Utah Archaeology Volume 29, Number 1, 2016 by Utah Historical Society

2016

UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY Volume 29, No. 1

2016

UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY Volume 29, No. 1

Editor: Christopher W. Merritt Guest Editor:

Technical Editor/Designer

Judson Finley

Amy Barry USAS Officers:

Ryan Moreau, President Sara Stauffer, Secretary Chanel Atwood, Treasurer Ren Thomas, State Newsletter Charmaine Thompson, USAS Advisor James R. Allison, USAS Advisor Ron Rood, USAS Advisor Chrisopther Merritt, USAS Advisor Margene Hackney, Parliamentarian Aaron Oldroyd, Webmaster UPAC Council: Andrew Yentsch, President Jody Patterson, VP Government Affairs and Research Kenny Winter, VP Membership and Ethics Stephanie Lechert, Secretary Arie Leeflang, Treasurer Jamie Palmer, Media Coordinator/Newsletter Editor Christopher Merritt, Utah Archaeology Journal Editor Jamie Palmer, Webmaster

A publication of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society Utah Professional Archaeological Council Utah Division of State History

Cover: Sketch of The Running Warrior and Mountain Sheep panel provided by Mark E. Stuart. (see page 156 this volume).

Utah Archaeology is an annual publication of USAS, UPAC, and the Utah Division of State History. The journal focuses on prehistoric and historic archaeological research relevant to Utah. It is provided as a benefit for individual membership in either USAS or UPAC. Membership information for UPAC is found at www.upaconline.org/membership.html and USAS at www.utaharchaeology.org/membership. html. Journal submissions, questions, comments, or information requests can be sent to the editor at the following address:

2016

UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY Volume 29, No. 1

IN MEMORIAM E. Jay Nelson (1944-2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Joel C. Janetski

Utah Archaeology Editor 300 S. Rio Grande Street (450 West) Salt Lake City, UT 84101

ARTICLES

E-mail: cmerritt@utah.gov

A Phoenix from the Ashes: Interpreting Destruction and Reconstruction at Salt Lake City’s Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Train Maintenance Facility (42SL718) . . . . . .3 Stephanie Lechert, Sheri Murray Ellis and Anne Oliver Fremont Occupation of the Utah Valley Uplands The View from Jay’s Place and Kay’s Cabin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Joel C. Janetski Quantifying Utah’s Past: An Archaeology Data Assessment and Synthesis of Utah through 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Arie Leeflang

Copyright © 2016 by the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society (USAS) and the Utah Professional Archaeological Council (UPAC). Printed and bound at the University Press Building, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. United States of America.

Prehistoric Diets and Medicines of the Utah Great Basin: Using Ethnohistory to Explore Botanical Remains from Spotten Cave Human Coprolites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Madison Pearce A Historic Native American Child Burial from Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Ronald J. Rood, Kevin T. Jones, Nick Jones and Karleen Broadwater AVOCATIONALIST CORNER Fallen Rocks Shelter and Associated Sites: A Fremont Hunting Complex in the Wasatch Mountain Foothills Weber County, Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Mark E. Stuart

ISSN 1040-6449

The paper for this publication meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper).

The Running Warrior Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Mark E. Stuart

The Watermelon Site 42WB72: An Early to Middle Archaic Processing Site In Southeastern Weber County, Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Mark E. Stuart BOOK REVIEW “Nine Mile Canyon:The Archaeological History of an American Treasure” . . . . . . . 167 DIGITAL ARTICLES The Dimple Dell Site: Late Archaic-Formative Transition Period Occupations in the Salt Lake Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Lance M. McNees and Craig S. Smith Here Today, Buried Tomorrow: Treatment Evaluation of 153 Archaeological Sites Recorded After The Milford Flat Fire ESR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Heidi Roberts and Amanda Landon

IN MEMORIUM E. Jay Nelson (1944-2016)

Joel C. Janetski Port Townsend, Washington

volunteered for excavation and other projects in the valley. When I decided to follow up on Wheeler’s work in West Canyon, I asked Jay for his help as he knew West Canyon well. Jay chose a spot that we called Jay’s Place (42UT120). Our excavations, done with the help of dedicated USAS folks and BYU archaeology students, found several unique features. A partial report of that work is included in this volume of Utah Archaeology. More than once I relied on photos Jay or Merianne took of site excavations when I didn’t have just the right shot or my camera failed me. Jay and Merianne pursued their interest in West Valley and beyond by spending countless hours interviewing local collectors in an attempt to add provenience information to those individual collections. In addition, they donated their West Canyon collections and survey notes to the Museum of Peoples and Cultures several years ago. Daughter Judy Boretsky’s graveside eulogy tells another side of Jay: a humble man who worked all his life as a diesel mechanic and one who loved and supported his family. I gratefully acknowledge Judy and Merianne for sharing that eulogy and details of Jay’s life.

he Utah Valley Chapter of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Survey lost one of its founding members on August 24th of this year after a lingering illness. Jay had been a long time collector who, along with his wife and constant companion, Merianne, had a love affair with archaeology. West Canyon was a favorite spot, and they followed John Hutchings and Edward Wheeler in pursuing understanding of the ancient human use of that locale. The Nelsons documented Hutchings “mound” locations through photos and survey making a surface collection in the process which they carefully documented by locating finds on a map. We all spent hours at the Hutchings museum in Lehi pouring over those fascinating West Canyon collections. Soon after the Utah Valley USAS chapter was organized, Jay and Merianne became regulars, attending and serving as officers and planners to keep the chapter active. Jay shared information about his collections and took me to sites he knew in the valley that he thought might interest me. Whenever his family and work schedule allowed Jay Utah Archaeology 29(1), 2016, pp. 1–2

Utah archaeology has lost a dedicated steward. and I lost a good friend. Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll all miss Jay Nelson.

A Phoenix from the Ashes: Interpreting Destruction and Reconstruction at Salt Lake City’s Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Maintenance Facility (42SL728) Stephanie, Lechert†, Sheri Murray Ellis* and Anne Oliver† †SWCA Environmental Consultants, *Certus Environmental Solutions Remains of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad train maintenance facility (42SL718), originally built in 1882 in Salt Lake City, Utah were discovered during construction of the Utah Transit Authority’s new Depot District Service Center in July 2014. Subsequent monitoring and mitigation uncovered and documented 94 features and thousands of artifacts across the site. These features and artifacts, placed in the context of historic background research, tell the story of 70 years of construction and reconstruction at the train maintenance facility in the aftermath of four destructive fires. Site 42SL718 provides a unique look at the evolution of the railroad on the west side of Salt Lake City between 1882 and the late 1950s, and reveals how this area retains its ties to modern transportation-related buildings and structures.

t is easy to forget that fire was once a common, if dangerous, part of urban life. Although constant efforts were made to reduce its risk, fire has been a major force in shaping cities into the places we know today. In the late nineteenth century, one strategy to control the incidence and spread of fire was to place hazardous sites, particularly heavy industrial sites like factories and rail yards, at the edges of cities. During the summer of 2014, a crew from SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA), in conjunction with Certus Environmental Solutions (Certus), conducted monitoring and mitigation-level documentation at just such a site, an approximately 1.4-acre portion of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad maintenance facility (42SL718) in Salt Lake City, Utah (Figure 1). The site was uncovered during construction of the Utah Transit Authority’s new Depot District Service Center. Archaeological discoveries soon made it apparent that evidence of several iterations of the maintenance facility remained beneath the surface of the vacant lot. These observations were supplemented by archival research, which revealed that the history of the facility, in use from 1882 through the late 1950s, was characterized by at least four periods of construction or reconstruction after destructive Utah Archaeology 29(1), 2016, pp. 3–28

fires and a fifth period that ended with the demolition of the facility (Figure 2). Historical Background When the Salt Lake Valley was first settled in 1847 by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (hereafter referred to as the Latter-day Saints or Mormons), the area was largely isolated from the rest of the nation. Few, if any, established trails existed, and no rail lines passed near the area. Communications beyond the settlement were limited to handdelivered messages, and all supplies that could not be produced or extracted locally were brought in by wagon. The completion of the Transcontinental Railroad north of the valley in 1869 changed everything. Within a few years, rail lines, many of which were local interurban lines built and owned by Utah-based entrepreneurs, wove their way throughout the Utah Territory, connecting the once-remote Mormon settlements to the national landscape. The development of the railroad network both spurred and responded to discoveries in the mining industry in the 1870s and 1880s. During these early years, the Union Pacific Railroad 3

Lechert et al. [A Phoenix from the Ashes]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Figure 2. The D&RGW’s Salt Lake City maintenance facility in September 1948, prior to demolition in the 1950s. Photograph by Emil Albrecht in the Don Strack Collection. Used with permission by Don Strack.

Figure 1. Project location. The archaeological site boundary corresponds with the study area for the project.

Company dominated the freight transport sector. The company owned, operated, or otherwise controlled most of the major rail trunk lines that carried mineral products to buyers outside of Utah. The vast wealth pouring out of Utah mines and smelters and into Union Pacific Railroad Company coffers attracted a lot of attention, and soon eager entrepreneurs appeared on the stage. The Denver & Rio Grande Railway was incorporated in Colorado in 1870 by Civil War veteran General William Jackson Palmer and his associates with the intention of providing a link between the transcontinental railroads that passed to the north and south of the state (Bradley 1996). Intense competition brought an end to this plan,

and the Denver & Rio Grande Railway focused instead on the construction of a transcontinental bridge line between Denver and Salt Lake City that would also tap into the lucrative traffic from the mineral and coal mines in the mountains of Colorado and Utah (Carr and Edwards 1989:188). In 1881, the Denver & Rio Grande Railway created a subsidiary company, the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railway (D&RGW, later the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad), to oversee construction of the line. The new route crossed the Rocky Mountains into Utah, passing through the town of Green River, the rugged Book Cliffs, and the Wasatch Range, and on to Salt Lake City. The D&RGW soon came to

epitomize mountain railroading and maintained the highest main line railroad in the country— at nearly 11,000 feet for one stretch—through spectacular scenery. The company eventually adopted the motto, “Thru the Rockies, Not Around Them” (Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad n.d. [1936]). The mountain route also led the D&RGW to adopt a “fast freight” strategy using multiple engines to pull shorter trains with more frequent service in an effort to compete with the flatter routes and shorter travel times of competitors (Griffin 2003). As the route neared completion, the D&RGW established a regional maintenance facility in Salt Lake City. It is the remnants of this facility that were discovered during construction excavations in the summer of 2014.

Episodes of Fire and Rebuilding At least five fires have been documented at the D&RGW’s Salt Lake City maintenance facility since its initial construction, and each was followed by a period of reconstruction, renovation, or expansion, as follows: • 1882 to 1905: Initial construction and expansion through Fire #1 • 1905 to 1913: Reconstruction through Fires #2 and #3 • 1913 to 1922: Reconstruction through Fire #4 • 1922 to 1938: Reconstruction through Fire #5 • 1938 to the late 1950s: Reconstruction through facility closure and site demolition

Lechert et al. [A Phoenix from the Ashes]

Figure 3. View of the D&RGW maintenance facility and its surroundings in 1905. Photograph used with permission of the Utah State Historical Society, Shipler Commercial Photographers Collection, Mss C 275, Shipler #14811.

1882 to 1905: Construction and Expansion through Fire #1 Beginning in 1882, the D&RGW developed the western terminus of their new mountain route on a 90-acre plot at what was then the western edge of Salt Lake City (Carr and Edwards 1989:188; Salt Lake Tribune 1882a). The site was to house the rail yard itself, along with machine shops, one or more roundhouses, and a passenger depot. Construction of the yard proved to be challenging because the location was reportedly low and swampy, which was the primary reason it had not been developed previously as the city expanded to the west from its initial downtown core. D&RGW builders imported fill material from a nearby gravel pit to level the area and build it up above the standing surface water (Salt Lake Tribune 1882b). The layout of the yard was arranged such that future expansion would be possible without acquisition of additional

property. The roundhouse was designed to accommodate 44 engine stalls, 22 of which were to be constructed initially and the rest added later when needed (Salt Lake Tribune 1882b). As built, the machine shops, boiler house, wood working shops, and other facilities at the yard were located near 300 South between 600 West and 700 West in Salt Lake City. The first buildings were erected on foundations of “piles and rocks” and were constructed of “brick and stone” (Salt Lake Tribune 1882c). The maintenance facilities were completed and in use by the end of March 1883, when the D&RGW’s Denver–Salt Lake City segment was completed (Salt Lake Tribune 1883). Significant changes were made to the yard beginning in 1900 (Figure 3). A planned expansion of the rail yard shop facilities necessitated expansion of the track system itself, both to move trains and equipment to the appropriate shops and to store the increasing number of engines

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

and rail cars moving through the yard. By late 1900, construction crews were at work realigning existing tracks and installing new ones. At the time, the D&RGW owned the land between 600 West and 700 West and as far south as 800 South. The land south of 500 South was reportedly largely vacant and was to be used for several new siding tracks (Salt Lake Tribune 1900a). A new power plant to supplement the existing coal-fired steam system was constructed at the facility in 1901 (Salt Lake Tribune 1901). The power plant and dynamo system were designed to improve the efficiency of energy use and decrease the cost of operations by reducing the volume of coal needed to fire the plants and overcome the energy waste of the existing system (Salt Lake Tribune 1900b). The plant was expected to help advance the yard as one of the most modern railroad maintenance facilities in the United States (Salt Lake Tribune 1900c). The actual and planned expansion of the yard prompted the D&RGW to request that the Salt Lake City Council approve the closure of several existing roads so that permanent structures could be erected in their place (Salt Lake Tribune 1900c). The request was granted in 1901, but it would take another 2 years for construction of the new and expanded facilities to begin in earnest. When construction contracts were issued in late 1903, the D&RGW estimated capital costs of the expansion to be no less than $255,000 (Salt Lake Tribune 1903). However, some of this investment proved to be for naught. Fire broke out in the shops just before Christmas in 1905, destroying an estimated $40,000 worth of buildings and equipment (Salt Lake Tribune 1905a, 1905b). The engine house and car shop (also known as the repair shop) were burned to the ground, and the paint shop was damaged but narrowly saved. Railroad cars were built primarily of wood until the mid-1920s and were extremely flammable. Car shops burned easily due to both the amount of dry, seasoned wood in the buildings and the railroad cars that were inside for repair (Don Strack, personal communication 2016).

1905 to 1913: Reconstruction through Fires #2 and #3. The fire of 1905 slowed the D&RGW’s plans but did not stop them. The company soon set about rebuilding the lost and damaged structures, reconfiguring elements of the facility layout in the process. The best documentation for construction after the 1905 fire comes from the Sanborn Map Company’s fire insurance maps from 1911, which document the site layout and the numerous facilities found there. The Salt Lake City shops could complete all levels of freight car and passenger car construction, repair, and maintenance. Within the area studied for this project, buildings and structures included a boiler house, compressor room, carpenter shops, a planing mill, a shop for turning car wheels and axles, a pattern shop, a blacksmith shop, and a 10-foot-tall trestle (Figure 4). The planing mill would have been the location of all component manufacture related to wooden cars (Don Strack, personal communication 2016). Lumber yards, warehouses, and an iron works were adjacent to the rail lines (Sanborn Map Company 1911:Sheets 71, 72, 120, 132, 143, 144, 145, 153, and 154). In 1913 two fires occurred, one in January and one in June. The first fire broke out in the tin shop in the area of the yard between 300 South and 400 South. An apparent “water famine” resulted in a lack of pressure in the water lines feeding the yard, and fire fighters were unable to combat the flames effectively (Salt Lake Tribune 1913c). The fire destroyed the tin shop and an adjacent office building, and damaged the roundhouse and machine shop. Repairs and rebuilding began immediately, but the effort would be short-lived as the second fire in June became a massive conflagration that consumed all of the D&RGW facilities between 400 South and 500 South. The car shops, paint shop, blacksmith shop, wheel shop, foreman’s office, woodworking mill, 25 freight cars, five passenger coaches, and part of the boiler house were lost (Salt Lake Tribune 1913b). These two fires proved the costliest

Lechert et al. [A Phoenix from the Ashes]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Figure 5. Fire at the D&RGW maintenance facility in 1913 with bystanders watching from the tops of boxcars. Photograph used with permission of the Utah State Historical Society, Mss C 275, Shipler #01647.

Figure 4. Sanborn fire insurance map from 1911 showing the section of the rail yard within the study area. Images courtesy the University of Utah Marriott Library’s Digital Collections, Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Collection.

and most damaging for the facility in its history (Figure 5). 1913 to 1922: Reconstruction through Fire #4 As destructive as the 1913 fires were, they spurred the D&RGW to envision a larger presence in Salt Lake City with new car shops large enough to accommodate building all future passenger and freight cars to serve the company’s operations in the western states (Salt Lake Tribune 1913b). The new car shops would not be constructed on the site of the old building but near 1000 South, instead. Temporary structures

were erected between 400 South and 500 South while the company determined how to redevelop that land. As the clean-up from the 1913 fires progressed and plans for rebuilding some of the facilities were refined, the D&RGW recognized a need for a viaduct over the rail yard along 400 South, where vehicle traffic was frequently delayed by the passage of trains. A 3,000-foot steel, timber, and concrete viaduct was built in 1913 (Salt Lake Tribune 1913a), but this structure was nearly destroyed by fire just 9 years later, in June 1922 (Salt Lake Telegram 1922). Though no source

for the fire was reported, speculation focused on sparks from a passing locomotive. The viaduct was rebuilt shortly after the fire, but little information can be found about the reconstruction of the yard facilities between 400 South and 500 South during the 1910s. It appears that the temporary structures built immediately after the 1913 fire continued to be used for many years. This was likely due in part to financial woes plaguing the D&RGW—the company defaulted on debt and went into receivership in 1915—and in part to the takeover of all U.S. railroads by the federal government during World War I. American railroads were controlled by the U.S. Railroad Administration between December 1917 and March 1, 1920, at which time control was returned to the previous owners.

1922 to 1938: Reconstruction through Fire #5 When railroad ownership was returned to private enterprise in 1920, the D&RGW was in a financial position to resolve its 1915 receivership problems. By 1923, the D&RGW embarked on another round of construction to improve the rail yard and its associated facilities. The work was part of a $1 million improvement and expansion program for the Salt Lake division of the rail line and was to include additions to existing shop facilities and the storehouse, reconstruction (replacement) of the engine house and roundhouse, and construction of new car shops (Salt Lake Telegram 1923). A clinic/hospital was also to be constructed in the yard during this time. Labor unrest and other woes plagued the construction efforts off and on for several months,

Lechert et al. [A Phoenix from the Ashes]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

and allowed for car loads of coal to be emptied into the building to serve the boilers. The boilers were coal-fired, producing steam that powered either the compressors (for air) or steam-driven generators for electricity to turn the overhead belt-drive systems for the machines in the car shop and the locomotive shop to the north (Don Strack, personal communication 2016).The carpentry shop was located immediately west of the boiler house. These buildings occupied the site that in 1911 had held similar facilities, including

a blacksmith shop, car repair shop, wheel turning shop, boiler house, and paint shop (Sanborn Map Company 1911:Sheets 143 and 144). The years after 1950 were ones of contraction rather than growth at the historic D&RGW Salt Lake City rail yard. Increasing freight competition from the Union Pacific Railroad and the rise in popularity of long-haul trucking eroded the D&RGW’s profits and operating capital. These factors, combined with improvements in diesel engine technology, caused the D&RGW

Figure 6. Aerial image of Salt Lake City in 1931 showing the D&RGW maintenance facility, view facing northeast. The facility is spanned by the 400 South viaduct, which is visible at the center of the photograph. Photograph used with permission of the Utah State Historical Society, Utah State Historical Society Classified Photo Collection, 19045.

but the facilities were completed in June 1924 (Figure 6) and the D&RGW reportedly employed nearly 1,000 workers by 1926 (Deseret News 1924; Salt Lake Telegram 1924, 1926; Salt Lake Tribune 1924). D.C. Cunningham (also listed as D.G. Cunningham in some news articles), Superintendent of “Motive Power,” declared the facilities the “best equipped establishment of its kind in the West” and stated that they were capable of “[turning] out a rebuilt freight car every thirty-five minutes” (Salt Lake Telegram 1926). But the specter of fire was never too far from the rail yard. In January 1938 another fire broke out, this time in the car shops located under and south of the 400 South viaduct, near the location of 42SL718, the archaeological discovery discussed herein. Several local boys spied the

fire and reported it within minutes to rail yard workers. Despite the quick efforts, the car shops were left in wreckage (Salt Lake Telegram 1938). Once again, the D&RGW set about rebuilding. 1938 to the late 1950s: Reconstruction through facility closure and site demolition Sanborn maps indicate that by 1950 a larger boiler house (with a compressor room), a car wheel and axle turning shop, and a large carpentry and wood working shop had been constructed in the area south of 400 South (Sanborn Map Company 1950:Sheets 143 and 144) (Figure 7). The boiler house was located partially under the 400 South viaduct, and the wheel and axle shop was attached to its southern side. A wood trestle extended along the east side of the boiler house

Figure 7. Sanborn fire insurance map from 1950 showing the section of the D&RGW rail yard within the study area. Use of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps: portions of sheets 143 and 144 from the 1950 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of Salt Lake City, Utah reprinted / used with permission from The Sanborn Library, LLC. Images courtesy the University of Utah Marriott Library’s Digital Collections, Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Collection.

Lechert et al. [A Phoenix from the Ashes]

Figure 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture 1958 aerial image of the rail yard showing most of the maintenance facility buildings demolished. Photograph used with permission from the Utah Geological Survey Aerial Imagery Collection.

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

to change and consolidate the nature of its operations. In 1951, the D&RGW closed the locomotive shop in Salt Lake City and shifted all such repair work to Denver. Five years later, in 1956, the company erected a diesel engine shop at the new Salt Lake City Roper Yard, directly south of the old yard and extending from about 2100 South to 3000 South (Strack 2015). Over the next several decades, the D&RGW slowly but gradually abandoned operations at the downtown yard and sold off the property. A 1958 aerial image from the U.S. Department of Agriculture documents that by this time all of the buildings and structures within the location of 42SL718 had been demolished, although several historic buildings and structures remained standing to the north (Figure 8). Demolition removed the surface structures, leaving behind subsurface elements.

Initial research identified the discovery as the site of the historic D&RGW maintenance facility. Through consultation between the Utah Transit Authority, the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (who had provided a grant to build the new fueling depot), and the Utah State Historic Preservation Office, the site was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, it was determined that construction activity at the location would adversely affect the archaeological remains of the historic D&RGW facility. As a result, a treatment plan was prepared to mitigate the adverse effects, and subsequent monitoring and mitigation-level documentation were guided by the plan (Beck 2014; Lechert et al. 2015).

Project Background

Construction activities related to the Depot District Service Center at 42SL718 were allowed to resume with an archaeological monitor in place to document any additional finds. Initial monitoring was conducted by Certus, and SWCA assisted with monitoring after mid-July 2014. SWCA and Certus continued monitoring for approximately 1 week, when ground-disturbing activities in the site area ceased. SWCA and Certus began mitigation activities at the end of July under the approved treatment plan. With oversight by SWCA and Certus archaeological monitors, the overburden was mechanically removed with heavy equipment so that the approximate horizontal and vertical extents of features would be visible. The archaeologists further exposed and cleaned the features using shovels, brooms, and other hand tools, and then documented them in profile and plan view before the features were removed by heavy equipment. Removal of one feature in this way often led to the discovery of another feature adjacent to or below it, and the newly discovered feature was exposed, documented, and removed in the same way (Figure 9). A selected sample of artifacts exposed during feature documentation was collected and will be retained by the Utah Transit Authority for

Site 42SL718 covers a small portion of the historic D&RGW yard and was uncovered during the construction of the Utah Transit Authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s new Depot District Service Center, which is intended to provide a compressed natural gas fueling area for the new public buses purchased to reduce emissions and pollution levels in the Salt Lake Valley. The Depot District Service Center is located between 200 South and 400 South and between approximately 650 West and 750 West, just east of Interstate 15 and west of downtown Salt Lake City. The former D&RGW (now Union Pacific) tracks border the site on the east, and the 400 South viaduct bridge passes over it. Early in the Utah Transit Authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s redevelopment project, construction crews uncovered a very large brick cistern and a concrete foundation, as well as pieces of a boiler system and a large metal auger. The mounds of excavated material surrounding the discovery contained additional pieces of concrete, metal, and other unknown objects. The size of the intact features hinted at the potential for a much larger subsurface component yet to be uncovered.

Methods

Lechert et al. [A Phoenix from the Ashes]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Figure 9. Partially uncovered concrete foundations, view facing south from the 400 South bridge.

possible use in an interpretive display. Additional research was conducted to place the rail yard in historic context and to better understand the chronology of construction and development at the site. Results In all, 94 features, including foundations, concrete footers, coal chutes, I-beams, glass caches, and augers, were identified during monitoring and mitigation activities within the main Depot District Service Center construction area. These features represented nearly 70 years of continuous construction and reconstruction of the same types of buildings and structures on the same location. For all mentions of feature locations and their relationships, see Figure 10. In all, more than 25,000 artifacts were observed across the site during the investigations. Most were glass, brick, unidentified metal pieces, nails,

and spikes. Other artifacts included ceramics of varying types, wire, plastic, unidentifiable objects, tools, milled wood, and wire. A sample of 1,060 artifacts was collected during the mitigation-level documentation. Of the glass artifacts observed at the site, most represented shards from bottles, particularly beverage bottles. Many different makerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s marks were found on the bottle bases, and most of the bases with marks were found in the two glass cache features (Feature [F]-66 and F-67). Three separate versions of the Wisconsin Glass Companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mark were observed in the assemblage (WIS G CO.; W. G. CO. MILW; and WIS GLASS CO. MILW). The Wisconsin Glass Company was located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and operated between 1882 and 1886 (Whitten 2015a). The L.G.CO mark was used by the Lindell Glass Company of St. Louis, Missouri, between 1875 and 1890; they produced large numbers of beer bottles and some blobtop-style soda

Figure 10. Site sketch map showing feature locations uncovered during monitoring and mitigation.

Lechert et al. [A Phoenix from the Ashes]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

ROYALE / FABRICATION…/ MADE IN BELGUIM with a crown over a rectangle in the center of the wording. Unfortunately, portions of the mark are illegible due to aging and poor original application. Ceramic decoration includes transfer print in black, blue, and brown; gold lustre; flow blue; and salt glaze. Some vessels appear to have been undecorated. Whiteware, porcelain, ironstone, and stoneware were all observed, but the number of ceramic artifacts was not large enough to facilitate any conclusions about dates, distribution patterns, or associated ethnicity. Discussion

Figure 11. Example of round bottom ballast glass bottle found at 42SL718.

bottles (Whitten 2015b). Alexander & David H. Chambers of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a prolific glass company, produced bottles with the A. & D. H. C. mark between 1843 and ca. 1889 (Whitten 2015c). Several round bottom bottles, or ballast bottles, were also observed; one was embossed with BELFAST / ROSS’S (Figure 11). This bottle was imported from Ireland and dated from the 1870s to the 1910s (Lindsey 2015). Overall, the maker’s marks indicate a date range between 1843 and 1890. Given the quantity of Wisconsin Glass Company marks, the actual date range for the deposition of these bottles is likely 1882 to 1890, indicating that the features from which they were recovered (F-66 and F-67) predate the first fire at the rail yard in 1905. Bricks observed at the site were either tan high-fire bricks, which likely lined areas in the boiler building, or regular orange, redorange, or dark red bricks, which likely came

from structures. Several company stamps were observed on the bricks. Based on the marks, the bricks were imported from Colorado from the Pueblo Standard Fire Brick Company, the Golden Fire Brick Company, and the Denver Fire Clay Company. The D&RGW was headquartered in Colorado, so it is likely they purchased the materials there and shipped them to Salt Lake City on their trains. Several of the ceramic specimens have maker’s marks stamped or printed on the bottom. The U.P.W. with a small eagle is the mark of the Union Porcelain Works of Greenpoint, New York; they produced table service pieces between 1854 and 1910 (Lehner 1988:479). An oval platter and a tea saucer bear the mark, GREENWOOD CHINA, TRENTON, N.J.. The Greenwood China Company used this mark between 1886 and 1910 (Lehner 1988:180). One mark from the base of a bowl reads, in part, MANUFACTURE…

The historical and archaeological investigations for 42SL718 provide interesting information about the D&RGW maintenance facility. First, the foundation features uncovered across the site represented several phases of construction. Based on newspaper accounts of fires and construction efforts, at least five major construction phases occurred at the maintenance facility. Because the D&RGW chose to rebuild in the same location after each of four major fire cycles, assigning dates to specific foundations and other features is difficult. Some foundations were built on top of other foundations, indicating distinct building periods and allowing several features to be roughly associated with one of the five phases listed above. Other foundations can be attributed to two broad periods—early and late—based on their spatial location and superposition. This jumbled set of features represented continuous site use and reuse for nearly 70 years for the same purpose by the same group. The fact that parts of the facility were rebuilt after fire not once, not twice, but four times for the same use is intriguing. Post-fire reuse and reconstruction are common practices throughout history, and often the new buildings and structures were improved to incorporate more fireproof materials and designs after each fire (Bankoff et al. 2012:120). The 1911 Sanborn maps show most of the rail yard buildings as “frame building iron clad”

(Sanborn Map Company 1911:Sheets 132 and 144). The only construction difference shown on the 1950 maps is for the boiler house, which was rebuilt in corrugated iron on a steel frame with steel trusses on a concrete floor (Sanborn Map Company 1950:Sheets 132 and 144). Despite all of the fires at the rail yard, it does not appear that the D&RGW implemented all of their fireproofing construction options when rebuilding, especially given the dangerous industrial work that took place at the site. Cost and expediency may have outweighed some material improvements, and fire-prevention or fire-fighting measures not reflected in the archaeological or written record may also have been employed. The archaeological evidence is consistent with the changes in site layout and function inferred from the documentary sources. Overlaying the documented features on the Sanborn maps provides a better understanding of what the large layers and pieces of concrete represented during the existence of the maintenance facility. Although the modern maps created with global positioning system (GPS) data do not line up perfectly with the hand-drawn maps of the historical period, the two sets of maps are sufficiently close that it is possible to interpret which former structures are represented by the archaeological remains. The 1907 book, Railway Shop Up To Date, recommended that railroad maintenance facilities place powerhouses, which house boiler systems used to generate steam power, nearest the point of greatest power consumption, the locomotive machine shop, followed by the second greatest point, the planing mill (Editorial Staff of the Railway Master Mechanic 1907:140). The 1911 Sanborn maps show the boiler house and engine room placed near the paint shop and the car repair shops, and the 1950 Sanborn maps show the carpenter shops and planing mill, pattern shop, and the car wheel and axle shops closest to the boiler house and compressor room. The change in facility layout likely occurred after the 1913 fires and may have taken facility layout and design advice from the Railway Shop Up To Date or a similar reference of the time.

Lechert et al. [A Phoenix from the Ashes]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Figure 13. Remains of the 6-foot-long boiler from a retired small steam locomotive.

Figure 12. Cistern and foundation features cut by construction trench at the start of the project. Photograph courtesy of Sheri Murray Ellis.

When the field data are overlain on the 1911 Sanborn map, the bottom third of the boiler house appears to have been cut off by the 2014 construction trench. The southern portion of a large foundation (F-08) lay in what appears on the 1911 Sanborn map to be the open area between the boiler house and the paint shop. F-08 may have also included remnants of the boiler house shown on the 1950 Sanborn map. In addition, the features observed on top of F-08 (F-84 through F-100) appeared to fit better in the 1950 building outline (see Figure 10). While the top level of F-08 likely dated to the latest period (1938 to the late 1950s), channels found below it may have been from an earlier incarnation of the boiler house. Several eastwest-trending channels were formed into the foundation. What was likely coal and ash mixed in with dirt was found in a 2-foot-wide chute measuring 32 feet long and ranging in depth from 5 to 8 feet, gradually getting deeper from east to west (F-14). In addition, near the west end of the chute was a north-south-oriented, v-shaped

channel with a large metal auger in it (F-45). Mixed in among the soils in the chute and the channel were many pieces of fire brick, adding to the likelihood that the boiler system was located above or near these features. The artifacts and soils in the chute likely dated to before 1938. The cistern (F-01) was located southwest of the likely boiler location and probably dated to the initial construction of the facility based on the type of bricks used (Figure 12). The cistern likely provided the water necessary to run the original boiler based on the approximately 6-inchdiameter metal pipe observed trending north toward the location where the boilers were found. In the area west of the large foundation (F-08) and north of the cistern (F-01) and in the trench cut through the large foundation, two metal boilers of similar design and construction were unearthed prior to the start of monitoring. One boiler was approximately 6 feet long (Figure 13); the other was approximately 10 to 12 feet long. Railway Shop Up to Date noted that the horizontal water tube boiler was the most common boiler type

Lechert et al. [A Phoenix from the Ashes]

Figure 14. Example of incomplete wood friction pile point.

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

used in power houses at that time and that “fire tube boilers of the locomotive type have been installed” at several railway shops (Editorial Staff of the Railway Master Mechanic 1907:144). Given the sizes observed, it is possible that the two boilers could have been from locomotive-type fire tube boilers. In addition, the 1911 Sanborn maps show a “stationary railway engine used for auxiliary steam” approximately 65 feet east of the boiler house. D&RGW’s Salt Lake shops had the capability to construct new boilers and fireboxes and to perform all levels of needed locomotive repairs (Don Strack, personal communication 2016). Retired smaller locomotive boilers would have been used for stationary boilers (Don Strack, personal communication 2016). The smaller boiler was from a retired small steam locomotive used as the stationary engine noted on the Sanborn map, and the larger boiler was likely from the boiler house. A small concrete foundation (F-04), a metal coal chute (F-05), and a concrete footer (F-06) on the east side of the large foundation (F-08) were likely associated with the foundations of the 10-foot-tall trestle that appears on the 1911 and 1950 Sanborn maps. The concrete footer, which was found positioned at an angle, may have been moved out of place during demolition activities either after fire clean-up or after the facility’s closure. A wood beam (F-31), two sections of wood floor (F-33 and F-38), and two concrete foundations (F-39 and F-41) were found in the upper layer of the site, and these features likely correspond with one of the later reconstruction episodes. Several concrete foundation features, F-58 through F-63, were identified underneath the aforementioned features and likely dated to an earlier time period. The features may have represented foundation remnants of the paint shop on the 1911 Sanborn maps. These earlier features were approximately the same depth below ground surface as the wood friction piles (F-68, F-74, F-75, F-76, and F-77) found on-site and likely dated after 1910 (Figure 14). A friction pile “is a load-carrying column that is driven into soil to support the weight of

a structure” and “uses the friction between the pile’s surface and the soil to support the load on the pile” (Schwartz 2000:124). Similar wood friction piles were found intact under the nearby D&RGW depot, built in 1910 by the D&RGW, during an engineering evaluation more than 25 years ago (personal communication, Richard Young, SWCA, to Stephanie Lechert, SWCA, July 2014). The soils directly beneath the features at this level below ground surface contained little or no coal and/or ash, whereas the features themselves were covered with dark gray soils. This change in soil color and texture may have represented the original level of construction, which had been covered in the ashy remains of one of the later fires. In addition, two train wheels were found under the F-62 foundation feature when the feature was removed, indicating that features in this area dated to before ca. 1910 and may have been part of the expansion of the facility from 1901 to 1904 before the 1905 fire. A series of features discovered south-southwest of the cistern (F-01) was particularly interesting. F-71 was a segment of intact, north-south-oriented railroad rails and ties with four large sections of heavy iron chains welded to the rails (Figure 15). Directly above the rail and tie section was an area of dark black soil mixed with coal ash (F-69). The soils had a very mixed context and a variety of artifacts, including a piece of asphalt roofing, brick, glass, metal, and wood. Based on the soil color and mixed context, it is likely that the rail and tie section had been buried and forgotten in the aftermath of the 1913 fire. Immediately below the rail and tie section was a portion of a southwest-northeast-trending rectangular wood pipeline (F-78). Nothing was observed inside this section of pipeline, although a similar section (F-07) observed on the east half of the site was full of an unknown petroleum-based product. A wood friction pile was driven into the center of the wood pipeline approximately 10 feet west of the rail and tie section. Given the introduction of the friction pile into the pipeline and its location below F-71, the wood pipeline likely dated to the earliest days of the facility. The rail and tie

Lechert et al. [A Phoenix from the Ashes]

Figure 15. In situ metal rails and wood ties with chains attached, measuring tape at 3 feet.

section and the wood pipeline may have dated between 1882 and 1913 based on depth and the rough alignment of the rail and tie section to the spur illustrated on the 1911 Sanborn map. The in situ concrete foundation (F-102), concrete footers (F-48, F-54, and F-79), and concrete wall section (F-80) to the west of F-08 likely represented the carpenter shops, planing mill, and pattern shop that dated after 1938. The soils surrounding these features had less ash and coal remains mixed in. The glass caches (F-66 and F-67) were found beneath the aforementioned features at a lower depth below ground surface. Portions of the F-66 glass cache were covered with a layer of dark gray to black ashy soil, possibly indicating the glass had been deposited prior to or during the clean-up activities from the 1905 or 1913 fire, based on the approximate date range provided by the makerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s marks.

Conclusions When the D&RGW railroad arrived in Salt Lake City in June 1882, it marked a significant event in regional history. Not only did the railroad provide an important means of transporting goods and people, it was also a significant driver in changing the social and cultural fabric of the Salt Lake Valley. Site 42SL718 was not the most glamorous archaeological discovery nor the easiest to decipher, but it illuminated a critical element of D&RGW operations. By creating a construction chronology based on the facilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s period of operation and multiple fire events and by correlating this chronology with soil changes and consistencies, it was possible to assign features approximate dates or date ranges. The large concrete foundation (F-08) was the most difficult to date, given a lack of accurate facility plans and the depth of multiple levels of concrete that measured, in total, 11 feet deep. The presence

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

of these many levels did, however, provide evidence of repeated reconstruction. Other features, such as the intact section of railroad rails and ties (F-71), provided better clues for dating based on their below-surface depth and position relative to other layers of features. Overall, the features uncovered during the project appeared to date from the earliest days of the railroad to 1958 and were the result of railroad growth and urban development, punctuated by the four destructive fire cycles discussed above. The site is a good example of how industrial locations, particularly large and complicated ones like rail yards that require large spaces and fixed infrastructure, undergo continual use and cycles of construction, in this case over the course of more than 70 years. It is also a good example of the archaeological challenges of interpreting palimpsests, particularly when reconstruction events did not just involve rebuilding on the surface of the lower level, but intruded into it. When first built, the D&RGW rail yard and maintenance facility sat alone on vacant land in the low, swampy area west of downtown, away from the core of Salt Lake City. Eventually, Salt Lake City grew to surround the rail yard, which was likely considered a nuisance by its new neighbors. This, in combination with aging infrastructure and the inability to expand the facility boundaries, prompted the D&RGW to build its new maintenance facility and diesel repair buildings at the larger Roper yard area to the south in the late 1950s. This relocation may also have been spurred by the urban renewal movement occurring in many cities after World War II. In Salt Lake City, this resulted in the demolition of nearby neighborhoods like Chinatown and Japantown and their replacement with new development. The construction of improved transportation networks serving the automobile, which was rapidly eclipsing passenger and freight train travel, formed an important part of the movement, and the construction of Interstate 15 to the west of the yard in the late 1950s and 1960s is a prime example. The highway alignment reused a part of the old rail corridor but was built

with a strong curve to the west to avoid the old D&RGW maintenance facilities, a testament to the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ongoing, if diminishing, use. The redevelopment of the area surrounding the old D&RGW maintenance facility affected other rail-related facilities as well. The Rio Grande passenger depot was purchased by the State of Utah in 1977 and now houses the Utah Division of State History. The Union Pacific line and rail yard were removed and eventually replaced with the mixed-use Gateway District just prior to the 2002 Winter Olympics that were hosted in Salt Lake City. The Union Pacific Depot was rehabilitated as a public event venue and an entrance point for the Gateway District mall. While shoppers and area residents go about their daily lives, most are unaware of the importance of these rail remnants in the industrial and commercial growth and history of Salt Lake City and Utah. The rail lines that still snake through the city were, and continue to be, arteries flowing with the activities of commerce, commuting, and growth. Fittingly, more than 130 years after initial construction began on the site for the D&RGW maintenance facility, the project that uncovered it all is tied to the construction of new transportation-related buildings and structures.

Stephanie Lechert Historical Archaeologist SWCA Environmental Consultants 257 E 200 S Ste 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 slechert@swca.com Anne Oliver Historic Architecture Team Lead SWCA Environmental Consultants 257 E 200 S Ste 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 aoliver@swca.com Sheri Murray Ellis Certus Environmental Solutions 655 7th Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84103 sheri@certussolutionsllc.com

Lechert et al. [A Phoenix from the Ashes]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

References Bankoff, Greg, Uwe Lübken and Jordan Sand (editors) 2012 Flammable Cities: Urban Conflagration and the Making of the Modern World. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Beck, R. Kelly 2014 Treatment Plan for UTA’s Depot District Service Center Project in Salt Lake County, Utah: Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Train Maintenance Facility Discovery. Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City. Copies available from Utah Division of State History, Salt Lake City. Bradley, Colleen P. 1996 An Inventory of the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad, Collection Number 513. Available at: http://www.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/files/Researchers/Denver_Rio_ Grande.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2016. Carr, Stephen L. and Robert W. Edwards 1989 Utah Ghost Rails. Western Epics, Salt Lake City, Utah. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad n.d. [1936] Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Guide Book. Available at: http://www. ghostdepot.com/rg/library/guide%20book/guidebook.htm. Accessed March 7, 2016. Deseret News 1924 200 Employees of D. & R. G. W. to Return to Work. Deseret News May 31, 1924. Salt Lake City, Utah. Editorial Staff of the Railway Master Mechanic 1907 Railway Shop Up To Date: A Refernce Book of Up to Date American Railway Shop Practice. Crandall Publishing Company, Chicago. Griffin, James 2003 Rio Grande Railroad. Voyageur Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. Johnson, Brandon 2010 One Building’s Life: A History of Salt Lake City’s Denver and Rio Grande Depot. Utah Historical Quarterly 78(3):196-217. Lechert, Stephanie, Mike Cannon and Lisa Benson 2015 Historical and Archaeological Investigations of the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Train Maintenance Facility at UTA’s Depot District Service Center in Salt Lake County, Utah. Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City. Copies available from Utah Division of State History, Salt Lake City.

Lechert et al. [A Phoenix from the Ashes]

Lehner, Lois 1988 Lehner’s Encyclopedia of U.S. Marks on Pottery, Porcelain, and Clay. Collector Books, A Division of Schroeder Publishing Co., Inc., Paducah, Kentucky. Originally published 1988. Lindsey, Bill 2015 Bottle Bases. Available at: http://www.sha.org/bottle/bases.htm. Accessed November 23, 2015. Salt Lake Telegram 1922 Disastrous Fire Closes Local Overhead Crossing to All Traffic. Several Months May Be Required to Make Necessary Repairs. Salt Lake Telegram. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1923 Work Starts on Rio Grand Improvements. Salt Lake Telegram May 10, 1923. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1924 Shop Workers Return to Jobs at New Plant. Salt Lake Telegram June 2, 1924. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1926 New D. & R.G.W. Shops Big Asset. Employ 1000 Men; Payroll $130,000. Salt Lake Telegram November 10, 1926. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1938 S.L. Railroad Shops Razed by Fire. Salt Lake Telegram January 8, 1938. Salt Lake City, Utah. Salt Lake Tribune 1882a Denver & Rio Grande. January 1, 1882. Salt Lake City, Utah 1882b The Denver & Rio Grande Western. June 29, 1882. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1882c Denver & Rio Grande, Description of the Depots and Machine Shops in Salt Lake. September 3, 1882. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1883 The New Railroad. March 30, 1883. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1900a Rearrange the Yards, Most Important Work on the Rio Grande Western. October 9, 1900. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1900b Electric Power Plant, Rio Grande Western May Build One Here. June 21, 1900. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1900c Will Employ 800 Men, Further Details of Rio Grande Western Shop Plans. December 13, 1900. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1901 Plans for New Plant, Rio Grande Western Ready to Erect Shops. February 14, 1901. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1903 Plans for the Shops, What the Rio Grande People Will Do. September 18, 1903. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1905a Damage Done is About $40,000, Destruction at Rio Grande Shops Greater than First Estimated. December 22, 1905. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1905b Flames in the Rio Grande Shops, Engine-House and Repair Shops are Burned to the Ground. December 21, 1905. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1913a Rio Grande is Building Unique Viaduct, Only One of its Kind in the United States. September 21, 1913. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1913b $250,000 Fire Destroys D. & R.G. Repair Shops; Greater Shops Planned. June 19, 1913. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1913c Rio Grande Shops Ablaze; No Water. January 7, 1913. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1924 Rio Grande Shopmen Return to Work Soon. S June 1, 1924. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Sanborn Map Company 1911 Fire Insurance Maps for Salt Lake City, Utah. Available at: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ search/searchterm/sanborn%20fire%20insurance%20maps!salt%20lake%20city%201911/ field/all!all/mode/all!all/conn/and!and/order/title/ad/asc. Accessed Agusut 13, 2015. 1950 Fire Insurance Maps for Salt Lake City, Utah. Available at: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ search/searchterm/sanborn%20fire%20insurance%20maps!salt%20lake%20city%201950/ field/all!all/mode/all!all/conn/and!and/order/title/ad/asc. Accessed August 13, 2015. Schwartz, Max 2000 Basic Concrete Engineering for Builders. Craftsman Book Co., Carlsbad, California. Strack, Don 2015 Rio Grande in Utah, 1908 to 1988. Available at: http://utahrails.net/drgw/rg-in-ut-1908-1988. php. Accessed June 1, 2015. Whitten, David 2015a Glass Manufacturers’ Marks on Bottles and Other Glassware ~ Page 5. Available at: http:// www.glassbottlemarks.com/bottlemarks-5/. Accessed August 17, 2015. 2015b L.G.CO. Mark on Antique Glass Bottles & Jars. Available at: http://www.glassbottlemarks. com/l-g-co/. Accessed August 17, 2015. 2015c Glass Manufacturers’ Marks On Bottles & Other Glassware ~ Page 1. Available at: http:// www.glassbottlemarks.com/bottlemarks/. Accessed August 17, 2015.

Fremont Occupation of the Utah Valley Uplands: The View from Jay’s Place and Kay’s Cabin Joel C. Janetski Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University

Utah Valley is home to Utah Lake, a large, freshwater body of water that supported a rich fishery and abundant wetland resources in the past. Those resources attracted human populations anciently, a fact borne out by the numerous remains of fish, waterfowl, and marsh-adapted plants recovered from lake edge and valley bottom archaeological sites. To test whether lacustral resources were sought after by people living at some distance from the lake, I investigated two Fremont sites, Jay’s Place and Kay’s Cabin, in uplands adjacent to Utah Valley. Although these two sites yielded very different artifact and faunal assemblages, the findings presented here demonstrate that the importance of fish and other marsh-related plants and animals diminished while people were living at these locales during the Fremont era.

espite the presence of numerous Fremont sites in Utah Valley (Gilsen 1968; Jones 1961; Reagan 1935; Richens 1983; Steward 1933) excavations have been few, and well documented and reported sites are fewer still (however, see Johansson et al. 2014). Further, professional Fremont research and excavations in Utah Valley have been tightly focused on lowland occupations such as the Provo River delta mounds (Billat 1985; Green 1961, 1964; Mooney 2014; Reagan 1935; Steward 1933) and Woodard Mound in the Goshen Valley (Figure 1) (Richens 1983). Architecture has been well documented at Woodard Mound, where Richens screened deposits and collected useful subsistence data. This paper presents new data from structural sites in uplands adjacent to Utah Valley: Jay’s Place (42Ut120) in West Canyon on the southeast slopes of the Oquirrh Mountains and Kay’s Cabin (42Ut813) in the uplands of Kimball Creek that drains Long Ridge and the Tintic Mountains at the extreme south end of Utah Valley. Although the focus here is primarily on subsistence, the work at Jay’s Place and Kay’s Cabin was part of my larger effort to explore the culture history of Utah Valley and areas that seemed peripherally related (Janetski and Smith 2007).

Utah Archaeology 29(1), 2016, pp. 29–58

The Fremont subsistence strategy has often been described as mixed; that is, the Fremont relied on domesticated plants such as corn and often beans and squash as well as wild resources, both gathered and hunted (Janetski 2014; Jennings 1978; Madsen 1979; Simms 1986). In Utah Valley, all past peoples made use of the diverse resources of Utah Lake (Janetski 1990). Especially important were fish, muskrat, waterfowl eggs, and marsh plants such as cattail and bulrush. Should these resources be present at either Jay’s Place or Kay’s Cabin, it would imply that the occupants were traveling some distance to obtain them. Jay’s Place, for example, lies about 20 km from Utah Lake and the marshes along the Jordan River, while Kay’s Cabin is roughly 25 km from the lake. Fish, of course, could have been present in either West Canyon or Kimball Creek, but given the size of the streams, they would have been small and few in number. The recovery of bones from larger fish would suggest capturing fish at the lake or at least in the larger Currant Creek several kilometers downstream near Goshen. To recover small items such as fish bones and to make data comparable to those recovered at Late Prehistoric sites in the valley, all excavated fill was processed through 1/8 inch mesh screens. 29

Janetski [Fremont Occupation of the Utah Valley Uplands]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

To assess the importance of wetland or lake resources in the diets of Fremont people living in the uplands adjacent to Utah Valley, I relied on standard measures such as faunal indices and percentages of those resources compared to other faunal remains recovered during our excavations. Previous Fremont Research in West Canyon and Goshen Valley West Canyon

Figure 1. Map of Utah Valley showing location of Jay’s Place and Kay’s Cabin and selected Fremont sites.

Collectors have long known West Canyon locale as a rich source of artifacts. The late John Hutchings, for example, amassed a large collection of Fremont-affiliated material from mounds in West Canyon in the early 1900s (Jones 1962). Carl Jones, a BYU graduate student, carried out reconnaissance survey in Utah Valley and surrounding areas and recorded several West Canyon sites. Later, Edward Wheeler, also a BYU graduate student, interviewed Hutchings as part of his thesis research. He reported, “Mr. Hutchings claims to have excavated twenty-two mounds [in West Canyon]…the mounds averaged four to six feet in height before agricultural activities leveled them” (Wheeler 1968:2). Most of these mounds were Fremont in age and some contained unusual finds such as a cache of hundreds of projectile points, and a ceramic vessel full of dried grasshoppers (Wheeler 1968:6). These finds remain anecdotal, however. Wheeler recognized that West Canyon sites were in danger of being lost due to both agriculture and looting, and in 1965 he surveyed portions of the canyon and excavated two mound remnants at 42Ut119. His survey identified ten sites: three house sites, two possible house sites, a “village,” a hunting site, and three chipping areas (Wheeler 1968). These functional/descriptive labels were based on field work as well as knowledge of Hutchings’ findings as available in the Hutchings Museum of Cultural and Natural History in Lehi. Jay and Merianne Nelson of Lehi located seven

additional sites in West Canyon in addition to those documented by Jones and Wheeler (Merianne Nelson, personal communication 2011). The Nelsons also collected oral histories regarding West Canyon archaeology. Wheeler’s excavations focused on 42Ut119, a house site containing two subtle mounds separated by about 5 m, each marked by dense artifact scatters. In one, designated Area A, he found a structure marked by a low wall of “mud and stones,” burned beams, post holes, roof fall, abundant artifacts, and bone (Wheeler 1968:38). The structure showed some signs of looter damage. This structure appears to have been a rectangular house with only the west wall well-preserved. Beam fragments lay on the floor along with deer mandibles and ceramics. No absolute dates are available for the house, but the rectangular shape suggests a post-A.D. 1000 age (Talbot 2000). Hutchings had previously dug the other mound, or Area B, where Wheeler also found a “low stone and mud” wall similar to that found in Area A (1968:42). Both houses appear to have been surface structures. Wheeler’s (1968:88) discussion of Fremont subsistence economy includes evidence for hunting, gathering, and fishing, although gathering is dismissed due to lack of evidence. Regarding hunting, he states that “the evidence for hunting has been the best preserved in the form of numerous rodent and deer bones, plus some bird, reptile, and buffalo bones, the latter three being much less in evidence. The recovery of one fish mandible, however, suggests either trade with lake-shore dwellers or occasional forays to Utah Lake or the Jordan River.” These collections have not been revisited, but the “fish mandible” is illustrated on p. 115 of Wheeler’s thesis and is readily identifiable as a pharyngeal arch from a Utah chub. It was, in fact, seeing this fish bone photo and the mention of recovering fish remains in the Wheeler report that raised the question: Were the Fremont in West Canyon accessing fish and perhaps other wetland resources from Utah Lake despite living at some distance from the lake? Unfortunately,

Wheeler doesn’t mention whether or not he screened the deposits, nor is there any attempt to quantify the faunal material. He does, however, note that Hutchings stated he found fish bones during his West Canyon excavations (Wheeler 1968:88). Evidence for farming came from a charred corn cob Wheeler found at 42Ut119 (1968:29, 66) and the presence of corn in the Hutchings museum reported to be from West Canyon. The interest at the time (1960s) was Fremont variants as determined by ceramic types rather than subsistence (e.g., Marwitt 1970), and Wheeler’s interest in this topic is notable. No absolute dates were obtained from West Canyon sites at the time of Wheeler’s work. Goshen Valley BYU excavations at Fremont sites in Goshen Valley include field seasons in the 1960s and 1970s at Woodard Mound in the bottom lands north of Goshen town (Gilsen 1968; Richens 1983). Woodard Mound, a Fremont structural site and dated to about A.D. 1200, contained at least one rectangular pit house, a burial, external storage features, and a rich assemblage of Fremont ceramics, figurines, Olivella shell, and abundant bone, especially fish (Richens 1983). Spotten Cave, a dry shelter at the north end of Long Ridge between Santaquin and Goshen, also has a considerable Fremont occupation dating between A.D. 600 and 1000 (Mock 1971; Woods 2004). Ongoing excavations at Wolf Village (42Ut273) at the mouth of Goshen Canyon have revealed a large Fremont village dating as early as the A. D. 700s and continuing, perhaps intermittently, into the A.D. 1100s (Johansson et al. 2014). As a consequence of this research, Goshen Valley is much better known than West Canyon. Leland Gilsen (1968) first surveyed the Kimball Creek drainage. He recorded 14 sites along the creek, three of which (42Ut325, 327, and 328) were considered house or “house clusters;” the remainder were “camp” sites. In addition to his survey work in Kimball Creek,

Janetski [Fremont Occupation of the Utah Valley Uplands]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Gilsen excavated at 42Ut325, a rock-lined house site in the canyon. Although there is no report of this work, there are excavation photos in the archives at the Museum of Peoples and Cultures at BYU. Maple Springs (42Ut668), a non-structural, multi-component site with a substantial Fremont occupation as well as Late Archaic and Late Prehistoric use, lies adjacent to a spring near the top of the drainage. A test here found abundant deer bone associated with Fremont use from A.D. 500-1000 (Janetski 2004). The richness of the region has been reinforced by linear surveys in the drainage that recorded 18 additional sites including Kay’s Cabin (Novak et al. 1991; Talbot et al. 1991). Kay’s Cabin, the site under discussion here, is within walking distance of both Woodard Mound to the north and Maple Spring to the south. Excavations at Jay’s Place Following several discussions with Jay and Merianne Nelson about a site to explore on the Utah Valley periphery, Jay suggested 42Ut120 in West Canyon based on his experience and observations. As a consequence, the site bears his name. Jay’s Place lies at about 1706 m (5600 ft) elevation and a few kilometers north of the small town of Cedar Fort (Figure 1). West Canyon Wash drains the southeast side of the Oquirrh Mountains. Prior to irrigation demands of the historic period, a perennial stream flowed through the small, moderately entrenched valley, eventually ending in an ephemeral marsh called The Sinks, an area now occupied by the town of Eagle Mountain. Big sage communities are present on the west side of the drainage where they have not been removed by agriculture. Above the floodplain on either side of the stream are juniper-studded terraces that rise 5-8 meters above the narrow bottom lands. Wheat fields have encroached very close to the terrace edge on the east side of the shallow canyon. Wheeler (1968:19) noted the existence of numerous large and small springs that feed into West Canyon.

Figure 2. Overview of Jay’s Place during excavations in the plowed field.

Figure 3. Plan map of excavated area at Jay’s Place.

On the terrace to the northeast of the stream, less than one km from the point where the stream emerges from the uplands, Wheeler (1968; Jones 1962) found an almost continuous scatter of chipped stone, ceramics, and other prehistoric debris marking long-term occupation by Fremont and other past peoples. Jay’s Place is one of those concentrations. As noted, both the floodplain and the flat area north of the terrace were farmed for wheat in the 1990s, and the site at the time of our excavations was in a plowed field with the plowed area within 25 m of the stream terrace edge (Figure 2). Artifacts, especially chipped stone and Fremont gray ware ceramics, were common in the plowed field. Wheeler’s site, 42Ut119, lies perhaps 300 m to the southeast (Wheeler 1968:3, Figure 2). The site stratigraphy consisted of 10 to 15 cm of plow zone above about 10 cm of intact sediments. Below that were a few centimeters of culturally sterile, fine-grained, light-colored sediments that graded into the parent limestone bedrock. Features that intruded into this substratum were easily identified, although the surface of origin was difficult to determine due to the plowing. Feature Descriptions We found no residential structures at Jay‘s Place, presumably due to leveling and plowing activities over the previous decades. Two features suggest residential use and lend credence to Jay Nelson’s choice of an area to test (). Most unusual was a bowl-shaped pit measuring 2.25 m across and 0.8 m deep as measured below the modern ground surface. The original pit excavators dug it into the rocky substrate which consists of fractured, horizontally bedded limestone. The pit sides sloped steeply to a relatively flat bottom upon which lay a thin layer of fine, compacted sediments containing some burned adobe and several, flat-lying cobbles. The adobe suggested the pit had been roofed at one time, although we saw no beam impressions on the adobe

Janetski [Fremont Occupation of the Utah Valley Uplands]

chunks nor were burned beams present in the fill. This “floor” was a few centimeters thick and overlay the raw parent rock. A few limestone slabs on the pit bottom appeared heat reddened. Pit fill was homogenous, although deposits of fine sediments similar to those found on the pit bottom sloped up on one edge. The fill was dark, gray-brown sediment containing ceramics, chipped stone tools and flakes, some adobe chunks, and faunal bone. Given that this pit was dug into rock and the bottom apparently lined with compacted sediments, it would have been quite impervious to rodent intrusion. Based on those characteristics, the pit likely functioned for storage (Figure 4). The other feature of note is a “bananashaped” trench that lay just over a meter south of the large storage pit. The slightly curving trench measured between 60-65 cm wide by 3 m long with a fairly flat bottom and curved ends (Figure 3). Like the large storage pit it was dug into the underlying sterile bedrock making definition certain. The fill was soft brown sediment rich in bone and artifacts. A number of horizontally oriented artifacts lay about 5 cm above the rocky trench bottom. Bone was abundant in contrast to the large storage pit where bone was less common. The function of this trench is not known, but research on Fremont sites elsewhere, such as Kay’s Cabin in the Kimball Creek drainage reported below and at the City Creek Site (Talbot et al. 2004) that had vent tunnels placed well below floor level, suggests this may have been a vent tunnel for an above ground house removed by plowing activity. Excavations at Jay’s Place also uncovered seven smaller pits of varying sizes, all under one meter in diameter (Figure 3). The pits contained artifacts and bone, much like the overlying plow zone. In addition, excavators found three possible postholes spaced a few meters apart in a slightly curving alignment that formed no obvious relationship to either the curved trench or large storage pit. The presence of these several features combined with Wheeler’s findings at 42Ut119 suggests the tested area was

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Figure 4. Photo of large storage pit after excavation.

residential. Dating PaleoResearch Laboratories identified sage, mountain mahogany, rose family, and a bitter brush-like form in a charcoal sample from the deep storage pit. Beta Analytic dated the latter two taxa to 970±60 B.P. (Beta 117753), which calibrates to A.D. 980-1215, a date well within the Fremont era (Table 1). Material Culture Jay’s Place yielded a typical array of Fremont material goods with abundant gray ware ceramics, including about a dozen Ivie Creek Black-on-white bowl sherds, and sherds from Great Salt Lake and Sevier gray ware bowls and handled jars. Seven sherds with coffee bean applique were recovered. In addition, excavators found a small stone bowl in the fill of the large storage pit (Figure 5). Projectile points were common with types divided between Uinta Side-notched (n = 17) and Rosegate (n = 13), perhaps suggesting the site is multi-component given that corner-notched arrow points tend to predate side-notched types (Holmer 1986;

Figure 5. Stone bowl and eccentric biface from Jay’s Place.

Holmer and Weder 1980). Other finds are more or less typical of Fremont residential sites, which often include worked bone tools, bone, stone, shell beads, ground stone, hammerstones and abundant debitage from making chipped stone tools. One biface (FS 108) is unusual as it is irregular in shape (Figure 5). An industry apparently unique to West Canyon during Fremont times was working finegrained black slate nodules into often irregular shapes. We recovered twenty such artifacts of smoothed or modified black slate during our work at Jay’s Place. Most are small (less than 5 cm long/wide on the maximum dimension) nodules with clear evidence of abrading or polish. One is a possible figurine fragment that came from the curved trench fill. This object was made of a very fine-grained black slate and exhibits overall polish and a reddish wash, most likely from hematite (Figure 6). The object is circum-grooved 1 cm from the complete end and

Janetski [Fremont Occupation of the Utah Valley Uplands]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Table 1. Radiocarbon Dates from Jay’s Place and Kay’s Cabin

Site

Sample No.

Material

Provenience

Conventional Date

2 signma Calibrated

42Ut120

Beta 117753

mixed charcoal

Fill large storage pit

970±60 BP

AD 980-1215

42Ut813

Beta 101264

Willow charcoal

Rooffall, Structure 1

720±70 BP

AD 1205-1400

42Ut813

Beta 10265

Willow charcoal

Floor Structure 1

800±80 BP

AD 1035-1375

42Ut813

CAMS 73446

Juniper berry

Floor Structure 2

1690±60 BP

AD 267-409

42Ut813

Beta 331684

Corn

Rooffall, Structure 1

1130±30 BP

AD 830-990

42Ut813

Beta 331685

Corn

Exterior fill

920±30 BP

AD 1030-1210

42Ut813

Beta 331686

Corn

Structure 2, Floor

820±30 BP

AD 1160-1270

42Ut813

Beta 331687

Corn

Structure 2, Hearth

930±30 BP

AD 1120-1170

has five incised notches on that same end. One face is convex while the other is flat; both faces have two incised dots placed in a way that could represent eyes of a figurine. Overall length is 1.78 cm, width is 1.4 cm and thickness is 0.71 cm. Wheeler (1968:58) found 12 polished slate fragments that he called gaming pieces. The Hutchings family and others who collected artifacts in West Canyon for years have many more polished slate objects some of which were shaped into pendants or beads (Jay and Merianne Nelson, personal communication 2010); some are functionally enigmatic like those reported here. Those on display at the Hutchings Museum are geometric or birdlike in form or pictorials depicting landscape scenes. The association of these with the mounds is anecdotal only, and an explanation for this unique West Canyon craft eludes us for the moment. Whatever these are, it is unlikely they are gaming pieces or dice given the absence of uniformity among the specimens as would be expected for gaming pieces (Dalley 1970; Hall 2008, 2009). The origin of the slate is unknown, but is presumably from somewhere in the Oquirrh Mountains. Unmodified Faunal Remains The Jay’s Place faunal assemblage is quite rich with a minimum of 18 taxa represented

(Tables 2 and 3). Small artiodactyls, most notably deer, are abundant with black-tailed jack rabbits and cottontails also well represented. The curved trench contained a disproportionate amount of bone as it yielded over half of the unidentified and about half of the identifiable bone from the site. Artifacts were also abundant in this feature, although not in the overwhelming numbers seen with the bone. The upper fill of the large storage pit was also artifact rich, but not bone rich. These patterns may suggest the occupants were selectively discarding debris into these features. The presence of both bison and elk along with a number of large artiodactyl elements in the faunal assemblage requires some comment. Elk remains are not common in either Fremont sites or throughout the Great Basin during the late Holocene (Grayson 2011:279; Janetski 2006). The reasons for the apparent scarcity is not well understood given that early travelers such as Osborne Russell (1965) reported good numbers of elk in the Wasatch Front in the 1840s. Bison are reported from Utah Valley Fremont sites (Billat 1985) as well as from several sites to the north (Aikens 1966), but appear to diminish in numbers during the post-Fremont era along the Wasatch Front (Cannon and Creer 2011; Grayson 2011; Janetski and Smith 2007; Lupo and Schmitt 1997). Of greater interest here is the presence of

Figure 6. Slate figurine from Jay’s Place.

wetland or lake resources including suckers, chub, muskrat, and water fowl. These may have come from Utah Lake or the Jordan River some 15 km away, or they may have been collected in West Canyon Wash or perhaps the Sinks. We found no fishing gear such as harpoons; nor does Wheeler mention such items. A single flotation sample taken from the large storage pit for macrobotanical analysis yielded corn, juniper berries, and a mix of wood charcoal including mountain mahogany, sagebrush, willow, bitterbrush, and blackbrush. No pollen work was done. The recovery of corn remains along with the corn reported by Wheeler and apparently Hutchings (Wheeler 1968) suggests the Fremont were farming in West Canyon. Excavations at Kay’s Cabin Survey crews from Dames and Moore

recorded Kay’s Cabin (42Ut813) in August of 1991 by as part of clearance work for the Kern River natural gas pipeline (Novak et al. 1991). Their report suggested the site was multi-component with abundant Fremont and Late Prehistoric diagnostic artifacts present on the surface (Novak et al. 1991:9). Surveyors placed a 50-x-50-cm test pit in a chipped stone concentration and found a rich midden with considerable bone, gray ware ceramics, and stone tools. At a depth of ~55 cm below present ground surface they encountered a trough metate with a two-handed mano lying on it; both lay on a compact surface suggesting the test pit was inside a structure (Novak et al 1991:9). The ground stone was left in place. No additional testing was done at that time, and the surveyors routed the pipeline around the site. In the fall of 1991 Everett Bassett of Dames and Moore took me to the site and suggested BYU carry out a field school there given the richness of the

Pit 2

Fill Totals

5 15

1 1

Curved Trench

235 629 5 7 4

Unidentified Fish

Totals

Small Fish

Unid Bird

Small Bird

Medium Bird

Large Bird

Mouse-sized

93 50

5 1

22 48

2 3 0

Pit 3 Pit 5

1 2

Pit 1

Pit 4

1 8 Curved Trench

Pit 5

Pit 4

Pit 3

Pit 2

Bottom

Lower Fill

Small Mammal

3 23

4 1

1 21

44 3

1 General Fill

Upper Fill

Large Storage Pit

Medium Mammal

Bottom

16 42

10 25

Large Mammal

2 3

Dog-like Fox Bobcat Mountain Lion

305

Unid. Mammal

337 907 5 8

Weasel/mink 16

50 15

32 65

Jack Rabbits

Lower Fill

2 2

Cottontail Rabbits

Upper Fill

1 3

Voles/small rodent Other large grazers Bison/Elk Deer/Sheep/Pronghorn Mule Deer Elk Pronghorn Mountain Sheep

5 14

4 1

1 1

Muskrat Bison

Large Storage

1 30

Gopher 2

Squirrel 1

Sheet Midden

Fill Totals

Ground Squirrels

5 1 13 2

Ducks 28

Plow Zone

1 1

Blue Grouse Plow Zone

Table 3. Provenience of Unidentifiable Animal Bones from Jay’s Place

7 8

Minnows

Suckers Table 2. Provenience of Identified Animal Bones from Jay’s Place..

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

10 18

417

Utah Chub

Totals

Janetski [Fremont Occupation of the Utah Valley Uplands]

1 2

7 0

92 198

1 5

108 213

8 9

2 5

deposits and the evidence of a structure. In the spring of 1996, I took Basset’s advice, and the BYU field school and staff from the Office of Public Archaeology spent two weeks at 42Ut813. At the time of this visit, there was little surface evidence of Fremont presence beyond a scatter of chipped stone debitage, a few gray ware sherds, and some surface stones along the west edge. Subsequent mapping and exploratory trenches, however, reinforced the Dames and Moore findings. This effort was followed by additional excavation in August of that same year with the Utah Valley Chapter of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society (USAS), also under my direction. Although crews were unable to locate Dames and Moore’s test pit or a site datum, the tests found evidence of heavy use including the exposure of an ash-covered, compact surface suggesting the presence of a

1 2

4 6

1 1

32 41

250 482

residential structure. The in situ trough metate and mano were not found on that surface, however. The newly discovered compact surface (Structure 1) was clearly separate from that reported by the Kern River crews which argued for multiple structures at the site. A BYU field school spent three weeks in the summer of 2002 and found another residential structure (Structure 2), which was the house containing the mano and metate. A select crew consisting of students and Utah Valley chapter USAS members returned for a final week in August of 2002 to complete the work here reported. Site Setting Kay’s Cabin is located at the southern end of Utah County within Goshen Valley, a southern arm or extension of Utah Valley (Figure 1).

Site elevation is approximately 1790 m (5,640 ft). The site lies on a low terrace immediately west of and just above Kimball Creek, a small perennial stream that drains the east facing slopes of the Tintic Mountains and part of Long Ridge to the south. The creek gathers inflow from a series of small springs in the Tintics and eventually disappears in the heavily farmed flatlands to the north. In the past, it likely joined with the larger Currant Creek a short distance above the modern town of Goshen. Vegetation on and off the site includes dense Utah juniper and sage with occasional pinyon on the upper slopes. A small community of rabbit bush, willow and skunk bush borders the creek just east of the site along Kimball Creek. Modern fauna includes deer, cottontail rabbits, blue grouse, and miscellaneous smaller mammals and birds. Dating Seven radiocarbon dates from Kay’s Cabin document at least two components, one dating to the A.D. 1100s and one in the A.D. 1200s (Table 1). An even earlier presence is suggested by the AD 800-990 date, although we recovered no support for this occupation. The A.D. 1100s component is associated with Structure 2. and the later occupation with Structure 1. The later occupation is roughly contemporaneous with Woodard Mound (Richens 1983). The recovery of a Desert Side-notched point near the compacted surface of Structure 1 reinforces the late occupation of the site. The presence of this point also signals that site use continued after the traditional Fremont period. Features Structure 1. Structure 1 is a roughly circular house or ramada defined largely by 15 post holes that encircle a central hearth and an associated compact use surface or floor (Figure 7). The size of the structure is just over 4 m in diameter and may have been slightly dug into the sterile

Janetski [Fremont Occupation of the Utah Valley Uplands]

sediments. On the west edge of the structure was an irregular stone alignment, and the structure edge appeared to slope 20 cm down to the floor from this alignment. No such edge was noted elsewhere, and the stones were clearly sitting in fill that post-dates the house. Consequently, the structure is best described as a surface residence. Several burned beams lying in situ on the south edge and pointing toward the center suggest the structure was roofed, although a rather long burned beam on the north edge lay parallel to the post holes. Burned adobe or roof fall just above the floor reinforces the conclusion that there was a superstructure. A few rocks lay on both the west and east perimeter, although it isn’t clear that they were part of the construction. The floor consisted of an ash-covered compact surface indicating heavy use around the hearth, but the surface became hard to define away from the hearth. The hearth lay roughly in the center of the floor and the surrounding post holes. It was 70 cm in diameter, 7 cm deep, and filled with ashy sediment and small adobe chunks. A small metate, ceramics, and a chopper lay on the floor. A single shallow, subfloor pit lay in the southwest corner of the floor. It was clear that the structure burned upon abandonment due to the presence of the burned timbers and ashy floor deposits. A small concentration of fire-cracked rock lay in the fill well above the Structure 1 floor. It appeared to be a dump placed there by visitors to the site after the structure’s abandonment. Structure 2. Structure 2 was a circular pithouse measuring 5 m in diameter with a floor about 40 cm below the prehistoric ground surface and 60 cm below the modern ground surface. It lay just upslope or to the south of Structure 1. Structure 2 had a central hearth partially encircled with a clay rim, and three vent tunnels. The hearth was 80 cm in diameter, about 20 cm deep, and was heavily burrowed destroying much of the clay rim. The deepest and most well-defined of the vents, Vent Tunnel 1, extended to the northwest from the structure and may have extended beneath the floor of Structure 1, indicating

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Figure 7. Plan map of excavated area at Kay’s Cabin.

that Structure 2 was an earlier occupation than Structure 1. The other two vents, Vent Tunnels 2 and 3, extended to the southwest and southeast respectively. Due to time constraints none of the vents were explored to their distal end. Although two vent tunnels are not uncommon in Fremont residential architecture, three are unusual and may be best explained as structure remodeling or adjustments to prevailing winds (Talbot et al. 2000; Talbot 2000). We did not find evidence of Structure 2 remodeling, however. The floor was quite level and compact and extended from edge to edge in the house. It was puddled or formally constructed and covered with ash. Several subfloor pits and post holes were present, especially along the north and west walls, and the Utah style metate and mano discovered by the Kern River crews rested on the floor near the hearth. A bench measuring 40 cm wide lay along the structure’s eastern perimeter. A number of artifacts and burned beam remnants lay on or just above the floor. The orientation of the burned beams is evidence that the house superstructure consisted of numerous beams angling into the house center. The roof support was provided by vertical posts arranged in a typical four-post-hole pattern, one in each floor quadrant. Subfloor Pits. Ten subfloor pits were present in Structure 2 with four, Pits 1, 3, 4, and 5, placed around the northern perimeter of the house (Figure 7). Pits 1 and 3 were very similar in size, measuring 55 cm in diameter and 25 cm (Pit 1) and 40 cm (Pit 3) deep. Both were roughly circular with vertical sides and flat bottoms. A deer mandible and rib lay on the bottom of Pit 1 and several fist-sized cobbles were in the fill. Pit 3 yielded a small, complete ceramic bowl, a complete ceramic pipe, several ground stone tools, and other chipped stone artifacts (Figure 8). The ceramic bowl contained abundant cattail pollen. Pit 3, and perhaps Pit 1, was clearly a storage feature whose contents remained in the pit when the house was abandoned. The remaining seven pits within the house were smaller and unremarkable as the fill resembled

Janetski [Fremont Occupation of the Utah Valley Uplands]

house fill. Vent Tunnel 1. This was a deep (~95 cm), vertical-walled feature that extended at least 4.5 m north from the northwest corner of the pit house. The west wall of the vent was well preserved, while the east wall was eroded toward the top; the vent measured 55 cm across at the floor level and expanded to at least 65 cm in width at the top. The vent floor consisted of undulating puddled clay through which some stones protruded. A bulb-shaped depression lay directly below the house floor at the extreme south end of the vent. The depression measured 50 cm x 70 cm x 5 cm deep with edges that sloped up to coincide with the vent walls on the south, west, and east sides. Within the depression were three hammerstones, four nearly complete deer scapulae, at least one deer mandible, and additional bone fragments. Other artifacts on the vent floor, but not in the depression included a metate fragment, large ceramic sherds, flakes, and deer mandibles. A number of cobbles were present on the north end of the vent tunnel floor as well. Vent Tunnel 2. Vent Shaft 2 extended to the southwest for at least a meter but was not fully excavated. The fill was about 20 cm deep and very similar to house fill. The vent floor, which lay at the same level as the structure floor, was not prepared. A thin, scalloped metate was found leaning against the pit house wall just inside the house/vent juncture. Vent Tunnel 3. Vent Tunnel 3 extended to the southeast from Structure 2. It was a bit narrower than Vent Tunnel 2, just 30 cm wide. The floor was not prepared and lay about 30 cm below the prehistoric ground surface but, like Vent Tunnel 2, it lay at the same level as the pithouse floor. This vent was clearly roofed as a burned timber bridged the feature just inside the juncture with the house. As with the other vents, the fill contained bone, ceramics, and chipped stone debitage.

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Figure 8. Ceramic bowl in situ in Pit 3 at Kay’s Cabin.

Material Culture Kay’s Cabin was very rich in material culture. A detailed presentation is beyond the scope of this article, but Table 4 provides some notion of artifact abundance. Ceramics at Kay’s Cabin are dominated by gray wares, but painted sherds are common with Ivie Creek Black-onwhite bowl sherds (n = 68). Excavatores also found a number of painted bowl sherds that are corrugated on the exterior. Coffee bean applique was also present (n = 24). Handled jars and bowls were the primary vessel forms. A small, complete, plain gray bowl measuring 10.3 cm in diameter and 5 cm deep came from Pit 3 (Figure 9a). Ten clay figurines or figurine fragments were found in various proveniences (Bodily 2012:25), as well as two pipes—one stone and one clay (Figure 9b). Of particular interest for this paper is the abundance of arrow points with over 300 recovered by BYU and Dames and Moore crews. These are overwhelmingly side-notched points (Uinta Side-notched = 153, other typed side-notched = 15, untyped side-notched = 54), all of which are diagnostic of the late

Fremont period (Holmer and Weder 1980). An additional 92 points came from the excavations, most of which were Cottonwood Triangular types (n = 47). Three of the side-notched points have a basal notch, placing them in the Desert Side-notched category and diagnostic of the post-Fremont period in Utah Valley (Janetski and Smith 2007) and the Great Basin generally (Thomas 1981). Two of those Desert Sidenotched points came from Structure 1; the other was found in the lower fill of Structure 2. These points along with the rock feature in the fill above the floor in Structure 1, suggest a postFremont visit and thereby supporting the Dames and Moore initial characterization of the site as multicomponent. Unmodified Faunal Remains All bone at Kay’s Cabin was well preserved and very abundant with over 12,500 bones recovered in the excavations (Tables 5 through 7). The assemblage is rich with 25 taxa represented, although several were likely non-cultural. Bone was particularly common in the Structure 2 fill, and it was difficult to

Janetski [Fremont Occupation of the Utah Valley Uplands]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Table 4. Artifact Categories and Quantities Jay’s Place (42Ut120) and Kay’s Cabin (42Ut813).

Category

Ut120

Ut813

Ut813/Ut820

Ceramics (Sherds)

1538

4841

3.15

Arrow points

318

3.08

Atlatl points

Bifaces

282

3.17

Groundstone - metates

Broundstone - manos

7.075

Shaft smoothers

15.5

Worked bone

4.25

Ornaments

Pipes

Figurines

Totals

1700

5666

excavate the sediment without encountering and often damaging bone despite the fact that excavators exercised caution to avoid that result. Excavation impacts may have contributed somewhat to the large numbers of unidentifiable small mammal bone. Cottontail rabbits, jackrabbits, and deer are the most abundant identified remains (). The exceptionally rich cottontail assemblage requires some discussion given that cottontail rabbits are typically hunted one at a time rather than in drives. Cottontail rabbits can be taken by hunters using bow and arrow or by snares (Fowler and Fowler 1971:48), and the large number of arrow points may suggest that the former technique was employed. Of course, deer and other prey were also hunted with bow and arrow, so the presence of arrow points is not direct evidence of hunting cottontails. Cottontails often follow identifiable routes marked by paths in the grass or brush making them susceptible to snare capture. Documented snares typically consist of perishable components such as cordage along with wood or reed which would not be preserved

in open sites (Janetski 1979); consequently, this possibility remains equivocal. The Kimball Creek drainage currently consists of juniper woodland on both sides of the valley with some lower brush along the creek. This may have provided some modest cover for cottontails, although it isn’t currently prime habitat. This fact raises the possibility that the site occupants may have altered the landscape through farming, making it more attractive to cottontails (Szeuter 1991). The density of rabbit bones at Kay’s Cabin approaches that seen at Baker Village, also a Fremont structural site, where the abundance of jackrabbit bones suggested feasting and/or ritual activities supplied by local rabbit drives (Hockett 1998). Rabbit bones from Structure 2 at Kay’s Cabin number 2831 elements; the Baker Village Central Structure yielded 3259 rabbit elements, although it is important to remember that only half of that structure was excavated (Wilde and Soper 1994). Differences between the Baker Village assemblage and that from Kay’s Cabin include the fact that

Figure 9. Selected artifacts from Kay’s Cabin: a) ceramic bowl and b) ceramic pipe.

black-tailed jackrabbits were the primary prey at Baker Village, not cottontails as at Kay’s Cabin. Also, the bulk of the rabbit bone at Baker Village came from the large, adobe-walled central structure rather than a pithouse. No such structure is known to exist at Kay’s Cabin. Finally, the fill inside the Central Structure at Baker Village was layered with levels of bone and artifact-rich fill separated by clay/silty layers that suggest multiple uses of that structure (Wilde and Soper 1994). No such layers were noted within Structure 2 at Kay’s Cabin. Despite these differences, it may be that the bone density

in the Structure 2 fill is evidence of feasting or communal meals at Kay’s Cabin. Many bones are in the fill and so postdate the occupation of the structure. Wetland resources, muskrat, suckers, chubs, trout, and unidentified fish are present in the assemblage, although numbers are modest: (Tables 5 through 7). Botanical analyses found cattail pollen on the floor of Structure 1 and Structure 2, although in small quantities (Puseman and Cummings 2001). As noted there was abundant cattail pollen in the small ceramic bowl from Pit 3 in Structure 2. Structure 1 pollen

4320 4

Muskrat

47 7

Yellow-bellied marmot Porcupine

Ground squirrels

2 1

Floor

3182

38 4

3 1

425 65

6 2

64 11

96 14

509

44 2

24 3

Rabbits Domestic dog

Suckers

Totals

Trout

Northern flicker

Robin

2 1

1 2

Hearth

6 1

Pit 4

Vent Shaft 1 Fill

1 3

13 1

Pit 1

Vent Shaft 2 Fill

1 8 191

273 Totals

6 Vent Shaft 3 Fill

Floor

Vent Shaft 2 Fill

Floor

Vent Shaft 1 Fill

Post Holes

Pitt 8

Pit 4

Pit 3

Pit 2

samples also yielded evidence of sagebrush and other woody plants still in the area. Corn pollen and charred cob or kernel fragments were also present, as were bee weed and carex, a marsh plant family that includes marshes and sedges. Seeds from sunflower, goosefoot, globe mallow and others suggest disturbed ground nearby, perhaps the presence of gardens.

Pit 1

Hearth

1 6

Roof Fall

Structure 2

Hearth

Posthole 2

Floor Association

1 5 69

13 21

Deer/sheep/ pronghorn Bison/elk

Structure 1

Exterior Midden/Use areas

Mule deer Pronghorn

Floor

104

2 17 1 42

4 1 4

Roof Fall

17 78

Fill

Mountain sheep 8

Dog-like 4

Weasel Test Pits

Structure 2 Roof Fall

406

1 1326 160

257

Cottontail rabbits Jack rabbits

171

Beaver 13

Exterior Midden/ use areas

Totals

Doves

Structure 1

Fill

Site Surface

Blue grouse

Grouse

Utah chub

Site Surface Test Pits

Great Horned owel

Table 6. Provenience of Identified Bird and Fish Bone from Kay’s Cabin.

Red-tailed hawk

33 37 49 2

76 3 3

622 7 4 34

9 1

1 4

2 1

136

610 4 7

Gopher

Kangaroo rats 2

35 2 1

Wood rats 1

Voles 1

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Fill

Totals Table 5. Provenience of Identified Faunal Remains from Kay’s Cabin..

382 1

82 6

323 3

1701

Janetski [Fremont Occupation of the Utah Valley Uplands]

Discussion The two sites described herein along with survey data in both West Canyon and Kimball Creek demonstrate the importance of these upland areas during the Fremont period. Perennial streams drain both areas and Fremont structural sites are common in both. Based on Wheeler’s excavations in West Canyon Wash and our work at Jay’s Place and Kay’s Cabin, both occupations were residential with substantial architectural investment. Farming

was likely an important aspect of the subsistence strategy in each area. Differences include the much richer artifact and faunal collections from Kay’s Cabin. To demonstrate those differences and to facilitate comparisons I standardized the data by using square meters excavated as a gross measure. We excavated 86 m2 at Kay’s Cabin and just 38 m2 at Jay’s Place or 2.26 times as many at Kay’s Cabin. It is clear that Kay’s Cabin contained many time more artifacts and faunal remains than Jay’s Place (Table 4). At first glance it appears that Kay’s Cabin contained 12 times more bone than Jay’s Place (Tables 2 and 3, 5 through 7). In making comparisons using square meters excavated, however, we find that Jay‘s Place yielded 34 bones/m2 while Kay’s Cabin yielded about 194 bones/m2 or well over five time as much bone as recovered from Jay’s Place. Certain areas at Jay’s Place, such as the curved trench, however, were very bone rich. This 3 m long by 0.6 m wide feature

Janetski [Fremont Occupation of the Utah Valley Uplands]

773

107

108

Roof Fall

Totals

451

Unid fish

Minnows

423

Fill

Unid Bird

200

Small Bird

285

Test Pits

Medium Bird

Large Bird

Site Surface

Rodents

Unid Mammal

Large Mammal

Small Mammal

Medium Mammal

Table 7. Provenience of Unidentified Animal Bone from Kay’s Cabin.

96 1

561

1723

Structure 1

Floor Zone Floor

Hearth Exterior Middens/ use areas

314 6

278

414

963

Fill

906

120

1175

951

Roof Fall

Floor

343

748

234

Hearth

Pit 1

Pit 2

Pit 3

Pit 4

Pit 8

Post Holes

1755

3279

Structure 2 6

1 2

106 12

1449

211

25 3

7 1

124 65 8 26

Vent Shaft 1 Fill

399

249

1295

Floor

1984 13

Vent Shaft 2 Fill

Floor

64 1

Vent Shaft 3 Fill Totals

2938

601

4838

3452

109

173 66

12163

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

contained 583 bones or 277 bones/m2. We also found that certain features were much richer in faunal remains than others at Kay’s Cabin. For example, Structure 2 contained 67 percent of the bone yet it accounts for just 23 percent of the total area excavated, or about 558 bones/m2. This compares to 81 bones/m2 for the remainder of the site. The non-random occurrence of high bone densities suggest certain features were selected for dumping. Selective dumping by the Fremont is not a new idea but seems to be the case at a number of sites (Jardine 2007; Johansson et al. 2014). Reasons for selective dumping are difficult to identify, but may relate to rituals that included depositing valued items, such as beads, figurines, and perhaps household debris, in abandoned houses (Nielsen 2012:153). A question related to selective dumping is the contrast in recovered artifacts from the two sites. Excavators processed over twice the amount of sediment at Kay’s Cabin than at Jay’s Place, yet Kay’s Cabin artifacts number well over three times that found at Jay’s Place, and some categories such as ground stone are many times more common at the former. Why that is so is perhaps most easily explained by the absence of excavated residential structures at Jay’s Place. The excavations are not comparable in the kinds of features sampled perhaps making such comparisons inappropriate. The archaeofaunas of the two sites are also quite different in terms of kinds of taxa represented. To compare site faunal assemblages, I used the Artiodactyl Index (AI) which is a robust measure of hunting success and/or efficiency (Broughton 1994; Janetski 1997; Ugan 2005). The AI is calculated by summing all artiodactyl (deer/pronghorn/ mountain sheep) bones divided by the sum of all artiodactyl bones plus all rabbit bones. As the resulting sum approaches 1, the importance of artiodactyls in the faunal collections, also increases. The AI values for Jay’s Place and Kay’s Cabin are 0.9074 and 0.1219 respectively, which makes it clear that Jay’s Place hunters were much more successful in acquiring big

game than those at Kay’s Cabin. Why would that be so if one makes the assumption that hunters would take larger prey, such as deer, if such game were available (Broughton 1994)? Assuming comparable bow and arrow technology at both sites, one explanation is simply that Jay’s Place is located in artiodactylfriendly habitat whereas Kay’s Cabin is not. This seems unlikely given that both lie at about 1700 m (5600 ft) in pinyon-juniper woodland and both are adjacent to higher uplands (Oquirrh Mountains and the Tintic Mountains). Sampling error may also play a role here, especially at Jay’s Place where our excavations did not find a structure and where the highest bone and artiodactyl densities are in the curved trench. Could the inhabitants of Jay’s Place have selectively tossed bones from larger game in the curved trench? There is some evidence of selective disposal of larger prey bones in a vent feature at Kay’s Cabin where deer mandibles and scapula were found in the southern terminus of Vent Tunnel 1. Demographics may also play into an explanation of these differences. Goshen Valley, which is adjacent to the south end of Utah Lake, is known to contain numerous Fremont sites (Gilsen 1968; Janetski 2004), and may have been more densely populated than West Canyon, which could have put greater hunting pressure on the surrounding uplands. It should be noted, however, that Wheeler’s (1968) survey of the West Canyon region combined with the Nelsons’ observations (Merianne Nelson, personal communication 2012) provide evidence of a substantial Fremont presence in West Canyon as well. Perhaps more important is the fact that Jay’s Place may date as much as two centuries earlier than Kay’s Cabin. Janetski (1997), for example, has suggested that large game decreased in dietary importance through time in the Fremont region due to overhunting, a process called resource depression (Ugan 2005). If so, perhaps large game was more abundant about A.D. 1000 when Jay’s Place was occupied than in the A.D. 1200s when Fremont people were living at Kay’s Cabin.

Janetski [Fremont Occupation of the Utah Valley Uplands]

Table 8. Comparison of Animal Bones from Upland and Wetland Fremont sites in Utah Valley.

Upland Sites Jay’s Place NISP

% of Total

Kay’s Cabin

Wetland Sites % of Total

Woodard Mound NISP

% of Total

Upland taxa Deer/sheep/pronghorn

638

498

Bison/elk

Rabbits

3623

136

Porcupine/marmot

Grouse/doves

Total Upland taxa

762

87.9%

86 0

4148

97.9%

222

31.70%

Wetland taxa Beaver

Muskrat

192

Ducks

All fish

100

Total Wetland taxa

105

12.1%

2.1%

478

68.30%

All Taxa

867

100%

4235

100%

700

100%

The bulk of the Kay’s Cabin faunal remains came from the fill of Structure 2 (Tables 5 through 7), which means they postdate the occupation of that house. In addition, the recovery of hundreds of side-notched arrow points suggest those remains date to the late Fremont period and logically are associated with the use of Structure 1. Based on stratigraphy and radiometric dating, Structure 1 was occupied after Structure 2, perhaps as late as the A.D. 1200s. This makes them roughly contemporary with Woodard Mound, the Fremont site mentioned earlier (Figure 1) (Richens 1983). Woodard Mound lies 1km from Currant Creek and within 5 km of the south end of Utah Lake, an ecological context very different from either Kay’s Cabin or Jay’s Place. The faunal remains recovered at Woodard Mound are, like Kay’s Cabin, dominated by small game, although the

280

taxa represented are quite different with muskrat most abundant (NISP = 192) along with Utah chubs (NISP = 192), although rabbit bones were also common (NISP = 136). Substituting muskrats for rabbits in calculating the AI value for Woodard Mound, the result is 0.3094, a value that, like Kay’s Cabin, is well below that calculated for Jay’s Place and is consistent with the pattern of increased reliance on small game during the late Fremont period (Janetski 1997). Returning to the question asked in the introduction: Were Utah Lake resources important to those living at some distance from the lake? As noted earlier Jay’s Place and Kay’s Cabin lie about 20 km and 25 km respectively from the lake. If the fishery and other lake resources were routinely accessed and brought back to the site, we would expect to see fish, perhaps waterfowl, and muskrat remains in

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

the faunal assemblage. This expectation is met in a very modest way at both sites. To put the remains from the upland sites in perspective, I compared the two upland sites (Jay’s Place and Kay’s Cabin) with Woodard Mound which lies much closer to wetlands. I did this by lumping terrestrial taxa separately from wetland taxa at all three sites and calculated the percent those resource sets are of total bone. The resulting values provide some notion of dietary importance, although this does not include plant foods, which were undoubtedly also important. In so doing, I made assumptions about which taxa people would have brought to the site for consumption. I assumed that very small animals, ground squirrels, gophers, and smaller rodents, as well as non-food birds, such as perching birds and raptors, were either naturally deposited at the site or were procured for nondietary purposes. Table 8 shows that wetland faunal resources were a minor component of the animal remains recovered from the upland sites. At Kay’s Cabin wetland taxa comprise just 2 percent of all dietary bone, while at Jay’s Place the value is a bit higher, about 12 percent. In contrast, wetland taxa make up 68 percent of bone at Woodard Mound. These differences could very well be greatly enhanced had Woodard Mound deposits been screened using 1/8 inch mesh, as was the case at both upland sites. Many fish bones pass through 1/4 inch screen such as Richens (1983) used at Woodard Mound. Further, it is possible some portion of the wetland taxa at the upland sites were obtained in the adjacent streams or in the Sinks of Rush Valley. The scarcity of wetland resources at these upland sites may best be explained by considering the costs of traveling as much as 50 km round trip to obtain fish or muskrat, even though procurement or encounter rates may have been high, especially during spawning seasons. In any case, these findings only modestly support Wheeler’s suggestion that West Canyon Fremont inhabitants traveled long distances or engaged in trade to procure the rich resources

of Utah Lake. Wheeler’s (1968:29, 88) report of “abundant fish bones” in the Hutchings collection presumably from West Canyon sites raises the possibility that our sample was biased in some way against the recovery of fish remains. The data also suggest that those occupying Kay’s Cabin were even less likely to travel to the lake for fishing and gathering. It is worth noting that Jay’s Place is approximately 5 km closer to Utah Lake wetlands than Kay’s Cabin—perhaps too far to justify the costs of transporting fish and other marsh-related resources. Further understanding of the role of wetlands in the lives of Utah Valley Fremont requires the generation of comparable data from sites at more modest distances from the lake such as Wolf Village where analysis of findings is underway (Johansson 2014). Acknowledgements. I offer sincere thanks and admiration to Jay and Merianne Nelson for their dedication to understanding West Canyon archaeology and for their many hours of assistance on this and other Utah Valley projects. Thanks are also due to the other Utah Statewide Archaeological Society members who assisted with the Jay’s Place work: Kay Bassett, Scott Carter, Buzz Chipman, Richard Hansen, Max and Myrlene Healey, Ron Meyer, Jay Woodard. BYU student assistants included Aubrey Baadsgaard, Jon Baxter, Aaron Ferguson, Howard Irvine, and Lis NaUta. Several students assisted with the analysis of the animal bones, but Brad Newbold pulled together the Kay’s Cabin analysis and Lindsay Johansson confirmed identifications on the Jay’s Place collections. Scott Ure, Stephanie Lambert, and Haylie Fergusson assisted me with figures from a distance. I also thank Nancy McClellan, the Jay’s Place landowner, who allowed us to disturb her plowed field. DelReese Kay, the owner of Kay’s Cabin, gave us permission to work there. The reviewers of this paper made excellent suggestions, and I attempted to accommodate most of them. Finally, I thank

Kevin Jones who on August 20, 1997, came by Jay’s Place while we were working on the site to let us know that Jesse D. Jennings had passed away.

Joel C. Janetski Port Townsend, Washington joel_janetski@byu.edu

Janetski [Fremont Occupation of the Utah Valley Uplands]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

References Billat, Scott E. 1985 A Study of Fremont Subsistence at the Smoking Pipe Site. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Bodily, Mark L. 2012 Utah Fremont Figurines: Function and Ritual Abandonment. Utah Archaeology 2012:21-42. Broughton, John M. 1994 Late Holocene Resource Intensification in the Sacramento Valley, California: The Vertebrate Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 21:501-514. Cannon, Mike, and Sarah Creer (eds.) 2011 Data Recovery Excavations at 42DV2, Davis County, Utah. SWCA Cultural Re sources Report No 2010-350, Project no. 11358, SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City, Utah. Dalley, Gardiner F. 1970 Worked Bone and Antler. In Median Village and Fremont Culture Regional Variation, edited by John P. Marwitt, pp. 96-125. Anthropological Papers No. 95. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Forsyth, Donald 1991 Some Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates from Utah County, Utah. Utah Archaeology 1991: 83-88. Gilsen, Leland 1968 An Archaeological Survey of Goshen Valley, Utah County, Central Utah. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young Univer sity, Provo. Grayson, Donald K. 2011 The Great Basin: A Natural Prehistory. University of California Press, Berkeley. Green, Dee F. 1961 Archaeological Investigations and the G.M. Hinckley Farm Site, Utah County, Utah. Unpublished Master’ thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. 1964 The Hinckley Figurines as Indicators of the Position of Utah Valley in the Sevier Culture. American Antiquity 30:74-80. Hall, Molly A. 2008 Parowan Valley Gaming Pieces and Insights into Fremont Social Organization. Un published Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University,

Janetski [Fremont Occupation of the Utah Valley Uplands]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Provo. 2009 The Distribution of Gaming Pieces across the Fremont Culture Area with a Focus on the Parowan Valley. Utah Archaeology 22(1):31-50.

Johansson, Lindsay D., Katie K. Richards, and James R. Allison 2014 Wolf Village (42Ut273): A Case Study in Fremont Architectural Variability. Utah Archaeology 2014 27:33-56.

Hockett, Bryan S. 1998 Sociopolitical Meaning of Faunal Remains from Baker Village. American Antiquity 63(2): 289-302.

Jones, Carl H. 1962 An Archaeological Survey of Utah County, Utah. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo.

Holmer, Richard N. 1986 Common Projectile Points of the Intermountain West. In Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, edited by Carol J. Condie and D. D. Fowler, pp. 89-115. Anthropological Papers No. 110. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Lupo, Karen D., and Dave N. Schmitt 1997 On Late Holocene Variability in Bison Populations in the Northeastern Great Basin. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 19(1):50-69.

Holmer, Richard N. and Dennis G. Weder 1980 Common Post-Archaic Projectile Points of the Fremont Area. In Fremont Perspectives, edited by David B. Madsen, Antiquities Section Selected Papers, No. 16, pp. 55-68. Utah Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah. Janetski, Joel C. 1979 Implications of Snare Bundles in the Great Basin and Southwest. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 1(2):306-321. 1990 Wetlands in Utah Valley Prehistory. In Wetland Adaptations in the Great Basin, edited by Joel C. Janetski and David B. Madsen, pp. 233-258. Occasional Papers No. 1. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Brigham Young University, Provo. 1997 Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification in the Eastern Great Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:1075-1088. 2004 Archaeological Survey and Limited Excavations in Utah Valley. Technical Series 04- 19. Museum of Peoples and Cultures. Brigham Young University, Provo. 2014 The Enigmatic Fremont. In Living in the Ancient Southwest, edited by David Grant Noble, pp. 97-106. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Janetski, Joel C., and Grant C. Smith 2007 Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in Utah Valley. Occasional Papers No. 12. Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, Provo. Jardine, Cady W. 2007 Fremont Finery: Exchange and Distribution of Turquoise and Olivella Ornaments in Parowan Valley and Beyond. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthro pology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Jennings, Jesse D. 1978 Prehistory of Utah and the Eastern Great Basin. Anthropological Papers No. 98. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Marwitt, John P. 1970 Median Village and Fremont Regional Cultural Variation. Anthropological Papers No. 95. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Mock, James F. 1971 Archaeology of Spotten Cave, Utah County, Utah. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Mooney, Adrien 2014 A Synthesis of 20th-Century Archaeological Work at Fremont Sites in the Provo River Delta, Utah. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Nielsen, Glenna 2012 Babies and Cradles: A Comparison of Figurines in the Great Basin, Southwest, and Mexico. In An Archaeological legacy: Essays in Honor of Ray T. Matheny, edited by Deanne G. Matheny, Joel C. Janetski, and Glenna Nielsen, pp. 143-162. Occasional Paper No. 18. Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, Provo. Novak, Shannon, Everett Bassett, C. Inoway, P. VanAlfen, A. Fulton 1991 Kern River Pipeline Cultural Resources Inventory Report: Reroute U-44 and Realignment of Reroute U-44 Utah and Juab County, Utah. Utah Supplemental Re port No. 51. Ms submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washing ton, D.C. Puseman, Kathryn, and Linda Scott Cummings 2001 Pollen, Phytolith, and Macrofloral Analysis of Samples from Kay’s Cabin (42Ut813), Utah. Technical Report 00-95. Paleo Research InstitUte, Golden, Colorado. Reagan, Albert B. 1935 Archaeological Report of Field Work Done in Utah in 1934 and 1935. Proceedings, Utah Academy of Science 12:50-88.

Janetski [Fremont Occupation of the Utah Valley Uplands]

Richens, Lane D. 1983 Woodard Mound: Excavations at a Fremont Site in Goshen Valley, Utah County, Utah 1980-1981. Unpublished Masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Simms, Steven R. 1986 Fremont Adaptive Diversity. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8:204-216. Steward, Julian H. 1933 Early Inhabitants of Western Utah. Bulletin of the University of Utah 23(7):1-34. Salt Lake City. Talbot, Richard K. 2000 Fremont Architecture. In Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project: Results and Synthesis, edited by Joel C. Janetski, Richard K. Talbot, Lane D. Richens, James D. Wilde, and Deborah E. Newman, pp. 131-184. Occasional Paper No. 7. Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, Provo. Talbot, Richard K., Scott E. Billat, Lane D. Richens, Don Southworth, Teri Christensen, Daren Richards, and James D. Wilde 1991 A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed Wycal Pipeline Through the State of Utah. Technical Series No. 90-10. Museum of Peoples and Cultures. Brigham Young University, Provo. Talbot, Richard K., Lane D. Richens, Jame D. Wilde, Joel C. Janetski, and Deborah E. Newman 2000 Excavations at Five Finger Ridge, Clear Creek Canyon,Central Utah. Occasional Papers NO. 5. Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, Provo. Talbot, Richard K., Shane A. Baker, and Lane D. Richens 2004 The Right Place: Fremont and Early Pioneer Archaeology in Salt Lake City. Technical Series No. 03-07. Museum of Peoples and Cultures. Brigham Young University, Provo. Thomas, David H. 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of Cali fornia and Great Basin Anthropology 3:7-43 Ugan, Andrew 2005 Climate, Bone Density, and Resource Depression: What is Driving Variation in large and Small Game in Fremont Archaeofaunas. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24:227-251. Wheeler, Edward A. 1968 An Archaeological Survey in West Canyon and Vicinity, Utah County, Utah.

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

published Masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Woods, Aaron 2004 Spotten Cave Re-visited: A Re-analysis of the Projectile Point Assemblage. Utah Archaeology 17:14-31.

Quantifying Utah’s Past. An Archaeology Data Assessment and Synthesis of Utah through 2015 Arie Leeflang

Antiquities Section, Utah Division of State History

The State of Utah has a rich and diverse archaeological record which is largely lacking in a statewide summary. As the state’s primary archaeological record repository, the Antiquities Section of the Utah Division of State History (UDSH) has collected basic archaeological site and inventory data since the 1980s. While some data is missing, this repository and dataset provides the best opportunity for a statewide, generalized assessment. Landowner inventory rates, large-scale site densities, statewide cultural affiliation summaries, and other data points are provided. As are cultural resource industry trends, including eligibility and site class recording trends. The bureaucratic value of the datasets is assessed. Areas of needed future efforts are discussed.

hen I first started working at the Antiquities Section at the Utah Division of State History (Antiquities) over a decade ago and started exploring the State’s GIS and tabular dataset I was hopeful and excited of the research possibilities. With a tacit understanding of the research objectives, expectations, and hopes built into IMACS in the late 1970s and 1980s I thought the datasets might be diamond in rough, waiting for some research polishing. As my understanding of the datasets, the error rates, and the nature of IMACS grew, my hopes of that diamond diminished. I strongly believe there is still quality research potential in the IMACS datasets, but see the first step as documenting some of aspects of the IMACS and GIS datasets managed by Antiquities. This includes assessing relative confidence in the dataset by identifying holes and error rates. A second step is assessing and quantifying some baseline archaeological statistics for the State of Utah. Such statistics have bureaucratic and research value for archaeological contractors, land managers, planners, and general researchers working in the state. Beyond large-scale Class I reports, the last effort I am aware of to quantify Utah’s statewide archaeological sites is from David Madsen and other staff member efforts at the

Utah Archaeology 29(1), 2016, pp. 59–90

Antiquities Section in the late 1970’s to produce archaeological county summaries (example: Madsen and Berry , 1974). Attempts to use IMACS for research questions have been more common (example: Roberts, 1989). My hope is a large-scale quantitative effort can occur, at a minimum, decadal – providing a baseline data context for archaeologists and the public of the State of Utah. I hope this will be the first of such effort. Project Goals Four goals framed the onset of the project. First, I wanted to establish the status of the data managed by Antiquities - specifically how complete are the datasets, and what is the error rate? If the holes or errors can be identified, they can likely be fixed with the help of land managing agencies or other archaeologists. Second, if error rates were minimal, I hoped to establish some statewide baseline archaeological site statistics to provide both a data context and an interpretive cultural context for Utah. Third, I hoped to establish if there truly is research and bureaucratic value for the datasets, and if it is worth a continuing investment in this data. I feel the second and third goals are tied – with success in building baseline site statistics portraying certain value in the datasets. Finally, 59

Leeflang [Quantifying Utah’s Past]

I hoped to identify where future efforts should be made to enhance or correct the datasets. Section I: Background Brief History of Antiquities Data Collection An adequate history of IMACS and site recording in Utah has been covered elsewhere (Schroedl, 2008). With the passing of the Utah State Antiquities Act (Utah Code §9-8-304) in 1973, the newly created Antiquities Section accepted the record keeping responsibilities for the State of Utah. Within a year Antiquities took responsibility over the site files from the University of Utah Archaeology Center who had previously retained the records (David Madsen, personal communication 3/26/2015). The majority of site records were moved to Antiquities either as the original records or photocopies of the original records. For unknown reasons, it appears a small minority of records may have never transitioned to Antiquities. In 2016 Antiquities, with the assistance of Michelle Knoll at the Natural History Museum of Utah, began exploring and collecting these missing records still held by the University of Utah. Full rectification of these records discrepancies is a much-needed and important project. The initial IMACS database was developed by the University of Utah in the late 1970s (Schroedl, 2008). The database was initially built, housed, and managed at the University as the University was the original records repository. As Antiquities was tasked, in Utah Code, and as Antiquities gained staff and database capabilities, the University transitioned the official database responsibilities to Antiquities (David Madsen, personal communication, 3/26/2015). It’s unclear how much of the original University of Utah database was ingested into, or reconciled with, the new Antiquities database. Since this transition, the database has continued to be maintained and hosted at Antiquities in a variety of different database platforms. In 2007, the database made

its most recent transition from a Microsoft Access database to a Microsoft SQL Server relational database which involved significant data cleansing and validation against defined IMACS values. As appropriately critiqued by Schroedl (2008), the IMACS encoded data submission method that populates this database has not changed over the past 30 years. Antiquities still collects and maintains a tabular database of IMACS data derived from this IMACS encoded data consisting of nearly fifty individual data points. This method of data delivery, usually paper, is antiquated and time consuming for all parties. In the mid-2000’s, Antiquities began building an online generator that connected directly to the tabular database allowing end users to enter actual archaeological data online, eliminating the need for encoded data and allowing the collection of all site data digitally. This basic system was minimally built, not entirely functional, and has yet to be implemented due to final technological and bureaucratic challenges. Recent efforts towards building and employing a new Utah site form, and the costs associated with changing the database to execute the new form, have further stalled full implementation. Current plans to incorporate the new site form into the existing database includes continuing to collecting only core site data that are found in both the existing IMACS form and the new form. These are core fields that are not likely to change in any future site form revisions and have the most utility to land managers and planners. These core data points will be submitted digitally and ingested into Antiquities’ database (Ure and Last, 2016), along with a fully searchable site form PDF, eliminating paper site form and paper encoding form submissions Beyond the IMACS (i.e. tabular) database, Antiquities was an early adopter of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), building a spatial database and initiating the digitization of legacy project and site data in the late 1990’s. Prior to GIS, all archaeological spatial data were tracked

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

on over 1500 hard-copy USGS 7.5’ quadrangle topographic maps and associated Mylar sheets, requiring update by hand as new records were received. In 2003, Antiquities stopped populating the paper maps and moved to digitize all incoming records directly into GIS. The digitizing methodology was primarily ‘heads up,’ where the GIS technician visually enters spatial data from a paper or scanned record, limiting accuracy. Older maps were often digitized into GIS using a large digitizing tablet/ table that allowed for georeferencing controls and increased accuracy. By 2006 only one third of the State of Utah’s archaeological spatial information had been entered into GIS. Researchers were required to travel to Antiquities offices to access both the old paper maps and also request a GIS query by Antiquities staff to assure complete pre-field identification efforts. All remaining paper map data were digitized into GIS in 2008 through a massive State Legislature funded digitization project. Legacy paper maps were then moved to the State Archives for curation. The spatial database is now the best index for site numbers managed by Antiquities as, in theory (but not always in practice); every paper or tabular record managed by the Section should now have a spatial data correlate while not every spatial plot will have an associated tabular or paper record. The same year, 2008, also corresponded with the launch of a custom ArcServer online application built by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) allowing researchers the ability to view this spatial data online for the first time. At this point Antiquities updated their internal GIS digitization efforts for incoming records to require map scanning and georeferencing for increased accuracy in geospatial plots. In 2009, Antiquities also changed existing internal working policy which previously discouraged the inclusion of supplemental digital record submission and began encouraging records submissions to include digital GIS data to further increase

accuracy. GIS and other digital record submission rates, supplementing required paper submissions, have steady increased through time. As of January 1, 2016, voluntary digital submission rates now reach approximately 65% of all records submitted, increasing both Antiquities data ingestion efficiency and accuracy. The final 35% will be reached with upcoming GIS submission requirements and a planned change to an electronic consultation system the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (UTSHPO). This planned electronic consultation system will eliminate paper records submission. Paper site forms and their digital scans comprise the final component of Antiquities’ archaeology site data. The paper records were not directly searched or queried for this project because of the size and un-indexed nature of the collection. As many of the paper records predate the Antiquities database some sites do not yet have a tabular data component and are found in only a paper format, or digital scan of the paper record, with a GIS plot. Recent scanning efforts have yielded a site form collection that is fully text searchable. These recent scans were not directly searched or queried for this project. Future fine-grained research efforts should plan to utilize this functionality. Current Mandates and Access Requirements Under Utah State Code 9-8-304(f) the Antiquities Section shall “collect and administer site survey and excavation records.” Additionally, under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Section 54 U.S.C. 302303 the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) shall maintain statewide inventories of historic properties which includes archaeological sites. Through time, internal Antiquities structuring has variably placed the Archaeology Records program of Antiquities within or without, but always closely partnered with, the Utah SHPO office. Since 2013 Archaeology Records is directly part of both Antiquities and UTSHPO.

Access to the state’s archaeology records is controlled by both state and federal law. Utah State Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA; Utah Code 63G2-305[26]) classifies records that “reveal the location of historic, prehistoric…. resources that if known would jeopardize the security of those resources” as protected, limiting access. Similar, NHPA (Section 304 [16 U.S.C. 470w3]) requires “withholding from disclosure to the public, information about the location, character or ownership of a historic resource if… disclosure may risk harm to the historic resource.” The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (Pub.L. 96–95 as amended, 93 Stat. 721, codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa– 470mm) provides additional confidentiality requirements. To remain in compliance with such laws, Antiquities has adopted policy to manage access according to these constraints. Currently Antiquities requires private consultant individual possess a State of Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office (PLPCO) Principal Investigator Permit to Conduct Archaeological Surveys. Federal agency personnel may alternatively meet the Secretary of Interior’s (SOI) Professional Qualification Standards as defined and officially adopted in 1983 (48 FR 44716, September 29, 1983). Individuals working directly under someone meeting these requirements may also have access if the Standard or permit holder agrees to hold the responsibility of the actions of that individual. Further, anyone accessing the records is required to sign a user agreement (Antiquities Section, 2016) which provides additional information and betrayal penalties according to GRAMA. The Antiquities Section has always encouraged the use of the IMACS database for research projects. Research access requirements are the same as standard records access listed above. Students often rely on their academic advisor to meet the PLCPO PI permit requirement or partner with a private industry archaeologist who meets the requirements. On

Leeflang [Quantifying Utah’s Past]

average, Antiquities has provided archaeological spatial or tabular data for five unfunded research projects per year. In contrast, Antiquities has provided access to archaeological records for an average 280 onsite visits per year (for last ten years). Further, on average nearly 1600 archaeological site forms are downloaded per month from the Antiquities digital site form collection. Data Issues One of the biggest issues plaguing the dataset is its incomplete status. Despite being the primary archaeological records repository for the State of Utah, many records either never arrive, or are unfortunately lost, misplaced, or removed from the onsite collection. Also, as expressed earlier, it is unclear if some of the original University of Utah database records were ever fully incorporated into Antiquities’ datasets. There are countless reasons why some records never arrive at Antiquities. Section 106 and U.C.A 9-8-404 SHPO compliance efforts with UTSHPO remain the primary mechanism for records accession to Antiquities. Some compliance projects are cancelled after a site record is generated, removing the compliance motivation to submit. Other site records never progress beyond an agency due to changes in personnel, non-compliance, simple lapses in process, records resulting from stewardship (non-compliance) projects, or for a variety of other unspecified reasons. Finally, some site records never pass beyond SHPO case files due to human error or procedural compliance issues, never progressing to the actual Antiquities archives. This issue has largely been corrected, but complicated 106 cases can often tie up site records for extended periods of time leaving them outside the datasets. Recent records rectification efforts between Antiquities and some initial state and federal agencies have begun a new effort of filling holes. Given these issues, please consider this a forward acknowledgement of the incomplete nature of the dataset and records as a whole.

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Data entry errors do occur and detract from the quality of the datasets. Both internal Antiquities and external caused data errors have been documented. Proposed plans to move towards a digital workflow will surely decrease these errors rates – our human nature will never fully eliminate the errors, but they can be managed and reduced. Additional error rates come from incorrectly or poorly identified artifacts, features, or other site information being added to the final site record. The only cure for such errors, no matter the database, site form, or data entry method, is the assurance of qualified people performing quality work. In 2014 an effort was made to assess the tabular data entry error rate in the IMACS tabular dataset. A student intern from Weber State University, Mr. Timothy Alger Jr., reviewed each site record for Box Elder County (approximately 2200 records for approximately 1700 sites) as a subset of the larger collection. From the individual site forms he re-collected basic site information that was previously gathered in Antiquities tabular dataset from IMACS encoding forms. The information he collected was basic administrative data included site class, eligibility, date recorded, state project number, etc. but did not include artifact or feature data. The goal was to validate Tim’s newly collected data against the existing IMACS tabular data to IMACS encoding form data entry errors (by internal staff or external submissions). Tim was only asked to recollect data as it was presented in the site form, not reassess site information from site descriptions, photos or sketches. As such, this new dataset provided a means of checking for errors occurring either during the initial data encoding or data entry into the database at Antiquities. A comparative query between Tim’s dataset and the Antiquities database showed approximately a 6.8% error rate for these core administrative fields. This error rate accounts for errors in specified fields committed by initial encoding, Antiquities data entry, or data entry by Tim in his comparative dataset.

While notable, the author feels this rate does not discount the viability of the data quantification presented below or future use of the database as a whole. Instead, it provides a lens to assess the dataset and its completeness. And it further energizes Antiquities to fix errors and install increased standards and processes to eliminate future errors. In fact, it was expected that the project would identify a much higher error rate, perhaps in the 10-20% range given anecdotal approaches in the past. Identified errors were fixed, while additional data, not previously collected by Antiquities, such as IMACS site type, were added to the database in an effort to improve the dataset. Section II: Data Synthesis The error rate provided above was deemed acceptable enough by the author to continue on to the project’s second goal, the establishment of key baseline, statewide, archaeological data measures and statistics. The various measures and statistics discussed here were selected by the author in an effort to contribute to broad regional research questions and land management planning efforts. Much of the data synthesized was approached at a county or land managing agency boundary level. More fine-grained geographic or site characteristic based queries and summaries were not attempt as grouped missing records are likely to play a more statistically detrimental role in incorrectly biasing the data. Some synthesized data, such as those regarding historic can and lithic scatters, is provided to contribute to ongoing discussions about current archaeological practice in Utah. The summary data provided is not meant to be a complete synthesis of statewide archaeological data. Instead it is hoped the chosen topics will, beyond informing research and land management efforts, promote the use of Antiquities data in informing additional questions and topics. The summary data is also presented to build support for the overall research and bureaucratic value of the datasets. It is worth noting that all the summary data

Leeflang [Quantifying Utah’s Past]

provided in this paper is merely a reflection of, not the source or basis, of what is, and has, happened with archaeological practice and archaeological standards in Utah. While Antiquities is the final repository for a large majority of Utah archaeological data, Antiquities is largely removed from decisions about what is recorded and where inventories occur. The majority of the data held by Antiquities is driven by laws, processes, and standards outside of Antiquities’ reach. Number of Sites A non-scientific survey of freshmen Weber State University students by Dr. Chris Merritt attending his Introduction to Archaeology class showed students thinking, on average, there were approximately 7,000 archaeological sites in Utah with approximately 38% of the state surveyed (Chris Merritt, personal communication, 3/1/2016). This provides a quick picture, albeit limited, and not necessarily representative, of the Utah public’s conception of the breadth of Utah’s archaeological resources and archaeological efforts to identify them. As of January 1, 2016 Antiquities holds some component of archaeological data (location, paper form, or IMACS tabular data) for 89,838 individual sites (see Table 1). For

the purposes of this paper, the author followed the assumption that any archaeological site record found in Antiquities datasets met the minimum site qualification as defined by state or federal land management agencies. As UTSHPO or Antiquities does not provide minimum site criteria, many agencies have defaulted to the Utah BLM criteria (Bureau of Land Management, Utah, 2002). Isolated occurrences or isolated artifacts were not tabulated. This count of archaeological sites was quantified by querying the site number from sites held in Antiquities’ GIS tables and tabular IMACS tables and then combining the results into one table. Duplicate site numbers resulting from revisits or duplicate geometries were then removed. The resulting list counted any single archaeological site for which Antiquities has either a geospatial plot or a tabular record. In certain rare cases Antiquities may have only a plot or a tabular record – the former being more common. With the completion of the site form scanning project, the best index for archaeological records is now Antiquities’ digital site form collection currently accessed through Preservation Pro. As of 1/1/2016 there were approximately 118,000 individual site records held in this collection with an average of 200 new records

Table 1. At a glance - base state statistic. Per Antiquties-held data as of 1/1/2016.

Number of archaeological sites

89,838

Percent of total classified as prehistoric (only)

79.8%

Percent of total classified as historic (only)

14.9%

Percent of Utah surveyed (Class II or III)

9.2%

Overall Site revisit rate

9.4%

Site revisit rate since 2000

17.3%

Average number of new sites recorded per year 2000-2015

2,762

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

added per month. Each record corresponds with a Smithsonian Trinomial with potentially many records per Trinomial. As this collection includes site revisits and site addendums certain sites may have multiple corresponding records leading to a higher count than the above reported tally of 89,838 archaeological sites. Of these 89,838 sites, Antiquities has tabular data (i.e. IMACS encoded data) for approximately 70,266 individual sites, or approximately 78% of the total site count. The missing 22% are the product of a variety of issues. First, a certain percentage of site forms have arrived without encoding forms and have not been entered into the tabular database. Second, many pre-IMACS site forms predated the current tabular database and, for whatever reason, never had their tabular data entered and are simply missing from the database. Finally, Antiquities does have a backlog of IMACS encoding forms (n=~3,000 forms) awaiting data entry which contributes to the discrepancy. To fix some of these issues Antiquities is currently (2016) focused on an effort to quality control certain basic tabular and spatial data held in the databases for the entire site form collection. As part of this project, Antiquities is gathering two further data points, IMACS site type and the name of the site recorder, which are commonly requested of Antiquities but were never previously collected in the records submission process. Beyond the core 70,266 records, Antiquities has 7,300 additional tabular records for site revisit records. This gives a revisit rate of approximately 9.1% through time. Since 2000 the revisit rate has reached 17.3% as we expect the number of revisits to grow as the inventory of sites grow and common areas are reinvestigated. Since the year 2000 the number of sites recorded in Utah (new recordings and revisits) per year has averaged 2,762 with the average from 2013-2015 averaging 4,142. County-level quantification was accomplished by continuing the above statewide quantification and querying by Smithsonian Trinomial county

codes (Table 2). The presented count in Table 2 should reflect individual site counts, per county, as defined geographically or tabular in IMACS (e.g. like “42GR*”). Again, this only includes counts for sites which Antiquities retains a digital spatial or tabular component. In some rare cases Antiquities may have paper site documents but no spatial plot or IMACS tabular database entry, and are not tallied for this analysis. With no effective digital index, these paper records are in effect lost until specifically searched for. We hope to capture most of these sites during our current quality control project mentioned above. Included in this figure is the total number of Smithsonian Trinomial numbers assigned by Antiquities as of January 1, 2016. This number does not reflect the count of archaeological sites reported as “cancelled” or not used by site number applicant. Based on the difference between the number of site numbers assigned and the number of sites for which Antiquities has some component of digital data, Antiquities has some information on approximately 76% of the site numbers assigned. This number is likely depressed given the inclusion of cancelled numbers. Two counties warrant further discussion. First, Salt Lake County contains approximately 180 placeholder site numbers for linear sites assigned in 2002 as part of the second Kern River Pipeline Project (Reed, et al., 2005). For most of these sites, limited documentation beyond a site name were ever generated (Kristen Jensen, personal communication, 2/1/2010). This has led to a relatively high number (24%) of Salt Lake County sites with no associated site information found at Antiquities, likely over representing site counts and inflating statewide numbers for missing records. Second, San Juan County, with its nearly 32,000 assigned site numbers, contains many site recording duplicates or triplicates. Given the dated mapping technology, high site density, and poor reporting requirements before the

Leeflang [Quantifying Utah’s Past]

Table 2. Core county statistics.

County

Total Database Total # Sites % Sites (IMACS+ GIS Assigned Inventoried dups removed)

Site Density per Inventoried Acre

One site per __Inventoried Acres

Beaver

3042

4521

8.53%

0.01667

Box Elder

1629

2246

6.62%

0.00527

189.62

Cache

147

205

3.39%

0.0021

476.26

Carbon

2708

3298

11.42%

0.01694

59.04

Daggett

1660

2046

23.60%

0.01414

70.71

Davis

141

189

10.97%

0.005

199.91

Duchesne

2911

3994

12.98%

0.00997

100.34

Emery

3818

4740

3.87%

0.01289

77.55

Garfield

6234

7850

8.97%

0.01454

68.75

Grand

4152

5247

6.11%

0.01354

73.86

Iron

2922

3716

7.31%

0.01258

79.48

Juab

1549

1920

6.49%

0.00741

134.93

Kane

5950

8070

7.64%

0.0175

57.14

Millard

3232

3815

6.50%

0.00923

108.33

Morgan

2.01%

0.00332

301.62

Piute

548

863

10.57%

0.00567

176.29

Rich

193

271

4.78%

0.00372

269.14

Salt Lake

388

744

7.82%

0.00606

164.96

San Juan

24547

31789

6.08%

0.03583

27.91

Sanpete

732

996

4.34%

0.00709

141.01

Sevier

3005

3674

14.44%

0.00893

111.98

Summit

400

696

6.42%

0.00306

327.24

Tooele

3694

6398

15.05%

0.00531

188.34

Uintah

7082

8600

23.92%

0.00888

112.58

Utah

1380

1930

8.67%

0.00784

127.57

Wasatch

337

430

8.56%

0.00349

286.21

Washington

4699

6113

14.91%

0.01595

62.68

Wayne

2249

3170

4.91%

0.01154

86.62

Weber

423

525

13.13%

0.00556

179.88

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

1980’s, many sites have unknowingly been assigned more than one number. San Juan County site numbers may be slightly inflated but still undoubtedly remains the county king of Utah sites. Cultural Resource Inventory Quantifications A query of the Antiquities cultural resource inventory GIS datasets reveals approximately 9.2% of Utah land has been subject to cultural resource inventory (Class II or Class III) over the past forty years. Each of Utah’s 29 counties has received different levels of archaeological investigation through time as regional development interests change. Uintah Basin counties (Uintah and Duchesne), with their cyclic oil and gas booms, are recent hot spots for inventory and cultural resource identification efforts with other counties relatively neglected due to fewer undertakings requiring cultural resource compliance. Understanding the relative regional occurrences of cultural resource inventory can provide a better context for assessing other archaeological data points, such as site density. Breakdown by county seemed the most efficient approach for quantifying and assessing inventory levels trends. While counties do not necessarily follow geographic bounds, they do provide tidy units for certain questions or types of data exploration that do not require geographic bounds. Percentages of inventory area, listed in Table 2, were generated from Antiquities cultural resource inventory GIS datasets. In order to organize and collate spatial inventory data, the author made several decisions to create a baseline for spatial data. Inventory data decisions included not separating reconnaissance and intensive level inventories, combining point and line feature classes into a polygon feature class, and assigning one acre areas for each point plotted feature even though they may represent smaller inventory areas. Linear inventories stored as lines in the GIS dataset were spatially buffered based upon

a “maximum width” collected by Antiquities. This value denotes the maximum width of the linear inventory corridor, which, if the corridor had a variable width, may over generalize the size of the corridor. Once migrated to polygons, all overlapping inventory areas were merged to eliminate double counting of inventory acreages. Even given the potential over generalization of point and line buffering processes mentioned above, and the known missing inventory data from Antiquities project datasets, the resulting tally provides interesting results. Likely not surprising to many archaeologists, many of the largely privately-held counties (e.g. Morgan and Cache) have the lowest inventory percentages. Being privately held, development projects or other undertakings in these counties have not been subject to the state and federal cultural resource laws that result in the cultural resource inventories more common on state and federal lands. Uintah County, with its substantial oil and gas development, coupled with a high percentage of federal lands, has the highest percentage of inventory at 23.92%. Daggett County, with its large U.S. Forest Service holdings, was second in percentage at 23.60%. Surprising, given its relatively higher number of archaeological sites compared to every other Utah county, is the low inventory area of San Juan County at 6.08%. Despite its large federal land tracts, San Juan County has not seen the development projects booming in certain northern counties. It should be noted that much of the early inventory and site recording work in San Juan County (pre 1970) may not be well represented in the Antiquities dataset likely depressing San Juan County’s percentage. This is due to the assumed missing early inventory records and/or poor representative data from older records with poor or missing maps. Tracking annual reported inventory acreage shows several inventory booms since the late 1970s (Figure 1). Since 1978 an average of 254,262 acres has been inventoried per year (reconnaissance and intensive). The late 1980’s and 1990’s were fairly stable in inventory

rates with an average of nearly 179,000 acres inventoried per year (reconnaissance and intensive). An increase is seen leading from the late 1990’s into the early 2000’s, averaging nearly 276,000 acres inventoried (reconnaissance and intensive). The most prominent inventory spike is seen just prior to the 2008 financial crisis (Soros, 2009) which includes the incredible 100,000 inventoried acres of the 2007 Milford Flat Fire (Mullins, et al., 2009). Of interest, directly following the economic downturn of 2008 we see reported inventory rates in 2008, 2009, and 2010 returning to inventory rates seen in the late 1990s and early 2000s. At least within the last decade, there appears to be a general tie between inventory acreage and the economic health of the state and nation more broadly. The decline in reported inventory acreage seen in 2009 and rebound in 2012 are generally seen to match Utah employment growth rates reported by the State (Mayne, 2013). The number of state archaeological project numbers assigned by Antiquities in a particular year provides an additional data point to measure against. This measure is not perfect as not all projects are created equal. Many projects involve limited acreage with no findings while others may involve extensive acreage with significant findings or involve extensive data recovery. No matter the size of the project, each project is generally assigned one project number, and thereby counted once. Viewing project number counts (Figure 2) we see Utah’s cultural resource industry emerging in the late 1970s as more agencies came into compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. Utah’s designation of a SHPO in 1967 and the 1973 passage of the Utah State Antiquities Act and subsequent hire of the first State Archaeologist in 1973 (Weilenmann, 1973) likely also contributed to the emergence of a cultural resource industry in Utah. Project number counts from the late 1980’s and 1990’s display relative stability with the number assigned fluctuating between 712 and 882.

Leeflang [Quantifying Utah’s Past]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

The most significant project number trend is from 2002 to 2006 where the number of project numbers assigned dramatically increased from 826 to 1863. This seems to match the economic boom of the mid-2000s (Utah Foundation, 2012). In 2009, following the economic downturn of 2008 we see a significant decline in project numbers. Since 2009 a moderate increase appears to correlate with Utah’s economic recovery, reaching over 1,374 in 2014. There is very limited association between the number of archaeological sites recorded and number of projects initiated, per year (Figure 2). This limited association is partly due to the diversity of archaeological projects which are not limited to site identification efforts (e.g. data recovery projects). Also contributing is the varying assortment of project locations occurring through the range of prehistoric and historic population densities across the state. Inventory Area and Sites per Landowner Using the same dataset from the section above, it is relatively simple to slice up cultural resource inventory coverage by landowner. The landowner GIS layer utilized for this section is hosted by the Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center (AGRC, 2014) and stewarded by Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and other partners. The top landowners were selected and processed individually, with less-common federal and state agencies being grouped into ‘other’ categories. The landowner with the highest percentage of cultural resource inventory coverage was the Department of Defense with 25.1% of its lands inventoried, followed closely by Utah State Parks at 24.7% (Table 3). Perhaps not surprising to some, given the low ratio between their extensive holdings and compliance projects requiring inventories, only 8% of BLM lands have been inventoried. Of note, however, is the relatively low level of National Park Service (NPS) lands inventoried at 6.4%. This low

Figure 1. Reportned Survey Acreage by Year.

percentage is likely due to limited consultation and subsequent limited records submission to UTSHPO by NPS as many of their inventory projects are resulting from inventory efforts under Section 110 of the NHPA, not Section 106. The NPS National Programmatic Agreement also contributes in how it is written and locally interpreted. Statewide, after controlling for duplicate sites, Utah has one site (prehistoric, historic, or multicomponent) per 86.8 inventoried acres. This query includes any inventory area, including reconnaissance level inventories and older inventory areas that may not meet current inventory standards. As such, it’s assumed this statistic may be slightly depressed. Assessment of site density is perhaps best completed in a more fine-grained manner- constrained to a single, geographically consistent area, per a research question. Adding site class, site type, or cultural affiliation will have further research value. A coarse-grained assessment may have interest and value to certain researchers or land managers looking for large-scale contexts. But

any truly actionable site density model will require a narrowing or filtering to key site data and geographic data in tandem. Beyond a statewide density, breaking the state into slightly narrower geographic areas provides some additional value. The Great Basin in Utah, as physiographically defined (Grayson, 2011), has a site density of one site per 124.3 inventoried acres while the Colorado Plateau has a higher density at one site per 66.6 inventoried acres. San Juan County has the highest site density in the state, with one site per 28 inventoried acres (Table 2). Not surprising, as the majority of its inventoried area occurred in previously developed areas, Cache County lags far behind at one site per 476 inventoried acres. Further narrowing of density by distinct geographic areas would have value for various landscape level planning efforts and cultural resource compliance contract bidding. Prehistoric Cultural Affiliation Prehistoric sites, or sites with a prehistoric component (i.e. including multicomponent),

Leeflang [Quantifying Utah’s Past]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Table 3. Landowner statistics..

Figure 2. Number of Project Numbers Assigned and Number of Sites Recordeds.

make up the majority of currently documented sites in Utah. Approximately 84% of sites recorded in Utah (revisits not included) with a tabular data component managed by Antiquities are classified as prehistoric. These are sites with IMACS coded values found in one of the primary prehistoric site fields (e.g. prehistoric cultural affiliation; prehistoric artifact, prehistoric feature; etc.). The IMACS list of prehistoric Cultural Affiliation provides over forty different cultural categories and subcategories. Categories range from the expected Paleoindian and Fremont to the far less common Algonquian values. The majority (64%) of these prehistoric sites either have no value listed in the Prehistoric Cultural Affiliation field, or are listed as “unknown.” While high, this percentage is not surprising given the requirement of a diagnostic artifact, diagnostic feature, Native American informant, or other culture-assigning trait to assign affiliation. Due to the construction of IMACS and data collection methods and standards of the last 30

years, some single sites with multiple prehistoric cultural affiliations listed may be counted twice, slightly inflating numbers. For example, a Puebloan site listing the general Anasazi/Pueblo code (AN) and also more specifically listing Pueblo I (P1) would be counted twice. Likewise a site exhibiting temporal markers for, and coded for, Fremont (FR) and General Archaic (AR) would likewise be counted twice. Barely over 15% of the sites with a Prehistoric Cultural Affiliation value have two such values listed and may be counted twice. Even given this potential double counting, this data still retains value for general context purposes. Additionally, many of the early site recordings, especially in San Juan County, occurred prior to IMACS and would not have a database entry for cultural affiliation, leading to limited skewed numbers especially in areas with many early recordings. Among the sites (~36%) with a cultural affiliation assignment, the proportions present interesting patterns (Figure 3). It should be noted the percentages presented here are biased to where academic and contracted archaeological

Landowner

Bulk Site Count (inlcuding revists)

Percent of Total utah Sites

Surveyed Area (Acres)

Total Landowner Area (Acres)

Percent of Landowner Surveyed

BLM

51,135

50.2%

1,998,658

22,782,917

8.8%

43.1%

39.1

DOD

2,310

2.4%

455,720

1,812,564

25.1%

3.4%

197.3

14,154

13.4%

912,964

8,178,574

11.2%

15.5%

64.5

NPS

6,545

6.2%

133,612

2,096,642

6.4%

4.0%

20.4

Private

15,225

14.4%

606,258

11,421,268

5.3%

21.6%

39.8

SITLA

7,514

7.4%

344,714

3,401,502

10.1%

6.4%

45.9

State Parks

314

0.5%

29,645

119,934

24.7%

0.2%

94.4

Tribal

4,486

4.6%

221,583

2,448,628

9.0%

4.6%

49.4

Other State (DNR, UDWR, UDOT)

889

0.9%

51,157

478,098

10.7%

0.9%

57.5

Other Fed (BOR, USFW)

112

0.1%

13,061

125,509

10.4%

0.2%

116.6

Total

102,684

100%

4,767,372

52,865,636

9.0%

98.9%

0.018

work has been completed and is not necessarily an accurate percentage of past population size or a complete distribution of sites through Utah. All things equal, areas with higher inventory rates should result in more site recordations and higher database contributions per the cultural affiliations of the particular geographic area. Further, targeted research into specific site types or cultural affiliations may inflate certain site classifications relative to another. For example, Fremont-targeted research

Landowner One Site Percent ot per __ Total State Acres (area)

(primarily non-profit and academic work) in such areas as the Escalante area canyons, Great Salt Lake wetlands, Nine Mile Canyon, and Range Creek Canyon have likely contributed to an overrepresentation of Fremont sites in the database. Second to Ancestral Puebloan cultural affiliated sites, Fremont affiliated sites represent 19% of prehistoric sites with a coded cultural affiliation value. Puebloan cultural affiliation is the highest coded value, accounting for nearly 51% of all

culturally affiliated prehistoric sites. Given the history of interest in the Four Corners area and the relative high concentration of Puebloan sites there this number should not be surprising to southwestern archaeologists. The Pueblo II period is the most commonly coded Puebloan affiliation (Figure 4). Perhaps of interest is the previously discussed relatively low inventory rate for San Juan County – which could function as a very informal and incomplete, but convenient, delineation of Southwestern archaeology in Utah. The interest is the low inventory area rate but high Puebloan affiliated site count. It is expected (as is likely obvious to anyone working or living in San Juan County), that increased inventory rates would lead to an explosion in the number of identified Puebloan sites. Paleoindian is reported at only 1.3% and early Archaic is reported at 2.2% of the total of culturally affiliated prehistoric sites. Ongoing recent work by the Department of the Army at the Dugway Proving Grounds (Oviatt, et al., 2003; Madsen, et al., 2015) in the Old River Bed area has focused efforts on identifying other Utah Paleoarchaic sites. Their efforts have yielded dozens of additional sites that are either not yet in, or in the process of being incorporated into, the Antiquities records and datasets. This is an acknowledged hole in the Antiquities dataset. Record-wise, obviously, a further fine-grained effort to analyze individual site records would improve the data quality for cultural affiliation, but the hope is these general numbers benefit a general Utah context. Mapping site densities per assigned cultural affiliation provides a general site distribution context (Figure 5 and Figure 6). These site distributions are partly indicative of where archaeological inventories and excavations occurred. Currently identified high Fremont site densities for Nine Mile Canyon and the Escalante River drainage are due to high overall site densities, good site preservation, and many years of intensive research. Other areas with potentially equivalent high site densities

Leeflang [Quantifying Utah’s Past]

and preservation, such as the Price River Valley, are underrepresented due to a lack of intensive research and inventory (Riley, 2014). Beyond research-focused areas, other areas inventoried as part of general cultural resource management projects provide a certain statewide sampling dataset. While biased toward areas of development projects (and thereby inventory) and away from areas of poor preservation (e.g. urban areas), the inventory dataset maintained by Antiquities does provide a useful sample of the state A review of sites with a rarer prehistoric site cultural affiliation will be relatively short. Of the approximately 45 affiliations listed in IMACS, 88% of sites with a cultural affiliation fall into an affiliation category with a minimum count of 500 or more similarly affiliated sites (Figure 3). The remaining twelve percent are dispersed among a remaining handful of codes. Several IMACS cultural affiliations have yet to receive their first site assignment, including Washoe, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Sioux (general), Dakota, Lakota, Crow, and Yuman. Several other affiliations are likely similarly neglected but upon review, clearly received an assignment by data entry mis-key or other mishap. For example, the one “Pre-Paleoindian” affiliated site (Morris, 1996) contains Paleoindian affiliation, but includes no further information in the site form for a Pre-Paleoindian justification. One site (42UN885) was ascribed an Algonquian cultural affiliation. A site form review finds the site is “Possibly Late Plains Archaic in one place” (Hampson, 1980). It was later revisited by both SWCA Environmental Consultants and Montgomery Archaeological Consultants (Roberts, 2008) but no diagnostic artifacts were relocated. Three sites are assigned a Hopi affiliation – all within the same distinct area, all by the same site recorder. Two sites, 42KA5820 and 42KA5723 have rock art figures similar to Hopi kachina mask iconography (McFadden, 2001a), while the third, argued associated with the rock art panels (42KA5724) had Hopi Yellow Ware pottery (McFadden,

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Figure 3. Prehistoric Cultural Affiliation - general categories removed.

Figure 4. Breakdown of sites with specific Puebloan affiliation.

Leeflang [Quantifying Utah’s Past]

2001b). Two sites (42EM2451 and 42TO984) were assigned to the apparently rare Western Pluvial Lake Tradition affiliation. Both affiliations were based upon diagnostic stemmed points. Among the less rare are Shoshone affiliated sites (n=140) and Numic (n=223). Historic Themes Not including revisits, historic sites, or sites with a historic component, make up just over 19% of Utah’s total sites with digital tabular data. Similar to the previously discussed prehistoric sites, these are sites with IMACS coded values found in one of the primary historic site fields (e.g. historic theme; historic artifact; historic feature; etc.). The IMACS list of Historic Themes comprises nearly 50 categories, ranging from Farming and Ranching to Gaming. Of particular interest to some archaeologists are the categories of Breweries and Saloons and Divorce/Marriage - which may be directly tied on both counts. As may be expected, a majority of sites (51%) have a blank or ‘unknown’ Historic Theme entry (site revisit records included). This is perhaps due to the difficultly of assigning a relevant Theme to isolated sites with limited diagnostic artifacts or features. The vast majority of sites with an ascribed cultural affiliation fall into the Farming/Ranching Theme (27.0%), which, given the patterns of historical development of Utah, is not all that surprising. The second most common Theme is Mining/Mineral Extraction (7.1%), followed by Transportation (4.7%) which captures historic roads and sites directly associated with those linear features (Figure 7). An exploration of some of the more interesting Themes provided only limited results. The Breweries and Saloons Theme captured less than ten sites ranging from an actual brewery to small moonshining operations in the backwoods of Morgan County. Site 42SL348 documents the former remnants of the Salt Lake City Brewing Company brewery originally established in 1871 (Baddsgaard, et al., 2001). Reportedly dating

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

to the 1930’s, the historic remains of the Tooele County tavern and card house known as the Handy Corner was also documented under this Theme (Horn, 1998). Among perhaps the more interesting are remains of historic backcountry distilling operations like 42MO22 which dates to the United State’s prohibition period (Norman, 1983). Only one site is found listed with a Prostitution Theme. This site is at the northern boundary of the Eureka City limits. Archaeological inventory at site 42JB1250, Working Woman Wash, identified several garter clasps and other feminine ascribed artifacts (Mullins, 2002). The recording organization reported no historical evidence of prostitution at Eureka, but proposes such activity occurred given the artifact assemblage and the reference that “in many western mining towns drinking and prostitution were combined under the guise of a saloon” (Sagstetter and Sagestetter 1998:150-152). Keyword searching Antiquities’ digital (PDF) site forms collection for the term “prostitution” identified the historic townsites of both Frisco and Alta. Archaeologists list prostitution within the site forms documents, but not as a Theme. Instead, in both cases, the dominant theme was mining with prostitution only tied secondarily. The question may be asked, what evidence is required to assign a Theme? In the case of prostitution, the bar may be high as an artifact assemblage alone may not be sufficient and account for the very limited query results. Historic v. Prehistoric Sites Expectations between the number of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites for a particular area can be made based cultural contexts, professional field experience, and a review of the existing site records. One overall expectation about the ratio of prehistoric to historic sites is that the number of historic sites should rise through time given increasing historic populations after 1847. Further, due to

Figure 5. Site density of recorded Fremont affiliated sites. Township derived. Utah Automated Geogrphic Refernce Center Utah Terrain base map.

Leeflang [Quantifying Utah’s Past]

Figure 6. Puebloan site densities in San Juan County. 1km hexagon derived. Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center Landform Basemap.

the rolling 50 year rule (Sprinkle, 2007) used by most state and federal agencies to identify potential historic properties, it is expected that each year a whole new suite of sites will need to be assessed. This expectation is based on the supposition that historic material culture will increase or decrease proportional to population. Reviewing the data there is an increase in the number of historic sites recorded through time (see Figure 8). From 1980 to 1989 approximately 8% of the sites recorded were historic, while approximately 88% were prehistoric (the small remainder being multicomponent). From 1990 to 1999 there was an increase in the number of historic sites recorded with an approximate average of 16% historic and 78% prehistoric. Finally, from 2000

to 2012 we see 32% being historic and 61% being prehistoric. Relative high points are seen in 2005 and 2006 with 41% and 39% historic respectively and low points of 22% in 2009 and 21% in 2011 being historic. On average it appears that historic sites are out-documented 2:1, versus their prehistoric counterparts. As expressed above, based on the expected growth in the amount of historic material culture due to increases in historic population size, a researcher should expect to see a correlation between the population increases of the mid 20th century and historic recordings fifty years later as these historic sites ‘some of age’ at 50 years of age. Review of Utah Census data (Forestall, 1995) does show an expected population increase between 1940 and 1960 but this does not appear to

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Figure 7. Historic Theme: breakdown of sites with a historic theme listed.

directly correlating with the increase in historic sites recorded 50 years later. This argument may be complicated by mid-20th century community efforts to centralize refuse disposal. A statistical assessment of population increases against increased historic site recordings would require fine-grained dating from historic sites (at least decadal) that is not possible from the current IMACS dataset. Recent assessments of historic sites and their IMACS records shows inconsistent and poorly dated historic artifacts and features lead to erroneous date ranges (Chris Merritt, UTSHPO, personal communication, 7/20/2015). Interpretation of the temporal range of sites included in the IMACS dataset is also an issue, as many archaeologists provide the full range of the manufacturing of

artifacts, “1800s-present” without completing detailed artifact cross-dating to hone-in on a potential deposition date. Over 1200 historic or multicomponent sites in the database have no chronological information, while many others possess dates from inappropriate dating techniques. The increase in historic site recordings is more likely due to changes in agency enforcement, and interpretation, of NHPA identification efforts and the so called “50 year rule.” If the previously offered expectation of historic population increase being correlated to the number of historic sites recorded is followed further, the number of historic sites should increase in the most recent decade, mirroring the population increases from 1950 to 1960. This

Leeflang [Quantifying Utah’s Past]

Figure 8. Historic versus prehistoric sites recorded per year..

trend is not reflected in the historic sites data. Instead there is a somewhat erratic historic site rate averaging around 32% for the last decade of site recording, but no further significant increase. National Register Status Recommendations All site forms submitted to UTSHPO, and then transferred to Antiquities, should possess a recommendation or determination for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This should include a statement regarding the site’s eligibility under each of the four Criteria (A, B, C, D) while also discussing the seven aspects of integrity (Association, Setting, Materials, Design, Feeling, Workmanship, and Location). The Criteria and Integrity used to evaluate NRHP status are not tracked digitally by Antiquities and are not directly searchable. The final eligibility status following agency determination and SHPO opinion, however, is tracked and available for querying per a particular final site NRHP status. Results of eligibility rates per site class at a

county and statewide level is shown in Table 4. Using the original IMACS coding, a site is classified as “eligible” if it falls under one of the following criteria: • Listed in the database as a National Register Listed site (IMACS code ‘A’) • Nominated for the National Register (B) • Recommended as National Register quality (C) • Determined eligible through consultation with UTSHPO (I) A not-eligible site is one listed as Nonsignificant (D). Sites listed without an IMACS National Register value (blank value) or an Undetermined value (Z) were treated as lacking a National Register value and valued as unevaluated/undetermined. To better understand Utah eligibility trends through time Figure 9 provides National Register eligibility percentages in five year intervals for the entire dataset (revisits included). This is a measure of the National Register eligibility status listed on unique site observations where a site record was generated.

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Eligibility values from later site observations (revisits) where the National Register status was reevaluated were not propagated to the earlier observation’s National Register values. As expected, given the relatively nascent Utah SHPO and emerging Utah cultural resource industry, early recordings (1975-1979) are more likely to have an unevaluated status. After 1995 the vast majority of sites are arrive at Antiquities with a field professional eligibility recommendation, agency determination, or SHPO concurrence. The unevaluated percentages shown from the last ten years reflect sites reported to Antiquities without agency determination or as part of a SHPO Programmatic Agreement. Since the 1980-1984 period the percentage of eligible sites has been fairly consistent, outnumbering the not eligible sites by 12-20%. Of interest, during the period of 2005-2009, eligible sites only outnumbered not eligible sites by 3%. To further understand site eligibility trends without the potential bias of multiple revisits, an additional query was run with only the most recent value being tabulated. Among the approximately 56,000 individual sites with a NRHP eligibility value recorded, approximately 75% were prehistoric, 20% were historic, and 5% were multicomponent. Among prehistoric sites statewide, approximately 59% were eligible with 41% not eligible. In contrast, statewide historic sites were generally reversed, with 63% not eligible and 37% eligible. Multicomponent sites were far more likely to be called eligible at 66% given they theoretically possessed twice the opportunities to meet NRHP Criteria. Viewed at a county level a few geographic trends stand out. First, the central southwestern counties of Iron and Beaver are two of only a handful of counties where not-eligible prehistoric sites outnumber prehistoric eligible. The mountain county of Summit is the only county where the number of historic eligible sites outpaces the number of historic ineligible. The southern boundary counties of San Juan, Washington, and Kane have the highest

proportion of prehistoric National Register eligibility. Given the recent interest and discussions concerning the costs associated with recording certain classes of archaeological sites and resulting National Register eligibility recommendations (Yoder, 2014) it is of interest to further explore eligibility at a more fine grained level. The prehistoric lithic scatter and historic can scatter are perhaps Utah’s two most maligned site types. But when viewed through a simple anthropological lens devoid of existing cultural narratives, these two site types are similar in many respects, especially in the eyes of the NRHP. These sites are most likely simple refuse locales with limited information potential under traditional Utah archaeology research questions. To adequately explore these two site types and their eligibility at their most basic level it was necessary to isolate sites with no other associated eligibility contributing characteristics. Sites with only tin cans or only lithic scatters listed in IMACS were selected. Sites with tools, diagnostic artifacts, or features were removed as those characteristics are known to contribute, in certain cases, to a site’s eligibility. Extracting prehistoric lithic scatters with no listed additional artifacts, tools, or features yielded approximately 8100 sites. Of these, 22% were listed as eligible, 56% not eligible, and 22% as unevaluated. A similar query for historic can scatters without additional artifacts or features yielded only 163 sites, with none being evaluated as eligible and one listed as unevaluated. As the potential for depth is often a NRHP discussion point for eligibility under Criteria D it was pertinent to further remove any sites with noted depth. Removing sites with depth from the query whittled the results to approximately 4121 prehistoric lithic scatters and 146 historic can scatters. Removing depth dropped the eligible rate on such prehistoric sites to 11%, with an additional 74% being not eligible and 15% unevaluated. All 140 historic can scatters remained ineligible.

Leeflang [Quantifying Utahâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Past]

Figure 9. Eligibility trends through time.

The justifications for the remaining 11% eligibility rate lie with the original recorder, agency official, and/or SHPO reviewer. IMACS encoded data may not capture certain site characteristics that may contribute to a siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s eligibility and be the root of the remaining 11% prehistoric site without depth. The data potential offered by obsidian hydration and x-ray fluorescence of certain artifacts are not IMACS encoded but would potentially apply under NRHP Criterion D. And certain researchers may see lithic scatters as offering data potential in the form of intrasite or landscape spatial patterning or proximity analyses (Sulivan and Rozen, 1985; Schlanger, 1992; Shott, 1994; Chartkoff, 1995). Of interest, an argument for the same type of research potential has been presented for historic can scatters (Merritt, 2016). Also, it is perhaps inappropriate to consider common can scatters as lacking diagnostic artifacts when even the most battered can, let alone coexistent ceramic or glass artifacts, could be identified and assigned to data range and function (Reno, 2012; Simonis, 1997; Rock, 1993). Beyond these queries, it appears overall

National Register eligibility rates have been fairly stable at around 55% eligible since 1995. The majority (75%) of eligible sites are prehistoric. Given the lithic scatter v. can scatter query described above, and other recent topical discussions (Yoder, 2014, Merritt, 2016), it seems more current regional historic and cultural contexts would contribute to informing and standardizing National Register eligibility justifications made under Criterion D for both historic and prehistoric sites. Section III: Bureaucratic or Research Value The first two goals of this paper were to establish the status of the data managed by the Antiquities Section and provide summary statistics. The third goal was to assess the research and bureaucratic value of the datasets. The completeness of the dataset is directly tied to its relative value for research or other land management applications. It is clear there are some significant holes in the IMACS dataset housed at Antiquities. A basic site number query of assigned site numbers v. accessioned records

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

revealed Antiquities is potentially missing around 20% of Utah archaeological site record, which includes records for ongoing projects and also abandoned site recordings that Antiquities is not aware of. This discovery is resulting in a series of data rectification projects with the help of key agencies and several generous private industry consultants. A second aspect of relative value is the error rate within the dataset. Previously described work by Weber State Student Timothy Alger Jr. and Antiquities staff showed an error rate of around 6.7% for key IMACS fields. This error rate pertains to data entry errors made upon IMACS encoding sheet creation by site recorders or by Antiquities or hired contractors retrieving encoded data from these sheets to be added to the database. Such errors are unfortunate and will hopefully be better controlled with changes in digital data entry technology (Ure and Last, 2016). This error rate was deemed acceptable for the general quantifications efforts of this paper. Other errors in identification of archaeological site characteristics, artifacts, and features, are probably only best controlled by qualified personnel and adequate training of those personnel. The success of the summary queries and data syntheses provided in Section II show the datasets do have intrinsic value to researchers, land and resource managers, and development planners. Summary details such as site density, eligibility rates, and expected site characteristics have value in immediate and long term project planning from power line siting to grazing allotment renewals. Many other queries that would inform resource management or development planning projects could be derived with beneficial outputs. This projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s data cleanup and general summary and quantification efforts brought the author to several acknowledgements concerning the data and the dataset. First, the dataset has significant value for general, coarse grained queries, such as regional or county-wide

assessments. At such levels the rates of error and missing records are shared across a larger quantity of records, presumably helping to statistically minimize their deleterious effects. Second, the lack of a standardized IMACS site type has limited certain simple pragmatic queries. The current IMACS site type is simply an open text field allowing for various entries, even for the same site type in the same project. Instead of relying on specific site type queries with explicit domains, researchers require a reliance on particular site characteristics and resulting query complexity to identify similar typed sites. For the day-to-day requirements of Antiquities and its partners this is not acceptable. Under contract with the BLM, SWCA Environmental Consultants has recently developed a macro to ingest IMACS encoded data and output a series of pre-defined site types based upon encoded values (Beck, et al., 2016; N. Thomas, personal communication, 6/24/2016). Executing this, or a similar, database query for the entire encoded IMACS dataset will add further bureaucratic value to the dataset. For deeper research, the IMACS database remains a valuable index for identifying sites of interest to a researcher. A researcher will likely always require reassessment of site details, currently found only in the full site form, for sites of interest following an IMACS data query. The recent digitization and optical character recognition (OCR) of Antiquities site form collection may prove fruitful for such reassessments and other advanced text queries. Perhaps the greatest bureaucratic value comes from the collaboration between the IMACS dataset and GIS. With much of human behavior including a spatial component, GIS remains the primary tool for exploring spatial patterning. Enhancing Antiquities archaeological GIS datasets will be important for both research and efficient land management directives. Antiquities efforts, moving forward, will involve the clean up, rectification, and enhancement of their existing GIS datasets for both research and

Leeflang [Quantifying Utah’s Past]

Table 4. Eligibility rates per county and site class. County

%Prehistoric & Eligible

%Prehistoric & NE

%Historic & Eligible

%Historic & NE

%MultiComponent & Eligible

%MultiComponent & NE

Beaver

28.7%

49.2%

4.7%

12.0%

3.5%

2.0%

Box Elder

33.5%

26.5%

13.3%

21.4%

2.7%

2.6%

Cache

19.0%

14.3%

28.6%

36.5%

1.6%

0.0%

Carbon

37.5%

12.5%

10.5%

34.1%

3.9%

1.5%

Daggett

52.8%

37.3%

2.1%

4.5%

2.2%

1.1%

Davis

24.7%

6.2%

30.9%

37.0%

1.2%

0.0%

Duchesne

39.9%

16.9%

9.5%

27.4%

4.6%

1.7%

Emery

38.8%

35.5%

6.1%

14.4%

2.9%

2.4%

Garfield

49.9%

38.6%

2.4%

4.3%

3.2%

1.5%

Grand

48.3%

29.0%

4.9%

10.2%

4.9%

2.6%

Iron

34.9%

43.5%

4.2%

12.2%

2.6%

2.7%

Juab

28.0%

23.5%

11.9%

20.8%

11.2%

4.6%

Kane

65.2%

26.0%

2.1%

3.0%

2.9%

0.7%

Millard

44.4%

33.7%

3.4%

10.5%

4.9%

3.1%

Morgan

3.0%

18.2%

30.3%

39.4%

3.0%

6.1%

Piute

32.5%

41.3%

8.8%

15.0%

1.9%

0.6%

Rich

11.0%

11.7%

26.2%

46.9%

2.1%

Salt Lake

9.4%

15.3%

30.2%

42.4%

2.0%

0.8%

San Juan

57.8%

33.3%

2.3%

2.9%

0.8%

Sanpete

19.2%

31.7%

13.0%

28.4%

3.3%

4.4%

Sevier

31.0%

44.4%

5.0%

14.5%

2.4%

2.7%

Summit

12.0%

38.2%

34.1%

2.8%

0.9%

Tooele

29.0%

34.2%

9.4%

23.1%

2.5%

1.8%

Uintah

29.7%

20.3%

6.4%

37.9%

3.4%

2.3%

Utah

22.4%

29.9%

16.1%

25.7%

3.4%

2.5%

Wasatch

13.1%

22.0%

19.8%

41.4%

2.2%

1.5%

Washington

51.4%

31.3%

4.6%

7.5%

3.2%

1.9%

Wayne

48.1%

37.0%

4.1%

5.0%

4.1%

1.7%

Weber

33.8%

14.5%

21.4%

29.7%

0.7%

0.0%

All Counties

43.9%

31.0%

5.7%

14.3%

3.4%

1.8%

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

cultural resource management objectives. The application of GIS and the IMACS dataset are being utilized more and more in large scale planning efforts across the state and the West. The Western Energy Coordinating Council, a non-profit corporation working on western energy issues, has successfully worked with several western SHPOs to build a cross-state line dataset assessing ‘risk’ levels in regards to effecting archaeological resources in siting regional power line corridors (WECC, 2016). The Utah Department of Transportation has integrated Antiquities spatial and tabular datasets into their Utah Planning and Environmental Linkage (uPEL) Map. This integration allows transportation planners to gather basic known cultural resource information, along with other environmental data, in ongoing transportation planning efforts (Park, 2015). Both of these efforts (WECC and uPEL) are designed for non-archaeologist planners and provide only summary information and no site location information. Both are viewed as successful (ibid; B. Woertz, personal communication, 5/28/2015). The BLM is also working on large scale, regional and multi-state planning efforts using the existing Antiquities’ and other state’s datasets. Initial pilot efforts have shown the lack of certain site data, such as the consistent site type discussed above, have detracted from the effort. But initial responses are positive (K. Halford, personal communication, 10/27/2016). Such large scale efforts have noteworthy value for land managing agencies and development planners. From these efforts, and the continued dayto-day cultural resource industry use of the records, it is clear the dataset does indeed have significant bureaucratic value for state and federal agencies, and other interested planning organizations. Further, the above data syntheses and query results show there is a solid store of data in the system for both research and resource management objectives. The above discussed incomplete status of the dataset and error rate do detract from this value – but planned and

ongoing efforts to fill holes, correct errors, and eliminate new errors, will only increase the value. Continued investment in these datasets seems prudent. Section IV: Future Efforts Given the decided value and assessment of the datasets future efforts seems clear and can be broken down into three areas. The first area requiring work is filling existing holes in the datasets. Antiquities is currently working on identifying holes in the dataset by reviewing site number assignments for currently missing sites. Contractors, agencies, and individuals should expect contact regarding site numbers assigned to them where records have not yet been received by Antiquities. We are currently working with key land managing agencies to rectify records between our two records collections. The hope is to eliminate the previously described 20% missing records. Second, we plan to correct blatant existing errors in the dataset. Current efforts, partly funded by the BLM, involve Antiquities staff reviewing each individual site record for accuracy in key field and spatial location according to the paper site form. Staff is also collecting IMACS site type to help populate this currently blank field. It is estimate 12% of the sites in the site forms collection will be revisited by the start of 2017 with the entire state completed in 2018. This effort will fill correct issues and bolster confidence in the datasets. Beyond this effort we will continue to correct data issues as we find them or as they are reported. We continue to ask researchers to report incorrect or missing data when found. Antiquities supports efforts to revise the site type field into standardized categories as currently proposed in the Utah Archaeology Site Form (Yoder, 2016). For legacy data Antiquities needs to build, or receive from the BLM (N. Thomas, personal communication, 6/24/2016), a macro to transition existing IMACS encoded data into a standardized series of site types

Leeflang [Quantifying Utah’s Past]

based upon IMACS encoded site characteristics. This will allow more uniform queries for newly received and legacy sites. Finally, Antiquities needs to continue working on efforts to require digital submission of records. There is no current digital requirement, allowing many UTSHPO submissions to arrive in paper format only. All paper submitted records require a transition to digital - whether spatial, tabular, or document imaging. This paper to digital transition is an area where errors may be introduced. Eliminating this possibility for error through digital submissions will be critical to more robust datasets. Completing these three efforts, filling dataset holes, correcting bad data, and requiring digital record and data submission will create and assure a more robust and trustworthy dataset Summary Utah’s archaeological record is one of the most diverse and rich in the United States. The Antiquities Section at the Utah Division of State History is tasked with collecting and managing the archaeological data, datasets, and record collections for the state. While the overall collection may be fragmentary in places, it is the most complete of the state. An assessment of missing records found approximately 20% of the assigned site numbers are missing from Antiquities records – either as part of ongoing projects, never submitted projects, or never used numbers. A cursory, sample assessment of the tabular IMACS dataset found an error rate of approximately 6.7% for key fields. This error rate, and the missing record rate, appeared minimal enough to attempt to summarize and synthesize key archaeological data, for areas of interest, for the state. Queries show Antiquities holds records for nearly 90,000 individual archaeological sites with just over 9% of the state inventoried. As mentioned above, it is important to remind the reader that the data managed by Antiquities is a reflection of archaeological practice and standards in Utah,

through time. The datasets, and their intrinsic value, may be biased toward past research directions and past archaeological practices that are or were beyond the reach of Antiquities. In spite of these reflections and potential biases, these newly provided data should provide contextual and summary information for researchers, land managers, and planners interested in archaeological data at large scales. These data querying exercises show the archaeological datasets managed by Antiquities have significant value and should continue to receive investment and further efforts. Given the various issues uncovered through the summary exercises and dataset assessments it is clear the Antiquities datasets need further work to fill holes, correct errors, and standardize site types for legacy site data. This will require long term investment from Antiquities, its agency partners, and other archaeological contractors. This all, as an unsaid, shared goal, is to collect and archive information about the past as accessibly and thoroughly as possible in appropriate digital preservation. My hope is this paper has appropriately laid out the current status of the data, its value, and where it needs to go to meet that goal. Overall, the author feels this data summary project had significant value in providing baseline summary statistics, error rectification, and an error rate assessment. If the question is whether we should continue to invest in contributing to, and fixing errors in, a central dataset, I feel the answer is an emphatic yes. Acknowledgements. This project would have been incredibly difficult without the support and encouragement of Dr. Christopher Merritt, Antiquities Coordinator. His objective assessment of the projects goals and various arguments were invaluable – as were his edits. Deb Miller, Assistant Archaeology Records Manager, and Dr. Kevin Jones, past State Archaeologist and Antiquities Coordinator, also deserve significant thanks for their support and

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

advantageous data discussions over the years. The past archaeology records managers at Antiquities also deserve major credit for their efforts to build and maintain as complete a datasets as within their means. The constraints are many. I’d also like to acknowledge and thank the manuscript reviewers – their edits and critiques were in depth and incredibly valuable.

Arie Leeflang Utah Division of State History Salt Lake City, UT 84101 aleeflang@utah.gov

Leeflang [Quantifying Utah’s Past]

References AGRC 2014 Land Ownership GIS Data Layer, Accessed 10/1/2014, http://gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/ land-ownership/ Antiquities Section 2015 User Application for Utah Archaeological Maps and Files, 1/15/2015 Baddsgaard, A., R. Nash, and G. Neilson 2001 Site record for 42SL348, 7/10/2001, Office of Public Archaeology, Brigham Young University, on file at the Utah Division of State History

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Mayne, Carrie 2013 Utah’s Economy – 2013, Utah Department of Workforce Services McFadden, Doug 2001a Site record for 42KA5820, Bureau of Land Management, 11/23/2001, on file at the Utah Division of State History 2001b Site record for 42KA5724, Bureau of Land Management, 9/12/2001, on file at the Utah Division of State History Merritt, Chris 2016 Utah’s Trashy History, Presented at the 2016 Utah Professional Archaeology Council Winter Meeting, March 5th, 2016

Beck, R. Kelly, Mike Cannon, Lisa Benson, Stephanie Lechert, Kiera Westwater, Paul Burnett, Sarah Creer, and Lindsey Kester 2016 A Class I Cultural Resource Inventory of Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Richfield Field Office

Morrison 1996 Site record for 42MD1397, Bureau of Land Management, 10/1/1996, on file at the Utah Division of State History

Bureau of Land Management, Utah 2002 Guidelines for Identifying Cultural Resources, Handbook H-8110, p9

Mullins, Danny 2002 Site record for 42JB1250, 11/8/2002, SWCA Environmental Consultants, on file at the Utah Division of State History

Chartkoff, Joseph, L. 1995 A Nested Hierarchy of Contexts: an Approach to Defining Significance for Lithic Scatters, Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Vol 17 no. 1, pp28-40 Forestall, Richard, L. 1995 Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990, United States Bureau of the Census Grayson, Donald, K. 2011 The Great Basin: a Natural Prehistory, University of California Press, pp12-17 Hampson, Jim 1980 Site record for 42UN885, 4/14/1980, AERC, on file at the Utah Division of State History

Mullins, Danny, Mark Karpinski, Jesse Adams, Elizabeth Karpinski, Nathaniel Nelson, Ashley Grimes, Jason Dabling, Nicole Herzog & Frank Parrish 2009 A Cultural Resources Survey of 100,000 Acres Within the Milford Flat ESR Area, Millard County, Utah Norman, Garth V. 1983 Site record for 42MO22, 10/17/1983, ARCON, on file at the Utah Division of State History Oviatt, C. G., Madsen, D. B., & Schmitt, D. N. 2003 Late Pleistocene and early Holocene rivers and wetlands in the Bonneville basin of western North America. Quaternary Research, 60, 200-2

Horn, Jon 1998 Site record for 42TO1080, 12/17/1998, Alpine Archaeological Consultants, on file at the Utah Division of State History

Park, Randy 2015 Update to Interagency Data Sharing Agreement, data sharing agreement update letter addressed to Brad Westwood, 3/12/2015, internal working document, Utah Division of State History

Madsen, David B., and Michael S. Berry 1974 Box Elder County Summary, manuscript on file at the Antiquities Section, Utah Division of State History

Reed, Alan, Matthew T. Seddon, and Heather K. Stettler 2005 Kern River 2003 Expansion Project, Alpine Archaeological Consultants and SWCA Environmental Consultants, U01A10250, on file at the Utah Division of State History

Madsen, David, Dave n. Schmitt, David Page 2015 The Paleoarchaic Occupation of the Old River Bed Delta, University of Utah Press

Leeflang [Quantifying Utah’s Past]

Riley, Tim 2014 Judging the Book Cliffs by their cover: Investigating the archaeological record along the face of the Tavaputs Plateau. Presented at the 34thAnnual Great Basin Anthropological Conference, October 15-18, 2014, Boise, ID Roberts, Chris 2008 Site record for 42UN855, Montgomery Archaeological Consultants, 5/30/2008, on file at the Utah Division of State History Roberts, Heidi 1989 Prehistoric Site Distribution in the Eastern Great Basin: a Test of IMACS. Paper presented at the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, Las Vegas, Nevada Rock, Jim 1993 Can Chronology, accessible via Southern Oregon Digital Archives, http://soda.sou.edu/Data/ Library1/History/ANTH02m_rock.93.01.pdf Sagestetter, Beth, and Sagstetter, Bill 1998 The Mining Camps Speak: a New Way to Explore the Ghost Towns of the American West, BenchMark Publishing Schlanger, Sarah H. 1992 “Recognizing Persistent Places in Anasazi Settlement Systems.” In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, Springer US, pp 91-112 Shott, Michael J. 1994 Size and Form in the Analysis of Flake Debris: Review and Recent Approaches, Journal or Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol 1 Issue 1, pp69-110 Simonis, Don 1997 Condensed/Evaporated Milk Cans: Chronology for Dating Historical Sites, Bureau of Land Management, Kingman Arizona Soros, George 2009 The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: the Credit Crisis of 2008 and What it Means, pp vii-xxviii Sprinkle, John H. 2007 “Of Exceptional Importance”: The Origins of the “Fifty Year Rule” in Historic Preservation, The Public Historian, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp81-103 Sullivan, Alan P. III, and Kenneth C. Rozen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation, American Antiquites, Vol. 15. No. 4, pp755-779

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Ure, Scott, and Jordan Last, “The BYU Archaeological Digital Initiative: New Advances in Paperless Documentation,” Presented at the 2016 Utah Professional Archaeology Council Winter Meeting, March 4th, 2016 Utah Foundation 2012 Recovering from the Great Recession, Are We There Yet?, http://www.utahfoundation.org/ img/pdfs/rr709.pdf, accessed 2/1/2016 WECC 2016 Western Energy Coordinating Council Cultural Resources Data Sharing Agreement, draft status, 5/9/2016 Weilenmann, Milton L. 1973 Utah’s Historic Preservation Plan, Volumes I and II: 1973-1983, Section Edition, Revised, Utah State Historical Society (Division of State History) Williamson 2007 Site record for 42UN855, SWCA Environmental Consultants, 10/16/2007, on file at the Utah Division of State History Yoder, David T. 2014 Interpreting the 50 Year Rule, How a Simple Phrase Leads to Complex Problem, Advance in Archaeological Practice, Vol. 2, Num. 4, pp324-337 2016 Utah Archaeology Site Form, draft provided via personal communication, 9/16/2016

Prehistoric Diets and Medicines of the Utah Great Basin: Using Ethnohistory to Explore Botanical Remains From Spotten Cave Human Coprolites Madison Pearce

Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University

Spotten Cave (42UT104) in Utah Valley is a special archaeological site because of its intermittent use from 5580 to 50 BP and because of the human coprolites found therein. Few reports have been devoted to this site, however, with none done on botanical remains. Archaeobotanical analysis of these prehistoric human coprolites coupled with ethnographic data provides insight into how and why former inhabitants of Utah Valley may have consumed both wild and cultivated plants. This report is unique for the valley, as it is one of the few botanical reports on Archaic sites in the area, and because Spotten Cave is one of two excavated caves sites and one of four Archaic sites.

potten Cave is an unusual site in Utah Valley (Figure 1) because it is one of the earliest dated sites in the valley and contains deposits dating to Archaic, Fremont, and Historic time periods (Janetski 1990). Spotten Cave is one of four excavated Archaic sites in Utah Valley, the others including 42UT934 near the south end of Utah Lake, the Provo Bay Site (42UT1618) on the Provo River delta, the Prison Site (42SL186) and American Fork Cave (Janetski 1990:15-16, 2001; Michael Searcy, personal communication 2015; Richens and Talbot 2017). What makes Spotten Cave even more uncommon are the sixteen human coprolites that were unearthed during excavation. Archaeobotanical analyses have been conducted on only a handful of remains in sites from Utah Valley (e.g., Wolf Village [Dahle 2011], Woodard Mound [Richens 1983], Kay’s Cabin [Puseman and Cummings 2001], Seamons Mound [Ure 2009], Smoking Pipe [Billat 1985], and West Canyon [Wheeler 1968]). Save for the Provo Bay Site and the Prison Site, no botanical studies come from deposits as old as Spotten Cave (Rich Talbot, personal communication 2017). This paper reports on the analysis of plant remains found in those sixteen prehistoric human coprolites from Spotten Cave. I then draw upon ethnographic sources of the

Utah Archaeology 29(1), 2016, pp. 91–112

Shoshone, Goshute, Ute, and Southern Paiute to elaborate on how and why former inhabitants of Utah Valley may have consumed both wild and cultivated plants. Background Spotten Cave is located in the southern end of Utah Valley, on a dolomite upthrust facing southwest (Janetski 1990:14; Jones 1961:43; Mock 1971:1, 33). The nearest water sources are Warm Springs, two miles southwest, and Goshen Bay, four miles northwest (Janetski 2007:11; Jones 1961:44). Woodard Mound and Wolf Village, two nearby Fremont village sites, were contemporaneous with the Spotten Cave Fremont occupation (Figure 1). The cave was introduced to archaeologists in 1960 (Mock 1971:1). Presumably, later that year, Carl Hugh Jones (1961:43) visited the cave, designated it as site number 42UT104, and excavated a test pit in the back of the cave. In his test pit, he found one complete bifacial mano and stone and bone artifacts, but no discernible stratigraphy (Jones 1961:43). Unfortunately, the cave was subsequently looted several times, destroying an estimated one-third of the deposits. Yet the lower stratigraphic levels, Zones I and II, remained intact (Jones 1961:43-44). These disturbances 91

Pearce [Prehistoric Diets and Medicines of the Utah Great Basin]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Table 1. Stratigraphic Zones in Spotten Cave with Associating Coprolites.

Zone

Period

Radiocarbon Dates

Coprolite Specimen Numbers and Types

Archaic

5500±120, 4640±120, 4200±120 BP

Specimens 1-4 animal

Archaic

3660±110, 2110±100 BP

Specimens 5-6 animal; 7-8 human

III

Fremont

1310±90, 730±90 BP

Specimens 9-11, 17-21 animal; 12-16, 22 human

Late Prehistoric

AD 1300-historic*

Specimens 23-30 human

Recent

early 1900 to ca. 1960*

Specimens 31-32 human; 33A-33C animal

Note: Dates from Mock (1971:61-85). See Forsyth (1991) for a review of Spotten Cave radiocarbon dates. * Indicates no radiocarbon dates were collected and the dates provided were estimates from Mock (1971).

Figure 1. Map showing Spotten Cave, Woodard Mound, Wolf Village, Utah Lake, and Utah Valley (Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Provo. Courtesy Scott Ure).

prompted Brigham Young University (BYU) archaeologists to excavate the cave in 1964; no other excavations occurred prior to Jones’ test pit. The BYU crews began by removing all fill disturbed by vandals and then worked intermittently until completion in 1969 (Cook 1980:39; Mock 1971). Problems during excavation included dust, unstable fill leading to unstable profiles, rock spalls intermixed in the fill, continued vandalism, and rodent activity. They excavated the cave following natural levels with overall cave deposits ranging from five to seven feet deep. Mock identified five main stratigraphic layers or zones, and every zone had living floors, evidenced by compacted sediments and artifacts (Gilsen 1968:26; Mock 1971) (Table 1).

occupied by Late Archaic peoples (Mock 1971:66). A rock partition, hearths, ash lens, and living floors were identified in Zone II. Artifacts found include projectile points, worked bone, mountain sheep horn cores, stone tools, and ground stone (Mock 1971:66-70). Two human coprolites were found in Zone II. A review of the artifacts found in the various zones, coupled with where Mock claims the vandals dug in the cave and what zones were most disturbed by animals, shows that Zone I and II, the lowest strata, were the least disturbed and perhaps best preserved of all five zones (Table 2). The human coprolites ascribed to Zone II (none were found in Zone I) will therefore be assumed to be correctly provenienced

Archaic, Zones I-II

Fremont, Zone III

Zone I of Spotten Cave, with radiocarbon dates between ca. 5,500-4200 B.P., appears to be a Middle to Late Archaic occupation (Janetski 1990:13-15; Mock 1971:61). This date range is older than the deposits in American Fork Cave, which date to around 3,700 B.P. (Janetski 1990:14). Living floors and hearths were identified in this zone, and artifacts found include stone tools, ground stone, and bone awls (Mock 1971:63-65). Zone II, with radiocarbon dates between 3600-2100 B.P., was also likely

Zone III from Spotten Cave is characterized by a Fremont occupation. The two radiocarbon dates, 1300 and 700 B.P., affirm this, as does the presence of Fremont style artifacts (Forsyth 1991; Mock 1971:71). Living floors, hearths, cache pits, ash lenses, and one adobe wall near the mouth of the cave were some of the features identified. Artifacts include several ceramics, projectile points, worked bone, and several botanicals (Mock 1971:72-81). Six human coprolites were found in this zone.

Pearce [Prehistoric Diets and Medicines of the Utah Great Basin]

Table 2. Spotten Cave Artifacts Reviewed to Determine Zone Integrity.

Category

Projectile Points

Ceramics

Type

Zone Zone Zone I II III

Zone IV

Zone V

Spoil Dirt

Total

Late Paleoindian

Pinto Series

Humboldt

Elko Corner-notched

Elko Side-notched

Northern Sidenotched

Rose Spring

Eastgate

Uinta Side-notched

Cottonwood Triangle

Desert Side-notched

Small side notched

Unidentified

Subtotal

Great Salt Lake Gray

136

178

Sevier Gray

Snake Valley Gray

Sevier Red on Gray

Knolls Gray

Shoshone Ware

Subtotal:

230

299

Note: Projectile point information adapted from Woods (2004:29). The proveniences of five identified projectile points were not recorded, and as such these points were not included in this data table. Ceramic identification from Mock (1971) and MNIs from Cook (1980).

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Mock (1971:66) reports that the first feature they uncovered in Zone II was a sub-adult burial that was probably intrusive from Zone III and therefore of Fremont origin. Janetski et al. (1992:194) agree. Little analysis has been performed on this burial. Richens (1983:88) sourced obsidian from the Fremont level of Spotten Cave and found that “30% [came] from Mineral Mountain, 30% from Black Rock, 20% from Malad, Idaho, and 20% from Topaz Mountain [which demonstrates] that the Fremont of the Utah Lake area were obtaining obsidian from several sources.” The vandal pit that went through Zone III stopped at the top of Zone II; however, the artifact distribution suggests that this zone was better preserved than Zones IV and V. The human coprolites for this zone are also assumed to be correctly provenienced because of the good faith effort of Mock and the other archaeologists to maintain unstable profiles and to separate intact deposits from previously disturbed soils. Promontory or Later Fremont Occupation, Zone IV No radiocarbon samples were collected for this zone and a layer of sheep dung separates Zone IV from Zone V (Gilsen 1968:26; Mock 1971:81; Woods 2004:17). Features found include a cache pit, hearths, and a use surface. Almost all artifacts found are characteristic of the Fremont, such as Great Salt Lake Gray sherds (Mock 1971:81-82) (Table 2). Eight coprolites were ascribed to this zone. The vandal pit was about seventy-eight inches wide and fifty-one inches deep, and was near the mouth of the cave. This pit disturbed Zones IV and V the most, and Mock claims that all spoil dirt churned up by this vandalism was removed prior to excavation (Mock 1971:3, 45). Mock’s classification of Zone IV as occupied by historic peoples, however, is debatable and should be further reviewed. The presence of several Fremont artifacts, the lack of radiocarbon dates, and damaging effects of vandalism and bioturbation suggest that Zone

IV may not be as young as Mock thought it was. This zone may better be classified as a Late Fremont occupation, or as a Promontory occupation. Gilsen (1968:26) even believed that one of the incised slabs was Promontory, and Forsyth (1986) reviewed the Spotten Cave ceramics while researching Promontory peoples. “Historic,” Zone V No radiocarbon dates are provided for this level; instead, Mock estimated that this zone began in the early 1900s and continued to ca. 1960 (Mock 1971:82). Because of rodent and sheep activity and vandalism, several prehistoric bone awls, ceramic sherds, and projectile points were present. Historic artifacts included sheep pelts, nails, burlap, and cartridges (Mock 1971:83-84). The small number of ceramics present in Zone V, and probably the ones in Zones I and II, were likely introduced through animal activity and vandalism. Given the presence of peach, apricot, and cherry pits and that a hardened layer of sheep dung four to twelve inches deep sealed off the bottom of Zone V (Gilsen 1968:26), Zone V is the most disturbed and as such, any coprolites from this zone will not be included in this report. Additionally, coprolites that were inconclusively identified were not included in this study. Botanical Remains Botanical remains found in Spotten Cave are both historic/modern and prehistoric in origin. Modern botanicals include caches of peach, apricot, and cherry pits (Mock 1971). Prehistoric botanicals include greasewood and reed from Zone II; and corncobs, husks and stalks, bean pods and rinds, squash fragments, reeds, sagebrush, cord and twine made of yucca, and basketry made of willow from Zone III (Gilsen 1968:26; Mock 1971). Also found in Zone III were fragments of pinyon pine nuts and fragments of cliff rose, hackberry, greasewood, and sagebrush (Mock 1971:80). Besides the corn, bean, and squash, these remains will not

Pearce [Prehistoric Diets and Medicines of the Utah Great Basin]

be used in the overall interpretation because it is inconclusive what they were used for. Cook (1980) reviewed the archaeobotanical remains from Spotten Cave, in particular the ones found in Zone III. His major concern was the reliability of stratigraphic control in the cave; however, Mock passed away before Cook could learn more (1980:43). Cook did conclude that the archaeobotanical remains in Spotten Cave likely represent a seasonal use of the cave. Dahle (2011:3-4) reviewed Mock’s excavation notes and found that pollen studies conducted on soil from the cave yielded high pine pollen counts for the earlier levels, insignificant pine and increased grass pollen for the middle levels, and an increased prevalence of cheno-am pollen in the later levels. She notes that squash was found in Spotten Cave Zone III but does not identify the species (Dahle 2011:77). The coprolites were not analyzed at the time of Mock’s research, and he only notes that three large coprolites were found near a hearth in Zone III (Mock 1971:68-69). Cook (1980) and Dahle (2011) did not examine the coprolites either. The Other Spotten Cave Artifacts As noted earlier, I reviewed the artifacts found in the Spotten Cave Zones and coupled that with where Mock claims the vandals dug in the cave and what zones were most disturbed by animals to better understand the integrity of the zones (Table 2). Artifact classes found and analyzed by Mock include lithic, bone, shell, perishables, and ceramic artifacts (Mock 1971:93, 142). Other research on the recovered assemblage includes Woods’ (2004) reanalysis of projectile points, Cook’s (1980) analysis of faunal bone, and Forsyth’s (1986) review of ceramics. In Woods’ (2004) reanalysis of the Spotten Cave projectile points, he identified only 88 instead of Mock’s 113 projectile points, attributing this discrepancy to differences in typing criteria, misplaced artifacts, and inconsistencies between the original Spotten

Cave report and the Field Specimen log (Woods 2004:21). Both Woods (2004) and Janetski (2001) believe one of the Spotten Cave points to be Paleoindian, especially when compared to artifacts collected from the Martin Site (42UT934). Several lithic artifacts and etched stones were found in Spotten Cave as well (James 1983:249; Mock 1971). A detailed analysis of the faunal bone was conducted by Cook (1980), who found bison bones in Zone III (Cook 1980:93; Lupo and Schmitt 1997:60; Martin 2014:75). Additionally, the presence of Utah chub (Gila atria) in Zones I and II suggests that Archaic peoples were exploiting lacustrine resources (Cook 1980:8588; Janetski 2007:11). Cook did not analyze the nineteen bone awls, four beads, and twenty-three worked bone artifacts. Two shell beads were identified; one was freshwater and the other was marine shell, olivella. Several perishable artifacts were found including worked wood, plant fiber, bark, shafts, corn stalks and leaves, and quid (Mock 1971). Mock only typed the Spotten Cave ceramics and reported from what levels the ceramics were found and in what quantity. Reanalysis of the Spotten Cave ceramics was attempted by Forsyth (1986:183) in his quest to better understand the Promontory culture. However, he only reported that Spotten Cave was one of the sites he reviewed and does not note if his reanalysis changed or added to what was already identified at Spotten Cave (Forsyth 1986:190). Methods Although no coprolites from Utah Valley have been analyzed before, coprolite studies have been conducted in other Archaic, Fremont, and Historic sites in the Great Basin and in the Southwest. For example, Archaic level coprolites from Danger Cave and Hogup Cave yielded Acanthaocephala spinyheaded worm eggs and Enterobius vermicularis pinworm (Fry and Hall 1969:103-104). Reinhard et al. (1987) analyzed 319 coprolites from six Colorado Plateau sites and found that parasites were more

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

common among farmers than among huntergatherers. Since I am assuming that the artifacts ascribed to each zone are correctly provenienced, and that Zones I-III were the least disturbed, then I am also assuming that the coprolites ascribed to Zones II, III, and IV are also relatively correctly provenienced. These coprolites were originally processed resulting in vials of botanical remains with part of the coprolite remaining intact. For this research, seeds, including grass caryopsis and sunflower achenes, were extracted from the vials of botanical remains using tweezers and a light microscope. The seeds were identified using a comparative collection and resources by Davis (1993), Delorit (1970), and Martin and Barkley (2004). Only one group of seeds was effectively identified to the species level. Most seeds were identified to a family, and some to a genus (Table 3). Results While coprolite analysis is a direct means of knowing what was consumed, the drawback is that a coprolite can only indicate a few meals of one individual at one point in their life (Reinhard and Bryant 1992). Coprolite analysis is not holistic then, but rather descriptive. The analysis and discussion presented here is likewise descriptive of a few meals from a few individuals; therefore, any diachronic patterns that arise are limited in their scope and will not be addressed in this paper. For convenience, plants will be called by their common name (Table 4). Two human coprolites, Specimens 7 and 8, were found in Zone II (Table 3). The plants identified in Specimen 7 included poverty weed, grasses, and ground cherry. The plants in Specimen 8 included poverty weed. Six human coprolites were found in Zone III. Also found in this zone were an allium bulb, pinyon pine nut shells, corncobs and kernels, and beans. No discernable complete or incomplete

seeds were found in the residual material from Specimens 15, 16, and 22. One seed was found in Specimen 13, but it was indeterminate. It is highly likely that seed fragments were present in these coprolites, but they were either not in the portion of the coprolites that had been processed for this study or they were indiscernible. Seeds identified in Specimen 12 included sunflower, poverty weed, beans, and a few indeterminate seeds. The plants identified in Specimen 14 included amaranths, sunflowers, knotweed, ground cherries, and a few indeterminate seeds. The greatest varieties of plants identified from seeds are from the eight coprolites in Zone IV. This increased variety could be the result of better preservation because the coprolites might be younger, increased use of a variety of plants, a different function of the cave, use of the cave at different times of year, the seasonal availability of plants, restoration of plant life after overexploitation, different subsistence strategies or preferences, and so forth. While more human coprolites were found in Zone IV than in other zones, most only had one to six seeds. Only two had several varieties of seeds. No seeds were found in Specimens 23 and 26. The plants represented in Specimen 24 included sunflowers, ground cherries, and an indeterminate seed. Specimen 25 included a single amaranth seed and an indeterminate seed. Amaranths, sunflowers, grasses, purslane, ground cherries, and indeterminate seeds were found in Specimen 27. The plants identified in Specimen 28 included amaranths, sunflowers, poverty weed, saltwort, mints, grasses, purslane, ground cherries, and indeterminate seeds. Specimen 29 had indeterminate seeds, and in Specimen 30 were ground cherry seeds. Based on both seed count and presence in six coprolites, ground cherry was the most common plant consumed. The next common plants identified were sunflowers and amaranths, both found in five coprolites. Five coprolites had no discernable seeds, and half of the coprolites had seeds that were indeterminate.

Pearce [Prehistoric Diets and Medicines of the Utah Great Basin]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

480

* Several taxonomists (Welsh et al. 2008) place Chenopodiaceae, and subsequently Cheno-ams, as a subfamily of Amaranthaceae. I have chosen to do likewise.

106

46 (5)

31 -

44 39

9 9 -

- 11 X -

1 -

324

X 15 -

307

X 10 -

1 -

4 -

No seeds found Total

Indeterminate

9 5 26 49 2 1 2 4 1 1 12 17 305 9 4 14 1 2 2 3 12 17 11 5 1 4 1 6 1 2 2 2 11 1 2 4 1 12 6 8 1 4 1 1 12 1 1 1 293 1 2 1 293 10 1 1 1 46 1 1 1 Amaranthaceae* Amaranthus Helianthus Iva axillaris Salsola Phaseolus Lamiaceae Poaceae Bouteloua Polygonum Portulacaceae Portulaca Physalis

47 1 1 1

29 30 sum total sum 23 24 25 26 27 28 22 15 16 14 13 12 sum 7 Specimen/Species

IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV III III III III III III III II II II Zone

Table 3. Counts Per Coprolite Specimen Per Zone. .

Discussion I have so far presented the results of the archaeobotanical analysis of vegetal residue extracted from human coprolites from Spotten Cave. These results, however, indicate very little as to why or how the plant was consumed. Put another way, the identification of plant remains from an archaeological context show what plants were available to prehistoric peoples in the surrounding environment at the time the site was occupied (Ford 1979:304; Minnis 1981). However, the presence of a plant does not always mean that the plant was used or consumed, unless found in a coprolite. Some plants, such as corn, were clearly cultivated to be consumed by prehistoric peoples. Yet the use of native plants by prehistoric peoples is more difficult to interpolate (Barlow and Metcalfe 1996; Doebly 1984). The study of archaeobotanical remains can indicate what plants were available at a site, and a review of ethnographic reports can provide interpretations for how and why those plants may have been used. In order to provide some interpretation as to why these plants are in the coprolites, I created a geographically-specific ethnographic comparison between the prehistoric Utah Valley groups and historically documented peoples who lived near, around, or in Utah Valley. I wanted a narrow data set because the fewer shared traits between the “ethnographic source and the prehistoric subject,” the greater the inability to expect them to have other traits in common (Wylie 1985:94, 98). These middle-range theories “use ethnographic data to establish reliable correlations between archaeologically observable phenomena and archaeologically unobservable human behavior” (Trigger 2010:33). I find my interpretations viable because some plants, such as corn, pinyon pine, and sunflowers, have inherent, immutable attributes that make their use easier to identify (Bye 1985:376). These plants would likely be used

for food regardless of scarcity or abundance (Barlow and Metcalfe 1996; Bye 1985; Doebly 1984; Heiser 1951). Moreover, the study’s geographically narrow focus supports my interpretations. If I expanded my research to include all of the Southwest in an attempt to find ethnographic evidence for every plant identified, my argument would be undermined. The Fremont, for example, are archaeologically unique and distinct from the Hohokam, the Patayan, and the Mississippian mound builders, and the same can be said of the Ute, the Apache, and the Sioux. It is likely, therefore, that while the interpretations presented are weakened by the separation of time, they are of value because of the shared geography, climate, resources, technologies, and subsistence strategies between prehistoric Utah Valley peoples and historic Utah Valley Native Americans. To create my data set, I first used “A Utah Flora” (Welsh et al. 1987, 2008) to expand the list of plant families and genera that were identified from coprolites from Spotten Cave in Utah Valley to include species (my methods are similar to Rainey and Adams (2004)). Only species found in Utah Valley, which include the surrounding mountain species, were included in this list. Of those species found in Utah Valley, species identified in Welsh et al. (1987, 2008) that were found only once in the valley or that were primarily for ornamentation were not included. Species that were adventive from outside the Americas were also not included because they are likely from European colonization. Adventive species from Central and South America were included, though, because the northward introduction of corn, beans, and squash into the Great Basin likely brought other plants. When trying to understand human dietary and medicinal plant use, knowing only the family or genera of plants that were likely used is less effective than knowing the actual species (Rainey and Adams 2004). This is because there are several species per genera, per family, that have documented ethnographic

Poaceae

Stipa or Oryzopsis hymenoides

Ceratoides lanata Amaranthaceae Lamiaceae

Agastache urticifolia

winterfat

Atriplex truncata Amaranthaceae Poaceae

Deschampsia cespitosa

wedge orach

Suaeda torreyana Amaranthaceae

Cucurbiteae Cucurbitaceae

torrey seepweed Celtis occidentalis Cannabaceae

Sarcobataceae

Sarcobatus vermiculatus

squash

Chenopodium capitum Amaranthaceae Solanaceae

Physalis longifolia

strawberry spinach

Claytonia lanceolate Portulacaceae

horse nettle

hair grass

hackberry

greasewood

ground cherry

Indian rice grass

Festuca octoflora Poaceae

spring-beauty Bouteloua Poaceae

Amaranthaceae fremont goosefoot

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

dietary and medicinal uses. Finding all the species that have documented ethnographic use for every plant genera and family identified is therefore not effective because not all plant species are available in every area, and not all Native American groups were in every area or used every plant species. By focusing on what species were likely available to groups in Utah Valley, my ethnographic comparison stayed geographically narrow. Once I had a list of all the plant species that would have been available in Utah Valley, I researched what documented Native American groups would have lived in, nearby, or traveled through Utah Valley (D’Azevedo 1986). I selected only groups that possessed similar technologies to the prehistoric Utah Valley inhabitants, which were the Shoshone, Goshute, Ute, and Southern Paiute. I examined how these peoples used plants for food and medicine, as well as what part of the plant they used. In addition to the ethnographies, Fowler (1986), Palmer (1878), and Yanovsky (1936) provide further insight into how plants were used. The Shoshone relied heavily on foraged plants, but also hunted and occasionally farmed (Lowie 1924; Thomas et al. 1986). The Goshute once lived in all of the desert territory bordering the south and western sides of the Great Salt Lake, and they were highly dependent on plants (Chamberlain 1964). In general, the Utes primarily inhabited areas in central and northeast Utah and western Colorado. They hunted and fished, as well as gathered wild plant resources (Smith 1974). The Southern Paiute divided their territory by bands and subsisted by hunting, gathering a “great variety of plant foods,” and cultivating native plants such as corn, squash, beans, and sunflower (Kelly and Fowler 1986). Amaranthaceae (family)

grama grass

Chenopodium fremontii

six-weeks fescue

Festuca ovina Poaceae foxtail barley

Poaceae

Hordeum jubatum

sheep fescue

Atriplex confertifolia Amaranthaceae

Salsola

shadscale four-wing saltbush

Amaranthaceae

Atriplex canescens

Amaranthaceae field mint

Lamiaceae

Mentha arvensis

saltwort

Artemisia tridentata Asteraceae drooping woodreed

Poaceae

Cinna latifolia

sagebrush

Amaranthus retroflexus Amaranthaceae dragonhead

Lamiaceae

Dracocephalum parviflorum

redroot

Chenopodium rubrum Amaranthaceae corn

Poaceae

Zea mays

red goosefoot

Portulaca Portulacaceae

Amaranthus hypochondriacus Amaranthaceae

purslane Helianthus annuus Asteraceae

Poaceae common reed

common sunflower

Phragmites australis

princes feather

Sporobolus cryptandrus Poaceae prairie grass cliff rose

Rosaceae

Purshia mexicana

Amaranthaceae

Iva axillaris Asteraceae

powell orach Suaeda calceoliformis Amaranthaceae

Poaceae bristle grass

broom seepweed

Trisetum spicatum

poverty weed

Pinus edulis Pinaceae blue wild rye

Poaceae

Elymus glaucus

pinyon pine

Allenrolfia occidentalis Amaranthaceae

Amaranthus albus

pickleweed bitterroot

Portulacaceae

Lewisia rediviva

Amaranthaceae beebalm, mint

Lamiaceae

Monardella odoratissima

pale Amaranth

Helianthus uniflora Asteraceae

Poa fendleriana Poaceae

onehead Sunflower Phaseolus vulgaris Fabaceae

Poaceae basin wild rye

bean

Elymus cinereus

mutton grass

Bromus carinatus Poaceae barnyard grass

Poaceae

Panicum crus-galli

mountain Brome

Montia perfoliata Portulacaceae

Stachys palustris Lamiaceae

miners-lettuce Salicornia europaea Amaranthaceae

Amaranthaceae amaranth

annual samphire

none specified

marsh betony

Polygonum Polygonaceae knotweed Sporobolus airoides Poaceae alkali sacaton

Species

Allenrolfea occidentalis Amaranthaceae

Family

iodine bush Puccinellia nuttalliana Poaceae alkali grass

Table 4. Plant Common and Scientific Names Common Name Species Family Common Name

Atriplex powellii

Pearce [Prehistoric Diets and Medicines of the Utah Great Basin]

100

Most Amaranthaceae species identified in Utah Valley were used as food, but a few were also used medicinally. The Shoshone used four-wing saltbush roots and salt medicinally

101

as a physic (Train et al. 1941:50). The Goshute consumed seeds of shadscale, pickleweed, four-wing saltbush, broom seepweed, wedge orach, and annual samphire, the latter of which tasted like “sweet bread” when cooked in meal. Winterfat was used for intermittent fevers (Chamberlin 1964). The Goshute gathered strawberry spinach and red goosefoot seeds in large supplies, and groups in Utah used the leaves as greens (Chamberlin 1964:366; Yanovsky 1936:22). The Southern Paiute ground broom seepweed and powel orach seeds into a flour for biscuits. They also ate Fremont goosefoot seeds and leaves and seeds of torrey seepweed, pickleweed, shadscale, and four-wing saltbush (Fowler 1986:69-73; Palmer 1878:653; Rainey and Adams 2004). The Shoshone and Paiute made a tea of torrey seepweed for bladder and kidney troubles, and the fresh plant was crushed and rubbed on itchy sores like chicken pox (Train et al. 1941:95). Amaranthaceae Amaranthus The Southern Paiute consumed pale amaranth seeds and, along with the Shoshone, ate prince’s feather seeds as well (Fowler 1986:69-70; Rainey and Adams 2004). The Ute and Southern Paiute collected redroot seeds in autumn and ate them raw, boiled, or ground into flour for cakes; young shoots and stems were eaten raw or boiled (Callaway et al. 1986:338; Fowler 1986:70; Rainey and Adams 2004). Asteraceae Helianthus The common and onehead sunflower were used medicinally and the common sunflower for food. The Goshute highly prized common sunflower seeds as a food source and would make oil from the seeds (Chamberlin 1964:371). The Southern Paiute ate the seeds raw, parched, or ground into flour and used to make cakes. They also made a common sunflower root decoction for rheumatism (Fowler 1986:71; Rainey and Adams 2004; Train et al. 1941:56).

Pearce [Prehistoric Diets and Medicines of the Utah Great Basin]

102

Onehead sunflower roots were used by the Paiute and Shoshone in a poultice that was sometimes heated and applied to swellings and sprains or not heated and used for rheumatism of the shoulder or knee. A cold water infusion made of the mashed root was used as a wash or cold compress for headaches (Train et al. 1941:56). Asteraceae Iva axillaris The Ute occasionally used poverty weed medicinally (Chamberlin 1909:35), and among the Shoshone and Southern Paiute, this plant was a remedy for numerous ailments. Although seeds were not used directly, all other parts of the plant were–roots for indigestion; leaves for sores, rashes, and itches; and the whole plant, roots, or leaves for stomachaches, cramps, or children’s colds (Train et al. 1941:61). Chenopodiacea Salsola This species is introduced to Utah Valley from Eurasia and as such was likely not around during the Fremont period that Specimen 28 is ascribed to (Welsh et al. 2008:137). This coprolite may be from a later period. Fabaceae Phaseolus Beans, when available, were consumed by almost all Formative and Historic Native American groups in Utah (Cummings 2004; Fowler 1986:73). Lamiaceae Lamiaceae plants were consumed medicinally and for food. The Paiute and Shoshone used horse nettle in cold water leaf infusions for indigestion and stomach pains and the boiled plant for colds or in poultices for swellings (Train et al. 1941:21). The seeds were consumed by the Goshute, as were dragonhead and marsh betony seeds (Chamberlin 1964:367, 383; Yanovsky 1936:54). The Paiute and Shoshone

used bee balm in teas for colds, indigestion, gas pains, digestive upset, and a tea of branches for physics, tonics, or eyewashes (Train et al. 1941:70). The Shoshone used field mint leaf and stem infusions for colds, gas pains, stomachache, and indigestion (Train et al. 1941:69-70). The Goshute used field mint leaves in teas for coughs, colds, and headaches (Chamberlin 1964:351, 374) Poaceae There is no documented ethnographic use of grama grass (Bouteloua), but several other grasses were used. Caryopses of mountain brome were used for pinole (Yanovsky 1936:7). The Goshute consumed caryopses of hair grass, sheep fescue, foxtail barley, alkali grass, and bristle grass (Chamberlin 1964:367369; Fowler 1986:76; Yanovsky 1936:9). The Shoshone, Goshute, and Southern Paiute consumed blue wild rye and Indian rice grass caryopses (Fowler 1986:76; Rainey and Adams 2004). The Southern Paiute also consumed prairie grass caryopses (Fowler 1986:77). Utah Native American groups consumed caryopses of drooping woodreed, six-weeks fescue, and mutton grass. They also consumed barnyard grass, alkali sacaton, and prairie grass caryopses parched, dried, or ground into flour and made into a mush or biscuit after mixing with water or milk (Yanovsky 1936:7-9). Polygonaceae Polygonum There is no ethnographic data on the use of knotweed (Cummings 2004:221, 225). Portulaceaeae Portulacaceae species that were used include spring beauty and bitterroot, both for food, and miner’s lettuce, which was used medicinally. Native American groups in Utah ate small tubers of spring beauty raw, boiled, or roasted, and bitteroot roots were important in diet (Yanovsky 1936:24). The Shoshone used plant parts of

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

miner’s lettuce in poultices for rheumatic pains (Train et al. 1941:38-39). Portulaceaeae Portulaca Purslane has been grown ornamentally in the Utah Valley, but whether it is indigenous to the area, introduced from South America, or introduced from Eurasia, and when it was introduced is unclear (Welsh et al. 2008:602). Solanaceae Physalis Ground cherry berries are full of seeds and, given that these berries were often consumed raw, it is no surprise that the seeds are found in coprolites. Ground cherry berries were also cooked or made intro preserves by various Native American groups in Utah and the Great Basin (Cummings 2004:215-216; Krochmal et al. 1954:14; Yanovsky 1936:56). Over 290 ground cherry seeds were found in Specimen 14, suggesting that ground cherries were a significant part of the meals represented in this individual’s diet. A Case Example Human coprolites are a revealing snapshot of prehistoric plant use. However, snapshots are just that–a narrow picture of a few moments in one place. Since my overall focus is to decipher prehistoric plant use, I cannot rely on snapshots of one site or of one archaeobotanical type. By focusing on the Fremont occupation of Utah Valley, I will provide a case example of taking a broader approach to prehistoric plant use. I chose the Fremont occupation because at Spotten Cave, the Fremont zone was one of the better-preserved zones, and, if Zone IV is included, the Fremont occupation had the most the coprolites. Additionally, Fremont archaeological sites and Fremont botanical studies are commonly found in Utah Valley. Through looking at Utah Valley Fremont botanical reports from nine sites, which includes five types of botanical remains, a wider picture of prehistoric plant use emerges, especially

103

regarding what plants are identified at Fremont sites and what archaeobotanical samples often led to those identifications (Table 5). Overall, two interesting patterns appear when comparing the different botanical remains at these sites. First, some plants, such as Atriplex, Polygonum, Typha latifolia, and Panicum, are only manifested archaeologically as pollen or as seeds. There are also some plants that occur only at one site and in one form, such as Panicum, Prunus virginana, and Quercus. Yet there is documented ethnographic use of these plants despite their infrequent occurrence at Utah Valley Fremont sites (Chamberlin 1964; Fowler 1986; Rainey and Adams 2004; Train et al. 1941; Yanovsky 1936). Taking a pollen snapshot of Fremont plant use, for example, would exclude plants such as Brassica, Lepidium, Rumex, and Scirpus. A quick review of the ethnographic literature provides dietary and medicinal uses for Lepidium, Rumex, and Scirpus. Due to variation in preservation, not all plants with documented ethnographic use are visible archaeologically. Examples include the sego lily (Chamberlain 1909:33; 1964:339, 364) and prickly pear cactus (Chamberlin 1964:375; Fowler 1986:72). In essence, these plants have ethnographic and historical documented use, yet are invisible archaeologically because they do not preserve in most environments as either macro- or micro-remains. Second, knotweed (Polygonanceae Polygonum) was observed at four sites despite the lack of ethnographic data on the use of knotweed (Cummings 2004:221, 225). In all of my research, I did not find any use of knotweed by historically documented groups either. Several researchers have argued that the plants used ethnographically by extant groups in the Southwest are only a fraction of the plants that were once used (Bye 1985; Couture et al. 1986; Fowler 1986; Janetski 1983; Smith 1974). There are likely several plants that are invisible ethnographically because either no one recorded using those plants, or no one remembers those

Ambrosia Taraxacum Chenopodium berlandieri

Asteraceae Asteraceae

none specified none specified Silene

Cleome

Brassicaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae

Cleomaceae

Juniperus monosperma none specified Scirpus Ephedra nevadensis Euphorbia prostrate none specified

Cupressaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Ephedraceae Euphorbiaceae Fabaceae

Cupressaceae

Boerhaavia Argemone Abies

Nyctaginaceae Papaveraceae Pinaceae

Zea mays

Poaceae

Polygonum

Stipa hymenoides

Poaceae

Polygonaceae

Sporobolus

Eragrostis

Phragmites

Poaceae Poaceae

Eriogonum

Panicum

Poaceae

none specified

Poaceae Poaceae

Polygonaceae

Hordeum/ Elymus

Poaceae

Pinus Plantago

Pinaceae Plantaginaceae

Phaseolous Sphaeralcea

Fabaceae Malvaceae

Cucurbita Juniperus

Cucurbitaceae

Fort Utah

S, P

Hinckley Mounds

Kay's Cabin

Provo Mounds

Sandy Beach

S, P

T, Y

Table 5. Utah Valley Fremont Botanical Reports.

Heron Springs

Table 5. Utah Valley Fremont Botanical Reports.

Goshen Island

Smoking Pipe

Spotten Cave

West Canyon

S, P

P, T

S, P

Wolf Village

S, P

Woodard Mound

Sum

Pearce [Prehistoric Diets and Medicines of the Utah Great Basin]

Brassica Lepidium

Brassicaceae

Amsinckia Cryptantha

Boraginaceae Boraginaceae

Alnus

none specified

Asteraceae Asteraceae

none specified

Low spine

Betulaceae

Liguliflorae

Asteraceae Asteraceae

Betulaceae

High spine Iva axillaris

Asteraceae Asteraceae

Cirsium Helianthus

Artemisia

Asteraceae

none specified

Apiaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae

Chenopodium

Amaranthaceae

Atriplex Cheno-ams

Amaranthaceae Amaranthaceae

Suaeda Amaranthus

Amaranthacae Amaranthaceae

Sambucus

Adoxaceae

American Fork Cave

Subfamily, genus

Family

104 Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016 105

Key: O = fragments, other; P = pollen; S = seed, kernel, both whole and fragment; T = starch; Y = phytolith Note: Table created from American Fork Cave (Hansen 1941), Fort Utah (Scott 1984), the Hinckley Mounds (N.D.), Kayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cabin (Puseman and Cummings 2001), the Provo Mound burials (Yost 2009), Smoking Pipe (Billat 1985; Forsyth 1984), West Canyon 42UT119 (Wheeler 1968), Wolf Village (Dahle 2011, Cummings 2011), and Woodard Mound (Richens 1983). Goshen Island 42UT636, Sandy Beach 42UT592, and Heron Springs 42UT591 represent probable late-Fremont, early Promontory occupation of Utah Valley, and as such they have also been included (Puseman and Cummings 1999).

170

48 1

10 4

12 5

8 26

P -

4 10

23 1

Typha latifolia Typhaceae

Total

5 Typha Typhaceae

S, P

S -

T -

Physalis

Solanum jamesii-type

Solanaceae

P none specified Solanaceae

Solanaceae

P -

S P

Acer

Sarcobatus

Sapindaceae

Sarcobataceae

Salix Salicaeae

P -

Rubus Rosaceae

2 Rosa Rosaceae

S -

Prunus

Prunus Virginiana

Rosaceae

P -

Ameliancher

none specified

Rosaceae

1 none specified Ranunculus

P Quercus Quercus

Portulaca Portulacacea

5 Rumex Polygonaceae

1 Polygonum lapathifolium Polygonaceae

1 P -

Table 5. Utah Valley Fremont Botanical Reports.

Polygonum bistortoides Polygonaceae

Pearce [Prehistoric Diets and Medicines of the Utah Great Basin]

106

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

plants being used. Knotweed, a plant that has been found in five Fremont sites in Utah Valley, has no documented ethnographic use and could be one of these plants. Knotweed may have long-forgotten medicinal or dietary uses. Conclusion By looking at the coprolites alone, my interpretations suggest that Archaic peoples in Spotten Cave consumed poverty weed medicinally and ate ground cherry and grasses in their diet. Fremont peoples in Spotten Cave ate ground cherries as well in addition to sunflowers. Historic peoples in Spotten Cave ate sunflowers, ground cherries, purslane, mints, amaranths, and grasses. However, when one reviews the Spotten Cave Fremont coprolite remains in conjunction with other Utah Valley Fremont botanical reports, it is evident that sunflowers have also been found at Kayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cabin and Wolf Village, yet poverty weed has not been found at other sites. Squash has so far only been found at Spotten Cave, while beans have also been found at Smoking Pipe and Wolf Village, and corn has been found at all nine of the twelve sites and in all five botanical types included in this review. An examination of the ethonographic and archaeological literature suggests that these few plants are part and parcel of what was likely a much more diverse Fremont diet. The same can be implied for the Archaic.

107

Madison Pearce Department of Anthropology Brigham Young University m.n.mercer@gmail.com

108

Pearce [Prehistoric Diets and Medicines of the Utah Great Basin]

References Barlow, K. Renee, and Duncan Metcalfe 1996 Plant Utility Indices: Two Great Basin Examples. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:351371. Billat, Scott E. 1985 A Study of Fremont Subsistence at the Smoking Pipe Site. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Bye, Robert A., Jr. 1985 Botanical Perspectives of Ethnobotany of the Greater Southwest. Economic Botany 39:375386. Callaway, Donald, Joel Janetski, and Omer C. Stewart 1986 Ute. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 336-367. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Chamberlain, Ralph V. 1909 Some Plant Names of the Ute Indians. American Anthropologist 11:27-40. 1964 The Ethno-Botany of the Goshute Indians of Utah. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 2:329-405. Cook, Clayton 1980 Faunal Analysis of Five Utah Valley Sites: A Test of Subsistence Model from the Sevier Fremont Area. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Couture, Marilyn D., Mary F. Ricks, and Lucile Housley 1986 Foraging Behavior of a Contemporary Northern Great Basin Population. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8:150-160. Cummings, Linda Scott 2004 Great Basin Paleoethnobotany. In People and Plants in Ancient Western North America, edited by Paul E. Minnis, pp. 205-277. Smithsonian, Washington DC. 2011 Pollen Analysis of Samples from Wolf Village, Goshen Canyon, Utah. Paleo Research Institute Technical Report 11-113. Paleo Research Institute, Golden D’Azevedo, Warren L. (editor) 1986 Great Basin. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Dahle, Wendy 2011 Macrobotanical Evidence of Diet and Plant Use at Wolf Village (42UT273), Utah Valley,

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

109

Utah. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo.

Davis, Linda W. 1993 Weed Seeds of the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence. Delorit, Richard J. 1970 Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds. Agronomy Publications, River Falls. Doebly, John F. 1984 “Seeds” of Wild Grasses: A Major Food of Southwestern Indians. Economic Botany 38:5264. Forsyth, Donald W. 1984 Preliminary Report of Archeological Investigations at the Smoking Pipe Site (42UT150), Utah Valley, Utah: The 1983 and 1984 Seasons. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 84-92. Brigham Young University, Provo. 1986 Post-Formative Ceramics in the Eastern Great Basin: A Reappraisal of the Promontory Problem. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8:180-203. 1991 Some Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates from Utah County. Utah Archaeology 4:83-88. Ford, Richard I. 1979 Paleoethnobotany in American Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 2:285-336. Fowler, Catherine S. 1986 Subsistence. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 64-97. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Fry, Gary F. and Henry J. Hall 1969 Parasitological Examination of Prehistoric Coprolites from Utah. Proceedings: Utah Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 46:102-105. Provo. Gilsen, Leland 1968 An Archaeological Survey of Goshen Valley, Utah County, Central Utah. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Heiser, Charles B. Jr. 1951 The Sunflower Among the North American Indians. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95:432-448. James, Steven R. 1983 An Early Incised Stone from Danger Cave, Utah. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 5:247-252.

110

Pearce [Prehistoric Diets and Medicines of the Utah Great Basin]

Janetski, Joel C. 1983 Prehistoric settlement and subsistence of the Western Ute of Utah Valley, Utah. Unpublished PhD. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 1990 Utah Lake: Its Role in the Prehistory of Utah Valley. Utah Historical Quarterly 58:5-31. 2001 Late Paleoindian Artifacts from Utah Valley. Utah Archaeology 14:15-26 2007 Utah Valley: A Natural and Archaeological Overview. In, Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in Utah Valley, edited by Joel C. Janetski and Grant C. Smith. pp. 1-26. BYU Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Paper No. 12, Provo. Janetski, Joel C., Karen D. Lupo, John M. McCullough, and Shannon A. Novak. 1992 The Mosida Site: A Middle Archaic Burial from the Eastern Great Basin. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 14:180-200. Jones, Carl Hugh 1961 An Archaeological Survey of Utah County, Utah. Brigham Young University, Provo. Kelly, Isabel T., and Catherine S. Fowler 1986 Southern Paiute. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 368-397. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Krochmal, A., S. Paur, and P. Duisbery 1954 Useful Native Plants in the American Southwestern Deserts. Economic Botany 8:3-20. Lowie, Robert H. 1924 Notes on Shoshonean Ethnography. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History. 10(3):185-314. Lupo, Karen D., and Dave N. Schmitt 1997 On Late Holocene Variability in Bison Populations in the Northeastern Great Basin.Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology. 19(1):50-69. Martin, Jeffrey M. 2014 Late Pleistocene and Holocene Bison of Grand Canyon and Colorado Plateau: Implications from the use of Paleobiology for Natural Resource Management Policy. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Geoscience, East Tennessee State University. Martin, Alexander C. and William D. Barkley 2004 Seed Identification Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley. Martin, Paul S., and Floyd W. Sharrock 1964 Pollen Analysis of Prehistoric Human Feces: A New Approach to Ethnobotany. American Antiquity 30:168-180.

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

111

Minnis, Paul E. 1981 Seeds in Archaeological Sites: Sources and Some Interpretive Problems. American Antiquity 46:143-152. Mock, James M. 1971 Archaeology of Spotten Cave, Utah County, Central Utah. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Palmer, Edward 1878 Plants Used by the Indians of the United States. The American Naturalist 12:593-606. Puseman, Kathryn, and Linda Scott Cummings 1999 Pollen and Macrofloral Analysis at Sites in the Utah Valley, Utah. Paleo Research Institute Technical Report 99-86. Paleo Research Institute, Golden, Colorado. 2001 Pollen, Phytolith, and Macrofloral Analysis of Samples from Kay’s Cabin (42UT813), Utah. Paleo Research Institute Technical Report 00-95. Paleo Research Institute, Golden, Colorado. Rainey, Katharine D., and Karen R. Adams 2004 Plant Use by Native Peoples of the American Southwest: Ethnographic Documentation [HTML Title]. Available: http://www.crowcanyon.org/plantuses. Date of use: 15 June 2015. Reinhard, Karl J. and Vaughn M. Bryant Jr. 1992 Coprolite Analysis: A Biological Perspective on Archaeology. In Archaeological Method and Theory Volume 4, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp.245-288. Academic Press. Reinhard, Karl J., Richard H. Hevly, Glenn A. Anderson 1987 Helminth Remains from Prehistoric Indian Coprolites on the Colorado Plateau. The Journal of Parasitology 73:630-639. Richens, Lane D. 1983 Woodard Mound: Excavations at a Fremont Site in Goshen Valley, Utah Count, Utah. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo Richens, Lane D., and Richard K. Talbot 2017 Final Report of Archaeological Excavations, Inventory, and Monitoring for the Provo Westside Connector Project, Utah County, Utah. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 16-3, Brigham Young University, Provo. Scott, Linda 1984 Pollen Analysis at Fort Utah (42UTl50), A Prehistoric Component. Paleo Research Institute Technical Report 1984-007. Paleo Research Institute, Golden, Colorado. Smith, Anne M. 1974 Ethnography of the Northern Utes. Papers in Anthropology No. 17, University of New Mexico Printing Plant, New Mexico

112

Pearce [Prehistoric Diets and Medicines of the Utah Great Basin]

Thomas, David Hurst, Lorann S. A. Pendleton, and Stephen C. Cappannari 1986 Western Shoshone. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 262-283. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C Train, Percy, James R. Henrichs and W. Andrew Archer 1941 Medicinal Uses of Plants by Indian Tribes of Nevada. Washington DC. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Trigger, Bruce G. 2010 A History of Archaeological Thought. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, New York. Ure, Scott M. 2009 The Social Side of Subsistence: Examining Food Choice at the Seamons Mound Site (42UT271) using Sociocultural Perspectives Utah Archaeology 22(1):75–100. Welsh, Stanley L., N. Duane Atwood, Sherel Goodrich, and Larry C. Higgins 1987 A Utah Flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs No. 9. Brigham Young University, Provo. 2008 A Utah Flora. 4th ed. Revised. Brigham Young University, Provo. Wheeler, Edward A., II 1968 An Archaeological Survey of West Canyon and Vicinity, Utah County Utah. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Woods, Aaron 2004 Spotten Cave Revisited: A Reanalysis of the Projectile Point Assemblage. Utah Archaeology 17:14-32. Wylie, Alison 1985 The Reaction Against Analogy. In, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 8. Yanovsky, Elias 1936 Food Plants of the North American Indians. United States Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 237, Washington D.C. Yost, Chad 2009 Phtyolith and Starch Analysis of a Tooth Tartar Sample from Seamons Mound, Utah. Paleo Research Institute Technical Report 09-131, PaleoResearch Institute, Golden, Colorado.

A Historic Native American Child Burial from Utah

Ronald J. Rood*, Kevin T. Jones†, Nick Jones and Karleen Broadwater *Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. †Ancient Places Consulting

Sometime after 1860, a young Native American child died near the present day town of Fillmore, Utah. More than 140 years later, the bones and associated artifacts buried with this child were exposed through erosion and threatened by continued erosion and vandalism. Subsequent archaeological excavation and analysis of the human remains and artifacts have contributed to our current understanding of Native American burial practices during the historic period and significantly, the reburial of this child was the first repatriation of human remains to a tribe under Utah’s state NAGPRA law. The human remains from 42Md1608 provide a rare glimpse into historic Native American burial practices concerning children and serves as an example of how scientific study and repatriation need not be mutually exclusive.

uman remains are sometimes found by the public and in most cases they do the right thing and notify local law enforcement. In this case, the discovery led to a very interesting example of historic Native American burial practices and Utah’s first repatriation under Utah’s State NAGPRA law. While rabbit hunting on private land north of Fillmore, Utah (Figure 1) a young man found a blue glass bead and what he thought was a human bone. After contacting the local police department, the Antiquities Section of the Utah Division of State History was called by police and the Office of the Medical Examiner and asked to visit the site. Because the sites was in a sandy dune area on private land, and as the human remains were eroding from the dune and trampled by cattle, a decision was made to recover the remains through archaeological excavation. The remains are those of a young child that date to the historic period. At the time of burial, sometime between 1851 and 1880, the grave for this child was excavated into the sand dune and the child was placed in the grave on top of a simple woven mat of willow, possibly a cradleboard. Buried with the child was a cup, a plate and 52 glass beads. The human remains were found within a Fremont period site, which has been designated as 42Md1608. The site

Utah Archaeology 29(1), 2016, pp. 113–126

is within a large active sand dune on the south end of Cedar Mountain at an elevation of 5200 feet. Juniper trees dot the site along with various grasses, forbs and cactus. The archaeological site itself is a large scatter of chipped stone and Fremont ceramics. Excavation at the site was minimal and focused only on the recovery of the human remains. Historic Native American Burials from Utah The literature on historic Native American human burials from Utah is relatively scant and what has been described in the ethnographic and archaeological literature is largely lacking in descriptions of burial practices regarding children. Descriptions of historic Native American burials from Utah (Nickens 1984; Kelly and Fowler 1987; Fike et al. 1984) all pertain to the burials of adults, primarily adult males. An ethnohistoric child burial from western Nevada described by Hattori et al. (1987) shares some similarities with the burial described here, but the context of each burial is quite different. Nickens (1984) presents an overview of historic Native American, focusing on Ute burials from Colorado and Utah and discusses several general themes in historic Ute burial practices 113

114

Rood et al. [A Historic Native American Child Burial from Utah]

Figure 1. General Map for 42Md1608, Millard County, Utah.

from both archaeological and ethnographic examples. His analysis suggests Ute burials include crevice and talus slope burials in prereservation times and cemeteries in postreservation times. Both functional and utilitarian artifacts were placed with the burial and in many cases these items were destroyed at the time of burial. The sacrificing of animals, including horses and dogs was practiced and in some cases, the sacrificing of individual family members was done. Nickens (1984) notes dissimilar patterns in grave offerings between males and females and there appears to be a difference in burial locations dictated by social status. Historically, the area where 42Md1608 is located was occupied by the Southern Paiute and the Ute (see Callaway et al 1986 and Kelly and Fowler 1986). Seemingly any of the Ute bands, with the exception of the eastern bands, may have occupied or passed through the general area of 42Md1608. At the same time, nine or ten Southern Paiute bands may have used the same area.

The artifact assemblage associated with the 43Md1608 burial is not diagnostic of either Ute or Southern Paiute but instead it reflects a close association with Euro-American migrants to the area. Artifacts associated with the human remains-- the cup and plate, buttons and beads-were derived from trade with Euro-American settlers, likely Mormons who colonized the Fillmore area prior to 1855 (Lyman and Newell 1999). An exact determination of cultural affiliation or ancestry in this case is difficult to make. It was the opinion of the authors the remains are either culturally affiliated with the Ute who occupied the area historically or with the Southern Paiute who also occupied the area in historic times. However, the child could be from another group if the child perished while traveling through the area (Rood 2007). Looking to the ethnographic record there are some descriptions of historic Ute and Paiute burials but again, nothing specific to children. Describing burial practices for the Paiute, Kelly and Fowler (1986:380) write:

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Relatives prepared a corpse for burial. For four days thereafter, they bathed and abstained from meat, salt and, apparently, intercourse. Some (Cedar, Chemehuevi, San Juan, Shivwits; conflicting data for Las Vegas) reported cremation to be the traditional [sic]. The Panaca cremated when there was nobody to help carry the corpse or frozen ground prevented interment. A shift to burial – that is, depositing the body in a rock cleft or shallow wash – apparently coincided with colonization by the Mormons. (Cedar, Chemehuevi, Shivwits). They go on to say the property of the individual was destroyed at death and that sometimes eagles, dogs and horses were killed. Relatives were sometimes killed as well (Kelly and Fowler 1986:380). There is no mention of how children were treated in death in this discussion nor is there any discussion of grave goods being offered. For the Ute, burial practices include crevice burial with the head to the east and sometimes cremation (Callaway et al. 1986:352). Again, personal property of the deceased might be destroyed or redistributed. Analysis of two historic period burials from northern Utah (Rood 2010) includes material culture associated with household activities and everyday life and the remains of a 15 – 17 year old male found with a 35 year old female. We do not know if there is a genetic relationship between these two individuals but since these remains and the associated artifacts were looted from the site by vandals and later recovered. The context of the burials and the artifacts is compromised so we do not know, nor can we know the circumstances of the burial. These remains were found within a small rockshelter but it could not be determined if the individuals were deliberately buried in the rockshelter or if they died at that location (Rood 2010). The Hawthorne, Nevada burial described by Hattori et al. (1987) was found in a crevice within a granite outcrop. In that case, the infant, placed on a cradleboard, was extended, wrapped in a blanket with the face up and oriented toward

115

the east. The infant was covered with a scarf and then covered with earth and rocks (Hattori et al. 1987:4). There are similarities between the Hawthorne, Nevada burial and the burial from 42Md1608 but the main difference seems to be a significant one. The location of the Hawthorne, Nevada burial in a crevice within a granite outcrop is consistent with historic burials described by Nickens 1984; Kelly and Fowler 1986; Callaway et al. 1986). The infant from 42Md1608 is not buried in a talus slope or near a rock outcrop but rather in a sand-dune within a prehistoric Fremont archaeological site. Human Remains Excavation and Recovery Initially, the goal was to leave the human remains in place and somehow stabilize the eroding dune. Unfortunately, with the ongoing erosion of the sand dune where the burial was located and the continued use of the area by cattle, it was decided the burial would continue to erode and be ultimately destroyed and further desecrated. Further, with the glass beads present on the surface, we decided it would be better to remove the remains rather than risk the additional erosion and possible vandalism. Excavation began by collecting several artifacts (blue glass beads) from the surface and several pieces of human bone. Within the eroding sand dune, a small grid was established with four contiguous 1 meter by 1 meter test pits. Excavation began by slowly digging with a trowel across the surface and running all of the soil through 1/8” mesh screen. The burial was found to be mostly intact. A portion of the cranium, and several vertebrae had eroded from the sand dune and these had been collected by the hunter. The rest of the skeleton was found in an articulated position. This child was buried lying on its back with the head toward the southeast. The child was placed in a shallow pit dug into the sand dune. The burial pit was intact along the western and northern edges where we were able to trace it in the sand (Figures 2 and 3). On the eastern and southern portions, the

116

Rood et al. [A Historic Native American Child Burial from Utah]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Figure 3. Plan Map of Excavation Area Showing Surface Artifacts, Test Units and the Extent of Feature 2. Figure 2. Excavation Area Showing Feature 2, and Associated Artifacts.

definition of the burial pit had been eroded. The individual was on its back with the arms along the sides and the lower legs were at a slightly higher elevation than the midsection. Feature 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Burial Pit The shallow pit that was excavated and its fill removed. It measured 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 20 cm in depth, 75 cm NW to SE and it was 55 to 60 cm east to west. It was oblong in shape with gently sloping sides. It was excavated into the sand dune and then the bottom of the pit was lined with woven plant material, likely willow, to form a cushion or mat for the burial (Figure 4). This woven material was very fragile and deteriorated soon after being exposed. It was consistent across the base of the feature. The human remains and associated artifacts were on top of this woven mat (Figure 5). Although initially interpreted as a mat, this woven willow artifact may have been the remnants of a cradleboard similar to the one described by Hattori et al. (1987).

The burial contained the remains of one individual. Owsley (2000) determined that the skeleton was from an infant aged .7 to 1.1 years. The sex could not be determined due to the young age of the individual. However, the wide sciatic notch may suggest a female. Ancestry could not be determined from the skeletal elements but this type of burial and the associated artifacts strongly suggest a Native American affiliation. The skeleton is nearly complete, and overall the preservation of the bone is good. Most of the skeleton was articulated and in anatomically correct positions. The cranium and several cervical vertebras had been displaced but were still within the burial pit. There was a small amount of soft-tissue still adhering to some of the bone, especially the left arm. This individual was placed in the grave (Feature 2) on its back with its arms to each side, and the head was toward the southeast (Figure 5). Several pieces of metal were placed over the top of the burial, presumably to offer additional protection from

Figure 4. Detail of the Woven Mat that Lined the Bottom of Feature 2..

117

Rood et al. [A Historic Native American Child Burial from Utah]

118

scavengers. This seemed to have worked; no carnivore modification was noted on any of the bone. The only pathology noted was evidence of cribra orbitalia on the frontal bone. Cribra orbitalia involves pitting of the outer compact layer of bone and a thickening of the doploic layer of bone. According to Kozak and KrenzNiedbala (2002), the lesion is evidence of iron deficiency in the diet or a high pathogen load in the organism. Associated Artifacts It was the discovery of a blue glass bead and a cranium fragment by a hunter that led to this discovery. Excavation by the Antiquities Section revealed a series of artifacts in direct association with this burial. These artifacts, consisting of additional blue glass beads, three buttons, a metal

cup and a metal bowl were neatly placed into the burial pit with the child at the time of interment. Beads. A total of 52 nearly identical blue glass beads were recovered (Figure 6). Analysis of the beads (Wessel 2000) indicates the specimens were produced from sections of glass tubing that was drawn from a hollow globe of molten glass. Broken into segments, the tubular beadâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s curved surface was then modified into facets by grinding. Measurements on the beads suggest a fairly uniform assemblage. Length, with and hole diameter measurements were taken (Figure 7). The average length is 6.8 mm, average width is 5.8 mm with an average hole diameter of 2.8 mm. They are a monochrome bright navy-blue color (Munsell 5.0 PB). They are described and categorized by Karklins (1985) as Type If (a), or Russian Beads. They are contained in the Levin Catalog dating to 1851-1869. According to the Levin catalog these beads were employed in the African Slave trade and were produced in Venice,

Figure 5. Plan Map of the Excavation Area Showing Feature 2, the Human Remains and Associated Artifacts.

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

119

Figure 6. Entire Glass Bead Assemblage from 42Md1608.

Italy (Allen 1998, Gibson 1975, Greenwood 1996). There is no way to know what type of adornment these beads represent. It is possible they were part of a necklace but due to the erosion and some minimal rodent disturbance, the beads were scattered within the excavation. A number of beads were found in very close proximity to the human remains further suggesting the beads, perhaps as a necklace, were on the body at the time of burial. Hattori et al. (1987) suggest beads from the Hawthorn, Nevada burial may have been suspended from the edge of a cradleboard found with those human remains. Cup. This artifact was found lying just to the north of the human burial adjacent to the right tibia (Figure 8). The opening of the cup is 4.0 inches (and it is 4.0 inches in height. It is nonferrous, possibly tin, and is heavily encrusted and fragile. There appears to be a rim around the opening and there is a lapped seam visible along one side of the artifact. There does not appear to have been a handle on this cup but it is difficult to be sure due to the corrosion along the sides. It was placed open side up on top of the willow mat material that lined the bottom of the pit (see Figure 6). With the exception of the handle, this cup is very similar to the ones described by Jones

(2002) and Hedren (1992). Cups recovered by Jones (2002) date to 1867 and are referred to as Civil War era cups. Plate. Adjacent to the burial and the cup was a plate or shallow bowl similar in shape and size to a modern pie pan (Figure 9). It measures 9.0 inches in diameter and is approximately 2.0 inches in height. Like the cup, this artifact is non-ferrous and is likely tin, and as with the cup, it is heavily encrusted and very fragile. This item was placed on the woven willow mat, open side down within the burial pit. Buttons. Four buttons were found within the burial pit associated with the human remains. Three are white while the other is rosy-brown (Figure 10). All of these are four-hole sewthrough buttons, all are glass and measure .41 inches (10.4 mm) in diameter. Jones (2002) citing the work of Fox (2001) suggests buttons of this nature were introduced in the 1860s. Metal Fragments and Pieces. Within the burial pit and covering the human remains there were several pieces of sheet tin and other non-ferrous metal (see Figure 5). When the child was buried, metal sheets were placed over the body, likely to shield and protect the remains. As indicated earlier, this seemed to have worked, as there is no evidence of scavenger modification to the bone.

120

Rood et al. [A Historic Native American Child Burial from Utah]

Figure 7. Measurement Data for the Glass Beads from 42Md1608.

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Perishable Artifacts. Beneath the human remains and appearing to line the bottom of the burial pit was a woven/plaited mat of willow stems. Unfortunately this material deteriorated soon after being exposed and we were unable to collect any of the artifact intact. It was made in a plaited style, simply woven together at right angles (see Figure 4). This could have been the remains of a cradleboard similar to the one described by Hattori et al. (1987) found in western Nevada. Described as an open twined, hooded cradleboard that was partially covered in leather and made of woven willow (Salix), the Hawthorn cradleboard (Hattori et al. 1987) was found with a very young, perhaps newborn infant. Fremont Ceramics. This burial was within a relatively large Fremont age occupation site. Six pieces of Fremont ceramics were collected from the excavation area but none of these were within the Feature 2 fill area. These ceramics classified as Sevier Gray, a common Fremont type in the area. Dating the Burial from 42MD1608

Figure 8. Tin Cup found in Association with Human Remains, 42Md1608.

Clearly the burial dates to the historic period. The presence of metal/tin, glass buttons and beads and the tin utensils indicate the historic age. In his work from Kansas, Jones (2002) suggests that similar cups to the one found with the burial date to the Civil War period (1861 – 1865). According to the Levin Bead Catalog, the glass beads associated with the burial were produced from 1851 – 1869. Of course the life of a glass bead is far longer than the dates of production. The buttons, again following the work of Jones (2002) suggest a date during the 1860s. Using the limited data from the beads, we can estimate a date as early as 1851. This would seem a bit unlikely since that is the date given for the early manufacturing range of these beads. However, if we choose a conservative route, we can estimate dates for the burial to be between 1851 and 1890. It may be this burial date’s later in time since the dates for the manufacturing of the beads is 1851. Perhaps a more realistic

121

estimate might be 1860 – 1880. Of course the burial may date later in time. Unfortunately, none of the associated artifacts can provide a more precise date for this burial. Utah’s State NAGPRA Law The discovery and proper reporting of this burial by the hunter was the beginning of what was to become the first repatriation of human remains to a tribe under Utah’s statute governing Native American Graves (NAGPRA). In many ways Utah’s NAGPRA Code mirrors federal legislation. There is a review committee comprised of Native American representatives and representatives from the museum / archaeological community. Repatriation is coordinated through the Utah Division of Indian Affairs and determinations of cultural affiliation are prepared by the Utah Antiquities Section. When these remains were found in 2000, Utah’s NAGPRA Code covered only Native American Remains found on State Lands. Private lands in Utah were exempt from the state code, and as Federal NAGPRA pertains to remains found on only Federal or Tribal lands, the ultimate disposition for human remains found on private land was uncertain. Fortunately, in a cooperative effort between the Antiquities Section then under Dr. Kevin T. Jones and the Utah Division of Indian Affairs then under Forrest Cuch, Utah’s State NAGPRA law was changed in 2007 to include Native American remains found on private lands in the state of Utah. Soon after the law was changed, the process to repatriate the remains from 42Md1608 began. Ultimately, these remains were repatriated to the Kanosh Band of the Southern Paiute Tribe of Utah. A report was submitted to the Utah Division of Indian Affairs in early 2007 where the Antiquities Section made a determination these remains were culturally affiliated to the Ute or Southern Paiute (Rood 2007). A claim submitted by the Paiute Indian Tribe / Kanosh Band of Utah was honored and the human remains, the beads, cup and plate were placed in a small wooden coffin. The coffin was delivered to Kanosh, Utah during the spring

122

Rood et al. [A Historic Native American Child Burial from Utah]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

of 2008 where the remains and associated grave goods were reburied approximately 15 miles from where the remains were originally buried. Summary

Figure 9. Plate Found in Association with Human Remains, 42Md1608.

Figure 10. Buttons Found in Association with Human Remains, 42Md1608.

Sometime around 1860 to 1880, maybe a little later, a small child approximately one year of age, died. Cause of death is unknown but the child did suffer from either an iron deficiency or a chronic infection, based on the presence of cribra orbitalia. A shallow grave was dug in a sand dune and the child was placed in the grave on a woven mat or perhaps a cradleboard along with a metal cup, plate and 52 blue glass beads. Sand and metal fragments were placed over the burial to protect it from the elements and carnivores, and this grave went unnoticed for more than 100 years until a young man found scattered bone and artifacts eroding from the dune. This child burial shows us Native Americans in Utah did not always bury their dead in talus slopes or rock crevices or with the sacrifice of relatives or animals. This simple grave of a child serves as a reminder that knowledge comes a little bit at a time and often without great fanfare or excitement. Information on burial customs and rites for children is rare, so we have learned a bit more about the subject from this child. Acknowledgements. Thanks to Phil Pikyavit, Corrina Bow, Dorinna Martineau, Ralph Pikyavit, Rochelle Pikyavit, Lora Tom and members of the Kanosh Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah for working with us on the repatriation of this child. Thanks also to Forrest Cuch, Rebecca Nelson and Amanda Rock for all of their efforts on the repatriation. The excavation and analysis of these human remains was undertaken by the authors while employed or volunteering at the State of Utah Antiquities Section.

123

Ronald J. Rood Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. rrood@metcalfarchaeology.com Kevin T. Jones Ancient Places Consulting ktjama@msn.com Nick Jones Salt Lake City, Utah Karleen Broadwater Salt Lake City, Utah

124

Rood et al. [A Historic Native American Child Burial from Utah]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

References

Kozak, Jerzy and Marta Krenz-Niedbala 2002 The Occurrence of Cribra Orbitalia and its Association with Enamel Hypoplasia in a Medieval Population from Kolobrzeg, Poland. Variability and Evolution 10:75-82.

Allen, Rebecca. 1998 Native Americans at Mission Santa Cruz, 1791-1834: Interpreting the Archaeological Record. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 5, Jeanne E. Arnold editor. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California. Callaway, Donald, Joel Janetski and Omer C. Stewart 1986 Ute, In, Handbook of North American Indians, Great Basin, Volume 11. Warren L. D’Azevedo, Editor. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, Fike, Richard E., and H. Blaine Phillips 1984 A Nineteenth Century Ute Burial from Northeast Utah. Cultural Resource Series No. 16, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. Fox, Richard A. 2001 The Non-Organic Artifact Assemblage. In Historical Archaeology at Locality 6 of the Fort Ellsworth Site (14EW26) Kanopolis Lake, Ellsworth County, Kansas, edited by Robert J. Ziegler, pp. 133–227. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District, Kansas City, Missouri. Gibson, Robert O. 1975 A Preliminary Analysis of Beads from San Buenaventura Mission. In 3500 Years on One City Block: San Buenaventura Mission Plaza Archaeological Report. pp 43-81. Roberta S. Greenwood editor. Redevelopment Agency, City of San Buenaventura, California. Greenwood, Roberta S. 1996 Down by the Station: Los Angeles Chinatown, 1880-1933. Monumenta Archaeologica 18. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Hattori, Eugene M., Lynda L. Armentrout, Clark S. Larsen and Dale L. Hutchinson 1987 An Ethnohistoric Infant Burial from Western Nevada. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada, Technical Report No. 16. Reno. Jones, Bruce 2002 Historical Archeology at the Village on Pawnee Fork, Ness County, Kansas. Midwest Archeological Center Technical Report No. 86. Lincoln, Nebraska. Karklins, Karlis 1985 Glass Beads: The 19th Century Levin Catalogue and Venetian Bead Book and Guide to Description of Glass Beads. Studies in Archaeology Architecture and History. National His toric Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Ottowa, Canada Kelly, Isabel T and Catherine S. Fowler 1987 Southern Paiute. In, Handbook of North American Indians, Great Basin, Volume 11. Warren L. D’Azevedo Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

125

Lyman, Edward Leo, and Newell, Linda King 1999 A History of Millard County, Utah. Utah Centennial County History Series. Salt Lake City: Utah State Historical Society, Utah. Nickens, Paul 1984 An Overview of Ethnographical and Archaeological Data for Ute Burial Practices. In, A Nineteenth Century Ute Burial from Northeast Utah, by Richard Fike and H. Blaine Phil lips II. Cultural Resource Series No. 16, Bureau of Land Management, Utah. Owsley, Douglas 2000 Report on Human Remains at the Antiquities Section. MS on file at, Antiquities Section, Salt Lake City, Utah. Rood, Ronald J. 2007 Analysis of human remains from 42Md1608 (AS-30): A human remains discovery in Millard County, Utah. Analysis and Determination of Cultural Affiliation under Utah Code 9-8-309 and 9-9-403. U-00-UC-0679p (e). Antiquities Section, Utah Division of State History. 2010 Analysis of Human Remains and Associated Artifacts from Archaeological site 42Ri73: An Equestrian Period Native American Site in Rich County, Utah. Project U-98-UC-0819p. Antiquities Section,Utah Division of State History. Wessell, Rick 2000 Analysis of beads from an infant burial at 42Ut786. Lake City, Utah.

MS on file at, Antiquities Section, Salt

Fallen Rocks Shelter and Associated Sites: A Fremont Hunting Comples in the Wasatch Mountain Foothills Weber County, Utah Mark E. Stuart

Promontory/Tubaduka Chapter of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society (USAS)

. Fallen Rocks Shelter (42WB288) and the associated pictograph sites, Running Warrior (42SB278) and Six Fingers (42WB280) were identified by Mark Stuart in 1984. The United States Forest Service, Weber State University, and the Promontory/Tubaduka Chapter of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society conducted test excavations in 1989. Results of the excavations provide information on the prehistoric use of the Wasatch foothills, including procurement of large mammals.

Site Setting

allen Rocks Shelter (42Wb288) and the associated pictograph sites, Running Warrior (42Wb278) and Six Fingers (42Wb280) are situated in Weber County Utah on the Pleistocene Lake Bonneville Terrace of the Wasatch Mountains (Figure 1). The sites are on both private land and Federal land managed by the Wasatch-Cache District of the United States Forest Service. The sites were first recorded in 1984 by Mark Stuart who expressed concern about the heavy recreational use and damage to the sites because of its close proximity to Ogden City and numerous hiking/biking trails. This concern led to a joint effort by the US Forest Service, Weber State University Anthropology Department and the Promontory/Tubaduka Chapter of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society to conduct limited test excavations to evaluate site integrity and National Registry potential for future management concerns. This work began on July 26, 1989 and finished by July 29. A report of this work was completed by members of the USAS Promontory chapter and Archaeological Technician students from Weber State University and is on file with Utah State History Antiquities Section in Salt Lake City. This paper is a summary of this report.

Utah Archaeology 29(1), 2016, pp. 127–148

Fallen Rocks Shelter is a small boulder shelter and open lithic and ceramic scatter associated with two Pictograph sites. The sites are located on the north side of the mouth of Taylor Canyon overlooking Ogden City on a southwest facing 15 degree slope at an elevation of 5200-feet asl. The site is at the foot of an expansive talus slope known as the St. Joseph landscape. The shelter is formed by several large boulders up to 5 meters in diameter that have collapsed against each other forming a sheltered area ca. 2.5 meters by 4 meters in size with a ceiling height varying from 1 to 1.5 meters. The main entrance to the shelter was in the northwest corner of the shelter. There is some evidence that some of the smaller openings in the shelter had been closed with loosely laid rock to form a more weather tight enclosure. The main site grid of 12 meters square was laid out on a north south axis and covers the area immediately to the west of the shelter. The southwest corner of this grid was used as the datum point. The shelter is situated near the main point of the north – south and eastern grid line separated by ca. 1 to 1.5 meters from the main grid. The excavation grid for inside the shelter was extrapolated from the main grid line continuing in a north – south axis. The 127

Stuart [Fallen Rocks Shelter and Associated Sites]

128

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Figure 1. Overview of the Fallen Rocks Site 42Wb288 looking north with Running Warrior Pictograph. Site 42Wb278 in center of talus slope..

existing floor elevation was 9.5 inches above the secondary elevation datum point (Figure 2). There appears to be a considerable amount of refuse having been cleaned and dumped along the east shelter wall and through the openings on the west side of the shelter probably occurring both prehistorically and historically. The shelter has been used heavily in modern times as a recreational and camping site. There has been some surface collecting of the site in addition to the building of four surface fire hearths inside the shelter by recent occupants. Site Statigraphy Only two strata were discernible during the test excavations (Figure 3). One was the sterile subsoil (F7) of the talus slope and second the stratum containing cultural material (F6) ranging from 5 to 30 cm thick. Stratum 1 is an orangish-

tan subsoil derived from decomposing Tintic complex quartzite and differed in composition from fine sediments containing abundant mica flecks mixed with fist sized (10-12 cm in diameter) to golf ball sized (3-5 cm in diameter) rocks. This strata was dug to a depth of 75 cm bgs with no cultural material. Stratum 2 is lightly compacted homogeneous, blackish gray sediment composed of dust, cultural ash and minute charcoal flecks and rock ranging in diameter from 3 to 25 cm in diameter and was rich in artifacts. It ranged in depth from 5 to 30 cm bgs. Stratum 2 was excavated in 10 cm levels for control and all artifacts bagged by level with Fs numbers. Artifacts in stratum 2 were abundant throughout with the excavated top 10 cm Containing modern artifacts (newspaper, aluminum foil, rifle shells and can flip tops) mixed with Historic artifacts (rusted nails, glass a 1887 Indian Head Penny etc.) and a few prehistoric artifacts.

Figure 2. Fallen Rocks Shelter: Site Map and Excavation Grid.

129

Stuart [Fallen Rocks Shelter and Associated Sites]

130

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Site Dating Since no charcoal from reliable prehistoric features or fill was recovered, a ½ bag of burned mammal bone was collected from the fire pit for C-14 testing. The sample was sent to Beta Analytic Inc. in Coral Cables, Florida (Tamers 2002). The pretreatment was bone collagen extraction with alkali. The sample yielded a conventional radiocarbon age of 780+/-60 BP with a 2 sigma calibrated result (95% probability) Cal AD 1160 to 1300 (Cal BP 790 to650). The intercept of radiocarbon age with calibration curve Cal AD 1260 (Cal BP 690) Faunal Resources A total of 3,427 bones were recovered from the Fallen Rocks excavations. Of this number 2,782 bone fragments (81%) were charred or burned, many into a gray or white colored calcined condition. Characteristic of this collection is the extreme fragmentary condition of most of the bone (Table I). Figure 3. Site Stratigraphy.

The next 15 cm of stratum 2 contained only a few historic artifacts near the top but was rich in prehistoric bone, lithics, ceramics and Uinta Side-notched arrow points with a few Rosegate Corner-notched points. The bottom 5 cm of stratum 2 was slightly darker in color and only prehistoric artifacts were found especially Rosegate Corner-notched arrow points. This represents the first human occupation of the site. The mixing of artifacts in the top 20 cm of stratum 2 is probably due to the intermittent but intensive reuse of this small shelter throughout time. The same stratigraphy was also observed in the tests outside the shelter. A total of 8 1x1 meter squares were excavated. Cultural Features The excavation of Fallen Rocks Shelter revealed a single prehistoric feature. Originating

131

Only 303 (.08%) of the bone could be identified to species. This bone included mostly teeth, a few mandible, rib, vertebrae and phlange fragments indicating some whole animals were processed at the site. The identified bone indicate a mininum of 5 Mule deer, 2 Mountain sheep, 2 Antelope, one Elk, 3 Marmots and a Cotton Tail Rabbit. Twenty five bird bones indicate large Heron sized to small Grouse sized birds. A Mule Deer skull fragment with an attached antler stub may indicate a possible fall occupation from September to December. Utilization of other species would be expected to have occurred at those times as well. The paucity of small bones in the collection may be attributed to the use of ¼ inch screen mesh. Given the environment of Fallen Rocks reptile and small rodents should have been available. Surprisingly none were noted in the identifiable bone or in the micro refuse studies. Eighty seven of the bone exhibited cut marks from skinning and/or disarticulation of animals. In addition to their food value, animals would have also been the source of useful raw materials for hide, hair, bone and other artifacts,

at the stratum 1/ stratum 2 contact zone (25 cm below a modern fire hearth on the site surface) was an oval fire pit (F10) which had been dug 24 cm into sterile stratum 1. The bottom and edges of the fire pit were fire reddened. The top of the fire pit is outlined by a stone ring of quartzite rocks ca. 10 – 20cm in diameter (Figure 4). Most of the rocks are burned and blackened with several fire cracked from intense heat The fill of this feature consisted of fine grayish – white powdery ash containing numerous small fragments of burned calcined bone, tertiary lithic flakes and several sherds of Great Salt Lake ceramics. A ½ pound bag of burned bone was collected from the fire pit for c-14 dating as no charcoal was available.

Figure 4. Photo of the Prehistoric rock lined Fire Hearth F10 after excavation.

Stuart [Fallen Rocks Shelter and Associated Sites]

132

none of which are represented at the site because of poor preservation. An extremely high degree of bone fragmentation and burning occurs at Fallen Rocks and is a line of evidence for complete and careful utilization of each animal for hide, meat, bone and marrow. The marrow could have been extracted in a number of ways; dug from shattered bone with a pointed stick eaten raw or cooked, or recovered by boiling broken/smashed bone in water in pottery vessels and skimming the marrow and grease from the cooled liquid. The bone was charred either from roasting or being discarded into fire pits. Much of the meat was probably immediately consumed, but the large number of fragmented bone, suggest that drying of some flesh might have been expedient. The lithic component of the site support activities surrounding the butchering and preservation of meat, marrow extraction and hide preparation. From analysis of the faunal bone several general statements as to group size and hunting activity are possible. Mule deer appear to be the dominant meat source â&#x20AC;&#x201C; followed by mountain sheep, Antelope and Elk. The aboriginal inhabitants also took the opportunity to hunt and kill a number of marmot. It can be said that it would take ca. 10 marmot to equal the meat of one Mule deer, however Marmot were locally abundant in the talus slopes bordering Fallen Rocks shelter. Marmots are relatively unwary and could be hunted in less time and energy than Mule deer or Mountain sheep. The utilization of Mule deer, Mountain sheep, Elk and Marmot are animals most effectively taken by lone hunters or in small groups (J. Smith 1972:226) can be interpreted as strong indication of small group size occupying the site possibly a nuclear family or household.

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Chipped Stone A total of 62 identifiable chipped stone tools and 117 unidentifiable fragments were recovered from the Fallen Rocks excavation. They have been classified according to Holmer and Weder (1980) and Holmer (1986). Rosegate Corner-notched: Thirty eight small corner-notched arrow points (Figure 5) were recovered from Fallen Rocks Shelter. They comprise 62% of the projectile point collection. The Rosegate series occurs throughout the Intermountain West after ca. AD. 300 and seems to be the projectile point associated with the use of the bow and arrow. Rosegate points persist until they are replaced by side-notched or concave base points. In the Eastern Great Basin this replacement occurs ca. AD. 900-1000. Rosegate points from Fallen Rocks average 3.1 to 1.5 cm long, 1.5 to 1.1 cm wide and ca. .3 cm thick. Of the 38 points, 19 are made of obsidian, 18 are made of chert and one made of Petrified Wood. Rosegate points were the only arrow points found in the lower 10 cm of the fill of Fallen Rocks Shelter thus dating the beginning of occupation to sometime after AD. 400. Rosegate points were found throughout the rest of the fill but mixed with other point types in the upper fill.

Figure 5. Selected Rosegate Corner-notched arrow points. Penny for size.

Uinta Side-notched Points: Sixteen small triangular arrow points with low side notches and straight to slightly concave bases have been classified as Uintah Side-notched arrow points (Figure 6). They comprise 27% of the arrow point collection. Fourteen are made of obsidian and 2 made of chert. They range from 1.9 to 1.2 cm long, 1.o cm wide and .02 cm thick. They dominate the upper portion of the excavated fill and the surface of the site. Uinta Side-notched points date from ca. 800 to 1300 AD.

Figure 6. Selected Uinta Side-notched Arrow points Top row and Middle row. Cottonwood Triangular Bottom row. Penny for size.

133

Stuart [Fallen Rocks Shelter and Associated Sites]

134

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Desert Side-notched Points: Two possible obsidian triangular arrow point base fragments with high side notches and a basal notch are classified as Desert Sidenotched arrow points Sierra subtype (3% of the collection). Both of these points were surface finds. Although Desert Side-notched points are occasionally found at Fremont sites in the Great Salt Lake region, they are generally associated with Promontory and Late Prehistoric sites dating to after 1200 AD. Elko Corner Notched:

Figure 7. Biface Knives (Top Left and Middle), Drill (Top Right). Obsidian Disk (Bottom Right) Penny for Size.

Bear River Side-notched Point:

Cottonwood Triangular Points:

One small triangular point with high side notches and a convex base has been classified as a Bear River Side-notched point. It is made of grayish purple Little Bear River Chert and is 2.0 cm long, 1.4 cm wide and .3 cm thick. This point was recovered from the lower 10 cm of the deposits and associated with Rosegate Cornernotched arrow points. They date from AD. 750 to 1300 and appear to document the transition from corner notched to side notched arrow points in the northeastern Great Basin.

Four triangular un-notched projectile points comprising 7% of the collection have been classified as Cottonwood Triangular (Figure 6 Bottom Row). They range in size from 2.0 cm to 1.7 cm in length, 1.0 to 1.6 cm wide and .3 cm thick. Two are made of obsidian, one of Little Bear River chert and one of red jasper. One of the Cottonwood points appears to be unfinished Rosegate point and may be a preform.

One large obsidian corner-notched projectile point basal fragment has been classified as an Elko Corner-notched projectile point. It appears from visible use wear on the blade edges that it was used as a hafted knife. Over 60% of the projectile points from Fallen Rocks exhibit impact fractures and breakage from use. In addition, several of the points have been reworked or re-tipped. This evidence, along with lithic analysis, indicates that the maintenance of hunting equipment was a major activity at the site. Analysis of the projectile points, also suggest an increase in the use of obsidian over time.(Figure 7) Four of the obsidian arrow points were sent to Richard Hughes (2002) for sourcing. All of the samples were from the Malad source ca. 100 km to the north. Large Stone Tools: Two large stone scrapers were recovered during the excavations. One of the scrapers, made of quartzite, measures 9.5 cm x 6.5 cm. The other, made of basalt, measures ca. 8 x 8 cm at its widest point. Use wear indicates both were used as scrapers. An obsidian disc, roughly 2 c m in diameter, was recovered from the excavations. The use of the disc is unknown. It may have been

135

used as a gaming piece. A brown jasper drill with a broken tip measures 4.5 cm in length and shows exhibits heavy use wear. The only complete knife is made of tan Little Bear River chert and is 6 cm long and 2.2 cm wide. A large knife tip made of the same material was also found as was another knife base made of yellow/white chert is 4.7 cm long and 2.2 cm wide. Stone Tool Fragments: A total of 117 incomplete tool fragments were uncovered from the excavations. They consist of 14 retouched flakes, 6 preforms, 34 distal fragments, 7 unidentifiable proximal fragments and 56 medial fragments. Lithic Debitage A total of 1360 lithic flakes were analyzed from the Fallen Rocks excavation. These included 639 flakes of obsidian comprising 47% of the collection, 704 flakes of chert (52%) and 17 of quartzite (1%). Most of the chert (72%) was Little Bear River Chert from sources ca. 35 miles to the northeast at the head waters of the Little Bear River. The obsidian was sourced to the Malad source ca. 100 miles to the north and the quartzite occurs locally. The general absence of core shatter and the small amount of debitage with cortex indicates that the inhabitants brought in preforms and primarily engaged in final stages of stone tool manufacture and maintenance of existing tools. The recovery of only one hammer stone supports this notion. If one accepts the notion that, â&#x20AC;&#x153;the number of small flakes increases as work on a biface nears completionâ&#x20AC;? (Neuman and Johnson 1979:83), the disproportionate number of small flakes to large can be interpreted as indicative that the final stages of tool manufactured are dominant in the assemblage. This further supported by the absence of any flakes larger than 50 mm or heavier than 18.11 grams.

136

Stuart [Fallen Rocks Shelter and Associated Sites]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

137

Ground Stone:

Ceramics

Only 7 pieces of ground stone were recovered, including a stone with a hole drilled through it, a complete two hand mano/pestle, a hammer stone and four pieces of shattered ground stone (Figure 8). The complete mano/pestle has multiplicity of uses as evident by the presence of an abraded side and battered distal end. The battered end together with the abraded side of the implement suggests that the mano/pestle was used for both crushing and grinding tasks. The general lack of ground stone suggests that Fallen Rocks was not a long term site, although the mano/pestle provides some evidence that at least some processing of materials occurred at the site. This implement may have been used in the processing of meat and the manufacturing of bone grease as well as seed grinding.

A total of 200 potsherds were recovered from the Fallen Rocks testing. All ceramics were identified as Fremont Types â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Great Salt Lake Gray and Sevier Gray which date from AD 400-1300 and have been described by Steward !1936), Rudy (1953), R. Madsen (1977) and more recently by Richens (2004). Great Salt Lake Gray is the predominant type (n=155) comprising 73% of the collection and Sevier Gray (n=50) 37%. The majority are plain body sherds (n=170), 23 rims, 5 sherds with coffee bean applique, 1 with red ochre staining and 1 edge ground on one side. The 23 rims indicate a minimum of 6 vessels all from medium sized jars. Exterior sooting on some sherds indicate that the jars were probably used for cooking and bone grease production. The ceramic collection also includes a clay ball 8 mm in diameter which may have been used as a gaming piece or a childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s toy and an unfired

Figure 8. Ground Stone from Fallen Rocks Shelter.. Figure 9. Great Salt Lake Gray Pottery.

Stuart [Fallen Rocks Shelter and Associated Sites]

138

clay fragment possibly the terminius end of an anthropomorphic figurine. When the ceramics were originally studied all sherds tempered with black inclusions were classified as Sevier Gray. Work by Simms (1990 ) and Richens (2004) however has shown that the black temper inclusions are not basalt (the primary temper of Sevier Gray) but locally available andesite and thus are probably of local production and a temper variety of Great Salt Lake Gray. Work by Simms and Richens has shown there is a great deal of variation of temper in Great Salt Lake Gray. Richens working with excavated collections from South Temple and Block 49 sites identified 5 temper types of Great Salt Lake Gray (see Richens for a complete description of Temper Types). Some may feel this is splitting hairs and a waste of time but we feel that this may be a step towards understanding Fremont behavior in the Great Salt Lake region. By examining temper types it may be possible to track movements of pots through trade (and people?) and local versus non-local introduction. The most common variety of Great Salt Lake Gray in the Fallen Rocks collection is Richens Type 1 (n==110). Some of the Great Salt Lake Gray (n=40) with fine quartz temper is almost identical to Snake Valley Gray from the Parowan Valley in Southwestern Utah and falls into Richens Type 4. All of the Great Salt Lake Gray with glassy black andesite temper fall into Richens type 3. Since ceramics were probably not produced at Fallen Rocks it is likely they were brought to the site from the numerous Fremont sites in the Great Salt Lake wetlands or more likely the Fremont habitation mounds now covered by Ogden City ca. 2 miles to the west (Ogden Mounds 42Wb56) Historic Artifacts A total of 211 historic artifacts of AngloEuropean use were collected from Fallen Rocks. They include 25 items of glass, 37 metal, 3 pieces of clothing, 4 fragments of tin food cans and

42 ammunition cartridges consisting of 3 types of .22 caliber shells and three 12 guage shot gun shells. A marijuana pipe and a sandwich bag of marijuana was found and turned over to the Ogden City Police Department and are not included in the analysis. Fallen Rocks Shelter has been consistently used during the Historic period. The earliest date established by the historic artifacts is 1887 on an Indian Head penny. However, the date on the coin is not valid evidence that the coin was deposited then. The earliest date established by the glass artifacts is after 1931. It is significant that no purple glass was found at the site All nails were dated post 1890. Most of the historic artifacts appear to be comparatively recent vintage, from the 1930’s to the present. This would tend to validate the assumption that use of the shelter increased as the population in the growing Ogden urban area increased over the years. The historic artifacts indicate that Anglo-Europeans used the shelter as a short time recreational site. In fact, during the excavations three little girls appeared at the site and asked why we were digging up their play house. Rock climbers also visited the site and said they too, frequently used the site as a temporary shelter. During a revisit to the site two weeks after the excavations and back filling we observed that a new fire hearth had already been constructed on the back fill. Undoubtedly, the shelter will continue to be used as a recreational site for years to come. Macrobotanical Remains A total of 5 soil samples were collected from Fallen Rocks Shelter for floatation analysis. The light fraction from the Floatation device was analyzed under a 10x magnification and sorted into bone fragments, lithics. Historic trash and macrobotanical remains. As a whole, the site contained 265 charred seeds and 81 non-charred seeds representing 17 different taxa. The non-charred seeds were not considered prehistoric. The vast majority of

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

the seeds consisted of charred (n=209) and noncharred (n=36) chenopodium. Several burned seeds of Graminea, scirpus and amaranthus were also recovered. The macrobotanical remains recovered from Fallen Rocks argue that the inhabitants utilized plant resources from both wetlands and the standard vegetation zone of the northern Wasatch Mountains. They also indicate that Fallen Rocks could have been utilized anywhere between summer and late fall. Rock Art Sites Associated with Fallen Rocks Shelter Rock art in the vicinity of Fallen Rocks Shelter consists of two pictograph sites, the “Six Fingers Site” and the “Running Warrior Site”. The “Six Finger Site” (42Bo280) is located ca. 15 meters east of Fallen Rocks Shelter on the under-side of a small boulder shelter (Figure 10). The background for the panel is a white mineral deposit which has leached from the boulders. There are four red figures in the panel. Two are solid painted anthropomorphs, one is an outlined triangular figure and one is a solid painted zoomorphic figure of an animal of some sort. All of the pictographs are done in the Western Utah Painted Style dating from 400-1300 AD (Schaafsma 1971, Castleton 1978). The panel dimensions are 43 cm x 25 cm with the rock art being ca. 1 meter above the present ground surface of the shelter. The second pictograph site “The Running Warrior Site” (42Wb278) is located ca. 75 meters north/northwest of Fallen Rocks Shelter in the St. Joseph talus boulder field. This site is located under a large over hanging rock formation which faces south and contains a series of red pictographs painted along the back wall of the shelter. Unfortunately, most of the pictographs have naturally weathered into unrecognizable shapes with only the “Running Warrior” being well preserved (Figure 11). There have been some recent vandalism consisting of random

139

chipping marks probably caused by throwing rocks at the figure. Summary and Conclusions The test excavation of the Fallen Rocks site was done to determine site integrity for recommendation to the National Register of Historic Places as part of a proposed land exchange. It was accomplished as a cooperative project between the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society Promontory Chapter, Weber State University Anthropology Department and the United States Forest Service. It provided hands on training for University students and allowed members of the Promontory Chapter an outlet for projects needed to complete the Utah State Archaeology Certification Program under the supervision of Professional Archaeologists. It also allowed the Forest Service to accomplish its work at low cost and provided public outreach to the local community. Over $600 .00 was raised for analysis and ca. 800 hours of volunteer service donated to the project. The test excavation yielded a great deal of information about prehistoric life ways in the Great Salt Lake region which is summarized below. Fallen Rocks Shelter was used from ca. 400 AD, to 1260 AD. Interestingly the radio carbon date of 1260 AD is 100 years later than some scholars put the demise of the Fremont culture in the Great Salt Lake region. It may be the Fremont in the Great Salt Lake region were aggradating into larger groups or villages as is apparent in the Southwest and other parts of the Fremont area at ca. the same period. The probable candidate for a large Fremont village in the vicinity of Fallen Rocks are the habitation mounds now covered by modern Ogden City. Several lines of evidence indicate that the site was used as a base camp for small groups of Fremont hunting big game. Faunal analysis indicated that large mammal primarily Mule deer and Mountain sheep were taken with lesser amounts of Elk, Antelope, Cotton Tail Rabbit and Marmots. Some utilization of birds (Grouse) is also indicated.

140

Stuart [Fallen Rocks Shelter and Associated Sites]

Figure 10. Overview of “Six Fingers” Pictograph Site 42Wb278.

Figure 11. “Running Warrior” Pictograph 42Wb278..

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

The large number of Small, fragmented, burnt and calcined bone indicate marrow processing and the production of bone grease and possibly dried meat. Some meat was probably consumed on site. The limited ground stone may have been used in this production. The large number of burnt bone may indicate discarded bone was thrown into fires or used as fuel. The macrobotanical analysis shows that scripus seeds were brought to the site from wetlands to the west as food. The Ogden Mounds site 42Wb56 is a likely source. Limited Chenopodium, locally available, was also collected and used at the site. Faunal and macrobotanica; remains indicate the site was used seasonally from summer to late fall. Another line of evidence for Big Game Hunting is the Chipped stone and debitage collections. Arrow points (n=62) and fragments (n=117) were common in the test excavations. Most of the identifiable arrow points show some type of impact fractures and the large number of fragments suggest that refurbishing of hunting equipment was carried on at the site. This is also supported by the small size of the majority of the recovered flakes which are tertiary and retouch size. It also appears what were classified as Cottonwood points may actual be preforms for making corner and side notched points. There is a clear increase in the use of obsidian over time at the site. About 50% of the Rosegate Cornernotched points are made of chert mostly Little Bear River chert from quarries ca. 35 miles to northeast. The majority of the Uinta Side-notched points (93%) are made of obsidian. Obsidian sourcing indicates the Malad source ca. 100 miles to the north was used. Ceramics were common in the test excavations. All ceramics were classified as Great Salt Lake Gray. At least 6 jars are represented in the collection. Two of the jars have applique decorations just below the rim or the shoulder of the jar. Three types of temper were identified in the Great Salt Gray ceramics, a fine quartz sand temper, a quartz/feldspar temper and a shiny black andesite temper.

141

The pottery was probably used for water storage, cooking of meat and the production of bone grease. The two close-by rock art sites, “Six Fingers” and “Running Warrior” ae not very visible for public viewing. Both are hidden in small boulder shelters and painted in red ochre in the Western Utah Painted Style. Taken with the figurine fragment from Fallen Rocks the rock art may have been involved with Sympathetic Hunting Magic ceremonies to ensure success of the hunt. Historic artifacts in the upper 15 cm fill in the site indicate that Fallen Rocks Shelter continued to be used as a camping spot to the present. The intensity of historic use of the site appears to parallel the growth of nearby Ogden City. Fallen Rocks is one of several sites in the Wasatch foothills that exhibit clear evidence of procurement of large mammals. Other sites in the area include Deer Dinner Dune (part of 42Wb54), Bears Cave (42Wb36), Pigeon Cave (42Bo407) and Nokape Shelter. All of these sites exhibit abundant small burned and calcined bone fragments, large numbers of projectile points, some ceramics and limited ground stone. Each of these sites are also associated with rock art sites and probable hunting blinds in the nearby side canyons and talus slopes. Together these associated sites form a complex of Fremont Big Game hunting in the Wasatch Mountains. These sites document an important part of Fremont subsistence in the Great Salt Lake region. Macrobotanical Remains A total of five soil samples were collected from Fallen Rocks Shelter for floatation analysis. The light fraction from the Floatation device was analyzed under a 10x magnification and sorted into bone fragments, lithics. Historic trash and macrobotanical remains. As a whole, the site contained 265 charred seeds and 81 non-charred seeds representing 17 different taxa. The non-charred seeds were not considered prehistoric. The vast majority of the seeds consisted of charred (n=209) and non-

#Cut Marks

#Burned

#Bones

SQ#

FS#

Stuart [Fallen Rocks Shelter and Associated Sites]

142

FS 1

Surface

FS 2

Surface

FS 3

6N 15E

247

161

FS 4

6N 15E

126

FS 6 FS 7

Surface

300

271

FS 8

6N 13E

259

210

FS 9

13N 10E

FS 10

6N 15E

115

FS 11 FS 12

6N 15E

FS 13

13N 10E

FS 14

FS 15

6N 15E

FS 23

7N 15E

FS 24

6N 16E

205

164

FS 25

7N 15E

FS 26

7N 16E

171

161

FS 28

8N 16E

110

101

281

260

FS 29 FS 31

3N 8E

FS 33

6N 13E

FS 34

10N 15E

FS 35

8N 15E

231

207

FS 36

7N 14E

141

116

FS 38

6N 13E

259

210

FS 39

6N 14E

FS 40

9N 15E

FS 42

8N 14E

322

243

319

297

3427

2782

188

470

FS 43 FS 44 Totals

7N 15E

Table 1. Faunel Remains from Fallen Rocks Shelter.

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

charred (n=36) chenopodium. Several burned seeds of Graminea, scirpus and amaranthus were also recovered. The macrobotanical remains recovered from Fallen Rocks argue that the inhabitants utilized plant resources from both wetlands and the standard vegetation zone of the northern Wasatch Mountains. They also indicate that Fallen Rocks could have been utilized anywhere between summer and late fall. Rock Art Sites Associated with Fallen Rocks Shelter Rock art in the vicinity of Fallen Rocks Shelter consists of two pictograph sites, the “Six Fingers Site” and the “Running Warrior Site”. The “Six Finger Site” (42Bo280) is located ca. 15 meters east of Fallen Rocks Shelter on the under-side of a small boulder shelter (Figure 10). The background for the panel is a white mineral deposit which has leached from the boulders. There are four red figures in the panel. Two are solid painted anthropomorphs, one is an outlined triangular figure and one is a solid painted zoomorphic figure of an animal of some sort. All of the pictographs are done in the Western Utah Painted Style dating from 400-1300 AD (Schaafsma 1971, Castleton 1978). The panel dimensions are 43 cm x 25 cm with the rock art being ca. 1 meter above the present ground surface of the shelter. The second pictograph site “The Running Warrior Site” (42Wb278) is located ca. 75 meters north/northwest of Fallen Rocks Shelter in the St. Joseph talus boulder field. This site is located under a large over hanging rock formation which faces south and contains a series of red pictographs painted along the back wall of the shelter. Unfortunately, most of the pictographs have naturally weathered into unrecognizable shapes with only the “Running Warrior” being well preserved (Figure 11). There have been some recent vandalism consisting of random chipping marks probably caused by throwing rocks at the figure.

143

Summary and Conclusions The test excavation of the Fallen Rocks site was done to determine site integrity for recommendation to the National Register of Historic Places as part of a proposed land exchange. It was accomplished as a cooperative project between the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society Promontory Chapter, Weber State University Anthropology Department and the United States Forest Service. It provided hands on training for University students and allowed members of the Promontory Chapter an outlet for projects needed to complete the Utah State Archaeology Certification Program under the supervision of Professional Archaeologists. It also allowed the Forest Service to accomplish its work at low cost and provided public outreach to the local community. Over $600 .00 was raised for analysis and ca. 800 hours of volunteer service donated to the project. The test excavation yielded a great deal of information about prehistoric life ways in the Great Salt Lake region which is summarized below. Fallen Rocks Shelter was used from ca. 400 AD, to 1260 AD. Interestingly the radio carbon date of 1260 AD is 100 years later than some scholars put the demise of the Fremont culture in the Great Salt Lake region. It may be the Fremont in the Great Salt Lake region were aggradating into larger groups or villages as is apparent in the Southwest and other parts of the Fremont area at ca. the same period. The probable candidate for a large Fremont village in the vicinity of Fallen Rocks are the habitation mounds now covered by modern Ogden City. Several lines of evidence indicate that the site was used as a base camp for small groups of Fremont hunting big game. Faunal analysis indicated that large mammal primarily Mule deer and Mountain sheep were taken with lesser amounts of Elk, Antelope, Cotton Tail Rabbit and Marmots. Some utilization of birds (Grouse) is also indicated. The large number of Small, fragmented, burnt and calcined bone indicate marrow processing

144

and the production of bone grease and possibly dried meat. Some meat was probably consumed on site. The limited ground stone may have been used in this production. The large number of burnt bone may indicate discarded bone was thrown into fires or used as fuel. The macrobotanical analysis shows that scripus seeds were brought to the site from wetlands to the west as food. The Ogden Mounds site 42Wb56 is a likely source. Limited Chenopodium, locally available, was also collected and used at the site. Faunal and macrobotanica; remains indicate the site was used seasonally from summer to late fall. Another line of evidence for Big Game Hunting is the Chipped stone and debitage collections. Arrow points (n=62) and fragments (n=117) were common in the test excavations. Most of the identifiable arrow points show some type of impact fractures and the large number of fragments suggest that refurbishing of hunting equipment was carried on at the site. This is also supported by the small size of the majority of the recovered flakes which are tertiary and retouch size. It also appears what were classified as Cottonwood points may actual be preforms for making corner and side notched points. There is a clear increase in the use of obsidian over time at the site. About 50% of the Rosegate Corner-notched points are made of chert mostly Little Bear River chert from quarries ca. 35 miles to northeast. The majority of the Uinta Side-notched points (93%) are made of obsidian. Obsidian sourcing indicates the Malad source ca. 100 miles to the north was used. Ceramics were common in the test excavations. All ceramics were classified as Great Salt Lake Gray. At least six jars are represented in the collection. Two of the jars have applique decorations just below the rim or the shoulder of the jar. Three types of temper were identified in the Great Salt Gray ceramics, a fine quartz sand temper, a quartz/feldspar temper and a shiny black andesite temper. The pottery was probably used for water storage, cooking of meat and the production of bone grease.

Stuart [Fallen Rocks Shelter and Associated Sites]

The two close-by rock art sites, “Six Fingers” and “Running Warrior” ae not very visible for public viewing. Both are hidden in small boulder shelters and painted in red ochre in the Western Utah Painted Style. Taken with the figurine fragment from Fallen Rocks the rock art may have been involved with Sympathetic Hunting Magic ceremonies to ensure success of the hunt. Historic artifacts in the upper 15 cm fill in the site indicate that Fallen Rocks Shelter continued to be used as a camping spot to the present. The intensity of historic use of the site appears to parallel the growth of nearby Ogden City. Fallen Rocks is one of several sites in the Wasatch foothills that exhibit clear evidence of procurement of large mammals. Other sites in the area include Deer Dinner Dune (part of 42Wb54), Bears Cave (42Wb36), Pigeon Cave (42Bo407) and Nokape Shelter. All of these sites exhibit abundant small burned and calcined bone fragments, large numbers of projectile points, some ceramics and limited ground stone. Each of these sites are also associated with rock art sites and probable hunting blinds in the nearby side canyons and talus slopes. Together these associated sites form a complex of Fremont Big Game hunting in the Wasatch Mountains. These sites document an important part of Fremont subsistence in the Great Salt Lake region.

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Mark E. Stuart Promontory/Tubaduka Chapter Utah Statewide Archaeological Society

145

146

Stuart [Fallen Rocks Shelter and Associated Sites]

References Castleton, Kenneth B. 1978 Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Utah, 2 vols., Utah Museum of Natural History. Salt City.

Lake

Holmer, Richard N. 1985 Projectile Points of the Intermountain Region. In Anthropology of the Desert West: essays in Honor of Jesse B. Jennings. Carol J. Condie and Don D. Fowler eds. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Holmer, Richard N. and Dennis Weder 1980 Common Post Archaic Projectile Points from the Fremont Area. In Fremont Perspectives. David B. Madsen, ed. Utah Division of State History, Antiquities Section Selected Papers 7 (16):55-68. Salt Lake City. Hughes, Richard 2002 Obsidian Sourcing Report submitted to the Promontory/Tubaduka Chapter, Utah Statewide Archaeological Society. Geochemical Research Laboratory. Portola Valley, California. Madsen, Rex E. 1977 Prehistoric Ceramics of the Fremont. Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series 6. Flagstaff Neumann, Thomas W. and Elden Johnson 1979 Patrow Site Lithic Analysis. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 4: 79-111. Richens, Layne 2004 The Right Place-Fremont and Early Pioneer Archaeology in Salt Lake City. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 03-07. Provo. Rudy, Jack R. 1953 Archaeological Survey of Western Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 12. Salt Lake City. Schaafma, Polly 1971 The Rock Art of Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 65. Harvard University. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Simms, Steven R., Mark E. Stuart and Carol J. Loveland 1990 Preliminary Report of the Recovery of Human Skeletal Remains from the Great Salt Lake Wetlands. Utah State University. Logan.

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

147

Smith Janet Hugie 1972 Faunal Remains from the Evans Mound Site. In the Evans Mound Site by Michael Bery, ed. Special Report, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah. Salt Lake City. Steward, Julian H. 1936 Pueblo Material Culture in Western Utah. Anthropological Series 1(13). University of New Mexico Bulletin 287:1-64. Albuquerque. Stuart, Mark E. 1980 Revised Summary of the Archaeology of Weber County. Utah State History, Antiquities Section. Salt Lake City. Tamers, M.A. and D.G. Hood 2002 Report of Radiocarbon Dating Analyses Submitted to the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society-Promontory Tubaduka Chapter. Coral Cables, Florida.

The Running Warrior Site

Mark E. Stuart

Promontory/Tubaduka Chapter of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society (USAS)

. The Running Warrior Site (42Wb278) was first recorded by the United States Forest Service in 1978, after being discovered and reported by Mark Stuart. Located just east of Ogden City, the site is a rock shelter with diagnostic late Prehistoric material culture and several rock art panels. Surface assemblage suggests that the rockshelter was a short-term hunting station or temporary camp between 500-1000 AD.

his paper reports some of the research accomplished by the Promontory/Tubaduka Chapter of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society documenting sites along the Wasatch Front in Weber and Box Elder Counties. The site reported here is a temporary Fremont hunting and pictograph site known as the Running Warrior Site named after one of the pictographs panels. The site was originally discovered by the author in the 1960’s and then recorded by the United States Forest Service in 1978 and given the official Utah State site number of 42Wb278. It was further documented by the Promontory Chapter as part of its Fallen Rocks project (Stuart 1982). When first discovered the site was on private land owned by the Union Pacific Railroad who then sold the land to Earl Holding owner of Snow Basin Ski Resort. He then exchanged the land with the US Forest Service for Federal land needed to host the 2002 Winter Olympics. The site is now on lands managed by the US Forest Service Cache/Wasatch District. The Running Warrior Site (42Wb278) is located east of Ogden City, Utah in what is called the St. Joseph Boulder Field an extensive mile long talus slope at the base of the cliffs forming the west face of Mount Ogden. The site is a shallow south west facing rock shelter formed by a huge overhanging boulder. It is ca. 30 feet long, 8 feet wide and 4 feet high (Figure 1). The fill in the shelter is shallow ca. 5-7 cm deep in places Utah Archaeology 26(1), 2016, pp. 149–156

and in others boulder bed rock. The site is not readily visible from below because of a heavy growth of oak brush which obscures view of the area. The site though is currently being heavily used by rock climbers who have inadvertently disturbed the site. Prehistoric use of the site is limited to indications of smoke staining on the ceiling and back wall of the shelter at its widest western end. Two small obsidian Rosegate Corner-notched arrow points and five sherds of thin well made Great Salt Lake Gray pottery were observed in the disturbed fill (Figure 2). Three fragmented pieces of large mammal bone (Mountain Sheep) were also found indicating the site was used as a temporary hunting camp used for the procurement of Big Game. It is probable that most of the occupational debris was thrown out of the shelter and lost downslope in the boulder field. The sites location also served well as an excellent look out for game in the boulder field and the valley below and probable served as such. The prominent features of the site are the three panels of red pictographs done in Western Utah Painted style (Schaasfma 1971). These pictographs depict both anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures and range in size from ca. 4 inches to 10 inches in height. The small size of the figures is due to the limited flat surfaces available. The pictograph panels are described below from left (west) to right (east): 149

Stuart [The Running Warrior Site]

150

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Figure 3. Great Salt Lake Gray Ceramics at the Running Warrior Site.

Figure 1. Overview of the Running Warrior Site 42Wb278 looking northwest..

Panel 1: Panel 1 is painted on the back wall of the deepest and best protected part of the site. This is also the area where the limited occupation of the shelter occurs. Panel 1 is an anthropomorph ca. 10 inches tall with a head dress of some kind who appears to be running holding a weapon or staff (Figure 3). Since the sites discovery this panel has been in excellent condition but recently someone has vandalized the figure by pounding something against the panel. Above the shelter but still protected by the over- hang is a small 4 inch zoomorphic figure of what appears to be a Mountain Sheep Figure 4). Panel 2: Panel 2 is composed of three groups of small separate but related figures. The central group is a closely spaced row of 4 anthropomorphs with up raised arms. One of the figures is horned. Spaced between the anthropomorphs are 3 zoomorphic figures of a Mountain Sheep, an

Elk or Deer and what appears to be a Bear. The figures are ca. 4 inches tall. Below and to the right of the Central group is a figure of a Mountain Sheep and an oval triangular anthropomorph with horns but no limbs. At top right of the panel is a small group of 4 anthropomorphs , Two of which have bird like feet for hands. The largest figure is ca. 5 inches tall and has what appear to be ear bobs. All of the figures are faint due to natural weathering (Figures 5 and 6). Panel 3: This panel is a group of three small figures. Two are anthropomorphs with up raised arms. The largest figure has a bird foot hand. The middle figure is a zoomorphic figure of an animal of some kind. The largest figure is ca. 4 inches tall. Like Panel 2, this panel is badly weathered due to natural causes (Figure 7).

Figure 2. Overview of the Running Warrior Pictograph showing Vandalism..

151

152

Stuart [The Running Warrior Site]

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Figure 6. Panel 2 Showing Central and Lower Right Figures.

153

Figure 7. Panel 2 Showing Upper Right Figures.

Figure 4. Sketch of the Panel 1 The Running Warrior and Mountain Sheep.

Figure 5. Panel 3 Showing Figures with Up-raised Arms and Probable Mountain Sheep.

Stuart [The Running Warrior Site]

154

Conclusions: Based on limited surface evidence the Running Warrior Site was used as a short term hunting station or temporary camp used for the procurement of big game probably Mountain Sheep. The ceramics, projectile points and smoke stained ceiling and wall indicate limited use as a short term campsite by a small group of Fremont hunters. The site location would have also served well as a look out for big game in the boulder field and the valley below. Although no charcoal was available for c-14 dating, artifact cross dating indicate the site was between AD 500-1000. This would place site occupation in the Bear River Phase of the Great Salt Lake variant of the Fremont culture (Marwitt 1970 ). The three small panels of pictographs in the shelter may support the theory that these paintings were created as sympathetic hunting magic to ensure success of the hunt and as a plea for the increase in the population hunted. The upraised hands of several of the anthropomorphs may indicate this plea. In many cultures around the world this action appears to represent a plea to Deity for divine help. The pictographs at Running Warrior taken with the numerous other (60+ and growing) rock art sites documented by the Promontory Chapter refutes the notion that rock art is limited in the top of Utah. Our research indicates that rock art is just as common as in other parts of Utah but is usually rendered in smaller size. This is due to geologic limitations â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the area simply lacks the large patinated sand stone cliffs and boulders found in much of Utah. In fact much of our rock art is on granite, gneiss, quartz or limestone. We would caution researchers in this area to look closer when surveying for sites as much of the rock art here is not readily visible. We have visited several professionally recorded sites with no mention of the rock art there. By doing so we are missing important information about Utahâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ancient inhabitants.

The Running Warrior site is significant because it adds to the growing number of similar sites along the Wasatch Front in Box Elder and Weber Counties. Taken with the rock art and hunting blinds the site helps document a pattern of Fremont hunting in the Wasatch Mountains.

Mark E. Stuart Promontory/Tubaduka Chapter Utah Statewide Archaeological Society

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

155

References Marwitt John P. 1970 Median Village and Fremont Culture Regional Variation. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No.95. Salt Lake City. Schaafsma Polly 1971 The Rock Art of Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 65. Harvard University. Cambridge , Massachusetts. Stuart Mark E 1980 Revised Summary of Weber County Archaeology. Antiquities Section, Division of Utah Sate History. Salt Lake City. 1982 Excavation of Fallen Rocks Shelter 42Wb288, Weber County Utah. Papers of the Promontory/Tubaduka Chapter, Utah Statewide Archaeological Society No.2. Ogden Utah.

The Watermelon Site 42WB72: An Early to Middle Archaic Processing Site in Southeastern Weber County, Utah Mark E. Stuart

Promontory/Tubaduka Chapter of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society (USAS)

. The Watermelon Patch Site (42WB72) was identified in the 1930s but formally documented in 1993 by volunteers with the Promontory/Tubaduka Chapter of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society. The surface assemblage and artifacts collected by past visitors suggests that the site is an Archaic open site for temporary camping or hunting. Numerous groundstone fragments suggest the site was also used to process seeds and bulbs. This site provides information on the Archaic adaptation to the Wasatch Foothills in this period.

This Paper is dedicated to the memory of Art Combe and C. Elliot Stuart who spent many enjoyable hours working in the Watermelon Patch and first brought this site to my attention. Background:

age boy worked in this watermelon patch for Art Combe. There was one area of the watermelon patch they called the Gravel Knoll because of the abundance of rock in an otherwise almost rock free field. While working in the area of the Gravel Knoll, they would occasionally find Indian artifacts, four which my father passed on to me. Over the years the property changed owners several times and the old Watermelon Patch was converted into a hay field. In 1993, I became aware that the property was sold to developers who planned to construct Office Buildings and single family homes. The construction began with the grading of the old Watermelon Patch and the leveling of the gravel knoll which was being pushed into the gulley for fill (Figures 1 and 2). I immediately contacted the developer and was granted permission to make a one survey of the site. Lisa Pringle, Dick James and myself all members of the Promontory/Tubaduka Chapter of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society conducted the survey. We started with a quick walk over the site. The gravel knoll was still partially intact but we were surprised that the gravel was actually highly fragmented pieces of fire cracked rock indicating the presence of at least one fire feature. We established a datum, prepared a sketch map of the site (Figure 3) and began a designed sample survey of the area. An

he Watermelon Patch Site 42Wb72 is an open Prehistoric site in southeastern Weber County, Utah. It lies at an elevation of 4815’ absl. On what is locally known as the Uintah Bench. The Uintah Bench is the top or crest of the expansive sand and gravel fan formed ca. 15,000-20,000 years ago when the Weber River into Pleistocene Lake Bonneville. Prior to Anglo-European settlement in 1850, the bench was covered with abundant Sage Brush, Great Basin Rye Grass, Indian Rice Grass, and Sego Lilly. Prickly Pear cactus and other forbs with occasional clumps of Oak Brush in the watered ravines and gullies. The area was homesteaded by the Combe Family in the late 1880’s who found the area conducive for grazing dairy cows and beef and raising chickens. They also discovered the sandy soil was excellent for growing watermelons and cantaloupes when irrigated. Soon the Combe watermelons became famous for their large size, quality and taste and were in much demand in the Ogden area. My late father, CE Stuart as a teen Utah Archaeology 26(1), 2016, pp. 157–166

157

158

Stuart [The Watermelon Site 42WB72

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

159

Figure 1. Overview of 42Wb72 Looking Northwest after beginning of New Construction.

Figure 3. Sketch Map of 42Wb72 The Watermelon Patch Site.

IMACS site form was prepared and filed with the Antiquities Section of Utah State History. This paper is a report of this work. The Site:

Figure 2. Overview of 42Wb72 The Watermelon Patch Site looking North.

The site lies in the center of Section 22 T: 5N R: 1W of the Ogden City USGS Quad map. It is southwest of the intersection of Harrison and Washington Blvds. in South Ogden City immediately west of Walgreen Drug. The site was on the north bank of a former gulley which

drained southwest ca. Â˝ mile emptying into Hardy Hollow which flows south ca, 1 Â˝ mile before joining the Weber River at Cooks Point in Uintah City. A spring in the bottom of the gulley created a small marsh of cattail, bull rush and water cress for ca. 100 meters with riparian vegetation below the marsh. The sight is on a slight rise of sandy high ground with a southwest exposure overlooking the spring. It consists of a scatter of fire cracked rock, lithics and ground stone covering an area 1250 square meters. The gravel knoll at the time

Stuart [The Watermelon Site 42WB72

160

Figure 4. Projectile Points from 42Wb72. Top Row Left to Right- Elko Series Points: Brow.n Chert, LBR Chert, LBR Chert, LBR Chert, Gray Chert. Middle Row Left to RightPinto/Humboldt Series: Cream Chert, Cream Chert. Bottom Row Left to Right-Pinto/ Humboldt Series: Obsidian, LBR Chert, Ignimbrite, Obsidian

of the survey was being leveled with the fill being pushed into the gulley as fill. The abundant fire cracked rock and blackened sand indicated the presence of at least one fire feature. Most of the fire cracked rock was quartzite cobbles and recycled ground stone fragments. Faunal bone observed in the disturbed fill was highly fragmented with some pieces burned and calcined indicating marrow extraction and bone grease production. The few bone complete

enough to identify were rabbit and mule deer with a single piece of bison. Lithics were rare at the site with less than 50 observed. This appears to be a common characteristic of sites in the area which may indicate no close lithic sources. Lithics identified at the site were quartzite at 50%, followed by chert 45% and obsidian 5%. The quartzite was probably obtained locally while much of the chert coming from the Little Bear River sources ca. 40 miles to the northeast in the Wasatch Mountain

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

161

Figure 5. Large Biface Blades from 42Wb72. Top Row Left to Right: Tan Quartzite, Tan Quartzite, Ignimbrite. Bottom Row: Tan Quartzite

hinterland. A few pieces of gray/green chert come from sources in northwest Box Elder County with the other chert sources unknown. Obsidian was present only in the form of finished artifacts with obsidian probably coming from Malad and the ignimbrite from Browns Bench. No volcanic flakes were observed on the site surface. Seven finished lithic artifacts were collected from the site surface. These were combined with four artifacts collected by my Father and four artifacts that remained from the Art Combe collection (Figure 6) for a total of 15 projectile points (Figure 4).

Two types of projectile points were collected from the site surface. The first is the Pinto/ Humboldt series (N=6) which dates to the Early Archaic period ca. 8000 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 6000 BP. (Holmer 1978, 1986 and Heizer 1978). Two are made of a cream colored chert, one is of Little Bear River chert and 2 are made of obsidian. They range in size from 14- 5 cm long and 3-5 cm wide. The second projectile point type was the Elko series (n=5) which dates from ca. 8000 to 500 BP. One is an unusual corner/side notched point made of brown chert which probably functioned as a knife. The other four points are Elko Corner

Stuart [The Watermelon Site 42WB72

162

notched points. Three are made of Little Bear River chert and the fourth of a gray chert. They range in size from 7-5 cm long and 3 cm wide. Four large bifaces were collected from the Watermelon Patch (Figure 5). They range in size from 14- 5 cm long, 5 cm wide and Â˝ cm thick. Three are made of tan quartzite and the fourth of ignimbrite. The ignimbrite biface may be a preform for a projectile point. The three quartzite blades are similar to those found at the large Basin site 42Wb54 ca. two miles to the southeast at the mouth of Weber Canyon. Ground stone was common at the site with numerous (25+) fragments of slab metates and one hand manos observed. Six complete oval one-hand manos were collected from the site (Figure 7). Four are made of a tannish/pink quartzite and 2 made of tan sand stone. Most of the specimens were used on both flat surfaces. An unusual hammer stone was collected from the site by Art Combe. It is a tan quartzite cobble with 5 pecked finger grips/holds which fit perfectly to

the human hand (Figure 8). It is heavily battered at its distal end. A fragment of a polished slate/steatite artifact with a drilled hole through it was recovered by my father. It was too fragmented to identify its use. It may be a fragment of a pipe of some type? The most unusual artifacts from the Watermelon Patch were recovered from the site by Art Combe in the 1930â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. They are two fragments (probably from the same bowl) of a shallow quartzite bowl. They are very similar to quartzite bowls (Figure 9) discovered by Earl Stoddard on Fremont Island in the middle of the Great Salt Lake (42Wb3). Interestingly, the bowls on Fremont Island appear to be of Archaic age associated with both Humboldt and Elko series projectile points and abundant ground stone. The bowl at the Watermelon Patch may have come from Fremont Island. Whether the bowl was obtained through direct procurement or through trade is unknown. 42Wb72 is only the second mainland site to report a quartzite bowl.

Figure 6. Artifacts Collected by Art Combe From 42Wb72.

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

Figure 7. Examples of Oval One Hand Manos from 42Wb72.

Figure 8. Hammer Stone from 42Wb72 Showing pecked Finger Holds/Grips.

163

Stuart [The Watermelon Site 42WB72

164

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

sites that were once present in the uplands east of the Great Salt Lake wetlands before AngloEuropean settlement and extensive agricultural and urbanization took place in the Weber County/ Ogden area. Undoubtedly, more prehistoric sites like the Watermelon Patch once existed.

Mark E. Stuart Promontory/Tubaduka Chapter Utah Statewide Archaeological Society

Figure 9. Example of a Quartzite Bowl from the Stoddard Site 42Wb3 on Fremont Island in the Great Salt Lake. These bowls are similar to the Fragments found by Art Combe at 42Wb72.

The other site is 42Wb282 an early Fremont site in the Weber River wetlands just east of Fremont Island (Stuart 1980). A curved piece of shell or bone was recovered by Art Combe. It is 8 cm long and Âž cm wide and is decorated with incised Xâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s on its outside surface. The fragment may have been a gaming piece or a bracelet. Summary and Conclusions The Watermelon Patch is significant because it is an example of an open Archaic site. It was used as a temporary camp site used for hunting and especially for processing seeds and bulbs abundant on the sage flat. This is evident by the numerous ground stone. Some extraction of

bone marrow and grease was also observed. At least one rock filled fire feature was used in this process. It is unfortunate that no in situ charcoal was found for radio carbon dating. The ground stone and projectile points however indicate an Early to Middle Archaic occupation. The lithics at the site show ties to the northwest and northeast extending into southern Idaho and the Snake River Plain. It is interesting that no volcanic flakes were found at the site. Only finished volcanic artifacts were found. Ties to Fremont Island in the Great Salt Lake is also indicated by the quartzite stone bowl found at the Stoddard site (42Wb3) The Watermelon Patch site is also important because it gives a glimpse of the type of prehistoric

165

Stuart [The Watermelon Site 42WB72

166

References Heizer, RF and TR Hester 1978 Great Basin Projectile Points: Forms and Chronology. Ballena Press. Holmer Richard 1978 A mathematical Typology for Archaic Projectile Points of the Eastern Great Basin. Unpublished Phd. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology University of Utah. Salt Lake City. 1986 Common Projectile Points of the West. In Essays in Honor of Jesse Jennings. Edited by C. Condie and D. Fowler pp. 89-115. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 110. Salt Lake City. Rudy Jack R. and Earl Stoddard 1954 Site on Fremont Island in the Great Salt Lake. American Antiquity, Vol. 19, No.3 pp.285-90. Salt Lake City. Stuart Mark E. 1980 A Revised Summary of Weber County Archaeology. Antiquities Section, Division of Utah State History. Salt Lake City. 1993 IMACS Site Form for 42Wb72. Form on File Antiquities Section, Division of Utah State History. Salt Lake City/

Book Review

a treasure trove of cultural material and data potential spanning at least the last four thousand years, probably longer. While it is best known for its abundance of rock art, with more than 10,000 individual images gracing the canyon walls, the canyon also contains an abundance of high elevation structures, defensive towers, and remote granary sites. This canyon (and the region generally), however, has not garnered the attention of archaeologists like other places in Utah and the American Southwest. In his book Nine Mile Canyon: The Archaeological History of an American Treasure, author Jerry Spangler offers the first readily available, detailed work dealing exclusively with Nine Mile Canyon. The book details the history of archaeological interest and work in the canyon, at the same time roughly tracing the evolution of American archaeology; from the earliest collecting parties (often with no formal training) recklessly digging and collecting artifacts for distant museums, to minor documentations of artifacts and descriptions of features while in the process of collecting for distant museums and wealthy individuals, to scientifically and theoretically driven research projects aimed at obtaining a better understanding of human behavior and use of specific landscapes. The book begins with the origin of the name, Nine Mile Canyon. A strange name to give a canyon that is actually 45-miles long. Spangler offers the stories and myths behind the possible reasons why it came to be called what it is: from an early mapping error miscalculating the length of the creek, to being named after an early settler named Miles, his wife, and his seven children (the “nine Miles”). We may never actually know how the canyon got its name, but the folklore behind

Nine Mile Canyon: The Archaeological History of an American Treasure. Jerry D. Spangler. 2013. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. 208 pages, 116 color photographs, 52 illustrations, and 4 maps. $34.95 (paper) ISBN-10: 1607812266 ISBN-13: 978-1-60781-226-5 ISBN:978-1-60781-228-9 (ebook).

Review by Andrew T. Yenstch Environmental Planning Group, LLC (EPG), Salt Lake City, Utah 84111.

ocated in east-central Utah, Nine Mile Canyon is a national treasure that has captivated Utahns, archaeologists and rock art enthusiasts, and people from all over the world for roughly 125 years. The canyon contains

Utah Archaeology 29(1), 2016, pp. 167–170

167

168

its naming inspires intrigue. The first chapter also introduces the first Euroamerican explorers to venture into the area. These include several participants in the second Powell expedition of 1871 (most notably Frederick Dellenbaugh), who described camp locations, inscriptions, prehistoric structural remains, and the names of prominent landforms along the Green River corridor in the vicinity of Nine Mile Canyon in their field journals. It is interesting to note that even at this early date (1871), Dellenbaugh noted the impact of the region’s settler’s curiosity on Utah’s antiquities as they carelessly destroyed mounds and burials in other portions of the state. Many of the camp locations, rock art, and structural remains mentioned in these journals and maps have been identified, visited, and recorded by the Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance (CPAA), founded and directed by the author. In addition, Spangler’s work in Desolation Canyon has identified the conundrum of the naming of Nine Mile Canyon, stating that map makers of the late nineteenth century misplaced the name and location identified in the journal entries from the 1871 Powell expedition, approximately 42 miles north of where it was originally described. The second chapter traces the first archaeological interest in Nine Mile Canyon, and Utah generally, from Spanish friars in 1776 to Mormon settlers in 1847. Although none of the earliest regional visitors ever entered Nine Mile Canyon proper, and Euroamericans did not enter the canyon to any degree until after 1886, the examples mentioned here reflect a general lack of scientific rigor in the field of archaeology at the time. Spangler explains how archaeology during this period was not a recognized discipline in its own right, but primarily the domain of intellectuals and “antiquarians” who speculated (often wildly and without scientific or theoretical premise) on the origins and collapse of ancient “cultures”. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, visits to and excavations of cultural sites in the region were conducted to obtain displayquality artifacts for museums and wealthy private collectors, primarily in the east. Many

Yenstch [Book Review]

institutions were sending out expeditions with the intention of collecting artifacts to display, and to draw crowds to exhibitions, including the 1876 Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia and the World’s Columbian Exposition at the Chicago World’s Fair in 1893. Most of these first “archaeologists” working in Utah were not trained in archaeology at all, but consisted of individuals trained in botany, geology, or other natural sciences. Little was known about Nine Mile Canyon until 1892, when geologist and “naturalist” Henry Montgomery first ventured there; although it was likely explored and exploited by locals for artifacts before then. The 1893 World’s Fair sparked some interest in Nine Mile Canyon, but it was short-lived, primarily due to the fact that antiquarians of the day were more interested in the large pueblos and elaborate artifacts that could be found in the Four Corners area; things not observed to any degree in what was then termed the “periphery” of the Pueblo world. Chapter 3 details archaeological inquiry in the canyon and surrounding region in the 1920s and 1930s, a period that witnessed a shift in archaeology to more scientific, theoretically-driven investigations. For the first time, researchers that were actually trained in archaeological methods were undertaking investigations with specific scientific questions, not merely searching for unique artifacts. They were intent on answering questions about the prehistoric peoples of the area and their relationships with other regional groups, primarily with Ancestral Puebloans to the south. One of the largest archaeological reconnaissance projects ever undertaken in the region was the series of Claflin-Emerson expeditions, between 1927 and 1931, sponsored by the Peabody Museum at Harvard University. Large scale reconnaissance and excavations were conducted in Desolation Canyon, Range Creek Canyon, Nine Mile Canyon, and other canyons along the Green River, extending from Green River, Utah, to the foothills of the Uinta Mountains. Spangler describes the influence

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

of the Claflin-Emerson Expedition participants (John Otis Brew, Henry Roberts, Alfred V. Kidder, and Donald Scott) on the changing field of archaeology, and describes their role as the Fremont archaeological complex was first being defined. Although Noel Morss’s 1931 publication (The Ancient Culture of the Fremont River in Utah) was the first to differentiate (in print) the Fremont inhabitants of the region from better known southwestern groups, Spangler points out that credit for this should be shared with several researchers who had already surmised the differences; Morss was merely the first to publish. The rock art found in Nine Mile Canyon is by far the most well-known aspect of the canyon and its drainages. Nine Mile Canyon is often referred to as “the world’s longest art gallery,” with more than 10,000 images created by Archaic, Fremont, and Ute groups that once inhabited the canyon. Chapter 4 examines the first rock art studies in the canyon. These investigations were conducted in the late 1920s and 1930s by Frank Beckwith, Albert Reagan, and Alfred Gaumer. Spangler refers to these individuals as “paraarchaeologists” or “pseudo-archaeologists;” as they were individuals not formally trained as archaeologists, but professed to follow strict archaeological methods. They were working in the region at the same time as those affiliated with universities. While earlier researchers sometimes mentioned rock art they encountered, they spent little time describing or attempting to analyze it. These “para-archaeologists”, on the other hand, devoted the majority of their time to describing and interpreting (sometimes wildly) the rock art in Nine Mile Canyon. Although they published many short articles in a multitude of journals and newspapers, their work is of questionable value, as it is often impossible to differentiate their observations from interpretations. Chapters 5 and 6 detail the more rigorous, scientific archaeological history of the canyon. John P. Gillin succeeded Julian Steward at the University of Utah in 1935, visiting and excavating sites across Utah, noting that the

169

archaeology of Nine Mile Canyon was different than other parts of the state, and not easily explainable. His work in Nine Mile Canyon resulted in one of the few monographs thoroughly describing the archaeology of the region (Gillin 1955). Gillin’s work is recognized as not only an important contribution to the prehistory of the Uinta Basin, but Southwestern archaeology in general. Tree-ring specimens collected during the investigations in Nine Mile Canyon were of special importance for placing archaeological material from northeastern Utah in a temporal context. Samples from the Nine Mile Canyon sites provided the key link in setting up the sequence from archaeological to living trees in the region. Gillin was also instrumental in assisting the Utah Parks Board implement the newly created state archaeological protection law. The 1950s brought a more systematic approach to the survey and recording of sites in Utah. Chapter 6 begins with the arrival of Jesse D. Jennings to the University of Utah in 1948. Jennings initiated the Utah Statewide Archaeological Surveys in 1949, with the overarching goal of performing statewide archaeological reconnaissance of the least known sections of the state. The results produced several publications, including Gunnerson’s (1957) An Archaeological Survey of the Fremont Area, a study that included Nine Mile Canyon. Many of the sites he described had been located previously by the Claflin-Emerson Expeditions and John Gillin, but most of that work had not been published. Gunnerson’s work synthesized this data, as well as described additional sites identified during surveys, and made the information more accessible to other researchers. Chapter 6 also summarizes several additional, important, systematic surveys and rock art studies conducted in the canyon. From the 1970s through the 1990s, rock art in Nine Mile Canyon became a research topic once again. Investigations by Kenneth Castleton, Ray Matheny, and Polly Schaafsma not only described thousands of images gracing the walls of the canyon, but also attempted to classify,

170

provide temporal and “cultural” affiliation, and ascribe some meaning or interpretation to what they documented. Volunteer crews from the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society and students from Brigham Young University, working in the 1980s and 1990s, collected a wealth of information, recording hundreds of sites and systematically testing several sites in the main canyon and its tributaries. These studies were run concurrently under the direction of Ray Matheny, and constituted the most comprehensive research conducted in the region up to that time. The information generated from this research provided the first real data that would allow archaeologists to begin to understand human behavior and adaptation in a systematic way. Chapter 7 brings together all that has been learned from over a century of study in Nine Mile Canyon. Spangler is the first to acknowledge that much like the surrounding region of the Tavaputs Plateau, there are more questions than answers when it comes to the archaeology of Nine Mile Canyon, and more research is certainly needed. Spangler summarizes current research in Nine Mile Canyon, Range Creek Canyon, and Desolation Canyon and its tributaries (all of which he is involved with) and summarizes the characteristics of the Fremont in the region and how they differ from the classic definition of Fremont. He goes on to outline his own “Tavaputs Adaptation,” providing an interpretation of how these differences are tied to strategies to minimize risk of subsistence shortfalls. The defensive nature of high elevation structures, towers, and remote granaries found in the canyons of the West Tavaputs suggest that competition for resources was extremely high during the Formative era, and people were not getting along. The differences in interpretation, not only over the historic course of research in the region, but also between researchers, enlightens the reader as to why those of us working here find it such a fascinating area in which to study human behavior. Archaeology is a subject many people find fascinating, yet it is often difficult for

Yenstch [Book Review]

archaeologists to avoid the dry prose of the profession and produce something easily read and understood by those uninitiated in our discipline. Spangler has provided an easily readable and informative work, complemented with thorough referencing to provide the more interested reader places to look for additional information. The writing is scholarly in nature, but is clear and engaging. Spangler provides easy to understand words and beautiful photography of the landscapes, architecture, rock art, and material culture found in Nine Mile Canyon. The book does not include answers to the many puzzling questions about the former inhabitants of the canyon, but his approach makes clear to the reader that our understanding of the past (and Nine Mile Canyon) is an ongoing and evolving process. This work is an invaluable resource for the professional, student, and interested lay-person on not just the prehistory of the region (the Tavaputs Plateau specifically), but the history of the discipline of American archaeology. Spangler’s archaeological history of Nine Mile Canyon provides an interesting story for the general public and an excellent resource for archaeologists working in the region. Jerry D. Spangler is a professional archaeologist and director of the Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance, a non-profit organization that works to further the protection of cultural resources to ensure they remain treasures for future generations. This book is the winner of the 2013 Outstanding Academic Title Award (Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries), and was nominated for the 2014 Utah Book Award of the Utah Humanities Council. With his wife Donna, he has also published Horned Snakes and Axle Grease: A Roadside Guide to the Archaeology, History and Rock Art of Nine Mile Canyon (2003); and published Last Chance Byway: The History of Nine Mile Canyon (2015).

Utah Archaeology, Vol. 29(1) 2016

171

Utah Archaeology Volume 29, Number 1, 2016

Articles inside

A Phoenix from the Ashes: Interpreting Destruction and Reconstruction at Salt Lake City's Denver and Rio Grande estern Railroad Maintenance Facilty