a tool organization of the chipped stone technology may be maintained or rejuvenated to extend system employed by a population is crucial its use-life (Bamforth 1986; Binford and to elucidating overall adaptive strategies. Al- Quimby 1972; Flenniken 1980; Kelly 1988; though emphasis will be placed on investigat- Tipps 1988b). The sequence of technological ing the technologies involving local processes used to produce and maintain a toolstones, the nature and extent of nonlocal specific tool type can be viewed as a reduc- toolstone utilization are also important to un- tion trajectory (Callahan 1979; Johnson 1993; derstanding the overall organization of a pre- Kelly 1988). historic population's chipped stone Tool production and maintenance or reju- technology. Therefore, the role of both local venation are subtractive processes. Therefore, and nonlocal raw materials in the chipped tools do not generally retain evidence of the stone technology system will be considered. entire reduction trajectory (Pokotylo 1978:162). In addition, chipped stone tool

134 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS production tends to be carried out in stages linking raw materials to known sources, iden- (Binford and Quimby 1972:346-347; Calla- tifying the presence and type of cortex, iden- han 1979) and the entire reduction trajectory tifying heat-treated toolstone and the stage at may not be accomplished in one place. Fur- which the heat treatment was accomplished, thermore, certain tool types tend to be cu- and assessing the quality and potential utility rated and transported from site to site over an of the various raw material types. extensive use-life. Therefore, the chipped Identifying the source of the various raw stone tool assemblage from a particular site materials in an assemblage can provide data may not be indicative of the full range of for addressing group mobility and settlement activities and relative importance of various patterning, and can help define the subsis- activities involving the manufacture and utili- tence territories and trade networks of pre- zation of chipped stone tools conducted at historic populations. Data regarding the that site (Binford 1977:34). Analysis of the frequency of cortex-bearing specimens and debitage resulting from tool production and the type of cortex present can be helpful in maintenance can help elucidate the full range identifying the type of source (i.e., alluvial of activities and relative importance of vari- deposit or bedrock outcrop) and the relative ous activities involving chipped stone tools at distance to the source for unknown material a given site (Flenniken 1985; Moore 1990:1). types (cf Tipps 1988b). In addition, the type

Additionally, activities involving the produc- of cortex can provide insight into the nature tion and utilization of chipped stone tools of toolstone procurement. For example, pri- will vary due to site function and a single site mary geological cortex may be indicative of might not demonstrate the entire lithic tech- time- and energy-intensive quarrying and in- nology system. Therefore, reconstructing cipient cone cortex may indicate expedient lithic technology systems requires compara- acquisition of toolstones from alluvial grav- tive analyses of chipped stone tool and debi- els. tage assemblages from a variety of sites and Relatively poor-quality toolstones are on a regional scale. often heat treated to improve their workabil-

The White Crack site chipped stone ity. In addition, attempts are often made to analysis included several components. Each reduce the risk of manufacture failure associ- component of the analysis was designed to ated with the heat treatment of toolstone by obtain the data necessary to address the re- delaying it until later stages of reduction. gional research issues outlined above. A brief Therefore, identification of heat-treated discussion of the interpretive potential of specimens and data regarding the stage of each component of the analysis is provided heat treatment represent important elements here. The specific variables chosen for the in understanding the organization of chipped various components in this analysis are pre- stone technology. sented in the Analytical Methods section be- Toolstones of various qualities might re- low. quire differential preparatory processing (i.e.,

heat treatment) and the application of differ- Raw Material ent reduction techniques. In addition, due to limitations related to physical properties, All chipped stone tools, cores, and debi- some toolstones might not be amenable to the tage were subjected to raw material analysis. manufacture of certain tool types or suitable Raw material studies included attempts at for certain functional tool types. For example.

135 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS very low-quality raw materials might not be of a relatively sedentary population in an area suitable for the production of refined formal where suitable local raw materials are readily tools (i.e., bifaces), and brittle toolstones will available. Therefore, determination of the not hold a durable functional edge (Towner relative importance of formal and expedient

~~1985). Therefore, an assessment of the qual- tool technologies in a given technological~~

ity of toolstones can provide insights into system can be used to address issues of mo- how various toolstones were processed and bility and settlement patterns. reduced, and why the various toolstones per- Specific morphological tool forms (both formed specific roles within a technological formal and expedient) often represent func- system. tionally specific tool types. Therefore, tool types present in an assemblage are often Chipped Stone Tools good indicators of the range of processing and maintenance activities that occurred at Chipped stone tools were analyzed to de- the site. By extension, chipped stone tool as- termine the reduction strategies employed semblages are particularly valuable in eluci- in their manufacture, their morphological/ dating site function. For example, an typological classification, and their possible assemblage with high frequencies of projec- function. Attempts were also made to identify tile points, modified flake tools, and "knives" at what point in their use-life cycle the vari- may be indicative of a hunting-related field ous chipped stone tools entered the archeo- camp; an assemblage consisting almost en- logical record. tirely of modified flake tools may be indica- Two broad categories of chipped stone tive of a meat processing locus; and a tools were recognized in this analysis: formal relatively large and heterogeneous tool as- and expedient tools. Formal tools are typi- semblage may suggest the generalized activi- cally made of high-quality toolstone and pro- ties of a residential base camp (see Binford duction of these tools is time and labor [1980] and Thomas [1983]). In addition, cer- intensive. They are designed to be highly tain morphological tool forms, particularly transportable, can be easily rejuvenated to ex- projectile points, can be temporally and cul- tend their use-life, and are expected to be turally diagnostic and can help determine site highly curated. Expedient tools are normally chronology and cultural affiliation. made from low-quality local toolstone unless Data regarding fragment type and frac- high-quality material is abundant and readily tures, in combination with edge retouch and available. Expedient tools are rarely curated. usewear data, were recorded for each formal Rather, they are usually produced on a con- tool. These data are helpful in determining tingency basis to perform a specific task and the point in its reduction trajectory or use-life discarded immediately after use. Therefore, at which an artifact entered the archeological clusters of expedient tools can be used to record (i.e., before completion of the manu- identify activity areas and the tool types pre- facturing process or after a use-related break- sent can provide insight into the nature of the age or exhaustion of the tool). They can also activities that were conducted. A chipped help distinguish tool forms that were manu- stone technology system with an emphasis on factured at a site, utilized at the site, and dis- formal tool technology is often indicative of carded during toolkit maintenance activities. a highly mobile population. High ratios of Determining what point along the reduc- expedient to formal tools might be indicative tion trajectories that the various tool forms

136 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS entered the archeological record can further debitage types can reflect distance to the elucidate the range of activities that occurred source of unknown material types. Specifi- at the site and help refine interpretations of cally, high frequencies of early-stage reduction site function. flakes can indicate a nearby source, whereas

high ratios of late-stage biface thinning/shaping Cores to early-stage reduction flakes can indicate a relatively distant source. This information Chipped stone cores were analyzed pri- can give insight into the distance to unknown marily to determine the technologies involved sources and, by extension, can help address in their manufacture. Core reduction is gener- questions of group mobility and settlement ally accomplished in an opportunistic manner patterning. In addition, identifying stage of to produce expedient flake tools or flake reduction allows interpretation of which por- blanks for the production of formal tools. tions of the various reduction trajectories However, they can also be reduced via care- were accomplished on-site and which were fully controlled, systematic reduction that accomplished off-site. This information can might be tailored to the production of stand- be helpful in addressing questions regarding ardized flake or blade forms. Core morphol- site function. For example, high frequencies ogy can often indicate the technologies of early-stage reduction flakes may indicate involved. Therefore, all cores were classified that a site functioned as an initial reduction according to a morphology-based typological area associated with a nearby quarry. Debi- system. The presence and relative frequency tage assemblages comprised primarily of of chipped stone cores in an assemblage late-stage biface thinning/shaping flakes might also indicate both distance to unidenti- could indicate the resharpening of tools asso- fied toolstone sources and site function. For ciated with specific processing activities (i.e., example, the presence of large quantities of butchering). cores generally indicates a nearby toolstone source and, depending on the frequencies of various tool forms present in the assemblage, Analytical Methods may indicate a primary manufacturing station, a field camp associated with toolstone Raw Material and Heat procurement, or a residential base camp asso- Treatment Analysis ciated with a local toolstone source. The raw material types recognized in this analysis follow those established by Tipps Debitage and Hewitt (1989) for materials from the Salt Creek Pocket and Devils Lane areas, Tipps Chipped stone debitage was analyzed to (1995) for the Squaw Butte Area, both in the determine the reduction strategies and stages Needles District of Canyonlands National present at the site. The debitage was expected Park, and the White Crack Area inventory to reflect differences in reduction stages and (see Chapter 4). The material types employed strategies between different raw material in this analysis are Cedar Mesa Chert, Cedar types. Variation in reduction strategies be- Mesa Chalcedony, Algalitic Chert, brown tween material types can indicate which por- chert, Summerville Chalcedony, white chert, tions of the technological system were used gray chert, brown chalcedony, gray quartzite, for particular materials. Variation in the rela- obsidian, rose chalcedony, limestone, and tive frequencies of reduction stage-related

~~137 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

petrified wood. All chipped stone tool and of the material as it occurs naturally (i.e., debitage specimens were assigned to one of pebble, cobble, tabular chunks, angular these previously established types or to a re- chunks), size of workable masses of tool- sidual "other chert" category. Cedar Mesa stone, grain size (i.e., coarse-grained, medium- Chert, Cedar Mesa Chalcedony, and Sum- grained, fine-grained, microcrystaline, cryp- merville Chalcedony were classified by vis- tocrystaline), isotropy (e.g., the presence or ual reference to noncultural comparative absence of internal cleavage planes), homo- samples collected by P-III Associates over geneity (e.g., the presence or absence of in- the past decade from known sources in the ternal fracture plans, textural changes, or region. Verbal descriptions of visual criteria mineral inclusions), and elasticity (e.g., how for color, luster, texture, and inclusions pro- the material responds to stress-related defor- vided by Tipps and Hewitt (1989) and Tipps mation) (Luedtke 1992). Raw material de- (1995), and archeological comparative speci- scriptions and an assessment of workability mens were used for identifying other materi- for each material type in the White Crack site als. In addition, personal communication with assemblage are presented in Appendix E.

Tipps ensured that these materials were prop- For this analysis, all specimens were re- erly classified into the previously established corded as conclusively having been heat types. treated when two successive generations of The presence or absence of cortex was flake scars were present—one series having a noted for all tool and debitage specimens and dull luster and the subsequent series having a the type of cortex was recorded. Two types glossy luster. This strict criterion is an accu- of cortex were recognized: primary geologi- rate means of identifying heat treatment, but cal and weathered. Primary geological cortex results in gross underestimation of the rela- is defined as a layer or rind of material that tive frequency of heat-treated specimens (cf. forms in the transition zone between a tool- Tipps 1988b). To remedy this problem some- stone and its bedrock matrix (Luedtke 1992). what, reference was made to a collection of

Weathered cortex is defined as patination or experimentally heat-treated Cedar Mesa a thin, colored outer layer on a toolstone due Chert specimens. Following La Fond to prolonged exposure to the elements (Crab- (1995a), who showed that Cedar Mesa Chert tree 1972; Luedtke 1992). No incipient cone becomes significantly glossier than natural cortex was noted in the collection. specimens upon heat treatment, heat treat- The consistent recognition of these mate- ment was coded as probable for Cedar Mesa rial types and identification of any interrela- Chert tools with a glossy luster matching the tionships that might exist between them are heat-treated comparative collection. Due to necessary components of ongoing research in time constraints and the size of the debitage the project area. Therefore, providing detailed assemblage, Cedar Mesa Chert debitage descriptions of these raw materials as they specimens were not differentiated on this ba- occur in the White Crack site assemblage is sis. No attempt was made to identify heat an important goal of the current analysis. In treatment in other materials based on luster addition, an attempt was made to assess the due to the lack of heat-treated comparative relative workability of the various raw mate- specimens. rials as they occur in the site assemblage to address certain technological issues. Attrib- utes related to workability include morphology

~~138 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

Chipped Stone Tool Knifelike bifaces are relatively large and Core Analysis compared to projectile point preforms. Al- though they also exhibit refined shaping and Formal tools are specimens that have thinning, they do not share a morphological been intentionally and carefully shaped to affinity with the projectile point forms from produce a relatively symmetrical form in plan the project area. In other words, their form is view and cross section. The formal tool types not suggestive of a reduction sequence in- recognized in this analysis are edged flake tended to produce one of the known projec- blank, biface, projectile point, and indetermi- tile point forms from the project area. These nate projectile point or projectile point pre- tools generally exhibit usewear and/or edge form fragment. reworking. Knifelike bifaces can function as Symmetrical flakes with edge retouch ex- generalized cutting, planing, and scraping tending around the entire tool margin are tools. In addition, they can be modified into a classified as edged flake blanks. The edge re- variety of bifacial tool forms that a given touch is generally accomplished by the re- task might require. Therefore, they introduce moval of short, regularly spaced flakes from a degree of flexibility into a lithic technology both surfaces of the tool. Although these system. tools are not bifaces in the strictest sense, Quarry bifaces (cf. Furnis et al. 1989) are they represent flake blanks broken in the large, thick bifacial tools. They exhibit rela- process of edging in preparation for bifacial tively crude workmanship, even in later reduction. These tools are analogous to Calla- stages of reduction. Although Kelly (1988) han's (1979) Stage 2 bifaces. suggests that they primarily functioned as Bifaces are defined as formal tools that portable cores (see cores below), they fre- generally exhibit facial reduction scars on quently exhibit usewear and/or edge rework- both surfaces. Facial reduction scars extend ing, suggesting they were often utilized as from the tool margin across more than one tools. In addition, rejuvenation of these tools third of the surface of the biface. Three dis- can provide flakes suitable for expedient tinct types of bifaces are recognized in this tools (although the production of flake blanks analysis: projectile point preforms, knifelike does not appear to have been their primary bifaces, and quarry bifaces. Bifaces that can- function) and they can be modified into a va- not be conclusively assigned to any of these riety of bifacial tool forms on a contingency categories are referred to as indeterminate bi- basis. Therefore, like knifelike bifaces, the faces. inclusion of quarry bifaces in a toolkit offers Projectile point preforms are relatively flexibility. small tools that exhibit refined thinning and In addition to biface type, all bifaces shaping. These tools lack any evidence of were assigned a reduction stage (Callahan usewear or edge reworking. In addition, the 1979). As reduction of a biface progresses, identification of a projectile point preform re- the morphology changes and the tool be- quires that the specimen exhibit a morpho- comes more refined. Certain diagnostic mor- logical affinity with a known projectile point phological attributes can be used to form. These are not completed tools. Rather, determine the stage at which the tool entered they represent intermediate stages in the pro- the archeological record. Diagnostic attrib- duction of projectile points. utes include flaking pattern, edge charac-

~~teristics, cross-section shape, and the relative~~

~~139 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

amount of cortex present. The reduction scars tend to be relatively small and shallow, stages recognized in this analysis include closely spaced, and regular. Edges are only early stage, middle stage, and late stage slightly sinuous to straight and edge angles

~~(analogous to Callahan's [1979] Stage 3, 4, are low. The cross section is relatively thin to and 5 bifaces). very thin compared to earlier stage bifaces of~~

Early-stage bifaces have large, deep fa- the same type and flatly biconvex (e.g., len- cial reduction scars exhibiting highly variable ticular). Late-stage bifaces only rarely retain plan view morphology. In addition, flake cortex and almost never retain flake-blank scars are widely and variably spaced. Edges platform remnants. are very sinuous and have relatively steep an- Projectile points are late-stage bifaces gles. Opposing flake scars generally do not with the addition of a hafting element (e.g., cross the center of the biface. The cross sec- stem, notches, basal concavity, fluting). Pro- tion is relatively thick and irregular, hexago- jectile points can function as the cutting ele- nal, plano-convex, or steeply biconvex. Early- ment for a variety of weapons systems

stage bifaces generally retain some cortex including thrusting spears, atlatl darts, and and may retain a portion of the original flake bows and arrows. However, some projectile blank platform. Some early-stage bifaces ex- points also could have served as multipur-

~~hibit edge reduction only on the ventral sur- pose cutting implements (Beck and Jones~~

~~face of the blank (i.e., facial reduction scars 1993). As noted above, stylistic and morpho- might be absent from one surface). This edge logical attributes of these tools are temporal~~

~~reduction is often necessary to establish a se- and cultural markers. Projectile points were~~

ries of platforms for reducing the dorsal sur- assigned to temporally diagnostic types on face of the blank. These early-stage bifaces the basis of criteria established by Holmer can be distinguished from unifacial tools with (1978), Holmer and Weder (1980), and

ventral surface retouch by the nature of the Thomas (1981), and by visual reference to il- edge reduction flake scars. On early-stage bi- lustrations presented in the cited reports. faces, these scars are truncated by the re- Small, thin, carefully worked, and sym-

moval of the facial reduction flakes from the metrical late-stage biface tips and midsections dorsal surface. could represent either manufacture-broken Middle-stage bifaces possess flake scars projectile point preforms or completed and

~~with a low to moderate degree of morpho- use-broken projectile points. Because it is not~~

~~logical variability. The scars are of intermedi- possible to consistently differentiate the two, ate size and depth. Spacing of the flake scars these tools were subsumed under the catego-~~

is relatively close and semiregular to regular. ries of indeterminate projectile point or pro- Edges are moderately sinuous and have mod- jectile point preform midsection or tip for erately steep angles. Opposing flake scars this analysis. tend to cross the center of the biface. The Expedient tools generally lack facial thin-

~~cross section is moderately thick compared to ning scars and are not carefully shaped. In-~~

~~early-stage bifaces of the same type and bi- stead, one or more margins of an otherwise~~

~~convex in shape. Middle-stage bifaces retain unmodified flake will either exhibit inten-~~

little or no cortex and usually lack remnants tional retouch forming a functional edge ele- of a flake-blank platform. ment or will lack evidence of intentional Late-stage bifaces exhibit flake scars retouch but exhibit evidence of use-related with minimal morphological variation. Flake wear. The only expedient tool type recognized

~~140 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~in this analysis is a perforator. Expedient per- not determinable, length was considered the~~

~~forators have rapidly tapering tips produced greatest dimension of the artifact and width~~

~~by edge retouch that compose the functional was measured at a right angle to the axis of~~

~~element. The cross section of the tip is usu- greatest dimension. Thickness was measured~~

ally triangular. With the exception of the tip, at the thickest portion of the artifact's cross these tools will reflect very little or no atten- section. Weight was recorded to the nearest tion to shaping. The primary function of ex- tenth of a gram.

pedient perforators is generally assumed to All dimensional measurements were be the perforation of soft materials such as coded as complete or incomplete. When por- hide. tions of both the distal and proximal margins

~~Chipped stone cores are the nuclei of were intact, length was coded as being com- stone from which flakes or blades are pro- plete. Determining the completeness of width~~

~~duced. As such, they generally are not con- and thickness is, by nature, somewhat subjec-~~

~~sidered as tools, although exhausted cores tive. When a distal or proximal end was pre-~~

~~can be expediently utilized as scraping and sent and the lateral margins contracted with chopping tools. The object of core reduction increased distance from this end (or ex-~~

~~is to produce flakes or blades that are usable panded and then contracted), the maximum~~

~~as expedient tools in unmodified form or that width was considered present and width was can be used as "blanks" for further reduction coded as being complete. For midsection~~

~~or modification. Random cores (analogous to fragments, width was coded as being com-~~

~~Crabtree's [1972] multidirectional cores) are plete only if the lateral margins contracted in the only type recognized in this analysis. both directions with increased distance from~~

~~Random cores vary greatly in size and shape, the central point. Thickness was coded as be- depending on the size of the desired flake ing complete only when the longitudinal~~

~~and the morphological and physical con- cross section of the artifact contracted in both~~

~~straints, of the raw material that is being re- directions with increased distance from its duced. The main criterion that distinguishes central point. All dimensions for expedient~~

~~these cores from other types is that they are tools are considered complete because it is~~

~~not carefully prepared or systematically re- not possible to consistently differentiate ex-~~

~~duced. Rather, random cores are reduced in pedient tools manufactured from broken flake an opportunistic, expedient manner. Gener- blanks from those broken after manufacture.~~

~~ally, random cores exhibit flake scars that Additional data were recorded for all for- originate from multiple platforms and extend mal tools but not for expedient tools or cores.~~

~~in various directions across multiple faces of Fragment type (complete, distal or tip, proxi-~~

the core. mal or base, midsection, interior, lateral mar- Raw material type, cortex data, heat gin, stem, shoulder or barb, and tang or ear) treatment data, dimensions, and weight were was recorded for each formal tool specimen.

~~recorded for all tool types and cores. Raw Fracture type (shearing, perverse, fluting,~~

~~material, cortex, and heat treatment data were crushing, and bending [cf. Bergman and~~

recorded as described above. Length was Newcomer 1983; Fischer et al. 1984; Odell measured along the proximal-distal axis when and Cowan 1986; Titmus and Woods 1986; this axis was determinable and width was Towner and Warburton 1990]) and the loca-

~~measured at a right angle to length. When the tion of each fracture were recorded for bro- orientation of the proximal/distai axis was ken pieces. Reworked tool edges were noted~~

141 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS for all formal tools and the locations of re- valuable raw material, cortex, and heat treat- worked edges were coded. ment data, they have no diagnostic value re-

Finally, all tool edges were examined un- garding the reduction technologies or stages der low-power (30 to 40x) magnification for of reduction represented by a debitage assem- evidence of usewear. The location and type blage. Therefore the remainder of this discus- of any apparent usewear were recorded. sion will focus on diagnostic debitage types.

~~Types of usewear utilized in this analysis in- Diagnostic debitage specimens were clas- clude rounding (edge and high point round- sified into diagnostic debitage types to aid in~~

ing), microfractures (hinge terminating, step reconstructing the various reduction activities terminating, and feather terminating), stria- represented by the assemblage. The diagnos- tions, and polish (matte and reflective) (cf. tic flake types recognized in this analysis are Hayden 1979b; Odell and Odell-Vereecken early-stage reduction, early biface thinning, 1980). middle biface thinning, and final biface

thinning/shaping (cf. Moore 1990). Although Chipped Stone Debitage the assemblage was inspected for the pres- Analysis ence of other diagnostic flake types such as decortication flakes, core reduction flakes, bi- Four broad categories of debitage were polar flakes, contact removal flakes, and recognized for the analysis: angular debris or notching flakes, none was found. shatter, diagnostic debitage, nonidentifiable Early-stage reduction flakes may be pro- flake fragments, and other debitage. Angular duced during core reduction or during initial debris or shatter is debitage that lacks defini- stages of biface production. It is extremely tive flake attributes (i.e., platforms, bulbs of difficult to consistently differentiate flakes applied force, rings of compression, and from the two reduction processes (Frison negative flake scars). Angular debris or shat- and Bradley 1980:18-27; Moore 1990:93). ter can be produced in all reduction strategies Therefore, this category is not reduction and during all reduction stages. Diagnostic strategy- specific. The primary criterion for debitage includes all whole flakes and identi- differentiating flakes from the two reduction fiable flake fragments that can be assigned to strategies is on the basis of platform charac- flake categories that are diagnostic of specific teristics. Flakes that (1) lack platforms but reduction strategies and/or stages of reduc- were obviously produced during either core tion. Nonidentifiable flake fragments possess reduction or early biface thinning; (2) have one or more flake attributes but, due to their platforms that are too fragmentary to classify; fragmentary nature, they cannot be assigned or (3) possess ambiguous platform charac- to a reduction strategy/stage-related type. teristics were assigned to the early-stage re- Other debitage includes whole flakes and duction category. Early-stage reduction flakes identifiable flake fragments representing frequently have cortex on the dorsal face, but flake types with little diagnostic value (e.g., it will not exceed 75 percent of surface area. radical-edge shearing flakes and nested flakes These flakes exhibit minimal or no platform that are produced during platform preparation preparation, and platforms tend to be thick and can occur in any reduction strategy and and broad in relation to the overall width of at any stage of reduction [cf. Moore 1990]). the flake. Prominent bulbs of applied force Although angular debris, nonidentifiable flake are usually present. These flakes tend to be fragments, and other debitage can provide relatively thick and wide compared to later

142 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS stage flakes from the same reduction trajec- of the same trajectory. Platforms are rela- tory. Negative flake scars may be absent tively thin and narrow compared to the over- from flakes produced during the first series all width of the flake and usually exhibit of removals. However, when present, nega- more careful platform preparation than those tive flake scars tend to be relatively large, of early reduction flakes (i.e., faceting, deep, and few in number. Negative flake "scrubbing," and abrading). Bulbs of applied scars can have multiple orientations relative force are normally present but relatively dif- to the long axis of the flake or be consis- fuse. These flakes tend to be longer than they tently parallel to it. Dorsal faces tend to ex- are wide and usually expand distally. Middle hibit an irregular, rough surface topography biface thinning flakes tend to be flat to when negative flake scars are present. slightly curved in longitudinal cross section Flakes produced during early biface thin- and are generally thinner than early reduction ning can have single facet or cortex-covered flakes from the same reduction trajectory. platforms similar to those produced during Negative flake scars are fairly numerous and core reduction. Such flakes were classified as tend toward a consistent orientation parallel early-stage reduction flakes in this analysis. to the long axis of the flake. Negative flake However, some flake removals accomplished scars are smaller and shallower than on early during early biface thinning will truncate the reduction flakes, which gives the middle- margin of the tool. In such cases, if the plat- stage biface thinning flake a smoother, more form of the flake is not broken during flake regular dorsal surface topography. These removal, the ventral surface of the platform flakes are indicative of the middle stages of a margin might exhibit truncated negative flake bifacial reduction trajectory. scars resulting from earlier facial thinning Final biface thinning/shaping flakes tend flake removals. Flakes with these charac- to be smaller than early-stage reduction and teristics, in combination with the attributes early biface thinning flakes from the same as- discussed above for early reduction flakes, semblage. Platforms often exhibit careful were considered conclusively diagnostic of preparation (multiple faceting, "scrubbing," early biface thinning for this analysis. How- and abrading) and are narrow and thin rela- ever, the frequencies of these flakes will tive to the surface size of the flake. Bulbs of grossly underrepresent the amount of early- applied force are diffuse or nonexistent. stage biface thinning actually accomplished Negative flake scars are few in number, gen- at a site. It should be noted that core reduc- erally shallower and smaller than on middle tion flakes can also be differentiated from biface thinning flakes from the same trajec- early-stage reduction flakes on occasion; tory, and consistently oriented with the large flakes possessing all characteristics out- flake's long axis. These flakes are usually lined above for early reduction flakes as well longer than they are wide and tend to be par- as platforms and cross sections that were ob- allel sided, although they may expand dis- viously too thick for bifacial reduction would tally. Without a detailed examination of the have been coded as core reduction flakes in platform margin, retouch flakes produced this analysis. However, none was found in during tool rejuvenation are very difficult to the White Crack assemblage. differentiate from flakes resulting from final Middle biface thinning flakes tend to be stages of biface manufacture. Therefore, of intermediate size compared to early reduc- these flake types were not differentiated for tion and final biface thinning/shaping flakes this analysis and final biface shaping/thinning

~~143 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

flakes, as defined for this analysis, are indica- presence of an expedient perforator and util- tive of either final stages of biface reduction ized knifelike bifaces probably indicates that or tool rejuvenation. activities other than production and mainte-

During the chipped stone debitage analy- nance of chipped stone tools occurred at the sis, each lot was sorted by raw material type site. Data for each tool and core specimen are based on the criteria established above, then provided in Tables 24 and 25. Descriptions of further sorted into final groups representing the tool assemblage are presented below. one of the debitage types defined above.

These final groups were counted and weighed Projectile Points to the nearest tenth of a gram. Finally, counts Of the five projectile points recovered of cortex-bearing pieces and heat-treated from the White Crack site, only one can be specimens (on the basis of the strict criterion) confidently assigned to an established diag- for each of these final groups were also re- nostic projectile point type. It (Catalog corded. #2967.1) is a Desert Side-notched point of

Summerville Chalcedony. This point is trun- Results cated laterally across the neck and longitudi- nally through the base. The fracture pattern is Chipped Stone Tool consistent with breakage from impact to and Core Results hafted projectile points, indicating that the specimen broke during use (Odell and Cowan A total of 20 chipped stone tools and 1986; Titmus and Woods 1986; Towner and cores was recovered from the White Crack Warburton 1990). site. These include five projectile points, four Another arrow point (Catalog #2963) of indeterminate projectile point or projectile gray chert might be a morphologically aber- point preform tip and midsection fragments, rant Desert Side-notched point (Figure 22a). one edged flake blank, one early-stage quarry It is truncated across the neck by a bending biface, two late-stage knifelike bifaces, two fracture that is also consistent with breakage late-stage projectile point preforms, two gen- during use. The upper shoulder of the tangs eral late-stage bifaces, one expedient perfora- slope downward to a degree inconsistent with tor, one random chipped stone core, and one typical Desert Side-notched points, giving the indeterminate chipped stone core. This tool appearance of a very broad, side-notched or assemblage indicates that manufacture of pro- expanding-stem form. However, two narrow jectile points from local raw material was a remnant notching scars just below the trun- significant activity at the White Crack site. cation indicate that the point was side- Use-broken projectile point fragments of non- notched. This specimen might be a Desert local raw material indicate that local raw ma- Side-notched point that was reworked along terial was utilized to replenish mobile the upper shoulders of the tangs to correct a toolkits, and that the retooling of hunting im- manufacture error or rejuvenate the point af- plements occurred at the site. The chipped ter a use-breakage event. stone assemblage also indicates that core re- Two projectile point fragments are small duction was accomplished at the site, possi- expanding-stem forms that cannot be as- bly to provide flake blanks for the production signed to an established diagnostic projectile of one or more of the bifacial tool forms pre- point type (Figure 22b). One (Catalog sent in the assemblage. In addition, the

~~144 »•~~

~~CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~^5 oo X \o oa C\ en r-; (N in r-~; rn~~

~~niNfnfNnn^M-~~

~~o cd~~~

~~U rN oo os tt in oo <->~~

X to c ÔinhOOO\tOO\(NO\^Ô^tNÔ'-invi o o -o c > >> O c c O o o <-> T3 "O IU CD c H cd cd cd cd cd cd _C CD CD n> i> aj e/5 15 X X X X 43 X X X X X X u X X T3 u u u u u u U U U U U U U U U U •e CD CD CD CD CD X cd 'E 'E a 22^22 x 2 2 X s cd 2 s CD 2 2 2 S 2 :— l_ o o — l_ — U t- k« — k> E t-l E !- — i— — — d cd (d cd d cd >, cd cd >> cd cd a cd cd cd cd cd *^ "^ "^ "O "^ "O cd T3 T3 e« T3 E -a -a E -O T3 T3 T3 T3 3 CD CD 3 u

~~T3 C c cd n> E OX) cd a. "S 0J -C rt i— X) * 1 ~o — o o -4— T3 c cd cd C re W J p2 a. E 60 J3 o o c , O — in •— oor«-isor^^om ^l-t~-in — 00 oo o o — Tf^-' —~~

~~145 —i »~~

~~CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

c CD CD C/D tO CO to to *3 3 tS 3 CO CO 3 cu cC o CO CO CO ^ CD CU U to to CD CD to CD CD CD CD s 2 Si CO E *—»*-» 4— cu to to CO to 2 -o -a to g to to CD to CU CO CO CO 6 - X T3 .s .s CD CD •— .5 .£ .E CD .E .5 .5 It-, CU C/5 1 E o 0> CD CO M CU CU o CD 3 3 CD CU CD i S 3 CO cu cu CD CD c -*— -*— CD C CD CD c CD l_ T3 TD -a T3 CU CO CO T3 Cd -a tj CD U CO c C CD CD c -o "5 c cu "> X! X! '> CO — — I CD CO CO X. CD nj CU O CD O o CU CU £ >- >~ >- >- 2 2 >< 2; >h >- >- >•

C/3 CD l_ o 2 o c CD -o o % c co C/5 o o X1 o Xo "o X X O 2 +-» o X X X X X 3 o cj o CD o o 3 3 3 3 O O o o o o cu p4 .5 .S OX) OX) *- OX) •- OX) •- OX) CD CD CD CD CD CD CU CU cu cu T3 CD CD CD i- CD •- CD t! ox) ox) ox) c* 3 3 CO -o c CO CO +-» o 5 •3 c o '-a H E Q. is s CO E C CO c +-; >. o CD '? _^S CO 'C CD o "C X X •4-t CO CD CU H •f! X o CD *-• o o CD ty) o 1— cu to 3 to o X. 0) a a. cu D. CO to CO 1 CO CO E M i E i 1 ^ -o E 2 T3 -f. T3 CJ a CO CO to CD 0) co c o CD xj CD 0/ cu ox) X OX) OX) CD to 4-» CO CO '-o CO •3 C <= *3 3 3 1— E g .S E .8 1 1 i i 1 i t .8 i 3 3 I xf Uh -a > OX) OX) OX) OX) CD 1cu >1 CD CU CU CU <_ CD CD 3 CQ oa CQ 03 Cm CU CQ f- CO H CQ CQ CQ H CQ O. co c >, -a a. cy) H a- a. (/) U CD 2 h h JS u2m HCO Ihu OX) X> -3 E CO 3 ^ ^ o — >n .— OO oo ON C3S — n co 00 — — ,— 'fN >/-> >o >o X-) VO ^C r^ 2 O Tt— civOMd^D— (J t— r- oo 00 CXSOOOsONONONCjNOOO o o o o O O CN (N (N (N M(N(NN(NNNNmn ro CI ro m m ro

~~146 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~Use-broken proximal fragments of projectile points are normally recovered with the shaft of the hunting implement and discarded~~

away from the locus of use in preparation for or during a retooling event (Keeley 1982; Odell 1980:410; Towner and Warburton 1990:318). Retooling refers to removing a broken hafted element (e.g., a projectile

point) and refitting a still-usable haft (e.g., an arrow shaft) with a new hafted element. The presence of exhausted and broken projectile Figure 22. Selected projectile points, a, points indicates that maintenance of hunting

small side-notched (#2963); b, small expand- implements took place at the White Crack ing stem (#2916.1). site. The discard of use-broken points of Summerville Chalcedony and gray chert from an unknown, but apparently nonlocal, source #2916.1) is manufactured from gray chert indicates that the occupants from an unknown but probably nonlocal of the White Crack site took advantage of local toolstone source. It is truncated laterally across the (particularly Cedar Mesa Chert) to rejuvenate neck by a bending fracture and one corner of mobile toolkits. The nearest known source of the base is truncated by a shearing fracture. Summerville Chalcedony is the La Sal Junc- The other point (Catalog #2781.1) is manu- tion area approximately 45 km east of the factured from Cedar Mesa Chert. It is trun- site. The presence of a Summerville Chalced- cated across the stem below the neck. Again, ony Desert Side-notched point indicates that these are common use-related breakage pat- the source area was included in the territorial terns for projectile points. range of the Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric One small, untypeable Cedar Mesa Chert occupants. fragment (Catalog #3062.1) could be either the stem of a small, expanding-stem projec- Indeterminate Projectile Points or tile point or the tang of a small, side-notched Projectile Point Preforms point (i.e., Desert Side-notched). It is trun- Four tip and midsection fragments (Cata- cated by a bending fracture but because the log #s 2805, 2811, 2917, and 3015) of Cedar orientation of this fragment in relation to the Mesa Chert are either use-broken projectile point is unknown, the breakage pattern can- points or manufacture-broken late-stage pro- not be determined. jectile point preforms. Specimens #2811 and Both Cedar Mesa Chert projectile points #3015 are typical examples of this indetermi- were probably heat treated. This determina- nate tool type (Figure 23). Specimen #2811 tion is based on the degree of luster alone; exhibits the careful edge shaping that might there is no evidence of differential luster. indicate a completed use-broken projectile Therefore, the stage at which heat treatment point. However, there is no indication of occurred cannot be determined. There is no usewear or reworking to conclusively indi- conclusive evidence that any of the other pro- cate utilization. The bending fracture that jectile points were heat treated. truncated this tool could have been produced during either use or manufacture. Specimen

~~147 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~for the retooling event indicated by the discarded projectile point proximal fragments.~~

~~All specimens in this category are heat treated. One (Catalog #2917) retains a de-~~

~~tachment scar (i.e., a remnant of the original~~

~~ventral surface of the flake blank) that is glossy to a degree that indicates the nucleus~~

~~from which it was removed (probably a core) was heat treated. Another (Catalog #2805)~~

~~exhibits differential luster, indicating it was removed from a nonheat-treated nucleus and~~

heat treated at a later stage, although the ex- Figure 23. Selected indeterminate projec- act stage cannot be determined. The other tile point or projectile point preform tips, a, specimens are uniformly glossy to a degree #2811; b, #3015. that indicates they have been heat treated, but

~~the stage is unknown. #3015 does not exhibit the careful edge shaping of Specimen #2811. This lack might be Edged Flake Blank~~

~~indicative of an incomplete projectile point A single edged flake blank (Catalog preform. However, completed projectile #2780) of Cedar Mesa Chert was recovered~~

~~points from the project area are often crudely from the White Crack site (Figure 24). This worked and do not always exhibit careful flake blank was reduced primarily by bifacial~~

edge shaping (Betsy L. Tipps, personal com- edge retouch, which occurs on all extant mar- munication 1995). The bending fracture that gins. The edge retouch created a contiguous truncated this tool also could have been pro- platform for the removal of facial thinning

~~duced during either use or manufacture. flakes and accomplished initial plan view The fracture patterns exhibited by all the shaping. In addition to the edge retouch, a~~

~~projectile point or projectile point preform few facial reduction scars on the dorsal surface tips and midsections could have been pro-~~

~~duced during use, initial manufacture, or rejuvenation. However, use-broken projectile~~

~~point tips or midsections should enter the ar-~~

~~cheological record at the locus of use (i.e., a~~

~~kill site) or may be transported in a carcass to a processing locus (Flenniken 1991:185; Fri-~~

~~son et al. 1976:46). There is no independent evidence that hunting or butchering took~~

~~place at the White Crack site. Therefore, a~~

~~likely scenario is that these tool fragments represent manufacture-broken projectile point~~

~~preforms. If this is the case, they might represent the production of new hafted elements Figure 24. Edged flake blank (#2780).~~

148 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS toward the proximal end of the flake blank evidence that arrow heads of local raw mate- indicate that initial facial thinning of the rial were manufactured at the site. flake blank had begun. The distal portion of the flake blank is truncated by a bending Bifaces fracture. Informal reduction experiments by The single, early-stage quarry biface the author indicate that this fracture pattern (Catalog #3058; Figure 25a) is a large, thick, commonly occurs due to end shock during at- distal fragment of Summerville Chalcedony. tempts at basal thinning (also see Purdy It is truncated laterally across the midsection

1975:135). The flake blank was removed by a bending fracture that initiated along an from a heat-treated nucleus. This edged flake incipient fracture plane. This form of break- blank is morphologically suitable for reduc- age could occur from impact to the distal tion into either the Desert Side-notched or the margin of the tool or end shock during reju- expanding-stem projectile point forms that venation. The tool apparently was utilized, are present in the White Crack site assem- indicating that the specimen did not fracture blage. It is morphologically inconsistent with during primary manufacture. There is mini- any of the other bifacial tool forms recovered mal edge retouch along both lateral margins. from the site. This tool provides further

~~Figure 25. Selected bifaces. a, early-stage quarry biface (#3058); b, late-stage knifelike biface (#3021).~~

~~149 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

In addition, the irregular outline of the lateral efficient mode of toolstone transport, and margins could indicate macrofracturing due their inclusion in mobile toolkits provides to use-related impacts from heavy-duty chop- flexibility to meet a variety of demands on a ping. There is no evidence of edge rounding, contingency basis. The quarry biface from microfracturing, striations, or polish under the White Crack site provides additional evi- low-power magnification. However, usewear dence that the territory of site occupants in- from chopping on hard materials (i.e., hard cluded the Summerville Chalcedony source wood or bone) often produces macrofractur- area. ing and other usewear evidence, such as stria- Catalog #s 3021 and 3058.1 are late- tions and polish, but these are quickly are stage knifelike bifaces made of Cedar Mesa obliterated by the fracture scars (Ode 11 and Chert. Both are retouched in a manner that

Odell-Vereecken 1980:100-101). indicates utilization and maintenance. Each is Quarry bifaces represent a common mode truncated laterally across the midsection by of toolstone transport (Elston 1989, 1992). bending fractures. These fractures could have

They are usually worked into early- or been produced by either use-related impact to middle-stage bifaces at or near the quarry site the distal portions of the tools or end shock and transported away from the quarries for during rejuvenation (Purdy 1975:135). Speci- subsequent refinement and/or utilization. men #3058.1 is highly fragmentary and its Kelly (1988) suggests that these large bifaces original form cannot be determined. Speci- might have been transportable cores, used to men #3021 (Figure 25b) is parallel sided, obtain flake blanks for reduction into other subrectangular, and has a straight base; al- tool forms. In the vicinity of a major quarry though there is no conclusive evidence that it site in north-central Nevada, Ataman and was hafted, the base is carefully thinned to a

Bloomer (1992) found no clear evidence that degree that would facilitate hafting. Both lat- quarry bifaces functioned as cores; they sug- eral margins of this knifelike biface exhibit gest that quarry bifaces might represent pre- small discontinuous patches of edge rounding forms for more refined bifacial knives. About resulting from usewear. The knifelike bifaces 20 km from the same quarry, La Fond (1995c) might have served as cutting implements, and observed that quarry bifaces were often used Specimen #3021 indicates that such tools as tools. This appears to be the case for the may have been utilized in a hafted form. The

White Crack site specimen. These large bi- presence of use-worn knifelike bifaces sug- faces could have performed a variety of func- gests that camp-related maintenance or pro- tions including cutting, planing, and scraping cessing activities might have occurred at the tasks. In addition, they can perform heavy- site. duty tasks such as chopping, cleaving, and Both late-stage projectile point preform pounding that more refined bifacial tools can- fragments (Catalog #s 2818 and 2843; Figure not perform well (Kuhn 1994). The edges of 26) from the White Crack site are also made these tools can be readily rejuvenated to pro- of Cedar Mesa Chert. The basal thinning on vide an extended use-life (Kelly 1985), and each specimen is incomplete, indicating that large bifaces can be reduced into a variety of these tools are projectile point preforms functionally specific bifacial tools, such as rather than finished Cottonwood points (Hol- knifelike bifaces, on a contingency basis mer and Weder 1980; Thomas 1981). In ad- (Boldurian and Hubinsky 1994). Due to these dition, both specimens are truncated laterally characteristics, quarry bifaces represent an across the midsection by perverse fractures.

~~150 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~Expedient Perforator~~

~~A single perforator (Catalog #2936) of~~

~~Cedar Mesa Chert is the only expedient tool~~

~~in the assemblage (Figure 27). It was produced primarily by bifacial edge retouch that~~

~~forms a functional projection on one lateral margin of the flake blank. Limited facial~~

~~thinning flakes removed from the dorsal sur-~~

face of the blank were also accomplished to Figure 26. Late-stage projectile point pre- thin the functional element before bifacial forms, a, #2843; b, #2818. edge retouch. The margin opposite the functional element was also thinned by unifacial

edge retouch to the dorsal surface. The re- This is a common type of manufacture- touch to this margin might have been done to related fracture that often occurs during thin- facilitate hafting. Under low-power magnifi- ning of the preform blade. Both preforms are cation, the functional tip of this tool exhibits morphologically suitable for production of slight edge rounding in a hemispherical pat- either the Desert Side-notched or expanding- tern consistent with utilization as a perfora- stem projectile point forms that are present in tor. There is no indication of usewear on the the assemblage. These specimens are a fur- retouched portion of the opposite margin. ther indication that retooling of hunting im- This specimen is uniformly glossy to a de- plements occurred at the White Crack site. gree that indicates heat treatment. The glossi- Two late-stage bifaces (Catalog #s 2964 ness of the detachment scar indicates the and 3061) of Cedar Mesa Chert are too frag- flake blank was removed from a heat-treated mentary for classification to reduction trajec- nucleus. This tool was apparently used to tory. These specimens could represent pierce soft materials such as animal hide. Its fragments of knifelike bifaces, quarry bifaces, presence suggests camp-related maintenance or large projectile point preforms. Due to or processing activities. their limited interpretive value, they will not be discussed further. One late-stage knifelike biface (Catalog

#3021) exhibits differential luster, indicating that it was heat treated at some point after initial reduction. However, the exact stage at which heat treatment occurred cannot be determined. All the remaining Cedar Mesa Chert bifaces are classified as heat treated based on their degree of luster. None of these specimens exhibits differential luster and none retains detachment scars. Therefore, the stage at which these specimens were heat treated cannot be determined. The Sum- merville Chalcedony biface has no conclusive evidence of heat treatment. Figure 27. Expedient perforator (#2936).

~~151 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~Chipped Stone Cores Chipped Stone Debitage Two chipped stone cores (Catalog #s Results~~

3059 and 3059.1) of Cedar Mesa Chert are A total of 9269 pieces of chipped stone present in the assemblage. Specimen #3059.1 debitage was recovered from the White (Figure 28) was reduced in a random, oppor- Crack site (Table 26). Like the tool assem- tunistic manner. The remnant negative flake blage, the diagnostic debitage type frequen- scars indicate that the detached flakes would cies for all raw materials reflect an emphasis have been morphologically suitable as blanks on production and maintenance of bifacial for expedient flake tools or flake blanks for tools (Table 27). Although some portion of small projectile points. The other specimen is the early-stage reduction flakes could have too fragmentary to determine its type. It ap- resulted from core reduction (see Analytical parently resulted from an accidental splitting Methods above), there is no conclusive evi- of the core during an attempted flake re- dence (i.e., decortication flakes or identifiable moval. Both cores appear to have been heat core reduction flakes) that core reduction oc- treated. Specimen #3059.1 is uniformly curred. Only two chipped stone cores were glossy to a degree that indicates it was heat recovered during investigations at the White treated, but the stage of heat treatment is un- Crack site. However, Vetter (1989) indicates known. Specimen #3059 exhibits differential that these were collected as part of a judg- luster indicating it was heat treated after an mental sample of tools and cores from a initial reduction sequence. dense concentration of debitage, cores, and

~~large bifaces in the northwestern part of the~~

~~site near the canyon rim. Because this area~~

~~was not in danger of impact, no testing or~~

~~Figure 28. Random core (#3059.1).~~

~~152 c~~

~~CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~bO eg *c3 t+H c o o r^O>0i0Tf(N--;'-^OOOOOO oO) H ro^toooooooooooo i- a,~~

~~"co —I ot -*-» Ho o CO •—~~

~~IS T3 T3 C o CO a> uo O tt ^r m — bO X oo CO~~

~~a> bo E co x IS 0) X C/J bO a CO •4-» co *-• |C C J u ^ IT) lO - O M Tf M « OO x c 3 s ON vo oo~~

>. >> c c o o ~o T3 0) > u X X c 1/1 Cl U -a o T3 U U +-» >> JJ -a O f- co co X "C 'n J O u X XCO t: ca o 1 X o 3CO c CO T3 X i- X .2 X Cl) a> k. — o c a" o *-j E u \a S JC I— CO CO "cO > 1 O I— "cO T3 T3 W) E IE CO CO cr» en jr *~t o — o'— _ S 1- 3 X O

~~153 i i '~~

~~CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~oooooooooooooo ©O -? ON oooooooooooooo oO~~

~~o "3- ""3- •— >— H~~

~~OX) 1 m "st" Tf O O O in O o o ' o c en so On en in O in O o o o a in ^1- in so o O cO in vo ce od ri 6 o o o CO— in oo t n ^3 « »n o o o in r/1 U CQ ~oo~~

~~so rn oo in SO en Tf — ' ' cd c On O I — m _C \0 vO (N -^ (N CN c O CN "3- IJH .3. it~~

~~C/3 so 03 CN t-> CNCNOOt-^cn^cnO jd en "^--^--^-odenodsdin en — i r~~

T3 C so en so so so in CN tj- — C*l On o Cl H>n IS u n 00 « ^ '-5 u-i ^ on O C3 C 00 2 -5 C/5 (4-H « eneNr--omi--sDON o o ' (N; (n; en o ^ ^t—; "t ^O m O o o (L) c3 00 C> On CN en OO SO SO On o o On ed U- en ~* CN — en o o CN <-> 'o to e c o % CT a r- oo so — so — ^r — . SO cS 3 en CN On W -o CN CN (L> CN CN C* CN >N c X5 c o o -a -a N c3 c OJ C3 -C o c U -ao o -o U U _o •o o ca ca 'n (U o jS s _o I 9) t: 3 CO c o o 'E e5 "^ -c a> O 3 b S c E o" lis c3 cvl -o -o _bp O E -iii--oo.3(U2-' (J U < m 00 ^OmOOdiJD-O

~~154 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

systematic collection were done, and no debi- maintenance typical of habitation sites (i.e., a tage was collected. residential base camp or field camp) also oc- Cedar Mesa Chert accounts for more curred. than 93 percent of the debitage assemblage Cedar Mesa Chalcedony is present in sig-

(see Table 26). The predominance of this ma- nificant quantities in the White Crack assem- terial is expected, given the occurrence of blage. Although Cedar Mesa Chalcedony Cedar Mesa Chert outcrops immediately be- occurs within the Cedar Mesa Formation low the White Crack site (Vetter 1989; see below the White Crack site and grades into

Chapters 4 and 5). The diagnostic Cedar Cedar Mesa Chert (see Chapters 4 and 5), the Mesa Chert debitage (see Table 27) exhibits Cedar Mesa Chalcedony from the White a bimodal reduction profile. Final biface Crack site has a markedly different reduction thinning/shaping flakes dominate the assem- profile than the Cedar Mesa Chert, which blage and the combined categories of early- would not be expected if the Cedar Mesa stage reduction and early biface thinning Chalcedony at the site is from the same flakes are strongly represented. Relatively source as the Cedar Mesa Chert at the site. few middle biface thinning flakes are present. Final biface thinning/shaping flakes strongly This stage-related flake distribution does not dominate the Cedar Mesa Chalcedony assem- match models for assemblages resulting blage, while earlier stages of reduction are strictly from the manufacture of bifacial insignificantly represented. tools. According to Stevenson (1985:65-66), There are three possible explanations, debitage profiles for assemblages resulting which are not mutually exclusive, for this from the primary manufacture of bifacial Cedar Mesa Chalcedony reduction profile. tools should have a preponderance of early- First, Cedar Mesa Chalcedony may have stage debitage, less frequent debitage from been obtained at some other (nonlocal) Cedar middle reduction stages, and even less debi- Mesa Formation lag deposit within the sub- tage from final stages of production. Thus, sistence territory of the site occupants, and primary manufacture of bifacial tools was not later transported to the site primarily as fin- the only chipped stone reduction activity in- ished tools. Under this scenario, the debitage volving the local Cedar Mesa Chert at the profile would have resulted primarily from

White Crack site. maintenance and rejuvenation of finished Stevenson (1985:67) indicates that occu- tools transported to the site in mobile pation assemblages should include significant toolkits. Although Cedar Mesa Chalcedony amounts of "debitage relating to the refined occurs in the local Cedar Mesa Formation de- flaking, maintenance, and repair of stone posits, it is interspersed within nodules that tools." Such a profile reflects the need to also contain Cedar Mesa Chert. It is possible maintain and repair tools dulled by camp- that pure pieces of Cedar Mesa Chalcedony related maintenance and processing activities were isolated for reduction from this mate- at habitation sites. The presence of debitage rial. However, if this is the case, there should from all stages of biface production indicates still be higher frequencies of early reduction that primary manufacture of bifacial tools and early biface thinning debitage than are from Cedar Mesa Chert occurred at the present in the assemblage. In other words, if

White Crack site. However, the relatively the Cedar Mesa Chalcedony at the White high frequency of final biface thinning/ Crack site was procured from the local de- shaping flakes may indicate that toolkit posits, it should show a reduction profile

155 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS similar to that of Cedar Mesa Chert. Out- Summerville Chalcedony, white chert, crops of the Cedar Mesa Formation, some of obsidian, gray quartzite, and rose chalcedony which potentially contain Cedar Mesa Chal- also exhibit relatively high frequencies of fi- cedony, are widely distributed in the Canyon- nal biface thinning/shaping flakes (or are lands area (Tipps and Hewitt 1989:82-84). represented exclusively by biface thinning/

Therefore, it is possible that the Cedar Mesa shaping flakes) and low frequencies of flakes Chalcedony in the White Crack assemblage from earlier reduction stages. Although the was procured from a nonlocal source, per- small debitage assemblages of these raw ma- haps one bearing more pure masses of Cedar terial types might be misleading, their reduc-

~~Mesa Chalcedony than the local deposits. tion profiles also appear to indicate that they~~

~~Second, it is possible that a higher fre- are nonlocal raw materials transported to the quency of early reduction of Cedar Mesa site primarily as finished tools. Summerville~~

Chalcedony occurred at the site and that the Chalcedony is known to outcrop near La Sal debitage resulting from this reduction is un- Junction approximately 45 km east of the derrepresented due to sampling bias. Spatial White Crack site (Tipps and Hewitt 1989:84). analysis (see Spatial Analysis Results below) Although there might be other unreported

~~indicates that relatively discrete, functionally sources of Summerville Chalcedony in the specific activity areas are present at the site. Canyonlands area, this relatively distant~~

~~It is possible that reduction stations related to source would be consistent with the profile of the primary manufacture of relatively pure the diagnostic debitage from the White Crack~~

Cedar Mesa Chalcedony masses exist but site. were not sampled during the Midwest Ar- Tipps and Hewitt (1989:86) and Tipps cheological Center's investigations. (1995:42) indicate that some white chert in

~~Third, the reduction profile of Cedar archeological assemblages in the Salt Creek,~~

Mesa Chalcedony might simply reflect inher- Devils Lane, and Squaw Butte areas was ob- ent biases in the raw material analysis. As tained from the Cedar Mesa Formation, but mentioned above, Cedar Mesa Chert and that some white chert might derive from non- Chalcedony are often interspersed within the local source(s). Their suggestion that some

~~same nodule; in the local lag deposits, Cedar white chert is nonlocal may be correct. Data~~

Mesa Chert is generally the predominant ma- from the White Crack site suggest that white terial within mixed nodules. Any specimen chert may not occur in the local Cedar Mesa that was predominantly reddish, opaque outcrops, but instead have been transported in Cedar Mesa Chert was coded as Cedar Mesa from a nonlocal source. Chert. Only those specimens that consisted The nearest reported obsidian sources are

~~predominantly or exclusively of purple, trans- in southwestern Utah, including Salina Canyon,~~

~~parent chalcedony were coded as Cedar Mesa Marysvale, and Trough Hollow, all of which~~

~~Chalcedony. Also, later reduction stages pro- lie more than 200 km west of the White~~

~~duce smaller pieces of debitage that are more Crack site. Sources located more than 400 km~~

~~likely to consist primarily of a single material southeast of the White Crack site (Jemez,~~

~~from toolstone masses in which material Mount Taylor, and Mount San Antonio) and types are mixed. This inherent bias could over 350 km southwest (San Francisco Vol-~~

~~have the effect of skewing the apparent re- canic Fields and Partridge Creek) are also po- duction profile for Cedar Mesa Chalcedony tential sources of the obsidian from the White~~

~~toward later stages of reduction. Crack site. The potential for obsidian from~~

156 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS such distant sources is indicated by the pres- conclusive evidence that heat treatment was ence of obsidian from Government Mountain/ involved in the reduction technologies used Sitgreaves Peak in the Squaw Butte Area for Cedar Mesa Chalcedony, Summerville (Hughes 1995;Tipps 1995). Chalcedony, white chert, gray chert, and

At present, there is no indication of the brown chalcedony. In addition, they confirm potential sources of gray quartzite and rose evidence in the tool and core assemblage that chalcedony (Tipps 1995; Tipps and Hewitt heat treatment played a crucial role in the re- 1989; Betsy L. Tipps, personal communica- duction technologies associated with Cedar tion 1996). The White Crack assemblage pro- Mesa Chert. vides no additional evidence regarding Some Cedar Mesa Chert early-stage re- potential sources of these materials except to duction and early biface thinning flakes ex- indicate that they are not local to the current hibit differential luster, indicating that some project area. portion of biface manufacture at the site was Algalitic Chert, brown chert, gray chert, performed on flake blanks removed from and brown chalcedony all have relatively sig- nonheat-treated nuclei. This interpretation nificant frequencies of debitage resulting supports evidence from the core assemblage. from early and middle reduction stages. Final Although both cores recovered from the site biface thinning/shaping flakes are also are heat treated, one clearly indicates that strongly represented in the debitage assem- heat treatment did not occur until after the blages of all these material types. Tipps and first series of flake removals. In addition,

~~Hewitt (1989:85-87) and Tipps (1995:42-43, some middle and final biface thinning flakes~~

~~1996:72) indicate that Algalitic Chert and still retain dull, pre-heat treatment surfaces, brown chert might be present in the Cedar indicating that heat treatment was sometimes~~

Mesa Formation, at least as isolated occur- delayed until well into the bifacial reduction rences. The reduction profiles for these mate- sequence. These phenomenon probably re- rials in the White Crack assemblage suggest flect a risk-reduction strategy employed by that they might have been obtained from lo- the prehistoric flintworkers. cal deposits of the Cedar Mesa Formation Temperature is difficult to control when and support these earlier observations. The heat treating large, unreduced masses of tool- source of the gray chert is currently unknown stone (Crabtree 1966:17; Luedtke 1992:100). (Tipps 1995:43; Tipps and Hewitt 1989:86). Delaying heat treatment until the toolstone

The Honaker Trail Formation is a known has been partially reduced decreases the risk source of gray chert (Tipps 1996:74) and this of thermal fracture and minimizes the loss of formation outcrops along the river in the usable toolstone during heat treatment. In ad-

~~Island-in-the-Sky District. If gray chert is ex- dition, this practice reduces potential post- posed in this portion of the Honaker Tail heat treatment manufacture loss. Although~~

Formation, it may be the source of the gray heat treatment makes flake detachment easier chert at the White Crack site. Based on their and more controlled, it also makes toolstone reduction profiles, both the gray chert and more brittle and, therefore, more prone to brown chalcedony come from toolstone manufacture failure (Ahler 1983; Luedtke sources located near the site. 1992:105; Purdy 1975:135; Rick 1978). Early

Heat treatment data on the criteria of dif- stages of chipped stone reduction require the ferential luster are presented for all material application of relatively great force to re- types in Table 28. These data provide move large masses of toolstone. Due to the

~~157 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~158 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~force asserted during early stages of reduc- before transport to the site, despite the prox- tion, manufacture failure of heat-treated tool- imity of the site to the toolstone outcrops.~~

stone is more likely to occur during earlier Although the cortex data for the remain- than later stages of reduction. Therefore, de- ing raw materials have little interpretive laying heat treatment until later stages of re- value, a few pertinent observations can be duction maximizes the return of usable made. The presence of cortex-bearing pieces toolstone by reducing potential waste from of Algalitic Chert and brown chert might manufacture failure. However, heat treatment support inferences from the diagnostic debi- was a prerequisite to refined bifacial reduc- tage profile that these materials are from a tion of Cedar Mesa Chert. nearby source, possibly the local deposits of Very few of the debitage specimens in the Cedar Mesa Formation. However, a few the White Crack assemblage have cortex. specimens of cortex-bearing debitage do not Only 168 pieces of Cedar Mesa Chert and necessarily indicate a local source. Sum- one specimen each of Algalitic Chert, gray merville Chalcedony is a nonlocal material chert, brown chert, and Cedar Mesa Chalced- but one specimen has remnant surfaces with ony have remnants of primary geologic cor- weathered cortex. Small cores and early-stage tex. Only five specimens of Cedar Mesa quarry bifaces that are fairly likely to possess

Chert and one specimen each of Cedar Mesa cortex can be included in mobile toolkits and Chalcedony and Summerville Chalcedony transported long distances before continued have remnant surfaces with weathered cortex. reduction. Although the data are limited, the The low frequency of cortex-bearing Cedar presence of primary geologic cortex on just a Mesa Chert debitage and the absence of single specimen each of gray chert and brown decortication flakes are clear indications that chalcedony supports the diagnostic debitage most Cedar Mesa Chert was partially reduced profiles' indications of a nearby source. Al-

~~before transport to the site (or at least the though it is possible that these materials are~~

tested portions of the site). Although interior also present in the Cedar Mesa Formation as portions of some masses of Cedar Mesa isolated occurrences, they may represent an Chert contain moderate- to high-quality chert, unidentified toolstone source related to some most masses are not homogenous, and the other geologic formation that outcrops nearby.

better quality chert is interspersed with No specimens of either material type have in- poorly silicified material. In addition, cal- cipient cone cortex, indicating that an alluvial cium carbonate inclusions and incipient frac- source, such as the gravels of the nearby

ture planes are abundant in most masses of Green River, is unlikely. Cedar Mesa Chert (Tipps 1995). Therefore, a large amount of waste material would be pro- Spatial Analysis Results duced during the testing of Cedar Mesa Chert The tool types and debitage profiles of and the initial reduction required to expose the six major provenience areas at the White higher quality portions of toolstone. A good Crack site were investigated for any signifi- deal of time and energy would have been cant intrasite spatial patterning and functional wasted transporting unreduced masses of tool- interpretations. The major provenience units stone, much of which would be waste mate- and the sampling methods the Midwest rial, up to the White Rim. This explains why Archeological Center used in each one are most Cedar Mesa Chert was partially reduced provided in the introduction to this chapter.

~~159 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~Before discussing the results of this Likewise, the small areal extent of the analysis, it should be stressed that the areas excavation units limits the interpretive poten-~~

represented by these major provenience units tial of the assemblages from the excavation were sampled at different levels and in differ- areas. Although these assemblages probably ent ways, which could introduce significant represent portions of discrete activity or oc- bias to any spatial interpretations. For exam- cupation assemblages, the full range and rela- ple, artifacts from the excavation units were tive significance of activities that occurred in recovered through one-eighth-inch mesh these areas might not be represented. The screening, resulting in a more inclusive sam- judgmental grab sample of cores and tools ple of artifacts from the excavation units than suggests the existence of a spatially discrete the surface collection units, which were not and potentially functionally specific activity screened. Biases inherent in surface collec- area, but the lack of a debitage sample from tion, including the greater visibility of larger the area precludes interpretation of the full artifacts, could have reduced the frequency of range of manufacturing activities. Finally, the

~~smaller debitage types in surface assem- presence of a campground in the middle of~~

blages. Taphonomic processes such as tram- the site means illegal surface collection has pling, cryoturbation, and bioturbation also likely taken place, probably reducing the fre- could have reduced the representation of cer- quency and diversity of tools. tain artifact sizes on the site surface. Because of these limitations, caution Size-related biases introduced by differ- must be exercised in any interpretation of ent sampling procedures can have a direct ef- spatial patterning. However, the data do al- fect on functional interpretations. For low for somewhat generalized observations example, within a reduction trajectory, debi- regarding site function and spatial patterning tage produced during later stages of reduction during prehistoric occupation of the White tends to be smaller than that produced in ear- Crack site.

~~lier stages. Therefore, size-related biases The most obvious differential spatial pat-~~

~~might skew interpretations of the stages of terning is between the judgmental grab sam-~~

~~manufacture accomplished in any given area. ple area and the other major provenience~~

~~The relative intensity of sampling in the units. This is the only major provenience that~~

~~various major provenience units could also shows evidence of core reduction (e.g., expe-~~

~~bias functional interpretations. For example, dient cores) (Table 29). This confirms Vet-~~

~~the Campground Collection unit was inter's (1989:12-13) observation that "The~~

~~tensely sampled, compared with 20-percent concentrations [in the area of the grab sam-~~

~~random areal coverage in the transect units. ple] included many cores and decortication~~

~~Extensive areal coverage is more likely to flakes not seen in the campground area." provide a representative sample of the variety Although primary manufacture of bifaces~~

~~of activities that might have occurred in an occurred in all other major provenience units,~~

~~area. Functionally specific activity areas the debitage assemblages from these areas in- might have been missed by the random sur- dicate that reduction was accomplished on~~

face collection units in the transect areas, either flake blanks produced by core reduc- which could lead to a biased representation tion elsewhere or toolstone chunks partially of the variety and relative significance of ac- reduced elsewhere. In contrast, artifacts re-

~~tivities that occurred in and around these covered and reported from the concentrations sampled areas. near the grab sample might represent one or~~

~~160 > 1 ' » •~~

~~CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~m ~ — (N (N CM — m _ _ ^_ o~~

~~I I II~~

~~o to U c _o '-*— D to .*_, > II I III tO "Sp c W 3 o0) c OJ c o 'S #'^ <— > tO *-> o £ "S I I I I I I D. o D X OL. 'J? E -o c to~~

~~— . Tfr I I — I~~

~~>> 8° X) H Uc/i ol_ cj c ea~~

~~r i o Jo u e o~~

T3 (U T3 a. C (3 a. 3 .o O *-< 15 — o r— OJ U a- i '5 form Q. oj OJ Q. a> -a -*! Q. X a. bfi OJ oj OJ c to Jo _oj to 00 _0J — i— 3 5= g to Q. Q. a> E H 3 "to ^^ *— u T3 1 CO ,c CO _ o u •5 o o 1 — 1 3 3 "o u OJ OJ CJ T3 _>p OJ to 4 3 1 1 '5 o "o I— — 'o 'o o Q. 3 ~2 •— to "to a. CJ a. I— a. X to o PL, UJ uu J J O Q- a. ua OS -3

~~161 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

more functionally discrete reduction stations from Excavation Unit 2 might be an occupa- associated with the initial stages of chipped tion assemblage (i.e., a residential base camp stone reduction. However, the full range of or field camp assemblage). activities that occurred in the area of the grab The assemblages from Transect 1 and the sample in the northwestern portion of the site Campground Collection also indicate that cannot be determined without a larger collec- multiple activities occurred at the site. Spe- tion including a debitage sample. cifically, use-broken projectile point proximal Some generalized interpretations can be fragments from both of these provenience drawn from the data regarding the potential units, plus late-stage projectile point pre- range of activities in the other major prove- forms, an edged flake blank, projectile point nience units. Both excavation units have or projectile point preform midsection and tip higher frequencies of final biface thinning/ fragments, and an expedient perforator from shaping flakes than early-stage debitage types the Campground Collection, indicate retool- relative to other major provenience units (Ta- ing of hunting implements and processing or ble 30). This difference may exist partially maintenance activities occurred in these areas because the excavation units were screened, (see Table 29). resulting in the retrieval of a larger number Debitage data (see Table 30) indicate that of small flakes. However, it is also likely that primary manufacture of bifacial tools was the difference at least partially results from also a major activity in the Transect 1 and the types of activities performed in that por- Campground Collection areas. In addition, tion of the site. The representation of all the debitage assemblage from each area is bi-

~~stages of biface reduction indicates that pri- modal, with emphases on early and late mary manufacture of bifacial tools occurred stages of reduction, probably indicating both~~

~~in this area. The bimodal nature of the debi- the primary manufacture and rejuvenation of tage profiles in the excavation areas is incon- bifacial tools. In combination, the debitage~~

~~sistent with assemblages resulting strictly and tool data from the Transect 1 and Camp-~~

from the primary manufacture of tools. The ground Collection units indicate that both ar- high frequency of final biface thinning/ eas hosted multiple activities, and were not shaping flakes may indicate that rejuvenation simply chipped stone reduction stations.

~~and maintenance of bifacial tools were also No tools were recovered from Transect 2,~~

~~significant activities. and there is no clear indication that any ac-~~

~~The projectile point or projectile point tivities besides the primary manufacture of~~

~~preform tip recovered from Excavation Unit bifacial tools were significant in this area. In~~

~~1 was most likely broken during manufac- fact, the debitage assemblage from this area~~

~~ture, indicating that hunting implements were (see Table 30) has the least significant repre- retooled. The knifelike biface recovered from sentation of final biface thinning flakes and~~

~~Excavation Unit 2 is utilized and was broken the highest relative frequency of middle biface~~

~~during use or rejuvenation at the site. Its thinning flakes of any major provenience~~

~~presence might indicate that camp-related unit. This assemblage is most consistent with maintenance or processing activities occurred debitage resulting from the primary manufac-~~

~~in the area. Based on this indication, in com- ture of bifaces. Apparently, the rejuvenation~~

~~bination with the representation of debitage and maintenance of tools were relatively in-~~

~~from tool manufacture and rejuvenation, all significant activities in the Transect 2 area.~~

~~in close proximity to a hearth, the assemblage~~

~~162 —~~

~~CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~o © O o © © O © o o O © © o q o q o q © o o o o o d d d d d d d d d d d c o o o © o o o o od o c~~

~~o\ CO oo ST, m so f- >^ CN o B a- — ^— ^~ cr 1 03 n UU~~

52) B CN o -!- o o a- o o © CN iy, IT) r~- o c u ° © q © © c o\ r^ rt d d IH d d d c y, 3 -c 03 t on SO o in r^- t o H u. o(U U c U B w a. 1 1 CO oo re VO m t CN 'c CO C CO en -t > 03 o B D. i_ O

-f O o © SO i O CO o o i '/-> >r, >/-, o -r in Os o o -9 ir, CN ri d CO ri '/-, d d SO -t- m -1- •/-, u a. >> f- bo u o3 en SO 'r, n u-> CN r- n i 5 ~ H C so o -t- U u -a o Q -o a c CO « ox. w o O i © i 1 i Q. 'J s ° © n o- ,-H E **- ri d cs U- -r 03 m Ctf) U B E >* B >^ % B tu J3 B - ' CN • • i 1 ' ' '

~~13 1 i l) -r O O © O n © o >r, r-j -^ ° p © q q © (LI ©' rrt o ^ 'r, t-^ ri .Ml © o d t/5 r«l CN i/-, n ri n ri © O re P-, C/3 B g> >. O 03 '•5 o re , , 3 -t B i- c~~

~~163 '~~

~~CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~o o o o o o o o o o o T3 p p p ° p p p p o o o o o o o d o o o o o o 3 o o o o o o o o o o o _C c o o --Nt « — (N - m >o M NO~~

VI O U 5/i o o m c o o o in o q rn 00 oo o o p q B oo IE t in o NO o E- E (- u- u 8 «> u 60 ,« .E c c (+- '3. 3 D — — n m M "t in 03 NO (N On 0) (N rs o 15 00 c c o Ih D- — U u. tlfl 00 03 c (/> "3 UV} jy T3 13 CnI — 2

~~Uoo uoo — o (L) oo -o o ,03 1 er- (N c o2~ CtM u. d CQ ao in oo _c >>.E >i '3 "C c 03 C i c UJ H 13H~~

~~o U ? p ^ O" o Maj 03 ro E "T3 *-• uo C >^ o oo O C3 3 C LU T3 bO U OS~~

~~C/JU 'o e O c a -S T3 3 cr 03 — u (LI 1> Q- a. u >. u H ~ Ji 03 rj J- oo u r3 oo Ji >~~

~~— S 3 b - X) 03 03 03 03 C -av — ^3 0) ^ ^P i— ^ aj i— U < a oo u a~~

~~164 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS ooooooooo OOOOOOOOO T3 ooooooooo ooooooooo CD ooooooooo o ooooooooo 3 ooooooooo ooooooooo _C c o~~

~~o CO Tf « 0O Tf V~> — 1 Tt — ON (N oo — CO~~

~~c v~> en r^ o o o o c (NOO — OOOOO CN co no o oo o o to «noo — ooooo 'S e CD w c vd o iri o o 3 O ^oo^o'oooo IS NO 00 NO O On O o V a N0>00^000>/->0~~

~~H i H Uh u 0/) c C - c^ Tfr r- CN| m O no m r~»~~

~~n> — r-- CJ NO CO o r- no "i — rn o v- 0> NO NO O NO — o — CO S u u u. Ofl Q. jf to c CJ c U c 43 (N OO~~

~~IS 2 CD~~

~~cd Q 4-> C5 (« cd eg CO i c ^. c c a e s c UJ UJ J3H 43H~~

~~ao o o no r~- CO Tf NO +-> NO o s. M rJ IS u m o m a . o >^ on o u cd Sa 3! 3 TT • — ' — O W n LU c cj CJ OS a: CO~~

o C/i 0) c >% o o o c c T3 -3 o CJ u"8 U u J es J3 c — cd t od u f- — — to o> > _ U u o .8 u « CJ r a U J3 m u o u 1 '3 *> cj re 'C ^ •j c o B J jd u ._ CJ E T3 c3 79 >-, 1 r5 u ? X5 I | — tn V -a S .2 Sfl cd E T3 C cd 42 tit « o = 5 a ^- _C >

~~165 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

Different biface reduction trajectories the primary manufacture of larger bifacial produce debitage of diverse sizes throughout tools. As suggested above, tool rejuvenation the reduction continuum. Although biface was probably a relatively insignificant activ- production and/or rejuvenation accounts for ity in the Transect 2 area. A reduction em- all reduction activities in the Excavation phasis on the primary manufacture of large

Units 1 and 2, Transects 1 and 2, and Camp- bifacial tools such as quarry bifaces would be ground Collection areas, an examination of consistent with the production of the large the average flake size by stage of reduction average flake size exhibited by the assem- reflects differences in the types of bifacial blage from this area. The data for the Exca- tools produced and/or maintained in the areas vation Unit 2, Transect 1, and Campground represented by the various major provenience Collection assemblages probably reflect a units. mix of manufacture and rejuvenation involv-

Table 3 1 provides the average size of in- ing a variety of bifacial tool types. dividual debitage specimens for each major Three units near the middle of Transect 2 provenience unit, utilizing count to weight ra- (Units 76, 78, and 79) have a higher flake tios as a proxy for size. The average debitage frequency than other units in the transect.

~~specimen is markedly smaller in Excavation Combined, these units yielded 64 percent~~

Unit 1 and significantly larger in Transect 2 (n=435) of the diagnostic debitage assem- than the average specimen in the assemblage blage (n=677) from Transect 2. Due to the as a whole. Table 32 provides average flake possibility that the dense concentration of ar-

~~size data by diagnostic debitage type for each tifacts from these units reflects a discrete ac-~~

~~major provenience unit. Again, the average tivity or occupation assemblage, the nature of~~

~~specimen size in the Excavation Unit 1 as- the debitage assemblage from these units was~~

~~semblage is significantly smaller than the site further explored.~~

~~average; average specimen size in the Tran- Of the total 435 pieces of diagnostic deb-~~

~~sect 2 assemblage is significantly larger than itage from these units, 433 specimens are~~

~~the site average. These size data suggest that made of Cedar Mesa Chert. The diagnostic~~

~~bifacial reduction in the Excavation Unit 1 Cedar Mesa Chert debitage from Units 76 area might have focused on the production and 78 has a similar reduction profile (Table~~

~~and maintenance of relatively small, refined 33) and is relatively evenly distributed be-~~

~~bifacial tools, whereas reduction in the Tran- tween the various debitage types. This pattern~~

~~sect 2 area might have involved principally is consistent with assemblages resulting~~

~~Table 31. Debitage counts and weights by major provenience unit, White Crack site.~~

~~Average Debitage~~

~~Major Provenience Unit Debitage Total Debitage Weight (g) We ight (g) Campground Collection 3893 1526.1 0.39~~

~~Transect 1 481 176.1 0.37 Transect 2 747 769.4 1.03~~

~~Excavation Unit 1 2336 267.7 0.11 Excavation Unit 2 1812 556.5 0.31~~

~~Total 9269 3295.8 0.36~~

~~166 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~a> GO 00 OO O r- n -r -^ (N o cd < O © o © o o U< o (50 cd .3 c+2 'a, _Cd so so m in S cd (50 J3 o t-- (N OO od 15 WO OO OS ~ -^ o ~So so Cd _g u Uh _c SO oo OO O OS O OO~~

~~a 00 3 (50 (50 (N OS m oo ^J > ^~~

CJ ' 1—1 cd © ' a © © c > oo Tf OS o o CN u-s. i c so o £ © od o SO m IS H CN o -a H 63' § o(U a 3 a, <4-5 SO Os CN Os -o >> On en m c H CQ O cd - CN od > ffl (50 o m rn X) _c 15 so ^ >> '3 -t so iri W S ISH SO cr. r- (N t>

~~CO O 1=1 bO CO (50 bO oo ^ m o (s) 00 rn -h ffj~~

~~(N m — > 03 ~o c C cd D E cd cd o cd U u. •— X X o U H H w UJ f-~~

~~167 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~Table 33. Frequencies of diagnostic Cedar Mesa Chert debitage by debitage type~~

~~in Units 76, 78, and 79 of Transect 2, White Crack site.~~

Debitage Type Early Middle Final Biface Early- stage Biface Biface Thinning/ Reduction Thinning Thinning Shaping Flakes Flakes Flakes Flakes T01 Transect Unit n % n % n % n % n % Unit 76 102 43.4 10 4.26 47 20.0 76 32.34 235 100.00 Unit 78 36 36.0 3 3.00 24 24.0 37 37.00 100 100.00 Unit 79 26 26.5 2 2.04 20 20.4 50 51.02 98 100.00

~~Total 164 37.9 15 3.46 91 21.0 163 37.64 433 100.00~~

mostly from the primary manufacture of bi- At least two assemblages represent poten- facial tools. In addition, the average flake tially spatially and functionally discrete size (Table 34) for each reduction stage is chipped stone reduction stations, each involv- relatively large. Combined, these data appear ing a distinct set of reduction activities. In to indicate that the manufacture of large bi- addition, a small assemblage of tools and facial tools was the primary, if not exclusive, debitage from another area suggests a poten- reduction activity in Units 76 and 78 of Tran- tially spatially and functionally discrete re-

~~sect 2. The reduction that occurred in Units tooling area. Multiple activities suggestive of~~

76 and 78 is apparently responsible for the occupation assemblages are indicated in other reduction profile for Transect 2 as a whole. areas of the site on the coarse scale of inves- The reduction profile and average flake tigation allowed by the scope of the current size by debitage type are markedly different project.

~~in Unit 79 of Transect 2. The diagnostic de- Although limited in range, the spatial~~

bitage from Unit 79 is skewed toward final analysis of the White Crack site assemblage biface thinning/shaping flakes. In addition, indicates the potential of chipped stone tool the average size of middle-stage and late- analysis for identifying and interpreting ac-

~~stage debitage specimens is significantly tivity and occupation assemblages. Given an~~

smaller than in Units 76 and 78. These data appropriate sampling strategy, an adequate suggest that the Unit 79 debitage assemblage sample obtained from large-scale data recov- primarily resulted from the reduction of ery, refined provenience data, and good

~~smaller bifacial tools that were staged (i.e., chronological control, investigations of the~~

~~partially reduced) elsewhere, or from the re- nature of and relationship between various~~

~~juvenation of bifacial tools. activity and occupation assemblages at such a~~

~~In summary, although the spatial analysis site are possible. Such investigations can pro-~~

~~presented here is limited by the nature and vide valuable insight into the function of a~~

~~extent of the recovery efforts undertaken by site throughout its occupational history. the Midwest Archeological Center at the~~

~~White Crack site, significant insight has been~~

~~gained regarding differential use of the site.~~

~~168 > ^N'^' i~~

~~CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~,«» .s~~

~~'bO en 00 (N co PQ« 3 s^^- O co in co CN H 1 co so~~

~~o co s co in~~

<-> s go -a +-> bO > 3 ,_, 13 "So -r CN t-^ 't« 3 .£2 J> o s— so o in H o in CN oo > CO GO ^— o 3 GO < o^ vd od od u S CD ^ o H '-S t4_| CO _^ O ^_ PQ bO 4— bO VO oo in s ^ s*-^ bet- o o od vd in H Os CN as T3 13 s e« 3 ^ ^ 5 w a o oo" oo O CO (N +-> r- C .fie % X) c c D bO 'bfi VO CN — c v-*' co > CO ^O rf c 03 3 ^ CS -O -Li -a

~~(-' Dj3 !->o OJ oo VO 0O ON C t-» r~- r-~ CO I- '3 H 'SD 'SD D~~

~~169 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

Research Results The only additional chronological data from the site is a single radiocarbon date of The different sampling methods used to 2990 ± 70 B.P. (Vetter 1989) obtained from a investigate the site in the field, the small tool diffuse hearth in Excavation Unit 2. This date sample, and the limited chronological control indicates a Terminal Archaic occupation of impose limitations on the interpretations that the site. The extent of Archaic activity and can be derived from the White Crack site the relative significance of Archaic materials data. Nevertheless, the chipped stone assem- within the White Crack chipped stone assemblage provides data pertinent to each of the blage cannot be determined due to the limited research issues outlined at the beginning of testing in Excavation Unit 2 and the lack of the chapter. In addition, the results presented chronological control in most other areas of here might help establish a framework for fu- the site. However, the combined chronologi- ture investigations in Canyonlands. cal data indicate that the site was occupied on more than one occasion and by more than Chronology and Cultural one cultural group. Affiliation

A single Desert Side-notched point is the Settlement Patterns only temporally and culturally diagnostic ar- As discussed in the Research Issues sec- tifact in the chipped stone assemblage from tion above, determining site function is an the White Crack site. The other small side- important aspect of investigating settlement notched point recovered does not correspond patterns. Due to its propinquity to Cedar with any established projectile point type for Mesa Chert sources, it was suspected that the the project area but might be an aberrant site might have functioned as a chipped stone Desert Side-notched point. Holmer (1986:107) reduction station related to diurnal foraging believes that Desert Side-notched points date or short-term, logistic toolstone procurement between A.D. 1200 and 1700 on the Colo- forays. Two potential chipped stone reduction rado Plateau. However, Reed (1994:191) stations identified during the analysis appear suggests that they might occur as early as to result from the production of flake blanks

A.D. 1 100. Desert Side-notched points are di- and large bifacial tool forms. These items agnostic of Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric oc- could have been manufactured for use at the cupation by Numic speakers. Historical site or in preparation for transport of tool- records indicate that the Ute and Southern stone away from the site. It is advantageous Paiute were the primary Numic-speaking in- to accomplish early reduction at or near the habitants of the project region (Reed quarry to minimize transport costs and maxi-

1 994: 1 88). Although the Desert Side-notched mize the amount of usable toolstone trans- point indicates at least one Late Prehistoric/ ported (Elston 1992:790-798). occupation of the White Crack Protohistoric Thomas (1983:73) explains that base site, no Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric activity camps are "the hub of all subsistence ac- or occupation assemblages could be isolated, tivities . . . where most processing, manufac- and the relative significance of Late Prehistoric/ turing, and maintenance activities occur." Protohistoric occupations in creating the arti- Chipped stone assemblages from base camps fact assemblage could not be determined. should contain evidence of artifact fabrication

~~through all stages of manufacture, evidence~~

~~170 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS of artifact repair, and evidence of tools relate-stage bifacial reduction debitage in some~~

~~lated to other activities such as food process- areas is a further indication of tool rejuvena- ing. Thomas (1983:79-80) explains that: tion and might indicate the repair and mainte-~~

~~nance of tools that were utilized at the White~~

~~Field camps are temporary centers of op- Crack site. Evidence of retooling can be particularly eration where a special-purpose task indicative of a base camp because this activ-~~

group sleeps, eats, and otherwise main- ity involves the marshaling of new hafted elements, possibly new hafts, binding mate- tains itself while away from the residen- rial (e.g., sinew or cordage), fabricating tools,

~~tial base . . . The artifact inventory at and possibly mastic (e.g., juniper or pine~~

pitch). When mastic is used, a small fire is such a logistic camp would be small, required (Binford 1986). The marshaling of consisting primarily of highly curated resources, preparation of facilities, and execution of retooling and rehafting takes time. personal 'gear,' specialized implements Therefore, this activity generally occurs at

for extraction, and debris from limited ar- residential base camps where the necessary resources and time are available (Binford tifact repair. 1979:269-270; Keeley 1982:804; Thomas 1983:73-81; Towner and Warburton

Field camp assemblages are smaller and rela- 1990:318-319). tively less diverse than residential base camp The chipped stone assemblage from the assemblages. However, because a group must White Crack site indicates functional vari-

~~maintain itself at a field camp, there should ability. However, delineation of functionally be evidence of camp-related maintenance and specific assemblages and investigation of the~~

~~processing activities. potential temporal and behavioral relation-~~

~~Characteristics of the White Crack site ships between such assemblages are compli- assemblage are consistent with these expecta- cated by the lack of large-scale sampling, the~~

~~tions and suggest that the site might have utilization of different sampling methods on functioned as a short-term residential base various portions of the site, and the sparse~~

~~camp or a field camp, at least on occasion. chronological data. Thus, such delineation Specifically, the presence of proximal projec- and investigation are possible in only a few~~

~~tile point fragments, projectile point pre- instances. forms, and undifferentiated projectile point or Excavation Unit 2 was placed over a dif-~~

~~projectile point preform tips and midsections fuse charcoal stain that returned an Archaic~~

indicates that the site was used to retool and radiocarbon date. Data recovery efforts in rehaft hunting implements. A small assem- this test unit were limited to surface collec- 2- blage of utilized, discarded tools (particularly tion of the entire by 2-m unit encompass- stain the utilized expedient scraper) is further indi- ing the and excavation of a single cation of toolkit rejuvenation and might indi- quadrant situated in the area of darkest stain- cate that camp-related maintenance or ing. Due to the discrete nature of the investi-

processing activities occurred at the site. The gations in this area and the close association strong bimodal distribution of early- and of artifacts from this unit with a feature, artifacts recovered from Excavation Unit 2

~~171 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~probably represent an Archaic assemblage. 1979:259-261). Similarly, seasonally avail-~~

This assemblage is the best indication of a able subsistence resources could have sus- potential spatially discrete occupation assem- tained people during logistic forays to the blage, at the coarse level of spatial analysis area for toolstone procurement. Such forays allowed by the scope of the current project. would have required the establishment of The debitage assemblage from this area indi- field camps where the group could maintain cates that tools were manufactured and reju- itself while toolstone procurement and pro- venated in the immediate vicinity of the cessing activities were carried out. The White hearth. In addition, a discarded utilized knife- Crack site may have had different functions

~~like biface suggests that tool rejuvenation at various times throughout its prehistoric oc- and/or camp-related maintenance or process- cupation. The current data do not allow for~~

ing activities occurred in the area. The close full resolution of this issue. association of a lithic artifact assemblage re- Group mobility is another key component sulting from multiple activities with a hearth of settlement patterning. The chipped stone

~~is consistent with models for short-term base assemblage from the tested areas of the site camp or field camp assemblages (Tipps strongly focused on formal bifacial tools. As~~

~~1993). However, because surface collection noted earlier, this form of technological or-~~

in this area was limited to the 2- by 2-m ganization is normally associated with high block, and most activity areas on short-term mobility settlement patterns (Andrefsky camps are at least 5-6 m across, the full ex- 1994; Bamforth 1986; Kelly 1988). Formal tent of the Archaic occupation assemblage bifacial tool technology is adopted by mobile cannot be determined. Furthermore, due to people because it conserves toolstone and the lack of large-scale data recovery, any po- provides flexibility in response to toolstone tential relationship between the Excavation shortages. The predicted shortages are a Unit 2 materials and those of nearby Excava- manifestation of uneven toolstone distribution tion Unit 1 (located less than 20 m away) in the area included in a group's seasonal cannot be determined. round. Although toolstone is abundant and

To summarize the site function data, sev- relatively evenly distributed in some portions eral specialized activity assemblages could be of the Canyonlands area, other areas, such as associated with diurnal foraging or short-term the White Rim, have relatively few toolstone

~~logistic forays to the White Crack site or they resources (Betsy L. Tipps, personal commu- could be specialized activity areas associated nication 1996) that appear to be unevenly~~

~~with residential occupation. Portions of the distributed on a large scale. Therefore, it~~

~~site might have functioned as a short-term would have been advantageous for mobile~~

~~residential base camp or field camp, and one hunter-gatherers in the Canyonlands area to such assemblage dates to the Archaic time practice a chipped stone technology empha-~~

~~frame. If the site was a base camp or field sizing formal bifacial tools. camp, subsistence resources must have been The third element of the chipped stone~~

~~seasonably available at the White Crack site investigations regarding settlement patterns is~~

~~in quantities sufficient to sustain mobile fam- identification of territorial ranges. Specifi-~~

~~ily groups for at least short periods of time. cally, raw materials that can be linked to spe-~~

~~This would allow for embedded procurement cific toolstone sources strongly indicate the of toolstone from local deposits by occupants subsistence range of prehistoric populations.~~

~~engaged in their subsistence rounds (Binford Summerville Chalcedony is the only nonlocal~~

172 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS raw material in the White Crack assemblage assemblage (e.g., white chert, gray quartzite, for which a source is known. This material rose chalcedony, and obsidian) in archeologi- outcrops in the Tidwell Formation of the cal assemblages could help pinpoint source

Morrison Formation approximately 45 km areas and help elucidate the territorial ranges east of the White Crack site near La Sal of the Canyon lands area's various prehistoric Junction (Tipps 1995:40-41) and may occur occupants. in other areas as well. The Summerville Chalcedony Desert Side-notched point recov- Environmental Adaptation ered from the site strongly indicates that the Investigations in this domain focused on Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric occupants of the relative importance of local raw materials the site practiced a highly mobile subsistence in the technology system, and identifying the strategy (at least seasonally) and had a terri- reduction trajectories utilizing local raw ma- torial range that included the La Sal Junction terials as well as the technologies involved in area. The recovery of an early-stage quarry local toolstone reduction. Data relevant to biface and a small debitage assemblage of these issues are summarized below. Summerville Chalcedony are further indica- Local Cedar Mesa Chert is the predomi- tions that this material was included in nant raw material involved in both the pri- toolkits of the White Crack site's mobile oc- mary manufacture of and rejuvenation of cupants. However, the temporal association bifacial tools. This toolstone accounts for ap- of these other artifacts cannot be determined. proximately 94 percent of the debitage as- As discussed above, Cedar Mesa Chal- semblage, 78 percent of the tool assemblage, cedony co-occurs with Cedar Mesa Chert in and both chipped stone cores. Other tool- some geological deposits, including those be- stones potentially occurring in the Cedar low the White Crack site, and the two materi- Mesa Formation deposits below the site, in- als are often mixed within the same nodule. cluding Cedar Mesa Chalcedony, Algalitic Diagnostic debitage profiles of Cedar Mesa Chert, brown chalcedony, and brown chert, Chalcedony in the Salt Creek Pocket (Tipps account for approximately 5 percent of the and Hewitt 1989) and Squaw Butte (Tipps debitage assemblage. Because toolstone- 1995) areas, and the White Crack site are bearing Cedar Mesa Formation deposits are consistent with expectations of a nonlocal relatively abundant in the Canyonlands area. source relative to the individual project areas. Cedar Mesa toolstone would likely be the This could indicate that specific Cedar Mesa dominant material in mobile toolkits carried Formation deposits removed from the various to the site. Therefore, some tools and preproject areas contain relatively pure masses forms manufactured from Cedar Mesa of Cedar Mesa Chalcedony. Continued iden- materials (Cedar Mesa Chert, Cedar Mesa tification of this material in archeological as- Chalcedony, Algalitic Chert, brown chalced- semblages will help elucidate the nature of ony, and brown chert) were almost certainly this phenomenon. acquired nonlocally and transported to the Analysis of the White Crack site debitage site in mobile toolkits. Reduction and rejuve- assemblage indicates a relatively proximal nation of such tools probably accounts for a gray chert source, but this source has not portion of the "local" raw materials in the been identified. Continued identification of White Crack chipped stone assemblage. gray chert and the apparently nonlocal raw However, the strong representation of debitage materials that occur in the White Crack

~~173 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

~~from early reduction indicates that Cedar Mesa Chert also occurred at the site. Because~~

Mesa Formation toolstone from local depos- there is no evidence of significant reliance on its was a significant resource for the White expedient tools, core reduction was appar- Crack site's prehistoric occupants. ently accomplished to provide flake blanks

The production and maintenance of bi- for the manufacture of bifacial tools. Many facial tools apparently accounts for all the such blanks might have been involved in the chipped stone debitage assemblage recovered tool manufacture that occurred on-site. In ad- from the site for both local and nonlocal raw dition, flake blanks produced by core reduc- materials. Most of this reduction involves the tion may have been transported off-site in potentially locally procured raw materials. mobile toolkits for later reduction when the Early-stage reduction flakes, which could be time and/or need for tool production arose. produced during core reduction or early bi- Descriptions and a photograph provided by face reduction, account for a significant Vetter (1989) and Osborn et al. (1993:124) amount of the debitage assemblage. How- indicate a very dense concentration of debi- ever, no core reduction flakes or decortica- tage in the area where core reduction oc- tion flakes were recovered. This strongly curred, suggesting that production of flake suggests that the early-stage reduction flakes blanks was a significant activity at the site. are associated with bifacial tool manufacture. However, the area was not subjected to sys- Bifacial tool trajectories involving the tematic data recovery and no debitage data production and maintenance of projectile are available. points and knifelike bifaces from local tool- Thermal alteration played an integral role stones are indicated by the tool assemblage in the White Crack site occupants' lithic tech- recovered from the site. The discard of use- nology system. The debitage assemblage broken projectile points of nonlocal raw ma- shows that Cedar Mesa Chert was often heat terial, in combination with manufacture- treated very early in the reduction process. In broken Cedar Mesa Chert projectile point addition, heat treatment often occurred before preforms, indicates that some biface reduc- the production of flake blanks from cores. tion was accomplished to provide new pro- This is apparently due to the physical proper- jectile points for retooling. Projectile point ties of the material: compared to other cherts, preforms also might have been staged (i.e., Cedar Mesa Chert is a tough material in its

partially reduced) and transported off-site in natural form, and refined reduction is diffi- mobile toolkits for projectile point production cult to achieve without thermal alteration. on a contingency basis. Because the Cedar Delaying heat treatment until later stages of

~~Mesa Chert knifelike bifaces in the site as- reduction minimizes loss of toolstone caused semblage are utilized, they were probably by thermal failure during heat treatment and~~

~~produced from local material for utilization post-heat treatment manufacture breakage~~

on-site and/or to replenish a mobile toolkit. (see Chipped Stone Debitage Results). How- In addition, debitage characteristics from an ever, the tough nature of Cedar Mesa Chert apparent chipped stone reduction station sug- apparently made heat treatment at an early gest that large quarry bifaces also might have stage important for successful reduction. Due been produced from local raw material. to the proximity of the local toolstone depos-

The northwestern portion of the site its, thermal failure due to heat treatment of tested by the core and tool grab sample indi- large, relatively unreduced masses of tool- cates that core reduction of the local Cedar stone would not have been a major concern.

~~174 CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE REANALYSIS~~

An ample supply of toolstone would have of eight hours of sustained heat is required been at hand, making such losses negligible. for most materials, followed by several hours The evidence of heat treatment of local of cooling before removing the toolstone. toolstone very early in the reduction process The time required to gather the necessary re- and the proximity to toolstone deposits sug- sources, prepare facilities, and slowly heat gest that heat treatment might have occurred and cool toolstone would almost certainly at the White Crack site. Ethnographic and ex- dictate an overnight stay. Therefore, the indi- perimental accounts of the minimum time re- cation of heat treatment in the White Crack quired to successfully heat treat toolstone assemblage further supports the potential that vary widely (Luedtke 1992:100-101). Flen- base camps or field camps were established niken and White (1983) suggest that once the at the site, at least on occasion. required temperature is reached, a minimum

~~175 176 Chapter 8~~

~~SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS~~

~~by Betsy L. Tipps~~

This report documents archeological can be used to enhance the park's interpretive fieldwork and collections research program and increase visitor appreciation and undertaken in the Island-in-the-Sky District understanding of the park's human past. of Canyonlands National Park. The fieldwork The National Park Service selected the involved a small inventory and a limited test- Island-in-the-Sky District for the current in- ing project on and below the White Rim; the vestigations because, archeologically, it was collections research comprised technological the most poorly known district within the reanalysis of the lithic assemblage collected park. Collection of baseline and comparative by the National Park Service, Midwest Ar- data was considered important to updating cheological Center, at the adjacent White the park's interpretive program. As noted in

~~Crack site, a large open lithic scatter. These Chapter 2, the Island-in-the-Sky District has investigations were undertaken as part of the a wedding-cake physiography consisting of~~

Canyonlands Archeological Project, a multi- an upland mesa top rising above a larger in- year archeological program being conducted termediate plateau, below which are steep, by P-III Associates, Inc., on behalf of the Na- highly dissected canyons and benchlands that tional Park Service, Rocky Mountain Re- extend down to the Colorado and Green riv- gional Office. This project is part of a larger, ers. The intermediate plateau, known as the multidisciplinary endeavor that has been un- White Rim, is a narrow benchland encircling dertaken in the park over the past 1 5 years by the eastern, southern, and southwestern flanks in-house National Park Service personnel and of the upper mesa. a variety of subcontractors. The primary pur- The National Park Service decided to fo- pose of the multidisciplinary effort, and in cus our work on and just below the White particular of the Canyonlands Archeological Rim because these were the least known sec-

Project, is the collection of information that tors of the Island-in-the-Sky District. Two SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS recent ruins stabilization projects had pro- sites and 44 isolated finds. Thirty-six of the vided information about structural sites along sites are prehistoric and one is modern. The the river corridors and on the upland mesa 37 sites have 40 recognizable components top (Firor and Eininger 1987; Gaunt and Ein- dating to the Archaic, Preformative, Forma- inger 1987). In addition, a variety of inven- tive, unknown prehistoric, and modern peri- tory and excavation projects had been ods. A large percentage of the sites probably undertaken on the upland mesa top in ad- has more components than can be identified vance of upgrading the district visitor center from the surface evidence. and paving the road to Grandview Point Both individually and as a group, the pre-

~~(Hartley 1980; Lindsay and Madsen 1973; historic sites are insubstantial. The majority~~

~~Osborn 1995; Thiessen 1984; Vetter 1985b, are open lithic scatters, lithic scatters with~~

1986). Only a few minor compliance invento- simple features such as hearths, and lithic ries and a small surface collection and testing source area sites. A few of these are in shal- project had been undertaken on the White low overhangs but most are in the open on Rim before our investigations (Vetter 1987, dunes, bedrock, or residual deposits. There

1989; Vetter and Osborn 1993). are several sparse sherd and lithic scatters, a The National Park Service selected an masonry architecture site composed of a area near White Crack, at the extreme south- poorly made storage structure and a biface, ern tip of the White Rim for the project. This and a rock art site consisting of a single pet- area was chosen because it has an access roglyph. route between the White Rim and the subrim, Almost all of the sites can be charac- canyon-benchland environment, thus allow- terized as limited-activity loci or short-term ing us to study cultural remains in both the camps. Most of the limited-activity loci ap-

White Rim and subrim physiographic set- pear to have been associated with the pro- tings. In addition, because few such access curement of raw material from local sources routes exist in the district, the National Park to make chipped stone tools (the lithic source

Service suspected heavy prehistoric use and a areas) or lithic processing and tool manufac- high site density. Another reason for select- ture (some of the lithic scatters). A few limited- ing the White Crack Area was because the activity loci were used for storage (the ma- Midwest Archeological Center had recently sonry architecture site) or communication completed surface collection and limited test- (the rock art site). ing at the nearby White Crack site (Vetter The camps are more substantial than the

1987, 1989; Vetter and Osborn 1993), and limited-activity loci, but still represent short- the two projects could be compared to en- term, transient occupation. These sites appear hance the overall project results. Reanalysis to have been used for a variety of domestic of the Midwest Archeological Center's White activities including cooking, tool manufacture

Crack site lithic assemblage was later incor- and repair, retooling of hunting implements, porated into our project to facilitate this inte- and restocking of mobile toolkits. The lithic gration. scatters with features, some of the lithic scat-

~~One aspect of the fieldwork was a pedes- ters, and at least one of the sherd and lithic~~

~~trian inventory of 726 acres in two separate scatters represent this category.~~

~~parcels, one on and one below the White Rim All of the lithic source area sites are in~~

~~at White Crack. The inventory resulted in the the White Crack Benchlands Parcel situated~~

~~documentation of 37 previously unrecorded in the canyon-benchland environment below~~

178 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS the White Rim. Extensive natural deposits of scrapers, projectile points, unifaces, manos, chert and chalcedony from the Cedar Mesa and metates. Formation occur in this area; these deposits The vast majority of these items were do not occur in the White Rim Uplands Par- manufactured from local Cedar Mesa Chert cel on the White Rim. Most of the other sites and Chalcedony, and other materials poten- are in the White Rim Uplands Parcel, where tially available from the local Cedar Mesa water could have been obtained seasonally Formation. Residual deposits of these flake- from potholes in the sandstone and afternoon able materials are virtually ubiquitous across breezes would have kept the temperature the portions of the project area below the comfortable and the bugs in check. Although White Rim. Definite nonlocal toolstones are two sites have an accumulation of cultural limited to Summerville Chalcedony, which is deposits, neither appears to represent ex- widely available east and northeast of the tended, long-term, or year-round occupation. project area, and Bartlett Flat or Dubinky A total of 60 features was recorded on chert, which outcrops in the uplands north of approximately one-third of the sites. The av- the park. A small amount of obsidian was erage number of features per site with fea- noted in the White Crack site assemblage re- tures is more numerous than in the Needles analyzed during the project. This material District (Tipps 1995; Tipps and Hewitt was not sourced. However, the White Crack

~~1989), but the features are less substantial site contains a Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric and less diverse. Almost 90 percent of the component and obsidian from a Late Prehistoric/~~

White Crack Area features are slab-lined and Protohistoric site recorded north of the park unlined hearths or small tabular sandstone has been identified to the Malad, Idaho concentrations that could be the weathered source (Tipps 1993). There is no evidence and deflated remains of slab-lined hearths. (e.g., bone or ceramic scrapers, polishing There are just singular occurrences of smoke stones, unfired clay lumps, pigment, kilns, blackening, a fire-cracked rock concentration, etc.) that pottery was manufactured in the a cluster of unmodified toolstone on a site project area. The technological attributes of without natural toolstone, a small midden, a dark paste and primarily andesite/diorite por- cultural stratum, and a storage structure. phyry temper suggest project area ceramic ar-

None of the features reflects extensive con- tifacts were manufactured in the highlands struction effort nor prolonged periods of in- south of the park and transported to the tensive use. White Crack Area.

The artifactual assemblage is primarily The single modern site encountered dur- debitage, although moderate-size stone tool ing the inventory consists of the remains of a and small ceramic assemblages were also re- camp used sometime between the 1950s and corded. Lithic tools recorded on sites and as 1970s. The site has the remains of a tent plat- isolated finds consist of 224 chipped stone form and a pile of unused firewood, suggest- tools, 3 grinding implements, and 3 pecked ing that it was used during a season when stone tools. Fifty-one cores and utilized cores inclement weather was expected. Artifacts in- and a meager assemblage of 15 sherds were dicate the consumption of coffee and simple also noted on the prehistoric sites or as iso- canned foods. The meagerness of the trash lated finds. Bifaces are the most common assemblage suggests that the site occupants stone tool, with a moderate representation of also ate dried or fresh foods that left little ar- modified flakes, and a few examples of cheological evidence. This site is interpreted

~~179 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS~~

as a temporary field headquarters and camp interpreting the archeological remains docu- used by people engaged in livestock tending mented in the White Crack Area. With such a during the winter months on the White Rim. coarse-grained record, the results are sketchy, Another aspect of the fieldwork was lim- but the relevant information has been incor- ited testing of four slab-lined hearths, three porated into our paleoenvironmental recon-

unlined hearths, and one cultural stratum dis- struction and interpretive efforts. It appears covered on the sites. The purposes of this that the modern vegetation community, ex- work were to gather chronological informa- cept for historically introduced species and

~~tion, subsistence evidence, and explore the pinyon pine, was in place by ca. 8440 B.P.~~

~~nature the features, some of which were so The final aspect of the project was a re-~~

eroded that their slab-linings were not evi- analysis of the chipped stone artifact assem- dent on the surface. The features were se- blage recovered by the National Park Service, lected for testing based on their suspected Midwest Archeological Center, from the

~~potential to provide information relevant to White Crack site during a limited testing and the research design. Given the extremely surface collection project (Vetter 1989; Vet-~~

~~poor condition of many project area hearths, ter and Osborn 1993). This site is on the a deliberate effort was also made to concen- White Rim, surrounded by the White Rim~~

~~trate on those with above-average preserva- Uplands inventory parcel. Chronological in-~~

~~tion to enhance the flotation and dating formation from the site indicates at least two~~

~~results. Radiocarbon dates on wood charcoal occupations, one during the Terminal Archaic~~

~~(and in some cases burned organic sedi- and another during the Late Prehistoric/~~

~~ments) were obtained from the cultural stra- Protohistoric period. This site consists of a~~

~~tum and six of the seven hearths. These dates large open lithic scatter that covers more than 2 are in the Late Archaic, Terminal Archaic, 600,000 m (Vetter 1989); it incorporates~~

~~and Preformative periods, with the largest what we would have recorded as multiple in-~~

~~cluster in the Terminal Archaic, which is dividual sites had we recorded it during the~~

considered as 1500 to 300 B.C. for this pro- inventory. There are probably numerous ad- ject. Flotation samples from five of the seven ditional occupations and components that sampled features contained a sparse could not be dated via the available evidence. macrofloral assemblage. The analysis sug- A total of 9289 chipped stone artifacts

~~gests the consumption of Sporobolus sp., was reanalyzed from the site, including 1 8 tools, cheno-ams, and Stipa hymenoides, as well as 2 cores, and 9269 pieces of debitage. As dis-~~

~~the use of Juniperus osteosperma and Atri- cussed in Chapter 7, the reanalysis was con- plex sp. to fuel campfires. Matching the re- strained by the small amount of work~~

~~sults of other testing on the Canyonlands conducted at the site, the paucity of excava-~~

~~Archeological Project, none of the features tion, and the site sampling techniques. In contained any evidence of cultivated plants. spite of these problems, the reanalysis was~~

~~Ancillary to our work, Northern Arizona successful at characterizing the technology of University collected and analyzed twelve the assemblage and addressing research ques-~~

~~pack rat middens from the project area in an tions in three of the major research domains~~

~~attempt to gather relevant paleoenvironmental originally established for the Canyonlands~~

~~data. Unfortunately, only six of the samples Archeological Project (P-III Associates~~

~~date to the Holocene, and only two of these 1984). The results of the reanalysis are pre-~~

~~date to time periods directly relevant to sented in Chapter 7 and incorporated in the~~

180 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS appropriate places in the Research Results Management section of this chapter. Recommendations The research design for this project built on the results of previous investigations con- The existing database for Island-in-the- ducted by the Canyonlands Archeological Sky in general and the White Rim in particu- Project (Tipps 1995, 1996; Tipps and Hewitt lar is scant. Overall, few sites have been

1989), as well as those of early park re- recorded and the amount of area that has searchers (Hartley 1980; Losee and Lucius been intensively inventoried is extremely 1975; Sharrock 1966), and contemporary col- small. Because of the highly variable nature leagues working in (Osborn 1995; Vetter of the environment and concomitant patchy 1989; Vetter and Osborn 1993) and near nature of critical resources, site distribution is

~~(Davis et al. 1989; Montgomery 1989; Reed likely uneven, heavy in some areas and ab-~~

1990) Island-in-the-Sky. Due to the terra in- sent in others, with different activities repre- cognito nature of the project area before the sented, depending on the natural resources investigations began, the research plan was available. Additional inventory is needed to ambitious and designed to include all types, gain a better understanding of the range of ages, and cultural affiliations of sites that variability in site types, behaviors, and adap- might be encountered. Sites in the White tational strategies. Ideally, some portion of

Crack Area, although numerous, are very in- future inventory work should focus on areas substantial, and data necessary to address lacking nearby toolstone sources and access many of the research topics were not avail- routes between levels of the Island-in-the- able. Nonetheless, many of the questions are Sky District, as different adaptational patterns still important and can potentially be ad- are likely to occur in these areas than in the dressed during future research efforts in the White Crack Area. area. Whenever possible, future investigations After a short section providing manage- should include the collection of artifacts be- ment recommendations, the remainder of this cause artifacts are being rapidly collected by chapter reviews what was learned through the visitors throughout the park, permanently White Crack Area investigations relative to damaging and diminishing the archeological the research issues presented in Chapter 3. It record. Laboratory analysis of collected should be emphasized that many of the ideas specimens is also important because many represented in this report are only suggestions, search issues cannot be adequately addressed speculations, and hypotheses that require fur- through in-field analyses; while ideas and hy- ther testing with a larger sample of sites from potheses can be generated, detailed labora- multiple areas within the district. The White tory studies are needed to test them. Due to

Crack Area is a tiny island in an area that is funding constraints and the small size of largely unknown archeologically. In addition, many compliance projects, immediate analyses interpretations of collected artifacts it contains certain resources that made it and more attractive than some other areas. There- will be impractical, but the artifacts are still fore, sites and activities represented in the important for future study and can be curated White Crack Area are probably not repre- until laboratory studies are undertaken at a sentative of the district as a whole, or even later date. Preparation of a research design to the White Rim and subrim areas. guide the collection and curation of artifact samples would be appropriate. This plan

~~181 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS~~

~~could include all northern Colorado Plateau based only on an isolated projectile point or a~~

parks. single radiocarbon date, but it is sufficient to Additional sampling, dating, and flotation refute Sharrock's (1966) interpretation and analyses of hearths is also recommended compares favorably with results of investiga-

whenever it is feasible. The amount of distur- tions in other parts of the park (Horn 1990; bance and time needed for such investiga- Osborn 1995; Reed 1993; Tipps 1995, 1996; tions are minimal relative to the potential Tipps and Hewitt 1989) and the project re-

~~information gain. This work is needed to fur- gion (e.g., Davis et al. 1989; Hohmann and ther define all aspects of the chronological Hotopp 1990; Montgomery et al. 1982; Reed~~

sequence, and in particular, the nature and 1990). There is no recognizable evidence of scope of occupation during periods that have Paleoindian and Early Formative use of the few diagnostic artifacts likely to be found project area. Known Paleoindian sites are during a surface inventory (e.g., Terminal Ar- rare throughout the region (see Chapter 1) so chaic and Pre formative). Such work could this lack is not surprising. As discussed in also elucidate more specific issues, such as greater detail below, Early Formative sites whether the paucity of subsistence remains in could be present in the project area, but un- the White Crack Area hearths is the result of identifiable from available evidence. poor preservation or actual subsistence prac- The following paragraphs review the evi- tices. Finally, features other than hearths dence for each time period and address the

~~should also be sampled and dated. Restricting cultural affiliation issues specified by the re- the testing of features to unlined and slab- search design for selected major time periods.~~

~~lined hearths, as has been done for most of The most tenuously represented period in the~~

~~the Canyonlands Archeological Project, may White Crack Area is the Early Archaic~~

~~be affecting the ages and affiliations of the (7800-5100 B.C.). This period is potentially~~

sites we are studying. signified by an isolated, possible Sinbad Side-notched point. This point type remains Research Results undated but has been tentatively assigned to the Early Archaic based on associational sur- Chronology and face evidence in the San Rafael Swell, north- Cultural Affiliation west of the project area (Tipps 1988a). Projectile points diagnostic of the Early Ar- The first issue in the research design was chaic have been discovered on the highest determining the age and cultural affiliation of mesa of the Island-in-the-Sky District and in the extant sites and evaluating Sharrock's the uplands north of the park (Montgomery et (1966) claim that the park, including Island- al. 1982; Osborn 1995), suggesting at least in-the-Sky, was virtually unoccupied before sporadic occupation of the project region dur- Pueblo II. The results of the inventory, lim- ing this time. ited testing, and reanalysis of the White The Middle Archaic (5100-3300 B.C.) is Crack Area lithic assemblage provided evi- tentatively represented by a San Rafael Side- dence of occupation during all periods of the notched point on an open lithic scatter site. Archaic, the Preformative, the Late Forma- This period is poorly known on the northern tive, the Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric, and Colorado Plateau (Geib 1995; Matson 1991), modern periods. In many cases, the evidence primarily because it is not represented at ma- is extremely scant and tentative because it is jor cave sites excavated to date (e.g., Sudden

~~182 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS~~

~~Shelter, Cowboy Cave, Dust Devil Cave). available evidence. A slab-lined hearth on the~~

However, there is a large body of accumulat- Murphy site, excavated as part of the Island- ing evidence for Middle Archaic use of small in-the-Sky road project, also yielded a Termi- open sites, often in high elevation areas nal Archaic radiocarbon date (Osborn 1995).

~~(Black and Metcalfe 1985; Black et al. 1982; Relative to other time periods represented by Copeland 1986; Copeland and Webster 1983; project area evidence, the Terminal Archaic~~

Tipps 1988a, 1992, 1995). Montgomery et al. is more frequently represented. This may in- (1982) report a variety of Middle Archaic dicate more intensive local occupation rela- projectile points in their 8640-acre block in- tive to other periods (see Tipps 1995:174), ventory in the Island-in-the-Sky uplands, in- but more research on this issue is needed. cluding Sudden Side-notched, Rocker Cultural affiliation(s) of the Archaic sites

Side-notched, McKean, and San Rafael Side- can only be explored in a preliminary way notched. Osborn (1995) also recovered sev- because projectile points are the only identifi- eral Sudden Side-notched points during the able cultural markers present on the Archaic

Island-in-the-Sky road project excavations, sites and these are rare. Sinbad Side-notched, but no Middle Archaic radiocarbon dates or San Rafael Side-notched, and Gypsum, all definitive evidence of Middle Archaic com- occur on the northern Colorado Plateau (Hol- ponents. mer 1978; Tipps 1988a), although Gypsum The Late Archaic (3300-1500 B.C.) in points have a much wider distribution across the White Crack Area is represented by a the western U.S. These scant data suggest Gypsum point and a Late Archaic radiocar- that Archaic occupation in the White Crack bon date on one site and a Gypsum point on Area was primarily by people possessing a another. The radiocarbon date from a third northern Colorado Plateau point technology. site is transitional Late-Terminal Archaic. Point types found on the Island-in-the-Sky

These three sites are all lithic scatters with road project (Osborn 1995) are consistent hearths, indicative of short-term camping epi- with these suggestions. sodes. Six Late Archaic sites are reported by No points diagnostic of the Oshara Tradi-

Montgomery et al. (1982) in the Island-in- tion were found in the White Crack Area, on the-Sky uplands north of the park, and sev- the Island-in-the-Sky road project on the eral Late Archaic projectile points were highest mesa of the district (Osborn 1995), recovered during the Island-in-the-Sky road nor on any project undertaken along State project excavations (Osborn 1995). Route 313 north of the park (Davis et al. Like the Squaw Butte Area (Tipps 1995), 1989; Montgomery 1989; Reed 1990). How- the inventory produced no artifactual evi- ever, Montgomery et al. (1982:Table 2-3) re- dence of the Terminal Archaic (1500-300 B.C.). port the discovery of several Oshara That evidence came only from radiocarbon Tradition points—one Bajada point and three dates on features. One site has a transitional Armijo—during their 8640-acre inventory in Late-Terminal Archaic date and three have the uplands just north of the park. The qual-

Terminal Archaic dates. A Terminal Archaic ity of the photographs in their report is too date was also obtained from the White Crack poor to determine whether the points are cor- site (Vetter 1989). These sites are all lithic rectly typed or possibly reworked Colorado scatters with hearths. It is possible that other Plateau types instead. If the points are accu- site types also date to this time period, but rately typed, they may indicate limited ex- we were unable to identify them based on change, or brief incursions into parts of the

183 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS project region by people possessing a south- have been variously identified as Basket- ern Colorado Plateau point technology during maker II, nascent Fremont, and Archaic. time periods designated here as Middle and While all three cultural groups appear to have

Terminal Archaic; the Bajada point is made inhabited the project region during the Pre- of local material suggesting local manufac- formative time frame, the three labels have ture, whereas the Armijo points are of mate- been inconsistently applied, resulting in con- rial that could be either local or exotic. siderable confusion.

Despite these few points, the primary Archaic Basketmaker II is no longer viewed as occupation of the project region, and only oc- transitional between the Archaic and Forma- cupation indicated in the White Crack Area, tive lifeways, but as an intrusive, maize- was by people with a northern Colorado Pla- dependent, fully Formative phenomenon teau projectile point technology. (Chisholm and Matson 1994:250). Because

~~One site is ascribed to the Preformative of this, Tipps (1995:143-147) argues that the~~

(300 B.C.-A.D. 500) based on a radiocarbon Basketmaker II label should be exclusively date from a lithic scatter with features. Like reserved for "manifestations that typify the the situation for the Terminal Archaic, Pre- Basketmaker II lifeway as defined by the re- formative sites may be more common than cent work of Matson (1991), Matson and current evidence indicates because they are Chisholm (1991), Chisholm and Matson difficult to distinguish based on surface evi- (1994), and others." Neither the Preformative- dence (see Tipps 1995:173-174). Osborn age site in the White Crack Area nor the (1995) obtained Preformative radiocarbon Preformative-age sites recorded by Osborn dates from slab-lined hearths at two sites (1995) and Reed (1990) give any indication along the Island-in-the-Sky road, both of of an agriculturally based lifeway, and as which are considered to represent an Archaic such, they should not be considered Basket- lifeway (Osborn 1995). Reed (1990) exca- maker II. vated two Preformative-age components Determining the status of local Preforma- along State Road 313, north of Island-in-the- tive sites as Archaic or incipient Fremont is Sky, one dating between 350 and 210 B.C. difficult as both lifeways focused predomi- and the other dating between A.D. 250 and nantly on hunting and gathering, with the lat-

540. The earlier of these possessed the ter gradually adopting corn (Janetski 1993). eroded traces of a possible structure, but nei- This difference would be difficult to identify ther contained evidence of corn or domesti- in the archeological record without direct evi- cates. Reed (1990:104) is uncertain about the dence of corn. After approximately A.D. 200- cultural affiliation of these sites but tenta- 300, the latter can also be recognized by the tively suggests that the early component rep- introduction of arrow points. The Preformative- resents an Archaic adaptation; he considers age sites noted above lack arrow points and the other possible nascent Fremont repre- show evidence of a hunting and gathering sentative of Black and Metcalfs (1986) lifeway. They are probably best understood

~~Proto-formative phase. in terms of Archaic settlement and subsis-~~

The cultural affiliation of Preformative- tence strategies. They clearly do not represent age cultures is an important topic because it Basketmaker II or the early Formative, Con- concerns the origins of the agricultural life- fluence Phase identified by Greubel (1996). way. As noted in the research design, Five Formative sites were identified in

~~Preformative-age sites in the project region the project area. Three date to the Late Formative.~~

~~184 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS~~

The ages of the other two are unknown. No Anasazi manufacture but probably nonlocal. sites could be attributed to the Early Forma- Temper and paste characteristics suggest it tive. No Early Formative sites were recog- was manufactured in the greater Elk Ridge nized during the original Canyonlands Plateau area south of Canyonlands National inventories in the Needles or Island-in-the- Park. Canyonlands was originally believed to

Sky districts (e.g., Hartley 1980; Sharrock be a transition zone between the northern San 1966), although Lucius (1976) speculates that Juan Anasazi and the San Rafael Fremont the Maze may have been used by the Anasazi (Jennings 1980; Rudy 1955), and later as early as A.D. 900 and the Fremont as viewed as primarily Anasazi territory (Shar- early as A.D. 700. More recent work has rock 1966). Recent work in the Island-in-the- identified Early Formative sites in all three Sky uplands suggests that the area north of park districts based on radiocarbon dates the park was used by the Fremont until from hearths on open sites (Tipps 1995), ex- A.D. 950, by the Anasazi between A.D. 950 cavation data (Horn 1990; Osborn 1995), and and 1100, and again by the Fremont from ceramic styles (Tipps and Hewitt 1989). Pot- A.D. 1 100 until the onset of Late Prehistoric/ tery, however, seems to be relatively rare on Protohistoric occupation (Reed 1990:130). these sites, and most Early Formative sites Too few Formative-age sites were dis- identified to date appear no different than Ar- covered to draw any definite conclusions re- chaic and Preformative sites when evaluated garding changing cultural status through from surface evidence. Because of this, Early time, but the presence of meager amounts of

Formative sites in the area can be difficult to Anasazi pottery and complete absence of distinguish in the context of inventory and traits that can be attributed to the Fremont could actually be present in the project area, suggest that the light Formative occupation although none was identified. may have been by the Anasazi, as suggested Five features on two sites along the by Sharrock (1966). This accords with the re- Island-in-the-Sky road returned Early Forma- sults of the Island-in-the-Sky road project. tive dates: two hearths, a slab-lined pit, a More than 96 percent of the 2300+ ceramic stain, and a burial (Osborn 1995:Table 16). artifacts recovered by that project are of Four of these features were analyzed for bo- Mesa Verde Anasazi manufacture. There tanical remains; three of these produced corn. were also small amounts of Kayenta and Pai-

Both sites also had considerable quantities of ute pottery, but not a single Fremont sherd pottery (Osborn 1995: Appendix E), but most, (Osborn 1995:Appendix E). In addition, if not all recovered pottery dates later, after structural sites on the highest mesa of Island- A.D. 900. This incongruity suggests a prob- in-the-Sky are interpreted as Anasazi based lem with the dates (e.g., old wood), that the on architectural characteristics (Gaunt and sites are multicomponent, or a combination Eininger 1987). of these. Reed (1990:131) excavated an Early All Anasazi pottery observed in the

Formative structure in the Island-in-the-Sky White Crack Area and recovered along the uplands. There was no evidence of corn but Island-in-the-Sky road dates to the Late For- he considers it Fremont based on the pres- mative (see Chapter 5; Osborn 1995 Appen- ence of Emery Gray pottery. dix E). The identifiable specimens (McElmo

Three sites date to the Late Formative and Mesa Verde black-on-white and Mesa based on ceramic styles and surface treat- Verde Corrugated) all date after A.D. 1150 ment. The pottery on these sites is all of (cf. Lucius and Breternitz 1992). This, the

~~185 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS~~

~~paucity of Fremont pottery reported by Shar- the project area is within the range histori-~~

~~rock (1966:Table 4), and the complete lack of cally used by the Ute, and outside that nor- Fremont pottery on the Island-in-the-Sky mally used by the Southern Paiute.~~

~~road project (Osborn 1995: Appendix E) sug- As noted in Chapter 1, the earliest his- gest that use by the Fremont was minimal, if torically documented use of Island-in-the-Sky~~

it occurred at all. The pattern of different was during the 1 890s when ranchers used the Formative groups using the area at different highest mesa top and western White Rim to times, as noted by Reed (1990) north of the graze cattle and sheep. Grazing on the eastern

park, has not been detected in Island-in-the- White Rim began after 1900. The first known Sky. use of the White Crack area was by the Mur- No definitive evidence of Late Prehistoric/ phy brothers sometime between about 1914 Protohistoric occupation was discovered dur- and 1917. They apparently used the area for ing the inventory, but the presence of a De- winter range but are said to have lasted only sert Side-notched point at the White Crack a winter or two before becoming bankrupt

~~site suggests that the project area was used dur- and being forced to sell their herd (Osborn~~

ing this time period. Also, a petroglyph depicting 1995:7-8; Sheire 1972:24-25). a shield with possible feather elements may After the Murphys, a succession of date to this time period. There was less evi- ranchers used the White Crack area as part of dence of Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric occu- their grazing range. Sometime during the pation than anticipated based on the results of 1930s, Art Murry ran cattle on the Island-in- several excavation projects north of the park the-Sky mesa top, on the White Rim out to (Reed 1990; Tipps 1991) and on the highest White Crack, and on the bottoms along the

~~". upland mesa of the district (Osborn 1995). Green River. He . . trailed his cattle from~~

." ". This lack may be because (1) the White top to bottom . . and . . spent winter on Crack Area was peripheral to the normal the White Rim and the bottoms" (Osborn range used by the groups occupying the 1995:8). About the same time, Roy Johnson Island-in-the-Sky uplands, north of the park; and Roy Holyoak used the eastern and south-

~~(2) the project area had a less desirable envi- ern sides of the White Rim as far south as ronment than the Island-in-the-Sky uplands White Crack as winter range for 250-500~~

~~due to the lack of reliable water and the ab- head of cattle. In 1939, Howard Lathrop had sence of pinyon-juniper woodland resources a winter range permit to graze up to 2000~~

~~such as abundant firewood, etc.; (3) Late head of sheep on the Island-in-the-Sky mesa~~

~~Prehistoric/Protohistoric sites were not identi- top, and in a huge area on and below the~~

~~fiable from surface evidence; or (4) a combi- eastern side of the White Rim. Lathrop sold~~

~~nation of these and other factors. There is no his herd in 1951, but continued to lease his~~

good evidence regarding the cultural affili- grazing permit to other ranchers. In 1952, his ation of the Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric grazing allotment extended along the White people who used the project area, except that Rim from the Shafer Trail to White Crack. they were probably Numic speakers. As Martin Etchart used his permit in the early

noted in Chapter 1, the early Numic speakers 1960s. By 1972, Tad Paxton had the permit of eastern Utah were probably indistinguish- (Osborn 1995:10). Due to the establishment able as Ute or Southern Paiute until after ap- of Canyonlands National Park, grazing activi-

~~proximately A.D. 1650 (Reed 1990:17; ties in most parts of Island-in-the-Sky ceased Schroeder 1965). For the post-A.D. 1650 era. by 1975. The Murphy brothers, Art Murry~~

186 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS and his relatives, the Allreds, and Roy Crack (see Osborn 1995:12). Osborn Holyoak and Roy Johnson are all believed to (1995:12) believes that the hole, located have used the livestock trail at White Crack within the boundaries of the White Crack

(Osborn 1995:9). site, is actually a stratigraphic test drilled by Although Euroamerican ranchers used uranium miners. The only definitive evidence the White Crack area to graze cattle and of oil and gas exploration found in the pro- sheep for approximately 60 years, archeologi- ject area consists of a seismic line scar and cal evidence of these activities is relatively some modern cans discarded along the seis- scant in the project area. A camp composed mic line. These resources were not formally of a tent platform, a wood pile, and a limited recorded because of their recent age. amount of domestic debris is interpreted as The uranium boom of the 1950s spurred the remains of a short-term winter field head- a frenzy of prospecting activities and road quarters used by ranchers herding livestock development throughout the Island-in-the- on the White Rim. The camp dates sometime Sky area. It lead to construction of the road between the 1950s and 1970s, and thus, was that eventually became the White Rim Trail probably used by one of the later ranching as well as the spur road now used to access operations such as those established by the White Crack campground. This spur road Lathrop, Etchart, or Paxton. Given the recent connected the White Rim Trail with the age of the site, there is some possibility it White Crack livestock trail. Uranium pros- was used by uranium prospectors rather than pectors widened the livestock trail, which in- ranchers (see below), but the ranching inter- volved blasting a huge gap through the White pretation seems more likely given the short- Rim Sandstone, and established a crude road term nature of the site and the evidence of a that extended south for several miles toward cold-season occupation consistent with use of what was hoped to be a rich bed of uranium the White Rim for winter grazing. In addi- deposits (Osborn 1995:15-16). The White tion, uranium miners frequently inhabited Rim Trail and the campground access road, more substantial dwellings such as cabins; in- both of which bisect the project area, are the deed, the remains of cabins have been found primary evidence of the 1950s uranium boom along the uranium road that extends south found during the project. The core hole iden- from White Crack (Osborn 1995:15). The tified by Osborn (1995:12) within the only other evidence the crew found of the boundaries of the White Crack site may also ranching era is the now-widened White be associated with the uranium era.

Crack trail. This trail was probably estab- Modern, ongoing use of the project area lished by some of the earliest ranchers in the is signified by the well-used dirt roads that area along the route of a centuries-old abo- cross the project area, the modern camp- riginal trail. ground, and the constant stream of visitors

Starting in the 1920s, Island-in-the-Sky that come to White Crack each spring, sum- and the surrounding areas were the subject of mer, and fall, mostly via mountain bike. Con- oil and gas exploration. These explorations tinuing a pattern that persisted throughout involved road construction, seismic studies, prehistory and history, these people stay only and the drilling of wildcat wells. There is a short time. very little written evidence of these activities What we know about the chronology of specifically taking place in the project area, human occupation in the White Crack Area is although one source lists an oil well at White still sketchy; it needs to be fleshed out and

187 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS verified with additional inventory data as leading him to conclude that people occupy- well as excavation evidence. However, the ing the sites were neither Anasazi nor Fre- basic outline is that of project area use during mont, nor variants thereof, but a separate all major time periods of prehistory since the indigenous group that was less dependent on Early Archaic, with the exception of the corn horticulture and obtained small amounts Early Formative; evidence of Early Forma- of Anasazi and occasional Fremont pottery tive has been found on other nearby projects through trade. To facilitate communication

(e.g., Osborn 1995). In addition, all known and emphasize his belief that a different cul- historic and modern uses of the project area, tural group occupied the area, Reed (1995) as indicated by archival records, are also suggests this archeological manifestation be documented by archeological evidence re- labeled the Gateway Tradition. corded or observed during the project. The The following response is general based wide date range suggested by project area on evidence collected throughout the entire evidence is remarkable given the small size Canyonlands Archeological Project because of the inventory (just 726 acres) and small the White Crack Area investigations pro- number of identified sites (just 37). If such a duced little evidence directly relevant to small project could produce evidence of use identifying the affiliation of Formative-age during most major time periods, it seems peoples. Reed's (1995:1) study area is defined likely that occupation of the greater project as the territory "roughly between Monticello, area was relatively continuous from the Early Utah, and Interstate Highway 70, west of the Archaic onward. While individual occupa- Uncompahgre River, and east of the Green tions appear to have been short term and in- River." While it is true that most Formative- termittent, there do not appear to have been age sites in this area lack typical Anasazi any major hiatuses. Also, as noted in Chapter traits such as formal site structure, universal

5, there is a strong likelihood for many more use of kivas, water control features, relation- components than could be identified from ships with the Chaco area, and complex late surface evidence. We need to be cognizant of residential sites with kivas, rectangular room this probability during future research, look blocks, and occasional multistoried struc- for better ways to identify multicomponent tures, this is not the case in some parts of the sites during inventory, and further investigate southern portion of his study area, specifi- this issue through intensive excavations. cally, Upper Salt Creek, in southern Canyon- The next research topic concerns the use- lands. fulness of the Gateway Tradition for under- Two seasons of inventory as part of the standing Preformative and Formative period Canyonlands Archeological Project as well as occupation in the project area. As noted in several years of ruins stabilization at Anasazi

Chapter 3, Reed (1995) observes that sites structural sites (e.g., Metzger 1983; Metzger dating between 500 B.C. and A.D. 1250 in and Chandler 1986; Metzger et al. 1985; east-central Utah and west-central Colorado Metzger et al. 1989) have documented a sub- lack key Anasazi or Fremont traits. He rea- stantial, Pueblo III or late Pueblo II-Pueblo sons that "so many fundamental aspects of III, Mesa Verde Anasazi occupation in Upper the Anasazi tradition are absent in the study Salt Creek. This occupation is manifest by area ... it [is] unlikely that an incursion by numerous small and medium open architec-

~~Anasazi is represented" (Reed 1995:3). He tural sites and cliff dwellings, in addition to a proposes a similar argument for the Fremont, wide array of less complex site types such as~~

188 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS towers, isolated granaries, rock art, and lithic Tradition, and would probably agree that the reduction loci. Several cliff dwellings have in southern boundary of his study tract should excess of 30 visible structures (e.g., Chandler be moved northward to exclude this area. 1990; Firor 1986a; Sharrock 1966), although More important than splitting hairs over a sites with 1-20 structures are much more generalized boundary, however, is the impli- common. One of the largest cliff dwellings, cation that these sites have for interpreting

Bighorn Sheep Ruin (42SA1563), "has 28 other, less substantial, Formative period sites structures, including habitation, storage, and in adjacent parts of Canyonlands. granary rooms, and plazas" (Chandler These adjacent areas, the Salt Creek

1990:85). It is interpreted as a permanent Pocket, Devils Lane, and Squaw Butte areas, residence for approximately 20 people (Chan- have an arid, desert environment consisting dler 1990:103). Several cliff dwellings have of a plateau surface surrounded by high me- massive retaining walls and Mesa Verde- sas and mountains to the east and southeast, style T-shaped doorways. Bitsuie Alcove and the Colorado River to the west. The rug- (42SA1581) has a large, rectangular, dry-laid ged plateau surface consists of broad open structure that was remodeled into a Mesa pockets, plains, and grabens, liberally dotted

~~Verde-style kiva with pilasters. with hoodoos, buttes, spires, and fins, and oc-~~

The open habitation sites are more diffi- casionally incised by drainages, most of cult to characterize because of their primarily which run only after precipitation events. Ex- buried condition, but they often have scat- posed bedrock and bedrock with shallow eo- tered rubble or rubble mounds and trash, oc- lian cover are common, although alluvial casionally separated by a visible depression deposits occur along some drainages. Water that may mark a pitstructure. A few sites is sparse overall, except along watercourses have sufficient rubble to suggest the possibil- such as Salt Creek. Desertscrub vegetation ity of multiple stories. predominates, with a sparse pinyon-juniper

Structures clearly identifiable as kivas are woodland in higher areas and along some uncommon in the Upper Salt Creek area, but rocky outcrops. Elevations range from 1470 to they do occur on both small- and medium- 1730 m, although most areas are below size habitation sites, and one depression cov- 1645 m. These arid lands are lower than the ering approximately 75 m is large enough to point where precipitation is adequate for dry- be a great kiva (cf. Lightfoot 1988:268). In farming (Geib 1993), and well below those addition, large masonry rooms may have normally used by the Anasazi for dry-fanning been used for both habitation and ceremonial (Petersen 1988). For ease of reference, these functions (Chandler 1990). Kivas docu- areas are called the Needles midlands to dis- mented during stabilization efforts in both tinguish them from the lowland canyons Canyonlands National Park and Natural along the Colorado River, and much higher, Bridges National Monument are noted for well- watered canyons of Upper Salt Creek their lack of standardized kiva features (e.g., and Horse Canyon.

Eininger et al. 1986; Firor 1986a; Gaunt and Anasazi sites in the Needles midlands are McVickar 1986), possibly explaining the low small and insubstantial (Tipps 1995, 1996; frequency of kivas recorded to date. Tipps and Hewitt 1989). They have meager Reed (1995) may not have intended to ceramic assemblages, insubstantial architec- include the Upper Salt Creek drainage within ture, and lack visible kivas; in almost every his generalized boundaries of the Gateway aspect, they match the characteristics specified

~~189 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS~~

for the Gateway Tradition. But these sites do for the express purpose of farming. The not appear to have been occupied by non- habitation sites, storage sites for grain, Anasazi peoples. Instead, Anasazi farmers

from more permanent residences in the adja- and plant processing sites are rather cent highlands, and specifically Upper Salt clearly linked to the seasonal cultivation Creek, are believed to have created the sites of corn. Most sites reflecting other during short-term, intermittent, and seasonal activi-

forays timed to take advantage of subsistence ties such as procurement and processing resources available during the warm seasons of Cedar Mesa Chert and wild plant of the year. These people came to the Nee- dles midlands specifically to farm patches of foods are not randomly dispersed through arable land, and to hunt, gather wild plant the project area, but generally clustered foods, and collect nonfood resources such as toolstone. Because the Needles midlands are near the other sites, suggesting they too too low for dry-farming, they could not be are part of the same farming- inspired used in the same ways as higher elevation ar- occupation. eas the Anasazi normally inhabited, so identical archeological patterns should not be expected. However, crops were successfully While I cannot speak for other parts of

~~grown by concentrating agricultural efforts in Reed's (1995) study area, I am unwilling to~~

~~areas with sufficient surface runoff. Farming concede that the insubstantial Formative sites in the Needles midlands may have been unrecorded by the Canyonlands Archeological~~

~~dertaken to ease shortages of arable land in Project in the Needles midlands (Tipps 1995, crowded areas like Upper Salt Creek or been 1996; Tipps and Hewitt 1989) are the result~~

a strategy to reduce the risk of crop loss due of non-Anasazi occupation. These sites are to drought, late or early frosts, pests, etc. The only a day's walk from the substantial Needles midlands have a longer and earlier Anasazi habitations in Upper Salt Creek.

~~growing season than the adjacent highlands They are the same age as the Anasazi sites in~~

~~more permanently occupied by the Anasazi. Upper Salt Creek (primarily Pueblo III or late~~

~~In the Squaw Butte Area, Tipps Pueblo II-Pueblo III). Additionally, artifact~~

~~(1995:105) concludes that: and feature types, rock art styles, and raw material types, as well as the nature of small~~

~~Most of the Anasazi sites are clustered sites, are virtually identical in all these areas.~~

Their proximity and the similarities in their adjacent to the few patches of well- material culture strongly point to creation by watered arable alluvium in the project a single group of people with shared beliefs and lifeways. area. . . . The deliberate settlement Whether sites farther from major Anasazi around this rare favorable locality dem- habitation locales can be similarly explained

onstrates that most Anasazi were not just depends on how far Anasazi (or Fremont) foraging, farming, and hunting parties trav- passing through the Squaw Butte Area on eled from their residential bases, and what their way to somewhere else. They came cultural markers they carried with them or

190 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS reproduced on such forays. Ethnoarcheologi- away; these sites are different than the higher cal studies indicate that most people took elevation residences due to the short duration only what they needed on trips from the resi- of occupation, the season of use, and/or the dential base. In addition, if certain features or types of activities performed. However, most artifact types were only used for a particular sites in Reed's (1995) study area are far from activity or during a certain season, these phe- any known Anasazi population centers and it nomena might not occur on sites used for is extremely unlikely that undiscovered other purposes or during other parts of the Anasazi population centers exist. Occupation year. While a detailed evaluation of such is- of these sites by a separate cultural group sues is beyond the scope of this project, they may be a viable explanation, but this expla- are necessary to help us test and refine the nation needs to be tested and verified using Gateway concept. evidence other than the absence of core-area

Another important point regarding the traits. One possible way of approaching this Gateway Tradition concerns dating. Reed would be to generate expectations based on (1995:5) tentatively proposes dates of 500 B.C. ethnoarcheological evidence about how far and A.D. 1250 for this archeological mani- Anasazi (or Fremont) peoples might have festation, but most traits he uses to distin- traveled in the course of routine foraging, guish between Anasazi, Fremont, and farming, and hunting activities, and what Gateway Tradition sites appear no earlier types of cultural markers they may have car- than A.D. 200, and some are significantly ried with them or created at distant locales. later. This suggests that Anasazi, Fremont, The final research issue in this domain and Gateway Tradition sites may not be dis- concerns the large-scale abandonment of the tinguishable before A.D. 200, and perhaps Colorado Plateau proposed by Berry and even later. Indeed, for the period between ap- Berry (1976) between approximately 3000 proximately 500 B.C. and A.D. 200, there are and 2000 B.P. (ca. 1250 B.C.-A.D. 50). no appreciable differences in terms of mate- Based on inventory and testing in the Squaw rial cultural or adaptation between sites in Butte Area, Tipps (1995) suggests that this Canyonlands, which are inside the proposed period was not a hiatus, but a time of moder-

Gateway Tradition area, and sites in northern ate, if not intensive, occupation. She attrib- Glen Canyon (Bungart 1990; Bungart and utes the appearance of a hiatus to the use of Geib 1987), the Circle Cliffs, and on the Es- smaller, less substantial site types and the calante Plateau (Tipps 1992), which are out- lack of time-diagnostic, nonperishable arti- side the proposed Gateway Tradition area. facts that can help identify the sites from sur-

In sum, Formative-age sites throughout face indications (see Tipps 1995:174). The most of Reed's (1995) study area are different research design specified that the applicabil- than similar-age, core-area Fremont and ity of these observations to the White Crack

Anasazi sites. This pattern is repeated Area be evaluated. throughout most of Canyonlands, including Figure 29 shows the 2-sigma calibrated the White Crack Area. Some of these age ranges of the eight radiocarbon dates sites —especially those in the Needles available for the project area. Seven of these midlands—can be best explained as short- were obtained during the current project. The term and seasonal sites used by Anasazi peo- other was obtained by Vetter (1989). Six of ple while they were away from their usual the eight dates lie within the ca. 1250 B.C.- residential bases located a short distance A.D. 50 time frame (see Figure 29). Although

~~191 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS~~

old wood may not be much of a problem on Calendar C14 Calibrated Radiocarbon Period Date Years B.P. Dates (2-sigma range) the White Rim where the primary fuel was evidently shrubs, only one of these dates .2 1500 - drops out if 200 years are subtracted to account for potential old wood problems

1000 1060 B.P. (Smiley 1985, 1994). Therefore, the results of «V the White Crack Area investigations accord 500 - 1570 B.P. with the Squaw Butte work. time «*r The period previously considered as a hiatus has more AD. B.C. evidence of occupation than any other time 2200 B.P. period in the project area. These sites are - n u 500 open and insubstantial, and all lack arti- P •*= c ii 0) i facts diagnostic of age. Thus, Tipps' 1000 - (1995) hypothesis—that the lack of period- specific diagnostics and greater use of open, 1500 3200 B.P. insubstantial sites, not a lack of occupation,

~~led to the appearance of a hiatus between ca. 2000 - 50 c 1250 B.C. and A.D. —appears to apply to e the project area. 2500 -~~

~~3000 - Settlement Patterns~~

~~4600 B.P Settlement strategies, how people distrib- - 3500 uted themselves across the landscape, is an~~

~~important research issue. Reconstruction and -c 4000 - interpretation of settlement strategies depend~~

~~ID on assessments of site type, intensity and 4500 - 1 duration of occupation, mobility, whether occupation was seasonal or year-round, sea- 5000 6200 B.P. son(s) of use, the composition of social~~

~~groups that inhabited the sites, and the size 5500 - and geographic positioning of the annual~~

range. Knowledge of whether sites were oc- 6000 - cupied on single or multiple occasions is cru- •c cial to correctly interpreting site types and 6500 - the intensity and duration of occupation. The issues 7000 - next few paragraphs discuss these with regards to the White Crack Area sites.

~~7500 - Prehistoric sites in the project area are primarily lithic source areas and lithic scat- 8800 B.P. 8000 - ters, some with features. Features, although~~

~~numerous, are insubstantial and took little ef-~~

~~Figure 29. Distribution of White Crack fort to prepare and maintain. Most are Area radiocarbon dates by temporal period. hearths. Only two sites have accumulations~~

192 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS of cultural deposits—one has a shallow cul- most potholes observed in the project area tural stratum and the other has a small, sparse are relatively small. Based on personal obser- midden. The site with the cultural stratum is vations, these small potholes hold water for a definitely multicomponent. Thus, it is prob- few days to a week after each rain or snow ably the result of repeated, rather than long- storm. Given the importance of water, it is term use. The site with the shallow midden likely that most occupation of the project has less than a hundred pieces of debitage area was timed to coincide with the availabil- and a single biface; despite the midden, the ity of water in the potholes. As noted in small size of this assemblage suggests that Chapter 2, June, July, and August are cur- the site was used for only a brief period of rently the wettest months at the Island-in-the- time. Overall, the insubstantial nature of pro- Sky District Ranger Station; August, ject area sites, the lack of substantial con- September, and October are the wettest structed features, and the paucity of deep months at the Needles District Ranger Sta- cultural deposits that would had to have ac- tion. If climatic conditions were similar dur- cumulated over an extended period of time ing the various prehistoric periods, water indicate that sites in the project area were sources would have been most reliable during only used for short-term occupation, a few the summer to early fall months, and occupa- hours to a few days, and certainly no more tion may have been primarily during those than a few weeks at a time. This pattern ap- times. pears to have persisted throughout prehistory. Another factor that may have effected the

While some of the sites are large and have season of occupation is physiographic loca- numerous hearths and/or chipped stone tools, tion. The White Rim in general, and the traditional chronological evidence and com- White Crack Area in particular, are comparisons with sites occupied by modern abo- pletely exposed to the elements. Thunder- riginal peoples suggest that the large sites are storms, wind, and precipitation-bearing the result of multiple overlapping, short-term storms can be quite intense, even during the occupations, not long-term or year-round use warm seasons. Over the course of several

~~(see Chapter 5). days while residing at the White Crack camp-~~

Very little direct information on the sea- ground, the field crew experienced a brutal, son(s) of occupation was recovered during late-season storm with driving rains, blowing the project, but the available evidence can be snow, and 100-mile-per-hour winds. Had this supplemented by several lines of indirect evi- storm been combined with typical winter dence. Water is essential to human survival temperatures, it would have been even worse. and has been noted in optimal foraging stud- Winters on the White Rim, and particularly ies as a critical resource, the location and the months of December and January, are availability of which conditioned where sites cold. At the Needles District Ranger Station, were located (e.g., Elston and Raven 1992). January temperatures range from -9.67° C

The White Rim in general, and the project (14.6° F) to 4.05° C (39.3° F) (Lammers area in particular, lack permanent water 1991). Given the exposed location of the pro- sources. The main source of water consists of ject area and the cold climatic conditions dur- potholes in the sandstone that fill after pre- ing late fall and winter, it would have been cipitation events (see Figure 6). While some very difficult to survive without substantial of these are quite large and would have held shelter and an ample supply of firewood. water for relatively long periods of time, The lack of sturdy constructed shelters and

~~193 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS~~

~~substantial natural shelters, as well as the ethnoarcheological patterns for foragers can~~

~~paucity of firewood other than shrubs that be projected into the past, then most site oc-~~

~~tend to burn quickly, indicate that cold- cupants probably came to the area in small, season occupation of the project area was extended family groups. However, occasional~~

~~limited, if it occurred at all. Lack of water logistical use of the area cannot be ruled out,~~

~~may have been another problem during the so visits by logistical parties is another possi-~~

late fall and winter. As noted in Chapter 2, bility. December, January, and February are the dri- Most prehistoric sites are residential est months at the Island-in-the-Sky District bases or camps, or limited-activity loci used

Ranger Station; January and February is the for collecting and processing Cedar Mesa driest two-month period at the Needles Dis- Chert and performing other domestic activi- trict Ranger Station. Historically, cattle ties. Acquisition of animal resources is also

ranchers wintering on the White Rim and in indicated by the presence of use-broken pro- the subrim canyons often had to drive their jectile points; unifaces, scrapers, and expedi- cattle down to the river to get water (Osborn ent flake tools indicate a wide variety of

1995). In sum, given the environmental set- cutting, scraping, shredding, planing, and in- ting of the project area and its exposed loca- cising tasks. The presence of a few pieces of tion, the warm seasons would have been the groundstone and the small seed assemblage

most comfortable time to inhabit the White from the tested features attests to some plant Crack Area. collection and utilization. The storage struc- The few seeds recovered from the ture provides limited evidence of caching be-

hearths generally accord with seasonality in- havior. formation derived from environmental condi- During the Archaic, Preformative, and tions. Dropseed, which was recovered from probably the Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric three flotation samples, and Indian ricegrass, periods, the project area appears to have which was recovered from one sample, are mainly been used by mobile hunter-gatherers

~~available in the late spring and early summer. who stopped briefly at the toolstone sources Their presence may suggest that people were to retool and gear up while foraging through~~

~~in the project area at this time of year, sub- the area during the course of their annual sisting on early seeds and greens. Cheno-am, round. Mobile hunter-gatherers retooled and~~

~~found in two flotation samples, is available in geared up by assembling a lightweight, versa-~~

~~the fall, although this taxon was often stored. tile, and adequate supply of chipped stone~~

~~Group size is another important issue that tools and toolstone that they could easily~~

~~is related to site type and settlement patterns. transport and use to fulfill their needs until No concrete information was recovered con- they reached the next suitable toolstone~~

~~cerning this issue. However, because many of source in their annual round. Their primary~~

~~the sites are probably multicomponent or at mode of adaptation is inferred to be foraging~~

~~least multi-occupational, use by large groups because, with the exception of Cedar Mesa~~

~~is not indicated. Instead, most sites were Chert and Chalcedony, the White Crack Area~~

~~probably occupied by just a few people at a lacks the types of resources that would war-~~

~~time. As noted elsewhere in this chapter, for- rant logistical use. It is suspected that the~~

~~aging is the primary mode of adaptation in- quality of the local toolstone was not suffi- ferred for the project area. If this cient to justify logistic procurement on any~~

~~interpretation is correct and ethnographic/ large scale given the high cost of time and~~

~~194 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS~~

human labor for logistic procurement. In ad- access route and White Crack Area by a sin- dition, residential sites of the size and type gle group of people. that might support logistical forays are un- Written records concerning historical

~~known on the White Rim and in the lower uses of the project area all indicate short-term canyons and benchlands. Residents of the use. As noted above, occupation by ranchers~~

more substantial sites along the river corri- involved with grazing was seasonal and pri- dors and on highest mesa of Island-in-the- marily limited to the winter. Osborn (1995:9) Sky would have had access to equal- or notes that "winter grazing on the White Rim higher quality raw materials closer to home, and in the canyons below required that cow-

so there would have been little reason for boys move with their cattle. The cattle had to regular logistic use. be moved from one area to another and from Despite the foraging mode of adaptation, one rock tank to another. If the tanks dried

~~use of the area was probably not by happen- up, the cowboys had to trail their cattle to the~~

~~." stance. The uneven distribution of critical river . . Oil and gas exploration and~~

~~natural resources (i.e., food, water, toolstone, uranium-related activities in the actual pro-~~

~~etc.) indicates that access to all levels of the ject area were probably even more short-term Island-in-the-Sky District was essential to than those involving grazing, although given~~

successful adaptation. Because the White the weather and road conditions, it is likely Crack Area contains one of the few corridors that they took place during a warmer part of between the White Rim and the subrim can- the year. Historic uses of the project area

yons and benchlands, it must have been well were all likely by small groups of workers, known and well traveled. Use of the area was mostly consisting of men. probably scheduled and timed within the an- The annual range sizes for several desert-

nual round so that visits to White Crack oc- dwelling, hunter-gatherer groups range curred when toolstone supplies needed to be from approximately 2,000 to well over 2 replenished and when critical resources such 11,000 km , with a modal value in the low 2 as food and water were available in the area. 3,000 km range (Kelly 1995:Table 4, 157-

Formative people evidently used the pro- 158; Lee 1968; Thomas 1983). For illustra- 2 ject area less frequently and in a more tive purposes, a circular, 3000-km territory ephemeral way than people of other time pe- centered over the White Crack Area would

riods. Like the mobile hunter-gatherers that extend to the Big Flat and The Knoll in the preceded them, they used the local Cedar Island-in-the-Sky uplands to the north- Mesa Chert sources to acquire toolstone and northeast; to Hatch Point on the east; almost

~~manufacture tools, but evidence for intensive to the Dugout Ranch on the southeast; to~~

~~toolstone processing, including on-site heat Beef Basin on the south; to Waterhole Flat in~~

~~treatment, is lacking. The few Formative sites Glen Canyon National Recreation Area on~~

in the project area may have been short-term the southwest; and beyond Hans Flat to the stopover locales for peoples traveling be- west. Positioning the White Crack Area near tween farmsteads along the river and residen- an edge of this theoretical circular territory tial sites on the highest mesa of would of course yield different results. Also,

~~Island-in-the-Sky, or between other locations it is highly unlikely that prehistoric territories~~

~~and site types. The presence of a storage were circular, especially given the rugged structure may indicate repeated use of the topography of the Canyonlands region and~~

~~the formidable barriers posed by rivers, canyons,~~

195 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS and cliffs. However, what does seem clear is as high quality as Summerville Chalcedony, that the White Crack Area was only a tiny which would make it less desirable for long- portion of the annual range used by site in- distance transport. Even so, its extreme scar- habitants, and that territories used by differ- city in the site assemblages may indicate that ent groups and at different time periods groups using the White Crack Area did not probably varied. routinely include the Island-in-the-Sky up-

Very little evidence was obtained during lands in their annual range, or they may have the project on the size or the positioning of visited it after leaving the White Crack Area, prehistoric territories. This information is so that by the time they returned to White limited to artifacts made of recognizable non- Crack, very little of it remained in their local materials whose possible source is toolkits. Except for a few tools of Sum- known. Summerville Chalcedony is the only merville Chalcedony, no other nonlocal mate- common nonlocal toolstone in the site assem- rials of known source could be identified in blages. It occurs in small to medium amounts the tool assemblages from the sites, although on eight sites recorded during the inventory some are undoubtedly present. However, as well as the White Crack site. Summerville definite non-Cedar Mesa Chert materials are

Chalcedony is available near La Sal Junction relatively rare in the tool assemblages (com- (Tipps 1995:40-41), approximately 45 km posing, for example, only 12 percent of the east of the project area and northern Arches biface assemblage). This may indicate that National Park (Berry 1975) approximately 55 km the annual range of groups using the White northeast but may occur in other areas as Crack Area focused on areas where Cedar well. Considering its relative abundance, at Mesa Chert is available, or that these were least some sources of this high-quality mate- the areas groups usually visited before com- rial were within the annual territories used by ing to White Crack. Discarded and replaced some project area inhabitants. This material tools of Cedar Mesa Chert collected from was recorded on two Archaic and three For- distant sources would not have been recog- mative sites. nizable in the site assemblages.

As noted in Chapter 5, artifacts made at A few other artifacts provide limited in- toolstone sources encountered earlier in a formation regarding territorial range. Sinbad group's annual round tend to be discarded Side-notched points, a possible example of during retooling episodes at sources encoun- which was noted as an isolated find in the tered later in the annual round (Gramly project area, are primarily known from the

1 980). Thus, the material types of discarded San Rafael Swell region to the northwest and replaced tools can sometimes provide in- (Tipps 1988). This may suggest a possible sight about the areas a group may have re- link to this area during the Early Archaic pe- cently visited. One biface of Bartlett Flat or riod. For the Formative period, paste and

~~Dubinky chert was noted on an Archaic site. temper types suggest a link with the Elk~~

This material occurs as float in the Island-in- Ridge Plateau uplands region, south of the the-Sky uplands, approximately 30-40 km park. north of the project area (Keller 1975; Lipe The next research topic in this domain

1975; Tipps 1991). Its presence may indicate concerns Sharrock's (1966) model of land use that some site inhabitants visited that area patterns and settlement strategies. Based on earlier in their seasonal round and included it his reconnaissance inventory, Sharrock in their annual range. This material is not of (1966:71) concluded, "Difficulty of access.

196 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS limited amounts of arable land, and a lack of analogous to that in the Needles (Cedar Mesa water supply other than seasonal potholes Chert) had to be imported clearly indicates militated against any significant use of the Is- incomplete coverage of the district. Had he land in the Sky District." While he noted the ventured below the White Rim in the south- presence of a few habitation sites and grana- ern third of Island-in-the-Sky, he would have ries, he reported numerous chipping sites, discovered that the sources of this chert are which he considered to be mostly hunting ubiquitous. camps. We suspected a more intensive occu- Another factor that probably influenced pation and a wider array of site types based his conclusion was his heavy focus on on the results of work in surrounding areas. Anasazi structural sites. Relative to Upper

Site density in the White Crack Area is Salt Creek in the Needles District, that has a lower than that observed in the Squaw Butte large concentration of striking cliff dwellings, and Devils Lane areas of the Needles District Formative people used the Island-in-the-Sky

(Tipps 1995; Tipps and Hewitt 1989), but it in a much less intensive way, or at least in a is significantly higher than most surrounding different way that did not involve construc- areas of southeastern Utah that have also tion and use of numerous substantial struc- been subject to block area inventory (e.g., tures. Sharrock's (1966) conclusion regarding

Black et al. 1982; Montgomery et al. 1982; the lack of substantial use of Island-in-the- Thompson 1979). The reasons for this heavy Sky reflects his bias to Formative-age, use, as discussed in more detail in the next Anasazi sites. section, may be because the White Crack Sharrock (1966) was correct about the

Area has one of the few access routes be- presence of a few habitation sites and grana- tween the White Rim and lower elevations ries and a large number of chipping sites, but and numerous chert and chalcedony sources; the evidence does not support his conclusion such toolstone sources occur only sporadi- that most or even many of the chipping sites cally in Island-in-the-Sky. are hunting camps. Hunting implements are

While some of the difference in site den- rare in the White Crack Area and project area sities may result from different site recording soils are rated very poor to poor in habitat procedures such as lumping and splitting and that could support wetland, openland, wood- varying definitions of what constitutes a site, land, and rangeland wildlife (Lammers the results of the White Crack Area investi- 1991:Table 6). Animal populations, like hu- gations, as well as Osborn's (1995) work on mans populations, would have also been lim- the highest mesa of the district, indicate that ited by the seasonal availability of water.

Sharrock's (1966) conclusion regarding the Research in the past ten years, especially in lack of significant prehistoric use is inaccu- the course of cultural resource management rate. In part, the reconnaissance nature of his compliance projects, has shown a wide range work helps explain this conclusion. Sites in functional variability among chipping sites,

Island-in-the-Sky, at least on the White Rim or open lithic scatters as we now call them, and lower canyons and benchlands, are and that such sites were used for many types highly clustered in locales that have adequate of activities (e.g., Elston 1989; Elston and food, water, toolstone sources, or arable land. Raven 1992; Greubel 1996; La Fond and These high-density areas would be easy to Jones 1995; Osborn 1995; Reed 1990; overlook during a reconnaissance inventory. Schroedl 1995; Tipps 1988b, 1992, 1995). Sharrock's (1966:64) supposition that chert On the Island-in-the-Sky road project, where

197 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS faunal remains were recovered from five a foraging strategy during the growing season sites, Osborn (1995:254) notes that "... the to exploit plant resources over vast territories. faunal assemblage . . . does not necessarily In the fall and winter, they used a collector represent the entire round of activities that strategy to exploit smaller territories centered may have occurred at these locations. Other on mountain ranges such as the Abajos, La artifact assemblages, in conjunction with fau- Sals, and Henrys, and high plateaus such as nal remains, are probably more useful in de- Mesa Verde and Black Mesa. Osborn (1995) termining the central activity of these sites." suggests that winter diet relied heavily on The results of the inventory and the deer and other ungulates such as elk and big- White Crack site reanalysis suggest that lithic horn sheep, but was supplemented by cached scatters in the project area were used for a plant foods, especially when ungulates were variety of purposes including toolstone pro- unavailable due to environmental conditions curement, toolstone processing and heat treat- (e.g., herd decimation due to a hard winter). ment, manufacture and repair of chipped The heavy emphasis on ungulates is postu- stone tools, toolkit rejuvenation, cooking, and lated because of their high return rate (Simms a wide variety of other domestic activities. 1984) relative to other foods (i.e., they pro-

Some of the sites appear to have been used vide more calories than other foods relative for a limited range of activities, such as as- to the time and energy expended in their pro- saying, procuring, and partially reducing lo- curement), and because they are heavily con- cal chert or heat treating raw material and centrated on southern and southwestern flaking it into staged bifaces for transport out exposures during winter, and therefore, easier of the area. Other lithic scatters result from a to locate and kill. much wider range of activities consistent Osborn's (1995) model would predict with residential base camp functions. Hunting warm-season foraging in the environmental implements were clearly refurbished at some setting of the White Crack Area, and indeed, sites, and tool types such as scrapers suggest this is what the archeological evidence sug- that faunal remains may have been processed gests. His conclusion that they used vast an- at others. Also, some sites could have func- nual territories during the foraging season is tioned as game-monitoring stations due to supported by ethnographic and ethnohistoric their commanding view of the surrounding data (Kelly 1934; Kelly 1995; Lee 1968; area. However, none of these sites appears to Steward 1938; Stewart 1939), as well as lim- have been used solely as a hunting camp. In- ited archeological evidence from the project stead, activities related to hunting were just a area (see discussion of range size, above). few of the many activities that took place, Osborn's (1995) predictions about winter oc- and judging from the low projectile point fre- cupation and subsistence patterns cannot be quency and range site data, these activities tested with project data because no evidence were less frequent than many others. of winter occupation occurs in the project

As a final research topic in this domain, area. Sites such as Sudden Shelter (Jennings the National Park Service requested that we et al. 1980) and Aspen Shelter (Janetski et al. evaluate Osborn's (1993, 1995) model of abo- 1991) may typify this pattern. However, riginal land use in southeastern Utah which is much more research is needed in high- based on Binford's (1979, 1980) forager- elevation areas to test the winter aspect of his collector continuum. The model states that model. hunter-gatherers in southeastern Utah employed

~~198 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS~~

Environmental Adaptation various levels of the district. According to cattlemen who used the area, there are no As noted in Chapter 3, Environmental other access routes from the White Rim to Adaptation refers to how people made a liv- the lower elevations and the Green River being and adapted to their environment. One of tween White Crack and Potato Bottom (Os- the main concerns of this domain was assess- born 1995:9), a distance of more than 20 km ing the availability of critical resources and as the crow flies. Even if additional access identifying what constraints the natural con- routes existed, they were probably few in ditions may have imposed on the prehistoric number, highlighting the importance of the inhabitants. Sharrock (1966) was correct in access route at White Crack as a major and his assessment that environmental factors well-known travel route. constrained the nature and extent of prehis- The other important resource that may toric occupation in the area. have affected use of the area is Cedar Mesa Compared to other areas inventoried dur- Chert and Chalcedony. Extensive residual de- ing the Canyonlands Archeological Project, posits of these materials occur on ledges and the overall availability of critical resources in benches below the White Rim at White the White Crack Area was more limited. As Crack. These sources appear to have been in- discussed above, water was only reliably tensively exploited throughout prehistory. available after precipitation events. The lack Material was collected from the residual de- of permanent water sources probably affected posits, partially reduced, and then transported plant and animal populations, as well as peo- to sites on the White Rim for heat treatment ple. Economically useful seed plant resources and further processing. Raw material in the and animal forage grow in the area today, but form of nodules, chunks, and tabular clasts overall food resources are more limited than was readily available across the source sites; in other areas of the park, for example, the no excavation or quarrying was necessary. Needles midlands; this was probably another Based on a regional perspective of toolstone factor that affected the nature and extent of distribution and site types, the positioning of prehistoric occupation, one that helps explain the sources by an important travel route, the the short-term use of the area. Finally, the heavy use of the source sites, and the rela- shallow soils in the project area are not con- tively high density of campsites where the ducive to growing crops, a constraint that material was processed, most visits to the probably affected Formative-age peoples. project area were probably planned rather However, the project area does possess than by happenstance. However, given the two important resources that probably had a highly variable, but overall moderate quality major effect on the area being used consis- of the material and the availability of other tently throughout prehistory. The first is the equal- or higher quality materials in many ar- access route over the White Rim Sandstone, eas of Canyonlands, it seems unlikely that thus allowing travel between the White Rim, special logistic trips were made to the area to the lower elevations, and the Green and procure the toolstone. Instead, use of the Colorado rivers. Access routes between the sources may have been embedded in the sea- various levels of the Island-in-the-Sky are ex- sonal round to coincide with the availability tremely rare but would have been essential to of critical resources such as food and water survival given the limited resource base and and the need to use the access route between its patchy distribution between and across the the White Rim and the lower elevations.

~~199 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS~~

Once at the sources, a combination of resi- and sego lily occur in the project area today dential and diurnal procurement strategies and prickly pear cactus is abundant. Hearths (Elston et al. 1992) probably prevailed. that could have been used to roast or bake Relatively little information on subsis- these items are also common, especially dur- tence practices was discovered in the project ing the Archaic and Preformative periods. area. Hunting implements are infrequent, al- There was no direct subsistence evidence for though there is evidence that projectile points the Formative period, so it is unknown were manufactured and refurbished. Grinding whether subsistence strategies and diet were tools are rare and flotation samples from Late the same or different than during earlier or and Terminal Archaic and Preformative later periods in the project area. However, the hearths yielded only a meager assemblage of presence of a storage feature suggests possi- burned wild plant remains. Domesticates, as ble food caching, perhaps of corn grown else- well as faunal remains, were entirely lacking. where. Osborn's (1995) work on the highest Based on this scant evidence, the following mesa of Island-in-the-Sky suggests consider- statements should be viewed as hypotheses in able corn use by the Early Formative period. need of testing and verification. Unless ille- In the Squaw Butte Area of the Needles gal surface collection and preservation factors District, the availability of early spring have significantly altered the evidence, hunt- greens and seeds was considered a major rea-

~~ing was not a major subsistence pursuit in the son for occupation during periods preceding~~

~~project area, although it was evidently more the Late Formative (Tipps 1995). Sporobolus common during the Archaic and Late Prehistoric/ sp. seeds, which are among the first to be~~

~~Protohistoric periods than the Formative era. available in spring or early summer, have the~~

The small assemblage of burned plant re- highest ubiquity count in the White Crack mains from the flotation samples suggests Area flotation samples, but the evidence is that Archaic and Preformative peoples insufficient to posit that collection of

~~roasted and ate the seeds of wild plants such Sporobolus sp. seeds was a major reason for~~

~~as Sporobolus sp., Stipa hymenoides, and occupation of the area. In Chapter 6, Coulam~~

~~various cheno-ams. The small size of this as- concludes that people were not attracted to semblage may result from preservation or use the White Crack Area because of the avail-~~

factors, but the extreme scarcity of ground- ability of a single desirable plant species or stone needed to process hard seeds suggests consistent set of plant resources, but some that seeds were not subsistence mainstays other resource(s) instead. As noted above,

~~either. these appear to be the access route and the Given the scarce evidence for hunting toolstone sources.~~

~~and seed processing, one wonders if the pre- Another issue in this domain concerned~~

~~historic people in the White Crack Area sub- lithic technology including what materials~~

~~sisted on foods that left little archeological were used, how and where they were ob- trace. These potentially include items they tained, and how technology was used to~~

~~could (1) carry with them when they passed achieve successful adaptation. Cedar Mesa~~

~~through, such as corn during the Formative Chert from the local sources is the primary~~

~~period, (2) eat fresh, such as spring greens or toolstone used in the project area. It occurs~~

~~berries, or (3) bake in or roast over hearths on all sites with chipped stone, is the only~~

~~such as roots, sego lily bulbs, and prickly material on 43 percent of the sites, the domi-~~

~~pear cactus pads and fruits. Wolfberry, currant, nant material on another 46 percent of the~~

200 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS sites, and one of two primary materials on formal implements such as projectile points another 6 percent of the sites. It is infrequent and knives. The occurrence of multiple core on just two sites. The reason for this ubiquity morphologies—random, unidirectional, and is not its high quality, but because of its discoidal—suggests that prehistoric flintknap- availability in numerous residual deposits in pers were attempting to utilize stone in the the White Crack Benchlands Parcel. Other most efficient manner possible given con- materials occur on up to 31 percent of the straints imposed by its size, quality, and con- sites, but are rarely a dominant or primary figuration. Various flake blank-biface material. In addition, many of these are (i.e., reduction trajectories were used to produce a

Cedar Mesa Chalcedony) or may be (e.g., variety of bifacial tools. It is also possible white chert, gray chert, rose to rose-white that core-blank trajectories were used to pro- chalcedony, and brown chalcedony) from the duce such tools, although no direct evidence local Cedar Mesa Formation deposits as well. of this strategy was observed in the project

As such, there is an overwhelming emphasis area. on local material. Of course, it is possible Previous work in the Squaw Butte Area that some of the Cedar Mesa materials were revealed that Cedar Mesa Chert requires heat procured at other, more distant Cedar Mesa treatment before refined flaking (La Fond

Formation sources and are therefore nonlocal, 1995a). The White Crack site chipped stone but they would be difficult to recognize in reanalysis supports this conclusion and shows project assemblages. that Cedar Mesa Chert was often heat treated

Primary manufacture of early-stage bi- very early in the reduction process, often be- faces using a bifacial reduction strategy ap- fore the production of flake blanks from pears to have been a major activity in the cores. The presence of toolstone sources and White Crack Area. These artifacts may have early-stage, heat-treated artifacts of material been intended and used as both tools and from the sources strongly suggest that heat cores. Staging, the practice of making flake treatment took place in the White Crack blanks or bifaces at one location and trans- Area. While no special heat treatment facili- porting them to another for further reduction, ties were observed, there are numerous appears to have been commonplace. The hearths and slab-lined hearths in the project types and frequencies of bifaces, cores, and area that would have been adequate for this debitage on the various site types suggest that purpose. In Chapter 5, it is suggested that raw material procured at the source sites was hearths were sometimes lined with slabs to usually reduced into flake blanks and occa- facilitate the heat treatment process. Success- sionally into early-stage bifaces and cores, ful heat treatment is difficult to accomplish and then transported to campsites with hearth with the shrublike fuel wood available on the facilities for heat treatment, reduction, and White Rim, and slab linings could have possible use. Late-stage bifaces were also helped overcome this problem (cf. Elston manufactured and refined, either for immedi- 1992:789-790). ate use or in anticipation of transport. Bi- The chipped stone classification scheme facial tools were also maintained and developed in the Needles District (Tipps rejuvenated. 1995; Tipps and Hewitt 1989) was applied A flake-core reduction strategy was used and tested in the White Crack Area. Correct to produce flakes suitable for use as tools and identification of raw materials and their as flake blanks that could be reduced into sources is an important aspect of reconstructing

201 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS settlement and mobility strategies and possi- quality that may grade into Cedar Mesa ble trade relationships, as well as the poten- Chert. Based on the inventory data, it could tial size and geographic positioning of a not be determined whether these materials group's annual territory. Observations made are the same type or two different types, and during the inventory as well as during reana- whether their source(s) is the Tidwell Mem- lysis of the chipped stone assemblage from ber of the Morrison Formation (for Sum- the White Crack site demonstrate that the merville Chalcedony), the Cedar Mesa Needles chipped stone classification applies Formation, another formation, or a combination to the White Crack Area with few modifica- of these. More investigations are necessary. tions. The final topic in this domain was as- Raw material in the Cedar Mesa Forma- sessing the nature and timing of the transition tion sources is similar to that in the Needles to agriculture. In areas south of Canyonlands,

District in terms of its variable quality, luster, recent research has demonstrated early use of and texture. Material may be (1) relatively domesticates such as corn (Smiley 1994), but high quality, (2) limey or grainy, but still current evidence suggests that corn use in flakeable, or (3) have cracks, fracture planes, Utah did not occur until the centuries around dendrites, or inclusions, making it marginally the time of Christ (e.g., Geib 1993; Greubel usable. It may be lustrous or dull, and is 1996; Talbot and Richens 1996; Tipps 1992). often incompletely silicified. Toolstone clasts As no evidence of corn was discovered in the are smaller in the White Crack Area than in project area (e.g., as macrofossils in flotation the Squaw Butte Area of the Needles Dis- samples or cobs in dry shelters), the White trict, and are often more tabular, sometimes Crack data have nothing to add to this issue. making a bidirectional core-flake reduction People in the White Crack Area appear to strategy the most efficient means of access- have been practicing a hunting and gathering

~~ing toolstone. Detailed examination of the lifeway as late as the Preformative period.~~

source sites showed a wider range of color Osborn's (1995) work on the highest mesa of variability than was present at Needles Dis- Island-in-the-Sky demonstrates that local trict Cedar Mesa Chert sources. The White populations were using, and possibly grow-

~~Crack Area has specimens in the orange- ing, corn in the district by the Early Forma-~~

~~white, red-purple, purple, orange-purple, light tive (ca. A.D. 660-970).~~

~~purple, lavender, and lavender-white color In final summation, open lithic scatters of~~

~~ranges. In addition, Cedar Mesa Chalcedony the type prevalent in the White Crack Area~~

~~was documented in the Cedar Mesa Forma- have long been ignored in Southwestern re-~~

tion lag deposits for the first time. search and are only beginning to be better The only significant problem with the understood in areas like the Great Basin classification was the recognition of two where most sites are of this type. This report "types" of white chalcedony, one high quality shows some of the ways that such sites can

~~and analogous to that previously identified as help us reconstruct and understand the human~~

~~Summerville Chalcedony and one of low past.~~

~~202 1~~

~~REFERENCES CITED~~

~~Agenbroad, L. D. Ahler, S. A.~~

1 99 Quaternary Studies of Canyonlands 1983 Heat Treatment of Knife River National Park and Glen Canyon Flint. Lithic Technology 12:1-8. National Recreation Area. Rev. ed. Aikens, C. M. Quaternary Studies Program/ 1972 Fremont Culture: Restatement of Department of Geology, Northern Some Problems. American Antiquity Arizona University, Flagstaff. Sub- 37:61-66. mitted to National Park Service,

Rocky Mountain Regional Office, Ambler, J. R. Denver, Colorado. 1984 A Synopsis of the Archaeology and Stratigraphy of Dust Devil Cave. Agenbroad, L. D., and J. I. Mead Paper presented at the 19th Biennial 1992 Quaternary Paleoenvironmental Great Basin Anthropological Con- Studies of the Colorado Plateau ference, Boise, Idaho. Year IV. Quaternary Studies Program/ Department of Geology, Northern Anderson, A. B.

Arizona University, Flagstaff. Sub- 1986 Road Improvement, Phase II Con- mitted to National Park Service, struction, Green River Overlook Rocky Mountain Regional Office, Road. Rocky Mountain Region Ar- Denver. cheological Project Report. Report

on file, National Park Service, Mid- Agenbroad, L. D., J. I. Mead, R. Hevly, west Archeological Center, Lincoln, S. Clay-Poole, and G. Judges-Edwards Nebraska. 1990 Quaternary Studies in Canyonlands National Park and Glen Canyon Anderson, D. E. National Recreation Area. Quater- 1991 Holocene Alluvial Geochronology nary Studies Program/Department of and Archaeology of Lower Butler Geology, Northern Arizona Univer- Wash, San Juan County, Utah. Un- sity, Flagstaff. Submitted to Na- published Master's thesis, Quater- tional Park Service, Rocky nary Studies Program/Department of Mountain Regional Office, Denver, Geology, Northern Arizona Univer-

~~Colorado. sity, Flagstaff.~~

~~Ahlbrandt, T. S., J. B. Swinehart, and Andrefsky, W., Jr.~~

J. B. Maroney 1994 Raw-Material Availability and the 1983 Dynamic Holocene Dune Fields of Organization of Technology. Ameri- the Great Plains and Rocky Moun- can Antiquity 59:21-34. tain Basins. U.S.A. In Eolian Sedi- ments and Processes, edited by M. E. Brookfield and T. S. Ahl- brandt, pp. 374-406. Elsevier Scien-

~~tific Publishing B. V., Amsterdam. .~~

~~REFERENCES CITED~~

Ataman, K., and W. W. Bloomer D. D. Fowler, pp. 252-327. Anthro- 1992 Opalite Reduction Trajectories. In pological Papers No. 110. Univer- Archaeological Investigations at sity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Tosawihi, A Great Basin Quarry. Berry, M. S. Part 1: The Periphery, vol. 1, edited 1975 An Archeological Survey of the by R. G. Elston and C. Raven, pp. Northeastern Portion of Arches Na- 637-654. Intermountain Research, tional Park. Antiquities Section Se- Silver City, Nevada. Submitted to lected Papers 1(3). Utah Division of Bureau of Land Management, Elko State History, Salt Lake City. Resource Area, Elko, Nevada.

Berry, M. S., and C. F. Berry Bamforth, D. B. 1976 An Archaeological Reconnaissance 1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool of the White River Area, Northwest- Curation. American Antiquity 51:38- ern Utah. Antiquities Section Se- 50. lected Papers 2(4). Utah Division of Barlow, K. R., and D. Metcalfe State History, Salt Lake City. 1993 1990 Archaeological Excavations at Betancourt, J. L. Joe's Valley Alcove. Reports of In- 1984 Late Quaternary Plant Zonation and vestigations 93-1. University of Climate in Southeastern Utah. The Utah Archaeological Center, Uni- Great Basin Naturalist 44:1-35. versity of Utah, Salt Lake City. Binford, L. R. Bartram, L. E., E. M. Kroll, and H. T. Bunn 1977 Forty-Seven Trips: A Case Study in 1991 Variability in Camp Structure and the Character of Archeological For- Bone Food Refuse Patterning at Kua mation Processes. In Stone Tools as San Hunter-Gatherer Camps. In The Cultural Markers: Change, Evolu- Interpretation of Archaeological tion and Complexity, edited by R. Spatial Patterning, edited by E. M. V. S. Wright, pp. 24-36. Australian Kroll and T. D. Price, pp. 77-148. Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Can- Plenum Press, New York. berra. Beck, C, and G. T. Jones 1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behavior 1993 The Multipurpose Function of Great and Site Structure: Learning from an Basin Stemmed Series Points. Cur- Eskimo Hunting Stand. American rent Research in the Pleistocene Antiquity 43:330-361. 10:52-54. 1979 Organization and Formation Pro- Bergman, C, and M. R. Newcomer cesses: Looking at Curated Tech- 1983 Flint Arrowhead Breakage: Exam- nologies. Journal ofAnthropological ples from Ksar Akil. Journal of Research 35(3):255-273. Field Archaeology 1 0:23 8-243 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Berry, C. F., and M. S. Berry Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems 1986 Chronological and Conceptual Mod- and Archaeological Site Formation. els of the Southwestern Archaic. In American Antiquity 45:4-20. Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jen-

~~nings, edited by C. J. Condie and~~

~~204 REFERENCES CITED~~

Binford, L. R. Boldurian, A. T., and S. M. Hubinsky 1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal 1994 Preforms in Folsom Lithic Technol- ofAnthropological Archaeology 1:5- ogy: A View from Blackwater 31. Draw, New Mexico. Plains Anthro- pologist 39:445-464. 1986 An Alyawara Day: Making Men's Knives and Beyond. American An- Breternitz, D. A., A. H. Rohn, and E. Morris

tiquity 51:547-562. 1 974 Prehistoric Ceramics of the Mesa Verde Region. Ceramic Series No. Binford, L. R., and J. F. O'Connell 5. Museum of Northern Arizona, 1984 An Alyawara Day: The Stone Flagstaff. Quarry. Journal of Anthropological Research 40:406-432. Brown, G. M. 1987 Archaeological Investigations at Site Binford, L. R., and G. I. Quimby 42WNI666, South Fork of Horse 1972 Indian Sites and Chipped Stone Ma- Canyon, The Maze District, Canyon- terials in the Northern Lake Michi- lands National Park. Cultural Re- gan Area. In An Archaeological sources Report 411-1-8720. P-III Perspective, by L. R. Binford, pp. Associates, Salt Lake City. Submit- 346-372. Seminar Press, New York. ted to National Park Service, Rocky

~~Black, K. D., J. D. Copeland, and Mountain Regional Office, Denver.~~

S. M. Horvath, Jr. Brown, M. C, C. L. Furnis, and R. G. Elston 1982 An Archaeological Survey of the 1989 Cores, Bifaces, and Flake Tools. In Central Lisbon Valley Study Tract The Tosawihi Quarries: An Archae- in the Moab District, San Juan ological Testing Program, edited by County, Utah. In Contributions to R. G. Elston, pp. 47-82. Intermoun- the Prehistory of Southeastern Utah, tain Research, Silver City, Nevada. assembled by S. G. Baker, pp. 1- BLM Report 1-1181(P). Submitted 188. Cultural Resource Series No. to Bureau of Land Management, 13. Bureau of Land Management, Elko Resource Area, Elko, Nevada. Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. Buckles, W. G. Black, K. D., and M. D. Metcalf 1971 The Uncompahgre Complex: Historic 1985 An Archaeological Sample Inventory Ute Archaeology and Prehistoric Ar- of the Elmo, Emery and Scattered chaeology of the Uncompahgre Pla- Small Tracts in Castle Valley, Cen- teau, West Central Colorado. Ph.D. tral Utah. Metcalf Archaeological dissertation, University of Colorado. Consultants, Eagle, Colorado. Sub- University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. mitted to Bureau of Land Manage- ment, Moab District Office, Moab, Bungart, P. W. Utah. 1990 Late Archaic Expansion in Upper Glen Canyon, Southeastern Utah. 1986 The Castle Valley Archaeological Unpublished Master's thesis, Depart- Project: An Inventory and Predic- ment of Anthropology, Northern tive Model of Selected Tracts. Cul- Arizona University, Flagstaff. tural Resource Series No. 19. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City.

~~205 REFERENCES CITED~~

Bungart, P. W., and P. R. Geib Callaway, D. G., J. C. Janetski, and O. C. 1987 Archaeological Testing in Bowns Stewart Canyon. In Archaeological Investi- 1986 Ute. In Great Basin, edited by W. L. gations Along the Lower Escalante D'Azevedo, pp. 336-367. Handbook

Drainage: Glen Canyon Year 2 Re- of North American Indians, vol. 11, port, 1985-1986, by P. R. Geib, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. P. W. Bungart, and H. C. Fairley, Smithsonian Institution, Washing- pp. 50-109. Archaeological Report ton, D.C. 1000. Northern Arizona University, Carr, C. Flagstaff. Ms. on file, National Park 1984 The Nature of Organization of In- Service, Rocky Mountain Regional trasite Archaeological Records and Office, Denver. Spatial Analytic Approaches to

~~Burchett, T. W., B. J. Vierra, and Their Investigation. In Advances in K. L. Brown Archaeological Method and Theory,~~

1994 Across the Colorado Plateau: An- vol. 7, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. thropological Studies for the Trans- 103-222. Academic Press, Orlando. western Pipeline Expansion Project: Cartwright, C. Vol. XIV, Excavation and Interpre- 1987 White Rim Backcountry Campsites. tation of Aceramic and Archaic Rocky Mountain Region Archeo- Sites. Office of Contract Archeology logical Project Report. Report on and Maxwell Museum of Anthropol- file, National Park Service, Midwest ogy, University of New Mexico, Al- Archeological Center, Lincoln, Ne- buquerque. braska. Burt, W. H. 1988 Island-in-the-Sky Housing. Rocky 1976 Peterson Field Guides: Mammals. Mountain Regional Archeological 3rd ed. Houghton Mifflin, New York. Project Report. Report on file, Na-

Calabrese, F. A. tional Park Service, Midwest Ar- 1984 Memorandum to Chief, Division of cheological Center, Lincoln, Cultural Resources, Rocky Moun- Nebraska. tain Region, dated January 27. Chandler, S. M. Archeological Field Work, Canyon- 1990 Limited Excavations at Bighorn lands National Park and Arches Na- Sheep Ruin (42SA1563) Canyon- tional Park. File code: H2215. Ms. lands National Park, Utah. Utah Ar- on file, National Park Service, Mid- chaeology 1990 3:85-104. west Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Chisholm, B., and R. G. Matson 1994 Carbon and Nitrogen Isotopic Evi- Callahan, E. dence on Basketmaker II Diet at 1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in Cedar Mesa, Utah. Kiva 60:239-255. the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for Flintknappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of

~~Eastern North America 7: 1- 1 80.~~

~~206 REFERENCES CITED~~

Christenson, A. L., and W. J. Parry Copeland, J. M., and R. E. Fike 1985 Excavations on Black Mesa, 1983: 1988 Fluted Projectile Points in Utah. A Descriptive Report. Research Pa- Utah Archaeology 1988 1:5-28. per 46. Center for Archaeological Copeland, J. M., and L. D. Webster Investigations, Southern Illinois 1983 Class II Cultural Resource Inven- University, Carbondale. tory and Test Excavation Program Clarke, D. L. of the Trough Hollow-Ivie Creek- 1968 Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, Emery Area, Emery and Sevier London. Counties, Utah. Centuries Research, Montrose, Colorado. Submitted to Close, A. E. Bureau of Land Management, Rich- 1978 The Identification of Style on field District Office, Richfield, Utah. Lithic Artifacts. World Archaeology

10:223-237. Coulam, N. J. 1988 Intermountain Archaic Subsistence Cole, S. J. and an Archaeobotanical Analysis 1990 Legacy on Stone: Rock Art of the of Swallow Shelter and Remnant Colorado Plateau and Four Corners Cave. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona Region. Johnson Books, Boulder, State University, Tempe. University Colorado. Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Colton, H. S. Crabtree, D. E. 1955 Pottery Types of the Southwest, 1966 A Stoneworker's Approach to Ana- Wares 8A, 8B, 9A, 9B; Tusayan lyzing and Replicating the Linden- Gray, and White Ware, Little Colo- meier Folsom. Tebiwa 9:3-33. rado Gray, and White Ware. Ce- ramic Series No. 3A. Museum of 1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. Occasional Papers 28. Idaho State University Museum, Pocatello. 1956 Pottery Types of the Southwest: Wares 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B, 7C, Currey, D. R. San Juan Red Ware, Tsegi Orange 1990 Quaternary Paleolakes in the Evolu- Ware, Homolovi Orange Ware, tion of Semidesert Basins, with Spe- Wins low Orange Ware, Awatovi cial Emphasis on Lake Bonneville Yellow Ware, Jeddito Yellow Ware, and the Great Basin, U.S.A. Palaeo- Sichomovi Red Ware. Ceramic Se- geography, Palaeoclimatology, Pa-

~~ries No. 3C. Museum of Northern laeoecology 76: 1 89-2 1 4. Arizona, Flagstaff. Currey, D. R., and S. R. James~~

Copeland, J. M. 1982 Paleoenvironments of the North- 1986 Chronological Ordering of Archae- eastern Great Basin and Northeastern ological Sites Lacking Traditional Basin Rim Region: A Review of Temporal Indices, Lisbon Valley, Geological and Biological Evidence. Utah. Unpublished M.A. thesis, De- In Man and Environment in the partment of Anthropology, Colorado Great Basin, edited by D. B. Madsen

~~State University, Fort Collins. and J. F. O'Connell, pp. 27-52. SAA Papers No. 2. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.~~

~~207 REFERENCES CITED~~

~~Davis, W. E. Department of Transportation; Fed- 1985 The Montgomery Folsom Site. The eral Highway Administration, Utah UPAC News 3~~

Dean, J. S., R. C. Euler, G. J. Gumerman, Davis, W. E., and G. M. Brown F. Plog, R. H. Hevly, and T. N. V. Karlstrom 1986 The Lime Ridge Clovis Site. Cur- 1985 Human Behavior, Demography, rent Research in the Pleistocene and Paleoenvironment on the Colo- 3:1-3. rado Plateaus. American Antiquity Davis, W. E., and D. A. Westfall 50:537-554. 1988a Archaeological Data Recovery at DeBloois, E. E. Sites 42SA17444 and 42SA17446: 1979 Joe's Valley Alcove. Ms. on file, Union Oil Company of California U.S. Department of Agriculture, Proposed Lisbon Field Drill Loca- Forest Service, Intermountain Re- tion A-710 and Access Route, San gional Office, Ogden, Utah. Juan County, Utah. Abajo Archaeol-

ogy, Bluff, Utah. Submitted to Bu- Dominguez, S. reau of Land Management, Moab 1988 Preliminary Report on 1988 Can- District Office, Moab, Utah. yonlands Needles District Develop- ment Archeological Inventory and 1988b Cultural Resource Inventory of the Evaluation. National Park Service, Uranerz, Inc. Three Step Hill Pro- Midwest Archeological Center, Lin- ject in Lower Lisbon Valley, San coln, Nebraska. Juan County, Utah. Report No. 87- AS-104. Abajo Archaeology, Bluff 1990 Preliminary Report on 1990 Ar- Utah. Submitted to Bureau of Land cheological Investigations for Management, Grand Resource Area, Canyonlands Needles District De- Moab, Utah. velopment. National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, 1991 Cultural Resource Inventory of Lincoln, Nebraska. Western Gas Resources, Inc. Pro- posed Big Flat/Dubinky Pipeline: A 1991 Preliminary Report on 1991 Ar- Preliminary Assessment of Prehis- cheological Investigations for the toric Lithic Raw Material Procure- Canyonlands Needles District De- ment and Use, Grand County, Utah. velopment. National Park Service, Abajo Archaeology, Bluff, Utah. Midwest Archeological Center, Lin- Submitted to Bureau of Land Man- coln, Nebraska. agement, Grand Resource Area, 1994 Archeological Investigations at Site Moab, Utah. 42SA20286, Canyonlands National Davis, W. E., D. A. Westfall, W. K. Howell, Park, Utah. Technical Report No. and CM. Coder 36. National Park Service, Midwest 1989 Cultural Resource Inventory and Archeological Center, Lincoln, Ne- Evaluation Along SR 313, Grand braska. County, Utah. Abajo Archaeology, Bluff, Utah. Submitted to Utah

~~208 REFERENCES CITED~~

Durrant, S. D. Intermountain Research, Silver 1952 Mammals of Utah: Taxonomy and City, Nevada. BLM Report 1- Distribution. Publications 6. Mu- 1181(P). Submitted to Bureau of seum of Natural History, University Land Management, Elko Resource of Kansas, Lawrence. Area, Elko, Nevada.

Dykeman, D. D. Elston, R. G., E. Ingbar, M. Leach, 1995 The Hogan Well Project: Archae- C. Raven, K. Carambelas, and K. Ataman ological Excavations at Early Mo- 1992 Research Design. In Archaeological gollon and Late Anasazi Sites in the Investigations at Tosawihi, A Great Puerco River Valley, Arizona. Basin Quarry. Part I: The Periph-

Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropol- ery, vol. 1, edited by R. G. Elston ogy Number 31. Navajo Nation and C. Raven, pp. 49-70. Intermoun- Cultural Resource Management Pro- tain Research, Silver City, Nevada. gram, Window Rock, Arizona. Submitted to Bureau of Land Man- agement, Elko Resource Area, Elko, Eininger, S., J. K. Gaunt, and N. B. Lamm Nevada. 1986 Ruins Stabilization Activities at Four Sites in Natural Bridges Na- Elston, R. G., and C. Raven (editors) tional Monument, Report of the Year 1992 Archaeological Investigations at 3 Field Season, 1986. Ruins Stabili- Tosawihi, A Great Basin Quarry.

zation Report No. 30. Nickens and Part 1: The Periphery, vols. 1 and Associates, Montrose, Colorado. 2. Intermountain Research, Silver Submitted to National Park Service, City, Nevada. Submitted to Bureau Rocky Mountain Regional Office, of Land Management, Elko Re- Denver. source Area, Elko, Nevada.

~~Elias, S. A., J. I. Mead, and L. D. Agenbroad Euler, R. C.~~

1992 Late Quaternary Arthropods from 1966 Southern Paiute Ethnohistory . An- the Colorado Plateau, Arizona and thropological Papers No. 78, Glen Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 52:59- Canyon Series No. 28. University of 67. Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

~~Elston, R. G. Euler, R. C, G. J. Gumerman, T. N. V.~~

~~1992 Economics and Strategies of Lithic Karlstrom, J. S. Dean, and R. H. Hevly~~

Production at Tosawihi. In Archae- 1979 The Colorado Plateau: Cultural Dy- ological Investigations at Tosawihi, namics and Paleoenvironment. Sci- A Great Basin Quarry. Part 1: The ence 205:1089-1101.

Periphery, vol. 2, edited by R. G. Fairley, H. C, P. W. Bungart, C. M. Coder, Elston and C. Raven, pp. 775-801. J. Huffman, T. L. Samples, and J. R. Balsom Intermountain Research, Silver City, 1994 The Grand Canyon River Corridor Nevada. Submitted to Bureau of Survey Project: Archaeological Sur- Land Management, Elko Resource vey along the Colorado River be- Nevada. Area, Elko, tween Glen Canyon Dam and Elston, R. G. (editor) Separation Canyon. Grand Canyon 1989 The Tosawihi Quarries: An Ar- National Park, Grand Canyon, Ari- chaeological Testing Program. zona.

~~209 REFERENCES CITED~~

Fetterman, J., and L. Honeycutt Montrose, Colorado. Submitted to 1990 In the Fremont-Anasazi Transition National Park Service, Rocky Zone: Excavations in Verdure Can- Mountain Regional Office, Denver. yon. Woods Canyon Archaeological Fischer, A., P. V. Hansen, and P. Rasmussen Consultants, Yellow Jacket, Colo- 1984 Macro and Micro Wear Traces on rado. Submitted to Utah Bureau of Lithic Projectile Points. Journal of Land Management, San Juan Re- Danish Archaeology 3:1 9-46. source Area, Moab, Utah.

Fisher, J. W., Jr., and H. C. Strickland Firor, J. 1991 Dwellings and Fireplaces: Keys to 1 986a The Structural Stabilization of Big Efe Pygmy Campsite Structure. In Ruin/42SA1 586, Canyonlands Na- Ethnoarchaeological Approaches tional Park, Report of the Year 3 to Mobile Campsites: Hunter- Field Season, J 986. Ruins Stabiliza- Gatherer and Pastoralist Case tion Report No. 29. Nickens and Studies, edited by C. S. Gamble and Associates, Montrose, Colorado. W. A. Boismier, pp. 215-236. Eth- Submitted to National Park Service, noarchaeological Series 1. Interna- Rocky Mountain Regional Office, tional Monographs in Prehistory, Denver. Ann Arbor. 1986b Stabilization Monitoring, Canyon- Flenniken, J. J. lands National Park and Natural 1980 Systems Analysis of the Lithic Arti- Bridges National Monument: A Re- facts. In Hoko River: A 2500 Year view of the 1983-1985 Work. Ruins Old Fishing Camp on the Northwest Stabilization Report No. 31. Nick- Coast of North America, edited by ens and Associates, Montrose, Colo- D. R. Croes and E. Blinman, pp. rado. Submitted to National Park 290-307. Reports of Investigations Service, Rocky Mountain Regional 58. Hoko River Archaeological Pro- Office, Denver. ject Contribution 1. Washington 1988 "Final Stabilization" at Eight Pre- State University, Laboratory of An- historic Sites in the Salt Creek Ar- thropology, Pullman. cheological District, Canyonlands 1985 Stone Tool Reduction Techniques as National Park, Southeastern Utah. Cultural Markers. In Stone Tool Ruins Stabilization Report Technical Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don Series No. 50. Nickens and Associ- E. Crabtree, edited by M. G. Plew, ates, Montrose, Colorado. Submitted J. C. Woods, and M. G. Pavesic, pp. to National Park Service, Rocky 265-276. University of New Mexico Mountain Regional Office, Denver. Press, Albuquerque.

Firor, J., and S. Eininger 1991 The Diamond Lil Site: Projectile 1987 Ruins Stabilization Activities at Point Fragments as Indicators of Seven Prehistoric Sites along the Site Function. Journal of California Green and Colorado Rivers, Can- and Great Basin Anthropology yonlands National Park, Report of 13:180-193. Year 4 Field Season, 1986. Ruins Stabilization Report Technical Se- ries No. 39. Nickens and Associates,

~~210 REFERENCES CITED~~

Flenniken, J. J., and J. P. White Series No. 16. Nickens and Associ- 1983 Heat Treatment of Siliceous Rocks ates, Montrose, Colorado. Submitted and Its Implications for Australian to National Park Service, Rocky Prehistory. Australian Aboriginal Mountain Regional Office, Denver. Studies 1:43-48. Geib, P. R.

Frison, G. C, and B. A. Bradley 1990 A Basketmaker II Wooden Tool 1980 Folsom Tools and Technology at the Cache from Lower Glen Canyon. Hanson Site, Wyoming. University Kiva 55:265-277. of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1993 Glen Canyon Revisited: Summary Frison, G. C., M. Wilson, and D. J. Wilson and Conclusions of Recent Archae- 1976 Fossil Bison and Artifacts from an ological Investigations in the Glen Early Altithermal Period Arroyo Canyon National Recreation Area. Trap in Wyoming. American Antiq- Draft. Archaeological Report 1047. uity 41:28-57. Archaeology Laboratory, Depart- ment of Anthropology, Northern Furnis, C. L., M. C. Brown, and R. G. Elston Arizona University, Flagstaff. Sub- 1989 Cores, Bifaces, and Flake Tools. In mitted to National Park Service, The Tosawihi Quarries: An Archae- Rocky Mountain Regional Office, ological Testing Program, edited by Denver. R. G. Elston, pp. 47-82. Intermoun- tain Research, Silver City, Nevada. 1995 Radiocarbon Record for Archaic BLM Report 1-1181(P). Submitted Occupation of the Central Colorado to Bureau of Land Management, Plateau. In Proceedings of the Sec- Elko Resource Area, Elko, Nevada. ond Biennial Conference on Re- search in Colorado Plateau Gaunt, J. K., and S. Eininger National Parks, edited by C. van 1987 Ruins Stabilization at Five Sites in Riper III, pp. 89-136. Northern Ari- the Island-in-the-Sky District, Can- zona University, Flagstaff. yonlands National Park, Report of the Year 4 Field Season, 1986. Ru- Geib, P. R., and P. W. Bungart ins Stabilization Report Technical 1989 Implications of Early Bow Use in Series No. 38. Nickens and Associ- Glen Canyon. Utah Archaeology

ates, Montrose, Colorado. Submitted 1989 2:32-47. to National Park Service, Rocky Geib, P. R., P. W. Bungart, and H. C. Fairley Mountain Regional Office, Denver. 1987 Archaeological Investigations Along

Gaunt, J. K., and J. L. McVickar the Lower Escalante Drainage: 1986 The Structural Stabilization of Bare Glen Canyon Year 2 Report, 1985- Ladder Ruin (42SA6965). In Ruins 1986. Archaeological Report 1000. Stabilization Activities in Canyon- Northern Arizona University, Flag- lands National Park and Natural staff. Submitted to National Park Bridges National Monument, Report Service, Rocky Mountain Regional of the Year 2 Field Season 1984- Office, Denver. 1985, compiled by T. R. Metzger and S. M. Chandler, pp. 156-279. Ruins Stabilization Report Technical

~~211 REFERENCES CITED~~

Geib, P. R, V. H. Clark, J. Huffman, K. Spurr, Graham, M. M. Warburton, and K. A. Hays-Gilpin 1994 Mobile Farmers: An Ethnoarchae- 1995 Excavations at Nine Sites Along ological Approach to Settlement Or- Segment 3 of N16: An Interim Re- ganization among the Rardmuri of port of Data Recovery Findings. Northwestern Mexico. Ethnoarchae- Navajo National Archaeology De- ological Series 3. International partment, Flagstaff. Submitted to Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Ar- Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo bor. Area Office, Branch of Roads, Gal- Gramly, R. M. lup, New Mexico. 1980 Raw Materials Source Areas and Geib, P. R., and M. Warburton "Curated" Tool Assemblages. 1991 A Class I Cultural Resources and American Antiquity 45:823-833. Ethnographic Overview of the Glen Greer, D. C, K. D. Gurgel, W. L. Wahlquist, Canyon-Shiprock Transmission Line H. A. Christy, and G. B. Peterson Corridor. Report No. 91-016. 1981 Atlas of Utah. Brigham Young Uni- Navajo Nation Archaeology Depart- versity Press, Provo, Utah. ment, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, Arizona. Greubel, R. 1996 Archaeological Investigations of 11 Gilman, P. A. Sites Along Interstate 70: Castle 1983 Changing Architectural Forms in Valley to Rattlesnake Bench. Alpine the Prehistoric Southwest. Unpub- Archeology, Montrose, Colorado. lished Ph.D. dissertation, Depart- Submitted to Utah Department of ment of Anthropology, University of Transportation, Salt Lake City. New Mexico, Albuquerque. Griffin, D. P. Gooding, J., and W. L. Shields 1984 An Archeological Inventory of the 1985 Sisyphus Shelter. Cultural Resource Eastern Portions of the Salt Creek Series No. 18. Bureau of Land Manage- Archeological District, Canyonlands ment, Colorado State Office, Denver. National Park National Park Ser- Gould, R. A. vice, Midwest Archeological Center, 1977 Ethno-archaeology; Or, Where Do Lincoln, Nebraska. Models Come From? In Stone Tools Griffiths, D. R., C. A. Bergman, C. J. as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolu- Clayton, K. Ohnuma, G. V. Robins, and tion and Complexity. Australian Insti- N. H. Seeley tute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. 1987 Experimental Investigation of the 1978 The Anthropology of Human Resi- Heat-Treatment of Flint. In The Hu- dues. American Anthropologist man Uses of Flint and Chert, edited 80:815-835. by G. de G. Sieveking and M. H. Newcomer, pp. 43-52. Proceedings Gould, R. A., and J. E. Yellen of the 4th International Flint Sym- 1987 Man the Hunted: Determinants of posium, April 10-15, 1983, Brighton Household Spacing in Desert and Polytechnic, Cambridge University Tropical Foraging Societies. Journal Press, Cambridge. of Anthropological Archaeology 6:77-103.

~~212 REFERENCES CITED~~

~~Gunnerson, J. H. Hauck, F. R. 1958 Archeological Survey of the Pro- 1979a Cultural Resource Evaluation in posed Dead Horse Point Junction Central Utah, 1977. Cultural Re-~~

Butte, Utah State Park. Ms. on file, source Series No. 3. Bureau of Land National Park Service, Midwest Ar- Management, Utah State Office, cheological Center, Lincoln, Ne- Salt Lake City. braska. 1979b Cultural Resource Evaluation in 1969 The Fremont Culture: A Study in South Central Utah, 1977-1978. Cultural Dynamics of the Anasazi Cultural Resource Series No. 4. Bu- Frontier (Including the Report of reau of Land Management, Utah the Claflin-Emerson Expedition of State Office, Salt Lake City. the Peabody Museum). Papers of the 1991 Archaeological Evaluations in the Peabody Museum of American Ar- Northern Colorado Plateau Cultural cheology and Ethnology 59. Har- Area: An Investigation of the Seep vard University, Cambridge. Ridge-Book Cliff-Red Wash-Hay

~~Hack, J. T. Canyon-Whetrock Canyon and In-~~

1 942 The Changing Physical Environment terstate 10-Exit 220 Alternative of the Hopi Indians of Arizona. Pa- Highway Routes in Uintah and pers of the Peabody Museum of Grand Counties, Utah. Paper No. American Archaeology and Ethnol- 45. Archeological Environmental Re- ogy 35(1). Harvard University, search Corporation, Bountiful, Utah. Cambridge. Hayden, B.

Hall, S. A. 1979a Snap, Shatter, and Superfractures: 1990 Holocene Landscapes of the San Use-wear of Stone Skin Scrapers. In Juan Basin, New Mexico; Geomor- Lithie Use-Wear Analysis, edited by phic, Climatic, and Cultural Dynam- B. Hayden, pp. 207-230. Academic ics. In Archaeological Geology of Press, New York. North America, edited by N. P. Hayden, B. (editor) Lasca and J. Donahue, pp. 323-334. 1979b Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. Academic Centennial Special Volume 4. Geo- Press, New York. logical Society of America, Boulder,

~~Colorado. Hayward, C. L., C. Cottam, A. M. Woodbury, and H. H. Frost Harrington, M. R. 1976 Birds of Utah. Great Basin Natural- 1933 Gypsum Cave, Nevada. Paper 8.~~

~~ist Memoirs 1 . Brigham Young Uni- Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. versity, Provo, Utah.~~

Hartley, R. J. Hicks, P. A. 1980 Cultural Resource Inventory of 1976 Projectile Points: Hovenweep Ar- Specified Areas Within the Needles chaeological Surveys 1974 and and Island-in-the-Sky Districts of 1975. In Hovenweep 1975, by J. C. Canyonlands National Park, Utah. Winter, pp. 44-50. Archaeological National Park Service, Midwest Ar- Report 2. San Jose State University, cheological Center, Lincoln, Ne- San Jose. braska.

~~213 REFERENCES CITED~~

~~Hogan, P., J. M. Elyea, and P. N. Eschman Fremont Perspectives, edited by~~

1 99 1 Overview and Research Design for D. B. Madsen, pp. 55-68. Antiq- the Fruitland Coal Gas Develop- uities Section Selected Papers 7(16). ment Area. Office of Contract Ar- Utah Division of State History, Salt chaeology, University of New Lake City. Mexico, Albuquerque. Submitted to Horn, J. C. Bureau of Land Management, Albu- 1990 Archaeological Data Recovery at querque District Office, Albuquerque. the Down Wash Site (42WN1666),

Hogan, P., L. Losee, and J. Dodge Canyonlands National Park, Utah. 1975 Archaeological Investigations in Alpine Archeological Consultants, the Maze District, Canyonlands Na- Montrose, Colorado. Submitted to

tional Park, Utah, vol. I. Depart- National Park Service, Rocky ment of Anthropology, University of Mountain Regional Office, Denver. Utah, Salt Lake City. Submitted to Horn, J., A. D. Reed, and S. A. McDonald National Park Service, Rocky 1987 Archaeological Investigations at the Mountain Regional Office, Denver. Indian Creek Site, 5ME1373: A

~~Hohmann, J. W., and J. A. Hotopp (editors) Stratified Archaic Site in Mesa~~

1 990 Of Blood and Stone: Investigations County, Colorado. Ms. on file, Bu- into Southeastern Utah Archaic, reau of Land Management, Grand Phase III Archaeological Investiga- Junction, Colorado. tions Along US 191, San Juan Hubbard, R. N. L. B. County, Utah. Studies in Western 1980 Development of Agriculture in Archaeology Number 2. Cultural Europe and the Near East: Evidence Resource Group, Louis Berger & from Quantitative Studies. Eco- Associates, Phoenix. nomic Botany 34(1): 5 1-67. Holmer, R. N. Huckell, B. B. 1 978 A Mathematical Typology for Ar- 1 995 Of Marshes and Maize: Preceramic chaic Projectile Points of the East- Agricultural Settlements of the ern Great Basin. Ph.D. dissertation, Cienega Valley, Southeastern Ari- University of Utah, Salt Lake City. zona. Anthropological Papers No. University of Microfilms, Ann Ar- 59. University of Arizona, Tucson. bor. Hughes, R. E. 1986 Common Projectile Points of the In- 1995 Obsidian Sourcing of Four Artifacts termountain West. In Anthropology from Site 42SA20289, Canyonlands of the Desert West: Essays in Honor National Park, Southeastern Utah. In of Jesse D. Jennings, edited by C. J. Holocene Archeology Near Squaw Condie and D. D. Fowler, pp. 89- Butte, Canyonlands National Park, 115. Anthropological Papers No. Utah, by B. L. Tipps, Appendix D. 110. University of Utah Press, Salt Selections from the Division of Cul- Lake City. tural Resources No. 7. National Park Holmer, R. N., and D. G. Weder Service, Rocky Mountain Regional 1980 Common Post- Archaic Projectile Office, Denver. Points of the Fremont Area. In

~~214 REFERENCES CITED~~

Hunt, A. P. Janetski, J. C, R. Crosland, and J. D. Wilde 1953 Archeological Survey in the La Sal 1991 Preliminary Report on Aspen Shel- Mountain Area, Utah. Anthropologi- ter: An Upland Deer Hunting Camp cal Papers No. 14. University of on the Old Woman Plateau. Utah Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Archaeology 1991 4:32-43.

~~Hunt, A. P., and D. Tanner Jennings, J. D. 1960 Early Man Sites near Moab, Utah. 1957 Danger Cave: A Progress Summary.~~

~~American Antiquity 26: 1 1 0- 1 1 7. ElPalacio 60:179-213.~~

Hunt, C. B. 1966 Glen Canyon: A Summary. Anthro- 1974 Natural Regions of the United States pological Papers No. 81. University and Canada. 2nd ed. W. H. Free- of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. man and Company, San Francisco. 1980 Cowboy Cave. Anthropological Pa-

~~Huntoon, P. W., G. H. Billingsley, Jr., and pers No. 104. University of Utah~~

W. J. Breed Press, Salt Lake City. 1982 Geologic Map of Canyonlands Na- Jennings, J. D., and E. Norbeck tional Park and Vicinity, Utah. 1955 Great Basin Prehistory: A Review. Canyonlands Natural History Asso- American Antiquity 21:1-11. ciation, Moab, Utah.

Jennings, J. D., A. R. Schroedl, and Hurst, W. B. R. N. Holmer 1995 Analysis of Collected Ceramic Arti- 1980 Sudden Shelter. Anthropological Pa- facts. In Holocene Archeology Near pers No. 103. University of Utah Squaw Butte, Canyonlands National Press, Salt Lake City. Park, Utah, by B. L. Tipps, pp. 68- 70. Selections from the Division of Jeppson, R. W., G. L. Ashcroft, A. L. Huber,

~~Cultural Resources No. 7. National G. V. Skogerboe, and J. M. Bagley~~

Park Service, Rocky Mountain Re- 1 968 Hydrologic Atlas of Utah. Utah Ag- gional Office, Denver. ricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University, Logan. Irwin-Williams, C. 1973 The Oshara Tradition: Origins of Jett, S. C. Anasazi Culture. Contributions in 1991 Split-Twig Figurines, Early Maize, Anthropology 5(1). Eastern New and a Child Burial in East-Central Mexico University, Portales. Utah. Utah Archaeology 1991 4:24- 33. Janetski, J. C.

1993 The Archaic to Formative Transition Johnson, J. K. North of the Anasazi: A Basket- 1993 North American Biface Production maker Perspective. In Anasazi Bas- Trajectory Modeling in Historic ket maker: Papers from the 1990 Perspective. Plains Anthropologist Wetherill-Grand Gulch Symposium, 38:151-162. edited by V. M. Atkins, pp. 223- 242. Cultural Resource Series No. 24. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City.

~~215 REFERENCES CITED~~

Jones, K. T. Keller, D. R. 1983 Forager Archaeology: The Ache of 1975 Archaeological Investigations, Ten- Eastern Paraguay. In Carnivores, nessee Valley Authority, Bureau of Human Scavengers, and Predators: Land Management, Monticello Dis-

A Question of Bone Technology, ed- trict, Federal Lands, Grand County, ited by G. M. LeMoine and A. S. Utah. Final report for Tennessee MacEachern, pp. 171-191. Archae- Valley authority Drill Hole Survey, ological Association, University of R. G. Reese Lease Area Phase. Mu- Calgary, Alberta. seum of Northern Arizona, Flag- staff. Submitted to Bureau of Land 1993 The Archaeological Structure of a Management, Moab District Office, Short-term Camp. In From Bones to Moab, Utah. Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and

~~Experimental Contributions to the Kelly, I. T. Interpretation of Faunal Remains, 1934 Southern Paiute Bands. American~~

edited by J. Hudson, pp. 101-114. Anthropologist 36:548-560. Occasional Paper No. 21. Center for 1964 Southern Paiute Ethnography. An- Archaeological Investigations, thropological Papers No. 69, Glen Southern Illinois University, Car- Canyon Series No. 21. University of bondale. Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Kearns, T. M. Kelly, I. T., and C. S. Fowler 1992 The Preceramic Archaeology of the 1 986 Southern Paiute. In Great Basin, ed- Upper San Juan River in Northwest ited by W. L. D'Azevedo, pp. 525- Mexico and Southwest Colorado. In 557. Handbook of the North Cultural Diversity & Adaptation: American Indians, vol. 11, W. C. The Archaic, Anasazi, & Navajo Sturtevant, general editor. Smith- Occupation of the Upper San Juan sonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Basin, edited by L. S. Reed and P. F. Reed, pp. 9-36. Cultural Re- Kelly, R. L. sources Series No. 9. Bureau of 1985 Hunter-Gatherer Mobility and Lithic Land Management, New Mexico Technology. Paper presented at the State Office, Santa Fe. 50th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver. Kearns, T. M. (compiler) 1982 The Escalante Project: A Class II 1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. Ameri- Cultural Resource Inventory of can Antiquity 53:717-734. Preference Right Coal Lease Tracts 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in South Central Utah. ESCA-Tech in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Corporation, Albuquerque. Submit- Smithsonian Institution Press, ted to Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. Kanab Resource Area, Kanab, Utah.

~~Keeley, L. H. 1982 Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. Ameri- can Antiquity 47:798-809.~~

~~216 REFERENCES CITED~~

Kent, S. and edited by A. R. Schroedl, pp. 1991 The Relationship between Mobility 298-327. Cultural Resources Report Strategies and Site Structure. In The 492-02-9317. Little Boulder Basin Interpretation of Archaeological Series Number 3. P-III Associates, Spatial Patterning, edited by E. M. Salt Lake City. Submitted to Bureau Kroll and T. D. Price, pp. 33-58. of Land Management, Elko District Plenum Press, New York. Office, Elko, Nevada.

Keyser, J. D., and J. L. Fagan La Fond, A. D., and J. B. Jones 1987 ESP: Procurement and Processing of 1995 Data Recovery Investigations at the Tongue River Silicified Sediment. Yaha Site: An Open Prehistoric Plains Anthropologist 32:233-256. Camp Site Along Rodeo Creek, Northern Eureka County, Nevada. Kidder, A. V. Cultural Resources Report 5010-01- 1927a Southwestern Archaeological Con- 9301. Little Boulder Basin Series ference. Science 66:489-491. Number 2. P-III Associates, Salt 1927b Southwestern Archaeological Con- Lake City. Submitted to Barrick ference. El Palacio 23:554-561. Goldstrike Mines, Elko, Nevada.

Kuhn, S. L. La Fond, A. D., and B. L. Tipps 1994 A Formal Approach to the Design 1995 Laboratory Methods and Analytical and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits. Procedures Used to Analyze American Antiquity 59:426-442. Chipped Stone Artifacts Recovered During the Testing. In Holocene Ar- La Fond, A. D. cheology Near Squaw Butte, Can- 1995a Heat Treatment Experiments on yonlands National Park, Utah, by Cedar Mesa Chert. In Holocene B. L. Tipps, Appendix F. Selections Archeology Near Squaw Butte, from the Division of Cultural Re- Canyonlands National Park, Utah, sources No. 7. National Park Ser- by B. L. Tipps, Appendix G. Selec- vice, Rocky Mountain Regional tions from the Division of Cultural Office, Denver. Resources No. 7. National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Lammers, D. A. Office, Denver. 1991 Soil Survey of Canyonlands Area, Utah: Parts of Grand and San Juan 1995b Artifacts. In Holocene Archeology Counties. U.S. Department of Agri- Near Squaw Butte, Canyonlands culture, Soil Conservation Service. National Park, Utah, by B. L. U.S. Government Printing Office, Tipps, pp. 136-140. Selections from Washington, D.C. the Division of Cultural Resources

~~No. 7. National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, Denver.~~

~~1995c Chipped Stone. In Open Site Arche- ology in Little Boulder Basin: 1992 Data Recovery Excavations in the North Block Heap Leach Facility Area, North-Central Nevada, compiled~~

~~217 REFERENCES CITED~~

~~Leach, M., D. P. Dugas, and R. G. Elston County, Arizona; Zion National~~

1 992 Archaeology of the Western Periph- Park Sewer Extension Project, ery. In Archaeological Investiga- Washington County, Utah; Arches tions at Tosawihi: A Great Basin National Park Road and Sewage Quarry. Part 1: The Periphery, vol. Disposal Area Projects, Grand

1, edited by R. G. Elston and C. County, Utah; and Canyonlands Na- Raven, pp. 335-442. Intermountain tional Park, Road Projects, Needles Research, Silver City, Nevada. Sub- and Grandview Point Areas, San

mitted to Bureau of Land Manage- Juan County, Utah. Ms. on file, Na- ment, Elko Resource Area, Elko, tional Park Service, Midwest Ar- Nevada. cheological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Lee, R. B. 1968 What Hunters Do for a Living, Or, Lipe, W. D. How to Make Out on Scarce Re- 1970 Anasazi Communities in the Red sources. In Man the Hunter, edited Rock Plateau, Southeastern Utah. In

by R. B. Lee and I. DeVore, pp. 30- Reconstructing Prehistoric Pueblo 48. Aldine, Chicago. Societies, edited by W. A. Longacre, pp. 84-139. University of New Mex- Lightfoot, R. R. ico Press, Albuquerque. 1988 Roofing an Early Anasazi Great Kiva: Analysis of an Architectural 1975 Archaeological Investigations, Ten- Model. The Kiva 53(3):253-272. nessee Valley Authority, Bureau of Land Management, Monticello Dis- Lindsay, A. J., Jr., J. R. Ambler, M. A. Stein, trict, Federal Lands, Grand County, and P. M. Hobler Utah. Addendum to Final Report for 1968 Survey and Excavations North and Tennessee Valley Authority Drill East of Navajo Mountain, Utah, Hole Survey, R. G. Reese Lease 1959-1962. Bulletin No. 45, Glen Area Phase. Museum of Northern Canyon Series No. 8. Museum of Arizona, Flagstaff. Submitted to Bu- Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. reau of Land Management, Moab Lindsay, L. W. District Office, Moab, Utah. 1976 Grand County: An Archeological 1993 The Basketmaker II Period in the Summary. Antiquities Section, Divi- Four Corners Area. In Anasazi Bas- sion of State History, Salt Lake ketmaker: Papers from the 1990 City. Wetherill-Grand Gulch Symposium, Lindsay, L. W., and C. K. Lund edited by V. M. Atkins, pp. 1-12. 1976 Pint Size Shelter. Antiquities Sec- Cultural Resource Series No. 24. tion Selected Papers 3(10). Utah Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Division of History, Salt Lake State Office, Salt Lake City. City. Loendorf, L. L., and S. W. Connor Lindsay, L. W., and R. E. Madsen 1993 The Pectol Shields and Shield-

1 973 Report of Archaeological Surveys of Bearing Warrior Rock Art Motif. the Pipe Springs National Monu- Journal of California and Great Ba- ment Water Supply System Project, sin Anthropology 15:21 6-224. Kaibab Indian Reservation, Mohave

~~218 REFERENCES CITED~~

Losee, L., and W. A. Lucius Tools 7. Institute of Archaeology, 1975 Archeological Investigations in the University of California, Los Angeles. Maze District, Canyonlands Na- Madsen, D. B., and M. S. Berry tional Park, Utah, vol. II. Depart- 1975 A Reassessment of Northeastern ment of Anthropology, University of Great Basin Prehistory. American Utah, Salt Lake City. Submitted to Antiquity 40:39 1 -405. National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, Denver. Madsen, D. B., D. R. Currey, and

J. H. Madsen, Jr. Louthan, B. D. 1976 Man, Mammoth and Lake Fluctua- 1990 Orchard Pithouse. Canyon Legacy tions in Utah. Antiquities Section 7:24-27. Selected Papers 2:43-58. Utah Divi- Lucius, W. A. sion of State History, Salt Lake City. 1983 An Alternative Speculative History Madsen, D. B., and D. Rhode (editors) of San Juan County, Utah. Paper 1994 Across the West: Human Population presented at the 56th Pecos Confer- Movement and the Expansion of the ence, Bluff, Utah. Numa. University of Utah Press,

1 989 Evaluations of Existing Records and Salt Lake City. Collections. In Cultural Resource Madsen, R. (compiler) Inventory and Testing in the Salt 1977 Prehistoric Ceramics of the Fre- Creek Pocket and Devils Land Ar- mont. Ceramic Series No. 6. Mu- eas, Needles District, Canyonlands seum of Northern Arizona, National Park, Utah, by B. L. Tipps Flagstaff. and N. J. Hewitt, pp. 59-60. Selec- tions from the Division of Cultural Mandeville, M. D.

~~Resources No. 1. National Park 1973 A Consideration of the Thermal Pre- Service, Rocky Mountain Regional treatment of Chert. Plains Anthro- Office, Denver. pologist 18:177-202.~~

Lucius, W. A. (editor) Martin, A. C, and W. D. Barkley 1976 Archeological Investigations in 1961 Seed Identification Manual. Univer- the Maze District, Canyonlands sity of California Press, Berkeley. National Park, Utah. Antiquities Martin, C. W., H. J. Armstrong, Section Selected Papers 3(11). S. M. Crum, B. J. Kutz, and L. A. Wheeler Utah Division of State History, 1983 Cedar Siding Shelter: Archeological Salt Lake City. Excavation of Multi-Aspect Over- Lucius, W. A., and D. A. Breternitz hang, Emery County, Utah. Cultural 1992 Northern Anasazi Ceramic Styles: A Resource Series No. 15. Bureau of Field Guide for Identification. Pub- Land Management, Utah State Of-

~~lications in Anthropology No. 1. fice, Salt Lake City. Center for Indigenous Studies in the Americas, Phoenix.~~

~~Luedtke, B. E. 1992 An Archaeologist's Guide to Chert and Flint. Archaeological Research~~

~~219 ,~~

~~REFERENCES CITED~~

Marwitt, J. P. Mead, J. I., L. D. Agenbroad, and 1970 Archaeological Inspection of Pro- R. S. Nittmann posed Road from Squaw Flat to 1992 Late Quaternary Mollusks and Allu- Confluence Overlook, Canyonlands vial Stratigraphy of Salt Creek, Can- National Park. Department of An- yonlands National Park, Utah: thropology, University of Utah, Salt Paleoenvironmental Interpretations. Lake City. Submitted to National In Quaternary Paleoenvironmental Park Service, Rocky Mountain Re- Studies of the Colorado Plateau gional Office, Denver. Year IV, by L. D. Agenbroad and

J. I. Mead, pp. 49-74. Quaternary Matson, R. G. Studies Program/Department of Ge- 1 99 1 The Origins of Southwestern Agri- ology, Northern Arizona University, culture. The University of Arizona Flagstaff. Submitted to National Press, Tucson. Park Service, Rocky Mountain Re- Matson, R. G., and B. Chisholm gional Office, Denver.

1991 Basketmaker II Subsistence: Carbon Mead, J. I., S. E. Sharpe, and L. D. Agenbroad Isotopes and Other Dietary Indica- 1991 Holocene Bison from Arches Na- tors from Cedar Mesa, Utah. Ameri- tional Park, Southeastern Utah. can Antiquity 56:444-459. Great Basin Naturalist 5 1 :336-342.

Mead, J. I., and L. D. Agenbroad Mead, J. I., A. J. Stuart, and L. D. Agenbroad 1992a Packrat Middens from White Rim, 1992 Late Pleistocene Vertebrates from Island-in-the-Sky District, Canyon- Bechan Cave, Colorado Plateau, lands National Park, Utah. In Qua- Utah. Paper presented at the 45th ternary Paleoenvironmental Studies Annual Meeting of the Geological of the Colorado Plateau Year IV, by Society of America, Ogden, Utah. L. D. Agenbroad and J. I. Mead, pp. 96-107. Quaternary Studies Program/ Mehls, S. F., and C. D. Mehls Department of Geology, Northern 1986 Canyonlands National Park, Arches Arizona University, Flagstaff. Sub- National Park, and Natural Bridges mitted to National Park Service, National Monument Historic Re- Rocky Mountain Regional Office, source Study. Western Historical Denver. Studies, Lafayette, Colorado. Sub- mitted to National Park Service, 1992b A 38,000-Year Record of Packrat Rocky Mountain Regional Office, Middens from Salt Creek Canyon, Denver. Canyonlands National Park, Utah. In

~~Quaternary Paleoenvironmental Mehringer, P. J., Jr. Studies of the Colorado Plateau 1985 Late-Quaternary Pollen Records Year IV, by L. D. Agenbroad and from the Interior Pacific Northwest~~

J. I. Mead, pp. 35-48. Quaternary and Northern Great Basin of the Studies Program/Department of Ge- United States. In Pollen Records of ology, Northern Arizona University, Late-Quaternary Sediments, edited Flagstaff. Submitted to National by V. M. Bryant and R. G. Hol- Park Service, Rocky Mountain Re- loway, pp. 167-189. American gional Office, Denver. Association of Stratigraphic Pa- lynologists Foundation, Dallas.

~~220 REFERENCES CITED~~

Metcalfe, D., and K. R. Barlow Associates, Montrose, Colorado. 1992 A Model for Exploring the Optimal Submitted to National Park Service, Trade-off between Field Processing Rocky Mountain Regional Office, and Transport. American Anthro- Denver. pologist 94:340-356. Midwest Archeological Center Metzger, T. R. 1989 Current Research: Canyonlands Na- 1983 The Structural Stabilization of Four tional Park. The UPAC News 7(2):5-

Prehistoric Ruins in the Salt Creek 7. Archeological District, Canyonlands Miller, S. J. National Park. Ruins Stabilization 1 979 The Archaeological Fauna of Four Report No. 2. Nickens and Associ- Sites in Smith Creek Canyon. An- ates, Montrose, Colorado. Submitted thropological Papers No. 1 7. Nevada to National Park Service, Rocky State Museum, Carson City. Mountain Regional Office, Denver. Minnis, P. E. Metzger, T. R., and S. M. Chandler 1986 Macroplant Remains. In Short-Term (compilers) Sedentism in the American South- 1986 Ruins Stabilization Activities in west: The Mimbres Valley Salado, Canyonlands National Park and by B. A. Nelson and S. A. LeBlanc, Natural Bridges National Monu- pp. 205-218. Anthropology Publica- ment; Report of the Year 2 Field tion Series. Maxwell Museum, Uni- Season, 1984-1985. Ruins Stabiliza- versity of New Mexico Press, tion Report Technical Series No. 16. Albuquerque. Nickens and Associates, Montrose,

Colorado. Submitted to National Montgomery, J., K. R. Montgomery, Park Service, Rocky Mountain Re- D. Weder, and F. R. Hauck gional Office, Denver. 1982 Archeological Investigations in the Ten Mile Potash Project Area in Metzger, T. R., S. M. Chandler, S. Eininger, Grand County, Utah. Paper No. 35. J. Firor, and J. K. Gaunt Archeological-Environmental Re- 1989 Final Synthetic Report on Ruins Sta- search Corporation, Salt Lake City. bilization in Canyonlands National Park and Natural Bridges National Montgomery, K. R. Monument, Southeastern Utah. Ru- 1989 Cultural Resource Inventories and ins Stabilization Report Technical Evaluations of the Utah Department Series No. 54. Nickens and Asso- of Transportation's Information/ ciates, Montrose, Colorado. Sub- View Localities Along State Route mitted to National Park Service, 313, Grand County, Utah. Abajo Rocky Mountain Regional Office, Archaeology, Bluff, Utah. Submit- Denver. ted to Utah Department of Trans- portation; Federal Highway Metzger, T. R., S. Eininger, and J. K. Gaunt Administration, Utah Division; and 1985 The Structural Stabilization of Seven Bureau of Land Management, Moab Prehistoric Ruins in Canyonlands District Office, Moab, Utah. National Park and Natural Bridges National Monument. Ruins Stabili-

~~zation Report No. 6. Nickens and~~

~~221 REFERENCES CITED~~

Moore, M. W. Submitted to National Park Service, 1990 Diagnostic Flake Analysis: A Repli- Canyonlands National Park, Moab, cation-Based Method for Recon- Utah. structing Reduction Techniques, 1985 Significant Rock Art Sites in the Strategies, and Technologies. Un- Needles District of Canyonlands published Master's thesis, Depart- National Park, Southeastern Utah. ment of Anthropology, Ball State Native American Rock Art Research University, Muncie, Indiana. Associates, Monticello, Utah. Sub- National Park Service mitted to National Park Service, 1984 Archeological Survey-Canyonlands Rocky Mountain Regional Office, National Park. Contract CX- 1200-4- Denver. A063. National Park Service, Rocky O'Connell, J. F. Mountain Regional Office, Denver. 1987 Alyawara Site Structure and Its Ar- 1985 Standard Vegetation Habitat Sites, chaeological Implications. American Canyonlands National Park, Utah. Antiquity 52:7'4-108.

~~Map on file, Canyonlands National O'Connell, J. F., K. Hawkes, and N. B. Jones Park, Moab, Utah. 1991 Distribution of Refuse-producing~~

Nicholson, A., and S. Cane Activities at Hadza Residential Base 1991 Desert Camps: Analysis of Austra- Camps: Implications for Analyses of lian Aboriginal Proto-historic Archaeological Site Structure. In Campsites. In Ethnoarchaeological The Interpretation ofArchaeological Approaches to Mobile Campsites: Spatial Patterning, edited by E. M. Hunter-Gatherers and Pastoralist Kroll and T. D. Price, pp. 61-76. Case Studies, edited by C. S. Gam- Plenum Press, New York. ble and W. A. Boismier, pp. 263- Odell, G. H. 354. Ethnoarchaeological Series 1. 1980 Toward a More Behavioral Ap- International Monographs in Prehis- proach to Archaeological Lithic tory, Ann Arbor. Concentrations. American Antiquity Nickens, P. R. 45:404-431. 1982 A Summary of the Prehistory of Odell, G. H., and F. Cowan Southeastern Utah. In Contributions 1986 Experiments with Spears and Ar- to the Prehistory of Southeastern rows on Animal Targets. Journal of Utah, assembled by S. G. Baker, pp. Field Archaeology 13:195-212. 1-118. Cultural Resource Series No. 13. Bureau of Land Management, Odell, G. H., and F. Odell-Vereecken Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. 1980 Verifying the Reliability of Lithic Use-Wear Assessments by 'Blind Noxon, J. S., and D. A. Marcus Tests': The Low-Power Approach. 1982 Significant Rock Art Sites in Journal of Field Archaeology 7:87- Arches and Canyonlands National 120. Parks and in Natural Bridges Na- tional Monument, Southeastern Utah. American Indian Rock Writ- ing Research, Monticello, Utah.

~~222 REFERENCES CITED~~

Olausson D. S., and L. Larsson Park Service, Midwest Archeologi- 1982 Heat Treatment of Flint in the Scan- cal Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. dinavian Stone Age? In Papers of P-III Associates, Inc. the Archaeological Institute Univer- 1 984 Research Proposal for Archeologi- sity of Lund 1981-1982, pp. 5-25. cal Survey in Canyonlands National New Series 4. Sweden. Park. P-III Associates, Salt Lake

Osborn, A. J. City. Solicitation RFP- 1200-84-63. 1984 UNL Archeological Field School Submitted to National Park Service, Research in Canyonlands: Rocky Rocky Mountain Regional Office, Mountain Region Archeological Denver. Project Report. University of Ne- Parker, K. F. braska, Lincoln. Submitted to Na- 1972 An Illustrated Guide to Arizona tional Park Service, Midwest Weeds. The University of Arizona Archeological Center, Lincoln, Ne- Press, Tucson. braska.

Parry, W. J., and R. L. Kelly 1993 Snowblind in the Desert Southwest: 1 987 Expedient Core Technology and Seden- Moisture Islands, Ungulate Ecology, tism. In The Organization of Core and Alternative Prehistoric Over- Technology, edited by J. K. Johnson wintering Strategies. Journal of An- and C. A. Morrow, pp. 285-304. thropological Research 49: 1 35- 1 64. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

1 995 Aboriginal Adaptations on the Colo- Pearson, G. W., and M. Stuiver rado Plateau: A View from the Is- 1993 High-precision Bidecadal Calibration land-in-the-Sky, Canyonlands of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, 500- National Park, Utah. Occasional 2500 BC. Radiocarbon 35(l):25-33. Studies in Anthropology No. 33. National Park Service, Midwest Ar- Petersen, K. L. cheological Center, Lincoln, Ne- 1988 Climate and the Dolores River braska. Anasazi: A Paleoenvironmental Re- construction from a 10,000-Year Osborn, A. J., S. Vetter, R. Hartley, and Pollen Record, La Plata Mountains, K. J. Reinhard Southwestern Colorado. Anthropo- 1986 Archeological Inventory of Laven- logical Papers No. 113. University der Canyon, Salt Creek Archeologi- of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. cal District, Canyonlands National Park. University of Nebraska, Lin- Peterson, R. T. coln. Submitted to National Park 1990 A Field Guide to Western Birds. 3rd Service, Midwest Archeological rev. ed. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Pierson, L. M.

Osborn, A. J., S. Vetter, J. Waters, and 1 98 1 Cultural Resource Summary of the S. Baumann East Central Portion of the Moab 1993 Aboriginal Lit hie Raw Material District, 1980. Cultural Resource Procurement in Glen Canyon and Series No. 10. Bureau of Land Man- Canyonlands, Southeastern Utah. agement, Utah State Office, Salt Technical Report No. 29. National Lake City.

~~223 REFERENCES CITED~~

Pierson, L. M. Submitted to Utah Department of 1985 The New Park Studies at Canyon- Transportation, Salt Lake City. lands National Park, 1959 and 1960, 1993 The Archaeology of Shadow Shelter and Events Leading Up to Them. (42SA8477), Canyonlands National Ms. on file, National Park Service, Park, Utah. Alpine Archaeological Canyonlands National Park, Moab, Consultants, Montrose, Colorado. Utah. Submitted to National Park Service, Pokotylo, D. Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 1978 Lithic Technology and Settlement Denver, Colorado. Patterns in the Upper Hat Creek 1994 The Numic Occupation of Western Valley, British Columbia. Unpub- Colorado and Eastern Utah During lished Ph.D. dissertation, Depart- the Late Prehistoric and Historic Pe- ment of Anthropology, University of riods. In Across the West: Human British Columbia, Vancouver. Population Movement and the Ex- Prouty, G. L. pansion of the Numa, edited by 1995 Roots and Tubers, Prehistoric Plant D. B. Madsen and D. Rhode, pp. Use, Settlement and Subsistence In- 188-199. University of Utah Press, tensification, and Storage in the Salt Lake City. Fort Rock Basin, Northern Great 1995 The Gateway Tradition: A Forma- Basin, Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation, tive Stage Culture Unit for East- University of Oregon, Eugene. Uni- Central Utah and West-Central versity Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Colorado. Paper presented at the Big Purdy, B. A. Meeting at Crow Canyon, Cortez, 1975 Fractures for the Archaeologist. In Colorado. Lithic Technology: Making and Us- Rick, J. W. ing Stone Tools, edited by E. H. 1978 Heat-altered Cherts of the Lower Il- Swanson, pp. 1 15-127. Mouton Pub- linois Valley. Archaeological Pro- lishers, The Hague, Paris. gram Prehistoric Records Number 2. Reed, A. D. Northwestern University, Evanston, 1984 West Central Colorado Prehistoric Illinois. Context. State Historical Society of Rudy, J. R. Colorado, Denver. 1952 A Preliminary Accounting of the 1988 Ute Cultural Chronology. In Ar- 1951-52 Research Activities of the chaeology of the Eastern Ute: A Statewide Archeological Survey. Symposium, edited by P. R. Nick- Department of Anthropology, Uni-

ens, pp. 79-96. Occasional Papers 1. versity of Utah, Salt Lake City. Ms. Colorado Council of Professional on file, National Park Service, Mid- Archaeologists, Denver. west Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. 1990 Archaeological Data Recovery at Three Prehistoric Sites Located 1955 Archeological Excavations in Beef Along State Road 313, Grand Basin, Utah. Anthropological Papers County, Utah. Alpine Archaeologi- No. 20. University of Utah Press, cal Consultants, Montrose, Colorado. Salt Lake City.

~~224 REFERENCES CITED~~

Sacket, J. R. Schroedl, A. R. (compiler and editor) 1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Ar- 1995 Open Site Archeology in Little Boul- chaeology. Journal of Anthropologi- der Basin: 1992 Data Recovery Ex-

cal Archaeology 1 :59- 112. cavations in the North Block Heap Leach Facility Area, North-Central Schaafsma, P. Nevada. Cultural Resources Report 1971 The Rock Art of Utah from the Don- 492-02-9317. Little Boulder Basin ald Scott Collection. Papers of the Series Number 3. P-III Associates, Peabody Museum of Archaeology Salt Lake City. Submitted to Bureau and Ethnology 65. Harvard Univer- of Land Management, Elko District sity, Cambridge. Office, Elko, Nevada. Schleisman, D., and A. S. Nielson Senulis, J. A. 1988 Archaeological Excavations at Hog 1987 Intensive Cultural Resource Survey Canyon Dune (Site 42Ka2574), Hog and Inventory of the Chevron #1-14 Creek Canyon, Kane County, Utah. Federal Well Pad and Access Road. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Senco-Phenix, Salt Lake City. Sub- Technical Series No. 87-26. mitted to Bureau of Land Manage- Brigham Young University, Provo, ment, Moab District Office, Moab, Utah. Utah. Schroeder, A. H. Shackley, M. S. 1965 Salvage Excavations at Natural 1996 Ishi was Not Necessarily the Last Bridges National Monument. An- Full-Blooded Yahi: Some Inferences thropological Papers No. 75. Uni- for Hunter-Gatherer Style and Ethnic- versity of Utah Press, Salt Lake ity. Berkeley Archaeology 3(2): 1-3. City.

Shafer, H. J., and R. G. Holloway Schroedl, A. R. 1979 Organic Residue Analysis in Deter- 1976 The Archaic of the Northern Colo- mining Stone Tool Function. In rado Plateau. Ph.D. dissertation, Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by University of Utah, Salt Lake City. B. Hayden, pp. 385-399. Academic University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Press, New York. 1991 Paleo-Indian Occupation in the Shaffer, B. S., and B. W. Baker Eastern Great Basin and Northern 1 992 A Vertebrate Faunal Coding System Colorado Plateau. Utah Archaeology with North American Taxonomy and 7997 4:1-15. dBase Support Programs and Pro- 1992 Culture History. In The Burr Trail cedures (Version 3.3). Technical Re- Archeological Project: Small Site port No. 23. University of Michigan, Archeology on the Escalante Pla- Ann Arbor. teau and Circle Cliffs, Garfield Sharrock, F. W. County, Utah, by B. L. Tipps. Cul- 1 966 An Archeological Survey of Canyon- tural Resources Report 439-01- lands National Park. Anthropologi- 9132. P-III Associates, Salt Lake cal Papers No. 83, Miscellaneous City. Submitted to Bureau of Land Paper No. 12. University of Utah Management, Kanab Resource Area, Press, Salt Lake City. Kanab, Utah.

~~225 — .~~

~~REFERENCES CITED~~

Sheire, J. Spaulding, W. G., S. W. Robinson, and 1972 Historic Resource Study: Cattle F. W. Paillet Raising in the Canyons, Canyon- 1984 Preliminary Assessment of Climatic lands National Park/Utah. National Change During Late Wisconsin Park Service, Denver Service Cen- Time, Southern Great Basin and Vi- ter, Denver. cinity, Arizona, California, and Ne- vada. United States Geological Simms, S. R. Survey, Water Resources Investiga- 1984 Aboriginal Great Basin Foraging tions Report 84-4328. Strategies: An Evolutionary Analy-

~~sis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stevenson, M. G. Utah, Salt Lake City. University Mi- 1985 The Formation of Artifact Assem- crofilms, Ann Arbor. blages at Workshop/Habitation~~

~~Sites: Models from Peace Point in 1986 New Evidence for Fremont Adap- Northern Alberta. American Antiq- tive Diversity. Journal of California uity 50:63-81 and Great Basin Anthropology~~

8:204-216. Steward, J. H. 1933 Archaeological Problems of the Simonis, D. Northern Periphery of the South- n.d. Condensed/Evaporated Milk Cans west. Bulletin No. 5. Museum of Chronology for Dating Historical Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. Sites. In Intermountain Antiquities Computer System (IMACS) Users 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopoli- Guide: Instruction and Computer tical Groups. Bulletin No. 120. Bu- Codes for Use with IMACS Site reau of American Ethnology, Forms, by the University of Utah, Smithsonian Institution, Washing- unpaginated. Bureau of Land Man- ton, D.C. agement and U.S. Forest Service, 1941 Archaeological Reconnaissance of Salt Lake City. Southern Utah. Bulletin No. 128.

~~Smiley, F. E. Bureau of American Ethnology,~~

1 985 The Chronometrics of Early Agri- Smithsonian Institution, Washing- cultural Sites in the Northern ton, D.C. Southwest: Approaches to the Inter- Stewart, O. C. pretation of Radiocarbon Dates. 1939 The Northern Paiute Bands. Univer- Ph.D. dissertation, University of sity of California Anthropological Michigan, Ann Arbor. University Records 2:127-149. Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1942 Culture Element Distributions, 1994 The Agricultural Transition in the XVIII: Ute-Southern Paiute. Univer- Northern Southwest: Patterns in the sity of California Anthropological Current Chronometric Data. Kiva Records 6:23 1 -3 56. 60:165-189.

~~Southwood, T. R. E.~~

~~1 966 Ecological Methods. Methuen, Lon- don.~~

~~226 REFERENCES CITED~~

Stokes, S., C. S. Breed, and D. F. Elder Brigham Young University, Provo, 1991 Holocene Maintenance of Pleisto- Utah. cene Sand Dunes in Northeastern Talma, A. S., and J. C. Vogel Arizona: Climatic Implications of 1993 A Simplified Approach to Calibrat- Quartz Optical Dating. Abstract, ing C14 Dates. Radiocarbon Geological Society of America An- 35(2):3 17-322. nual Meeting.

Tanner, F. M. C. Stokes, W. L. 1976 The Far Country: A Regional His- 1977 Subdivisions of the Major Physio- tory of Moab and LaSal, Utah. graphic Provinces in Utah. Utah Ge- Olympus Publishing, Salt Lake City. ology 4(1):1-17. Thiessen, T. D. Stuart, D. E., and R. P. Gauthier 1984 Completion of Field Work, Canyon- 1981 Prehistoric New Mexico: Back- lands National Park, Road Project ground for Survey. Historic Preser- (Pkg. 106); Canyonlands National vation Bureau, Santa Fe. Park. Memorandum to Assistant Stuiver, M., A. Long, R. S. Kra, and Manger, Midwest/Rocky Mountain

~~J. M. Devine Team, Denver Service Center, dated~~

1993 Calibration - 1993. Radiocarbon September 4, 1984. National Park 35(1). Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Stuiver, M., and G. W. Pearson 1993 High-precision Calibration of the Thomas, D. H. Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950- 1981 How to Classify the Projectile 500 BC and 2500-6000 BC. Radio- Points from Monitor Valley, Ne- carbon 35(2): 1-23. vada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3:7-43. Stuiver, M., and P. J. Reimer 1993 Extended 14C Data Base and Re- 1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley:

~~vised CALIB 3.0 14C Age Cali- I. Epistemology. Anthropological~~

~~bration Program. Radiocarbon Papers Vol. 58, Pt 1. American 35(2):21 5-230. Museum of Natural History, New York. Suhm, D. A.~~

~~1959 Extended Survey of the Right Bank Thomas, P. M., Jr., C. S. Weed,~~

~~of Glen Canyon. In The Glen Can- L. J. Campbell, and J. H. Altschul~~

yon Archeological Survey, Part I, 1981 The Central Coal II Project: A edited by C. E. Dibble, pp. 163-284. Class II Inventory of Selected Por- Anthropological Papers No. 39, tions of Carbon, Emery and Sevier Glen Canyon Series No. 6. Univer- Counties, Utah. Report of Investiga- sity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. tions 25. New World Research, Pol- lock, Louisiana. Submitted to Bureau Talbot, R. K., and L. D. Richens of Land Management, Denver. 1996 Steinaker Gap: An Early Fremont Farmstead. Occasional Papers No.

~~2. Museum of Peoples and Cultures,~~

~~227 -~~

~~REFERENCES CITED~~

~~Thompson, R. A. 1992 The Burr Trail Archeological Pro-~~

~~1 979 A Stratified Random Sample of the ject: Small Site Archeology on the~~

~~Cultural Resources in the Canyon- Escalante Plateau and Circle Cliffs, lands Section of the Moab District. Garfield County, Utah. Cultural Re-~~

Cultural Resource Series No. 1 . Bu- sources Report 439-01-9132. P-III reau of Land Management, Utah Associates, Salt Lake City. Submit- State Office, Salt Lake City. ted to Bureau of Land Management, Kanab Resource Area, Kanab, Utah. Thompson, R. S.

1984 Late Pleistocene and Holocene En- 1 993 Investigating the Spatial Structure of vironments in the Great Basin. Lithic Scatter Sites from an Eth- Ph.D. dissertation, University of noarchaeological Perspective: Ex- Arizona, Tucson. University Micro- amples from Utah and Nevada. Utah films, Ann Arbor. Archaeology 1993 6:57-71.

~~Thorns, A. V. 1995 Holocene Archeology Near Squaw 1989 The Northern Roots of Hunter Butte, Canyonlands National Park, Gatherer Intensification: Camas and Utah. Selections from the Division~~

the Pacific Northwest. Ph.D. disser- of Cultural Resources No. 7. Na- tation, University of Washington. tional Park Service, Rocky Moun- University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. tain Regional Office, Denver.

Tipps, B. L. Tipps, B. L. (editor and compiler) 1988a The Tar Sands Project: An Inven- 1996 Cultural Resources Inventory in tory and Predictive Model for Cen- Butler Flat, Canyonlands National tral and Southern Utah. Cultural Park, Utah. Cultural Resources Re- Resource Series No. 22. Bureau of port 411-03-9608. P-III Associates, Land Management, Utah State Of- Salt Lake City. Submitted to Na-

fice, Salt Lake City. tional Park Service, Rocky Moun- tain Regional Office, Denver. 1 988b Archaic and Numic Encampment in the Little Boulder Basin, Eureka Tipps, B. L., and K. M. Heath County^ Nevada. Cultural Resources 1995 Soils and Pregrazing Vegetation. In Report 424-1-8805. P-III Associates, Holocene Archeology Near Squaw Salt Lake City. Submitted to Bureau Butte, Canyonlands National Park,

of Land Management, Elko District Utah, by B. L. Tipps, p. 29. Selec- Office, Elko, Nevada. tions from the Division of Cultural Resources No. 7. National Park 1991 Cultural Resource Inventory of Five Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Well Pads and Access Routes in the Office, Denver. Kane Springs Area, Grand County, Utah. Cultural Resources Report 471-01-9117. P-III Associates, Salt Lake City. Submitted to the Utah Division of State History, Salt Lake City, and the Bureau of Land Man- agement, Grand Resource Area, Moab, Utah.

~~228 .~~

~~REFERENCES CITED~~

~~Tipps, B. L., and N. J. Hewitt Van Gelder, R. G.~~

~~1989 Cultural Resource Inventory and 1 982 Mammals of the National Parks. Testing in the Salt Creek Pocket and Johns Hopkins University Press, Devils Lanes Areas, Needles Dis- Baltimore.~~

trict, Canyonlands National Park, Van Ness, M. A. Utah. Selections from the Division 1 986 Desha Complex Macrobotanical Fe- of Cultural Resources No. 1. Na- cal Remains: An Archaic Diet in the tional Park Service, Rocky Moun- American Southwest. Unpublished tain Regional Office, Denver. Master's thesis, Department of An- Tipps, B. L., and A. R. Schroedl thropology, Northern Arizona Uni- 1990 The Canyonlands Archeological Pro- versity, Flagstaff.

~~ject: Archaic Occupation in the Nee- Vetter, S. dles District. Poster. 63rd Annual 1985a Fenceline Survey, North Boundary, Pecos Conference, B landing, Utah. Island-in-the-Sky District, Canyon-~~

Titmus, G. L., and J. C. Woods lands National Park, Utah. Rocky 1986 An Experimental Study of Projectile Mountain Region Archeological Point Fracture Patterns. Journal of Project Report. National Park Ser- California and Great Basin Anthro- vice, Midwest Archeological Center, pology 8:37-49. Lincoln, Nebraska.

Towner, R. H. 1985b Archeological Investigations, Island- 1985 The Effects of Heat Treatment on in-the-Sky Road Project. Rocky Chert Tool Edge Damage. In Lithic Mountain Region Archeological Resource Procurement: Proceedings Project Report. National Park Ser- from the Second Conference on Pre- vice, Midwest Archeological Center, historic Chert Exploitation, edited Lincoln, Nebraska.

by S. C. Vehik, pp. 199-208. Occa- 1986 Archeological Investigations, Island- sional Paper No. 4. Center for in-the-Sky Road Project, Phase II. Archaeological Investigations, Rocky Mountain Region Archeo- Southern Illinois University, Car- logical Project Report. National bondale. Park Service, Midwest Archeologi- Towner, R. H., and M. Warburton cal Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. 1990 Projectile Point Rejuvenation: A 1987 Summary of Work at White Crack Technological Analysis. Journal of Archeological Site - 42SAI7597. Field Archaeology 17:311 -32 1 Rocky Mountain Region Archeo- Tripp, G. W. logical Project Report. National 1966 A Clovis Point from Central Utah. Park Service, Midwest Archeologi-

~~American Antiquity 3 1 :43 5-436. cal Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.~~

~~Turner, R. M. 1989 White Crack Site (42SAI7597). Na- 1982 Great Basin Desertscrub. Desert tional Park Service, Midwest Ar-~~

~~Plants 4(1 -4): 145- 155. Special Is- cheological Center, Lincoln, sue: Biotic Communities of the Nebraska. American Southwest—United States and Mexico, edited by D. E. Brown.~~

~~229 REFERENCES CITED~~

Vetter S., and A. J. Osborn Westfall, D. A., W. E. Davis, and E. Blinman 1993 The White Crack Site. In Aboriginal 1987 Green Spring: An Anasazi and Lithie Raw Material Procurement in Southern Paiute Encampment in the Glen Canyon and Canyonlands, St. George Basin of Utah. Cultural Southeastern Utah, by A. J. Osborn, Resource Series No. 21. Bureau of S. Vetter, J. Waters, and S. Bau- Land Management, Utah State Of- mann, pp. 49-57. Technical Report fice, Salt Lake City. No. 29. National Park Service, Mid- Wilde, J. D., and D. E. Newman west Archeological Center, Lincoln, 1989 Late Archaic Corn in the Eastern Nebraska. Great Basin. American Anthropolo-

Vogel, J. C, A. Fuls, E. Visser, and gist 91:712-720. B. Becker Winter, J. C, and H. G. Wylie 1993 Pretoria Calibration Curve for Short 1974 Paleoecology and Diet at Clyde's Lived Samples. Radiocarbon 33:73- Cavern. American Antiquity 39:303- 86. 315.

Wells, S. G., L. D. McFadden, and Wormington, H. M., and R. H. Lister J. D. Shultz 1956 Archaeological Investigations on the 1990 Eolian Landscape Evolution and Uncompahgre Plateau in West Cen- Soil Formation in the Chaco Dune tral Colorado. Proceedings No. 2. Field, Southern Colorado Plateau, Denver Museum of Natural History, New Mexico. In Soils and Land- Denver. scape Evolution, edited by P. L. K.

Knuepfer and L. D. McFadden, pp. Yellen, J. E. 517-546. Geomorphology 3. El 1977 Archaeological Approaches to the Sevier, Amsterdam. Present: Models for Reconstructing the Past. Studies in Archeology. Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, L. C. Higgins, Academic Press, New York. and S. Goodrich 1987 A Utah Flora. Great Basin Natural- Young, D. E., and R. Bonnichsen

ist Memoir 9. Brigham Young Uni- 1985 Cognition, Behavior, and Material versity, Provo, Utah. Culture. In Stone Tool Analysis: Es- says in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, Westfall, D. A. edited by M. G. Plew, J. C. Woods, 1987 Cultural Resource Inventory of the and M. G. Pavesic, pp. 91-131. Uni- Utah Department of Transporta- versity of New Mexico Press, Albu- tion's U.S. Highway 191 Improve- querque. ment Project: Holyoak Lane to Blue Hill, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah. Abajo Archaeology, Bluff, Utah. Submitted to Bureau of Land Management, Grand Resource Area, Moab, Utah.

~~230 Appendix A~~

~~LEGAL LOCATIONS OF THE INVENTORY AREA~~

~~by Daniel K. Newsome~~

~~Distribution Limited to:~~

~~National Park Service Canyonlands National Park Moab, Utah~~

~~National Park Service Midwest Archeological Center Lincoln, Nebraska A-2 Appendix B~~

~~CORRELATION OF TEMPORARY FIELD NUMBERS AND PERMANENT SMITHSONIAN SITE NUMBERS B-2 CORRELATION OF SITE NUMBERS~~

~~Table B-l. Correlation of temporary field numbers and permanent Smithsonian site numbers.~~

Temporary Number Permanent Smithsonian Number 6-1 42SA21260 6-2 42SA21261 6-3 42SA21262 6-4 42SA21263 6-5 42SA21264 6-6 42SA21265 6-7 42SA21266 6-8 42SA21267 6-9 42SA21268 6-10 42SA21269 6-11 42SA21270 6-12 42SA21271 6-13 42SA21272 6-14 42SA21273 6-15 42SA21274 6-16 42SA21275 6-17 42SA21276 6-18 42SA21277 6-19 42SA21278 6-20 42SA21279 6-21 42SA21280 6-22 42SA21281 6-23 42SA21282 6-24 42SA21283 6-25 42SA21284 6-26 42SA21285 6-27 42SA21286 6-28 42SA21287 6-29 42SA21288 6-30 42SA21289 6-31 42SA21290 6-32 42SA21291 6-33 42SA21292 6-34 42SA21293 6-35 42SA21294 6-36 42SA21295 6-37 42SA21296

~~B-3 B-4 Appendix C~~

~~TABULAR SITE DATA C-2 TABULAR SITE DATA~~

~~Table C-l. Location of each site by inventory area and geographic location.~~

Site Number Inventory Area Geographic Location 42SA21260 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21261 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21262 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21263 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21264 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21265 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21266 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21267 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21268 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21269 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21270 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21271 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21272 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21273 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21274 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21275 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21276 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21277 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21278 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21279 White Crack Area White Crack Benchlands 42SA21280 White Crack Area White Crack Benchlands 42SA21281 White Crack Area White Crack Benchlands 42SA21282 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21283 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21284 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21285 White Crack Area White Rim Uplands 42SA21286 White Crack Area White Crack Benchlands 42SA21287 White Crack Area White Crack Benchlands 42SA21288 White Crack Area White Crack Benchlands 42SA21289 White Crack Area White Crack Benchlands 42SA21290 White Crack Area White Crack Benchlands 42SA21291 White Crack Area White Crack Benchlands 42SA21292 White Crack Area White Crack Benchlands 42SA21293 White Crack Area White Crack Benchlands 42SA21294 White Crack Area White Crack Benchlands 42SA21295 White Crack Area White Crack Benchlands 42SA21296 White Crack Area White Crack Benchlands

~~C-3 TABULAR SITE DATA~~

~~Table C-2. List of sites and their cultural affiliation and age.~~

~~Site Number of Identified Cultural Number Occupations Affiliation Age~~

~~42SA21260 1 Anasazi Pueblo n-m~~

~~42SA21261 1 Aboriginal Formative~~

~~42SA21262 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21263 1 Archaic Terminal Archaic~~

~~42SA21264 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21265 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21266 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric 42SA21267 2 Archaic/ Middle Archaic/ Archaic Terminal Archaic~~

~~42SA21268 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric 42SA21269 2 Archaic/ Late Archaic/ Aboriginal Preformative~~

~~42SA21270 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21271 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21272 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21273 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21274 1 Aboriginal Formative~~

~~42SA21275 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21276 1 Euroamerican 1950s-1970s~~

~~42SA21277 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21278 1 Anasazi Pueblo II-in~~

~~42SA21279 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21280 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21281 1 Anasazi Pueblo n-m~~

~~42SA21282 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21283 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21284 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21285 1 Archaic Late Archaic~~

~~42SA21286 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21287 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21288 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21289 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21290 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric 42SA21291 2 Archaic/ Late-Terminal Archaic/ Archaic Terminal Archaic~~

~~42SA21292 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21293 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21294 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21295 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~42SA21296 1 Aboriginal Prehistoric~~

~~C-4 TABULAR SITE DATA~~

~~Table C-3. List of sites and their descriptive types.~~

~~Site Component Site Number Number Setting Descriptive Site Type~~

~~42SA21260 1 Sheltered Sherd and lithic scatter~~

~~42SA21261 1 Sheltered Masonry architecture~~

~~42SA21262 1 Open Features without artifacts~~

~~42SA21263 1 Open Lithic scatter with feature(s)~~

~~42SA21264 1 Open Lithic scatter~~

~~42SA21265 1 Open Lithic scatter~~

~~42SA21266 1 Open Lithic scatter~~

~~42SA21267 1 Open Lithic scatter with feature(s)~~

~~42SA21267 1 Open Lithic scatter~~

~~42SA21268 1 Open Lithic scatter~~

~~42SA21269 1 Open Lithic scatter with feature(s)~~

~~42SA21269 1 \ Open Lithic scatter with feature(s)~~

~~42SA21270 1 Open Lithic scatter~~

~~42SA21271 1 Open Lithic scatter~~

~~42SA21272 1 Open Lithic scatter~~

~~42SA21273 1 Open Lithic scatter~~

~~42SA21274 ] Open Lithic scatter~~

~~42SA21275 1 Open Lithic scatter~~

~~42SA21276 1 Open Modern site~~

~~42SA21277 1 Open Lithic scatter~~

~~42SA21278 1 Open Sherd and lithic scatter~~

~~42SA21279 1 Open Lithic scatter~~

~~42SA21280 ] Open Lithic source area with sherds 42SA21281 1 Open Lithic source area~~

~~42SA21282 1 Open Lithic scatter Lithic scatter feature(s) 42SA21283 1 Open with feature(s) 42SA21284 ] Open Lithic scatter with feature(s) 42SA21285 ] Open Lithic scatter with~~

~~42SA21286 ] Open Lithic source area 42SA21287 Open Lithic source area 42SA21288 Open Lithic source area area 42SA21289 L Open Lithic source~~

~~42SA21290 [ Open Lithic source area scatter feature(s) 42SA21291 [ Sheltered Lithic with scatter feature(s) 42SA21291 : I Sheltered Lithic with feature(s) 42SA21292 [ Sheltered Lithic scatter with~~

~~42SA21293 [ Open Lithic source area feature(s) 42SA21294 I Open Lithic scatter with~~

~~42SA21295 I Open Lithic source area~~

~~42SA21296 1 Open Lithic scatter~~

~~C-5 ' i~~

~~TABULAR SITE DATA~~

~~GO U~~

~~c c~~

~~^> 1> go !-•o go N C/l vo —i —i — (N ~ cm — (N ^O CN o — ^ U a. c o T3~~

~~GO '—~~

~~a. m • — 03 •— -o o C/3 D X> GO I o~~

~~X) o (N — ^ (N - (N «r> ~ • CM rr ^ (N CN H t m N m m s~~

m • — • — 2 a. Oh o^cMro-ri->/->*or-ooov ©^CMr-iTfiOÔrÔOOs© — (Nm-^w^Ô (NfMMtN(NMM(N(N(N CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMr-r~r-r~~t~-r--r--r-t~~-r~-oooooooooooooo X) CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM (N(N(N(NMMfN(NCNrS(N(N(N(N(N(NM E <<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< (N(N(N(N(N(NM(N(NtNN(N(N(N(N(N(NC/)C/5C/5t/5C/50ri(>0C/D(/3C/DC/50OC/)0OC/5C/D0ri t/3 ^^^^^^^^1-t ^TfTt^^T^Tj-^-

~~C-6 < .~~

~~TABULAR SITE DATA~~

~~VO — m oo rs ^ >t ^ ^o o o~~

~~-1-~~

~~M N JJ ^ — — • Tf • _ SO s- — O o ^ U~~

~~t3 ^o in c x •* ro o o c — a. ed O t-~~

~~VO Xl c S 3~~

~~i r l (N~~

~~'. _ c/> CJ c at ^D "T> — 0- CL, OOOOOOOsOsOsOsOsOsO^r~-ooovo — (N n Tf in \o 1_u NfN(SM(N(N(NN(NM X (NM(NM(N(N(NM(NN e E <<<<<<<<<< u V 3 oooooooooooooooooooo k. 4-» 2 rsl~~

~~C-7 i~~

~~TABULAR SITE DATA~~

~~-h -i r- ts i^ >^ oo o 03 to o O H o~~

~~3 6 — CN 02 o r-~~

~~3 +3~~

~~c T3Co "^a> cn E r--~~

~~XS gJ3.I CN 111 c--~~

~~O U-i CO ° o ^~~

~~T3 C o c « O g o.2 — CN~~

~~i c/i u o- c 2 ta 3 § S in cn —< ^ tBi o.2 CN Hcd~~

*3- Os —' CN ~ — (N in X 0)

~~T3 t/)~~

~~— <3- sososososoooooooososos'(NC->r--ONf<"}''3-m^~~

~~C-8 Appendix D~~

~~CATALOG OF ISOLATED FINDS D-2 179~~

~~CATALOG OF ISOLATED FINDS~~

~~Table D-l. Catalog of isolated finds (IFs) in the White Crack Area.~~

~~IF Number Description~~

~~1 1 secondary flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~1 secondary (core reduction) flake of purplish Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~1 secondary flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~2 1 secondary flake of purple-orange mottled Cedar Mesa Chalcedony~~

~~3 1 secondary flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~4 1 modified flake of Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~1 secondary flake of lavender Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~5 1 secondary flake of white chert~~

~~6 1 secondary flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~7 1 secondary flake of orange Cedar Mesa Chert with white mottles~~

~~8 1 secondary flake of white chert~~

~~1 secondary flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~9 1 indeterminate sherd 2 Mesa Verde white ware bowl sherds~~

~~10 1 decortication flake of white chert~~

~~1 1 crudely flaked biface fragment made from a thick secondary flake of white Cedar Mesa Chert with orange mottling~~

~~12 1 decortication flake of gray quartzite 13 2 secondary flakes of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~1 secondary flake of gray chert~~

~~14 1 secondary flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~1 tertiary flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~1 secondary flake of red-purple Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~15 1 large corner-notched point of white chalcedony~~

~~1 decortication flake of white-orange-tan chalcedony (with incipient cone cortex)~~

~~1 secondary flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~16 1 modified decortication flake of white chalcedony (with incipient cone cortex)~~

~~1 1 side-notched dart point fragment of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~1 decortication flake of white-tan chert (with incipient cone cortex)~~

~~1 secondary flake of brown-purple Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~1 secondary reduction flake of orange Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~18 1 Sinbad Side-notched point of lavender-white mottled Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~1 1 secondary flake of lavender white Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~1 secondary flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~20 1 secondary flake of grainy white chalcedony~~

~~1 biface midsection of red-orange Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~1 secondary flake of red-brown Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~21 1 thick, crude biface of white chert~~

~~1 large outre-passe flake off a large, crudely flaked biface of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~22 1 secondary flake of yellow-salmon chert 23 2 unidirectional cores of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~1 possibly battered cobble of grayish chert~~

~~D-3 CATALOG OF ISOLATED FINDS~~

~~Table D-l. Catalog of isolated finds (IFs) in the White Crack Area (continued).~~

~~IF Number Description~~

~~24 1 modified flake of Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~25 1 small discoidal core of multicolored chalcedony~~

~~26 1 large secondary flake of purplish white Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~27 ] large secondary (core reduction) flake of orange Cedar Mesa Chert with white mottling~~

~~28 1 secondary flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~29 1 secondary flake of mottled white chert~~

~~30 ] secondary flake of reddish-orange Cedar Mesa Chert piece of shatter of red Cedar Mesa Chert 31 secondary flake of white Summerville Chalcedony with orange mottling~~

~~. modified flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert secondary flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert 32 secondary flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert piece of shatter of Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~33 f i decortication flakes of Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~34 1 secondary flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~35 1 secondary flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~36 1 secondary reduction flake of rose chalcedony~~

~~37 :\ decortication flakes of red Cedar Mesa Chert tertiary flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~38 ] thin, crude biface base and midsection fragment of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~39 1 large secondary (core reduction) flake of purplish Cedar Mesa Chalcedony large tested cobble of red Cedar Mesa Chert 40 bidirectional core of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~41 :I secondary flakes of red Cedar Mesa Chert decortication flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert modified flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~42 : > secondary flakes of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~[ tested cobble of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~1 random core of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~43 [ secondary flake of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~[ random core of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~44 I random core of red Cedar Mesa Chert~~

~~D-4 Appendix E~~

~~DESCRIPTION OF RAW MATERIALS IN THE WHITE CRACK SITE CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE~~

~~by Scott M. Whitesides E-2 Appendix E~~

~~DESCRIPTION OF RAW MATERIALS IN THE WHITE CRACK SITE CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE~~

This chapter provides descriptions of brown (10YR 6/2) to pale red purple (5RP 6/2) the raw material types observed in and then back to red (2.5YR 4/6). the chipped stone assemblage from the White A small percentage of the artifacts has

Crack site, 42SA 17597. The catalog numbers small oolitic inclusions (e.g., specimens from used to reference specific artifacts are those Catalog #s 2872 and 2829). These inclusions assigned by the National Park Service, Mid- make up less than 1 percent of the material west Archeological Center, where the collec- matrix. In addition, the Cedar Mesa Chert tion was originally curated. The collection is grades into different material types, particu- now curated at the Western Archeological larly Cedar Mesa Chalcedony (e.g., speci- and Conservation Center in Tucson, Arizona. mens from Catalog #s 2968 and 2962). It Cedar Mesa Chert also grades into brown chalcedony (Catalog #3006), gray-brown chert, and brown chert The Cedar Mesa Chert artifacts in the (Catalog #3021). White Crack site assemblage are highly vari- Cortex is present on 98 of the Cedar able in color and texture. Colors range from Mesa Chert artifacts. Of these, 94 have pri- pinkish white (5YR 8/2) to very dark red mary cortex. Four artifacts have weathered pale pink (5RP 8/2) to (5R 2/6) and from cortex. grayish red purple (5RP 4/2). However, the Cedar Mesa Chert in the White Crack ar- majority of the artifacts range from red tifact assemblage varies from smooth, fine (2.5YR 4/8) to dark red (2.5YR 3/6). Cedar grained, and slightly glossy to coarse grained Mesa Chert in the White Crack collection and dull. Most artifacts are the high-quality, varies from solid to mottled to banded, and fine-grained type. Several of the artifacts the majority of artifacts has some mottling or grade from fine grained to coarse grained; banding. For example, one artifact (from this reduces the quality of the toolstone. Catalog #2873) grades from very dark red (5R 2/6) to light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4). Cedar Mesa Chalcedony

Another artifact (from Catalog #2849) has a Cedar Mesa Chalcedony in the White banded pattern of red (2.5YR 4/8) to dark Crack site assemblage varies from very dusky yellowish orange (10YR 6/6) to pale yellowish purple (5P 2/2) to grayish blue (5PB 5/2) to

~~E-3 RAW MATERIALS-CHIPPED STONE~~

moderate orange-pink (5YR 8/4). Often, Summerville Chalcedony small oolitic inclusions are present. These in- The Summerville Chalcedony from the clusions vary in color but are generally red White Crack site is translucent to transparent (2.5YR 4/8) or pinkish gray (7.5YR 7/2). In white (0 N9) and often has a light red (5R 6/6) some cases, there are several colors. For ex- tint. The majority of Summerville Chalced- ample, one artifact from Catalog #2856 ony artifacts is translucent. The translucent grades from purple to grayish orange (10R 7/4) material is dull and fine grained; the transpar- to pale blue (5PB 7/2). Cedar Mesa Chalced- ent material is fine grained and glossy. Both ony, high quality, fine grained, slightly and varieties are of very high quality. glossy, grades into Cedar Mesa Chert, as White Chert previously discussed. When it grades into White chert in the assemblage is white Cedar Mesa Chert, its quality is moderate to (5YR 8/1) to pinkish white (5YR 8/2) and high. sometimes has streaks of orange or dark gray Algalitic Chert throughout. White chert is dull and fine to

The Algalitic Chert in the White Crack medium grained. This material is of moderate site assemblage is distinguished by its two- quality for tool production. toned color forming the inner and outer lay- Gray Chert ers on the original cobble. The outer portion The gray chert recovered from the site is

is reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6 to 7.5YR 6/6) dull, fine grained, and ranges from light gray and often appears as streaks superimposed on (7.5YR 7/0) to dark gray (7.5YR N4). These the darker inner material. This outer material colors are mottled in some artifacts. In addi- tends to be coarse grained, dull, and less sili- tion, the material sometimes contains small ceous than the darker inner material. It be- circular white and black siliceous inclusions comes more homogenous in color and texture (e.g., artifacts from Catalog #s 3027 and cortex, is quality toward the but of low over- 2985). Gray chert is of highly variable qual- all. The inner material is brown (7.5YR 5/2), ity due to the inclusions found in some speci- fine grained, and slightly glossy. This type of mens, but the material is generally of Algalitic Chert is a high-quality material. moderate quality. Weathered cortex is present on one artifact Brown Chalcedony from Catalog #3028. Another artifact, from The brown chalcedony from the White Catalog #2785, has an incipient fracture that Crack site looks similar to the inner layer of is filled with iron oxide and quartz. Algalitic Chert but it is more translucent. The

~~Brown Chert color is solid and ranges from dark brown~~

(7.5 YR 3/4) to very dark brown (10YR 2/2). The brown chert in the White Crack site This material is fine grained, slightly glossy, assemblage is pale brown (5YR 5/2) to gray- and of high quality. One artifact from Cata- ish brown (5YR 3/2) and has a coarse- to log #2908 has black oolitic inclusions similar fine-grained texture. It has a dull to to those in Cedar Mesa Chalcedony. dull/earthy luster, and the range of colors and

~~textures is often mixed in patches or mottled Gray Quartzite~~

~~patterns (e.g., specimens from Catalog Gray quartzite in the assemblage is light #3027). This toolstone ranges from poor to brownish gray (10YR 6/2) to greenish gray~~

~~high quality. As previously discussed, it (5GY 6/1). All six artifacts are relatively fine sometimes grades into Cedar Mesa Chert. grained and have a slight gloss. For quartzite,~~

~~E-4 RAW MATERIALS-CHIPPED STONE~~

~~this material is of relatively high quality, but that are apparent in the form of thin, (ca. 1 mm) this material is only of moderate quality com- pale olive (5Y 6/3), horizontal bands. The~~

~~pared to some of the cherts and chalcedonies. material is dull/earthy and coarse grained.~~

~~Obsidian This material is not silicified and is very brit-~~

~~tle. It is of very poor quality. Three of the obsidian specimens in the White Crack site assemblage are transparent Petrified Wood~~

and solid black (smoky). The fourth is trans- A single artifact from Catalog #2897 is parent gray with translucent black inclusions. made of petrified wood. This material has a All four pieces of obsidian are of excellent solid dark gray (7.5YR 4/0) groundmass al- quality for tool production. ternating with very thin (ca. 0.5 mm), evenly Rose Chalcedony spaced, brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) growth specimen from Catalog #3020 is One rings. The groundmass is dull and fine made of rose chalcedony. This material is grained. The growth rings are dull/earthy and light red (5R 6/6), transparent, fine grained, coarse grained. The toolstone quality is mod-

~~and glossy. It appears to be of a very high erate. quality. This material may grade into Cedar Mesa Chalcedony, although the White Crack Other Chert~~

~~site assemblage provides no direct evidence Two artifacts do not match any of the es- of this. tablished raw material types. One specimen~~

~~Limestone from Catalog #2871 is a light olive green~~

~~There is one limestone artifact in the as- (10Y 5/4) chert with a fine-grained glossy~~

semblage. This specimen, from Catalog surface. The other, from Catalog #2804, is a #3017, has a groundmass of very pale orange dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6), fine- (10YR 8/2) with distinct sedimentary layers grained, glossy chert.

~~E-5 E-6~~

~~ems°n .H . . Univeiversity~~

~~»» imnni fi d '604 012 783 181~~

~~SELECTIONS from the DIVISION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES Rocky Mountain Region, National Park Service~~

~~1 No. . Cultural Resource Inventory and Testing in the Salt Creek Pocket and Devils Lane Areas, Needles District, Canyonlands National Park, Utah, by Betsy L. Tipps and~~

~~Nancy J. Hewitt; 1989.~~

~~No. 2. Gateways to Commerce: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 9-Foot Channel Pro- ject on the Upper Mississippi River, by William Patrick O'Brien, Mary Yeater Rath- bun, and Patrick O'Bannon; 1992.~~

~~No. 3. The Archaeology of Beaver Creek Shelter (39CU779): A Preliminary Statement, by Lynn Marie Alex; 1991.~~

~~No. 4. Archaeological Investigations at Two Sites in Dinosaur National Monument: 42UN1724 and 5MF2645, by James A. Truesdale; 1993.~~

~~No. 5. The History of the Construction of the Road System in Yellowstone National Park,~~

~~1972-1966. Historic Resource Study Volume I, by Mary Shivers Culpin; 1994.~~

~~No. 6. The Obsidian Cliff Plateau Prehistoric Lithic Source, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, by Leslie B. Davis, Stephen A. Aaberg, and James G. Schmitt; 1995.~~

~~No. 7. Holocene Archeology near Squaw Butte, Canyonlands National Park, Utah, by Betsy L. Tipps; 1995.~~

~~CULTURAL RESOURCE SELECTIONS Intermountain Region, National Park Service~~

~~No. 8. Cultural Landscape Report: Fruita Rural Historic District, Capitol Reef National Park, by Cathy A. Gilbert and Kathleen L. McKoy; 1997.~~

~~No. 9. Ethnographic Overview and Assessment of Devils Tower National Monument, by Jeffry R. Hanson and Sally Chirinos; 1997.~~

~~No. 10. A Classic Western Quarrel: A History of the Road Controversy at Colorado Na- tional Monument, by Lisa Schoch- Roberts; 1997.~~

~~No. 11. Cultural Resource Investigations Near White Crack, Isiand-in-the Sky District,~~

~~Canyonlands National Park, Utah, by Betsy L. Tipps, Andre D. La Fond, and Robert I. Birnie; 1996.~~