Utah Statewide Archaeological Society Newsletter, Volume 7, Number 3, September 1961 by Utah Historical Society

IIt.II IIrcll.,.,." A Newsletter , , ~.,': ":':: .. /\ L SOCIETY UT.Â· .: : '. 603 t:l\ :)T seLJ a 'l TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

Vol. 7,

September, 1961

No.3

/ '\ ~ ~

( (' ~

JI J

Pictographs from Defiance House ( 42Sa598 ) 'f

UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY is published quarterly by the UTAH STATEWIDE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. Subscription is included in membership. Membership in the !saciety is available from the secretary-treasurer at $2.00 per year. Correspondence concerning the activities of the society should be directed to the president. All manuscripts and news items should be sent to the editor: Lloyd Pierson, Arches Na.tional Monument, Moab, Utah. I

:.1 UT AH STATEWIDE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY PRESIDENT: H. Merrill Peterson, 651 Canyon Road, Logan, Utah VICE PRESIDENT: John L. Cross, 860 South 10th East, Orem, Utah SECRETARY -TREASURER: Veone Gale, 1432 Sunview Dr" Ogden, Utah ADVISOR: Dr. Jesse D. Jennings, Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City 12

EDITOR'S NOTES There is little to include in the interim editor's notes for this issue, primarily due to total lack of communication between the editor and members of the Society. You will note that the two articles which appear in this issue are by a former student at Utah and by the editor, respectively; no contributions by Society members have been received by the editor over the past three months. In a very real sense, therefore, the Newsletter has become an outlet for . reports by members of the University staff, rather than the journal of the Statewide Society. If contributions from Society members are not forthcoming in the near future, I shall be able to publish about one more issue, again using largely departmental materials, and shall then be forced to close down operations, or else title the Newsletter "Student and Staff papers in Anthropology, University of Utah~ : ." Everyone of you who has undertaken any sort of archaeo(~ logical work during the past year should, then, take this as a direct challenge, and as a solicitation of your comments. Put your ideas down on paper and submit them to me, if you want the Newsletter to continue to serve as a means of reporting activities of the Society. The same statement applies to chapter activities, which can be reported by chapter secretaries. Now, to return to the business of my iEterim editorship. I think I made my point clear in the last issue, so I shall not restate it in detail here. Just as in the problem of lack of contributions, the assumption of the editorship by a member of the University of Utah staff means that the Newsletter is, to a considerable degree, drawn away from the Society. In addition, as you note by the time of your receipt of this issue, the press of academic duties makes prompt production of the Newsletter well-nigh impossible. This will continue to be true until after Christmas, and not long after that I may be out of the country for more than three months. All of these problems, plus my inability to maintain close contacts with the several chapters of the Society, make it imperative that the Society select a permanent editor, if no willing volunteer takes the necessary two steps forward . Those of you interested in Early Man in Western North America, in Civilizations in Desert Lands, or in the relationships between archaeology and -e thnology, should plan to attend the meetings of Section H (Anthropology) of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Denver, December 28 -30 of this year. In addition to these symposium topics, a number of others of wide in2

terest are included in the program. For further information, write to the editor of the Newsletter at the Department of Anthropology. University of Utah. By some strange coincidence, he is also program 'chairman for the Section H meetings. The reviva-L meeting of the Great Basin Anthropological Conference is to be held at UCLA on October 27 and 28 . Future issues of the Newsletter may contain reports of the meeting. In addition, a conference on projectile point typology in the western United States is to be held either late this year or early in 1962, and we shall endeavour to report the results to you. The first of the two articles in this issue of UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY is a synthesis of data on central and northern Utah by Melvin Aikens, who, after completing undergraduate training at the University of Utah, has begun graduate work at the University of Chicago. Mr. Aikens has undertaken field work in Utah, and will, in 1962, be involved in projects in British Honduras and in Spain. The second article is the final legacy from Lloyd Pierson's term as editoL The report was submitted to Lloyd prior to his departure for the green pastures of Virginia, so again, as with an article of my authorship which appeared in the previous issue of the Newsletter, I can disclaim any responsibility for acceptance of the work for publication. This article, like the previous one, reports on a jOint project undertaken by the Glen Canyon Project staff and members of the Society. Again, .let me remind you that the quality, and in fact the very existence, of the Newsletter is dependent upon your contributions, whether they be articles, short notes , or news reports. Take pen in hand and write.

The Prehistory of Central and Northern Utah by Melvin Aikens ECOLOGY The area we are concerned with is generally characterized as mid -latitude steppe, and parts of it are genuine mid-latitude desert. There is an important difference in topography between the eastern and western parts of the state, and this has helped to differentiate the cultures of groups inhabiting these two areas. In the western and northern parts of the state, the land is open, with many northeast-southwest trending mountain ranges , These are parallel fault-block ranges interspersed with broad valleys, sometimes as much as 20 miles 'in width. This is the Basin and Range physiograpl1ic province . All of the Basin does not fall in the same ecological zone , because of the relief of the mountains and valleys. This was very important to the early dwellers in ,

â&#x20AC;˘

the region, since it enabled them to gather a variety of foods at various times of the year. The eastern part of the state falls in the region of the upper Colorado Plateau. , . The country here is high, rocky, and cut by deep, narrow canyons. Rainfall here is very scanty, as it is in the Basin. (Jennings; 1957). Vegetat.i:on in both areas is largely sage and rabbit brush, with pinyon and juniper at higher elevations. Many grasses and weeds also occur, providing seeds and fibrous materials :which were of great importance to the early dwellers. Small game, such as birds and rodents, and larger game such as mountain sheep, deer, amI in the northern part of the state, bison provided additional food resources. THE DESER T CULTUR E The story opens about ll, 000 yea:rs ago, not because this was the beginning date of man's adventures in the area, for the beginning date is not surely known, but because this is the date of the; first clearly defined chllpter of Utah prehistory. Danger Cave cultural zone 1. Man moved into the cave soon after the waters of Lake Bonneville receded. Evidences of his presence are slight, consisting of the remains of camp fires and a few stone chips. By 7, 000 years ago there is evidence of man with a scanty but highly adapted cultural assemb blage occupying the cave seasonally. Jennings (1957) deduces this seasonal occupation fro m the varve--like deposits of cultural material and fill found throughout the dozen or so feet of stratified cultural debris. Other caves in the Northern Utah area also show evidence of man's occupation at this time. Such evidence was found in the lower strata of Promontory cave No.2, in Black Rock caves No. 1 and No.3, in Deadman Cave, and in Stansbury caves No. 1 and No.2. (Steward 1937, Enger 1942, Smith 1952, Jameson 1958). This culture was first known as the Bonneville culture, and later renamed the Desert culture by Jennings (-1956) upon recognition of its wide distribution throughout the western area of the United States. The Desert culture provided the base upon which the other, and later cultures of Utah, and indeed the rest of the West, were built. Evidences of it are found throughout our area on an early time level (Gunnerson 1957, Rudy 1953). The Desert people were wanderers, because the resources of the desert could not sustain a sedentary mode of existence. Their wanderings were not random, but probably followed a yearly pattern, going from area to area where they knew food would be available. Evidence of this pattern is the varve-like stratigraphy of Danger Cave. In the, mountains they could find pinyon nuts, deer, and mountain sheep; on the desert they could find grass seeds and small game such as rabbits, gophers and fox, and large game such as antelope and (in the west) bison. Around the marshes, which were fairly common in the valleys of the Basin, there would be waterfowl, and in the desert brush they could find sage grouse, mourning doves, and a variety of hawks and smaller birds. 4

The effective social unit in an environment like this would necessarily be small, probably numbering )10 more than two dozen people. The group probably consisted of a simple extended family consisting of a man and wife and their children, and the mates of the older children. They built no habitations, .Dut camped in overhangs or caves where they couid find them, otherwise camping in the open, ,where they may have erected crude brush shelters like those of the Paiute and Gosiute who were still carrying this culture in the last century. The cultural inventory was small, and well-adapted to the food quest which must have taken up nearly all their time'. The two hallmarks of the Desert culture are the small, thin slab portable millingstone , and the basket, which are basic to a seed-gathering economy. Baskets could be used for gathering, carrying, and cooking with heated stones. Cordage, netting, and matting would be useful in a variety of ways; the Paiute and Gosiute in the last century used the net as a carrying device, for fishing, and for catching birds. Another carrying device was the tumpline. Other tools were the atlatl and atlatl dart, and in later times the bow and arrow. Stone tools such as points and scrapers were most often chipped by the percussion technique. The digging stick would be essential for obtaining roots and burrowing animals. Tubular pipes and the firedrill and hearth were other items of equipment. Occasional marine shell ornaments indicate trade with the Pacific coast, as do some fragments of California-type basketry. Clothing was probably very scanty; sandals were worn year round, and in the summer, probably,little else, possibly aprons or breechclouts of vegetal fiber or cedar bark. In winterÂť robes of rabbitskin or other fur were probably used, ,'as they were among the Desert people of the last century. (Jennings 1957). The Desert culture was very stable, and in some areas has changed but little in the 11, 000 known years of its history . However, in the area we are concerned with, it did differentiate ihto variants. Much of Steward's Promontory material (1937) . excluding the late materials of the Promontory c~ulture, represents a variant, as do the Black Rock-Deadman-Stansbury materials. In the Uintah Basin and in the Fremont area, Gunnerson (1957) reports assemblages which he assigns to the Desert culture and which probably represent variants. .

HORTICULTURAL TRADITION Somewhere in the period AD 700-1000 to 1300. there developed in the central and northern parts of Utah a pueblo-like culture which was probably the result of the superimposition of diffused Anasazi traits on the indigenous culture. This was referred to by Elmer Smith (1941) as "Puebloid" and this deSignation has worked itself into much of the literature . Meighan (1959) and Jennings (1957) have referred to the "Sevier Fremont,;," which seems to be equivalent to the Puebloid of the northern part of Utah in the earlier monographs. At any rate , let us distinguish what Meighan considers to be the three branches of the

"Horticultural Desert Tradition": The Puebloid, the Sevier Fremont, and the Fremont. The Puebloid refers, I assume, to the agricultural -manifestations found in the northern part of the state. The Sevier Fremont refers to this complex as it is found slightly modified in the central part of the state west of the Wasatch mountains. The Fremont refers to the pueblo-like culture found in the central part of the state east of the Wasatch mountains, on the Colorado Plateau and in the Unitah Basin. These three variants are similar in many respects. We will first attempt to characterize each of them, then point to the characteristics which they hold in common and the characteristics in which they differ. Chief among these are house and pottery lypel:! which will be tabulated at the end of this section.

PUEBLOID The Puebloid culture, as we are using the term, is centered ar01_~nd the eastern shore of the Great Salt Lake. This region, the Great Salt Lake Oasis, is watered by four rivers, the Weber, the Ogden, the Bear and the Jordan. Along the lower reaches of these rivers, and along the low-lying shores of the Great Salt Lake at Willard and Plain City, Judd (1926) found traces of a culture characterized by semi -subterranean earthlodges, circular in form, with a rimmed central fire pit, and with the roof supported by four posts located centrally. Judd hypothesizes that these lodges had the shape of a truncated pyramid or cone, with the \four posts supporting a flat roof and with the wall timbers sloping to ground. The superstructure was covered with pol~ and i:ldobe.; Near the edges of the wall in one of these houses- he found two circular holes ca. 3 '3" in diameter and l' in depth. These he took to be storage bins, though they contained no cultural material. Judd also reports that a local amateur told him that he found charred corn and beans in the Willard mounds . This is supported by the presence of large numbers of metate~, some of them the simple thin slab Desert type, and many of them the Utah type, which is characterized by a deep grinding depression and a small secondary depression at one end. Other artifacts were manos, hammerstones, arrowshaft smoothers, bone awls, stone "chisels,":' arrowpoints, and potsherds. The pottery was a plain gray ware, smoothed but undecorated. Judd reports rumors of some black-on-white ware from yarlier excavations by amateurs, but he found none in his 1915 investigations. I have heard similar reports from local enthusiasts who have visited sites in the area. Judd also mentions that he has heard of "Indian mounds covered with pottery" at Kelton, to the north and slightly west of the lake. He was unable to locate these. Julian Steward (1936) reinvestigated the Willard area and also conducted excavations at Grantsville, on the southern tip of the Great Salt Lake. Here he found houses very similar to the earthlodges at Willard, except that they were rectangular in ground plan, rather than square, as reported by Judd . Steward feels that the Willard lodge may indeed also have been square in ground plan, since he does not have complete confidence in the manner in which Judd arrived

at his conclusion. Steward found a number Of figurines of unburned clay in mounds at Kanosh, Grantsville, and Willard. Such figurines began in the Basketmaker sites of the San Juan but soon disappeared., They achieve elaboration in Northern and Central Utah which goes beyond their development in the San Juan . Awls and gaming bones were also reported. Steward thinks that this culture shows affinity with Basketmaker. The Grantsville and Willard sites represent a single culture, that of horticulturists using similar tools and living in similar houses and similar environments . In addition to their farming, they probably supplemented their diet with wild seeds, roots, and small game . SEVIER FREMONT South of Grantsville, in the Utah Valley, is found a culture similar to, but different in detail from, the Grantsville -Willard manifestations . This, and the finds south of it correspond, I believe, to what Meighan and Jennings have called Sev~er Fremont. Here Steward (1933) found a type of house structure which he called the Kanosh house, because such structures were known from Kanosh, farther south. These houses are rectangular, usually one room, have free standing coursed adobe walls, and flat pole and adobe roofs. The structures contained no rimmed firepits, as were found at Grantsville and Willard. Entrance is assumed to have been through a hole in the roof, since no evidences of doorways were found . Here also a square, semisubterranean Kiva was found. This is of interest because it is the farthest north that such a structure has been found. Other artifacts were similar to the Willard-Grantsville manifestations, though differences in pottery provide a valuable diagnostic trait. Corn, bean, and squash agriculture was practiced here also, and, as at Willard and Grantsville, supplemented by hunting and gathering activities. At Ephraim were found some interesting house types, interesting because they suggest a developmental sequence of house types for the Utah Horticultural Tradition. Adobe -walled rectangular houses conforming to the features of the Provo-Kanosh type of dwelling were found here, but in addition there appears a type of semisubteranean house with slab-lined walls. The archeological evidence is not unambiguous, but Gillin (1941) thinks Âˇthat this type of house probably had vertical walls of wattle and adbbe, with a flat roof supported by four interior posts near the center. Such houses are thought to bear some resemblance to the Basketmaker pithouses. Further, they resemble in the details of superstructure the houses found at Grantsyille and Willard, while showing affinities also with the Kanosh type house in the vertical walls. Thus they may represent transitional types. Gillin also reports a similar type from Marysvale, and Judd (1926) has reported this type from Beaver. Also reported from Marysvale is a Willard-Grantsville house, overlain by a Kanosh house. The artifacts used and the economy practiced here were the same as at Grantsville, Willard, and Provo, except for use of slightly different variants of the Desert Gray Ware which was common to the Puebloid -Sevier- Fremont culture. 7

At Beaver and Paragonah, Judd (1926) reports that both the Kanosh-type house and the Willard-Grantsville type were present. The former he considered to be dwelling-places, while the latter were probably used as kitc~ens. Susequent work indicates that the Kanosh -type structures served as storage facilities, and that the semisubterranean structures were in fact the dwellings (Meighan et al. 1956). The structures at Beaver were more closely analogous to the Willard -Grantsville types than were those at Paragonah, where welldefined floors and postholes were lacking. A si milar situation is reported by Taylor (1954) fr?m the Garrison site. Also at these two sites were found circular 'sen'lisubterranean structures with central fircpits which Judd takes to be cerenionrai rooms, possibly kivas. These had a possible sipapu, wooden beam superstructure, and probable ventilator. Deflectors were made of clay. These kivas lack many of the features of those found in the San Juan drainages. It is generally agreed that there were two phases of Puebloan occupation, or at least two complexes occupying Central and Northern Utah. Of these the Grantsville-Willard complex was chronologically earlier. Such a complex has also been found at EphraiI11 Beaver, Paragonah, Nephi and Provo. Gillin (1941) characterizes the general features of the complex thus: The dwelling structures are quadrangular, usually square, in plan; the excavation of the pit is comparatively shallow (6 to 12 inches below the original surface); the sides of the pit are covered with plastered or tamped adobe, rather than slabs; the walls are sloping and the superstructure of beams covered with willows and adobe assumed the form presumably of a truncated pyramid or of a truncated cone, although at Ephraim there is evidence of vertical walls; four interior upright posts support the superstructure; the enhance was by a roof hole, covered with a discoidal slab Of stone; a circular clay rimmed and clay lined firepit occupied the center of the floor. The rooms were in all cases single and the houses were grouped in communities of a half dozen or so. It is doubtful if anything which might be called a specialized ceremonial room, or Kiva, existed in this complex. The later complex overlapped in time somewhat with the earlier as shown by the superposition of an adobe-walled, Kanosh house upon a pit house at Willard (Steward 1933), and a possibly similar case at Ephraim (Gillin, 1941). Other evidences of this are the transitional house type which we have already noted at Marysvale and Beaver. Gillin summarizes the later complex as follows: A ~ew of the outstanding traits of the complex are: All structures are located in the open, the majority at a low elevation; none are located in the cliffs or mountains; the dwelling house walls are free standing, with vertical adobe walls and roof entrances. They lack inside firepits. The houses are rectangular in plan, usually consisting of one room, although small unit houses of two and three rooms occur. These structures are found in groups ranging from two or three to a possible twenty, associated with what are thought to be ceremonial rooms, or 8

kivas, of various types. These kivas may be round and on the surface (Beaver and Paragonah) although evidence of this type is very scanty and unsati~factory. The distinctive type of kiva is the quadrangular type, semisubterranean .In structure. The dwelling houses and other structures are usually grouped around the kivas in an irregular semi-circular fashion, although the~e is no definite or regular mode o~ orientation. This complex bas been found at Willard, Provo, Kanosh, Beaver, Paragonah, Round Valley in Juab CoUnty, Marysvale, Ephraim, Tooele , Garrison, and Baker, ' Nevada. This second complex is very late. and s~antily represented in the northern area. The characteristic complex there is the Grantsville-Willard one. Along with the difference in house type which distinguishes the northern from the southern area, there is a difference in pottery type. Rudy (1953), ,who has made a reanalysis of Western Utah pottery, makes a simple and baSic distinction. The northern area, which is characterize'd by the Grantsville-Willard complex, has as its accompanying diagnostic P?ttery type, Great Salt Lake Gray. There are subvarieties of Great Salt Lake Gray such as Knolls Gray, and Great Salt Lake Punched, but these are confined to the north. It should be noted, however, that some painted pottery, either black -on-white or, more likely, black-:on -gray, was present in the Northern Area. Judd reports hearing of such pottery from local residents of Willard. The Southern area has as its diagnostic traits, along with the Kano~h:-type house, . the following types of pottery; Sevier Gray, Snake Valley Gray,; 'Snake Valley Black ':"on-Gray, and Snake Valley Corrugate<;l. One other diagnostic trait found in most of these sites , but more frequently in the north is the deep -basin millings tone with a secondary depression at one end, the ''-Utah metate. " The cultural complexes of Utah outside of the immediate Anasazi area seem to be the result of the mixing of the Basketmaker and Pueblo traits. The age-area prinCiple may be sufficient to account for the mixing here of complexes and traits that were chronologically distinct in their homeland. This is Julian Steward's explanation, given in 1940 to account for his findings. Jack Rudy, writing in 1953, seems to agree with him though he does not agree with Steward's division of this Pueblo-Basketmaker culture into two chronologically distinct phases , of which phase I is represented by the Grantsville -Willard complex, and phase II by the Kanosh complex. The reason for disagreement is that the mixing of traits makes it virtually impossible to clearly date the manifestations. It should also be noted that work at Pa~agonah (Meighan ~t ~l; 1956) suggests that distinctions between culture patterns based on differences in house types may not be valid, since most such differences are apparently functional, rather than regional or temporal.

FREMONT In the eastern part of the state, between the Wasatch mountains and the Colorado border, and bounded on the north by the Uirttah mountains and on the south by the Colorado river, is found the Fr~mont culture. The heart of the Fremont culture is the area which includes the western portions of the drainage basins of the Dirty Devil and San Rafael rivers . The Fremont people were agriculturists, dependent upon corn, beans, and squash. Game animals were also eaten, but agriculture provided the primary food source . Caves and rock, shelterswere frequently JIsed as habitation and storage sites . The villages were not latge, six to twelve houses or rooms being the average, though some were much smaller . Most sites are located along small streams, with preference given to low knolls or ridges adjacent to land suitable for planting. (Gunnerson 1957b, 1960). Houses here were of various types and materials. Semisubterranean houses with walls of boulder stone masonry were found, as were houses with low adobe walls and truncated pole -and adobe -roofs, and houses with tabular stone masonry walls with truncated superstructures supported by beams . These occur chronologically-in this order . Another type of house, a shallow, slab-lined pit with a superstructure of pole and adobe and a truncated roof, was also found . It is probably early . It resembles the Basketmaker house and one of the houses found by Elmer Smith at Witches Knoll, near Ephraim (Gillin 1955). Gunnerson (1960) thinks that 'the Fre!ll0nt culture, l' and possibly the SevierFremont, represents a northward extension of the Virgin Branch of the Anasazi culture, between about AD 950 and 1200. Concerning the relationship between Fremont and Anasazi, he says: For most Fremont traits one can find specific counterpart s in the Anasazi culture at the same or earlier times, and few traits which made their appearance in Anasazi culture before or during Pueblo II are lacking in the Fremont culture-. Differences for the most part are ones of quantity or relative importance . . .. It seems probable that the distinctive flavor of the Fremont culture , however, resulted from a blending of Virgin traits with the Desert culture traits of a sparse indigenous population. He traces correspondences in pottery; architectural traits, settlement patterns, clay figurines, and type of metate and mano (both cultures had the distinctive Utah Metate) , to name but a few . The two cultures also hold several negative traits in common, such;is the absence of large, multi -room pueblos, or the lack of carefully cut and dressed Stone slabs in architecture. The Fremont culture shows a considerable similarity to the cultures north and west of it, and this similarity is easily accounted for if one accepts Gunnerson's hypothesis of common origins. A few traits held in common are the pit house ; , the horticulture - hunting - gathering subsistence economy-, ~ the settlement 10

.. >

' ,

•

.:.

•

'l'

•

• •

pattern, stone balls, clay:figurines, metate f<;>rm (both the ttiin . sl~ type arid the Utah type) and basiC .ppttery type (pr~dom ~ance of plain gray u~~lity ware). Furthermore, the two cultures are thought to be contemporaneous;- Also shared are a nuinber of negative traits" such ~s th~ 'a bsence ,of sandals (moccasins were used instead), and'abse~ceof multi ~room pueblos. '

, •~ .

· .PROMONTORY .:.

Practically all that we know of this culture is due to the work of Julian H. Steward (1937,). , Steward excavated ,several caves in the :Promontory region, -but most of his data come from unstratified cave No.1 , and cave No.2, where stratigraphic control was possible. He found remains of a culture quite different from anything yet discovered in Utah. This culture is shown by stratigraphic ' relationships to be quite late, possibly protohistoric. Aside from its occutence at Promontory point, it has been found at a few open and cave sites around the lake and at one mound at Provo. Black Rock cave No.3, reported by Enger ' , (1950); is important to an understanding of the Promontory culture because here Promontory ceramics were found stratigraphitallY'later than Puebloia' but earlier than Shoshoni. The stratigraphiC overlap of Puebloidand Promontory wares may indicate' some meaSure of contemporaneity; or it may be simply indicative of the difficulties of maintaining good control in dry cave excavations; or it may represerit mixing as a result of occupation. Gunnerson (1956) is of the opinion that this mixing of sh:erds, considering the natureo! the deposits, need ndt be taken as indisputable evidence of conterripora.n·eity; However, Enger mentions two other caves which also testify to overlap. The Singular nature of the Promontory material ' has caused a considerable amount of speculation as to its origins and relationships. ' Steward gives this summary of Promontory traits in his report: The Promont6~y culture . .-. is charac~erized by the self - and sinew-back bow, cane arrows with hardwood foreshafts, longitudina,l ly grooved stone arrow polishers, "fing~rnail and rim decorated pottery, cedar 'b ark pot rests, three-and four-piece mocc~sins, extensive use of hide, single ~rod or rod -and -bundle coiled basketry, tule and rush, matting with cord or twine, fur and feather cloth, triangular f1i~t. knives set in the ends of. long wooden" handles, ;i n'cised slate slabs (andmittens). . . , ' .. . ; . II

This assemblage of traits shovys far:-flung connec~io~s. Basketmaker pictographs were found in cave No. ." ' 1, but no Basketm:aker artifacts de~initelyrecognizable ' . . ' as such are represented there. Promontory pot.t ery shows no a~finity to Basketmaker, Puebloid, or Sho~horii war~. Its ciosest affJ,n.itie.s ar~ in the Plains. In contrast to the E?hoshoni, who wereJ.1 Unters and gather;ers, and the Pueblo ids, who w:er~ sed~ntary horhculturi~i:s, the Promontory people ':V~re l?{g game (primarily bison) hunters . The moccasins and mitte~s qave the,ir cl9~est analogues in the Far North; hand-game bone s have affinities with the Plains; the 11

tubular pipe, bird -bone -beads, and pottery discs are most common in the south, in the Anasazi area. Suspecting that Promontory culture r11ight be a variant of Shoshoni, Steward compared his materials with a Shoshoni trait list obtained ' from ethnographic informants. From the low number cif correspondences he obtained, he concluded that Promontory was definitely not Shoshoni: Summarizing the resemblance of the Promontory culture to cultures of other regions, there are 6 elements of probable northern origin, 7 of probable southern or southwestern origin, 29 which it shares with modern Shoshoni of the same region (but many of theRe traits are very widespread), 22 traits which the Promontory culture possesses but the Shoshoni lack, 10 whibh the Shoshoni possess but the Promontory lacks (Steward 1937). Steward hypothesizes that the Promontory culture was born~ by southwardmigrating Athabascans. Gunnerson (1956) has presented a reasonably good case for Plains -Promontory relationships . He notes several close typological similarities between the Promontory people and the Dismal River Apache. This strengthens Steward's hypothesis of migrating Athabascans. Some of the similarities Gunnerson cites are: hoop and dart game, hand game bones, sidenotched projectile points, end scrapers, tubular steatite pipes, blunt bone "punche s" or "ÂŁlakers,"',' tanged end scrapers, inc ised stone tablets, the "general appearance" of the stonework, the shape, thickness, decoration and rim form of the pottery, dependence on bison, and the serrated bison metapodial ÂŁlesher (which is diagnostic of the protohistoric: period in the Plains). The. Dismal River complex has been found as far to the northwest as southeastern Wyoming, and Gunnerson suggests that a survey is needed to attempt to fill the gap between there and the Great Salt Lake valley . One problem With, this hypothesis is that of dating. The Puebloid culture is guess -dated at somewhere between AD 700 to 1300 in this area. If the implications of overlap of Puebloid and Promontory occupations at Black Rock Cave No. 3 are valid; this puts Promontory culture far too early for contemporaneity with the Dismal River Apache, who have :a2ciate of around AD 1700. I have already noted Gunnerson's question as to the validity of this association. An alternative is that Promontory is ancestral to Dismal River. Gunnerson's idea that this postulate requires the further assumption that the Promontory people remained a long time in Utah (the converse is maintained by Steward; he says that they arrived abruptly and departed soon) does not seem to me to be a necessary conclusion at all. There is a stretch of several hundred miles of virtually unknown territory between the Great Salt Lake and thenear~st evidences of the Dismal River complex. Evidences of a longer stay might someday be found her~. But this is only a guess. Gunnerson concludes that for the present, the best explanation for Promontory is that it represents an early protohistoric thrust by Plains buffalo hunters into the Great Basin. This hypothesis encounters a serious objection from the stratigraphic evidence from the three sites discussed above, though there may be soniethirig in the

nature of the sites, or in the way they were dug, which makes this evidence less valid than it appears. !.

. .

- ..

\..

. ~~:

\ :

SHOSHONI When the Fuebloids' and the Promontory people 1eft.;the!land it was taken over by the Shoshoni, who remained in possession until the white -man came. , These people were carriers of the simple but highly adapted Oesert culture, which had flourished in this region for thousands of years, and which had been ousted only temporarily for a few hundred years by the h~rticulturists and ,big-game hunters. ' ' , " ' ,

The prehistory of Utah can be summed up very briefly. For thousands of years thespartan" I?eset~ culture held the state,Telinquishing it only briefly (700-1700?) to horticulturists and bison hunters, after which it again took ove:r. Thus the chronological ladder of cultures looks something like this: " 1700-1850 Shoshoni 1300-1700? Promontory 790-1300 Puebloid--Se:vier Fremont - -Fremont . , I 9000 BC - AD 700 De sert cultur e ba s e (Wit,~ .~e gional varia~~s) The Promontory culture remains in some respects an enigma. It would provide an interesting field problem to trace out the distribution of this complex, and carefully excavate a str atified site or two, ji such cO,uld be found. This would go a long way toward clarifying its relationships to other cultures, both in Northern Utah and in North America as a whole . . ' ~

>, l

' .,'-

BIBLIOGRAPHY / inger, Walter D. 1941 The Archeology of Black Rock 3 Cave', UtaH. Repririted 1950 in University of Utah Anthropological Papers No . 7 vGilI in, John (1936 Archeological Investigations in Nine Mile Canyon, Utah: A Republication. Reprinted 1955 in University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 21. ~illin, John

1941

Archeological Investigations in Central Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology Vol. 17, No . :2 ,

V Gunnerson, James H. 1956a A Fluted Point Site in Utah. Pp 412-414

American Antiquity VoL 21, ,,No. 4

v-Cunne'Yson", Jari1e ~H;" ..,' 1956b Plains-Promontory Relationships. Pp 69-72

: :' .

AmEdiCa~Antiq~ity,' Vol. 22,No. 1,

Gunnerson, James H. A 957a Prehistoric Figurines From Castle Valley. Archeology,Vol. 10 NQ. 2, Pp 137-140 ptinnerson, James H. 1957b Uintah Basin Archeology. Publication of the Eighth Annual Field :Conference of the Intermountain Association of Petroleum geologists. Pp 15-16 V"Gunnerson, James H. 1960 The Fremont Culture: Internal Dimens'ions and External Relationships.' American Antiquity Vol. 23 No.3, Pp 373-380 / Jameson, Sydney J. S. 1958 Archeological Notes on Stansbury Island. gical Papers No. 34

University of Utah Anthropol-

.;Jennings, Jesse D. 1957 Danger Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 27 ./Judd, Neil M. 1926 Archeo!ogical Observations North of the Rio Colorado. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 82 ... .Malouf, Carling 1940a The Gosiute Indiq.ns. gical Papers No. 3

Reprinted 1950 in University of Utah Anthropol-

vMalotlf, Dibble, and Smith 1940 The Archeology of the Deep Creek Region, Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 5

Reprinted 1950 in

.Meighan, Clement 1959 Varieties of Prehistoric Cultures in the Great Basin Region. Masterkey, Southwest Museum, Vol. 33t No.2, Pp 46-59 ,. â&#x20AC;˘ ,'et al. --- 0 956 Archeological Ecavations in Iron County, Utah. Anthropological Papers, No. 25.

The

University of Utah .

v'R udy, Jack R. 1953 An Archeological Survey of Western Utah, University of Utah Anthropol, gical Papers No. 12 ./ Smith, Elmer R. 1941 The Archeology of Deadman Cave, Utah: A Revision. Reprinted 1950 in University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 10 Steward, Julian H. Early Inhabitants of Western Utah Part I --Mounds and House Types. University of Utah Bulletin~ , Vol. 23, No.7

t/ 1933

â&#x20AC;˘

Steward, Julian H. v-1936 Pueblo Material Culture in Western Utah. University of New Mexico Bulletin Whole Number 287, Anthropological Series Vol. 1, No. 3 ",Steward" Julian H. 1937 Ancient Caves of the Great Salt Lake Region. Ethnology Bulletin No. 116

Bureau of American

/Taylor, Dee Calderwood 1954 The Garrison Site. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 16

USAS - UCRBASP Joint Excavation in the Plainfield Reservoir by David M. Pendergast In September, 1960, Lloyd M. Pierson and I~ aided by Mrs. Marian Pierson, Mrs. Harold Provonsha, Mr. and Mrs. William Williges, Mr. and Mrs. C : R. Ellis, Mr. Robert Norman, and Mr. Les Erbes, of the Moab Chapter of the Statewide Society, ~onducted test excavations in 3 sites in the proposed Plainfield Reservoir area, southeast of Moab. Plainfield Reservoir, which is a portion Of the Upper Colorado Water Storage Project, will flood Mill Creek proper and the North Fork of Mill Creek, as well as a portion of the .main stream below the confluence, and will, in the process, inundate at least six archaeological sites. The sites tested were selected on the basis of the report of a partial !?urveyof the reservoir area carried on by Thomas Mathews in 1958, The survey, which did not include the entire pool area, resulted in the location of only 2 sites which appeared to warrant excavation. These sites were designated 42Gr311 and 42Gr313 (Mathews, 1958, 3). Mathews was apparently unaware of a prior survey of the Mill Creek area undertaken by Alice Hunt as a segment of her investigations in the La Sal Mountain area (Hunt, 1953). Unfortunately, Hunt's site descriptions and designations for the Mill Creek drainage are not specific; however, through correlation of site descriptions with data gathered during excavation, it was possible to assign Hunt's numbers to those sites which we tested. Mathews' site 42Gr313 corresponds to Hunt's site 42Gr239; correlation of Mathews' sites 42Gr311 and 312 with Hunt's designations was not possible. Two sites not reported by Mathews, but included in the test excavation, are Hunt's sites 42Gr238 and 237. To avoid duplication in numbering, Mathews' site designations' have been abandoned, and Hunt's earlier numbers will be used hereafter. In addition to testing the site recommended by Mathews as most deserving of excavation (42Gr239), we undertook testing of a large shelter (42Gr238) and a cave (42Gr237), both of which lie roughly south of site 42Gr239. All of these sites lie in a cliff which forms the eastern limit of a large embayment on the right:-hand bank of Mill Creek proper (see fig. 1). A large, semi -active sand 15

dune extends over most of the embayment. Plant cover in the immediate area of the sites consists of Pinyon (Pinus edulis) . four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), yucca (Yucca angustifolia), sagebrush (Artemisia sp.), cacti (Opuntia sp.), and numerous grasses. The creek is bordered by severai species of vegetation commonly found along stream banks, including cotton wood (Populus fremontii), sandbar willow (Salix exigua). and tamarix (Tamarix pentandra Pall. ). The presence of abunda nt water, a variety of vegetal foods, and the apparently large amount of game available in the area must have combined to make the Mitt Creek drainage attractive to aboriginal inhabitants. It is, in fact, surprising that occupation remains are not more numerous in the area.

42Gr239 (MOONSHINE CAVE) Site 42Gr239, given the name Moonshine Cave because of its :reputed use as the site of a distillery, is a high -ceilinged, narrow cave located at the north": west end of the cliff mentioned earlier. The cave extends 72 feet into the cliff, and ranges from 15 to 25 feet in width. Ceiling height varies; but ranges around 10 to 12 feet. At the mouth of the cave, a rubble - strewn slope drops roughly 20 feet to the course of a small, intermittent stream at the eastern edge of the sand dune. The entrance to the cave, which is visible from the crest of the dune, is roughly semi -circular in outline, rising to a height of approximately 18 feet. Human occupation of the site is indicated by smoke blackening of the cave ceiling, and by the presence of several pictograph on the cliff face immediately adjacent to the cave mouth, as well as by the midden deposit on the cave floor. A small fissure, not separately designated as a site, lies approximately 25 feet southeast of the main cave; the fissure also contained some midden deposit, and may have served as a storage area. Both from surface indications and from excavation, the deposit in Moonshine Cave appears to have been heavily disturbed. An extensive trench, accompanied by piles of backdirt, sections the deposit in the rear portion Of the . cave. For this reilson, excavation was concentrated in the midden near the cave entrance, where less disturbance appeared to have taken place. Even in this area, however, the churned appearance of the midden and the paucity of remains indicate that the deposit had been excavated at some time in the past. A total of 5 pits was excavated in Moonshine Cave, the deepest of which (pits 1 and 3) encountered sterile soil at a depth of 2 feet. Pit 4 ran only to 12", and pit 2 to 6". Excavation of pit 5 was abandoned at a depth of 6", due to low yield and to apparent disturbance of the deposit ,

ARTIFACTS As noted above, much of the midden in Moonshine Cave appears to have been

disturbed, and, not surprisingly, few artifacts were recovered during excavation Included within the collection are many objects of apparently recent origin, so that the entire yield of the site is quite small , Much of the paucity of artifacts can probably be attributed to disturbance of the site, but it is a little surprising, in the light of local traditions of high yield from Mill Creek sites, that more was not recovered during the test excavation, Interesting also is the complete absence of pottery in the Moonshine Cave deposit, suggesting that Hunt (1953, passim) may have been correct in defining a comparatively late non -pottery occupation in the region. The absence of pottery at Moonshine Cave, plus the almost Gomplete lac;k of distinctive artifacts of any sort, make associations of the .materials impossible to define. There , is, furthermore, nothing to suggest a date for the occupation. The few typologically classifiable artifacts are described below. Chipped stone Chipped stone artifacts recovered consist of a sing~e core hammerstone '; of chalcedony, .from the top 6" of the deposit, and 5 flake scrapers, 1 from the top 6" of the midden, 3 from the 6-12" level, and 1 from the 18-24" level. No projectile points were recovered during excavation, although a single specimen resembling Hunt's type with pOinted tapering stem (Hunt, 1953, 28 -9), was found on the surface of the site . The specimen measures 33 x 21 mm., and 'is 5 mm. thick. Ground stone As is the case with chipped stone material, ground stone artifacts are not numerous in the collection from Moonshine Cave. Manos Two fragmentary manos were recovered, one from the top 6" of the deposit, and one from the 12 -18" level. It is not possible to determine whether the specimens were unifacial or bifacial. The more complete of the 2 measures 103 x 80 mm., and was probably originally about 49 mm. thick. The remaining use surface of this specimen indicates that it may be of the asymmetrically convex bifacial type described by Hunt (1953, 158) as occurring at canyon sites. Metates A single fragment of stone with one smooth surface was recovered from the top 12" of the deposit. The slight concavity of the smoothed surface suggests that the specimen may be a metate fragment. The fragment is 18 mm. thick. Bone A single bone awl or punch was recovered from the top 6" of the midden. It is fashioned from a splinter of a deer longbone, with a portion of the proximal articulation remaining. Length of the specimen is 77 .mm, Surface collection at the site yielded a fragment of a polished bone tube, 30 mm. long and 12 mm . in greatest diameter. The artifact is apparently made of bird bone, although identification is uncertain, due to complete eradication of surface features of. the bone. No artifacts of this sort are reported by Hunt f~r the La Sal Moun17

tain area. Leather A single fragment of deer hide was reco'v ered from the top 6" of the ~eposit. The specimen is roughly rectangular, and measures approximately 55 x 108 mm. Some hair remains on one surface. Three small holes have been cut in the hide near one corner. The stiffness of the hide suggests that it is untanned. Vegetal materials Cordage Two spectmens of coarse Z -twist cordage were recovered from the 0-6" and 12 ":'18" levels of the midden. A single specimen of finer cordage, also Ztwist, comes from the top 6" of the deposit. Material in all specimens appears to be yucca. Knotted fiber Two specimens of knotted fiber, both with square knots, come from the 12-18" and 18 -24" levels of the midden. Both specimens are of yucca fiber. \

Spl it - twIg' figurine s A single fragment of a split-twig figurine, similar to those described by Schwartz, Lange, and deSaussure (1958), Farmer and deSaussure (1955), Wheeler (1937, 1939, 1949), and others for various portions of the Southwest and the Great Basin, was recovered from the top 6" of the deposit. In addition, two small split twigs with fragments of wrappings, from the 0-6" and 6-12" levels of the deposit, may be portions of figurines. Worked sticks 2 smoothed cottonwood sticks, ciJt at both ends, and with the pith removeci, were recovered from the top 12" of the midden. A single cut hardwood stick and a small fragment of cut cane also come from the top foot of the deposit. The materials descr:ibed above constitute the entire yield Âˇfrom Moonshine Cave, with the exception of a number of corncobs and a few unmodified animal bones. The small size of the collection is probably due to excavation of the site at some earlier time. The character of the trench in the rear portion of the site inqicates that excavation may have been by professional archaeologists, perhaps on one of the early Cummings expeditions to southeastern Utah.

l' .

I'. I.

42Gr238 (SHEEP CAMP) Sheep Camp, a large, sloping shelter located approximately 40 yards south:east of Moonshine Cave, gave the appearance of having been occupied intensively' on first examination, because of the existence of a dry-laid masonry wall in the shelter. At the crest of the Âˇsloping floor, where the ceiling is no more than four feet high, a small level or gently sloping area, approximately 25 x 5 is enclosed by a rough stone wall, in no spot more than three courses I

(18 ") high.

Both, this area al).d portions of the slope in front of it

h~\Te

b een

ext~nsively utilized as a she,e p c:orral, a use att~s'ted by the presence of large

quantities of sheep dr:oppings. E~cavations were undertake~ wit~m' the enclose'd area and along the northerp. edge of the slope . 'T~~e latte r a,r~a prove d to De entirely devoid of cultural r e mains, while e xcava tions in 'the former area yielded only a sin,gle fragm ent of a sub-rec tangula r bifac ial mano,' 75 x-67 mm. , and 37 mm . thick. This form is describe d by Hunt (1953 , '154) a s commonly associated with pottery in canyon sites" It is possible that the dry masonry wall in the Sheep Camp site is of recent manufacture; ereCted by sheepherders <;is a corral fence. Its lohatio~ arg.·ues against such ail origin, however. The virtual absence of ' cJltural remains in the site ci:l.ll probably,be laid to' a short or limited aborigi~al , oc~up'ation, and to heavy disturbance of the area by sheepherders and other,S,' 'It is also possible that this site, like Moonshine Cave, may have been' ex~avat~d at some earlier time , although there is no clear -cut indication of such ~xcavation . o

' .

•• ••

42Gr237 (CIST CAVE) .\,

Cist Cave derive s its name from the numerous storage cists which have been exc~vated into the caliche floor of the site. Three of these cists are visib~e in cross -section at the:. mouth . of the cave, and have probably ,attracted many people to the site , It is Hunt ~ s description of this, site wtIich enabled correlation of the Mathews and Hunt site designations (Hunt, 1953, 203). Cist Cave lies at the southern end of the cliff which also contains Moonshine Cave and Sheep Camp. Cist Cave is sepa rated from the other two sites by a projection in the cliff face, and by a quantity, of rockfall, so that it cannot be seen except from the sand dune area . The site is , strictly speaking, a combination of shelter and cave, the front portion be ing a shallow shelter, with a more completely enclosed small cave extending ba ck approximately 22 feet from the western side of the shelter (see fig , 3) , The mouth of the cave is r.oughly triangular.

The', front, or shelter, section of the cave contains.. 16 bell -shaped stbrage ,cists. as well as one larger pit, probably also used for storage ; Several of the cists were cleared of blow sand and leaves, and, we re found to be completely 'devoid . of cultural remains . Diameters and depths of the cists are indicated in fig. 3. The large pit was also cleared,. and was likewise found :to contain only blow sand ·and vegetal debris. The fact th&t all of th~ ,cistsinvestigated had been very carefuUy Cleaned at some time in the past, ,without destruction of mai!ks of aboriginal excavation, suggests that, a s. at the other Sites, investigation may have been conducted by professional archaeologists. ,

The small cave at the rear of the she lte r appeared to be less disturbed than the remainder 6f the site, ,so a single test pit; 5' x , 5" was sunk in this area.

This excavation reached sterile soil at a depth of 24", and produced only a single cut and notched stick and 2 flake scrapers. The paucity of artifacts in this area is probably due to previous excavation, since the presence of the storage cists 'at the front of the site suggests the probability of occupation in this more enclosed area. Smoke blackening on the ceiling and walls of the cave also pOints to use of the cave for habitation, as well as storage . OTHER SITES In addition to those sites described above, Mathews' site 42Gr311 was examined, and was judged too heavily disturbed to warrant excavation. Because of uncertainty regarding the number of sites recorded by Hunt downstream from 42Gr239, no assignment of a site number to 42Gr311 was possible from Hunt's repQrt. In the NOl;"th Fork of Mill Creek, upstream from the area surveyed by Mathews but apparently within the reservoir area, there is a large shelter, containing remains of at least five dry-laid masonry structures, as well as numerous axe -sharpening grooves and pictographs, on fallen slabs of rock within the shelter area. The shelter is located at the head of a large expanse of slickrock, approximately 1/2 mi. upstream from the confluence of the two forks, on the right-hand bank of the stream. Several small springs or water seeps exist at the western edge of the shelter area. Structural remains consist of two or three courses of stone bordering roughly circular areas, with piles of fallen masonry around them. Construction was apparently extremely crude. Little evidence of disturbance is visible in or around the structures. Although this site is apparently above full pool limit of the reservoir, excavation of the structures and recording of the pictographs is deemed advisable, since construction of the dam will result in greater interest in, and probably destruction of, the site. Investigations in Plainfield Reservoir have indicated that, despite local reports of large archaeological collections made in sites on Mill Creek, the present archaeological potential of the area is almost nil l The area was undoubtedly attractive to aboriginal occupants, and the caves investigated seem likely ~~:. sites for habitation. It is possible, therefore, that sites in the Plainfield Reservoir area may at one time have contained much more than is indicated by our test excavations. Digging by local amateurs, and perhaps unreported work by professionals years ago, has, however, removed most traces of aboriginal occupation, so that, with the possible exception of testing of the large shelter on the North Fork of Mill Creek, no further work in Plainfield Reservoir seems necessary.

********* ** ** Despite the largely negative evidence gained through the Plainfield excavations,

...

the contribution of members of the Moab Chapter of the USAS to knowiedge of Utah archaeology through cooperation ip the dig is a very real one.. ·,.Wi~hout :' , the volunteer labor which chapter work in . the.l;'e~ervoir ': .',' .,'"",. . .members proviQed" .. .. .. . area would have been much more diffiqut, and might well have been de~ayed '~~'I' for some time. Perhaps most important, though, were the experi~nces;!:wp.ich', " chapter members gained ,in archaeological techniques, and th~, cheerfuJ"spit-it- ;, ,: . \" . of their cooperation, even after it became evident that the 'yield from the '",,: exc~vadons would be low. Traveling over bad roads, in cold weatlfer; ,. and :-:::· "';" ' working in les's than ideal conditioris,,' chapter member:s gave ,wil1ingly ~nd . (--r.A '::3~;::~ .::;. '. ..' • .' generously of their time 'and energies to make the dig a succe~s in ev~ry " asp~ct but the' a~c,haeologica1, something whiCh none of us could control . t"

•

. '.r .

:.-, ')

......- , .

(

)

BmLIOGRAPHY

Farmer, Malcolm F.', and Raymond 'deSaussure , 1955 Split-twig, Animal Figurines. Plateau, Vol. 27, No.4, pp. 13 -:-23. Fla,gstaff.

.,;:

,.~.

:." ,~.. _ ~r ~ :,:.:f.~. . , 'V Hunt, Alice ' 1953, Archeological Survey of the La ,Sal Mountain ~ea;,: Ut~~ UniverttitY: ~:.' .~;,~":~" o! Utah Anthropological Papers, Np. 14. Salt Lake, Gity~~~' ,:~: ': ."' "'~,. '~' t~:, ...

•

"~l'

~.~

. ,.

;..~

'("

Mathews, Thomas W. '. '~ " 1958 Archeological Survey of the Proposed Plainfield Reservoir, ~ea;· Grand: =County, Utah. Department of Anthropology, University of Ut$~ (dittQedj',· '~ Schwartz, Douglas W., Arthur L. Lange, and Raymond deSaussure ' 1958 Split-twig Figurines , in the Grand Canyon. American Antiquity, Vol. XXIII, N.o. 3, pp. 264-74. Salt Lake City.

Wheeler, S. N. 1937 Prehistoric Miniatures. Masterkey, VOl. 11, No.5, p. 181. Los Angeles 1939 Split-twig Figurines. Masterkey, Vol. 13, No.1, pp. 42-5. Los Angeles 1949 More About Split-twig Figurines. Ma~terkey, Vol. 23, N.o. 5, pp. 153-S. Los Angeles.

., ., ~

',.

•

;-'

, ..

"..

-",

./' '~""

. ~t,

."....'

• ,

"'; .-,"

.'"

.. ,.--

!~~ , '. ;

.'(,.

~'"

{t .... " , ~

" '- ," , ('''''''

'. -,

•

,," ,

;

.',. .,

/. ," • ;.-y,:. """ ~

:;, .

''"

\....

. .i' .?:~\ 1'_ . , . . " ":, ;.". i'" ~ ~.

:0..

j";

oj,'. ,y

...;-

~ - . . ._ -,------- ..r--". . ' :~ . . 11,'--' .... ... " . '•.;.

'" o

, "

',' ",

..-

•

" ".