Utah Statewide Archaeological Society Newsletter, Volume 15, Number 1, March 1969 by Utah Historical Society

:UTAR STATE HISTORICAL SOC\E~ 003 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY, UT.A.H

.~ ~--.

JNDEXED

{

j ./

.~ .

------------------------------------.-------------------------------------------IllllllIlltIIlIIIII1I1I11111\II1IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1I11'1I1111111111111III111111 111111111111t1lJIIIIIIHIHflll l lllllllllllllHIIIIIIIIIlrIIIIIIIIIIJIII'rllllllllrIIllllf""IIIlI'JIIIIII'HII"IIIIJI'ltl""III"fln'rllr,jlll"""I1II1I'IIII" " """/lIJI"lIll/rlrp,",IIr'IIJ'lrrtllllIIJiliJ

Utah Ar cheo l ogy is published quarterly by the UTAH STATEW IDE ARClrnOTDGl eAL SOCIETY. Subscription is included in membe rship. Me mb Â· rsh i p in the Society is available from the Sec.-Treas., for $2.00 pe r year. Correspondence concerning the activities of t he Socie ty should be dir~ ected to the President. All manuscripts and ne ws it e ms should be s ent to the editor. The new editor is Mr. John Cross, 274 west 1400 South Orem, Utah 84057. 11,'\lIIIIIIJ,,"'II I Il I !illlllttlllll""I1IHln",II"'IIHll t llllllltillIII111HIIIII"','IIII"HlllllllllllllilIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJtl:IQQ1111 l 11JIII"il!ll1l1rllll1.,tI111/IIII'tlll tl,t l /l/ltfl1t,' I II /l I",,,i!tjlIlHHHhlll!/ l lllIlIllfumtWIHlm-n""",Hmw,.,.,"Ji.l'mIl1lfllll

-------------------------------------- - - - _ .... --

-- --- -"- ' -

UTAH STATEWIDE 1.RCHEOLOGICAL SOCIBTY President: Pres. Elect: S ec-Treas. : Advisor:

Grant II/I. Reeder I'll .D. 1969 Claremont Drive, Bountiful, ut G. Cloyd Krebs M.~. 3353 Cherokee ~ane, Provo Utah Mrs. -Gloria Barnett 447 North ivlain, Payson, Utah 84651 Dr. J.D. Jennings Univ. of Utah. Anthropology ~ept. S.L.C

NOTES: Tile cover illustration is one of the pictographs from the panels in Dry Fork Canyon, Vernal Utah. These panels are described in the TRANSACTIONS KA1JSAS ACADEMY OF SCIBNCE Volume 36, 1933, by Albert !r:--~a-ga:nu1rith-ear-t;TC'1e IIAnc ien tly Inhabited Caves of the Vernal Utah District. 1I The annual Utah Statewide Archeological Society meeting was held March 1, 1969 at the Stewart School on the University of Utah campus. An account of the meeting appears on page 3. The first of the two feature articles is by Kenneth Lee peterson, IIA New Variant of the Fremont Moccasin." This article describes in detail moccasin types from the Hogup Cave. A most interesting paper to f o llow the Hog up repo r t in our last Newsletter. I wish to thank Mr. Jack Marwitt, Unb1ersity of utah archeologist for submitting Mr . Peterson1s paper. This is an important centennial year for Utah. The Golden Spike celebra,tions will continue throughout the summer. List of events on page 11. Dean Caldwell from the Salt -Lake-Davis County Chapter reports on the possibility of D.S.A.S. members becoming active in helping on excavations with professi<.>nal supervision - page 10. Our second feature article was SUbmitted by our President Grant Reeder. Grant revised an article prepared by Don Hague for the ~ ef? te~~ Mu,s. ~1:lms. _ ~arter 1>:, Volume I V #3, S eptembe r 1967 . vIe appr ec1a---Ce Mr . Hague t SW l.llingness to sha re this information with us and ~he permission from the editors of wes te r n Museums C.uarterly to repr1.nt parts of the artic Ie. u r. Reener "revise tJ.1.â&#x201A;Ź -ay 't-ic-le and added some perti nent information for us. The article titled: ltA Hew Museum for utah" is found on pages 11-19. It tells us how our Mus~um of Natural History on the University of utah campus came into be1.ng. The SHBRDS contribution is submitted by Afton Crawfo~d from Woods Cross. Afton is the President of the Salt Lake-Davis County Chapter. It was a pleasure to have Afton, Jim and their friends, the Maces visit my family while we were in Nine Mile Canyon last summer. The Crawfords in turn hosted the Dalton family and friends over the past Easter weekend in the sout~eastern part of utah. They took us to see some ancient habitation sites east of Hurricane t where Afton was raised. A facinating country, we are anxio us to return. The Dr. Rodney Stone family from Salt l .ake city were out in the red sands enjoying the holiday also. The Stones are U.S.A.S. members. 1

I wish I had a nickle for every time semeone asked me for a list cf Anthropological papers published by the U~iversity of Utah Press. Many of these papers are out of print. Please notice as you look through the iisting on pages 20 - 27 whether or not they are available. The listiug of the Anthropological Series printed was recieved by me in De(emb~r 1968, so it should be fairly up to da te. We have permission from the editors of American Antiquity to reprint two reviews from the july 1967 issue. Vo l ume 32, l'J umhel' 3. These reviews are: 1) Mulloy, IISharrock: Pre historic Occupat ion Patte rns in Southwest Wyoming and Cultural Relationships with the Great Basin and Plains CuI tures Areas. tI and 2) Schroeder, "Aike:1s: Excavations in Southwest Utah. II The two pape rs revie wed are in the An thropoiogica Series published by the University of Utah Press. They are numbers 76 and 77. The two archeologists, Sharrock and Aikens were at the University of Utah Anthropology department, and are favorites of the U.S.A.S. members who were able to get to know them. Floyd Sharrock is at the Department of Anthropology, U~iversity of Montana. Mel Aiken~ is at the Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon. Mr. Merrill (Bud) Peterson earns my gratful thanks for pointing out these interesting reviews. The reviews are on pages 27 - 31. c

We appreciate the secretaries of the Cache Geological a~d Archeological Society, and the Utah County ChaPEr; sending their ciub new for the past year of 1968. The news is found on pages 31 aud 32. I think one of the most interesting features the Newsletter ,offers is the opportunity for members to share their experiences with us. May we encourage all chapter secretaries to send their news to the editor often, and each member is invited to contribute an experience or description of a site, artifact or article to our publication. It is my pleasure to ,introduce to you, our I ewEditor, Mr. John Cross. Mr. Cross lives in Orem Utah, and served as U.S.A.S. President i~ the years 1962, 1963 after serving as Vice Pr esident to H. Merri l l Peterson during th8 years . 1960 and 1961. We are gratful to John for taking time from his river-running to edit and print our Newsletter. Mr. Cross leads an exciting and interesting life, don't miss any of his travel-films when they come into your area. We are looking forward to an improvement in the Newsletter under the direction of Mr.

Cr~ss.

Dear "Utah Archeology" subscriber: You have' been prompt in sending your renewals,',: and our secretary does appreciat~ this.Anj I appreciate your patience you have (had to) exercised while I have had the responsibility of publishing the Newsletter. Sincerely yours, till we meet again, I~O rma Dalton

USAS Annual Meeting March 1, 1969 Our annual meeting was held 1n the Stewart School on th~ campus of the University of Utah~ The m~eting was under the d1rection of Dr. Grant Reeder and began at 1:i5 p.m. After a short ~elcome, Grant introduced Mr. Alma Banks from the Utah County Chapter. Mr. Banks had brought his "Order of the Arrow" dancers. The "Order of the Arrow" dancers were boys in colorful Indian costumes. Mr. Banks narrated the program and accompanied the dancers with a drum. Mr. Banks also was in a very attractive costume. This was the 32nd performance for this group since January 9th this year. The dances were taken from many Indian tribes in the United States. The boys performed the fo1lo~ing dances: The War dance, Buffalo dance, Crow Hop; Eagle dance, Deer dance, The Shield dance, and the Hopi Rain dance. The Hopi$ use live rattle snakes in their Rain dance. The boys used live blow snakes. A most .: impressive Hoop dance was performed by two of the boys. A big hand weÂˇnt. to Alma and his dancers. ' .' . Mr. Don Hague, curator of the Utah Museum of Natural History was introduced and he presented -a film called "Frozen Moments of Time" The film told of the new Museum being built at the University of Utah. The museum will be a marvelous asset to Utahns and should attract tourist~. A discussion of some U.S.A.S. club objectives was led by the Pres. Grant Reeder. 1) What to do about vandilism of ancient sites. 2) Members of the U.S.A.S. should take a more active role in learning about and preserving archeology. 3) The Newsletter. All members are encouraged to contribute information to the Newsletter. Mr. John Cross was present and introduced as the new editor for the NewSletter. 4) The search for Utah's 25,000 year old man. It is believed by many authorities that there is ancient habitation still undiscovered along the levels of ancien.t Lake Bonneville. .' 5) 'fh e development of the Museum of Natural History. Possible ways the members of the U.S.A.S. could contribute -and help were discussed. Mr. Dee Green from the Weber State Anthropology department spoke about the progress of his department which is only a year old at Weber State. He told of the excavations, collecting and study of artifacts his students had done. He encouraged U.S.A.S. members to take more active roles in professional guided excavations. He reported that Societies like ours do a great deal of this type of activity very successfully. He iuvited members to visit his excavations at any time. Secretary Gloria Barnett gave the financial report and had the minutes of the Annual meeting April 27th read and approved. Mr. LaVan Martineau from St. George was the final speaker. In 1956 he began to study petroglyphs and pictographs. It is Mr. Martineaus idea since he began a scientific study of these, that he has successfully identified many of the forms and shapes. He told us there 3

were over 500 different I ndian languages spoken in the United States. Thus the Indian sign l anguage was used for communi9ation between the tribes. He believes the petrpg,lyphs, a L 1 d p;iGt,o iraphs are the forms' " of a "W,ri tten'" sign . 1ang·~age. )..aV,an dX'ew ~~ve-r,al of these symbol~ :: and explained the meanill,g ofr each. He has sev.e~al ..1;)oo,k~ in. ,printing t;l)a t,wil1 soon pe, avai'lable to ,the PUblic. ,He closed his . ra,mar~s by showing severa'liL-iterestii'lg' artifacts ar~d so~e that he bad reproduced. . . ' " , , r

Th~ . m~eting adjo~rne~at ~:55p.m. It was : ~ella~t~nded and ftveryoqe had an ei'ijoyable time . . !(.epoxt submitted' by Gloria Barnett, U:S.A .S. secretary-treasure. . :," . .

. .

.1/ ..

,*. I·

.' . 1

A ."

.,. •

t:...

•••

••

·1

NE1r~ -VARIANT ' OF THE FREMONT ~CCAS IN ' . ,.,

•

I .... ; .

by Kenneth Lee Petersen ·

Hogup Cace is located approximately 75 air-line miles northwest. of Salt Lake City, Ut~h" on the eastern e-dts:~ of ·t he' 'Great Salt , " Lake ..D:esert •. E)Cca'Uat10n. of Hogup Cave dur1ng the ' summers of 1967' and 1968 by the University, of Utah Anthropology ' .-Department recovered 23 who,le. moccasins' and thr.e,e fragments. , Sixteen complete,:, moccasins and one f.ragment are similar to the t~ree-pie:c~ Fremont ...: style first desctibed by Morss (1931) but are d1fferent 1n some det~ils of c01?-struction. Morss;,describes , this style of moccasin as an important diagnostic characteristic of the Fremont' Culture' which "1as seated during Pueblo , 11 times in ·the Fremont River' drain- '" age of south central Utah, som~ 240 air-line ~iles southeast of . lrogup . Cave. This type of footgear can be introduced with the following quotation from Morss ' (1931: 64-6~) ': " ,

: ·AIl modern moccasins may be said to ~tart'with ' a:S01e and deal with the problem , of ,how to bring the shoe up over the foot. In the Fremont ,moccasin; ' on the other' . hand, the upper is , the ,starting point. ' This is 'divided fo~and aft into two main pieces joined at the heel and along ' a seam,running . dia~ona11y from the frorit of the' ' leg outward toward and over the third or fourth toe • . The inside piece extends over the ' front of the toe's and comes under, forming a part of the' sole for a third or more ofitslength •••{Fig. 1,c.) It is :norma11y equipped with a projecting traingu1ar tongue over the instept; l.!tiich comes around the outside of the ankle.- The smal.l,er, ' outer side of the upper ••• (Fig.1,b.) formsn6 part ~f the sole. The sole is in the new moccasin, a longitudinal strip exten~ing lromthe end of the ben~-over . portion of. the inner half. of the upper to the heel ••• These parts are assembled ••• (Fig. 1, d.) lettered to correspond ·with the separate parts just desc~ibed ••• ....I-.-.,.,.,'11~h~e-excavation of 'Hogti p ' C~ve was made possibi~ hy ' a grant (GS 1456) from the Nationa.1 Science Foundation t'o' Jesse D~ Jennings, prinCipal investigator. Analysis of'the moccasins was under the s~pervision of C. Melvin Aikens and Gary F. Fry. A

A remarkahle feature of most of the moccasins is the use of strips from the foot of the sheep in the sole in such a way that the dewclaws project and serve as hobnails ••• Tie strings are somewhat variable, but in general were attached at the side of the foot,hrought around the heel, and tied around the ankle. WheQ recovered, the Hogup moccasins were in a completely and desiccated condition. They were soaked for a short time in distilled water and filled \",ith paper tOt1leling to restore them to approximately their former shape and to simplify analysis. The type of mammal hide utllized wa~ identified by comparison of the hair on the moccasins Wl.th ,!':HHlp1.es obtained from taxidermists. All the examples recovered are ]:; ghtly tanned ' as evidenced by the small amount of hair remaining on them. " flat~ened

Templates were made of all the moccasin pieces and the moccasins differ only in one major aspect and in some minor ones. In none of the examples recovered is there evidence of a seam at the heel joining the two halves of the uppers. They are open t~ the outside rear corner of the heel, thus making the moccasin almost a scuffer-like slipper •• (Fig. 2, d.) The long inner halt ,of the upper continues back around to at least the center of the heel and in most cases farther, probably giving some of the support necessary to hold the moccasin on the heel. The classic Fremont moccasin fully envelopes the foot. Morss points out that one of the features of this moccasin style is the use of strips of hide from the fo~t of mountain sheep (Ovis) in the sole in such a way that the dewclaws project and serve as hobnails. The rr..occasins from Hogup Cave are constructed from strips taken from the leg of a deer rather than mOllntain sheep. (Fig. 3) However, this is understandable in vie\'11 of the relathl ely small number of mountain sheep bones recovered. In most of the specimens the long inner half of the upper is made from~kin taken from the leg of a deer by splitting between the dewclaws so that the finished moccasin has dewclaws on the outside edges of the sole, pointing backwards. These serve as hobnails and are not directly walked on. In some cases, dewclaws are also on the heel piece of the sole. In several examples, the skin of the deer was removed just abOVe the proximal joint of ' the metacarpal or metatarsal so that in the finiShed moccasin the "hockll molds itself around the heel of the foot. Two specimens have a section sewn on the end of the long inside half of the upper reaching past the center of the heel. 5

P.iglll:e

Figure 2.

Template of the class ic F remon t style moccas in as described by iVlorss. Note pro jecting tongue and heel seam. (Adapted from Morss 1931:64).

Template of the Hogup Cave variant of the Fremont style moccasin. Note lack of projecting tongue, lack of heel seam, and tie string arrangement.

Figure 3.

Constructi~n

style moccasin.

of the Hogup Cave variant of the Fremont l~ote dewclaws.

Most cf the Hogup moccasins lack the pronounced tongue projection of the If'lng inside half of the upper in the classic Fremont, but occasionally have a tongue on the shorter outside half. Morss notes that tie strings are variable but are generally attached at the side of the foot, taken around the heel and tied around the ankle. All the specimens recovered from Hogup Cave have one tie string arrangement (F i g . 2, d.). The tie strings are thongs attached at the diagonal top seam near the ankle or, in a few cases, at the inside of the arch and then taken to the juncture of the sole and upper on the o~ide of the arch. The tie string is talten bac k around the back of t:1e heel and brought forward again by threading it through perforations along the bottom halves of the upper, thus making a draw string arrangement that would draw the moccasin tight across Âˇ the top of the arch and across the back of the expos~d heel suggesting the heel loop of a sandal. .

Morss (1931:67) "describes one pair of moccasins that is similar to the Hogup moccasins: This pair presents a modification of the usual structure. The heel seam is moved to the inside and the diagonal frontal seam moved back on the outside until each comes opposite the ankle bone. The outside upper is reduced to a mere rim at the rear of the moccasin, which is turned into a scuffer type of slipper. 7

1 2 i r v,f . . ~II~'.:J~.,-jf :S \i:J1i~-~1 'G~':'~~S G0i.l1e at the extr~me rear of the shoe. The ties are of apocynum. One starts in back of the instep1 passes through a loop at the heel, and is tied to another starting on the outside of the foot, the ends then being brought around the ankle and tied again. Ano 'ther tie, of sinew string, passes from side to side across the top of the foot through a number of loops in the edge of the upper, and is perhaps also brought round the ankle. On the ' right shoe this has broken and has been replaced by an apocynum string. f'~

"-,1,,,- -..

~r :- C1

(.: l:t=

This pair of moccasins is similar to those recovered from Hogup Cave in many aspects. The heel seam is like the seam in two of the Hogup moccasins; also similar is the open heel. The tie string around the heel is similar and the mops in the edges of the uppers are like those in the Hogup moccasin. Morss places the Fremont Culture as contemporary with the Pueblo I I Pe riod; approximat ely 800 - 1100 A.D. (Jennings 1968:206-67). IIo gup Cave is well da.ted by Carbon-VI- (Aikens et al 1968). The distribution of Fremont variant moccasins is asf'OIlows: Moccasins

strata

Available Carbon-14 Dates

----

Stratum 6 Stratum 6

.1-

Stratum 7

Stratum 8 stratum 8

1 frag.

Stratum 9

Stratum 10

Stratum 12 Stratum 12

Provenience unknown

6400+100, or 4450 B.C. 5960!100, or 4010 B.C.

4610+100, or 2660 B.C. 32 ,..-140, 01: .1250 B.C.

2920+80, r.>r 970 B.C. 1530+80, or 420 A.D.

As can be seen from the above dates, most of the moccasins from Hogup Cave are from Strat um 12 which is assigned Fremont affiliation on the basis of many diagnostic Fremont artifact ~ . This is ca. 400 earlier than the 800/850 - 1100 A.D. period usually ass~ned to the Fremont Culture and their Pueblo 11 contemporaries. Speculations and Problems Caution should always be applied when drawing inferences as to relationships of single artifacts from separate sites. However, because of two facts, it appears that the Hogup variant of the Fremont style moccasin maybe the forerunner of the classic fremont 8

0esct"1.hf'Q b:r H07~~S"" ~ile

Bugup moccasin in

F..j. .~<"+; ~.s ~.1.rr.Tly the eCi.rlier the chronological red6rd.

appearance of

Secoud is the construction of the Hogup mOKcasins. notes the following:

Morss (1931:68)

The general structure and the arrangement of the tie strings on the Fremont moccasin can best be explained on the theory that it is morphologically a sandal adapred to a comparatively cold climate by being covered over. After reaching this conclusion the writer was intereSEd to note that the same idea had independently occurred to Loud and Harrington (1929) who refer to their Lovelock Cave example as a Itcovered sandall!. THe

moccasins reflect the idea of a'bovered sandal" evem it is a l ulo!';t a scuff e r-lilce slipper because of the fact t;lJat it bas 110 heel seam and is open at the back. The arrangement of tf?e tie st:r.iugs to act as a drawstring to catch the back of t~e exposed heel suggest s the heel 160p of a sandal. It is poss~?le that the heel seam may have been developed later, and the s~ngle D!o~casin pair described by Ivlol'SS which is similar to the moccasins tecovered from Hogup Cave m~y represent a lag or carry-ave ... from the Hog lp method of manufacture. I1I~H'

Hog l1 1

References Aikens, C, Melvin, 1966 1967

Fremont-Promontory-Plains Relationships in Northern Utah. University of utah Anthropolo gical Papers, No. 82. S a rt Lake Cit y. Plains Relationships of the Fremont Culture: A Hypothesis. American Antiquity, Vol. 32, No.2, pp. 198-209.--salt-raRe city.

Aikens, C. Melvin, 1968

Kimball T. Harper, and Gary F. FfY Hogup Mountain Cave: Interim Report, paper presented at the annual meeting of Society for American Archeology , May 11, 1968, Sante Fe, New Mexico.

Aikens, C. Melvin, N.D.

et al. Hogup Cave, University of Utah Anthropological Papers. [\lIS , Uni versIty of Utah Salt Lake City.-

Jennings! Jesse D. 1968

Prehistory of North America, IvlcGraw-Hill Book Company, iew-vork.

Loud, L.L. and M. R â&#x20AC;˘. Harrington, Lovelock Cave, University of California Publications in Archeo l ogy and EthilOIOgY; Vol. 25, No-:-r-. BerkeleY:--Morss, Noel 1931

The Ancient Culture of the Fremont ~iver in Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archeology And Ethno l ogy, Vo l . 12, No.3. CambrIdge.

---

, ..... '"

Excavation may be d6ne byD.S.A.S. Members by Dean Caldwell Getting complete value from the Archeological sites 1n Utah has ht=lCln ~ _ ......................

n"t"",h1om J:' ...... 'J~ _ _ .... 4

".::l""r1

-"L.&,'-Ao

~1""\.'t"'II~D,-.,..,

f""~1" "tW" ...... "' .......... L ....... v ....

+-t . . . ,n u ...... IIr...o

'!T ....,..:"t.,""'1')"1~..:4-".,. UL ......... V"--..Lo.J ......

"",+,

lT~t.....

ul,ÂŁ.&Ao ... .L

A_"'-h ................... 1""\.1,...,.... ..

..rl.L.LV.L.L ....

v.l:'v ..... \..J5Y

department as well as the U.S.A.S. members. There have been many sites which the University has only partially excavated because of lack of funds and/or time. These sites most often are destroyed before excavation could be completed. Many times . nearby sites are also destroyed, thus much valuable information is lost. One solution to this problem has been suggested. That is the possibility of U.S.A.S. members completang work on a partially excavated site, or excavate a threatened sit e, or arlY othe r site, under the direction of professional supervision. Such an activity could give U.S.A.S. members real satisfaction in contributing to archeological preservation. We could learn how sites are discovered, 110w to excavate properly , what kind of field work is necessary and ~ow ~o do the laboratory wo~k. Members could be responsibil e for safe keeping of. artifacts afte r the University gets the information needed for research t such as measurements, photugraphs, etc. Professor Melvin Aikens te l ls me many Archeological clubs in other states are working satisfactor:ly with Universities in similar ways. To investigate the possibility further, Mr. Jack Marwitt, staff archeologist, D.ofD., was invited to speak at our Febr~y 1969 meeting. He agreed whole heartedly that the correlation of University and club could be achieved. i-Ie sited sevelf'al sites that the University has pa~tially excavated that the U.S.A.S. could begin work on, and he suggested that we could locate our own sites. He said he would be responsib le for sending qualified supervisory personnel to work with us. Our members would be taught how to excavate ptoperly and how to do the laboratory work. These two points were stressed by Mr. Marwitt: 1) The U.S.A.S. would be able to keep artifacts from sites that were on private land only-- with the permission of the landowner. 2) We would have to decide the site we wanted to excavate and wo~k out a time schedule with the Arch~ological staff of the Unive~sity ~f Utah. The Salt Lake-Davis Co. chapter appointed Dean Caldwell as the representative to work wit~ the University to obtain information concerning available sites and to determine the site to be excavated. All menfue~s of the V.S.A.S. are encouraged to participate. We feel that ~orking together OUI goals to preserve knowledge of Utah Arhheology will be strengthened a great deal. Note: 1"Te would appreciate information concerning favorable locations. We '~ould need to know where the site was located, the type of site, and who (~wns tee land on which the site is found, plus any other pertinent information. Please write: Dean Caldwell, 4283 Bennion Road, Taylorsville, Utah 84119 or phone 298-7008. 10

THE GOLDEN SPIKE CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION The Centennial Celebration of the Driving of the Golden Spike commemorating the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad, May 10, 1869 will be observed during 1969, commencing the first week of January. Salt Lake City, Ogd2n, and Brigham Sity in cooperation with historical societies and educational institutions will officially open historical, art and pictorial displays related to the completion of the railroad one hundred years ago. Significant events during the following months of 1969 will include symphony programs by the Golden Spike Empire youth Symphony Orchestra. A Golden Spike Centennial Ball will be held on the 9th of May in the newly completed Salt Lake Salt Palace. The progr am on the 10th of May wi l l commence with a Go l den Spike Centenni al Train from Salt Lake City north to Ogden and Brigham City. The historic re-enactDlent C€ .T.P. ll'DUy will be conducted in the new $400,000.00 Golden Spike l\f'\. l; ; ,,,nal Hisb: dc Site at Promontory, Utah, and will be climaxed by the Gov~ruorts Golden Spilc centennial Banquet with 800 internation . aI, .nc:tJ.onal and local d i grdt:lI:ies to include political, historical z rel1g1ous 8.11,11 t .:L ( tp.s;~ :i nal ele l ments associated with the "Golden Sp1ke!' St~.t'~illg the 2nd of June, 1 969, daily re-enactments of the Historic DX1v1ng of ~he Golden Spike will take place at Promontory, Utah at the exact s1te' and time of that h i storic event Descendants of those Mor~on pioneers who contributed to the c;nstruction of the ~ranscont1n~ntal railroad are encouraged to consider family reunions 1~ Utah dur 1nt? the summer mont'h s of 1969 and participa te in appropl'1'a te ceremonl.es at the histor i c site.

The Executive Director of Field Operations, Mr. &athan H. Mazer, F ?o~ 2;~9 F e~eral Bui~ding, Ogden, Utah 84401 er.courag ed and W1l L oLfer d1rent ~ss1stance to all family groups desiring to honor ~h~ ear l y bU1lders and wil l assign specific dates to provide recognl.t10n to the original pioneer ing fathers.

A HElP! MUSEUH

FOR UTAH

by Don v. Hague~ Curator,~ "" Museum of HatlJxal ~-Iist orJT. _ Reprinted in part from the western ·ftisetfl11s·-(uarFerly. Vol. IV #3. September 1967. If a cross section of the Utah citizenry were asked to respond to the word " museum1! today, one could generally expect several types of replies. For some, it might be a visualization of one of the many pioneer-type museums w'lich have exis ted for many years throughout the state. Professional museum people are all familiar with the type ••• a hodgepodge of poorly labeled relics, hair wreaths and photo-portraits of endless numbers of people, 99 percent 01 whom are there because well-intentioned relatives made them conditional parts of other gifts or objects of greatei value. If the 11

word 11museum" were mentioned amongst the younger people of the populous region around and including Salt Lake City, they might recount a visit to the Museum of Earth Science or to the Huseum of Anthropology (recently dis~antled) at the University of Utahwrere one could see the only natural history exhibits in the area, althou~h . unforl;llUa.telv limited in size. content. and to onenine- hours c01.nc1.dent with the'five regular school days.' Among the more sophisticated and travelled people of Utah, there is a good chance that the word would recall a visit to one of the fine museums to the east or we&t of the Beehive state. And, if some of this group were in their late years, liEy wou l d probably remember that on their early visits to the big-city museums the displays in these institutions left a lot to be desired. Indeed, each significant museum development of this country started from humble beginnings and has evolved under a different timetable and set of cir.cumstances. Utah may be characterized as having passed through its "paleozicl! mnseum period and nOl".1 stands on the frOlltier of a new era. The re are very good signs that local museum personnel are becoming more knowledgeable about museum methods and that attempts are being made to seek prof essional assistance tmvards gene ral improvement and updating of exhibits along with striving for apP.t'op.t'iate balance of collections. It has helped, Ifm sure, for u t ah s to ha've in tlleir O\\ln backyards some exceptionally fine exalllples of exhibits at the various visitors centers of the national parks and monuments throughout the state. Once having seen these, it is not surprising that the chairman of a local museum board may desire to borrow some of their high standards and ideas for his own imprcvement plan. These exhibits are, in fact, the most professional of anything that can be found in Utah today. It is perhaps timely that with the COIlpletion of the National Parle Servicets Mission '66 program (some of the best interpretative treatment of UtahTs wonders and resources that has been done) a formative new museum in the state is now moving ahead with plans for a comprehensive treatment of th€ natural 'history 6£ the 'area This is the Utah Museum of Natural History, the official state museum of natural history, made possible by an act of the 1963 state legislature. Enabling legislation passed at that time designated the University of Utah "to establish a State Museum of l r atural History •• "to receive gifts,. contributimns and donations of all kindS, including tangible objects and specimens for the development of or display in the Museum." This represents the first such action in Utah to create a publicly-owned museum of natural his tory. b

In naming the University to carry out this function, the legislature made no provision for needed financial assistance. A partial solution to this problem was foreseen by two administrators at the University, Vice Presidents Paul W. Hodson and Neal A. Maxwell. These gentleman saw in the new building construction program under way at the school the po~sible use of one of the older structures as a suitable home for the museum. The 30-year-old George Thomas Library, scheduled to have its 87,000 square feet of space vacatp.d for a new 300,000 square foot library/learning center on qnother part of the campus in late 1967, was such a building. The struc12

tt'ret .s T)0te.,t';;:>las 2 . , rr.-::' :"'1~.. W:'. ~ poL~ted out to the University Board of Regents by the resourceful vice-presidents. They, along with others wh~ had~ng championed the museum concept on campus, were elated by the subsequent action of the Regents in 1964 who ra1ed that the necessary space to establish a physical home for the new museum would' be provided within the old library. Aside frnm the important fact that the older building has a replacement value of about one and a half million dollars at todayts prices, it occupies a very desirable location on an older, well-developed part of the campus. Further, its interior architecture is fairly open and well-suited to displaying some of the large dinosaur fossil remains for which Utah is famous and which have been planned as pivotal exhibits. With a building assured for the museum, the Regents took another step forward in early 1965 and appropriately name d Dr. Jesse D. J <"un.ings as the museum's first director. Dr. Jennings, a professor of anthropology at the University, has w'orked diligently since 1951 on the idea of a single large museum of natural history at the university which would combine the several smaller scattered mus e ums on campus into one major facility. In 1957, in fact, he was appointed chairm.an of a museum study committee composed of various professors and department heads whose disciplines would be repres ented within the embryonic museum. The persistent efforl5 of Dr. Jennings and his committee, along with considerable lobbying and grass-roots support by citizen members of the ~tewide Archeolo g i~al Society - an amateur archeological group - finally r esulted in the favorable ac t ion of the state legislature in 1963. In order to establish proper guidelines early in the program, one of Dr. Jennings t first moves was to define the educational role of the Utah Museum of Natural History as being, IT . . . . an integral part of the educational program of the Unhrersity of Utah for the benefit and . enjc'yment of the people of Utah; the Utah Museum of Natural History will be available to students of every age." TIlts function is to interpret the ~ natural history of Utah, in an integrated scheme from earliest geological times up to the present with reduced emphasis on recent history, utilizing modern museum concepts. The exhibits should not 6n1y reveal the geologi t geography, biota, ecology and resources of utah as they are mutually 1nterdep endent, but key these data into r ~ l event general knowledge in order to create the worldwide background into which the Utah material s fit. When appropriate, the man-land relationships will receive emphasis. !~ t

the time of establishment, the Utah Museum of ~atural History has Âˇa single mission, being concerned in the beginning only with display and interpretation. With t he successful establishment of interpretive exhibits, it is anticipated the Museum will function mor e widely in the normal museum activities such as' fostering local museums t bw..ding t 'ravelilg exhibits for pUblic schools, taking cus ... tody of collections, etc. . 13

UIn summary, the Utah Museum of Natural History is envisioned as a complete natural history museum focused upon Utah, and its varied :resources r exhibited and intepreted in such a way as to emphasize the 1nterdependence of systems and elements of nature, and the manner in which man has classified and established order in nature, exploiting nature selectively for his own survIval. tr This singular unifying theme in Dr. Jennings' last statement might be termed the museum director's dream.. In fact, until the past few years, there have been few, if any, muse.ums conceived under a concept in which the interdependence of uaturets systems and man's position in the total shheme has been used as the common thread for weaving the story~ Within this framework the dixector and his t~am of close financial associates have sought to enlist private support for the fledgling museum, scheduled to open in late 1969. Thig task has been difficult in an area lacking in large personal wealth or fortunes and where many other worthwhile projects compete for available money. Nevertheless, sufficient fundS have been procured to enable planning to proc'2ed and, more recently, for exhibit preparation to commence in an old army barracks" This initial nseed" money was the generous gift of Mrs . Cleone Cooper of Montic'2llo, Utah, a conservation-minded citizen Âˇand lover of the out-of-doors who could see a better chance for the preservation of some of Utah's .natural treasure by the establishment of a state museum. Support from such federal pr.ogra ms as PACE has been solicited with the help of the public shools, alolllg with others for which museums may qualify.. A program of public participation through the sale of memberships is now in its fOJIlRtive stages. This is to be effected throug~l the n.orj.-profit organization recently incorporated for. this purpose known as the Associates of the Utah Museum of Natural History. All money d~Â rived from these souxces is intended to go towards exhibit planning and construction. A recent grant from the National Science Foundation will help establish a series of traveling exhibits available to public schools, libraries, and cultural centers throughout the state. The fundS necessary. to permit an extensive remodeling of the museum building were provided by the University beginning early in 1968. Like most other large educational institutions, there are dozens of squeaky wheels to be greased, many of VJhich have had prog:rams off the drtl'lt'Jing boards for years just waiting for money to be appropriated. Well aware of the fiscal uncertaint y of the project, Dr. Jennings had, from the beginning of planning, iasisted on a flexible approach which later could be adjusted to fit available space and remodeling money_ At the same time, he advised that our sights be set high and an optimum plan developed around existing building with the hope that the full plan eventually might be developed. This earlffir inSight now app ea rs to have had a great deal of merit as remol~ling monies were l1mit ed. Meanwhile, because of the flexible planning approach, we still shall be able to present an effective museum dis14

play which is capable of upward adjustment to the optimum plan. Had we been firmly committed to a single exhibit approach and architectural solution, the very valuable time spent in planning and possibly the construction of exhibits to fit such a plan would have been wasted. Although each museum presents an entirely different set of problems during its development, there are certain things common to all. Perhaps an enumeration of some of the devices and principles applied to the problems of the Utah Museum of Natural History will find useful application' elsewhere. Under the optimum plan visualized for the museum, approximately 170 exhibits were outlined for telling the integrated story within the space we thought would be availahle. Some of these were to be special-topic type exhibits related to the basic story and gelle~ally of a temporary nature of perhaps six months duration. Most were to be of a pernlanent type and were divided into three lIlain cat ego ries: geology, biology, and anthropology in a breakc1.own of about 40, 35, and 25 percent, respectively. Most of tee exhibit SUbjects, or titles, for the 170 exhibits \'I1ere selected following consultatinu with members of the university departments to be repres~nted in the museum. A few others were based upon exhibit subjects suggested by visitors to our other two smaller museums where they were given an opportuI~J1i ty to fill out a questionnaire indicating e~libit preferences and subjects they would like to see portrayed. From the standpoint of cost (primarly man-hours) the exhibits were divided into four classes of displays: major group, minor grollp, primary display, and individual display. Over one-half of the exhibits fell within the classification of individual displays, a fact which suggested that perhaps a modular dimension for - these units could be employed in their construction. These exhibits, though smaller that the other three types~ would cons~itute the backbone 6f the museum's story. The larger and more complex units; on the other hand, were generally built around an idea or concept which could not be demonstrated in a Ilstandardl1 type of case. Being larger units, and there being fewer of them, tended to place these exhibi ts in somewhat 11 pivotal ll pos i tions with respect to the smaller displays. The individual displays, then, essentially assumed the role of satellites. although it was planned that each would tell a story in and of itself, being related to adjacent exhibits but not necessarily dependent upon them. with the uncertainty of obtaining money for remodeling and exhibit preparation, our approach to construction was narrowed to one direction. With what money we had, we would try to get the most mileage out of it by building only the smaller, individual-type exhibits rather than launching into one of the large expensive displays which would tie up all of our resources. In essence, this plan meant that even though the tentative opening date lay vaguely in the future, we could; providing we had indiv idual display cases in which to house exhibits, create an T1instant museumTt upon faitly short notice by pUlling the stockpiled exhibits. out of storage. This one exception to this _ scheme was a large display of Jurassic dinosaurs. 15

We felt that this display, \I\lhich would require a great amount of preparation time, should be started early in the project in order to assure that some portion of it would be ready for the ~anned opening late in 1969. F urt h~r , this display could be undertaken without a great deal of expense or employment of additional manpower because of the University Deplutment of Geologys"involvement in a large-scale dinosaur excavation in central Utah. (Several specimens of this project already have found their way into some of the museums of the west Coast where they have been prepared or are waiting preparation for ultimate pu' lie exhibition.) Committed primarily to the construction of tee individual display, we began looking for other ways in which these smaller units could serve us best. First, we constructed a prototype modular case t built to close tolerances and complete interior comp artment 11ghts. We allowed for certain minimal clearance for the background and for the floor and side panels where used, but we were ditermined from the beginning that the final case construction would have to meet these same close tolerances when work for them was finally contracted. Into this prototype case we have fit and installed each exhibit during its prepaÂŁation. This has permitted certain changes to be made on an exhibit before reaching the point of no return. Some of the chan ges were required because a designer working at oneeighth scale on a piece of tracing 'paper can not always visualize the fUll-scale effect of his design. Colors, too, can be capricious when finally applied to a large panel area as opposed to the initial selection of a few color chips from a catalog. As we have selected colors, we have been careful to evaluate them under the same type of lighting contemplated for the exhibit case. The further opportu.. ni ty to "proo fl l them out in ou r prototype un it us ing the same light has resulted in very few false starts or repainting jobs. The prototype and its lighting enabled us to study various combinations as they were planned and to make desired changes before we were irreversibly committed. During early planning stages of the gross spaces, we used the modular concept to a.dvantage by making a large number of smallscale cardboard cutouts of the standard case. These were shuffled around again and again on a scale drawing of the proposed museum space. Âˇ It became evide~t as we worked with these devices, constantly mindful of our need to remain flexible, that solid walls with buil tin cases did not provide a satisfactory answer to our problem. Yet, we needed certain divisions of space to tell the story properly. We tried . certain linear arrangements of the s.tandard cases as a means of developing a "wall" effect. The results were disappointin g as we recognized a familiar throwback to the older museum practiue where cases i~ere lined up in endless rows of sterile glass. With suc h an arrangement, cumbersome bulky cases set on a tangle of metal legs appeared to be further eyesores we might expect to create . A timely visit to the Smithsonian Institutes new Museum of History and Technology in late 1965 allowed us to observe hm11 the planners of this structure had handled a situation paralleling that of the Utah Museum of Natural History. 16

There is a pleasant a1r1ness about the sections of the various halls, with the opaces of JLC in~erpenetrating into thos~ o~ contiguous areas. The effect may not have the peekaboo 1nt1macÂĽ that marked some of the museum developments of the 1950's where1n a visitor was often led through a maze of little nooks and alcoves filled with "surprise" exhibits around every c().rn~r, but the simplicity and directness of this newer approach certainly allows for future shifting and re-arrangement of the exhibits as conditions change. This was basically the same thing we were trying to achieve in th~ Utah Museum of Natural History. In our application of some of the above principles, we have developed the fze~-standing partition idea into a structural (nonbearing) . divider which may be moved, disassembled, added to or subtracted from, and which serves to support the individual modular cases. The foregoing gives the reader some indication of the way planning has been approached within the unique situation that exists at the University of Utah. Although not mentioned previously, there are many sources of help we can turn to in a large institution such as ours. This is prticularly important Nhere the staff is small and shall remain so after the initial exhibit program is completed. Among the campus services we are able to utilize are three com~ete photo laboratories with trained crews, a print shop capable of printing any or all tof the museum literature and promotional material, and a buildings and grounds department complete with electrical, carpentry, machine, plumbingt paint, and electronics shops. Eqr...itable l1inhouse" rates are charged for the sevices of these various groups but only for the actual service rendered. This essentially gives us a much larger staff possessed of the many specialties than a small museum organization otherwise might have. Free architectural advice also has been avaIlable through the department of architecture on campus along \~ith the university!s architectural planning staff. Where other work and specialties are needed which have no available counterpart at the university, we have contracted for this work wherever we have been able to find competent services. Dr. Jennings no doubt recognized that ~ven though museum people are traditionally versatile in a variety of skills, a small staff could not command all of these and therefore needed the type of fielding assistance rr~de possible through some of the arrangements mentioned above. The personnel we do have, nonetheless, are broadly acquainted with most of the skills we might be required to contract for, thereby assuring that certain standards can "be knowledgeably established. The academic integrity of the exhibits has been assured by frequent consultation with those curators and specialists of the disciplines represented in;the museum. These persons, incidently, while cons idered as !'available!! to the mus eum as consul tan ts from their full-time academic duties in other departments, are not "paidll. curators in the sense of being on the museum payroll. This feature, though limiting in some ways, more than makes up for any disadvantages by giving us the expertise of willing specialists without the attendant problems of budgeting for a large staff and providing space for such. This factÂˇ was instrumen tal in the universityls acceptance of the museum idea. 17

Perhaps one of the most unique aspects of the Utah Museum of Natural History is that at its inception it pos sessed not a singl e specimen, odject: or artifact which normally comp rise the collections of such institutions. At the time of this writing that picture has changed to the extent that certain it e ms have been acquired for exhibit purposes and, therefore~ may be considered the properyy of t he mus e um. Por the most part, exhibit specimens are, and will r e main , t he property of the specific academic department responsible for their original coliec t ion. When the exhibit requires i t , spe cime ns are re quested from the various departments which generally place such objects on a permanent loan basis to the museum, cond itional upon proper cura ting and safe return when the .' exhi bi t is disutantled. This " situa tion has allowed the vast collections of the univ ersity to continue under the responsible curators hip of e ach academic de p artment where researdh and graduate study may be prop e rly con ducted. Under the intent of the 1963 enabling legislation maltin g the museum possible, it is expected tlHt t we eventually will be concerned with the business of acceptin g colle c t ions, curating them, and seeking those things which d not f all within the province of the university's reputable and we ll- established research collections. Of interest to visiting scholars and professionals is the fact that the balance of the space in the George Thomas Library not scheduled for use by the Utah Museum of Natural History has been de~ignated to house the extensive res earch collections of ornitholog ÂĽ, mammalo gy , ichthyology, entomolo gy and herbarium. The geolog y d epa rtment' s collections, includin g the dinosaur s alvage proj ec t, also will be housed within this buildin g . The archeolog ial co l lections now rest in an adjoining building which has r ecently bec ome the permanent home of the anthropology d epa rt me nt. Of value to camp us students is the fact that the new muse um is with in a f ew s t eps of each of the s everal buil din gs Which form a natural history complex consist. i ng of the departme nt s of anthropology, geology, and the various subd ivisions of biolog y. These departments, as an extension' " of the ir t eaching f acilities, plan much greater use of the museum than has be en possibl e in tbe pas t with Âˇ limited exhibition space. ' The remodeling of the building should be completed early this spring. In March 1968 the Museum was opened on a limited basis for the viewing of the Weisman Collection 'of Pre-Columbian Medical Miniatures, which was a traveling display. These miniatures cillected by Dr. Abner I. Weis man of NLw York City? are figurines, Âˇ some over 2000 years old, we re collected in Mex1co and Central A~erica. The miniatures depicted a variety of human ailments: women in childbirth, arthritis and other skeletal defects, goiter: asthmatic attacks, toothaches t headache and a multitude of other medical problems of Pre-Columb1an Americans. Many of the specimens are be ing prepared for museum display by a new proc~ss of freeze-drying . This process of dehydration from a fr ozen state has teen in use by the pharmaceutical industry in prepa ring certain water so l uble drugs. Recently the process, which is water removal by quick freezing under vacuum, has been adapted for the preservation of plant and animal specimens. The specimens are almost perfect in size and retain all their original colors and features. 18

A few of the many interesting exhibits of the Utah Natural History are: bird migration, Utah trees, the Wasatch front, life size dinosaur skeletons , and a family of ~ :e deeri . There will be a scale model of an actual cliff dwelling from Westwater Canyon near Blanding, Utah. The dwelling will be shown as it probably appeared when it was occupied around 700 years ago. ~he Museum is onl~ a few blocks from down town Salt Lake City,

centrally located. Three fourths of the Statets population can reach the Museum within an hour or so after leaving their homes. It is expected that 90 percent of the visitors to the museum will be nonuniversity persons. Many of these will be seeing a museum for the first time whil~ others will have seen some of the other museums of the S:ate alluded to in the beginning of this paper. ~,\Te would hope that all, after a visit to this new museum, shall have a bettp.~ idea of what Utah's natural history is all about and a COUC6pt of what constitutes good museum presentation. All things are r ehtive, hm~ever, and what may seem good practice in the eyes of the present staff of the mus eum may be considered othe .r wise by both the visitor and another museum professional. We shall welcome the opinions of both as we await the test of time. Since finances playa large part in the development of the Museum, private individual donations have supplemented federal grants. The only cost to the State of Utah is the remodeling of the building for Museum use. Mr. Calvin Gaddis, a Salt Lake stockbroker, is serving on the Ivlus eum staff as Director of Finance. The organization mentioned previously, Associates of the Utah Museum of Natural History, is uu der the direction of j\'ir~ Gaddis. Family memberships in the Museum Associates are available for $15.00 per family, which will admit any and all members of the family as often as they wish to attend until September 1, 1970. Thereafter memberships are renewable annually. A small admission charge will be necessary for operation of the Museum when it is opened to the pUblic. To date, individual donations have ranged from a $3.00 contribution made by a school class to a $40,000.00 individual donat~on. All contributions are welcomed and appreciated. U.S.A.S. members are looking forward to the opening of the Utah Museum of Natural History on the proposed date: October 1, 1969. SHERTIlS bits of this tn' that ••••• In July 1968 we went on a field trip to llJ"ine Mile Canyon. i-.Jorma Dalton was staying in the canyon and acted as our guide. She pointed out numerous petrogiyphs that ~e had not seen on our previous trips. Most of the petroglyp~s were triangular shaped humans, birds and animals. 'Some were two headed, we thought they were espially interestnng. Graneries were plentiful along the face of the cliffs, many of them are inaccessible. · The Indians must have come down to them from the top of the cliff. All thos e in "reach" have been raided and any "goodies l t removed. 19

There were also luany "forts" along the canyon. They were usually on the tops of mesas at vantage points about 300 feet high where the canyon floor could be seen in both directions. We climbed up on one of these mesas. The hillside to the only entrance was steep, then we climbed over large boulders completeing a 200 foot climb to a rock wall with a small square door in it. The door was the only pntr~nce to the mesa proper. The mesa top has thxee living levels, the lower being the largest. There were sherds and chippings around. Some of the smaller areas are far out on a ledge so we by-passed them. The mesa top level is about 40 feet wide and 100 feet long. ext we visited a long narrow cave (called the Rasmussen cave by Reagon- 1933). There are many petroglyphs and pictographs in and on either side of the cave. The site is 25 or 30 feet wide and about 100 feet long. The cave roof is about 15 feet high. One petroglyph was a man on a horse with a bow. On a large level boulder are a series of "we ll worke d" rounded holes. Bach set looks like a shoe print in the rock. j{orma suggested the sole part may have been used to crush colors for paint, and the heel may have been used to mix the pigment with water. There were sherds and chippings throughout the site. In an excavated area there were co rn husles and debris where some bur ials had been removed many. years ago. As we waUced back to the road, i{orma came las t pack1ng her baby and out of the dust from our foot prints on the trail she picked up a large perfect arrowpoint. I tried to talk her out of it with no lucle. One of the members in our chapter, Ja y Gustanenson has made a nice replica of a Nine Mile petroglyph "\lith laytex that is very interesting. Afton Crawford President, Salt Lake-Davis Co. Chapter

University of Utah

Anthropological Series

The University of Utah Anthropological series are published by the University of Utah Press. Many of the older series are out of print. Those papers that are still available may be purchased from the University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112. OUT OF PRINT papers may be obtained from Johnson Reprint Corporation, 111 Fifth Ave., New York, New York, 10003. If you are inerested in reprints, please write for the cost. Numbers 1-9 bound under one cover, $3.25

OUT OF

PRI1~T

Prehistoric Exchange in Utah, by Carling Malouf (1939) pp. 1-6, 2 figs.

The Ancient Mexican \lI]riting System, by Charles B. Dibble (1940). pp.7-28, illus. 20

T,he Gosiute- Ind~ans, hy Ca.rling Malouf . (1940), pp.29-,37. 1 fig •

. . ,~l i<. : Dc ;~ IJ:: LpiJinl,1 of an Indian Ruin near Shonesburg, Utah, by Blmer . R •. .5mlth (,1940). 'pp.38-42, ·2 figs.

. '. 5 •.

T~.e.Archaeology

of the Deep Creek Regior.t.j Ut~th, by taxIing. JVlalouf., Charles BoO Dibble and E1.mer.R •. Smi tl1 (194U) pp~43-GG, 11 figs.

An Indian Burial, . a Harbed : Bone,"projectile Point," and Accompanying Artifacts from Bear Lake, Idaho, by Blmer .R. Smith (1942), pp. 69-73, 1 fig. .

Arch~ology

, l

of Black Rock 3 Cave, Utah, by (1942), · PP. 74-94,8. figs. ' ' .'

Enger

Archeology in the Sanjuan, by Samuel J~ Tobin (1947), .

.pp .. 95-108.

Walte~D.

A~ A~'("h~eoJ,ogical Reconnaissance in Washington . Cotinty, Utah, 1949 by Jack R. Rudy and Robert D. Stir1allcl (1950), Pp., 1.1.9-93, 17 figs" . ' ('

10.

The ArRhaeoio gy of Deadman Cave: A Revisi(,ln ,- by Elmer R •. ,Smith (1952)" 41 PP., .20 ~igs. OUT'(~F_~RINT

11.

Proceedings 'of th~'S .:t::.tth Plains Archeological Conference (1948), .edited bY , Jesse D. Jennings (1950),. 169 pp.,5 figs • OUT' OF PRIN'l' •

. . , ; . . . . . . . . . . . .' "

..........

_ : . ' . . . . . . . . . . .o . .

12.

Archeological Survey cf "''-estern Utah, by Jack R. Rudy (1953) 190 ,P PJ., 62 . figs .. ,~·'.......... ~ •• ~ ••••••• OUT OF PRINT

13.

In the Beginning: A Navaho 'Creation' Myth, by Stanley A. Fisher. (1953), 130 PP .. " •••••••• ,•• OUT OF PRINT

14.

A'rcheological Survey of the La Sal Mountain Area, by Alic e Hunt (1953), 248 pp. 89 ' figs. OUT OF PRn~T

15.

A study in Culture Contact 'and: CU'l ture Ch:an.g e-· T:he Whiterodk_ Utes in Transition, by G'o,t.tfried 0:. L~ng (1953) 76 PP.., 2 figs., 6 tables ............... OUT OF PRINT ,.

16.

The G~rrisQn Site~ hy Dee C. Taylor (1954), 66 pp~, ' 20 figi~ • .. • .... ', ......................... '........... " •• OUT OF PRINT

Numbers 17-19 bound under one cover, .......... OUT OF PRINT 17. Notes on the.Utah Utes by Edward A. Palmer, 1860-1877, by Robert F. He1zer. (1954), 8 PP. . 18.

Pine Park Shelter, ,Washington County, Utah, by Jack R. Rudy (1954), 28 PP., 16 figs. 21

19.

Human Skeletal Mat'2rial from Deadman Cave t Utah, by Jo~Q. Buettner-Janusch (1954), 9pp., 4 figs.

20. ,.

Archeological Excairat'iohs ,In ' Beef Bas in, Utah by Jack R. Rudy (1955), 45 PP., 31 figs •••••••• OUT OF PRINT

21. " Archeological Investigations in Nine Mile Canyon, Utah: A Republication, by John Gillin (1955)f 45 pp., 31 figs. 22.

Archeology of Zion Park, by Albert H. Schroeder (1955), 212 PP., 48 figs., 23 tables ••••• ~ ...OUT OF PRINT

23.

Ute~

24.

Early Man in the Columbia Intermontane Province, by Richard D. Daugherty (1956), 123 PP., 4 tables.OUT OF PRINT

25.

Archeological Excavations in Iron County, Utah, by Clement W. Meighan, et al. (1956), 134 PP., 63 Figs. 20 tables. OUT OF PRINT

26.

Papers of the Ttird Great Basin Archeologial Conference, by Fay....cooper Q)le, et ale (1956) t 96 pp., 17 figs.OUT OF PRfj

27.

Dange r Cave t by Jesse D. Jennings ,( 1957») 340 pp., 8 appendices, 246 figs., 31 tables •••••• ~EPRINT PLANNED

28.

Archeologim 1 Survey of the Fremont Area, by .James H. GUnnerson (1957), 155 pp., 30 figs., 6 tables.~UT OF PRINT

29.

Two Fremont Sites and Their position in Southwestern Prehistory, by Dee C. Taylor (1957), 196 pp.~ 57 figs., 15 tables .... .. .........................OUT OF PRINT

30.

The Glen Canyon Survey in 1957-t by Robert H. Lister (1958) 57 PP., 24 figs., 2 tables •• (Glen Canyon series No.1) OUT OF PRINT

Rorschach Performances with Notes on Pield Methods, by Paul A. Hauch (1955)t 18 PP •••••• Qut of Print

31.

Preliminary Report on Biological Resources of the Glen Canyon Resenn'lir, by Anlitts M. Woodbury, et al. (1958), 226 pp. t 11 figs. ~ (Glen Capyon se.ries No.2) OUT OF PRINT

Numbers 32-33 bound under one cover ••••••••• OUT OF PRINT 32. Mormon Towns in the Region of the Colorado, by Leland H. Creer (1958), 26 pp" 1 fig. (Glen Canyon series No.3) 33.

The Activities of Jacob Hamblin in the Region of the Colorado t by Leland H. Creer (1958), 40 pp., 1 fig. (Glen Canyon series No.4)

34.

ArCheological Notes on Stansbury Island, by Sydney J.S. Jameson (1958), 55 pp., 35 figs., 2 tables.pl:ice $2.CO 22

Brl"to- K Reed (1958), 224 PP., 62 figs., 2 tables ••••••• Price $4.00 lM':'"1~,"'" AlA. .... , , } o..J

I~~;"''''r' ~ ...... ,,' ; V

::r1,)';,,,,,c1o\".,?

35"

n.),r-Q'V"t-;(',-<'l,<:' ~n D. '-~, c .... " _,".~. .............

36.

A Survey of Vegetation in Glen Can yon Reservoir Btl.sin, by Angus M. Woodbury, Stephen D. Durrant and Seville Flowers (1959), 59 PP., 22 figs. . (Glen Canyon series No. 5) •••••••••••••••• Price $1.00

37.

An Outline of the History of the Flaming Gorge Area t by William M. Purdy (1959), 50 pp.,14 figs., Second Pr~nt ing (1962), (Upper Coorado series No.1) •• Price $1.00

38.

The Havasupai Woman, by Carma Lee Smithson (1959), 178 pp', 19 figs., 2 tables ••••••••••••• OUT OF PRINT

39.

The Glen Canyon Archeological Survey, by Don D. Fo\iVler, et al. (1959) (bound separately in three parts). Single copies: Part.,l, 333 PP., 61 figs. Part 2,394 pp .. , 1'04 figs., Part 3 t 105 pp., 18 figs., (Glen Can yon SCl.',l e~ No.6) ...................... ~ ••••••••••• OUT OF PRI_N'l'

40.

Ecological Studies 0 f Flora and Fauna in Glen Canyon, by Angus M. Woodbury, et al. (1959), 233 pp~, 57 figs., (Glen Canyon series No. 7) •••••••••• OUT OF PRI~~

41.

The Coombs Site, by Robert H. Lister , J. Richard Ambler and Florence C. Lister (bound sparately ill three parts) t Single copies: Part 1, (1959) 126 pp., 43 figs., 14 tables . PART 1 OUT OF PRINT. Part 27 (1960), 299 pp .. , 85 figs., 60 tab les , •••1>'i1ce'-$3 .50 ..... Pal:t 3 , (1961), 144 pp. , 2 appendices, 15 figs. t 14 tahles, ••• Price $2 . 25 ••• (Glen Canyon series No.8)

42.

Outline - of History of the Glen Canyon Region, 1776-1922, by C. Gregory Crampton (1959), 155 pp., 50 figs. (Glen Canyon series No.9) ................. OUT OF PRTNT

43.

1957 Excavations, Glen Canyon Area, by James H. Gunnerson (1959). 179 pp., 48 figs 21 tables •••••• Price $2.25. (Glen Canyon series No. 10)

' - ' ......

'1<1 a..J' J

l~.,

44.

1958 Excavations, Glen Canyon Area, by William D. Lipe (1960), 257 PP., 2 appendices, 70 figs., 23 tables. (Glen CAnyon series No .11) •••••••••••••••• Price $3.00.

45.

A Survey of Vegetation in the Flaming Gorg~ Reservoir Basin, by Angus M. Woodbury, Stephen D. Durrant and Seville Flowers (1960), 128 PP., 24 figs., 8 tables, (Upper Colorado series No 2) •••••••••••••• Price $1.75.

46.

Historical Sites in Glen canyon, Mouth of San Juan River to Lees Ferry, by C. Gregory Crampton (1960), 146 pp., 39 figs., (Glen canyon series No. 12) . OUT OF PRINT 23

. "

47.

•

-..- ,.'

- ..--.- --..-.,

- .--

Archeology of the Death Valley Salt Pan, California, by A1ic e ,Hunt (1960), 329 ppl" 87, figs., 13 tables • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• OUT OF PRINT

48. Ecological 3lldies of the Flora and Fauna of Flaming-

Go£ge Re~t::!IvoiI Basin, utah and Wyoming, by Seville Flowers, et al. (1960), 251 pp., 14figs., 1 table. (Upper Colorado S~ries, No.3) ••••••••••••••• Price $3.25.

49.

1959 Excavations, Glen Canyon Area, by William D. Lipe, et al., with an addendum by Dee Ann Suhm (1960), 273 pp., 1 appendix, 55 figs., I table ••••••••• Price $3.50 (Glen canyon Series, No. 13)

50.

The Archeological Excavations at Willow Beach, Arizona, 1950, by .Albert H. Schroedar (1961), 172 Pp., I appendix, 40 figs., 25 tables •••• ~ •••••••••••••••••••• Price $3.25

51.

Survey of Vegetation in the Navajo Reservoir Basin, by Angus M. Woodbury, Stephen D. Durrant and Seville Flowers (1961),; - 106 PP., 12 figs., 9 tables •• };rice $1.60 (Upper Colorado Series , No.4)

1960 Excavations, Glen Canyon Area, by Floyd W. Sharrock, et a1., with addendum by David M. Pendergast (1961) 372 PP., 2 appendices, 101 figs., 18 tables •••••• price!4.75 (Glen Can~on Series No. 14)

53.

Prehistoric Settlement and Physical Environment in the Mesa Verde Area, by Joyce Herold (1961), 218 PP., 26 figs., 9 tables •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• OUT OF PRD T

54.

The Hoskaninni Papers, Mining in Glen Canyon, 1897-1902, by Robert B. Stanton, edited by C. G::,egory Crampton and Dwight L. Smith (1961), 196 PP., 36 figs.,i.Price $2.75 (Glen Canyon Series, No. 15) , -

55.

Ecological Studies of the Elora and Fauna of Navajo Reservoir Basin, Colorado and New Mexicn, by Angus M. Woodbury, et aI, (1961), 210 pp.~ 22 figs.,.Price$2.50 (Upper Colorado Series, No.5)

56.

A S~rvey of Vegetation in the Curecanti Reservoir Basins, by Angus M. Woodbury, Stephen D. Durrant and Seville Flowers (1962)t 106 PP., 12 figs., 9 tab1es •• Price $1.50 (Upper Colorado Series, No.6)

Numbers 57-58 bound under one cover, $2.00) 57. Carnegie Museum Collection from Southeast Utah, by Floyd W. Sharroc.k and Edward G. Keane (1962), 77 PP., 18 figs. 1 table. (Glen Canyon Series, NO. 16) 24

58.

A Preliminary Survey of the Fontenella Reservoir, Wyoming, by David S. Dibble alid Kent C. Day (1962) t .48 pp., 7 figs., 3 tables. .... (Uppe:t; C9+orado Series, No •. 7)

59.

Ecological Studies of tee Flora and Fauna of the Curecanti Reservoir Basins, Western Coloraao, by Angus M. Woodbury, et al. (1962), 291 PP., 20 figs., 13 tables. (Upper Colorado Series, No. 8~ ••••••••••• Price $4.00

60.

Miscellaneous Collected Papers 1-7, by James H. Gunnerson, David M. Pendergast and Kei th M. Anderson (1962), 170 PP., 44 figs., 5 tab1es ••••••••••••••••••••••• Price $2.75

61.

Historical Sites in Glen Canyon, Mouth of Hansen Creek to the Mouth of San Juan River, by C. Gregory Crampton (19 1i2 ), 128 PP., 38 figs., 5 atlas sheets, ~ . tab1e.OUrr OF PRIN~ (Glen Canyon Series, No. 17) -

62.

Civilizations in Desert Lands, edited by Richard B. Woodbury (1962). 94 pp., 3 figs ••••••••• OUT OF P~

63.

1961 Excavations, Glen Canyon Area, by Floyd W. Sharrock, Kent C. Day and David S. Dibble (1963), 401 pp.!4 appendices, 93 figs., 20 tab1es, ••••••••••••••• price ~5.50 (Glen canyon Series, No.18) 65, 66 bound under one cover, $4.50) 1961 Excavations, Harris Wash, Utah, by Don D. Fowler (1963), 120 pp., 33 figs., 2 tables. (Glen canyon Series, No. 19)

Numbe 1:S 64,

64.

65.

Archeological Survey of the Flaming Gorge Reservoir Area, Wyoming-Utah, by Kent C. Day and David S. Dibble, with addenda by David M. Pendergast and Kent C. Day (1963), 118 PP., 19 figs., 3 tables. (Upper Colorado Series,No.9)

66. '.1961 Exca,rations, Kaiparowits Plateau, Utah, by Don D. Fowler and C. Melvin Aikens (1963), 110 pp., 2 appellldicen., 55 fig .s, 2 tables (Glen Canyon Series, No. 20) 67.

Washo Indians of California and Nevada, Warren E.detAzevedo, ed (1964), 208 PP., annotated bibliography.Price $2.75

68,

Havasupai Religion and Mythology, by Carma Lee Smithson and Robert C. Euler (1964), 120 PP., ••• OUT OF PRINT

69.

Southern Paiute Efu nology, by Isabel T. Kelly (1964) t 214 PP., foldout map, 7 figs., bibliography, (Glen Canyon Series, No. 21) •••••••• Out OF PRINT-REPRINT PIANNED.

70.

The San Juan Canyon Historical Sites, by C. Gregory Crampton (1964), 92 PP~7 8 maps, 25 figs, bibliography. (Glen Canyon Series, No. 22) ••••••••••••••••••• Price ·$1.75 25

Kaiparowits Plateau and Glen Canyon Prehistory: An Interpretation Based on Ceramics, by Florence C. Lister (1964), 91 PP., (Glen Canyon Series, No.23) Price $1.75 72.

Historical Sites in Cararact and Narrow Canyons~ and in Glen Canyon to California Bar, by C. Gregory Crampton (1964), 108 pp., 36 figs., bibliography. (Glen ' Canyon Series, No. 25) •••••••••••••••••••••••••• Price $3.00 1962 Excavations, Glen Canyon Area, by Flody W. Sharrock (1964), 195 pp., 59 figs., 8 tables, bibliography. (Glen Canyon Series, No. 25) •••••••••••••••••• ~Price $3.00

74.

Notes on the Human Ecology of Glen Canyon, by Angus M. Woodbury (1965), 70 pp., 3 figs., 1 table, bibliography. (Glen Canyon Series, No. 26) ••••••••••••• Price $1.50

75.

Miscellaneous Collected Papers 8-10, by Emma Lou Da,'is, Ro1a~d H. Wauer, and Albert H. Schroeder (1?65)1 110 PP., 30 f1gs., ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~ ••• ~Pr1ce ~2.00

76.

Excavations in Southwest Utah, by C. Melvin Aikens (1965) 153 pp., 40 figs., 9 tables ............... Price $2.00 .,

77.

Prehistoric Occupation Patterns in Southwest Wyoming and Cqltural Relationships with the Great Basin and Plains Cultural Areas, by Floyd W. Sharrock (1966), 215 pp., 97 figs., 9 tables •••••••••••• ~ ••• Price $4.00 8 ••••••

78.

Southern Paiute Ethnohistory, by Robert C. Euler (1966) 173 PP., 62 figs., 2tables ••••• ~ •••••••• Price $4.00

79.

Virgin-Kayenta Cultural Relationships, by C. Mdvin Aikens (1966)~ 85 pp., 1 fig. (Glen Canyon Series, No. 29) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Price $4.00

80.

Corn, Cucurbits and Cotton from Glen Canyon, by Hugh C. Cutler (1966), 116 pp., 12 figs., 8 tables. (Glen Canyon Series, No. 30) •••••••••••••••••••••••••• Price $4.00

81.

Glen Canyon: A summary by Jesse D. Jennings (1966) 90 pp., 50 figs.,(G1en Cayon Series, No.3l) Price $4.00

Numbers 82-87 do not have the prices listed. Please write to the publishers for the prices if you are interested in these papers. 82.

Fremont-Promontory-Plains Relationships, by C. Melvin Aikens with an appendix by Erik K. Reed.

83.

Miscellaneous Collected Papers 11... 14, including: 11. Excavations at Gunlock Flats, Southwestern Utah, by Kent C. Day 26

12.

An Archeological Survey df Canyonlands National Pari;:, by Floyd W. SharroCk. ,

13.

The Archeology of Boundary Village, By Larry L. Leach.

14. Utah Crania of the Historic P~riod and Basin Shoshonean Physical Type, by Erik K, Reed. 84.

Caldwell Village by J. Richard Ambler with appendices by Erik K. Reed, Christy G. Turner' II, William G. Haag, Stephen D. Durrant, and J. Richard Ambler, Richard L. Warren,. and Hugh C. Cutler. 118 pp., 50 fig.

85.

Dentition of Meroitic, X-Group, and Christian populations from Wade HaIfa, Sudan by David Lee Greene (Nuhian Se,r ies #1) 65 PP., 12 figs. Creamic studies of the Historic Periods in Ancient Nubia. by Florence '.C. Lister. (Nuhian Series, #2) 119 pp.,34 Fig.

87.

Excavations at Snake Rock village and The Bear River No.2 Site by C. Melvin Aikens with an appenctix by K.T. Harper 65 pp .. , 44 figs.

- - --- - -

- -

The papers Nos. 76 and 77 were reviewed Âˇin Ameriaan Antiquity, Vol. 32, No.3; July 1967. "'lith the permissioll of -tne 'e-crrtors ana the authors we reprint these two reviews. Excavation in Southwest Utah. C. Melvin Aikens, University of Utah Ant ropo logic- al ' Pap e'rs-,- r\rc)~"7 6, Salt Lake City,. 1965. x + 153 pp., 40 figs., 9 tables, bibliography. $2.00. The University of Utah, aided by National Science Founda tion grants, recently record~d 49 sites in southwest Utah, 8 of which were excavated and are ' here reported by Aikens . The purpose was to obtain data from this spatsely studied region to ascertain archaeological relationships with the Glen Canyon region to the east. All sites e~cavated fit within the , Developlileutal Pueblo period which Aikens places between A. D. 700 and 1200. Two caves yffilded a few artifacts and debris plus a slabline firepit and remnant of a small, masonry storeroom. Of the six open sites excavated, four a had both dwelling and storage rooms and two yielded storage structures only. In Johnson Canyon t northeast of Kanab, the Sand Hill site produced several s cattered, circular to rectangular, semisubterranean, slablined cists, plUS an east-facing are of five, semisubterranean, ' quadrilateral, slab-lined storerooms ~djacent, (~ot contiguous) to one another. Floors of these struc tures were slab-paved and remains of one to three courses of ~asonry were found behind to tcp of the verical slabs. ' Nei.rby Bonanza DUne exhibited t at various levels in a dune, . ~ndividÂ ual, circular, slab-lined 'pit houses which lacked ev idence of masonry walls behind the slabs. Some of these contained a few floor post ,

2'7

holes, which did not form a pattern for roof supports, plus other post holes hehind the vertical slabs. Tw~ floors in the upper part of the dune had clay "partition!! ridges, and another dwelling lower in the dUne had a slab-faced and cap~ed bench around the edge of the floor area. Associated with some of the pit houses at different levels were smaller, circular, slab-lined and paved cists. The uppermost featur~ in the dUne was a partly eroded, masonry-walled, fUlly. subterranean structure (with two loom anchor holes in the floor) which Aikens lanels a kiva. These architectural remains represent six supetimposed building periods with no particular variety throughout. Since only a part of the dUne was excavated, other features may have been involved. 1'1:\ -the Zion National :Park region, Lamb Knoll Caves contributed little ~ r chitecturally

or otherwise. Nearby Parunuweap Knell produced a north-south alignment 'of adjacent, circular, slab-lined cists (some slab-paveq.) with e,ridence' of masonry behind the slabs.

Three site s excavated in the S t. George area provided little to estab l is h an a r ch i t ectural pat t~rn. Gooseneck Overlook contained a rec tan gular, surface, masonr y dwelling room associated with a f ew n ea r by c i rcular and rectangul ar slab-lined cists, again with evid enc e of mas onr y b ehind t he slabs. The Reusch site y.relded two circul ar pit houses, one s l ab- l i ned and the other clay-plastered ove r ea rth , as s ociated with a re ctangular masonry-walled, slabpaved storeroom. The Three Mile site revealed a large, circular masonry pueblo comprised of un connected sections mostly of slabpaved rectangular storerooms with a few rectangular dwelling rooms in eall:h section. As would be expected, trade ware from the Kayenta (Arizona) area is more common in the eastern sites excavated, while Moapa Gray wa:l:.e (indigenous to the Toroweap area of northern Ar izona) is more frequent in the western sites. Aikens rejects Florence Lister's term "southern Utah variety of Tusayan Wh.it:e VvareT!, and f avors the r etent i on o f the Vi r gin Series of this ware which, with Shina r ump White wa r e, is common at the sites excavated. Li lce others b ef o r e him, Aike ns pr oposeS. that the Johnson Series be in clud ed in the Virg in Se ri es. This should be sufficient to drop the former f r om the 'ce r amic re cord. Th~ report suffers one weakness. Th ough the problem as stated was 'oriented twward relationships with Glen Canyon archaeology, this paper only lightly treats ceramics with this view in mind~ That subject finds more specific treatment in I!Virgin-Kayenta Cultural Relationshipsltt the subsequent Paper Po. 79 in this same series. Correlat1on between site plans and text is sometimes difficult due to a general lack of scaled and/or labeled plans and of profiles of individual architectural structures. These remarks are not intended to detract from AikenTs report which provides much needed information. It is hoped that this work will lead to more detailed, comparative studies of the 1nteresting architectural and artifactual developments in the 28

"puebloidU strip north of the Colorado River and south of the mountains of s~uthern utah. Albert H. Schroeder National Park Service Sante Fe, New Mexico Prehistoric Occupatinn Patterns 1.n Southwest '''-'yorning rtnd Culturrtl Relationships with the Great Basin and Plains Culture Areas. Floyd W. Sllar.t:oclc with appendixes by Armand J. Eardle y and J. Des mond Clal"k. Anthrr,poligical Papers of the University of Utah. I~O. 77. University of Utah Pr~ss, Salt Lake City, 19~6.xii + 215 pages., 97 fig., 9 tables, bibliography. $4 .00 repQrt is a carefully thought-out contrihution io the problem of Plains-Great Rasin relationships. Sharreck has d()ne an excellent job of evaluating typically scanty and fragmentary evidence from his own and other investigations. His focus is on the lower Rridge.r Basin of southwestern Wyoming and northeastern l)tah. Here a threelevel, stratif ied, quarry-worlcshop and camps it e called the Pine Spring site wa~ excavated. .Exalpination was made of 42 additional sites in the same area, some of which had been previously reported. T~is

The early level (Occupation 1) at the Pine Spring site pr.duced evi~ dence of a h':1-nting ecoTtomy based primarily on bison and mountain sheep. Projectile puints are unfluted lanceolate types, probably part of the plano assemblage but not exactly similar to any named ,'ariants. A radiocarbon date of 7745 B.C. + 195 (GXO-354) is regarded as valid by Sharroclc while another of 9880 li.C .. + 410 (GXO-355) is considered doubtful. The middle level (Occupation 2) demonstrated a mixed gathering and primarily bison and mountain-sheep hunting economy_ Grinding tools and stone-filled fire basins were found' while unfluted lanceolate points, regarded by Sharrock as a continuation of those of the early level, occurred togehher with a variety of stemmed, corner-notcbed, and relat~ely large side-notched points. A radiocarbon date of 1685 B.C + 80 (GXO-356) was associated. The late le,rel (Occupation 3) suggeStS the persistence of a similar mixed economy. . Âˇ Stemmed and corner-notched points continued and Dese rt S ide-notched points 't!.'I>p"eared'l while lanceulate forms ''Jere not present. Fremont sherds suggest an approximate date of A.D. 950-1200. Sur~eyed

sites which possessed diagnostic features appeared noruder than the middle level at Pi~e Spring. Types observed included campsites f Ittipi rings, It granarie s J masonry walls, and outlines of stones.

Sharrock devoted particular attention to an evaluation of E. B. Renaud's Blacks Fork culture~ He examined 10 sites in Uinta County that included the type and leey sites .f the Blacks Fork typical cuI ture.! He Conc ludes that Âˇthe temporal proglession of Typica 1 to Peripheral to Sand Dune cultures is not valid. Collections and obsetvations indicated that the Sand Dune and Typical cultures are the same and that the Typica 1 cuI ture d1.ff e rs from the Peripheral 29

only in that the former occurs where the Ly man Terrace surface and its characteristic fractured cobbles are . present. He takes issue with Renaud ~rx conclusion that weathering on flake scars of some artifacts of the Typical culture indicates deposition during the formation of the Lyman Terrace and hence a probable age for them of 30,000 to 40,000 years. Sharrock states that none of the highly weathered specimens are artifacts but conform in all respects to the naturally weathered, desert pavement chert and quartzite of the terrace surface. Sharrock concludes from his survey and from stratified materials at the Pine Spring site that the ubiquitous core biface "choppers" or quarry blanks which ha,7e long been objects of inte rest in th e Northwestern Plains and adjacent mountains are, in the Bridger Basin area, of the same age p.s . lithe projectile points, pottery tipi rings, and steatite vessels with which they occur." He further pants out that when they are found unassociated with index artifa cts they should not be a.ssumed, without ev idence, to be much older than other sites in the area. Such bifaces occurred in all culture levels at the Pines Spring site and represent a persistent, morphologically and typologically unchanging artifact without value as a temporal or cultural index. While these are observations that shoul~ not have to be made,. in view of past speculations about such' attifacts the reviewer regards them a3 most relevant. ' After detailed comparisons with surrounding materials, Sharrock concludes that his materials seem most closely related to, but not identical with ,. the No r thwestern Plains sequence. ' l{e does , not see wholesale migratioQ.s but only a preponde.rence 'of diffus ed influence from the east. ' As the review sees the Bridger Basin materials from the perspective of the Northwestern Plains, much appears to suggest a basically similar sequence of events and a few things that are different a.ud puzzling. The early level at Pine Spring demon&trates an o.ssemblage comfortably in the Plano tradition and one that would occasion no surprise if found in the North'o'Jestern Plains. The date of ca. 8000 B. C. is slightly early but reasonable.' The middle level, with its mixed hunting-and-gathering economy, stemmed, corner-notched and large side-notched projectile points, grinding tools, stone-filled fire basins, and a date about 1700 B.C. is also what might be expected in a l ~rthwestern Plains Middle period site of the same antiquity. On the other hand the continuation of early level lanceolate points and Sharrock's implication of continuity would be surpris~ng. In the Northwestern Plains the greatest dtscontinuity would be expected here, and one would also expect it to be associated with adaptively unf~vorable altithermal conditions not in ev~~ence at Pine Spring. Though illustrations of .Sharrock1s early and middle level lanceolate points cprtainly appear morphologically similar, the possibility that they may belong to diffe~ent traditions should not be entirely disconted for future ~dies â&#x20AC;˘ . A period Âˇof 6000 years is long for a projectile point style Âˇ tb ; remain unchanged. Perhaps the later examples could represent a style 30 :.

distantly related to the McKean ianceolate point of the Middle period in the Northwestern Plains. In view of Sharrock's opinion of continuity, it is wo~th suggesting the possibility that u~favora~le alt~ thermal conditions may have been less apparent at h1gh alt1tude s1tes in the mountains (Pine Spring elevation, ca. 7,700 ft.) than at lower elevations in the Plains and occupational continuiy might in fact have existed. In the late level more emphasis on Quffalo hunting and less on gathering might have been anticipated in the Northwestern Plains, though here the mountain environment easily accounts for the difference. Small side~notched projectile points might also have been expected in greater . frequency. william Mulloy University of wyoming Laramie, Wyoming ~

-- - --- -- - U.S.A.S. Club News

Utah County Chapter: President: Vice Pres: Sec.& Treas.; Reporter:

reported by Gloria Barnett

Dr. Kyle Clark 1191 Ea~t 930 North, Provo, Utah Darrell Haws 597 Aarib Drive, Sp.ringvi1le, Utah Katheryn Tuttle 640 South 100 East, Springville. Annie . Krebs 3353 Cherikee Lane, Provo, Utah

The meetings the past year were held at many members homes, to view collections. January we met at LaMar Groneman's home in Springville. This "ms a meeting and soc ill. The March .' meeting was held at the home of Wayri~ Allred in ·Lehi~ The Allred~ had Fred and Barbara Saxon frpm Salt Lake show slides of Old Mexico Indian Ruins tete. The February meeting was held at Wilford Mellors in Springv1l1e. We enjoyed their collection of pioneer relics.· In April the club visited the B.Y.U. Library and the department of Ancient History under the direction of Chad Flake , We felt this was a most interes tin g meeting, and a privilege. The May meeting was held at the James Wardle residence in Springville. They have a large collection of articles f rom allover the world as well as the Uni~ed States. We saw the collection of the Alma Banks in June, which included fossils. During the su~mer months no meetings were held. The November meeting was held in the Grant School where John Cross was the speaJter" It was most enjoyable. Work meetings were held durting the year. We made pottery from raw clay, Indian head dresses and arrow points .. We gained a deeper appreciation for the real art in making these articles. The retiring President for 1968 is LaMar Groneman. . Cache

.A~heologica1

Presiden t: Vice Pres.: Sec. & T re as • :

and Geo10giml Society:

by Relda Jorgensen

E~ Leland Jorgensen 622 Canyon Road, Logan Utah. George Crookston 237 i~orth 4th East, Logan, Utah. Relda Jorgensen 622 Canyon Road, Logan Utah~

Board of Directors: Erwin Moser; H. Merrill Peterson; Albert Zbinde~ publicity Chairman: Paul Miller Housing Chairwoman: Vivian ivIiller Membership Chairman:: sam Holt Hospitality Chairmep: Ira and Valarie Hyer SUnshine Chairwoman: Sally Erickson Historians ~ De10y and Lola Ashliman . . Rock Show Chairman: Owen C. Anderson and Carl Felix Field Trip Chairm9.w: Roy Sorenson; :Lester ~owe and Mark Checketts Summer ' Patty Chairmen: , Ellis and Mer Ie Kin,gsford (the reverse order Christm::t Party Chairme'n :Carl and Claxis Felix . [of chai:t;menis corree ' The Ca c ,~ Geological and Archeological Society had an enjoyable year this. pas.t season. We had a very sU6cessfui Rock Show April 27 and 28th 1968, at the Logan High School. There was a very good participation in the displays by the members of the club. A large crowd attended Lester Lowe was the chairman of the show. Seve'ral ~e:mb.ers of · the club partic ipated i!l .§. S ilversmi thing class held at the Sky View High ,scbool •.' H~ Me'rr ill Peterson was in charge of arrangements. for' th is activity • and Ellen. Sorensen represented .our club at the Northwestern Federatl.on Rock Show and convention held at Eugene, Ore gon.' The y showed us some fine pictures of their trip and the Rock Show.

R~y

Mr • and },tlrs. Emil Roseneau presented an inte.resting film ("n making CabashoqsJ how,to c~t, select and pol{Sh them.

also had an interesting program given' by Mr. Llo yd Gunther on fossils and crystals.

Dr. Gordon Keller presented a program on the Indian Ruins in the Grand Canyon. Dr. Keller is at the Utah State University. "Indians and Early Settlers in 'this area," was, an interesting lecture presented by Dr. George ~llsworth. Dr. Melvin Aikens of the University of Utah gllve a program and brief aistory of the area around Hogup Cave and the Indians that roamed the country thousands of years ago. This was enjoyed very much by all. Dr. Don Olson of the Utah State Univ~rsity gave a talk with pictures ans slides of his year spent in Brazil. He showed some of the precious rocks and gems he brought baGk from Brazil. A 1 '''I.''~ l.y '~llmm~,: r: .~'b'( w a~ held Aug. 15th at the Carl Felix ca.b;i..... .i.n . Logan .Canyon. A Chr1stmas pa:ct.y was he1d by vho ~lu}? ,,"olUh-ers,. which was enjoyed by all atte~ding. Some of ' our members participated :with the Ogd~n club on a field trip to the Lucin area for v ericite. A field trip was enjoyed by many of our members to Texas Springs for pink wood. Don Buckingham was field trip chairman.

-----

...

Note: The Logan Chapter held their Rock show on April 26th and 27th this year. The Sunset 4-H clubs studying rock projects went up and really enjoyed the things they saw and learned. There were many interesting collections of artifacts also.

THE SAGA OF DAVE NORDELL He tied his outfit in front, and strode in through the door. He was a stranger to every rider that loafed in front of the Price Trading store. One rider stood with eyes bulging, and beckoned back to me. I knew it must be something different he wanted me to see. I looked out through the window, and tied there to the rack, Was a tawny mountain lion, with a saddle on its. back. Something else amazed me, and really raised my hair-Standing near with pack on back, was a wild eyed grizzley bear. I looked this outfit over and my knees began to quake For thronged on like the usual quirt, I saw a rattlesnake! Curiosity overcame me - I must know something more, As I gazed at that outfit just outside the door. I turned back to the stranger, and caught his eyes on me. As he sized me up from head to foot, with great intensity.

))

c:./

UTAH ARCHEOLOGY Department of Anthropology University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah 84112

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION

84102