diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/69574-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69574-0.txt | 5842 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 5842 deletions
diff --git a/old/69574-0.txt b/old/69574-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index f0082b6..0000000 --- a/old/69574-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,5842 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Excavations at the LoDaisKa Site in -the Denver, Colorado area, by H. J. Irwin - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Excavations at the LoDaisKa Site in the Denver, Colorado area - -Authors: H. J. Irwin - C. C. Irwin - -Release Date: December 20, 2022 [eBook #69574] - -Language: English - -Produced by: WebRover, Stephen Hutcheson and the Online Distributed - Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EXCAVATIONS AT THE LODAISKA -SITE IN THE DENVER, COLORADO AREA *** - - - - - -Transcriber’s Notes: - - Underscores “_” before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_ - in the original text. - Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals. - Illustrations have been moved so they do not break up paragraphs. - Typographical and punctuation errors have been silently corrected. - - - - - Excavations at the LoDaisKa Site - in the - Denver, Colorado, Area - - by - H. J. AND C. C. IRWIN - - [Illustration] - - Supplementary Reports - by - W. C. Galinat, C. B. Hunt, G. E. Lewis, - R. Rodden, D. R. Whitehead - - THE DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY - Denver, Colorado - Proceedings, No. 8 October 1, 1959 - - LITHOGRAPHED BY - THE PEERLESS PRINTING COMPANY - DENVER, COLORADO - -[Illustration: FIGURE 1—Area of Study.] - - - - -Acknowledgments - - -This report, like most archaeological publications, was made possible -only through the contributions and cooperation of many individuals. It -is difficult to thank them all adequately. - -Our greatest debt is to the editor of this publication, H. M. -Wormington. She has provided an incalculable amount of information -and assistance. More important, however, we have had the advantage -of her knowledge and experience and have profited endlessly from her -suggestions and criticisms. Without her guidance and encouragement this -report could not have been prepared. We are also greatly indebted to -Alfred M. Bailey, Director of the Denver Museum of Natural History, who -made it possible for this report to appear in the Proceedings Series. - -We are deeply grateful to the individuals who gave their valuable time -and efforts to the preparation of the supplementary reports: Donald R. -Whitehead, for his pollen studies; Robert J. Rodden, for the chemical -and physical analyses of the soils; Edward Lewis, for his report on -the identification of the fauna; Charles B. Hunt, for his description -of the geology of the area; Walton C. Galinat, for identification and -comments on the plant remains; and M. G. Towle, for her supplementary -floral studies. - -We are deeply indebted to James B. Griffin for his acceptance of carbon -samples, which may ultimately provide an accurate chronology for the -site. We owe a special debt of thanks to Jesse D. Jennings, Richard -G. Forbis, Clyde Kluckhohn, Ruth M. Underhill, Evon Z. Vogt, Gordon -R. Willey, and Stephen Williams. They contributed their valuable time -and professional knowledge in their comments and criticisms of the -paper. Paul C. Mangelsdorf provided helpful suggestions and important -information on the maize section. - -Others whose reading of the manuscript we have benefited from are J. O. -Brew, J. B. Griffin, H. L. Movius Jr., and H. Smith. - -J. O. Brew kindly made available to us collections in Peabody Museum, -Harvard for study. We are grateful to Arminta Neal for her comments -and suggestions on the illustrations. Photographic credits are as -follows: Figure 2, T. S. Lovering (U.S.G.S.); Figure 3, F. M. Van Tuyl -(U.S.G.S.); Figure 31 left and Figure 60, R. J. Rodden; Figure 76, R. -F. Forbis. Within the supplementary reports, Figure 66 was drawn by C. -B. Hunt (U.S.G.S.), and Figures 67 and 68 by R. J. Rodden. All other -illustrations were prepared by the authors. - -We are also grateful to LoDaisKa Bethel and her family. Her enthusiasm, -knowledge of the area, and scientific spirit were ultimately -responsible for these excavations. To Otto Sanger we are indebted for -the initial permission to excavate, for his friendship, and for the -innumerable kindnesses which he and his family subsequently extended to -us. Last, but by no means least, we wish to thank our mother, Eleanor -C. Irwin, who has played a vital part in every stage of this operation, -from field assistant and cataloguer, through to the final stages of -typing and proofreading. - - - - -TABLE OF CONTENTS - - - I. Introduction 1 - History of the Investigation 1 - Physiography 1 - Fauna and Flora of the Region 3 - Description of the Site 5 - Method of Excavation 5 - Preliminary Discussion of the Stratigraphy 12 - Objectives of the Monograph 15 - II. The LoDaisKa Site: Features 17 - III. The LoDaisKa Site: Typology 21 - Method 21 - Chipped Stone 22 - Projectile points 22 - Knives 34 - Scrapers 42 - Spoke-shaves 43 - Drills 43 - Perforators 51 - “Gravers” 51 - Other prismatic flakes 51 - Choppers or hammerstones 54 - Cores 55 - Ground Stone 58 - Milling stones 58 - Handstones 58 - Shaft-smoother 66 - Pigment stones 67 - Bone 69 - Beads 69 - Used bone fragments 69 - Notched bone 69 - Rib and scapulae cutting tools 69 - Gaming pieces 69 - Awls 73 - Cut bone 74 - Tools of antler and bone 74 - Flakers 74 - Problematical Objects 78 - Mica fragments 78 - Crystal 79 - Clay Ball 79 - Wood 79 - Leather 79 - Cordage 79 - Pottery 82 - Plain 82 - Surface roughened 83 - IV. Geology of the LoDaisKa Site by Chas. B. Hunt 89 - V. Mechanical and Chemical Analysis of the Soils - of the LoDaisKa Site by R. J. Rodden 91 - Introduction 91 - Sampling 92 - Results and Discussion 94 - VI. Faunal Remains in the LoDaisKa Site by Edward Lewis, et al 100 - Classification used in this report 102 - VII. Plant Remains from the LoDaisKa Site by Walton C. Galinat: - additional identifications by M. C. Towle 104 - VIII. Fossil Pollen and Spores from the LoDaisKa Site by - Donald R. Whitehead 114 - IX. Ethnographic Comparisons 118 - The Ute 119 - The Pawnee 124 - X. Dating the LoDaisKa Remains 128 - XI. Reconstruction and Interpretation - Culture Complex A 128 - Typological Affiliations 128 - Cultural Reconstruction 130 - Culture Complex B 132 - Typological Affiliations 132 - Cultural Reconstruction 134 - Cultural Complex C 135 - Typological Affiliations 135 - Cultural Reconstruction 138 - Culture Complex D 140 - Typological Affiliations 140 - Cultural Reconstruction 143 - Other Remains 145 - XII. Discussion 146 - Traditions at LoDaisKa 146 - The Site in a Larger Context 147 - - - - - MAPS - _Figure_ _Page_ - 1—Area of study ii - 66—Geologic Map of the LoDaisKa Site 90 - 74—Location of principal sites referred to in text 131 - - - - -ILLUSTRATIONS - - - _Figure_ _Page_ - 2—Topography of the Morrison area x - 3—Morrison biome 2 - 4—LoDaisKa Site 6 - 5—LoDaisKa Site 7 - 6—Vertical section of overhang 8 - 7—Diagram of area excavated 10 - 8—Surface contours of LoDaisKa Site 11 - 9—Profile No. 1 13 - 10—Profile No. 2 14 - 11—Profile No. 3 15 - 12—Block Diagram 16 - 13—Features of LoDaisKa Site 18 - 14—Cists 20 - 15—Projectile points, Type A 23 - 16—Projectile points, Type A, A₂; Type B 24 - 17—Projectile points, Type C 25 - 18—Projectile points, Type D 26 - 19—Projectile points, Type E 27 - 20—Projectile points, Type F; Type G 28 - 21—Projectile points, Type H 29 - 22—Projectile points, Type H 30 - 23—Projectile points, Type I 31 - 24—Projectile points, Type J 32 - 25—Projectile points, Type K 33 - 26—Projectile points, Type aa; Type bb 35 - 27—Projectile points, Type bb₁; Type xx; Type cc 36 - 28—Knives, Type one 38 - 29—Knives, Type two; Type three 39 - 30—Large knife, Type two 40 - 31—Large knives, Type two 41 - 32—End scrapers, Type one 44 - 33—End scrapers, Type three; Type two 45 - 34—Side scrapers 46 - 35—Discoidal scrapers 47 - 36—Uncompahgre scrapers 48 - 37—Serrated scrapers; spoke-shave 49 - 38—Drill types one-four; gravers 50 - 39—Perforators; flake knife, hafted knife 52 - 40—Prismatic flakes 53 - 41—Prismatic flakes 54 - 42—Choppers and hammerstones 55 - 43—Large milling stones 62 - 44—Flat granite milling stone 63 - 45—Sandstone milling slabs 64 - 46—Handstones 65 - 47—Atlatl weight; abrader 66 - 48—Pigment stones 67 - 49—Bone beads; awls, type four 68 - 50—Rib-scapula cutting implements 70 - 51—Problematical pieces; worked mica; gaming pieces 71 - 52—Gaming pieces 72 - 53—Awls, type one 75 - 54—Awls, type one; type two; type three 76 - 55—Miscellaneous bone tools 77 - 56—Quartz crystal 78 - 57—Clay ball 80 - 58—Wood fragments 81 - 59—Plain Pottery bowl 82 - 60—Plain Pottery sherd 83 - 61—Surface roughened Pottery, Class I 84 - 62—Surface roughened Pottery, Class I; Plain Pottery 85 - 63—Surface roughened Pottery, Class II 86 - 64—Surface roughened Pottery, Class II 87 - 65—Surface roughened Pottery, Class III 88 - 67—Soil Analysis: Size distribution 95 - 68—Soil Analysis: - Relative importance of fines; - Concentration of calcium carbonate; - Concentration of soluble iron 97 - 69—Floral remains 108 - 70—Floral remains 109 - 71—Maize, Chapalote 111 - 72—Maize, “Popcorn” 112 - 73—Maize, Dent 113 - 75—Artifacts from nearby Woodland sites 133 - 76—Projectile points from Signal Butte 137 - - - - -TABLES - - - Table I—Projectile point provenience 37 - Table II—Artifacts exclusive of projectile points - and ground stone 56, 57 - Table III—Milling slabs, complete specimens 59 - Table IV—Milling slabs, fragmentary specimens 60 - Table V—Handstones 61 - Table VI—Soil Analysis: - Distribution of particle-size fractions 93, 94 - Table VII—Faunal remains 103 - Table VIII—Floral remains 107 - -[Illustration: Courtesy U.S. Geological Survey - -FIGURE 2—Topography of the Morrison Area, just north of Site (Looking -North). Center, Dakota Sandstone (Hogback). Left of center, light -colored broken rocks, Fountain Sandstone. Left, Rocky Mountain -Foothills.] - - - - -Investigations At The LoDaisKa Site - - - - -Introduction - - -HISTORY OF INVESTIGATION - -The foothills of the Rocky Mountains, although readily accessible, are -archaeologically almost unknown. Geographically they lie between two -culture areas—the Desert Culture of the Great Basin to the west and -the Plains cultures to the east. Environmentally the region preserves -a special character unlike either the Basin or the Plains. The area -around the town of Morrison, Colorado, some fifteen miles west of -Denver, seemed to offer unusual potentialities for archaeological -investigation because of the prominent rock formations and the -possibilities of overhangs. Very little previous work had been done in -the vicinity. - -Dr. E. B. Renaud undertook the first archaeological reconnaissance of -the area in 1931 and 1932. His survey was brief, but indicated the -presence of several sites. However, the Morrison area is not ideal -for the location of archaeological remains, principally because its -mesophytic environment gives rise to little erosion. Since 1931 the -only investigation was carried out by amateurs of the region. The -most extensive survey was done by LoDaisKa Bethel, to whom we owe -the discovery of the present site. The authors became aware of the -importance of the area after a surface survey, and after the excavation -of two rockshelters containing the remains of the Plains Woodland -Culture (Irwin and Irwin, n.d.). Subsequent contact with Mrs. Bethel -led to the excavation of the LoDaisKa Site. - - -Physiography - -The LoDaisKa Site is located beneath an outcrop of Fountain Sandstone, -about a mile south of Morrison, on the ranch of Otto Sanger. -Physiographically the Morrison area is part of the Southern Rocky -Mountain Province. Broad elevated strips of granite, running north -and south, are flanked by dipping sedimentary rocks. The latter are -generally lower and form foothills. Both once formed continuous -anticlinal structures, now deeply eroded (Fenneman, 1931). The granite -masses are usually mountainous, but occasionally form vast plateaus -such as South Park. Locally they are capped by remnant sedimentaries. - -[Illustration: Courtesy U.S. Geological Survey - -FIGURE 3—Morrison Biome, looking west. Central Ridge is the Hogback. -Note encroachment of trees along watercourses and at higher -elevations.] - -For over half the mountain frontage of this Province, a very resistant -formation, the Dakota Sandstone, creates a “hogback”. A valley of -weaker sedimentaries lies between it and the foothills, beginning about -two miles to the west. The Fountain Sandstone, locally known as the -“Red Rocks” formation, outcrops in this depression. - -Mountain streams collecting in the inter-ridge valley form a trellis -drainage pattern. Master streams cut through the Dakota Formation -creating watergaps. The LoDaisKa Site lies in the shelter of an outcrop -of the Fountain Sandstone which rises some 60 feet above the valley. -The site lies at an elevation of about 6200 feet. - -CLIMATE - - Precipitation Temperature - Mean Mean - Av. Ann. Max. Min. Mean Ann. Ann. Max. Ann. Min. - Morrison 14.20″ 22.96″ 7.51″ [1] - Denver 15.70±″ 23.10″ 7.84″ 50.3° 63.2° 37.3° - Av. Ann. Snowfall - 55.6″ - -[1] No available temperature or snowfall records for Morrison. Morrison -lies about 18 miles west of the Denver Record station and is slightly -higher. Temperatures do not differ appreciably from Denver. Data was -collected in 1941-1956 for Morrison, 1905-1957 for Denver. - - -Fauna and Flora of the Region - -The Morrison area as a floral biome is characterized by its -transitional nature, from the plains to the east and the mountains -to the west. Harrington (1954) has designated the environment as the -Mountain Shrub Subdivision of the Mountain and Plateau Area. - -Especially characteristic of the zone are the following plants: - - _Quercus Gambelli_—scrub oak - _Prunus Virginianus melanocarpa_—wild plum - _Crataegus_ spp. (Probably succulenta)—hawthorn - _Amelanchier_ spp.—service berry - _Crysothamus Lanceolata_—rabbit brush - _Rhus trilobata_—poison ivy - _Rosa Woodsi_—wood rose - - -From the Ponderosa Pine-Douglas Fir Subdivision the following -characteristic plants overlap: - - _Pseudotsuga taxifolia_—douglas fir - _Pinus Ponderosa_—Ponderosa pine - _Mahonia Berberis aquifoliam_—Oregon grape - _Arctosaphylos uva-ursi_—kinnikinick - _Rubus occidentalis_—blackberry - _Rubus stigosus_—raspberry - _Populus tremuloides_—quaking aspen - - -These distinctive plants have invaded from the prairie fringe: - - _Stipa cometa_—needle grass - _Agropyron smithii_—wheat grain - _Boutelorea grasilis_—grama grass - _Boutelorea curtipendula_—grama grass - _Poa fendleriana_—bluegrass - _Sphaeralcea ceccinea_—globe mallow - _Helianthus petiolaris_—sunflower - _Chrysopsis rillosa_—golden aster - _Muhlenbergia montana_—muhly - _Yucca glauca_—yucca - understory of sedges and broad-leaf herbs - -The nature of the faunal belt characteristic of the Transition Zone -is varied. Both boreal and austral mammals are represented. Only six -species appear restricted to it, two squirrels of the _Sciurus aberti_ -group, three pocket gophers of genus _Thomomys_ and a small brown bat. -The following mammals are not restricted to the Transition Zone but are -characteristic of it in the eastern foothills: - - _Eutamias quadrivitratus_—Say chipmunk - _Peromyscus nastus_—Estes Park cliffmouse - _Neotoma fallax_—Gale wood rat - _Lepus campestris_—White-tailed jack rabbit - _Sylvilagus nuttalli pinetis_—Rocky Mountain cottontail - _Canis lestis_—Mountain coyote - _Lynx uinta_—Mountain wildcat - _Mephitis hudsonica_—Northern plains skunk - -Mammals common to the Transition and Upper Sonoran Zones include: - - _Antilocapra americana_—Antelope - _Odocoileus virginianus_—Macrourus white-tailed deer - _Onychomys brevicaudus_—Grasshopper mouse - _Castor canadensis frondator_—broad-tailed beaver - _Canis Occidentalis_—Grey wolf - _Spilogale tenuis_—Rocky Mountain spotted skunk - _Eptesicus fuscus_—Brown bat - -The following are common to the Transition and Canadian (mountain) -Zones: - - _Cervus canadensis_—Elk - _Callospermophilus lateralis_—Say ground squirrel - _Eutamias amvenus operarius_—Colorado chipmunk - _Erethiron epixanthum_—Yellow haired porcupine - _Eutamias mihumus consobrinus_—Least chipmunk - _Microtus nanas_—dwarf field mouse - _Microtus pennsylvanicus_—Saguache meadow mouse - _Zapus princeps_—Rocky Mountain jumping mouse - _Vulpus macrourus_—Western fox - _Ursus americanus_—Black bear - -Common to the Transition, Canadian and Upper Sonoran Zones are: - - _Odocoileus hemionus_—Mule deer - _Cynomys gunnisoni_—Gunnison prairie dog - _Cynomys leucurus_—White-tailed prairie dog - _Felis oregonensis hippolestes_—Mountain lion - _Lutreola vison energunenos_—Mink - _Putorius arizonensis_—Mountain weasel - _Taxidea taxus_—badger - -The above lists were drawn mainly from Meritt Cary’s _Biological Survey -of Colorado_ (1911). Though this is the most complete work available, -it is somewhat out of date and contains certain species names that have -been superseded. An effort was made to check this with more modern -works, such as Warren’s _Mammals of Colorado_ (1942), but this was not -always possible. - - -Description of the Site - -The rockshelter itself is now a moderately large overhang, measuring -some 40 feet in width and 15 feet in depth. As Fig. 6 indicates, -the ceiling slopes upward rapidly and only the inner yard or so is -completely protected from rain or drizzle. When first inhabited, the -floor of sand and gravel sloped up to the mouth (west), and presumably -continued into the flat valley outside. At the time of excavation, -however, the surface sloped to the north. This difference appears to -have been due to the collapse of a considerable portion of the adjacent -cliff face, creating an enormous mound of dirt and sandstone, which -washed in from the north during the latest stages of occupation. - -The small intermittent stream, Strain Gulch, flows in front of the -shelter on a southwest-northeast axis. It has cut down its bed to a -gravelly-bouldery layer corresponding to the lowest level at LoDaisKa. -The fill between the stream and the site is of a wet limey nature. -Excavation was extended in this direction as far as was feasible. -Beyond the stream lies a valley about one-half mile wide, bounded on -the west by the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. - - -Method of Excavation (Fig. 4) - -In preparation for excavation, a vertical rod was driven in the -southern sector and the datum point established twenty inches above -the ground surface at this spot. A second stake was located on -a north-south line from the first (using magnetic north) at the -opposite end of the shelter. A horizontal line connecting these -stakes at the level of the datum point was considered the baseline. -The area of the rock shelter to be excavated was then laid out in -one yard squares. Letters were assigned to the grid lines running -east-west, and numbers to those running north-south. Each square was -designated by the grid lines intersecting at its northeast corner. -To facilitate exact measurement, a series of stakes was set up along -the baseline at intervals of two yards. From locations on the stakes -on the same horizontal plane as the datum point, lines were extended -to corresponding pitons driven into the rear wall of the overhang. A -second series of connecting lines formed a suspended grid of two yard -squares. - -[Illustration] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 4—LoDaisKa Site. Above, prior to excavation -(Looking North). Below, preliminary test trench. Note homogeneous -character of deposit.] - -[Illustration] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 5—LoDaisKa Site. Above, during excavation -(Looking South). Below, just prior to completion, all but one strand of -aerial grid removed. (Looking North).] - -[Illustration: LODAISKA SITE - -FIGURE 6—Vertical section of Overhang.] - -A preliminary test trench one yard wide and four yards long, was dug in -squares M6-9 to determine whether complete excavation was warranted. -Subsequent yard square test pits were sunk at P 7-8 and K 8. It was -hoped that these would indicate the nature of the geologic stratigraphy -and at least suggest the range of cultural materials which might be -expected. Since excavation seemed warranted, the entire area to be -worked was cleared of the surface layer of manure. - -As set forth in the description of the site, the recent floor sloped -up toward the northwest (Fig. 8). Test excavations indicated that the -basal layer was approximately horizontal in a north-south direction, -but sloped gently up toward the west. There seemed to be no significant -correlation between geologic stratigraphy (see below) and typology -in any except the lowest layer, which had not yet been extensively -investigated. Because the evidence was as yet so scanty, it was -decided to excavate with reference to both the surface and the datum -point. Each square was treated as a separate unit and, except where -natural levels were apparent, excavation proceeded in four inch levels -measured from the surface at the northeast corner. Each level was also -correlated with the datum point. - -Both typological provenience and the position of the basal layer -indicated that the major portion of the deposit had been laid down -horizontally. To test this hypothesis a careful watch was kept for -fragmentary specimens, in the hope of finding corresponding pieces from -separate locations. The relative positions of these would suggest the -nature of the surface on which they were deposited. Ten such fragments -found comprised five artifacts: three potsherds, one handstone and -one fragmentary grinding slab. Though some occurred as much as twelve -yards apart, each pair fell within the same vertical level. From -this analysis it appeared that the occupation levels were in fact -approximately horizontal. - -Stepped excavation seemed advisable in view of the unconsolidated -nature of the deposit (Fig. 5). Vertical exposures more than two feet -high collapsed as soon as the lower portions became thoroughly dry. -These conditions made stratigraphic columns or balks impractical in -most instances. However, by the use of rip-rapping, it was possible to -leave a reference balk one foot wide on the north side of line N 5-11. - -All material recovered was sifted through quarter inch mesh screens. -Since it was fairly loose and dry, most of the earth was removed with -shovels. Trowels, brushes and a flexible baby bottle for blowing were -employed when features or artifacts _in situ_ were encountered. The -location of the screening dump was determined by test augering of the -area between the site and the creek. This dump was separated from the -excavation by a catwalk and low earthworks. The latter served the dual -purpose of guarding against sliding from the dumps, and keeping out -water which often poured over the edge of the overhang in the extremely -rainy season of 1957. - -[Illustration: LODAISKA SITE - -FIGURE 7—Diagram of area excavated at the LoDaisKa Site.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 8—Surface contours of LoDaisKa Site, prior to -excavation.] - -Artifacts were sacked and later marked by level and square. Floral -remains were similarly treated. Faunal material was rather sparse, and -was therefore segregated by twelve inch levels measured from the datum -point. All features were recorded and located on the map by means of a -transit, and located vertically by measurements from the baseline. - - -Preliminary Discussion of the Stratigraphy - -The method and objectives of this monograph can best be understood in -relation to the nature of the stratigraphic situation. Therefore, it -appears desirable to present first a basic and unelaborated view of -the stratigraphy which will be discussed more fully later. As shown in -Figs. 9, 10, 11 and 12, there were four levels of natural stratigraphy. -When excavation of the test trench and adjoining pits was finished, -it appeared that only the lowest could be correlated with any single -culture. However, the others were useful in intra-site correlation. -This lowest level (four) was a bed of indefinite depth, composed of -gravel and boulders of Late Wisconsin age (Hunt, this report). Above -it lay a homogeneous deposit (level three) consisting of sand and -silt mixed with cultural debris, from 54 to 63 inches thick. About -three-fourths of the way up there was a scatter of rather large rocks -and gravel, which appears to represent some kind of maximum inwash or -roof-fall into the site. The next natural level (two) is of reddish -sand, a maximum of one foot thick, with very sparse cultural materials. -This red sand layer is considerably thicker in the southern end of -the site than elsewhere, tapering off gradually to the north till it -disappears about on line H. The same is true of the top layer (one), -a bed of dusty brown fill about four inches thick in the main part of -the site, showing a slightly greater intensity of occupation. Together -these produce a floor sloping down toward the north. The whole unit -finally was overlain by a layer of cow dung. - -The authors recognize several occupations or cultural units at the -site. The first is confined to the lowest geological layer, and -appears to represent remnants of an Early Lithic stage on the Plains. -The second has roots in the Great Basin and is confined to the -third geological layer. It is represented in its purest form from -the beginning of the third natural level to about 72 inches below -the baseline. However, some types characteristic of this occupation -continue upwards, tapering off slowly and disappearing at about 53 -inches below baseline. The third unit represents a Plains oriented -culture, beginning at about 72 inches below the baseline and extending -to about 53 inches. The fourth occupation is a variant of Plains -Woodland Culture extending from about 53-30 inches below baseline. The -final occupation begins at about 48 inches and extends to the surface. -The authors feel that it represents a variant of the Fremont Culture of -Utah and western Colorado. - -[Illustration: Legend] - -[Illustration: PROFILE No. 1 LODAISKA SITE - -FIGURE 9—Profile of Face of J 7-11.] - -[Illustration: PROFILE No. 2 LODAISKA SITE - -FIGURE 10—Profile of Face of M 6-11.] - -[Illustration: PROFILE No. 3 LODAISKA SITE - -FIGURE 11—Profile of Face of Q 6/7—9/10.] - -These divisions are arbitrary and based on typology. There is some -degree of overlap. Since the fill is shallow compared to the time range -represented, there was undoubtedly a considerable amount of mixing, -plus the ever present chance of re-use. Characteristically, as Jennings -(1957) found at Danger Cave, the beginning of any cultural type is more -apt to be a synchronic affair than its end. - - -Objectives of the Monograph - -The bulk of the present monograph will be devoted to a description of -the cultural remains uncovered at the LoDaisKa Site, and delineation -of the circumstances of their discovery. However, an accumulation of -facts loses much of its significance if no attempt at organization and -interpretation is made. “The archaeologist must make some effort to -integrate as well as observe his material, or he becomes a technician -rather than a scientist.” (Heizer, 1958). It is realized that cultural -units must be defined primarily on the basis of typology, because of -the general lack of corresponding geological units. In this connection, -the present state of flux in Great Basin taxonomy renders the results -less absolute than might be desired. For this reason considerable -emphasis has been placed on making as much as possible of the raw data -available. - -[Illustration: BLOCK PROFILE, LODAISKA SITE - -EXCLUDING COW DUNG LAYER - -FIGURE 12—Block Diagram showing relation of the strata.] - -The object of the interpretive study will be twofold: 1) to make a -comparative analysis of the typology of the LoDaisKa artifacts in -relation to both the Plains and Great Basin Culture areas (see Kroeber, -1939); 2) to make some attempt, on the basis of the archaeological -remains and analogies with ethnologically observable data, to provide -some insight into the total culture of the inhabitants as it existed at -the time of occupancy. Of course, as one progresses further from the -empirical evidence, to higher levels of interpretation the reliability -of the conclusions decreases proportionately (MacWhite, 1956). - -The primary difficulty, as indicated, is the absence of -stratigraphically isolated culture units. Because of this a certain -amount of overlap is to be expected: a small geologic unit represents -a long and apparently uninterrupted occupational continuum. The -resultant telescoping would increase the effects of trampling and other -disturbance. However, it became increasingly apparent during excavation -that, on the basis of typology and overall stratigraphic relationships, -at least four complexes should be recognized; a broken point and a few -flakes found in the lowest geologic stratum suggest a fifth. Two of -these cultures appear to be affiliated with the Great Basin, three with -the Plains. - - - - -THE LODAISKA SITE - -FEATURES - - -Hearths (Fig. 13) - -Eleven hearths were found; they may be characterized briefly as follows: - -_Hearth A._ Location: south edge square P8-9, top 36 inches below -baseline. Simple pit excavated into underlying soil, filled with -charcoal and ash, seven inches deep and ten inches in diameter. - -_Hearth B._ Location: center at axis of lines 0 and 8-9, top 56 inches -below baseline. Concentration of charcoal and ash, no pit, nine inches -thick, eight inches wide and 13 inches long. - -_Hearth C._ Location: square L9, top 48 inches below baseline. -Concentration of charcoal and ash: rock-filled. Twelve inches thick, 15 -inches wide, 28 inches long. - -_Hearth D._ Location: square J9, top 40 inches below baseline. -Concentration of charcoal and ash six inches thick. Almost circular, 12 -inches in diameter. - -_Hearth E._ Location: square K9, top 60 inches below baseline. -Rock-filled, charcoal and ash mixed in. Six inches thick, almost -circular, 12 inches in diameter. - -_Hearth F._ Location: between squares 08-9 and 07-8, top 61 inches -below baseline. Charcoal and ash; rock-filled. Nine inches thick, -almost circular about 16 inches in diameter. - -_Hearth G._ Location: square N7-8, top 30 inches below baseline. -Charcoal and ash interspersed with small rocks. Sixteen inches thick, -27 inches long, 18 inches wide. - -_Hearth H._ Location: square J8, top 40 inches below baseline. Charcoal -and ash and rock. Thickness nine inches, length 20 inches, width 15 -inches. This hearth was oriented with its length parallel to the rear -wall of the shelter, while all other oblong hearths lay with their -length at right angles to it. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 13—Features.] - -_Hearth I._ Location: square E7, top 49 inches below baseline. Charcoal -and ash rock-fill. Ten inches thick, 16 inches long, 12 inches wide. - -_Hearth J._ Location: square L7, top 72 inches below baseline. Charcoal -and ash concentration interspersed with rocks somewhat larger than -those found in other hearths. Eight inches thick, 15 inches wide, and -28 inches long. - -_Hearth K._ Location: square L7, top 40 inches below baseline. Charcoal -and ash with a few rocks. Eight inches thick, 15 inches long and 12 -inches wide. - -_Hearth L._ Location: center at axis of Lines 0 and 6-7. Top 42 inches -below baseline. Charcoal and ash, rock-filled. About eight inches -thick, more or less circular, approximately nine inches in diameter. - -In addition to these hearths the whole shelter had minor concentrations -of charcoal and ash in every level. Such debris was, in fact, found -throughout the soil in varying quantities. - - -Cists (Fig. 14) - -Three features encountered were termed cists. All were located in the -rear of the shelter in the center section. All were flat-bottomed -basins dug into the sand underlying the Piney Creek alluvium (see C. -B. Hunt’s report below). Around the sides of these were set small -rocks with more or less flat surfaces. Within Cists A and C were found -remains of seeds. - -_Cist A._ Location: square J11, top 102 inches below baseline. Almost -circular, inside diameter at top 14 inches, bottom eight inches. Five -inches deep. Contents: Dirt covering cache of acorns decomposed except -for a thin shell. No ash or charcoal. - -_Cist B._ Location: square L11, top 100 inches below baseline. -Circular. Inside diameter at top, 17 inches, at bottom 11 inches. Depth -7 inches. No contents but dirt. This differs from the other two, also, -in that it is more basin-shaped with less steep walls. - -_Cist C._ Location: square L11 overlapping into K11, top 90 inches -below baseline. Circular. Inside diameter at top 13 inches, at bottom, -8 inches. Depth 6 inches. Contents: _Graminae_ (spp.), _Grayia -brandegei_, _Lithospermum boraginaceae_ ruderale, all in small -quantities (see botanical report below). - -[Illustration] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 14—Features. Above, Cist C. Below, Cist A.] - - - - -TYPOLOGY - - -Method - -One often notices an emphasis on projectile points in archaeological -reports, especially in studies of non-ceramic or pre-ceramic cultures. -Archaeology as a historical science must integrate all the data with -their own context and with events which preceded and followed. In -searching for data that provide such chronological and geographical -correlation (e.g. horizon styles in the sense of Willey and Phillips), -there are certain basic needs. Though any cultural element could be -used in correlations of this kind, some are less useful because their -forms are governed by function, and others are fundamentally common and -form traditions rather than horizon styles (e.g. grinding stones in -some parts of the United States). A horizon marker must have some kind -of stylistic development which allows variation outside of function. -In cultures without pottery, as Willey and Phillips have pointed out -(1958), projectile points become the most important artifacts in -classification and integration because, 1) the usual economic mode of -subsistence of people at this level renders a plentiful supply of such -artifacts, and 2) as artistic representations they are sensitive to -styles yet remain stable for adequate periods of time. - -Projectile points from the LoDaisKa Site are therefore treated -differently from certain other artifacts. We have illustrated all of -the projectile points from pre-ceramic levels. Where these make up a -type all of the artifacts of this type, even though it may extend into -ceramic times, are so treated. This has been done for two reasons: -1) A major portion of the material is apparently affiliated with the -Great Basin. Great Basin types are extremely variable and difficult to -classify. 2) Cultures of that area have been, until recently, little -investigated and cultural patterns which are not now recognized may -some day be distinguished; the authors hope to create a record which -will be useful even when new data come to light. For ceramic periods -we forgo such detail for two reasons: 1) Pottery is present as a more -sensitive marker. 2) The points found are usually uniform enough to fit -into a few internally consistent categories. - -We have divided projectile points into 16 categories, 8 major ones. -This is primarily for convenience; secondly because some categories -probably do represent cultural types; and thirdly because there are -morphological ranges which may be described briefly in terms of a basic -pattern. We believe with Cressman (1956) that some form existed in -the minds of their makers and that a certain amount of variation is -consistent within a type. It is worth noting the testimony of certain -Ute informants who claimed that each tribe made its own recognizable -form of point. (See below, p. 122.) - - - - -PROJECTILE POINTS: CLASSIFICATION - - -Dart Points - - A Blade wide, leaf-shaped, edge usually convex, stem - straight or contracting, leaving pronounced - shoulder, no barb, base concave. Largest 1½34? × - ¹⁵/₁₆ inches, smallest ⅞ × ⁹/₁₆ inches, (Fig. 15). - - A1 Blade wide, leaf-shaped, edge convex, stem - expanding, shoulder, no barb, concave base. Two - specimens, ¾ × ½, 1? × ½ inches, (Fig. 16). - - A2 Blade triangular, straight edge, lateral barb, - stem straight—slightly contracting, base deeply - concave. Two specimens, ⅞ × ⅝, 1¼ × ⅞ inches, (Fig. 16). - - B Blade leaf-shaped, edges convex, stem contracting - but no shoulder, base concave. Largest 1½? × ⅝, - smallest 1? × ½ inches, (Fig. 16). - - C Blade triangular, edge straight or slightly - convex, all serrated, pronouncedly expanding base - as wide or wider than blade giving the impression - of high corner notches, definite barb rare. - Largest 1⅜ × ⅝, smallest ⅞? × ⅝ inches, (Fig. 17). - - C1 Blade triangular, two specimens straight sides, - one shouldered, all deeply serrated, two concave - based, one straight. Three specimens, 1½? × ¾, 1¼ - × ½, 2? × ¾ inches, (Fig. 17). - - D Blade triangular, length three to four times the - width, edge sinuous: tapering from barb to center, - expanding toward point, then tapering off; stem - expanding, narrower than blade, base concave or - straight. Largest 2¼? × ⅞, smallest 1½ × ¾ inches, - (Fig. 18). - - E Blade triangular to leaf-shaped, edges straight or - convex, shallow to deep side notches, base concave - or convex, expanding or contracting. Largest 1¾? × - ¾, smallest ¾ × ½ inches, (Fig. 19). - - F Blade triangular to leaf-shaped, straight to - curving edges, stem nearly as wide as blade, - giving almost the appearance of side-notching, - base straight to slightly convex, two specimens - serrated. Largest 1⅞ × ¾, smallest 1¼ × ¾ inches, - (Fig. 20). - - G Blade triangular, edge concave, stem narrow, - straight or slightly expanding and rather - small, barbs projecting to level of base giving - impression of double basal notch, base convex. - Largest 1 × 1, smallest ⅞ × ¾ inches, (Fig. 20). - - H Blade triangular to leaf-shaped, rounded - shoulders, stem narrower than blade, base rounded, - serrated. Largest 1½ × ½, smallest ⅞ × ½ inches, - (Figs. 21, 22). - - I Blade triangular, curving edges, stem narrower - than blade, expanding, giving the appearance of - corner notching, barbs straight, distinct, base - convex. Largest 1½? × 1, smallest ¾ × ⅝ inches, - (Fig. 24). - - J Blade triangular to leaf-shaped, edges straight - or slightly convex, four serrated, base expanding, - corner-notched, barb pronounced, base straight - or convex. Largest 1¼ × ⅞, smallest 1 × ⅝ inches, - (Fig. 24). - - K Blade triangular, sides straight or slightly - convex, distinct down-curving barbs, base - expanding narrower than blade, gives appearance - of corner notching, base straight or slightly - concave, four serrated. Largest 2 × 1, smallest - ⅞ × ⁵/₁₆ inches, (Fig. 25). - - L Two specimens of quartzite, both shown in Fig. - 25. Blade leaf-shaped, indented bases, oblique - parallel flaking, edges ground on first specimen - in Fig. 23 about one inch up from base. The second - specimen also has ground edges. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 15—Projectile Points, Type A.] - -[Illustration: TYPE A1] - -[Illustration: TYPE A2] - -[Illustration: TYPE B - -FIGURE 16—Projectile Points, Types A1 A2 B.] - -[Illustration: TYPE C] - -[Illustration: TYPE C1 - -FIGURE 17—Projectile Points, Types C and C1.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 18—Projectile Points, Type D.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 19—Projectile Points, Type E.] - -[Illustration: TYPE F] - -[Illustration: TYPE G - -FIGURE 20—Projectile Points, Types F and G.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 21—Projectile Points, Type H.] - -[Illustration: TYPE H] - -[Illustration: UNIQUE SPECIMEN - -FIGURE 22—Projectile Points, Type H and Unique Specimen.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 23—Projectile Points, Type L.] - -[Illustration: TYPE I] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 24—Projectile Points, Types I and J.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 25—Projectile Points, Type K.] - - -Arrow Points - - aa Blade triangular, corner-notched, length 1¼ times - the width, base generally convex, expanding, often - just slightly narrower than blade. Largest 1⅛ × - ½, smallest ⅝ × ½ inches. Points of this type are - generally much lighter and thinner than those - above, (Fig. 26). - - bb Blade triangular, edges either convex or concave, - specimen’s length generally twice width, almost - all serrated, stems usually straight, generally - ½ width or less. Largest 1 × ½, smallest ¾ × ⅝ - inches. A variation of this type is less long - in relation to width, but has its base located - a-centrally. Careful examination reveals no - differential of wear on the sides such as would - be expected if they were used as knives. (Fig. 26). - - cc These points are located morphologically between - types aa and bb and do not fit into either category. - Largest 1¼ × ⅜, smallest ⅝ × ½ inches, (Fig. 27). - - -Other Projectile Points - - x A blunt point, large expanding base, shoulders - pronounced, blade semi-ellipse shaped. One point 1 - × ⅞ inches, (Fig. 27). - - xx Four specimens, located stratigraphically in - pre-pottery levels. All are flake points, rather - small and light, in general fit into category H. - Largest 1 × ½, smallest ¾ × ⅝ inches. These may - have been children’s toys? (Fig. 27). - - A “grainy” quartzite was used for 85 percent - of the dart points. For the arrow points, the - preference was not as marked, for it constituted - only 55 percent of the total. The remainder were - of crypto-crystalline or “flinty” quartz. - - -Knives (Figs. 28-31) - -There are four types of knives or bifacially worked cutting implements. -All are relatively thin, less than ¼ inch thick, and flaked on both -sides, often with broad shallow chipping. The first type consists of -small ovoid bifaces. The largest of these measures 2¼ × 1 inch, the -smallest ⅞ × ⅝ inches with most being about 1 × ¾ inches. The majority -resemble Fig. 28, being slightly asymmetrical although some are more -triangular. They were probably used as small knives, possibly hafted. -Since the point is usually off-center, and they are generally thick -in relation to their size, they do not appear to be projectile point -blanks, though a few of the finest may have been. They are usually of a -crypto-crystalline quartz. One is of obsidian. There is a total of 41 -pieces. - -[Illustration: aa] - -[Illustration: bb - -FIGURE 26—Projectile Points, Types aa and bb.] - -[Illustration: bb] - -[Illustration: xx] - -[Illustration: cc - -FIGURE 27—Projectile Points, Types bb, xx, cc.] - - - - -TABLE I - -PROJECTILE POINT PROVENIENCE - - - (Notice Overlap) - - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - Depth | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - in | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - inches |A|A1|A2|B|C|C1|D|E|F|G|H|I|J|K|L|aa|bb|bb1|cc|xx - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 4-8 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 8-2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 12-16 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 16-20 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 20-24 | | | | | | | |1| | |2| | | | | | | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 24-28 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 28-32 | | | | | | | |1| | | | | | | | | 4| | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 32-36 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3| | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 36-40 | | | | | | | | | | |1| | |1| | 3| 4| 1 | 4| - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 40-44 |2| | | | | | |1|1| |4| | | | | 4| 8| 3 | 2| 5 - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 44-48 | | | |1|2| | |1|1|1|2| | | | | 5| 6| | 3| 2 - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 48-52 |2| | 1|2|1| | | |1| |3| | | | |10| 2| 2 | | 2 - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 52-56 |2| | |1|1| 1|1|1| |2|1| | |2| | 6| 2| 1 | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 56-60 |3| | 1|2|2| | | |1| |1| |2| | | 5| | | 4| 2 - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 60-64 |4| | | |1| |1| | |1| |1|1| | | 4| | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 64-68 |1| | |2|1| 1| |2| | |1| | |1| | | | | | 2 - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 68-72 |5| | | |1| |1|1|1| |3| | |1|1| | | | | 1 - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 72-76 |1| | |1| | |1| | |1|1| | | | | | | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 76-80 | | | | |1| 1|1|2|2| |1|1|2|1| | | | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 80-84 | | 1| |1| | |2| | | |1| |1| | | | | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 84-88 | | | | | | | |1| | |2| | |2| | | | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 88-92 | | | | | | | | | | |2|1|2| | | | | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 92-96 | | 1| | | | | | | | | | | |1| | | | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 96-100 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |1| | | | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 100-104 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 104-108 | | | | | | | | | | |1| |1| |1| | | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - 108-112 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+--- - -There are 25 specimens of the second type. These are characterized by -an asymmetrical triangular form, usually with one gently curving side, -a second more rounded side, and straight or slightly rounded base (Fig. -29). In general they show flat broad flakes at right angles to the -edges with short retouch flakes and usage scars all around. The largest -is 3¾ inches long, and two inches wide, and is made of obsidian (Figs. -30, 31). Another example is 3¾ inches long and 1½ inches wide (Fig. -31). The smallest is 1¾ × 1 inch. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 28—Knives, type one (Small ovoid bifaces). Actual -size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 29—Knives. A-F, type two. G-K, type three. Actual -size.] - -The third group includes 14 examples. The construction of these is -similar to group two, but they are generally thicker, more symmetrical -and usually longer and narrower. The largest is 2½ × 1, the smallest 1½ -× ¾ (Fig. 29). - -There are in addition 15 broken pieces belonging to one or the other of -the last two categories. - -Eleven pieces were classified as flake knives. These are characterized -by manufacture on a flake, with flaking on both faces but only along -one edge. Shape is variable, but the cutting edge is generally curved. -Largest, 2 × 1¾ inches, smallest 1½ × 1 inch. - -One large stemmed artifact with straight sides and a blunt point is -felt to have been a hafted knife. The base is broken. Estimated length, -2 inches, width 1⅓ inches. The material is quartzite. - -For all the categories of cutting implements, approximately 70 percent -were made of flinty or crypto-crystalline quartz; a rather large number -were of fossilized wood, not commonly used for other artifacts. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 30—Large obsidian knife, type two. Actual size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 31—Large Knives, type two. Slightly larger than -actual size.] - - -SCRAPERS - - -End Scrapers (Figs. 32, 33) - -The end scrapers are divisible into three categories. The first form is -a flat scraper, generally triangular to oval in outline. The working -end is often thin. There are a few true snub-nosed scrapers in this -category. The second type is generally fan-shaped with a wide thin bit. -The opposite end usually tapers to a sharp edge which could have had -secondary use as a cutting tool. The third variety includes rougher -forms, though there are a few well made specimens. All have a distinct -keel. There are 31 of the first type, the smallest ½ × ⁷/₁₆; the -largest 1¼ × 1½ inches. Of the second group there are 17 specimens, the -smallest 1¼ × ¾; the largest 1½ × 1¼ inches. There are 10 of the third -form, the smallest 1 inch square, the largest 2½ × 1½ inches. Seventy -percent of the scrapers are of crypto-crystalline quartz. - - -Side Scrapers (Fig. 34) - -Twenty-three specimens are classified as side scrapers. In general, -as with discoidal scrapers, it is hard to draw a line between these -and utilized flakes. An arbitrary division was made because, when -the material was laid out, some specimens consistently showed more -regular work or flaking than others. The largest of these is 2½ × 1 -inch, the smallest 1¼ × 1 inch. In general, they are long flakes with -considerable flat flaking and/or retouch along one face, usually on -only one edge. Quartzite and crypto-crystalline quartz were about -equally popular. - - -Discoidal Scrapers (Fig. 35) - -Twenty-five artifacts are classified as discoidal scrapers. Again, as -noted in the case of side scrapers, the dividing line between some of -these and certain utilized flakes is somewhat arbitrary. Generally -these artifacts are steeply flaked, by percussion, on both faces and -all edges, giving them a rather rounded appearance. The largest is 2½ -× 2¼ inches, the smallest ¾ × 1½ inch. Quartzite and flinty materials -show about equal usage. - - -Serrated Scrapers (Fig. 37) - -There are 21 serrated scrapers. These are usually serrated on one edge -only, but other sides often show secondary usage. The serrations appear -to have been made in the course of the primary flaking, by blows dealt -at intervals, with the remaining protrusions left instead of being -chipped off. Some with steep sides would have been useful as scrapers, -but several small thin specimens could have been used as saws. Flinty -materials were preferred. The largest is 2 × 1¼, the smallest 1 × ¾ -inches. From the ethnographic data (see below) it is interesting to -note that the Ute used serrated scrapers for taking the hair off hides. - - -“Uncompahgre” Scrapers (Fig. 36) - -Six complete and one broken artifact are included in this category. -They conform in general to Wormington and Lister’s (1956) description -of those found at the type locality. Those at LoDaisKa are smaller. -Specifically they are flakes, usually triangular, although one is -rectangular. One edge is flaked on one face alone, one or more edges -are flaked on both faces. The butt, generally the striking platform -of the flake, is usually unflaked and thick. They appear to have been -serviceable without hafting, and are probably a multiple purpose tool, -possibly with a specific combination of uses. The largest is 2 × 1¾ -inches; the smallest, 1¼ × ⅞ inches. All but one are quartzite. - - -Hafted Scrapers - -One artifact was found that could be described as a hafted scraper. -It is 1 × 1¼ inches, with a semicircular working bit, straight barbs, -expanding stem, narrower than a blade, and a rounded base. It could -have been made from a type H projectile point. - - -Spoke-shaves (Figs. 37, 39) - -Two artifacts are designated spoke-shaves. One is combined with a -perforator; the other is made from a large flake. Both exhibit simple -steep flaking. The working surfaces are arcs of about 100° on small -circles, ½ inch in diameter. - - -Drills (Fig. 38) - -Though only five specimens were recovered that can be classified -as drills, they comprise four types. The first, represented by one -specimen, is of the expanding base T-shaped variety. The base is -flattened and the point is diamond-shaped in cross-section; the -flakes were struck from either side to meet in the middle and form -the central ridge. The second type, possibly a variant of the first, -comprises two specimens, one fragmentary. The bases expand but are -thick and irregular, rather than flat. The point of the complete -example is biconvex to diamond-shaped in cross-section and exhibits -fine workmanship. The third type differs from the first two in having -a straight base. It is biconvex in cross-section, with rather fine -flaking meeting along the midline. The fourth variety has the outline -of a small side-notched projectile point. Upon examination, however, -the edges of the lower one-third of the point show signs of extensive -abrasion and polishing. It is very probable that such a tool was hafted -for use. The method of usage is less certain for the others. All five -were made from varieties of flinty quartz. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 32—End scrapers, type one. A-E snub-nosed. Actual -size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 33—End scrapers. A-C, type three. D-F, type two. -Actual size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 34—Side scrapers. Actual size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 35—Discoidal scrapers. Actual size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 36—Uncompahgre scrapers. Actual size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 37—A-E, serrated scrapers. F, spoke-shave. Actual -size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 38—A-D, drill types one-four. E-I, gravers. -Actual size.] - - -Perforators (Figs. 38, 39) - -Twenty-one specimens are considered to have been used as awls or -perforators. Though individual form varies greatly, most are made on -plano-convex or concavo-convex flakes. Flaking is concentrated on the -short point, though it sometimes extends further on one or both faces. -Occasionally, one or more of the edges have seen secondary use as a -scraper. Of the total, nine specimens are of flinty material, one of -obsidian. The remainder are quartzite (8) or quartz (3). They range in -length from ¾ to 2½ inches, and from ½ to 1½ inches in width. - - -“Gravers” (Fig. 38) - -The term “graver” is not especially desirable since 1) it implies -function, and 2) it is generally applied to a special form associated -with the Upper Paleolithic of Europe. Nevertheless, the term is -also used in connection with sharp-pointed flakes employed in -making incisions, and as such is well entrenched in the literature. -These tools were divided into two categories. The first contains 16 -specimens. These were all made from irregular flakes, the largest -1⅜ × 1⅛ the smallest ¾ × ½. There are one or more points on each. -Usually the point shows evidence of usage on one or two sides only. -Some show scars all around. The second class, comprising 14 specimens, -is distinguished by the fact that all are made from prismatic flakes -(see below). Usually there is only one point on each. Despite their -diminutive size (the largest 1½ × ⅝ inch, smallest, ¾ × ¼), tests made -by the authors involving cutting bone, showed even the smallest to be -an efficient tool. - -Most of these artifacts are of the flinty variety of quartz, often -fossilized wood. - - -Prismatic Flakes (Figs. 40 and 41) - -Of the total number of flakes recovered certain appeared -technologically distinctive and were classified as prismatic. The -primary characteristics of these are a length exceeding twice the -width, a striking platform at one end with a small bulb of percussion -and ripple marks radiating from it. In addition, most of these exhibit -a longitudinal ridge or ridges formed by facets intersecting at a low -angle, representing the intersection of former flake scars. Most of the -striking platforms are plain, but about 30 percent show a series of -tiny flake scars which may be evidence of preparation. They range in -length from 2¼ to ⅝ inches and in width from ³/₁₆ to ¾ inches. - -Sixty-two of these show signs of use. Thirty had apparently served as -gravers (see above). Thirty-two show usage marks caused by cutting, -and 14 of these had served secondarily as small scrapers. About 80 -percent of the utilized prismatic flakes are of a flinty material. -The remainder are of quartzite. Of the unmodified specimens, about 65 -percent were of flinty quartz, 30 percent of quartzite, and 5 percent -of quartz. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 39—A-F, perforators. G, flake knife. H, hafted -knife. Actual size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 40—Prismatic flakes. A-I, gravers. J-L, cutting -edges. Actual size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 41—Prismatic flakes, cutting implements. Actual -size.] - - -Choppers or Hammerstones (Fig. 42) - -Forty-one implements are classified as choppers or hammerstones. -Seventy percent of these are of rock quartz, 20 percent of a -metamorphic rock, usually schist, and 10 percent of a grainy quartzite. -Due to the nature of the material it is extremely difficult to -determine whether such artifacts were used primarily as hammerstones -or choppers. There are no small round heavily battered specimens which -could be considered as hammerstones only. The pieces usually exhibit -one sharp edge and one or more blunt battered edges. The first two -lithic materials mentioned fracture rather easily, and the tools -were probably used and discarded at will. Rock quartz and various -metamorphic rocks are plentiful in the area, making such careless use -practical; quartzite and flinty materials are rather scarce, (see -below). The largest of these tools measures 5 × 5½ inches, the smallest -1¼ inches square. - - -Cores - -Only eight specimens are considered to have been cores. Three are of -quartzite, three of agate and two of fossilized wood. The largest is -about 3 × 3 × 2 inches, the smallest about a one inch cube. All are -irregular, none fluted or prismatic. Since there were so few cores -it is believed that the primary work of preparing flakes took place -elsewhere, perhaps at the source of the material. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 42—Choppers and hammerstones, ½ actual size.] - - - - -TABLE II - -Artifacts exclusive of projectile points and ground stone - - ------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Unique Artifacts |16-|20-|24-|28-|32-|36-|40-|44-|48-|52-|56-|60-| - |20 |24 |28 |32 |36 |40 |44 |48 |52 |56 |60 |64 | - ------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Knives, leaf-shaped | 1 | | 2 | | 1 | | | 2 | 3 | | 1 | 1 | - triangular | | | 2 | | | 1 | | 1 | | | | 4 | - flake | | | | 1 | | | | 2 | 2 | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Scrapers, end | | | 3 | 5 | 4 | | 9 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 3 | - side | | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | - discoidal | | | | | 1 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | - serrated | | | | | 1 | 4 | | 4 | 1 | 3 | | | - “Uncompahgre” | | | | | | | | 2 | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Spoke-shaves | | | | 1 | | | | | 1 | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Projectile point | | | | | | | | | | | | | - drills | | | | | | | | | | | | | - expanded base | | | | | 2 | | | | | | | 1 | - straight shafted | | | | | | | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Perforators | 1 | | 2 | | | 2 | | 6 | 2 | | 1 | 2 | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Prismatic flakes, | | | | | | | | | | | | | - unmodified | | | | | | 1 | | 4 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 3 | - cutting | | | | | | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 2 | - engraving | | | | 1 | | 1 | | 2 | 1 | | | 2 | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Gravers, others | | | | | | | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Small ovoid bifaces| | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3 | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Utilized flakes | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 9 |10 | 9 |11 |10 |14 | 1 | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Chopper/hammerstones| | | | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 1 | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Cores | | | | 2 | 1 | | | 2 | | | 1 | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Small stone ornaments| | | | | | | | | | | | | - or gaming pieces| | | | | | | | 2 | | | | 1 | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Paint stones | | | | | 1 | 1 | | | | | | 1 | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Bone awls, splinter| | | 1 | | | 1 | 1 | | | | 3 | | - with head | | | | | 1 | 1 | | | | | | | - sliver | | 1 | | | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 2 | | | | - undetermined | | | | 1 | | 1 | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 2 | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Rib/scapula knives| | | | | | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Used bone splinters| | | | | 1 | | | 1 | | | 1 | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Flakers, antler | | | | | 1 | 1 | | | | | | 1 | - bone | | | | | | | | | 1 | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Gaming pieces | | | | | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Beads, tubular | | | 1 | | | | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | | 2 | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Ornaments, tooth | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | | - bone | | | | | | | | 1 | | | | 1 | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Mica, worked | | | | | | | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Leather fragments | | | 2 | | | | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Wood shafts | | | | | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Pottery, cordmarked,| | | | | | | | | | | | | - a | | 2 | | | 2 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 10| 6 | | | - b | | | | 1 | | 2 | 3 | | 2 | | | | - c | | | | 2 | 1 | | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | | | - Plain | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | 3 | 2 | 1 | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - | | A | B | | C | | D | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - - ------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Unique Artifacts |64-|68-|72-|76-|80-|84-|88-|92-| 96-|100-|104-| - |68 |72 |76 |80 |84 |88 |92 |96 |100 |104 |108 | - ------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Knives, leaf-shaped | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | - triangular | 2 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | | - flake | | | 1 | 2 | | 1 | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Scrapers, end | 7 | | 2 | | 1 | ? | | ? | ? | | | - side | | 2 | 2 | 1 | | | | | | | | - discoidal | | 2 | 1 | | 1 | | 1 | | | | | - serrated | 1 | | 3 | 3 | | | | | 1 | | | - “Uncompahgre” | | | | 3 | | 2 | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Spoke-shaves | | | | | | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Projectile point | | | | | | | | | | | | - drills | | | | | | | | | 1 | | | - expanded base | | | | | | | | | | | | - straight shafted | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Perforators | 3 | 1 | 1 | | 1 | | 1 | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Prismatic flakes, | | | | | | | | | | | | - unmodified | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | | | - cutting | 2 | 4 | 7 | 2 | | | | | | | | - engraving | 1 | | 4 | | | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Gravers, others | | | | | | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Small ovoid bifaces| 9 | | | | 1 | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Utilized flakes | 9 | 6 | 6 | 5 | | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 1 | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Chopper/hammerstones| 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | | | 1 | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Cores | 4 | | | | 1 | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Small stone ornaments| | | | | | | | | | | | - or gaming pieces| | | | | | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Paint stones | 1 | | 3 | 1 | | 1 | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Bone awls, splinter| | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | | 1 | | | 1 | - with head | 2 | | | | | | | | | 1 | | - sliver | | | | | | | | | | | | - undetermined | | 1 | | 1 | | | 1 | | | 1 | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Rib/scapula knives| | | | | | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Used bone splinters| | 1 | | | | | 1 | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Flakers, antler | | | | | 1 | | | | | | | - bone | | | | | | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Gaming pieces | | | | | 1 | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Beads, tubular | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Ornaments, tooth | | | | | | | 1 | | | | | - bone | | | | | | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Mica, worked | 1 | 2 | | | | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Leather fragments | | | | | | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Wood shafts | | | 1 | | 1 | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - Pottery, cordmarked,| | | | | | | | | | | | - a | ?1| | | | | | | | | | | - b | | | | | | | | | | | | - c | ?1| | | | | | | | | | | - Plain | | | | | | | | | | | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - | | E | F | G | | H | | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+ - - LEGEND: - A - Wood awl - B - abrading stone - C - Elk antler tool - D - Atlatl weight? - E - Limestone pendant - F - Quartz crystal - G- -Clay ball - H- -Notched rib - - -Milling Stones (Figs. 43, 44, 45) - -Characteristics of grinding stones at LoDaisKa are largely summarized -in Tables III and IV. These are presented in the hope that future -studies will make it possible to distinguish cultural associations from -such tools, although as Haury (1950) and Jennings (1957) reiterated, -metates or grinding stones are often so nondescript as to defy cultural -interpretation. Dealing for the most part with complete examples, there -seem to be two general types: large worn boulders, and flat slabs -often with a slight depression. The former are usually of an igneous -material. Either type may be intentionally shaped. Most were more -or less rectangular. The largest of the first type weighs about 120 -pounds, and is 2 feet 3 inches long × 14 inches wide. The smallest is -11 inches × 12 inches and weighs about 20 pounds. Of the second type -the maximum is 1½ feet × 14 inches, the minimum 10 inches × 12 inches. -Shaping, when present, is confined to percussion and smoothing around -the edges. Pecking probably served to roughen the surface. - -A number of specimens in the ½ to ¾ inch thick class were made of -hard fine sandstone. On some of the large fragments both faces appear -parallel with no concavity. Only one fairly complete example of this -type was found. This (Fig. 45) is a roughly triangular section about -5 inches on a side. It was found in Hearth B. It shows no basin and -is very smooth. Two sides appear to have been the original edges of -the complete specimen. These are roughly shaped. The smoothing extends -all the way to these edges. There is ethnological evidence, (see -below Lowie, 1924; R. M. Underhill, p.c.) that stones similar to this -specimen were used for cooking stones. Since most of the artifacts of -this type are small pieces, it would be hard to distinguish definitely -between a small section of a cooking stone and a section of a slab -metate. Lacking further proof, these have been treated as grinding -stones, with this possible reservation. - - -Handstones (Fig. 46) - -One hundred and four specimens are classed as handstones or handstone -fragments. Of these 50 could not be classified further except that 40 -were of igneous rock and 10 of sandstone. The general data pertaining -to handstones is summarized in the chart. The largest of these is 8 × -4 inches, the smallest 4 × 3 inches. All appear to have been used in -one hand. Seventy-five percent are made of igneous rock, usually of a -metamorphic type such as schist. This choice was probably due to the -scarcity of good sandstone in the area. There are two basic types, -those used on one and those used on two sides. For both these groups -there is a variant which has a center ridge formed by the meeting of -two grinding surfaces on each face. Probably the simple motion of -pushing forth, rocking, and then pulling back caused this. One of -these has the ridges on its two sides at right angles to each other. -Some specimens are pecked. These forms seem to lack distributional -significance. - - - - -TABLE III - -Grinding Slabs, Complete Specimens - - - ----------------+------------------- - Igneous | Sandstone - ----------------+------------------- - Flat Shaped | Slab Shaped - Boulder | - ----------------+------------------- - 24 - ------------------------------------ - 28 - ------------------------------------ - 32 - ------------------------------------ - 36 - ------------------------------------ - 40 - ------------------------------------ - 44 - ------------------------------------ - 1 48 - ------------------------------------ - 52 - ------------------------------------ - 56 - ------------------------------------ - 60 - ------------------------------------ - 3 1 1 64 - ------------------------------------ - 1 1 1 68 - ------------------------------------ - 3 1 1 72 - ------------------------------------ - 3 1 76 - ------------------------------------ - 2 1 80 - ------------------------------------ - 84 - ------------------------------------ - 88 - ------------------------------------ - 1 92 - ------------------------------------ - 96 - ------------------------------------ - 100 - ------------------------------------ - 1 104 - ------------------------------------ - 108 - ------------------------------------ - 112 - ------------------------------------ - - -TABLE IV - -Grinding Slabs, Fragmentary Specimens - - +------------------------------+--------------------------------+ - | Igneous | Sandstone | - +----------------+-------------+---------------+----------------+ - | Two Sides Used |One Side Used| One Side Used | Two Sides Used| - | Pecked | Pecked | Pecked | Pecked | - +-+--+--+--+--+--+-+-+--+-+----+--+-+--+--+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+--+ - | Thickness in inches | - |½| ¾|1½|½ |¾ |1½|½|¾|1½|½| ¾ |1½|½|¾ |1½|½|¾ |1½|½|¾|1½|½|¾|1½| - |-| -|- |- |- |- |-|-|- |-| - |- |-|- |- |-|- |- |-|-|- |-|-|- | - |¾|1½|3 |¾ |1½|3 |¾|1|3 |¾| 1½ |3 |¾|1½|3 |¾|1½|3 |¾|1|3 |¾|1|3 | - +-+--+--+--+--+--+-+-+--+-+----+--+-+--+--+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+--+--- - | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 20 - | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 24 - | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | |2| | | |1 | | | | |1|1| | 28 - | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | |1|2 | | | | | |1| |2|4| | 32 - | | | | | | | | | | | | |3|4 | | | | | |1| |1|1| | 36 - | | | | | | | | | | | 2 |3 |5|1 |2 | |1 |1 | | | |1|1| | 40 - | | | | | | | | | | | | |4|4 | |1|1 | |1| | |1|1| | 44 - | | | | |1 | | | | |2| 2 |2 |2|2 |1 |1|1 | | | | |1|2| | 48 - | | | | | | |1| |1 | | |1 |3|2 | | | | | |2|1 |1|1| | 52 - | | | | | | | | | |1| 2 |3 |3|2 |3 | | | | |1| | | | | 56 - | | | | | | | | | |2| 3 |3 |3|2 |1 |1| | |1| | |1|3| | 60 - | | |1 | | |1 | | | | | 1 |4 |1|3 |1 |1| | | | | | | | | 64 - | | | | | | | | | | | 4 |2 |2|5 |2 | | |1 | | | |1|2|2 | 68 - | | | | | | | | | | | 1 |2 |2| | | | | | | | | | | | 72 - | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | |3 |1 | | | | | |1 | |2| | 76 - | | | | | | | | | | | 1 |4 |2|2 | | | | | | | | | |2 | 80 - | | | | | | | | | |1| |1 |1| |2 |1| | | | | |1| | | 84 - | | | | | | | | | | | 2 | | | |1 | | | | | | | | | | 88 - | | | | | | | | | | | | |2|3 | | |1 | | | | | | | | 92 - | | | | | | | | | | | | | |1 | | | | | | | | | | | 96 - | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | | |1 | | | | | | | | | |100 - | | | | | | | | | | | | | |1 | | | | | | | | | |1 |104 - | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |108 - | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |112 - | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |116 - +-+--+--+--+--+--+-+-+--+-+----+--+-+--+--+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+--+--- - - - - -TABLE V - - - Handstones - ----------------------------------+--------------------------------- - Igneous | Sandstone - -----------------+----------------+-------------------+------------- - Biface | Uniface | Biface | Uniface - -----------------+----------------+------------+------+------------- - Four | Four | Four | - Plane | Plane | Plane | - -----------------+----------------+-------------------+------------- - Pecked Pecked| Pecked | Pecked Pecked | Pecked - -----------------+----------------+-------------------+------------- - 28 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 32 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 36 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1 1 1 40 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 2 44 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 48 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 6 1 3 52 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 2 2 56 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1 2 2 1 1 2 60 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1 1 64 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1 1 4 68 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1 1 1 72 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1 1 2 76 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1 80 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1 84 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 2 2 88 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1 2 92 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1 96 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1 100 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 104 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 108 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1 112 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - -[Illustration] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 43—Large milling stones. Above, granite. Below, -sandstone.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 44—Flat granite milling stone.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 45—Sandstone milling slabs, ½ actual size. Above, -flat without depression. 1 inch thick. Below, with depression.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 46—Handstones. A-B, four-plane. ½ actual size.] - - -Shaft-smoother - -One shaft-smoother was found, with lengthwise grooves on both faces. -The lower is very shallow; the upper is clearly formed, and measures -³/₁₆-⁴/₁₆ inches wide and ⅛ inch deep (see Fig. 47). - - -Pigment Stones (Fig. 48) - -Eleven objects are classified as pigment stones. Four are lumps of -red ochre. There is no proof that they were used for paint, but as -Coon (1950) has noted, the use of some sort of paint is practically -universal among primitive people. The largest weighs about three -ounces, the smallest about two. Three pieces of yellow ochre were -found. One is a great lump weighing about two pounds. The other two are -flat ground palettes, slightly irregular, one about 1 × 2, the other 3 -× 4 inches and both about ¼ inch thick. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 47—Above, “Atlatl weight”. Below, abrader. Actual -size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 48—Pigment stones, ½ actual size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 49—A-G, Beads. H-J, Awls type four.] - - -BONE ARTIFACTS - - -Beads (Fig. 49) - -There are numerous tubular beads of bird and small mammal bones. These -range in length from 1⅜ inches to ½ inch; most are of the shorter -variety. Apparently the bone was polished and prepared, then a groove -or series of grooves was cut, the sections broken out, and the ends -smoothed. - -Two lower canine teeth, (one of badger, _taxidea_, the other -unidentified), were evidently used as ornaments. Both show a lustrous -polish. At the end of the root a small groove, or series of parallel -incisions, was cut out for suspension. One is ¼ inch, the other 1 inch -in length. A small (1 inch × ½ inch) piece of bone (Fig. 51, top left) -with a groove cut at the top may have been used as a pendant. - - -Used Bone Fragments - -There are ten other fragments of bone which show use. The largest of -these measures 4¼ × ¾ inches, the smallest, 3¼ × ⅝ inches. One or more -edges are worn, suggesting use as a scraper or cutting edge. Bones of -large animals, probably long bones, appear to be represented. On most, -the working edge is concave, although on a few it is flat. - - -Notched Bone - -One bone is similar to those described above but has a series of -notches along one edge. It is 4 inches long and ⅝ inches wide. - - -Rib-scapula Cutting Tools (Fig. 50) - -There are nine rib and one scapula fragment that show wear along a -sharp edge. These appear to have been used as cutting implements. Some -are polished along the flat face, perhaps from use in some kind of -smoothing. Many Southwestern tribes, e.g. the Papago, use similar tools -to remove hair from fresh hides. It is difficult to know whether these -represent complete tools or fragments. The largest is 7 inches long, -the smallest 2½ inches long. The identifiable specimens are of bison or -mule deer (_Odocoileus hemionus_). - - -Gaming Pieces (Figs. 51, 52) - -Seven specimens of worked bone are thought to have been used as -gaming pieces. For three of these, this designation is relatively -certain. These are small flat oblong objects with a series of parallel -striations on the edges of one face. In addition, two have a line of -indentations running up the center. These depressions were probably -drilled (see Fig. 52). - -[Illustration: FIGURE 50—Rib-scapula cutting implements. ¾ actual -size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 51—A-D, problematical pieces. E-G, worked mica. -H-N, gaming pieces.] - -A fourth piece appears to be an unfinished example, and provides some -data on the method of manufacture. Apparently, the length of bone -(rib?) to be utilized was cut to the desired width and partially -smoothed; the ends were rounded and also partially finished; then -several sections of the length of the proposed gaming piece were cut -off by grooving and fracturing. The piece was then smoothed to the -proper shape, the striations cut, and the indentations drilled. - -The other three specimens included here are somewhat problematical. -One approximates the shape of the unfinished gaming piece. The second -is a piece of skull cap, (species unidentified) of the same general -shape as the above; two of the sides are formed by suture lines, the -ends by polishing. The third fragment is in the same size range and has -serrated edges. The dimensions of the gaming pieces can be seen in Fig. -51. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 52—Gaming pieces, 2× actual size.] - - -Awls (Figs. 49, 53 and 54) - -Forty-one specimens, fragmentary and complete, were classified as awls. -These were segregated into four principal types, classified on the -basis of form, type of bone utilized, size, and extent of polish. The -most numerous type are those which retained the head or epiphesis of -the bone (see Kidder, 1932). It is probable that two subtypes of this -category may be recognized on the basis of size and extent of polish. -The first comprises one complete and seven broken specimens (see -Fig. 53). The former is a long slender implement of deer metatarsal, -tapering to a fine point with a circular-section. It is 8⅜ inches in -length and ¾ inches in its greatest diameter. Polish extends the full -length and circumference, and the “head” has been altered by four -intersecting V-shaped grooves, forming a cross. The remaining seven -include two with the head intact, and five points and midsections -classified with the above because of the overall workmanship. The most -complete measures 6¼ inches in length without the head. Technologically -this group is marked by primary abrasion parallel to the long axis and -secondary work at right angles to it. There are numerous instances of -the transverse cutting across the longitudinal striae, suggesting that -the former was the finishing process. Though positive identification -is in several instances impossible, most appear to have been made from -deer metatarsals. All except one were located below 84 inches. The -exception is of interest. It is a specimen about three inches long, -subjected to calcination and subsequent patination all over, except -for a section midway along its length that retains its natural color. -It seems possible that this area had been bound with leather or some -foreign substance which affected the weathering of the specimen. - -The second subdivision of the type retaining the head is characterized -by a greater width relative to length, and the more restricted extent -of polish. The three complete specimens range from 3⅞ to 5¼ inches -in length, and up to 1⅛ inches in greatest diameter. Polish extends -only a short distance beyond the point, which has an oval flattened -cross-section. All abrasion scratches are parallel to the short axis. -These were manufactured respectively from a bison rib, a metapodial and -metatarsal of mule deer (_Odocoileus hemionus_). - -The second major type is that of “splinter awls”; it also may be -subdivided. The first subdivision consists of 5 splinters of large -mammal bone, sharpened at one end. Complete pieces range from 3½ to 4⅜ -inches in length and from ⅜ to ¾ inches in greatest width. The second -group of six pieces is similar, but the working end is rounded and -flattened rather than sharp. They range from 2⅞ inches to 3½ inches -long and from ⅜ to 1 inch in width. Abrasion in both groups was at -a high angle to the long axis, and in some cases produced a faceted -appearance. - -The third type comprises three awls made of small mammal bones, two -retaining the heads, the third without. These exhibit sharpened points. -The longest is 4 inches, the smallest, one inch long. - -The final type comprises five very small splinters of bone from ⅝ to -one inch in length. One is of bird bone, the others of small mammal -bones. Each is sharpened on one end, blunted or rounded on the other. -It is possible that these were hafted. Their size and shape makes it -unlikely that they could have been employed in the hand alone. - -There was undoubtedly some difference in the use of these different -types of tools. Perhaps the longer finer ones were employed in the -manufacture of basketry, while the sharpened splinters served best as -hide perforators. - - -Cut Bone - -There is one fragmentary bone about 7 inches long, that was evidently -left over from the production of a splinter awl. It illustrates the -technique of bone cutting that was probably employed for producing -tools. A groove about ¹/₁₆ of an inch deep was cut encircling the -bone, and it was shaped into two pieces. Apparently some preliminary -smoothing had already been done, as suggested by additional scoring -marks. The authors tested various tools to determine which might be -most efficient in cutting such a groove. Flat sharp flakes or knives -could be used, but usually not enough pressure could be brought to -bear without breaking the tool. However, certain implements, called -“gravers” in this paper, were rather well adapted for such work. -The tool could be used as a plane for cutting. The two techniques -mentioned, in fact, could be compared to the cutting of wood with a -knife and with a saw whose teeth act as a multiple plane. - - -Tools of Antler and Bone - -A problematical artifact is the base of an elk (_Cervus canadensis_) -antler shown in Fig. 55. The working end of this is a tapering blade -which ends in a flat chisel-like tool about ¾ inch broad. - - -Flakers (Fig. 55) - -There are four fragments of horn that appear to have been flakers. -Two are pointed implements 1¼ inches long, two are fragments that -lack tips. These are about 3½ inches long. All are of deer antler -(_Odocoileus hemionus_), and show various gouges and worn places. - -One bone 7¼ inches long also appears to have been used as a flaker. -The blunt point has been shaped, but other modification seems to have -been unintentional and consists of irregular worn and scored areas. -Distribution of this scoring suggests that the tool was used in the -left hand. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 53—Awls, type one, ¾ actual size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 54—Awls, A-C, type one. D, type two. E, type -three, ⅔ actual size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 55—A, elk antler tool. B, long bone flaker. C, -antler flaker. D, cut bone. E-F, antler flaker points. ½ actual size.] - - -MISCELLANEOUS ARTIFACTS - - -Problematical Objects (Fig. 51) - -There are four stones of problematical use. Three of these have the -form of an isosceles triangle. The two smallest measure about ½ inch -on a side. Perhaps these were gaming counters or ornaments. The larger -piece is about 1¾ inch on a side with one broken corner, and has 2 -small notches on either side of the apex. This was very probably a -pendant. The fourth specimen in this class is more or less oval, very -thin, with ground edges. It is about 1½ inches long and may have been -an ornament or gaming counter. The first two pieces are of sandstone, -the third of limestone, and the last of feldspar. - -An ovoid piece of granite measures 2⅛ × 1¼ inches, and appears to have -been ground into its present shape. It has a smoothed flattened area -on one side, and may well have been an atlatl weight. This cannot -be proven since there are no further indications, such as a groove. -However, there are similar ungrooved stones in place on atlatl throwers -from the Southwest, in the Peabody Museum collections, which the -authors have examined. - - -Mica Fragments (Fig. 51) - -There are six fragments of mica that apparently were shaped for some -reason. Four of these were cut into figures more or less like arrow -points. The largest is 2 × 1 inch, the smallest complete piece, ¾ × -¾ inch. They may have had ceremonial significance. A fifth specimen -is square, ¾ × ½ inch in width and length; and the sixth more or less -round, about ½ inch in diameter. There were other pieces of mica found -at the site, but these were unshaped. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 56—Quartz crystal. Actual size.] - - -Crystal (Fig. 56) - -A well formed quartz crystal was found; it is topaz in color and about -an inch square in cross-section. Such crystals have an extensive -history in some Archaic sites, such as those in California. They -probably had some ceremonial purpose perhaps as a part of a shaman’s -paraphernalia. - - -Clay Ball (Fig. 57) - -A small round ball of clay about 1¼ inches in diameter was recovered. -Around the circumference is a raised ridge such as would have been -produced if the clay had filled a skin sack with the seams on the -outside. If such were the case it might have served as a bolas weight. - - -Wood Fragments (Fig. 58) - -There are several fragments of wood that appear to have been modified -by the inhabitants. Two of these could easily have been pieces of -arrow shafts. One is ³/₁₆ inch in diameter, 2½ inches long; the other ¼ -inch in diameter, and 1¾ inches long. Both show no remnants of bark and -appear to have been scraped smooth. There are two similar specimens, -1 and 2 inches long, and ⁵/₁₆ and ⁷/₁₆ inch in diameter respectively. -Observations of ethnological materials suggest that these were too -large and heavy to shoot with an ordinary bow and arrow. Perhaps these -are fragments of atlatl foreshafts. The fifth specimen is also ⁷/₁₆ -inch in diameter, 2¼ inches long, and is pointed. It was probably the -butt end of a foreshaft. Ethnologic parallels indicate that it was too -sharp to be the point of a firedrill (see Fig. 58). - -A sixth wood specimen is a flat piece 3½ × ³/₁₆ inches in maximum -dimensions. Its use is unknown. - -A seventh specimen is a short piece 2 inches long, shaped all around, -and tapering to a point at one end. It was cut from a tree gnarl, and -probably served as an awl. - - -Leather - -There are two small pieces of leather. One is probably part of a thong -or cord; the use of the other is unknown. - - -Cordage - -A piece of twisted fiber was found. It appears to have been one strand -of a multi-strand cord. The fiber is made from yucca leaves. - -[Illustration] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 57—Clay ball. Above, in _situ_. Below, note -raised central ridge.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 58—Wood fragments. A-D, arrowshaft fragments(?) -E, butt end of dart foreshaft. F, dart shaft fragments(?) Actual size.] - - -POTTERY - - -Plain Pottery (Figs. 59 and 60) - -Plain pottery includes one restorable bowl and eight additional sherds. -Construction is hard to determine from so small a number of sherds, -but indications suggest coiling and scraping. Coils were fairly wide -(see Fig. 60). Core color is usually grey to black though one sherd is -oxidized to a brick red. Firing was done in a “reducing atmosphere”, -with some scattered spots oxidized. The temper is angular with -occasional mica fragments visible; it is probably crushed granite. -Some sherds may contain a small amount of quartz sand. The size of the -temper is variable, usually fine with a few large granules mixed in. -Vessel walls are usually fairly strong. The pottery is friable, not -flaky. Both surfaces are unslipped, and smoothed on all specimens. -The exterior is a brownish black, the interior is black. One sherd, -however, is dull grey. Thickness is from ¼-⁵/₁₆ inch, one sherd ³/₁₆ -inch. The only partially complete form observed is a bowl. However, -another large sherd (about 8 inches square) suggests part of the wall -of a pot, perhaps with an incurving shoulder. The bowl has a mouth -diameter of 5½ inches, and in vertical cross-section resembles a -parabolic curve 3¼ inches high. Rims in general are gradually tapered. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 59—Plain pottery bowl. White portions restored, ⅔ -actual size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 60—Plain pottery sherd, showing coiled -construction. Actual size.] - - -Surface Roughened Pottery (Figs. 61-65) - -Pottery in this category is divided into three classes. Pottery of -Class I includes 7 sherds. These were manufactured by the paddle and -anvil technique. Temper is sand, and is not too abundant. The clay is -micaceous and the texture somewhat granular, tending to shatter along -fairly regular lines. Hardness is 3.5-4.5; color grey to brownish -continuous all the way through. Exterior surfaces all show parallel -lines of cord-marks, about five to the inch. Impressions of individual -strands can be seen in the clay, somewhat flattened and slightly -smoothed. Interior surfaces were smoothed and scraped. One rim sherd -has diagonal impressions that extend to ¼ inch of the flattened lip. -There is no decoration. Vessel size cannot be determined. Thickness is -from ⁵/₁₆-⁶/₁₆ inch. One sherd from near the base suggests a conoidal -bottom. - -Two sherds of this class have different exterior treatment. One of -these appears to have been impressed by basketry, apparently coiled -with a simple rod foundation. The other has been impressed with an -unknown fabric. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 61—Surface roughened pottery, Class I.] - -Class II includes 15 sherds. These resemble those of I in many -respects: The manufacture was by paddle and anvil; the temper is of -sand or possibly crushed rock, generally fine and not too abundant, and -the clay is micaceous. The texture, however, is flaky with a tendency -to fracture along irregular lines. Hardness is about 3.5, color grey to -brown generally continuous through the sherd. A few have blacker cores. -Exterior surfaces were treated with parallel lines of cord impressions -10-15 to the inch with very little smoothing. Interiors were smoothed, -but do not show the evidences of scraping as with I. There is one -rim sherd; vertical impressions on this extend over the lip which -has been flattened. No decoration occurs. The thickness ranges from -³/₁₆-⁴/₁₆ inch. One large sherd about 4 × 3 inches suggests vessels of -considerable size. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 62—Surface roughened pottery, A, Class I. B and -C, Class I variant.] - -Pottery of Class III in most aspects resembles that of Class II: paddle -and anvil technique in manufacture, temper of sand or crushed rock, -fine, not abundant, micaceous clay. The texture is very flaky tending -to fracture along irregular lines. Color grey to brown, usually the -latter, generally continuous through the sherd; some, however, have -blacker cores. Exterior surfaces were treated with two sets of parallel -cord marks one extending vertically from the rim, the other at an -angle of about 45 degrees. This gives a sort of criss-cross effect, -different, however, from the random application of Upper Republican -sherds (see Wedel 1934, Strong 1935). Interior surfaces were smoothed. -On one large rimsherd cord marks extend over the flattened lip. No -shoulder is in evidence, and indications suggest fairly large pots -with mouth diameter of about 10 inches, height 12 inches. The camber -of the sherds indicates forms with pointed bottoms. Thickness is from -³/₁₆-⁴/₁₆ inches. There is no decoration. Hardness is about 3.5. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 63—Surface roughened pottery, Class II.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 64—Surface roughened pottery, Class II.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 65—Surface roughened pottery. Class III.] - - - - -Geology of the LoDaisKa Site[2] - -By CHAS. B. HUNT - - -The LoDaisKa (Sanger) Site, about a mile and half south of Morrison, -Colorado, is a rockshelter under a projecting ledge of Paleozoic -(Pennsylvanian) sandstone that dips steeply east. The pre-ceramic -occupation layers at this site are believed to correlate with the Piney -Creek alluvium (Hunt, 1954, p. 114). The accompanying map (Fig. 66) -illustrates the general geologic setting of the site; it shows the -general distribution of one upper Pleistocene and two Recent units. - -[2] Publication authorized by the Director, U. S. Geological Survey. - -The upper Pleistocene unit (Qg on the map) is a bouldery gravel with -which is included some variegated, silty and clayey alluvium. This -bouldery gravel is exposed in Strain Gulch upstream from the site, -and it covers much of the upland northwest of that part of the Gulch. -Downstream from the site this bouldery gravel is southeast of the Gulch -and forms the high terrace extending from the site to the highway. -Because the deposit is bouldery, and because the boulders are little -weathered the deposit is assumed to be Wisconsin in age. - -The alluvium with variegated colors mapped with this bouldery gravel -is exposed in Strain Gulch about 700 feet northeast of the site, and -in the tributary from the west that joins Strain Gulch about 200 feet -upstream from the highway. In this latter tributary the alluvium rests -on strata of Paleozoic age. At both localities the variegated alluvium -is overlain by dark-colored, sandy and silty alluvium. - -The variegated alluvium has a distinct, lime-enriched zone, probably -representing the alluviated layer of an old soil from which the upper -layers have been eroded. The lime-zone is comparable in thickness to -that found in soils in Wisconsin age in the Denver area. Moreover, at -the outcrop in Strain Gulch, the lower part of the alluvium is stained -with iron oxide about the way deposits of Wisconsin age are stained -in the Denver area. However, the dating of the deposits is uncertain -because it has not been established whether the layers enriched in lime -and iron are the result of surficial weathering or ground-water action. - -Probably, though, these deposits are late Pleistocene in age, and -fossils in them probably will include the Pleistocene forms. - -[Illustration] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 66—GEOLOGIC MAP OF LODAISKA SITE] - -Overlying the bouldery gravel and the variegated alluvium is a -dark-colored, sandy and silty alluvium (Qp on the map), 1 to 6 feet -thick, that looks quite like the Piney Creek alluvium in the Denver -area. Both the Piney Creek and this alluvium are of Recent age. Fossil -bones were found in the alluvium at two places near the site (A and B -on the map). At A, 1 foot below the surface, articulated bones were -found; at B, a single bone was found and it was not in place, but -from a plowed surface on the upland. At this locality a chert flake -was found also. The bones were examined by Edward Lewis of the U. S. -Geological Survey and C. B. Schultz and L. G. Tanner of the University -of Nebraska State Museum and Geology Department. Their identifications -are as follows: - - Locality A, fragments of a vertebra, femur, epiphysis, - and ribs of _Bison bison_ (Linnaeus) of Recent age, - and - - Locality B, the badly weathered astragalus of a large - bovid, either _Bos Taurus_ or _Bison bison_ (Linnaeus) - of Recent age. - -The unconformity at the base of the dark-colored alluvium is well -exposed at the localities indicated on the map. - -Fragments of charcoal were found in the alluvium 200 feet upstream from -the site. This alluvium probably correlates with the pre-ceramic layers -of the occupation levels at the site, which, as reported by Lewis in an -accompanying paper, also contains vertebrate remains of Recent age. - -The youngest deposit, a bouldery gravel confined to the present washes, -is a lag concentrate of the boulders and cobbles that are left by -washing out finer grained sediments from the Pleistocene deposits. This -deposit, and the arroyo-cutting with which it is associated, probably -developed throughout the period of the ceramic levels. - - REFERENCE CITED - - Hunt, Chas. B., 1954 Pleistocene and Recent deposits in the - Denver area, Colorado: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 996-C, p. 91-140. - - - - -Mechanical and Chemical Analyses of the Deposits of the LoDaisKa Site - -By ROBERT J. RODDEN - - -Introduction - -Mechanical and chemical analyses of the deposits of the LoDaisKa Site -were made in an attempt to establish whether or not any paleosols or -ancient weathered zones were present. No clear profile development -could be observed in the field and it was hoped that laboratory -analysis might confirm this impression. The occurrence of such -features might serve for correlation between sites in the area and -aid in interpreting the paleoclimatic and geomorphic history of the -deposits (Miller and Leopold, 1953). - - -Sampling - -Samples for laboratory analysis were collected from two different -parts of the site. Those upon which most of the present conclusions -are based were taken in continuous two-inch intervals down a vertical -face in Square M11 (see Figs. 7 and 10), very near the back wall of the -rockshelter. They were not collected until after much of the site had -been excavated and it was only near the rear wall that a relatively -complete section could be obtained. Rodents had disturbed the upper -levels and only the profile from 38-102 inches below baseline was -studied. Because the location of this sample might very well reflect -the influence of the overhang on the particle size distribution of the -deposits, another sample section was taken in front of the shelter. -Stratigraphic relations and similarities in the archaeological -materials suggested that the deposits extended essentially horizontally -from the front to the back of the site, and that correlations for -six-inch horizontal levels were generally warranted. The samples -from Square J8 were collected in continuous six-inch intervals from -a point 38 inches below baseline. The expected horizontal variation -with respect to particle size distribution was, in fact, not borne out -by the results of this second sampling. A comparison of the median -diameter and sorting coefficients of the samples suggests that both -samples are generally representative of the deposits and of variations -within them (see Figs. 67, 68): - - Median diameter of 7 samples from - the back of the shelter (M11) 0.61-0.75mm. - - Median diameter of 4 samples from - the front of the site (J8) 0.60-0.70mm. - - Average sorting coefficients of - 7 samples from M11 2.20 (relatively well-sorted) - - Average sorting coefficients of - 4 samples from J8 2.18 - -One would not expect that the results of the chemical analyses would be -appreciably affected by the location of the sample. - - -Table VIa - -Particle-size fractions, in millimeters; expressed in percent of total -weight of sample. - - |2.00 |1.00 |0.71 |0.50 |0.351| 0.25|0.177|0.125|0.088| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - 2.00 |1.00 |0.71 |0.50 |0.351|0.25 |0.177|0.125|0.088|0.062|0.062 - ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- - 38-40 12.46 20.50 11.79 10.28 8.97 10.17 5.65 5.45 4.46 3.19 5.78 - 40-42 9.67 18.18 11.67 11.63 9.17 11.67 6.59 6.03 4.99 3.26 6.18 - 42-44 9.61 19.22 12.69 11.49 9.43 10.75 5.99 5.68 4.57 3.18 5.99 - 44-46 5.22 16.99 12.08 11.78 9.81 12.14 6.86 6.82 5.52 4.04 7.18 - 46-48 11.59 19.56 12.12 11.34 9.11 10.72 5.64 5.15 4.18 2.84 5.79 - 48-50 11.60 20.28 12.37 11.93 9.76 10.89 5.63 5.15 3.89 2.62 5.15 - 50-52 8.28 19.70 11.84 11.48 10.16 11.91 6.45 6.13 4.75 3.26 4.84 - 52-54 11.42 20.22 11.91 10.96 9.14 11.08 6.09 5.58 4.67 3.15 5.12 - 54-56 14.33 20.44 11.84 11.23 8.65 10.45 5.61 5.23 4.14 2.77 4.19 - 56-58 10.30 21.69 11.77 11.35 9.20 10.81 5.86 5.57 4.57 3.02 5.24 - 58-60 16.89 24.64 11.88 10.54 8.62 9.50 4.35 3.68 2.88 2.23 4.02 - 60-62 8.24 20.08 11.99 11.61 9.74 11.86 6.32 5.87 4.67 3.68 4.48 - 62-64 5.49 22.90 12.42 11.05 8.51 10.08 5.16 4.90 3.81 2.78 3.96 - 64-66 10.51 22.60 12.93 10.57 9.46 11.17 6.00 5.78 4.33 2.76 3.60 - 66-68 9.43 19.53 12.27 11.57 10.00 12.74 6.79 6.23 4.38 2.66 3.46 - 68-70 14.23 23.83 13.13 11.22 8.63 9.38 4.84 4.26 3.25 2.33 4.35 - 70-72 8.14 18.47 11.80 11.25 8.55 10.64 6.15 6.11 5.06 3.94 9.09 - 72-74 7.38 18.95 11.33 11.13 8.00 10.96 6.21 6.15 5.19 4.23 9.72 - 74-76 10.42 22.84 12.38 10.90 8.04 9.28 5.13 4.67 3.90 3.20 7.62 - 76-78 10.87 19.63 11.92 11.63 8.78 9.60 5.29 4.93 4.04 2.97 9.86 - 78-80 11.42 21.31 12.33 11.10 8.84 9.45 5.15 4.71 3.83 2.80 8.42 - 80-82 10.77 17.36 11.40 10.96 9.01 10.33 5.84 5.52 4.59 3.38 10.05 - 82-84 7.49 21.36 12.75 11.80 9.50 10.88 5.70 5.02 3.82 6.57 8.26 - 84-86 6.73 15.60 12.35 13.82 12.79 16.23 7.83 5.78 3.40 1.69 3.18 - 86-88 9.80 20.03 12.32 12.32 10.86 13.50 6.59 5.12 3.06 1.55 2.50 - 88-90 20.57 26.22 12.92 10.31 7.38 7.68 3.51 2.73 1.84 1.21 4.41 - 90-92 9.22 25.22 13.73 11.55 8.48 9.36 4.66 4.19 3.09 2.18 7.40 - 92-94 16.17 26.24 13.94 10.33 7.63 7.68 3.85 3.35 2.47 1.79 6.48 - 94-96 13.87 19.98 12.52 12.28 10.62 12.19 5.50 4.10 2.45 1.29 2.36 - 96-98 14.62 19.87 11.85 12.02 10.58 12.16 5.84 4.60 2.81 1.55 3.19 - 98-100 9.98 21.28 12.61 12.60 11.25 13.05 6.29 4.95 2.94 1.57 3.00 - 100-102 13.75 23.24 9.20 13.73 11.31 12.00 4.93 3.77 1.82 0.77 1.20 - -Distribution (weight percent) of particle-size fractions for samples -from Square M11, LoDaisKa site. Samples taken in continuous two-inch -intervals from 38 inches below baseline. - - -Table VIb - - - Particle-size fractions, in millimeters; - expressed in percent of total weight of sample - - 2.00 1.00 0.71 0.50 0.351 - - - - - - - 2.00 1.00 0.71 0.50 0.351 0.25 - - W1 9.21 19.71 11.54 10.53 8.88 11.12 - W2 16.32 20.19 11.99 10.93 8.43 9.70 - W3 28.25 25.09 11.02 8.32 6.00 6.56 - W4 17.98 23.49 12.39 10.83 8.98 9.94 - W5 7.16 18.90 11.67 11.49 9.97 12.39 - W6 - W7 14.00 19.37 11.38 11.45 9.53 8.75 - W8 13.48 18.44 11.66 12.29 11.55 13.51 - W9 12.32 16.36 10.68 11.08 10.98 14.18 - W10 10.11 16.27 10.72 12.54 12.11 15.34 - -------------------------------------------------------- - 0.25 0.177 0.125 0.088 - - - - - - 0.177 0.125 0.088 0.062 0.062 - - W1 6.19 6.19 5.06 3.31 5.25 - W2 4.85 4.46 3.53 2.28 3.32 - W3 3.20 2.99 2.25 1.07 1.98 - W4 4.41 3.54 2.17 1.28 0.89 - W5 6.27 5.67 4.21 2.66 3.91 - W6 - W7 9.12 4.62 2.46 0.85 0.56 - W8 6.44 5.53 3.45 1.77 2.00 - W9 7.56 5.76 3.34 1.72 3.01 - W10 7.02 5.06 2.86 1.68 2.46 - - Distribution (weight percent) of particle-size - fractions for samples from Square J8, LoDaisKa - site. Samples taken in continuous six-inch - intervals from 38 inches below baseline. - - -Results and Discussion - -The two levels represented in the section from M11 extend over the -whole area of excavation and make up most of the deposits of the -site. A late Pleistocene bouldery gravel, with which is included some -variegated silty and clayey alluvium, is separated from the overlying -dark-colored sandy and silty “alluvium” by a definite erosional break -representing an unknown interval of time (Hunt, this report). There is -a higher red sand layer and a younger bed of dusty brown fill which is -found just below the surface; both of these are relatively quite thin -and extend only over part of the area of the site. As the dark-colored -homogeneous sands and silts made up most of the deposits of the site, -and contained most of the cultural remains, they will be our particular -concern. - -The results of sieve analyses made on the samples from the front and -back of the site have been summarized in Tables VIa and VIb; the -breakdown into the various particle size fractions is by weight. This -was done to 1) describe the physical nature of the deposits and 2) to -determine the nature of textural variation of the samples. - -[Illustration] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 67—Above: Size-distribution curves for typical -samples of the deposits of the LoDaisKa Site, Square M11. - -Below: Size-distribution Curves for typical samples of the deposits of -the LoDaisKa Site, Square J8.] - -Local differences and variations in the parent rock and relief have a -profound effect on soil characteristics (Thorp, 1941). In the present -instance, there is no evidence of any appreciable change in the relief -of the area immediately surrounding the site since the beginning of -human occupation. The site is located towards one end of the relatively -steep slope of outwash debris from the Fountain Formation which forms -the overhang and extends upslope above the site. The deposits which -make up the site are also the product of slope wash and of weathering -of the overhang; they are some six feet above the level of the stream -in Strain Gulch. The height of the deposits above modern stream level -makes it seem most unlikely that the site was ever flooded in Recent -times (Hunt, personal communication—Irwin and Irwin). Accordingly, the -deposits would be a colluvium rather than alluvial in nature and would -be derived from the overhang. Mechanical analyses of several samples of -the Fountain Sandstone from the overhang suggest that the sandstone as -it is found above the site is quite homogeneous, although it varies in -color from white to maroon (see pg. 99 of this report): - - Diameter in mm. Percent by weight - 2.00 19.33% - 2.00-1.00 16.51% - 1.00-0.71 8.64% - 0.71-0.50 8.33% - 0.50-0.351 8.61% - 0.351-0.25 8.89% - 0.25-0.177 5.51% - 0.177-0.125 5.68% - 0.125-0.088 4.69% - 0.088-0.062 3.37% - 0.062 10.40% - ------ - 99.96% - -These results compare closely with the analyses of the deposits making -up the site, and suggest that weathering of the parent material -was primarily dissolution, probably accompanied by some mechanical -disintegration. - -[Illustration] - -[Illustration] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 68—Above: Changes in relative importance (weight -percent) of fine silt and clay fraction with depth below 38 inches -below baseline, LoDaisKa site. - -Center: Changes in concentration of total calcium carbonate with depth -below 38 inches below baseline, LoDaisKa site. - -Below: Changes in concentration of total soluble iron with depth below -38 inches below baseline, LoDaisKa site.] - -Representative particle size distributions of the deposits are shown -in the cumulative curves in Fig. 67. The median diameters and sorting -coefficients, as we have already noted, suggest a uniform distribution -of particle sizes, with the exception of the sample (W3) from depth -52-58 inches below baseline in front of the site. The median diameter -of this sample is 1.32 mm., considerably larger than that (0.60-0.70 -mm.) for the rest of the deposits. A line of much larger rocks at -this level gives evidence of a period of rock fall, although this -does not seem to extend to the very back of the shelter, and is not -represented in the sample collected there. The human occupation of -the site is uninterrupted, and there is no suggestion that this fall -reflects any change in the mode of deposition or any change in climate. -Increased aridity may have brought about an important increase in -aeolian deposition in the area during some period of occupation, but -the location of the site in a sheltered valley makes it unlikely that -this would be indicated by the deposits. Any significant change in the -relative importance of the coarse and fine fractions—suggesting perhaps -such a change in deposition—would be reflected in the median diameters -of the samples (Jenny, 1941). The similarity in the median diameters of -the particles from the deposit gives evidence of a relatively uniform -mode of deposition. - -The amount of uncombined carbonate and “free” or acid-soluble iron -oxide in the clay and silt fraction (finer than 0.062 mm.) of the -samples from the back of the shelter (M11) was determined by chemical -analysis. The results of these analyses have been summarized in Fig. -68, where the percentage of the fines by weight has also been plotted. -The uncombined oxides and carbonates (iron oxide and calcium carbonate) -are present in the fine fractions especially in the form of an adsorbed -coating on the surfaces of the particles, and also as precipitates -acting as cementing materials to bind them together (Carroll, 1958; -Deb, 1958; Barshad, 1958). The free iron oxides were obtained by -dissolving the sample in 10% HC₁ (by volume) and digestion over a -steam bath. It is assumed that any dissolution of the clay minerals is -insignificant and that the amount of soluble iron determined is truly -representative of the uncombined iron oxide in the sample (Barshad, -1958). The amount of carbonate was determined in the form of CO₂, -by digesting the sample in 0.1N HCl; it is assumed that all of the -carbonate occurred in the form of calcium carbonate. - -A carbonate and iron oxide analysis was run on several samples of the -Fountain sandstone which made up the roof of the rockshelter, in order -to determine the amount of variation in the parent material: - - Sample Percent Carbonate Percent Iron - (by weight) (by weight) - sol. insol. total - Light - No. 1 0.34% 0.43% 0.14% 0.57% - No. 2 0.31% 0.38% 0.13% 0.51% - Red - No. 1 0.08% 4.95% 0.62% 5.57% - -The amount of soluble iron is quite variable in the parent material; it -forms a coating on the primary minerals and gives the rock its red or -maroon color. It is interesting to note that the soluble iron in the -deposits, presumably derived from the Fountain sandstone, maintains a -rather regular increase to a maximum at 102 inches below base-level. -The amount of carbonate in the parent rock, by contrast, is certainly -not enough to account for the variation which was found in the deposits -and for the concentration of CaCO₃ at the particular levels. In the -present instance there seems to be a definite independence in the -movement and location of concentration of the soluble iron and of the -fine silt and clay, which seem to be associated with concentrations of -carbonate. The calcium carbonate occurs in the form of a coating on the -fine particles and, more important, as a cement binding the particles -together. This was particularly noticed on the artifactual and bone -materials from the deposits from 70 to 94 inches below baseline. - -The differential accumulation of calcium carbonate in the profile is -due to either variations in the texture of the deposits, with the -greater accumulations occurring in the zones of finer particle size, -or to the processes of weathering of the deposits (Miller and Leopold, -1953). The present study suggests that changes in the distribution of -calcium carbonate and the fine silt and clay fractions in the deposits -cannot be related to variations in the parent material, relief in the -immediate area, or the mode of deposition. Concentrations of calcium -carbonate may be associated with changes in the depth of the water -table or in drainage conditions. There is no evidence that the water -table ever came close to the surface in this area in Recent times; at -present it is something more than 150 feet below the level of the site. -Internal and external drainage conditions of the deposits have probably -not changed since the beginning of human occupation of the shelter, -being largely determined by the nature of the relief and parent rock. - -It is possible that the particular accumulation of calcium carbonate -and of fine silt and clay between 68 and 96 inches below base-level -are the result of downward migration and concentration of the fine -fraction and CaCO₃ due to weathering processes—defining a paleosol. -Some change in climatic conditions, perhaps just sufficient to modify -to some extent the nature of the vegetation cover (Nikiforoff, 1937) -seems to offer one logical explanation for the distribution of calcium -carbonate, and of the fine silt and clay fraction—the products of soil -development in semi-arid environments (Bryan and Albritton, 1943). It -is hoped that x-ray and mineralogical analysis of the samples will -definitely establish whether or not we are dealing with a buried soil. - -If we do interpret the results of the chemical analyses as indicating a -period of increased aridity over conditions as they now exist in the -area, one could establish a _terminus post quem_ for the archaeological -complexes below approximately 64 inches below baseline. Accordingly, -the artifactual materials with Great Basin influences and the earlier -Duncan types may date from some time late in the Altithermal. This -interpretation would not be completely out of keeping with a dating of -the archaeological materials on typological grounds. - - -Acknowledgments - -The author is particularly indebted to Dr. C. J. Rodden for his -interest and assistance in the chemical analyses, and to Prof. John P. -Miller for his suggestions and helpful criticisms of the preliminary -draft of this manuscript. - - -References - - Barshad, I., 1958 _Soil Development_: - Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, 69 p. - Bryan, K. and Albritton, C. C., 1943, - Soil phenomena as evidence of climatic change: - Amer. Jour. Sci., 241, 469. - Carroll, D., 1958, - Role of clay minerals in the transportation of iron: - Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 14, 1. - Deb, B. C., 1958, The movement and precipitation of - iron oxides in podzol soils: reprint. - Hunt, C. B., 1954, - Pleistocene and Recent Deposits in the Denver Area, - Colorado: U.S.G.S. Bull. 996-C, 140 p. - Jenny, H., 1941, Factors of soil formation, a system of - quantitative pedology. - McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., - New York. - Knight, S. H., 1929, The Fountain and the Casper - formations of the Laramie Basin: - Contri. from Dept. of Geology of Columbia Univ., - XL, No. 5, 82 p. - Miller, J. P. and Leopold, L. B., 1953, The use of - soils and paleosols for interpreting geomorphic - and climatic history of arid regions: - Res. Council of Israel. Spec. Publ. No. 2, 453. - Miller, J. P., and Wendorf, D. F., 1958, The alluvial - chronology of the Tesuque Valley, New Mexico: - Jour. Geol., 66, 177. - Nikiforoff, C. C., 1937, - General trends of the desert type of soil formation: - Soil Sci., 43, No. 2, 105. - Simonson, R. W., 1954, - Identification and interpretation of buried soils: - Amer. Jour. Sci., 252, No. 12, 705. - Thorp, J., 1941, - The influence of environment on soil formation: - Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 6, 39. - - - - -Vertebrate Fossils from the Rockshelter at the LoDaisKa Site[3] - -By EDWARD LEWIS - - -[3] Publication authorized by the Director, U. S. Geological Survey. - -Cynthia and Henry Irwin excavated the rock shelter at the LoDaisKa Site -on the Otto Sanger property by Strain Gulch near Morrison, Colorado -1956-1957. The vertebrate fossils were identified by the Upper Cenozoic -Research Group: C. B. Schultz, T. M. Stout, and L. G. Tanner of the -University of Nebraska, and Edward Lewis of the U.S. Geological Survey. -Minor elements of the vertebrate fauna identified by them include 1 -amphibian bone fragment, 2 lacertilian reptile vertebrae, and 16 bird -bones and fragments of undetermined genera and species. All the other -vertebrate remains were mammalian and include: - - _Lagomorphs_, gen-sp. undet. - _Lepus_ sp.† - _Cynomys_ sp.† - _Citellus_ sp.† - _Tamias_ sp. or _Eutamias_ sp. - ?_Thomomys_ sp. - _Castor canadensis_ Kuhl - ?_Peromyscus_ sp. - Microtinae, gen. and sp. indet. - _Canis_ sp.† - _Mephitis_ sp. - _Taxidea_ sp.† - ?_Felis_ (Puma) sp. - _Cervus canadensis_ (Erxleben)† - _Odocoileus_ sp.† - _Odocoileus_ sp. cf. _O. hemionus_ (Rafinesque) - ?_Bos taurus_ Linnaeus[4] - _Bison bison_ (Linnaeus)† - _Ovis canadensis_ Shaw - -From one to seven individuals are represented by each of these names -except _Odocoileus_, which accounts for the great majority of the -specimens. We conclude that the people who were responsible for this -deposit lived, while at this site, on a diet in which venison, probably -from the Mule Deer (_Odocoileus hemionus_), predominated. There are -surprisingly few _Bison_ bones, and just one specimen each of “Elk” and -Bighorn. - -All of this fauna still lived in the same general area in historic -times; it is a Recent fauna. The symbol (†) marks genera and species -known to occur in the fauna of the Piney Creek alluvium (Hunt, -1954, p. 114-117).[5] These elements of the Piney Creek fauna have -previously been reported from the nearby Denver area by Hunt (1954, p. -118), and have been identified by the Upper Cenozoic Research Group -in the collections made by Scott[6] from the nearby Kassler area, -and by Hunt[7] from the dark-colored, sandy and silty alluvium that -occurs along Strain Gulch near the Sanger Site. It seems reasonable -to believe that the age of the main deposit in the shelter, below the -ceramic occupation layer, is approximately equivalent to the age of -the dark-colored, sandy, silty alluvium and that of the Piney Creek -alluvium. - -[4] Apart from the fact that this specimen may represent _Bison bison_ -rather than ?_Bos taurus_, the possibility exists that it is an -accidental, late Recent association introduced by outside agency, as -would be the case in a burial by a carnivore or man. - -[5] Hunt, Chas. B., 1954, Pleistocene and Recent Deposits in the Denver -Area, Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 996-C, p. 91-140. - -[6] Scott, Glenn R., Geology of the Kassler Quadrangle, Colorado; -manuscript in preparation. - -[7] Hunt, Chas. B., Geology of the LoDaisKa site, p. 89, present -publication. - - Classification used in this report: - - Animal Kingdom - Class Amphibia - Class Reptilia - Subclass Lepidosauria - Order Squamata - Suborder Lacertilia (lizards) - Class Aves - Subclass Neornithes - Superorder Neognathae (modern flying birds) - Class Mammalia - Subclass Theria - Infraclass Eutheria (placental mammals) - Order Lagomorpha (hares, rabbits, and pikas) - _Lepus_ (hares and “jack” rabbits) - - Order Rodentia (rodents) - Family Sciuridae (squirrels) - _Cynomys_ (prairie “dog”) - _Citellus_ (ground squirrel) - _Tamias_ & _Eutamias_ (chipmunks) - Family Geomyidae - _Thomomys_ (pocket gopher) - Family Castoridae - _Castor_ (beaver) - Family Cricetidae - Subfamily Cricetinae - _Peromyscus_ (white-footed mouse) - Subfamily Microtinae (field mouse) - - Order Carnivora - Family Canidae - _Canis_ (dog, coyote, or wolf) - Family Mustelidae - _Mephitis_ (skunk) - _Taxidea_ (American badger) - Family Felidae - _Felis_ (lynx, puma, etc.) - - Order Artiodactyla - Family Cervidae - _Cervus_ (elk) - _Odocoileus_ (mule and white-tailed deer) - Family Bovidae - _Bos_ (domestic cattle) - _Bison_ - _Ovis_ (bighorn sheep) - - - Table VII—Faunal Remains, LoDaisKa - - ---+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+- - | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | - 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 95 108 - -------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+- - Amphibian | | | | 2 | 1 | | | | - Reptile | | | | | | | 2 | | - Bird | | 3 | | 2 | | 11 | | | - Lagomorphs, sp. undet | | | | 4 | | | 1 | | - Lepus | | | | | | 18 | | | - Rodentia, undet. | | | | | | | | 2 | - _Cynomys_ | | 4 | 1 | 1 | | 20 | 3 | 1 | - _Citellus_ | | | | | | 3 | 1 | | - _Tamias_ and _Eutamias_ | | 1 | | | | 2 | | | - _Thomomys_ | | | | | | 2 | | | - _Castor_ (_canadensis_) | | | | | | 2 | | | - _Peromyscus_ | | | | | | ?3 | | | - Microtine | | | | 2 | | 4 | | | - Carnivore, undet. | | | | | 1 | 1 | | | - _Canis_ | | 1 | | | | | | | - _Mephites_ | | | | | | | 1 | | - _Taxidea_ | | | | | | 1 | | 1 | - _Felis_ | | | | | | 3 | | | - _Cervus_ | | 1 | | | | | | | - _Odocoileus_ | | 26 | 18 | 32 | 42 | 44 | 70 | 17 | - ?_Bos_ | | | 6 | | | | | | - _Bison_ (_bison_) | | | 4 | | 5 | 7 | 11 | | - _Ovis_ (_canadensis_) | | 1 | | | | | 1 | | - +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+- - - - - -Plant Remains from the LoDaisKa Site - -By WALTON C. GALINAT - - -(Below Dr. Galinat has identified key specimens from the site from -which data table was completed). - - Area I 82-108 inches - - Gramineae - Grass fragments—glumes and stems—S/F10/109-113 - (numbers refer to stratigraphic position) - - Liliaceae - _Allium_ (_cernuum_?)—wild onion seed—S/G11/103-107 - - Fagaceae - _Quercus_ spp.—acorn S/L11/102-106 - - Chenopodiaceae - _Grayia Brandegei_—carbonized fruits—S/L11/108-112 - - Rosaceae - _Crataegus_ spp.—partially decayed fragments of hawthorn - fruits—S/JK11/80-84 - - -Area II 72-82 inches - - Musci - _Polytrichum_ (_commune_?)—S/J11/78-82—this large - hair-cap moss may have been used as - padding or insulation. - - Gramineae - _Zea Mays L._—S/G10/75-79—decayed corn cob of 14 - rows and medium diameter similar to that - of Chapalote maize. - —S/G10/78-82—fragments, the same as above. - - _Paspalum_ spp.—grain—S/K11/78-82 - glumes—S/K11/78-82 - stem—S/L11/78-82 - - Cyperaceae - _Scleria_ spp.—grain—S/L11/78-82 } These sedges - } indicate the - } presence of a - } permanent source - } of water in - _Carex_ spp.—grain—S/L11/78-82 } the area. - - Chenopodiaceae - _Chenopodium_ spp.—fruit—S/L11/78-82 - - Leguminoseae - _Lupinus perennis L._—carbonized immature beans—S/L11/78-82 - —May have been roasted as a green vegetable. - - -Area III 57-72 inches - - Cyperaceae - _Scleria relicularis_—grain, spikelet, and plant fragments - —S/I9/65-69 (three samples). - - Chenopodiaceae - _Chenopodium_ spp.—seed—S/L6/68-72 - - Rosaceae - _Crataegus_ spp.—partially decayed fragments of hawthorn - fruits—S/J11/70-74 - - Umbellifereae - _Taenidia_ spp.—tiny seeds—S/F8/61-55 and S/19/65-69 - - -Area IV 0-57 inches - - Pinaceae - _Juniperus_ spp.—wood fibers—S/K9/46-50 - - Gramineae - _Zea Mays_—fragments from a small diameter, 16-rowed - cob. Must have borne small kernels, possibly - a popcorn. S/I11/53-57 - —one kernel of a dent corn—S/0910/22-26. - Not highly dented, in size and shape does not - closely resemble modern commercial varieties. - —one large kernel of yellow sweet corn resembling - that of modern varieties. Must be - an intrusion. S/010/MIRB - (S/010/MIRB was a portion of a collapsed - material with no stratigraphic position). - _Muhlenbergia_ spp.—florets with grain destroyed. - S/08-9/31-35 - - Rosaceae - _Prunus_ spp.—one stone (drupe). S/L7/26-30 - Leguminoseae - One fragment from a large pod (legume). S/L7/26-30 - Boraginaceae - _Lithospermum ruderale_—medicinal fruit may have been - used as a contraceptive—S/L11/50-54 - - - - -Authors’ Comments on Floral Remains - -It is interesting to note the following uses of some of these plants by -modern Indians in the general area. - - Boraginaceae, _Lithospermum ruderale_ - Shoshone—contraceptive - Gosiute—seeds eaten as food - - Chenopodiaceae, _Chenopodium_ - Hopi—seeds ground for mush - Navajo—seeds ground for food - - Chenopodiaceae, _Grayia_ - Gosiute—seeds gathered - - Fagaceae, _Quercus_ - Navajo—eaten raw, boiled, roasted, dried like corn meal - Gosiute—eaten in season - - Gramineae, _Muhlenbergia_ - Hopi—seeds ground for bread meal - - Leguminoseae, _Lupinum_ - Gosiute—gathered. Use? - - Musci, _Polytrichum_ - Gosiute—use? - - Pinaceae, _Juniperus_ - Gosiute—various uses - Shoshone—twigs used for medicinal tea - Navajo—needles used for cold lotions - -For further information see: Chamberlain, 1911; Train, Henricks, -and Archer, 1941; P. A. Vestal, 1952, P. A. Vestal, 1940 and the -bibliographies appended to these works. - - -Authors’ Comments on Maize from LoDaisKa - -Six specimens of _Zea mays_ were recovered from the LoDaisKa Site. -These were distributed vertically through the deposit, with 3 assigned -to Complex D, 1 to Complex B, and 2 to Complex A. These few examples -represent 3 different types of corn. In order to understand the -significance of the LoDaisKa material, an attempt has been made to -relate it to other prehistoric maize developments. - - -Table VIII—Floral Remains - - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - |16|20|24|28|32|36|40|44|48|52|56|60|64|68| - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - Boraginaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Lithospermum_ | | | | | | | | | | 1| | | | | - _ruderale_ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - Chenopodiaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Chenopodium_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Grayia Brandegei_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - Cyperaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Carex_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Scleria_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1| - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - Fagaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Quercus_ | | 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| | 3| 1| | | 1| | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - Gramineae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Muhlenbergia_ | | | | | | 1| | | | | | | | | - _Paspalum_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Zea Mays_ | | | 1|1?| | | | | | | 1| | | | - spp. | | | | 1| | | | | | | | | | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - Leguminoseae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Lupinus perennis_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - spp. | | | | 1| | | | | | | | | | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - Lilliaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Allium_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - Musci | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Polytrichum_ | | | | | | | | | | | | 1| | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - Pinaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Juniperus_ spp. | | | | | | | | | 1| | | | | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - Rosaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Cretaegus_ | | | | | | | | | 1| | | | | | - _Prunus_ spp. | | 1| 2| 4| 5| 1| 1| 1| | | | | | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - Umbelliferae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Taenidia_ spp. | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1| 1| - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - |72|76|80|84|88|92|96|100|104|108|112|116|120| - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Boraginaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Lithospermum_ | | | | | | | 2| 1 | 1 | 1 | | | | - _ruderale_ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Chenopodiaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Chenopodium_ | 1| | 1| | | | | | | | | | | - _Grayia Brandegei_ | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Cyperaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Carex_ | | 1| 1| | | | | | | | | | | - _Scleria_ | | | 1| | | | | | | | | | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Fagaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Quercus_ | 3| 4| 3| | | 2| 1| 1 | 1 | | | | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Gramineae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Muhlenbergia_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Paspalum_ | | | 1| | | | | | | | | | | - _Zea Mays_ | |1?| 2| | | | | | | | | | | - spp. | | | 1| | | | | | | | | | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Leguminoseae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Lupinus perennis_ | | | 1| | | | | | | | | | | - spp. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Lilliaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Allium_ | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Musci | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Polytrichum_ | | | 1| 1| | | 1| | | | | | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Pinaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Juniperus_ spp. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Rosaceae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Cretaegus_ | | | | 1| | | | 1 | | | | | | - _Prunus_ spp. | 1| | 5| | | | | | | | | | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - Umbelliferae | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - _Taenidia_ spp. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - -[Illustration: FIGURE 69—Floral Remains.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 70—Floral Remains.] - -Maize (_Zea mays_) was originally thought to have descended from -teosinte, (_Euchlaena_), a wild plant occurring in Mexico. Now however, -most authorities believe that a primitive maize originated as a -distinct plant. (Mangelsdorf and Reeves, 1939). Teosinte, according to -their hypothesis is a later hybrid of maize and its distant relative, -_Tripsacum_. (A common species of _Tripsacum_ is Gama grass.) Pollen -studies of deep cores taken in Mexico City indicate that wild maize -may have grown in that area well back into the last iinterglacial. -(Barghoorn, Wolfe and Clisby, 1954). - -From these obscure beginnings, maize underwent considerable development -and diversification, and later in many cases mixed with teosinte. One -of the basic races which evolved is represented by a modern Mexican -type called “Chapalote”. (Wellhausen et al., 1952). The three specimens -assigned to Complex D at LoDaisKa were identified as belonging to the -Chapalote type. W. C. Galinat has reviewed the early distribution -of Chapalote as follows: “The present-day Mexican race of maize -called ‘Chapalote’ was one of the basic races in North America in -prehistoric times. A re-examination of the actual cobs, photographs or -descriptive literature covering 14 sites in northwestern Mexico and -the southwestern United States suggests, that the archaeological maize -from this area was either pre-Chapalote, Chapalote or a more evolved -and more tripsacoid derivative called ‘Basketmaker’ corn. The Mexican -states with prehistoric Chapalote are Michoacan (lava impressions), -Sonora (Dark Cave), and Chihuahua (Swallow Cave, Slab Cave, Tau Cave, -Olla Cave). In the region now the United States, Chapalote occurred in -Arizona (Richards Cave, Tonto Cave, Painted Cave), Colorado (Cottonwood -Cave, LoDaisKa Cave), and New Mexico (Bat Cave, Tularosa Cave, -Cebollita Cave).”[8] - -[8] Reprinted with the author’s permission from _Maize Genetics -Cooperation—News Letter_, No. 32 for March 15, 1958. - -In investigating interrelationships one criterion to consider is the -degree of evolution of the Chapalote: Specimens from LoDaisKa are less -primitive than the pre-Chapalote pod-pop corn from the first stratum -of Bat Cave (Dick, n.d., and Mangelsdorf and Smith, 1949). At the -other extreme they are less evolved than the material from Cottonwood -Cave. (Hurst, 1948). They are closer to some of the specimens from the -pre-ceramic levels of Swallow Cave, Chihuahua (Mangelsdorf and Lister, -1956). - -A second criterion for comparison is the amount of mixing with -teosinte. Several archaeological sequences in this area show a rather -sudden alteration in maize type due to an introgression of teosinte, -e.g. Bat Cave, Swallow Cave, Tularosa Cave. Mangelsdorf and Lister (op. -cit., p. 173-4) conclude that “a very marked change in the maize of -northwestern Mexico and adjoining area of New Mexico occurred at about -750 ± 250 A.D.” The LoDaisKa specimens show no evidence of teosinte -introgression. In this they approximate most closely the pre-ceramic -material from Swallow Cave, maize from Strata II and III of Bat Cave -and early levels of Tularosa Cave. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 71—_Zea mays_, Chapalote type. Above, fragments -of cobs from LoDaisKa Site. Below, Modern Chapalote maize. (Lent by W. -C. Galinat). 2× actual size.] - -[Illustration: FIGURE 72—_Zea mays_, fragments of cob of popcorn(?). 2× -actual size.] - -The fourth example of corn was assigned to Complex B. W. C. Galinat -(this report) described it as a 16-rowed cob with very small kernels, -“possibly a popcorn”. With only this cob preserved, little more -can be determined. It is evidently more evolved than the previous -specimens. According to P. C. Mangelsdorf, (Personal Communication, -1959), the high row number and small size are similar to a Mexican type -called _Conico_, but it is more probable that the LoDaisKa variety -is ultimately derived from a Chapalote-teosinte mixture. Teosinte -introgression often involves a high degree of variability, which could -include the small 16-rowed form. Kivett (1952a) reports popcorn from -a Woodland Site in Nebraska, and Mangelsdorf (Personal Communication, -1959) believes that this is probably Chapalote. - -It is probable that a second type of maize was also cultivated at this -time. Two single component Woodland sites in the Morrison area have -yielded a dent-type corn. (Irwin and Irwin, n.d.). - -[Illustration: FIGURE 73—_Zea mays_, “dent” variety. Left kernel from -LoDaisKa site. Right, modern (hybrid) dent maize. Actual size.] - -The remaining two maize specimens consist of kernels rather than cobs -and were assigned to Complex A. They were identified as a variety -of dent corn. This is a much more evolved type, resulting from the -crossing of a flinty starch corn with a softer type, and probably -originally involving _teosinte_ introgression. A dent maize is -characteristic of sites of the Fremont Culture in Utah (Wormington, -1955). Its occurrence has been the subject of much discussion. Fremont -maize shows some similarities to pyramidal dent corn of the Mesa -Centrale (Mexico), and even more to _Zapalote Chico_, a type grown on -the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. It is present in some Basketmaker sites, -but not in the later Pueblo localities. Various authorities, (Nickerson -in Wormington, 1955; Carter, 1945; Anderson, 1948) have expressed doubt -that dent corn reached the Fremont area by any direct route through the -Anasazi, Hohokam or Mogollon areas. A possible route via the Plains -was suggested, but evidence was totally lacking because of the absence -of perishables in most Plains sites. The Morrison area provides some -support of the Plains hypothesis: Fremont peoples evidently did range -into areas where dent corn was used and could have acquired it there. -However, until much more evidence is available, the question must -remain open. - - - - -Fossil Pollen and Spores from the LoDaisKa Site, Colorado - -By DONALD R. WHITEHEAD - - -Introduction - -A preliminary pollen analytical investigation has been attempted on -material from the LoDaisKa Site in order to determine the feasibility -of working with such sediments, and to see what culturally significant -plants might be represented. Due to the extremely poor preservation -in all but the lowermost levels no pollen diagram has been prepared. -Such a diagram would be misleading, because many of the original -constituents of the pollen flora might have been destroyed by -differential degradation. A brief description of the investigation -follows, with a discussion of the potentially significant grass pollen. - - -Techniques - -All samples were prepared by boiling for six minutes in 10% KOH, -washing with 10% HCI to remove carbonates, boiling for ten minutes in -about 30% HF, actolysing for one minute, staining with fuchsin, and -mounting in silicone oil. For each sample a total of four slides was -counted by making traverses at one millimeter intervals. - - -Identification of Large Grass Pollen - -In order to attempt an identification of the various large grass -pollen encountered, the long axis of each grain and the pore diameter -(including annulus) were measured, and the ratio between the two -plotted. Barghoorn, Wolfe, and Clisby (1954) have suggested that this -ratio can be used to supplement size measurements in attempting to -identify fossil pollen of the tribe Maydeae. However, one can not -compare directly the size data from the LoDaisKa fossils with the data -from modern pollen assembled by Barghoorn, Wolfe, and Clisby (l.c.). -Christensen (1945) has shown that not only do recent and fossil grains -of the same species differ in size (depending partly upon the type -of sediment in which the pollen is preserved), but also, different -methods of preparation greatly affect the size, often differentially -with respect to fossil and modern pollen. The recent pollen measured -by Barghoorn, Wolfe, and Clisby (l.c.) was prepared by acetolysis -and mounted in glycerine jelly. By comparing the size of modern -_Corylus avellana_ pollen prepared and mounted in this manner (ca. -28, Christensen, 1945) with the size of fossil _Corylus avellana_ -pollen from a variety of sediment types prepared and mounted by the -technique used in the present investigation (ca. 24, S. T. Andersen, -pers. comm.), one can arrive at a factor (7/6) by which the size of the -fossils can be multiplied in order to compare more directly with the -data presented by Barghoorn, Wolfe, and Clisby (l.c.). It should be -emphasized that such an absolute comparison is dangerous, because there -is no way of determining precisely how the environment of preservation -at LoDaisKa has affected the pollen, and there is no guarantee -that size changes of Corylus and Gramineae pollen are absolutely -proportional. - -For each grass grain both the long axis measurement and the pore axis -ratio are tabulated in the results below. Only fully expanded grains -were measured. - - -Sampling (Author’s Note) - -The provenience of the samples analyzed below is as follows: - - All samples were taken at 6 inch intervals. - - Samples W 1-10 were collected in Square J8, - starting at 38 inches below baseline. - - Samples E₁ 1-6 were collected in Square M11, - starting at 38 inches below baseline. - - Samples E₂ 3-7 were collected in Square P 9-10, - starting at 62 inches below baseline. - - _Samples E₁ 1 - E₁ 5_ (38-68″) - - Preservation extremely poor, only badly corroded pine pollen, - a few Compositae grains, and many plant fragments - (mostly coniferous tracheids). - - _Sample E₁ 6_ (68-74″) - _Pinus_—9 - _Gramineae_—2, (70,21ₘ, pore obscured by detritus), - (40.46ₘ, 1:4.9) - - _Sample E₂ 3_ (62-68″) - _Pinus_—10 - - _Sample E₂ 4_ (68-74″) - _Pinus_—19 - _Picea_—2 - Fern spore—1 - Gramineae—1, (71.40ₘ, pore distorted) - unknowns—2 - - _Sample E₂ 5_ (74-80″) - _Pinus_—66 - _Picea_—1 - _Juniperus_—2 - _Quercus_—1 - Compositae (total)—24, (_Artemisia_—11, - _Ambrosia type_—2, Liguliflorae—1) - Chenopodiaceae—11 Caryophyllaceae—4 - _Allium_—3 _Geranium_—1 - _Polygonum_, sect. _Pericaria_—3 - Gramineae—5, (53.55ₘ, 1:3.8), (70.21ₘ, pore - obscured), (46.41ₘ, 1:4.3), (58.30ₘ, 1:5.5), - (45.22ₘ, 1:3.5) unknowns—5 - - _Sample E₂ 6_ (80-86″) - _Pinus_—60 - _Quercus_—2 - Compositae (total)—22, (_Artemisia_—14, Liguliflorae—1) - Convolvulaceae—1 (fragment of a large periporate type) - Caryophyllaceae—5 - Chenopodiaceae—4 - cf. Cruciferae—3 - _Polygonum_, sect. _Pericaria_—1 - _Allium_—1 - Gramineae—6, (40.46ₘ, 1:4.2), (61.88ₘ, 1:4.0), - (52.36ₘ, pore distorted), - (50.35ₘ, pore greatly enlongated), - (46.41ₘ, 1:4.9), - (45.22ₘ, 1:5.4). unknowns—10 - - _Sample E₂ 7_ (86-92″) - _Pinus_—54 - _Picea_—2 - _Juniperus_—1 - Compositae (total)—20, (_Artemisia_—11, - _Ambrosia_ type—1, Liguliflorae—2) - Caryophyllaceae—2 - Chenopodiaceae—2 - _Geranium_—1 - _Lonicera_—2 - Onagraceae—2 - Gramineae—3, (50.35ₘ, pore obscured), (29.75ₘ, 1:4.1), - (39.75ₘ, pore distorted) - unknowns—6 - - _Samples W1 - W8_ (38-86″) - - Preservation extremely poor, only corroded pine, composite, - and chenopod pollen. Abundant coniferous wood fragments. - - _Sample W9_ (86-92″) - _Pinus_—14 - Chenopodiaceae—2 - _Artemisia_—1 - Caryophyllaceae—1 - Gramineae—1, (51.17ₘ, 1:3.9) - unknowns—3 - - _Sample W10_ (92″-base) - _Pinus_—13 - _Picea_—1 - _Quercus_—5 - Compositae (total)—6, (_Artemisia_—5, - _Ambrosia_ type—1, Liguliflorae—1) - Chenopodiaceae—1 - _Polygonum_, sect. (Pericaria—1) - _Lonicera_—1 - Gramineae—6, (49.98ₘ, 1:4.2), (52.36ₘ, 1:40), (49.98ₘ, 1:4.2), - (58.30ₘ, 1:4.5), (57.12ₘ, 1:4.0), (54.74ₘ, 1:4.2) - unknowns—4 - - -Discussion - -It is interesting to note that many of the plants identified from their -megascopic remains by Walton C. Galinat are likewise represented in the -pollen flora (e.g., _Allium_, _Quercus_, _Juniperus_ and chenopods). -As Galinat has also identified several fragments of _Zea Mays_, it was -hoped that pollen of _Zea_ might be found in some of the oldest levels. -Unfortunately, none of the fossil grass pollen can be definitely -identified as that of _Zea_. It seems obvious that the three largest -grass grains (over 70ₘ) are too large to be _Tripsacum_, but whether -they represent _teosinte_ or _Zea_ can not be established. The pore -of two of these was obscured by detritus, and that of the third was -greatly distorted. Thus no ratio could be established. - -The remainder of the grass grains seem to fall within the limits of -the genus _Tripsacum_ (size extremes 33.6ₘ to 64ₘ, and ratio extremes -1:3.0 to 1:4.8), although the pore-axis ratio of some appears to be too -large. However, the possibility must be left open that these smaller -grains might not be _Tripsacum_. As yet there is very little pollen -size data available for the grasses of North America. Geisler (1945) -has measured pollen from 32 species and of these, _Zizania aquatica_ -has the largest grains (range 38ₘ-50ₘ). It is important to note that -she did not employ acetolysis, so that this range is on the small -side. In Europe, Firbes (1936) has presented pollen size data for -103 species of grasses, and of those he studied, _Avena_, _Secale_, -_Triticum_, _Hordeum_, and _Elymus_ possess pollen as large as that of -_Tripsacum_. Hence it would appear to be necessary to study intensively -the pollen of most of our native grasses in order to establish size and -other morphological criteria for identifying the smaller LoDaisKa grass -pollen. - -As the preservation is distinctly better in the lower levels of the -deposit, a careful and detailed pollen analytical investigation, with -recourse to adequate reference material might be profitable. - - -Acknowledgments - -The present investigation was carried out in the Laboratories of the -Geological Survey of Denmark while the author was sponsored by a -Fulbright Fellowship. The author is particularly indebted to Svend Th. -Andersen for his suggestions and helpful criticisms of the manuscript. - - -Bibliography - - Barghoorn, E. S., M. K. Wolfe, and K. H. Clisby, 1954. - Fossil Maize from the Valley of Mexico. - Bot. Mus. Leaflets, Harvard University 16: 229-240. - Christensen, B. Brorson, 1945. Measurements as a Means - of Identifying Fossil Pollen. - Danmarke Geologiske Undersgelse IV R., Bd. 3, Nr, 2. - Firbes, F., 1937. Der pollenanalytische Nachweis dos - Getreidebaus. Zeitschrift für Botanik, Bd. 31: 447-478. - Geisler, F., 1945. A study of Pollen Grains of - Thirty-two Species of Grasses. - Butler Univ. Bot. Studies 7: 65-73. - - -ETHNOGRAPHIC COMPARISONS - -Below we shall summarize the life habits of two ethnographically known -groups who lived near the Plains-Great Basin fringe. This is done in -an effort to present a brief outline of the type of life people in the -Morrison area could have lived. It is designed to serve as a guide -for interpretation of the archaeological remains, and should provide -insight into areas of social and religious action. The first group, the -Ute, are known to have lived for a time in the region; the second, the -Pawnee, were never in the area proper, but do represent the sort of -pottery-using, corn-growing Indians that had occupied it in the past. - -This use of comparative ethnology and the reconstruction which follows -are in the nature of a theory, a theory of methodology. Too often, -as J. O. Brew (1946) has pointed out, archaeological fact gathering -has run riot ahead of the interpretation of these facts. Brew quoted -C. C. Kluckhohn in this respect: “In any case the alternative is not -between theory and no theory or a minimum of theory, but between -adequate and inadequate theories.... For I am afraid that many of -our anthropologists who are most distrustful of theory are like -Molière’s character who spoke prose without knowing it, for a complex -theoretical viewpoint is usually implicit in some of the most -apparently innocent statements of facts.” (Brew, 1946, p. 45; but for -full context see Kluckhohn 1939). We have striven, however, to remain -aware of the assumptions involved. - - -On the Ethnology of the Ute - -The Ute were among the first Indians to get horses from the Spanish. -Subsequently they moved about rather freely and were rather quick to -adopt the white man’s culture whenever this was present in their area. -There are almost no early accounts of the Ute. They had neither the -spectacular aspects of the true Plains Indians, nor lands close to -the trails frequented by pioneers and early explorers. On the other -hand, they did not enjoy the isolation of many of the Great Basin -tribes which preserved their ways of life into comparatively recent -times. Thus ethnography of the Ute is relatively scant except for a -few accounts and short articles. There are three principal works. The -first is Robert Lowie’s _Notes on Shoshonean Ethnography_ (1924), based -primarily on observations at Ignacio, Navajo Springs and White Rock. -The second is Omer Stewart’s “_Culture Element Distribution: XVIII, -Ute, Southern Paiute_”, (1942), while the third is Edward Gifford’s -_Culture Element Distribution XII: Apache-Pueblo_ (1940). Another -short paper by Ralph Beals (1935) on the ethnology of Rocky Mountain -National Park adds to the picture, though he draws heavily on Lowie’s -work. Finally there is a collection of articles gathered by the Durango -Public Library and edited by H. S. Daniels (1941). This is composed of -a series of interesting papers by people intimately connected with the -area surrounding the present Ute reservation. J. Alden Mason’s article -“Myths of the Uintah Utes” (1940) contains numerous myths which may -yield scraps of ethnographic material if care is used in selection. -Other short works can be found in the bibliography and will be referred -to in the text. - - -Subsistence Pattern - -One of the greatest problems facing the Ute and Shoshone on mountain -fringes was adaptation to several different ecological biomes. Their -success is attested to by the fact that the Ute spread all over -Colorado and southern Wyoming except the Plains. - -The adoption of the horse resulted in significant changes in Ute -culture. In general, the use of horses affected hunting methods and -locomotion. Where it brought the Ute into intimate contact with Plains -Indian cultures, many of their old Basin traits were replaced by -borrowed artifacts and techniques. For example, articles of rawhide -replaced basketry in most cases (Steward, 1940, p. 422). However, -very little is known about the quasi-Plains Ute, as mountain lands -were quickly appropriated by whites. Buffalo were exterminated from -mountain parks in Colorado by 1870. The works cited refer to isolated -groups on the western fringe which retained an essentially pre-horse -culture. - -The people we deal with then have the “gathering small game” traits -of Steward’s Western Subarea of the Intermontane Region. In addition, -uplands and mountain regions afforded some larger game. This dual -economy was probably a great factor in their adaptability, and it -was undoubtedly a close approximation of that of protohistoric and -prehistoric inhabitants of the area. - -Except for the ecologic variation cited above, Ute culture was fairly -uniform over a wide area. Because of this and the general limitation of -data, it will be treated as a whole. - - -Hunting and Gathering - -Seeds and berries of almost every description were gathered, mainly -by the women of the camps. According to Lowie, among the neighboring -Paviotso, men often participated in gathering piñon nuts, a fundamental -element in the diet. Stewart’s data suggests that this was probably -true of the Ute. Sunflower seeds were boiled; acorns were gathered and -treated to render them edible. Fruits were exploited where available. -These products were gathered in large baskets, certain of them being -reserved for storage. Edible roots were dug up with the aid of a -digging stick. Other gathering devices included notched poles, throwing -sticks, and seed beaters. - -Among the animals hunted, Lowie mentions buffalo, elk, deer, and -rabbits; eagles were snared from pits. In Mason’s _Myths_ moose and -bear are mentioned particularly. Possibly mountain sheep and antelope -should be included in this list. Small game was important, such as -quail and rodents, i.e., prairie dogs and squirrels. Stewart lists a -number of insects eaten as part of the diet, which were roasted and -parched then often stored. - -Buffalo were surrounded by a circle of men and shot. Deer were -often driven into a deep pit between converging arms of a sagebrush -enclosure. Deer, antelope and buffalo decoy masks were often used. -Rabbits and other small game were hunted by driving them into nets of -bark fiber. Rodents were smudged out, and special blunt arrows were -often used in shooting prairie dogs. Mountain sheep were pursued until -cornered and then shot with arrows. - -Fish were also undoubtedly a common article of diet. John Dewey, a Ute, -told Mason about taking fish by means of arrows and fish lines, while -Lowie mentions fish shooting and describes grass rafts for the Uintah, -and Ute fish weirs. - -For all hunting and fishing, ritual observances and purification were -important. Gifford mentions ceremonial sweat houses in this connection, -while Stewart lists a number of important taboos. - - -Food Preparation - -Hand stones and grinding slabs were employed for preparing seeds and -berries. Some pounding was done. Seeds could be roasted underground or -could be made into a kind of gruel. Meat, according to McCall (Daniels, -ed., 1941), was roasted over the fire or jerked. In this connection -some statements of E. G. Palmer concerning the Paiute are of interest. -The Paiute were very similar in culture to the Ute and before 1700 were -probably indistinguishable from them (Schroeder, 1953). In particular -Palmer mentions cooking by heating rocks, covering the desired edibles -with wet grass and sprinkling them with water to create a kind of steam -bake. About their food in general Palmer says, “As to food the Pah Utes -will eat anything that will not prove absolutely poisonous soon after -being swallowed.” - -Gifford notes roasting and eating of both yucca and cacti. He also -lists the use of surface salt and clay for flavoring. Small animals -were pounded up whole and cooked. Bone was cracked for marrow or ground -up and eaten if possible. - - -Shelter - -Prior to the use of small skin tepees, the Eastern Ute used a conical -or domed-shaped shelter of brush. These were used even after white -contact, but usually only for summer habitation. The door faced east. -Gifford and Stewart both note that the Ute used available rockshelters -and lean-tos on hunting trips. C. T. Hurst in 1943 excavated an -overhang containing evidence of Ute habitation. According to several -sources, sweat houses were built. - - -Fire Making and Other Technologies - -Lowie reports that the Ute used fire drills only rarely though an -informant told Mason that they did not use such devices. Obviously -every effort was made to keep the fire going but apparently if one’s -fire went out, one borrowed a light from a neighbor. Perhaps in an -emergency fire tools could have been made. - -Concerning the stone technology of the Ute we will quote a section from -Powell (1875; noted in Lowie, 1924). “Obsidian or other stone of which -the implement is to be made is first selected by breaking up larger -masses of the rock and choosing those which exhibited the fracture -desired; then the pieces are baked or steamed—perhaps I might say -annealed—by placing them in a damp earth covered with a brush fire for -twenty-four hours, then with sharp blows they are still further broken -down into flakes approximately the shape desired. For more complete -fashioning a tool of ... horn is used.” He also states that a small -skin cushion was employed in the hand, and that often a few especially -skilled people would exchange their products for other items. Barber -(1876) notes that a Ute hunter could differentiate between the types -of stone projectile points used by various tribes. This is of special -interest to the archaeologist for it indicates that point styles for -such a group were intentional and fairly consistent over a period of -time. Stone knives, scrapers, rough flakes and drills are listed by -Gifford and Stewart in addition. According to Gifford’s informant, -stone axes were polished. Arrowheads were stemmed or stemless, while -the shafts were marked by rills engraved along the length. These were -feathered and painted. - - -Pottery - -Lowie reports that the Ute made some pottery, and Opler (1941) found -further evidence to support the claim. However, the production appears -largely limited to cooking vessels, and stone boiling was popular. -Stewart notes the occurrence of unfired figurines made for children. - - -Skin Preparation and Other Technology - -In skin preparation, the flesh was first removed with a serrated -scraper. For especially tough hides an adze-shaped scraper was used. -Hair was removed with a split bone, the skin then moistened, stretched -and smoked. According to Stewart this was done by the women. Some skins -were painted with designs. Gifford and Stewart both report the use of -skin shields. - -Before white contact, an informant told Mason, the Ute used juniper -bark and sagebrush fiber for blankets. Sinew was employed for thread, -while pine pitch and horn served for glue. Baskets made by coiling -were manufactured, as were twined mats. Important types were conical -gathering baskets, water bottles, flat trays and dippers. Willow was -the principal material used. - - -Dress - -The Ute used rabbitskin and deerskin blankets as well as those of -fiber. Men wore moccasins, a loincloth and some kind of garment for -the upper part of the body, and possibly leggings in the winter. Women -wore a type of skirt, moccasins, and possibly a shirt. Some Shoshones, -probably including the Ute, wore sandals. However, these would be -less suitable in rocky uplands than in mesa country. Various carrying -devices such as bags or blankets were used. Cradles of two types were -listed by Gifford. - -Barber (1876) notes the extensive use by both sexes of ornaments and -charm bags of red powder, possibly hematite. Gifford and Stewart both -mention the use of paints and list beads, feather decoration and bone -ornaments. Some people were tattooed and some had their ears pierced. - - -Games and Dances - -Lowie mentions one game played by the Ute. This is a hand game with -guessing sticks and counters. Douglas and Jeancon (1930) cite others -such as a hoop and stuffed ball game. Juggling games seem to have been -popular also. Stewart lists a number of additional games. There were -dances for both sexes accompanied by drums and notch-stick vibrators. -Other musical instruments used may have included rattles of deer -hooves, whistles, and possibly musical bows. - - -Social Organization - -Society was probably arranged in bilateral exogamus kin groups. -Inheritance may have been patrilineal. Marriage was a rather casual -arrangement, the ceremony simple. Immediate residence was patrilocal, -or at the father’s hut. Later, the couple built their own shelter. -There was some polygamy, Steward (1938) notes that society was -organized bilaterally in most places in the Intermontane Area. Relative -equality of the sexes resulted from their approximately equal economic -importance. If bison hunting and warfare tended to give northern -Shoshone and Ute men an advantage, no formal institutions had developed -to indicate it. Social organization was Neo-Hawaiian (Murdock, 1949) -according to Stewart’s kin term list. - - -Religion - -Some Ute recognized one especially powerful god represented by the sun, -and many lesser gods and spirits. Individuals attempted to win their -favor through magic. Myths and legends which featured these beings -were told at night around low camp fires, but only during the winter -according to Gifford. He also notes the naming of the sky as female, -the earth as male, while various constellations were also designated. -There was some development of the culture-hero idea in the person of -Coyote among the Uintah Ute. Various tales of how Coyote obtained fire -for man and helped him in other ways were related to Mason (1940). -Ceremonies or rituals were probably held in open places, most likely -in the form of dances. Medicine men or shamans were important figures. -They were learned in the myths, and practiced as healers, using charms -and herbs, some of which had true medicinal value. In addition the -shamans were skilled at setting bones. They may have gotten their power -from dreams or trances. During certain of what are termed life crises, -birth, puberty, marriage, death, there were taboo observances. Certain -foods were not eaten during pregnancy, while both Gifford and Stewart -mention a special hut where girls were secluded during the first menses. - -The Ute considered certain deeds to be “right or wrong” but there was -no formal set of laws or authority to support moral judgment. - - -Language - -The Ute language forms part of the Ute-Chemehuevi division, the -southernmost of three divisions constituting the Plateau Branch of the -Shoshonean stock of the Uto-Aztecan family. This northern orientation -of language agrees well with certain cultural traits. There is very -little structural resemblance with neighboring groups such as would be -of interest in cultural interpretation. The language is characterized -by an impression of phonetic softness rather than harshness; but of -vagueness and lack of distinctness. (See Kroeber, 1910; Sapir, 1931; -Stewart, 1957). - - -Disposal of the Dead - -The dead were usually buried in rock crevices or were cremated. -Supposedly their possessions were destroyed at this time, and their -name became taboo in common usage. - - -On the Ethnology of the Pawnee - -The Pawnee of Nebraska are commonly regarded as characteristic of the -semi-sedentary agricultural peoples of the Central Plains. However, -ethnographic material about them is surprisingly sparse. Because they -already had the horse by the late 17th century there is no record of -them in completely aboriginal conditions. The most complete work is -a monograph by J. B. Dunbar published in 1880, based on a series of -articles in the _Magazine of American History_. Besides this there are -the early accounts of the Lewis and Clark Expedition (see Grass, 1904) -and that of J. T. Irving (1835). More specialized works are those of G. -B. Grinnell (1912) and A. Lesser (1933). Subsequent studies are brief, -and for the most part oriented toward nineteenth century historical -events (e.g., Hyde, 1951). Wedel has included some information in his -works on Pawnee archaeology (1938) and Central Plains subsistence -(1941). Further brief articles may be found in the bibliography. - - -Subsistence Agriculture - -Maize played an important part in the economic life of the Pawnee. Most -of the infrequent tillage was done by hoes consisting of bison scapulae -lashed to bent or forked sticks. Hoeing was done only once or twice a -year. The small cultivated patches, ranging in size from one-fourth -to four acres, were usually located in the loose alluvium along creek -bottoms. In addition to corn, beans, squash and watermelon were grown. -All agricultural work was done by the women. They also gathered a large -number of tubers, plants, berries, and fruits to supplement the diet. -These included wild plum, huckleberry, chokecherry, sand cherry, wild -potato, ground-bean and others. - - -Hunting - -The products of the chase were also of great importance. The principal -animal sought was the bison. One or two large scale hunting trips were -organized yearly. The entire population of the earth lodge village -moved to designated hunting areas. In pre-horse times the main method -of hunting was the surround, although some hunters probably also worked -singly, as they did in later times. The only weapon regularly used was -the bow and arrow. The most important of these hunts was conducted in -the early summer and ended just in time to harvest the crops. - -Although the bison was the major subsistence animal, many other animals -were hunted, especially for skins. Elk, deer, and antelope were taken -by surrounds and “still hunting” or stalking. Beaver and otter were -snared for their pelts; bears, cougars, and skunks were valued for both -meat and hides. Prairie chickens and quails were hunted by boys with -long withes. - - -Food Preparation - -After the harvest, maize was cut from the cobs, boiled, roasted, or -dried, and stored in large bell-shaped pits. Other vegetable foods were -similarly treated. Meat was dried and/or smoked. - -Corn was often pulverized in a wooden mortar. It was then boiled, or -made into cakes cooked in the ashes or on hot flat stones. Fresh corn -was also parched or boiled as hominy. Corn, beans and squash, fresh or -dry, were prepared by boiling and seasoned with tallow. Fresh meat was -either cooked in the ashes, broiled, or boiled with vegetables. Dried -meat was eaten raw or boiled. Most of the cooking was done in large -pottery vessels manufactured locally. - - -Shelter - -During the winter the Pawnee inhabited large villages of stationary -earth covered lodges. These measured 40 feet in diameter and 16 feet -in height at the maximum. Such structures housed several related -families. They were constructed as follows: the topsoil was removed -and a framework erected. Inclined short poles were placed to form -walls. Poles set on the inner and outer framework circles came to a -blunt peak, forming the roof. Brush and willow were used for horizontal -filling. Finally, hay and sod were heaped over the structure. Entrance -was by means of a passage some 12 feet long. In the center was a fire -basin about three feet in diameter. The floor was hardened by trampling -and beating, and mats were spread over it. Sleeping places were near -the walls on slightly raised platforms of willow rods, and were often -partitioned off with skins or mats. - -Summer dwellings were tepees, 12-17 feet in diameter. Twelve to 20 -poles formed the framework, and the cover was of bison hide, with -openings for the entrance and smokehole. On the ground around the -central hearth were laid mats and hides. Sweat houses were used in all -seasons. These consisted of a frame of willow withes about six feet in -diameter, covered with skins. Heated stones were sprinkled with water -to produce steam. - - -Clothing - -The man’s costume was relatively simple, consisting primarily of -breechclout and moccasins, with an additional skin robe in cold -weather. For special occasions, the men wore elaborate shirts and -headdresses of eagle feathers. Women wore moccasins, tight skin -leggings, a skirt and a shirt suspended from the shoulders by thongs. -Women wore their hair braided; the men had a horn-like scalp-lock. -Paint was the main form of personal adornment. The types preferred were -ochre, red and white clay, and yellow coloring obtained from flowers of -a species _solidago_. These pigments were commonly mixed with bison fat -or water. - - -Technology - -There is very little descriptive material on the technology of the -Pawnee. The manufacture of most of the utilitarian objects devolved on -the women. Pottery was manufactured by the paddle and anvil technique. -According to Grinnell (1912) a wooden or basketry mold was sometimes -used for the base. Temper was of crushed rock. They wove mats of -rushes, baskets of bark, and ropes of buffalo hair. Wooden mortars, -pestles, bowls, dippers and spoons were shaped by burning and scraping. -Bison horn was also employed for spoons. A stiff grass (_Stipa funcea_) -was used for necklaces. Hide dressing and the making of clothing -occupied a considerable portion of their time. A needle of deer -metacarpal was used. Canoes were seldom made. - -The men confined their technological interests to weapons for hunting -and war. Bows were commonly four feet long and were made of “bois -d’arc” (_Maciura canadensis_), hickory, “coffee bean” (_Gymnocladus -canadensis_) and juniper. Formerly bison rib and elk-horn bows were -also in use. Sinew backing was common. Arrow shafts were usually of -dogwood (_Cornus stolonifera_). These had a series of three grooves -running their length, which were variously explained as helping the -flow of blood and keeping the arrow in the wound. These grooves were -made with a very small chisel-like instrument. No information is -available concerning flint working, but each tribe or large sub-group -made a distinctive type of projectile point. Much care was lavished on -this equipment and the accompanying skin quiver. Spears and rawhide -shields were also manufactured. - - -Trade - -Trade was not extensive among the Pawnee themselves, or between them -and neighboring tribes. However, this situation may be relatively -recent in origin, due to the hostilities arising from increased white -pressure. The main articles traded were “bois d’arc”, eagle feathers, -pipe stone, and corn. - - -Social and Political Organization - -The Pawnee were divided into four sub-tribes or bands. Each of these -consisted of a number of villages, and each village was also an -endogamous matrilineal clan. Authority was vested in a hereditary -chief and council of “leading men”. Band unity was maintained by large -scale religious ceremonies and meetings of band councils, composed of -the village chiefs. Similar mechanisms operated at a higher level to -achieve a loose tribal organization. - - -Religion - -The religious organization of the Pawnee was more highly developed and -more sophisticated than that of most of the other Plains tribes. At -the top of the supernatural pantheon was Tirawa, the creator. Below -him were two classes of spirits—those of the earth and those of the -heavens. The former were usually identified with animals and were the -guardians of the people as a whole; the latter represented natural -phenomena and were usually identified with stars. Foremost among these -were the Morning and Evening Stars, representing the male and female -principles, and parents of the first earth being. - -Ceremonial action centered around collections of sacred objects—medicine -bundles—which were believed to have been presented to the people in -ancient times by the “gods”. Ceremonies connected with these usually -involved a sacrifice or offering, or a ritual dramatization of the -mythical receipt of the bundle. The most famous of these ceremonies -was the annual sacrifice of a young girl to the Morning Star. Other -important ceremonies revolved around the ever important corn and -buffalo. - -Shamans were organized into a secret society and power was received -through instruction by an elder member. They were mediums and diviners -and officiated in ceremonies. Each owned an ornate medicine bundle -containing herbs and charms, such as fossil bones, etc. There were -also “medicine men” who specialized in healing. Sickness was believed -to be caused by intrusion of a foreign object or malign spirit, which -was removed by sucking and chanting. Various plants were utilized for -medicine, including _Artemisia bedoviciana_, _Acorus calamus_, _Monarda -fistulosa_, and _fructata_, _Mentha canadensia_ and _Argemona mexicana_. - -The Pawnee language is a branch of the Caddoan family of the -Hokan-Siouan stock. - - -DATING THE LoDaisKa REMAINS - -Willey and Phillips (1958) have pointed out the difficulty and -illogicality of attempting to date artifacts exclusively by their -affiliation. Of course, if distinct horizon-markers such as special -forms of pottery are present, perhaps the technique is warranted. -The remains at the LoDaisKa Site do not contain any such limited -horizon markers. Moreover, dating of much of the associated materials -in adjoining areas has, unfortunately, not progressed far enough to -establish chronological limits for any forms. Therefore, it was felt -that geological interpretation might be warranted. This was kindly -undertaken by Mr. C. B. Hunt whose report appears above. - -The pre-ceramic levels appear to correlate with the Piney Creek -alluvium (see Hunt, 1954) and deposits equivalent geologically with -the Tsegi Creek alluvium in the Southwest. Elsewhere, Hunt has stated -that the Piney Creek may date about 1-2 millenia B.C., but is possibly -older, (Hunt, 1955). The soil studies (this report) may indicate a -somewhat greater age. Hunt feels that the ceramic levels for the most -part correlate with a period of arroyo-cutting and washing that is -assumed to be later than 1 A.D. - -A series of samples for radiocarbon measurement was collected. These -were taken from various areas of the site, some in relatively dry -areas, others from more moist regions. Materials varied from seeds or -plant fragments to charcoal. It was felt that these different materials -would be helpful in indicating the effect of various factors in the C -14 method. The samples were then submitted to Dr. J. B. Griffin, of the -University of Michigan. He kindly accepted the series. The outcome of -the tests and those observations that accrue from the information will -be published as soon as the data are available. A report should be due -in a year. By this study it is hoped to establish fairly exact limits -for certain cultures in the area. In the interpretations of these dates -valuable evidence concerning cultural chronology and diffusion on the -Plains may be gained. - - -RECONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION - - -Culture Complex A - -The authors believe culture Complex A is related to what has been -termed the Fremont Culture of western Colorado and eastern Utah. -Complex A appears to manifest itself between the surface (the erosional -surface below a cow dung layer) and 44-48 inches below baseline. -Complex A and the Fremont culture have a number of similarities. -Foremost among these is pottery. All the plainware found is assignable -to this complex. Although the total number of sherds is not large, one -restorable vessel is represented. In shape, method of manufacture, -temper, paste, color, and firing, this specimen approximated -Wormington’s Turner Grey Variety II (Wormington, 1955). There are two -points of difference between this and classic Fremont ceramics. First, -it is a bowl, while most Fremont vessels are handled jugs. This is -offset by the possibility that a second large sherd does come from a -small pot or jug. Also Wormington (1955) and Taylor (1957) note the -presence of bowl-forms at their sites. Second, much Fremont pottery -is calcite tempered (Burgh and Scoggin, 1948; Wormington, 1955). -However, Gunnerson (1956) has recently shown that choice of temper for -the Fremont Culture is more a function of locality than of cultural -preference. - -A second correlation is found in the gaming pieces assignable to -Complex A. The three decorated pieces illustrated are almost duplicated -in some of Wormington’s illustrations and descriptions. Similar items -have had a long history in the Southwest (Morris and Burgh, 1954). - -Third, there is a similarity between class bb projectile points and -certain Fremont points, particularly at Castle Park (Lister, 1951). -Features include concavity of the edges, general narrowness, straight -short bases, and frequent serrations. One of the points of Complex A -is made on a curved flake, chipped only on one face. This is a rather -distinctive type occurring also in Fremont sites. Wormington (1955), -found some peculiar asymmetrical points like Fig. 27. She found no -evidence of utilization as knives which their shape suggests. - -The presence of dent corn, similar to that grown in Fremont localities -is significant in indicating similarities in the ecologic orientation -of the two groups. - -Other artifacts included in the levels of Complex A are: Leaf-shaped -and triangular knives, side, discoidal and serrated scrapers, expanding -base drills, perforators, prismatic flakes?, 1 graver, small ovoid -bifaces, utilized flakes, choppers/hammerstones, paint stones, -splinter, sliver and headed awls, rib or scapulae knives, antler -flakers, tubular beads, 1 tooth ornament, leather fragments, 1 wood -arrow shaft, handstones and grinding slabs. End scrapers, perforators, -prismatic flakes, small ovoid bifaces, sliver awls, perhaps antler -flakers, and the tooth ornament are either extremely uncommon or absent -at Fremont sites. These artifacts may be associated with culture -Complex B. None are confined to the interval between the surface and -44-48 inches below baseline. Evidently they were present before the -occupation of the site by people of Complex A. - -A word of caution is in order. Relatively speaking there are few -artifact types assignable to Complex A. Pottery is especially scarce. -However, projectile points of the type believed to be associated with -it make up at least 40 percent of the total in the 44″-surface levels. -We have tentatively identified it with the Fremont Culture on the basis -of the evidence above. However, since so many distinctive traits of -this culture are in the realms of architecture and perishable goods, we -are necessarily dealing with a partial inventory. Without such features -we can suggest but cannot prove. - -One item of interest is the evidence that the Fremont people did reach -eastern Colorado or at least trade with people of that area. A rather -spectacular headband found in Castle Park (Burgh and Scoggin, 1948), -was made from the feathers of a yellow flicker (_Colaptes anratus -luteus_) which occurs only east of the mountains. - - -Cultural Reconstruction - -Since Complex A largely overlapped B, cultural reconstruction will -have to be considered in the light of evidence from sites affiliated -with it. This reconstruction will be based however, on evidence from -LoDaisKa. - -The economic life of the people probably revolved mainly about -hunting and gathering. Animals hunted included birds, prairie dog, -chipmunk, bighorn sheep, bison, and above all deer. The large -number of projectile points attests to the importance of hunting. -Gathering placed an emphasis on plum, acorn, and grass seeds such as -_Muhlenbergia_. Corn also appears to have been grown. Characteristics -of preservation have precluded the possibility of determining its -importance in the diet of the people. One bone of the genus Canis was -found. This may represent coyote or dog. Wormington (1955) found a bone -of genus Canis which also could have been from a domestic dog. Since -dogs were known in the Southwest from Basketmaker times, this is not an -impossibility (Kidder and Guernsey, 1931). Pieces of leather suggest -that this was used for clothing. There were also beads attesting to -ornamentation. Necklaces and elaborate dress were characteristic of the -Fremont people, as revealed by petroglyphs and various discoveries of -clothing. - -Amusement, or at least recreation, is indicated by the presence of -gaming pieces. Considering the care used in making one of these objects -they must have been fairly important in the cultural pattern. Great -Basin people were often inveterate gamblers (Steward, 1940). Wormington -(1955) has recorded a Cheyenne woman’s description of a game played -with bone gaming pieces. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 74—LOCATION OF PRINCIPAL SITES AND LOCALITIES -REFERRED TO IN THE TEXT.] - -People of this complex appear to have been rather skilled in stone -working. Chipped projectile points are usually executed with care, -often achieving slender finely flaked forms. It is interesting to note -that stone scrapers were apparently little used by Fremont people. -Perhaps hides were prepared in other ways. Baskets were undoubtedly -made and were probably important. The awls found can attest either -to sewing or basket-making; the long slender awls would have been -especially suited for the latter. Tubular beads were made by a process -widespread in the West: incising and splitting. Pottery was roughly -made and fairly thick, but not more so than some of Wormington’s -(average thickness 5 mm.). Pottery of this rougher type is widespread -in northern Fremont locales. - -Concerning the possible socio-political situation some conjecture can -be recorded. First, as Wormington (1955) pointed out, using data from -Murdock (1949), “hunting is normally a male activity and it seems -probable that agricultural pursuits were left to the women, and the -corn plots may have belonged to them. The inheritance of corn plots by -women may have served to unite nuclear families into extended families -with matrilineal descent and matri-local residence. However, emphasis -on hunting and possible warfare would tend to enhance the status of -men and descent may have been bilateral or patrilineal.” For Complex A -the latter would be especially important if the absence of quantities -of pottery indicates less emphasis on agriculture and more on hunting. -Certainly, however, the wild foods at both the LoDaisKa Site and in -Castle Park show the continued importance of gathering activities -usually associated with women. - - -Culture Complex B - -The culture complex represented between roughly 24 and 53 inches -below baseline appears to be a manifestation of the Woodland Culture, -Orleans Aspect. The authors excavated several single component sites of -this manifestation in the area (Irwin and Irwin, n.d.). The following -artifacts, occurring in these sites and also in this depth range at -LoDaisKa, appear characteristic of the culture: cordmarked pottery, -corner-notched projectile points similar to those in Fig. 75, end -scrapers, drills, small ovoid knives, spoke-shaves, awls (splinter -or extremely small sliver types), large hafted “knives.” Large -projectile types could have been used with a spear-thrower. There are -also tubular beads, small stone triangles (possibly gaming pieces), -1 shaft-smoother, handstones and milling slabs. One decayed corn cob -was found at 53-57 inches and may belong to the Woodland levels at -LoDaisKa. This was a popcorn (see above). Dent corn has been found at -other Woodland sites in the Morrison area (Irwin and Irwin, n.d.). -Especially characteristic of this occupation was the pottery, small -ovoid knives, and sliver awls. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 75—Artifacts from single component Woodland sites -in the Morrison area. Actual size.] - -Establishing a closer affiliation is more difficult. In essence, much -of the material resembles that of Ash Hollow focus established in -Western Nebraska and Northern Colorado (Kivett, 1952a; Irwin and Irwin, -1957). Specifically, pottery of Class I is similar in composition, cord -application, thickness, rim styles, and absence of decoration. However, -Class II has several features reminiscent of the Keith focus pottery -(Kivett, 1952b) being a thicker ware with a more granular structure. -However, the Harlan cord-roughened pottery, assigned by Kivett to the -Keith focus, is calcite tempered and has no diagonal cord-marking. -Kivett has pointed out that clastics may have been used in areas where -calcite does not occur, or more desirable temper is at hand. The -absence of side-notched points in Woodland levels at LoDaisKa contrasts -with Ash Hollow focus sites where 30% are usually of this variety. -This constitutes another similarity to Keith focus sites, such as the -Woodruff Ossuary, where such forms do not occur. Class III pottery is -not present in Plains Woodland sites. It may be a local variation since -it is similar to II in all but cord application. - -In connection with this complex, there is a C 14 date for Keith -materials of 611 ± 240 A.D. (Wedel and Kivett, 1956). For Ash Hollow -Cave tree ring estimates (Champe, 1946) place occupation at 1000-1150 -A.D. However, a carbon sample from Woodland materials in the Denver -area yielded a date of 800 ± 150 A.D. (Hunt, 1954). Ash Hollow Focus -materials appear to share traits with both Valley (Hill and Kivett, -1940, Kivett 1952a, 1952b and Keith Foci). The authors feel the -manifestation at Morrison is basically similar to Ash Hollow but with a -few more traits in common with the Keith Focus. - - -Cultural Reconstruction - -The economic life of the people of culture Complex B probably revolved -around hunting, limited agriculture, and gathering of specific foods, -mainly plums and acorns. Foods were ground on milling slabs with -handstones and perhaps, as with the Pawnee, were cooked in pots, or -made into cakes fried on a hot slab. Agriculture is indicated by -remains of corn at LoDaisKa and at nearby sites of the same culture. -In the more classic manifestations of Plains Woodland Culture evidence -is slim. Squash remains occurred at Sterns Creek (Strong, 1935) -and popcorn at the Lawson Site (Kivett, 1952a). Wedel (1934) felt -corn could not grow west of the 99th meridian in prehistoric times. -For the Upper Republican Culture an example of corn was found in -northern Colorado by the authors, (1957). In the Morrison area several -occurrences were noted (see above) in connection with the Woodland -Culture. - -Animals hunted were mainly deer and bison, with smaller animals such -as prairie dogs, gophers and birds also represented. Perhaps the -importance of bison at the site is misrepresented because in dealing -with such large animals it is possible that only the meat was brought -into camp (for an example of this see Clark, 1952). - -Clothing was probably of skin. Numerous scrapers attest to the -importance of hide dressing. Tubular beads and a tooth pendant provide -evidence of interest in self-ornamentation. Paint stones may have -served for pigment. Mixed with grease this could have been used for -bodily decoration, though ethnologic parallels suggest other objects -were also painted (see above). - -A considerable amount of skill in stone working must have been -necessary to produce the small delicate projectile points, presumably -used with arrows. Some much larger points suggest a continued -dependence on the spear or spear-thrower. Drills may have been used to -manufacture ornaments or perform more utilitarian functions. Pottery -was durable and primarily utilitarian. Variation in pattern was -practically non-existent, but the fineness of cord-marking shows some -noticeable difference. Bone awls were mostly of the splinter type and -rather poorly made. Perhaps baskets were made, but these may not have -been too important. Awls could have been used in their manufacture or -for sewing. - -Concerning the socio-political organization, some inferences can be -made. A possible sketch of the “way of life” can be found by examining -Pawnee culture as outlined above. Cultivation may have been in small -patches worked by women. Hoeing and weeding were probably spasmodic. -In view of the absence of bell-shaped storage pits or other such -facilities, we can probably infer that crop supplies were consumed in -a few seasonal feasts in the characteristic Basin style rather than -stored in the Plains manner to conserve for future needs. Despite -this, corn plots must have anchored the population to some extent. The -presence of pottery suggests a more or less settled way of life. Plains -social structure tended to be patrilocal, though there were exceptions. -A greater emphasis on hunting, such as was apparently present at -LoDaisKa, would increase the chance of such a development. - -Despite the fact that the site was fairly small, there is a good deal -of evidence of Plains Woodland Culture in the area, and we can assume -some kind of inter-component interaction. - - -Complex C - -Cultural Complex C occurs primarily between the depths of 50 to 72 -inches below baseline. The definition is based on the occurrence of -a cluster of traits similar to those found in a previously defined -unmixed culture. A certain amount of the apparent overlap is due to -the telescoped nature of the stratigraphy, which aggravates the effects -of trampling and other disturbances. It is not possible on the basis -of the available evidence to determine the relationship of Complex C -to those traits which are not consistent with the culture. They may -represent traits adopted by the C people, or they could be remains of -intermittent occupation by other groups, (see above). - -The closest affiliation of Complex C is to the lower level of the -McKean Site, (Mulloy, 1954a), Signal Butte I, and related sites. The -most significant typological similarities occur in the projectile point -categories. The most numerous type at the site is the shouldered, -concave based point, (24 examples), designated “Duncan” by Wheeler -(1952). “Duncan” points are very common at the McKean Site. Somewhat -less well represented at the LoDaisKa are the McKean lanceolate -types. Though the general similarity to the McKean type material is -undeniable, certain differences occur uniformly. Most noticeable is -the discrepancy in size, McKean specimens being consistently larger. -The largest LoDaisKa examples approximate the smaller or medium-sized -McKean points. The small LoDaisKa points are completely out of the -range of McKean specimens, but certain of them do resemble types from -Signal Butte I, (Strong, 1935). Such differences and similarities may -reflect distance and local stylistic variation, functions of the points -in different economies, or perhaps chronological difference. - -A second trait which was found to be useful in defining Complex C -is the end scraper. Though common at all depths above 72 inches, it -is almost completely absent below and aids in segregation of the -complexes, especially C and D. Many such scrapers were found at McKean -and Signal Butte. - -The third important trait of technological as well as typological -significance is the striking of prismatic flakes, presumably from -prepared cores. As in the case of projectile points, most of the -examples are smaller than those which occur at McKean. On the other -hand, they appear to be more regular with a greater percentage that -have trapezoidal sections and roughly parallel sides. Some of these -have been worked and utilized as gravers, cutting edges, and possibly -scrapers. In this respect they approach, though do not equal, the -classic northern prismatic flake assemblages. For example, they -approximate the lower part of the size range and the slightly rougher -section of the material from Anangula Island, (Laughlin and Marsh, -1954). - -The vertical distribution of stone-filled hearths is not confined to -the limits of Complex C. However, those features may be related to -those at McKean where they are large and well-defined. Grinding stones -were also important at both sites. - -[Illustration: FIGURE 76—Projectile points from Signal Butte -illustrated for comparison. A-C. Signal Butte I, presumably IA. D-F, -flake points, presumably IC. A-D, drawn from photostats courtesy of R. -Forbis, E-F by R. G. Forbis.] - -Relations with Signal Butte I are most evident in the projectile point -category, especially in the size average. A communication received -from R. G. Forbis, to whom we are deeply indebted, indicates that the -modal weight of the Signal Butte McKean points is about .56 that of -those at the McKean Site. Further, the collections from Signal Butte -contain three flake points. One striking example of a flake point in -the shape of a “Duncan” was found at LoDaisKa, (Fig. 15, type A). -Other flake points of varying form (listed as xx) occur in Complex C -levels. Some of these are not dissimilar to that of Signal Butte I, but -Dr. Forbis feels that these may belong to a later phase than the McKean -points. The main differences lie in the relative scarcity or perhaps -absence of straight stemmed or “Duncan” types at Signal Butte I[9], -and the occurrence of flared stemmed varieties or “Hanna” points. The -former are numerous at LoDaisKa, the latter absent. There is a good -possibility that Signal Butte I should be divided into two or three -phases, with McKean points earliest, (Bliss, 1950b, and R. G. Forbis, -personal communication). - -[9] American Journal of Science, Vol. 257, No. 1, Jan. ’59, p. 21 -“Lamont Natural Radiocarbon Measurements V.” Dates are now available -for Signal Butte, Ia: L 385 B, 4550±220 years and Signal Butte Ic: L -385 D, 4170±250 years. However, they may suggest that there is little -time lapse between the cultures of Signal Butte I. - -Relations to other known sites may also be noted. Not only the stemmed -and lanceolate points, but side-notched and certain corner-notched -types are found in Deadman Cave, Stansbury Island, and Danger Cave -(Smith, 1952; Jameson, 1958; Jennings, 1957). The total range, however, -differs considerably. There is also some similarity to materials of the -earlier levels of Birdshead Cave, (Bliss, 1950a). - -The stemmed “Duncan” types have rather wide morphological similarities. -As far away as Texas, middle levels of certain sites yield similar -materials (Pearce, 1932, pp. 46-47). Pedernales points of the Edwards -Plateau Aspect are roughly comparable (Suhm, Krieger, Jelks, 1954, p. -468; Kelley, 1947, 1959). At the other extreme, Thomas Kehoe (1955) -reports finding “Duncan-like” points at the Billy Big Springs Site -in Montana. Lister (1953) has suggested that a generalized form of -indented-based, stemmed point is a horizon marker in the West and -Southwest. - -A large number of the artifacts that occur with the above are of -little diagnostic value. However, some of them are probably associated -culturally and formed part of the total artifact inventory. These -include: leaf-shaped and triangular knives, end and side scrapers, and -discoidal and serrated forms, one expanding base drill, perforators, -a few small ovoid bifaces, utilized flakes, chopper/hammerstones, one -bone ornament, paint stones, headed and splintered awls, used bone -splinters, one bone knife, and one wood shaft. - - -Cultural Reconstruction - -The economy of the people of Complex C was probably oriented toward -a combination of hunting and gathering. The former is evidenced by -the presence of animal bones and the frequency of projectile points. -The mule deer, _Odocoileus hemionus_, which represented nearly 75% -of the faunal remains, appears to have been the animal most hunted. -The projectile points are considered to have been used in connection -with atlatls. Stalking and snaring were probably prevalent methods, -although a surround or drive might have been practical in certain -seasons when the animals gathered into larger herds. The small number -of bison bones indicate that bison were also occasionally hunted. There -is a surprising lack of bones of small game, these being even less -numerous than in Complex D. Other animals included an undetermined -carnivore and some bird bones. - -Numerous milling stones and hand stones as well as plant remains -attest to the continued importance of vegetable products in the diet. -The plants utilized include acorns, sedges, wild plums, chenopods and -_Umbellifereae_. Wads of moss may have been used for padding etc. - -There is no information on any structures. Probably none were used -since the overhang provided rather good shelter. Large stone-filled -hearths may have been used for large scale roasting, as Mulloy (1954a) -hypothesized for the McKean Site. - -Technologically the Complex C occupants possessed sufficient skill to -adapt to the environment with little evidence of elaboration. Clothing -was probably scant except for cold weather, and was possibly of skins. -In stone work, projectile points were functional, and made rather -roughly with little pressure retouch. A proliferation of scraping -tools and utilized flakes was probably a by-product of the emphasis on -hunting, and suggests that many skins were prepared. A certain amount -of technological “know-how” was required to manufacture the relatively -fine prismatic flakes. In bone work the commonest tools were awls made -on a splinter of bone worked only on the functional end. One bone -appears to have been used for flint flaking. - -Despite the apparent emphasis on utility there is a certain amount of -evidence on the aesthetic side. The people had beads for adornment, -made of sections of bird bone. Fragments of hematite and limonite -indicate that they also practiced painting of some sort, perhaps on -their bodies and tools or hides. - -The occurrence of pieces of worked mica may have some magico-religious -significance. Similar specimens were found in Danger Cave (Jennings, -1957) and the pieces may indicate Great Basin affiliation. However, -the greatest concentration of these is between 50 and 72 inches. These -might have been used as charms, or have been part of shamanistic -paraphernalia. Other inferences drawn from ethnology would suggest the -importance of beliefs connected with hunting. - -There is no direct evidence of a socio-political nature. The size of -the site and the type economy represented indicate a small semi-nomadic -group. The possible overlap in cultural groups suggests either -intermittent occupations alternating between groups of different -cultural complexes, or the close proximity and strong influence -of such groups. In the field of social organization, many modern -hunting-gathering groups exhibit bilateral kin organization. On the -other hand the especial importance of large game would render the men’s -position of greater consequence, and the affiliation of the material -culture is oriented toward the Plains where patrilineal organization is -rather common. - - -Complex D - -The authors believe that the culture (Complex D) represented at -LoDaisKa from 55 inches below baseline to the top of the late Wisconsin -Alluvium (erosional surface), is a manifestation of the Desert Culture -as described by Jennings (Jennings and Norbeck, 1955; Jennings, -1957). This exists in its purest form below 72 inches but there is a -persistence of some forms during the beginning of Complex C. Certain -types characteristic of the complex continue above 55 inches; they -occur, however, in diminishing quantities. There are two possible -reasons for this: 1) that the shelter continued to be occupied by -people of this affiliation; 2) that the materials worked up by the -process of re-use or trampling and mixing of the floor. There is -ethnological evidence that different tribes recognized each other’s -projectile points and often collected them (Brew, 1946). To avoid -confusion we shall treat this culture as it is manifested in its purest -form below 72 inches. Where specific shift or other phenomenon does -occur between 72-55 inches, it will be noted. - -Traits characteristic of this complex are the following: projectile -points of various forms, (to be discussed below), triangular knives, -especially the second type described above, a few flake knives, side, -discoidal, serrated, and a very few end scrapers, Uncompahgre scrapers, -drills, perforators, utilized flakes, chopper/hammerstones, paint -stones, splinter awls, awls with heads (especially some very large -forms), a notched rib, used bone splinters, antler flakers, gaming -pieces (undecorated), tubular beads, a tooth pendant, worked mica, -wood shafts (large), a limestone pendant, one quartz crystal and one -clay ball. Other artifacts found in the level include a few prismatic -flakes perhaps fortuitous or intrusive, and above 60 inches a few small -projectile points that are, by any criterion (e.g. Fenenga 1953), -arrowheads. Typologically these show the greatest resemblance to forms -found in Level 3 in Hells Midden (Lister, 1951). However, since there -appear to be no allied traits they are felt to be intrusive. At least -they provide no proof of the presence of this culture. - -We will discuss cultural affinities in terms of projectile points -with an eye to establishing possible lines of cultural influence from -various geographical areas. We do not suggest that in most cases more -than an idea was transmitted. - -The Desert Cultures represent, according to Jennings, a “life way”, -a specific economic approach to living in a certain environment. -Though the Morrison biome differs in some respects from that of the -classic “Desert Cultures”, the nature of the problems faced and the -kinds of cultural response invoked are remarkably similar. Typological -similarities to Danger Cave materials include a high degree of -correspondence between class D projectile points and Jennings’ category -W31. This form is also found at Medicine Rock Cave, Oregon (Cressman, -1956, Fig. 41) and Kawumkan Springs Midden (type 7a, _Ibid._). It -was also present at Deadman Cave, (Smith, 1952) and at Wormington -and Lister’s (1956) Uncompahgre sites (Fig. 42 ff). Hurst (1944, -1945) named points of this type Tabeguache points. Points of a rather -similar form occur in Ventana Cave in the Chiricahua-Amagosa II level -(Haury, 1950) as a minor type, and become more common in the San Pedro -materials. - -Below we shall compare the LoDaisKa materials of this complex to three -archaeological manifestations, since cultural ties seem to be closest -with these. These are: Ventana Cave, Danger Cave, and sites of the -Uncompahgre Complex, especially the Taylor Site. Reference will be made -to other areas for specific items. - -The similarities between type D projectile points and class W31 at -Danger Cave have already been noted. Other similar forms include Class -E forms and W25, 26. Class J may or may not be identified with W18 -and W19; since large corner-notched forms are widespread they may not -have enough distinctive features to be of value in site correlation. -They are also present at Deadman Cave. There are five points (Class G) -very similar to W38 (distribution Levels DIII-V at Danger Cave). If W8 -and W10 are connected with McKean lanceolate and Duncan forms this is -a good correlation point with the overlapping Complex C at LoDaisKa. -There is a similarity between W16 and Class C, and W22 resembles Class -I forms. - -The only important projectile point category of Danger Cave Levels -DIII-IV which is lacking at LoDaisKa is the series W28, 29, 30, -corner-notched forms with deep basal notches. - -In other tool types there is an amazing similarity between the -triangular knives of Type I rather characteristic of Complex D at -LoDaisKa and Jennings’ W48 and especially W52. Since one of those at -LoDaisKa is obsidian, it is conceivable that it was traded from Utah -or the surrounding area. At both Danger Cave and LoDaisKa the relative -scarcity of end scrapers is noticeable. Other shared traits include -flake knives, straight drills, a few gravers, the possible foreshaft -from LoDaisKa, splinter awls and “headed” awls (it is interesting to -note that DIV types were less well made than LoDaisKa or DIII types). -One-hand manos and slab milling stones are found at both localities. -However, the peculiar four-plane type does not occur at Danger Cave. -Abrading stones, present at Danger Cave, are not found in Complex D. It -is of interest to note that both sites contained worked mica, ochre and -paint pigments. Nothing is known concerning basketry at LoDaisKa. - -There are numerous similarities between the projectile points of -Ventana Cave and those of LoDaisKa. Type H resembles Haury’s expanding -stemmed, round tanged, convex based form. These are distributed -vertically throughout the levels of both Ventana and LoDaisKa, but -are almost entirely absent at Danger Cave. Points of Class C very -closely resemble Haury’s expanding stemmed sharp tanged convex based -or straight based types. These are the second most numerous type as -low as level VI at Ventana. There are some points with oblique tangs -that may be related to Class I or J. However, the best marker is Class -C2. The first point figured in the group is identical with points of -the class loosely termed Pinto Basin. Both this and the second two -can be duplicated in Ventana Cave, or at the San Jose Site (Bryan and -Toulouse, 1943). Nearer to LoDaisKa, Renaud (1942, 1946) has found -similar points in the Upper Rio Grande. - -In both LoDaisKa Complex D and Ventana Levels II-III there are -triangular, convex-edged blades, side and discoidal scrapers. End -scrapers, especially snub-nosed forms are comparatively rare at both -sites. There are drills and/or perforators, including what we have -termed gravers, choppers, and utilized flakes. Hematite appears -together with quartz crystals. Awls are found: both headed and splinter -forms are represented. At both sites the former are the most numerous -type during the interval under discussion. At LoDaisKa there was no -category of “sawed” awls as at Ventana. Rib scrapers or knives are -also an interesting feature. There are in addition, tubular beads of -bird and mammal bone, and antler flakers. One additional and notable -similarity is to be found in handstones. These are all of the one -hand variety. Due to a peculiarity of usage, a median line developed -creating four grinding planes. This was probably caused in rocking the -mano when pushing it forward and then back. Occasionally a specimen is -noted where the user had rotated it 90° when reversing it, creating -median lines on opposite faces perpendicular to each other. As Haury -(1950) pointed out, this phenomenon is a special feature of the Cochise -Culture. It occurs at Ventana Cave and in the LoDaisKa Site. Both flat -slab milling stones and those with slight basins are found. - -A third comparison can be made with the nearby Uncompahgre Complex -(Wormington and Lister, 1956). Similarities to Danger Cave, sites -of the Middle Horizon of the Plains and to the Cochise Culture are -reflected in the Uncompahgre Complex, as summarized by the authors. -Certain forms of projectile points, especially the type called -Tabeguache by Hurst, are found in the Taylor Site in levels 4, 8, and -10. Another similar form is the round based, round barbed type (Class -II), also found in Ventana Cave. There are certain small points from -these levels, possibly arrowheads, which bear resemblance to projectile -points of levels 1-3 at the Taylor Site, and forms of Level 2 at Hells -Midden. - -Generally asymmetrical large ovoid bifaces or knives are common in the -Uncompahgre Complex, as they are here. The stemmed drills, straight -drills, gravers, and perforators of the general class that we have -called awls, are common in both the Uncompahgre and Complex D. There -are other similarities in serrated scrapers, and the rarity of end -scrapers. A triangular notched pendant found at LoDaisKa is probably -analogous to certain flat pieces of soft stone that were used as -ornaments on the Plateau. The four-planed manos noted above are also -found here. An interesting artifact, the Uncompahgre scraper, was first -described by Wormington and Lister in their report. Such pieces also -occur at LoDaisKa. Whether they occur elsewhere is not known, since -it is possible they were present in other areas but have not been -recognized. At the Taylor Site there were storage pits as at LoDaisKa. -One notable discrepancy is the lack of awls with heads at sites of the -Uncompahgre Complex. - -Before closing this discussion, we should take note of a possible -broader relationship of Complex D, that is within the continent-wide -framework of an Archaic horizon. While we have limited specific -correlation to Desert cultures, other similarities do exist in total -tool assemblage and specific point types with a number of Eastern -Archaic sites, such as Modoc Rock Shelter (Fowler, 1959). Jennings -(1957) has admirably summarized the relations of manifestations of the -Desert cultures with sites of the Eastern Archaic, and further inquiry -should be made in this direction. Perhaps when Archaic sites between -LoDaisKa and the Mississippi are discovered, a gradual blending of -Eastern Archaic-Desert Culture will be noted. A recent publication -for Oklahoma by R. Bell (1958) gives hope in this regard. Since corn -was present at Bat Cave (Dick, 1952), a site with certain Chiricahua -Cochise affinities, it is not unreasonable to assume corn diffused to -LoDaisKa from New Mexico or Arizona. - - -Cultural Reconstruction - -There can be little doubt that the people of Complex D led a life -similar to that described by Jennings for the Desert Cultures. The -term “Desert” is a little misleading, since the Morrison Biome is not -in any sense of the word a desert. However, the vegetation is of the -Sonoran type, a type with great variation characterized by fairly low -rainfall, scrubby bushes and few trees. The proximity of the mountain -forest biome supporting deer and other large animals, probably led the -people to greater dependence on these at the expense of small game. -This hypothesis is supported by the faunal charts. The multitude of -grinding stones, and the presence of edible floral remains attest to -the continued importance of gathering. Another factor is present, -for floral remains and the pollen record indicate the presence of -maize in early times at LoDaisKa. At another site in southwestern -New Mexico, Bat Cave (Dick, n.d.) was recorded one of the earliest -occurrences of maize in North America. At Bat Cave preservation was -better than at LoDaisKa and a more complete record was found. There -is a clear resemblance between certain projectile points of Bat Cave -(e.g. Datil points) and Chiricahua and Ventana forms, and those of -LoDaisKa mentioned above. Perhaps maize was grown by the people of -Ventana Cave also. It remains to be seen, however, how much difference -the cultivation of small amounts of corn made in social and economic -life. We are inclined to agree with Willey and Phillips (1958), who -suggest that it was indeed little. In their hunting and gathering -activities these people must have lived a life very similar to that -of the Ute, outlined above. For theoretical considerations, the light -shed on prehistoric life by these primitive cultures of the historic -period cannot be overemphasized. The characters are different, but all -the evidence suggests that the play was much the same with only minor -variations. - -Cists from Complex D suggest that seeds and perhaps corn were stored. -Fire areas are sometimes large and deep. Perhaps these were traditional -cooking areas. The many rocks scattered in the pits suggest that -stone boiling or baking was practiced, and flat slabs may have been -used for cooking cakes. Food was ground on basin or flat metates with -one-hand manos. Lowie (1924) cites ethnological evidence for the use -of different kinds of grinding stones for different foods in the Great -Basin cultures. Perhaps a similar custom gave rise to the peculiar -four-plane and ordinary type manos in equal proportions at LoDaisKa. -Hunting methods included the use of the atlatl, or spear-thrower, and -possibly, though no evidence is at hand, snares. Perhaps the use of -bolas is recorded by the clay ball described above. Long bone awls -suggest that basketry was important. - -In technology the people had rather well formed projectile points. The -flaking technique employed was probably largely percussion supplemented -by pressure. In general, tools were smaller than those from other sites -that exhibit typological parallels. This could have been partly due -to ecologic conditions or perhaps to a scarcity of stone. Wide use -of rough quartz and metamorphic rock suggest that the latter factor -was operative. Obsidian was obtained through trade or visits to other -areas. For sources of obsidian, one must look either to the vulcanism -of northern Wyoming, Southwestern Colorado, New Mexico or Utah. Peoples -occupying other sites of this time period also appear to have engaged -in trade (see Jennings, 1957; Haury, 1950). - -Bone was widely used for scraping, cutting and piercing. The exact -method of cutting bone is not known; but there are gravers and utilized -flakes that could have been used. - -Ornaments suggest that interest in self adornment was not lacking. -Hematite and ochre indicate that there was some use of paints and -pigments. A piece of chlorite was found that, if ground and mixed with -grease, could have made a spectacular kind of paint. Worked mica again -may have had ornamental or ceremonial uses. - -In the magico-religious field, one can probably infer some of the -religious practices of the Basin hunters and gatherers, from those of -the recent Ute. An interesting feature is the occurrence of a rather -large, well formed, smokey colored quartz crystal. Perhaps as Haury -suggested (1950), such crystals were picked up for beauty, but another -possibility is that they were a part of a shaman’s paraphernalia. -Certain California and Louisiana Archaic sites contain many of these, -and they are assumed to have had some sort of magico-religious -function. It would be surprising not to find at least a part time -shaman in such a culture, although regalia such as sucking tubes are -lacking. - -Conjectures concerning social organization can be briefly set forth. -It is probable that the people had a more or less bilateral form of -kinship. As Murdock (1949) and others have noted, where economic -division of labor is nearly even, a more or less bilateral organization -tends to develop, with at most only mild matri-or patrilineality. From -ethnologic parallels for Basin peoples this seems plausible. But use -of ethnological evidence for single traits at this chronological level -is extra-hazardous. What effect the little agriculture practised had -is a moot question. As we have pointed out concerning the people of -Complex A, small plots of corn would have required at least semi-annual -gatherings, and would have temporarily placed the society on a -relatively stable footing. Possibly the proceeds of a harvest were -used for a gala feast or ceremony. However, the presence of cache pits -suggests that something at least was stored. - -Two oblong pieces of bone which appear to have been gaming pieces -suggest that gambling existed as a form of recreation. Certainly, -as Steward (1940) has noted, gaming was a constant feature of Basin -cultures. - - -Other Remains - -Just within sands and gravels attributed by Hunt to Late or -Post-Wisconsin outwash, one fragmentary point and a few flakes were -found. Some charcoal, ash and burned bone occurred at the same level, -extending in a lens about 2 inches lower. The point appears to the -authors to be the basal section of what might be called morphologically -a Plainview point (Krieger, in Sellards, Evans and Meade, 1947). -Flaking was parallel. Another parallel-flaked point of a similar type -was found higher up in the fill, and was undoubtedly a re-used piece -(see Fig. 25). Both points are of quartzite, and both have ground -edges. Five of the associated flakes were of a flinty material, 2 of -grainy quartzite. - -These artifacts probably represent a culture of the early Lithic Stage -in the area, and are perhaps the earliest evidence of its occupation. -The fill was so sparse, however, that no further evidence could be -obtained. - - -DISCUSSION - - -Traditions at LoDaisKa - -Willey and Phillips (1958) have stated that traditions are culture -elements extending over long periods of time and often transgressing -various culture boundaries present in an area. Traditions are not -horizon-markers but may serve to unify a given series of occupations in -a locality (e.g. painted pottery is a tradition in the Southwest.) - -At LoDaisKa there are few such distinctive elements that transgress -cultural periods other than rather common functional tools such as -scrapers, but these few may be worth noting. One of these concerns a -special type of handstone with four working planes as described above. -These are present from complex A through D. Another tradition concerns -the use of local stone. In general finer flinty types were used for -knives, gravers and some types of scrapers, while grainy quartzite was -most often used for projectile points. Distance from sources probably -influenced the use of flinty types. The nearest quarry area appears -to be about fifteen miles away; beds of quartzite are found somewhat -closer. It is probable that access to both supplies led the people to -use flinty type where a good cutting edge was important, but grainy -varieties for tipping weapons. The grainy structure of quartzite makes -it break less cleanly on the edges but renders it less likely to snap -on sudden impact. - -Another tradition lies in the use of small points. Many of the -projectile point forms may be identical in general characteristics with -points from other areas which are apparently culturally connected, but -they are consistently a little smaller. Perhaps such a phenomenon was a -by-product of the scarcity of material. In this connection one should -note that in all the cultures common native rock quartz was almost -invariably employed for large chopping tools. Another point of interest -is the almost total absence of cores. Raw material when found was -usually in the form of large flat flakes. The initial roughing out must -have taken place at the source. - -Another tradition is the use of mica for “ornaments” extending from -Complex B through D. A tradition for the area was the cultivation from -early times of a certain amount of corn, as revealed by pollen analysis -and a few specimens of seeds or cobs. However, the type of corn used -was not the same throughout. Three major varieties were present. - -There are two explanations for these local traditions: either a -tradition was handed down from one cultural group to another through -long periods of time, or the peculiar ecological position of the -Morrison biome dictated such a course. Probably the answer lies in -the combination of these; certainly for stone use the environment was -an important factor, but for the handstone type, the environmental -explanation does not seem entirely adequate. - - -The Site in a Larger Context - -Placed in a larger context, the sequence at LoDaisKa seems to reflect -the interaction of geographical, cultural and environmental factors. -Their relation poses a series of interesting questions. - -The region is located geographically on the fringe between two -well-known culture areas, the Great Basin and the Plains. At the same -time, it is environmentally distinct from either, combining some -characteristics of each, while preserving its own sub-montane biome. -These factors determine the essentially marginal character of the area. -For the same reasons, it should be especially sensitive to the forces -of cultural dynamics and to changes in environment. - -The sequence at the LoDaisKa Site reflects this situation. The shifting -orientation of the cultures represented alternates between the Plains -and Basin. This shifting may be an essentially cultural phenomenon, -possibly reflecting events in the nuclear culture areas. Alternatively, -there may be evidence of climatic fluctuation at the site, and -environmental change could have been an important factor. - -It remains a question whether this was, at least briefly, a contact -area for Plains and Basin cultures. From the available material it -is not possible to determine whether groups of divergent affiliation -ever inhabited the area synchronously. The considerable overlapping of -the culture units seems to point in this direction; but, as indicated -above, this phenomenon may be partially due to the telescoping of the -stratigraphy. This plus certain traditional continuums provide possible -evidence of the influence of these groups on each other. - -Further research may provide answers for some of these questions. -Accurate dating by Carbon 14 will of course be invaluable in setting -the LoDaisKa sequence in proper relation to known Recent developments -in the West. Continued paleobotanical and geological study will help -clarify the chronological and environmental situation. Investigation of -single component sites in the area should provide a concrete regional -sequence and supply more data on the kind of cultural phenomena -represented here. - -This suggests a few of the problems to be solved and indicates the -great amount of research which remains to be done. - - - - -BIBLIOGRAPHY - - - ANDERSON, E. - 1948 Racial Identity of the Corn from Castle Park. - _In_ Burgh and Scoggin, - the Archaeology of Castle Park Dinosaur National Monument. - Univ. of Colorado Series in Anthropology, No. 2. - Boulder. - 1954 Personal communication in Wormington. - A Reappraisal of the Fremont Culture. - Denver Museum of Natural History Proceedings, No. 1. - Denver. - - ANTEVS, E. - 1955 Geologic-climatic Dating in the West. - American Antiquity, Vol. 20, No. 4, Part 1, pp. 3, 17, 35. - Salt Lake City. - - BARBER, E. A. - 1876 Language and Utensils of the Utes. - Bulletin, U. S. Geologic and Geographic Survey of - the Territories. Vol. 11, No. 3. Washington. - - BARGHOORN, E. S., M. K. WOLFE, and K. H. CLISBY - 1954 Fossil Maize from the Valley of Mexico. - Bot. Mus. Leaflet Harvard Univ. 16, pp. 229-264. Cambridge. - - BEALS, R. - 1935 Ethnology of the Rocky Mountain National Park, - the Ute and Arapaho. National Park Service, - Berkeley. - - BELL, R. E. - 1958 Guide to the Identification of Certain - American Indian Projectile Points. - Oklahoma Anthropological Society, Special Bulletin No. 1. - Oklahoma City. - - BLISS, WESLEY - 1950a Birdshead Cave, a Stratified Site in Wind River Basin, - Wyoming. American Antiquity, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 187-96. - Menasha. - 1950b Early and Late Lithic Horizons in the Plains - Anthropological Papers. - University of Utah, No. 11, Salt Lake City. - - BREW, J. O. - 1946 Archaeology of Alkalai Ridge, Southwestern Utah. - Peabody Museum Papers, Vol. XXI. Cambridge. - - BROECKER, W. S. and J. L. KULP - 1956 The Radio Carbon Method of Age Determination. - American Antiquity, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 1-11. - Salt Lake City. - - BRYAN, K., and J. TOULOUSE - 1943 The San Jose Non-Ceramic Culture and its Relation - to a Puebloan Culture in New Mexico. - American Antiquity, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 269-80. - Menasha. - - BURGH, R. and C. SCOGGIN - 1948 Archaeology of Castle Park, Dinosaur National Monument, - University of Colorado Series in Anthropology, No. 2. - Boulder. - - CARTER, G. - 1945 Plant Geography and Culture History in the American Southwest, - Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, No. 5. - New York. - - CARY, MERRIT - 1911 Biological Survey of Colorado. Biological Survey Bureau, - North American Fauna. - Washington. - - CHAMBERLAIN, R. V. - 1911 The Ethnobotany of the Gosiute Indians. - American Anthropologist. Memoir 2, Part 5. - Menasha. - - CHAMPE, J. - 1946 Ash Hollow Cave, A Study of Stratigraphic Sequence - in the Central Plains. - University of Nebraska Studies, No. 1. - Lincoln. - - CLARK, J. D. C. - 1952 Star Carr, A Mesolithic Site. - Cambridge University Press. - Cambridge. - - 1957 Archaeology and Society, Harvard University Press. - Cambridge. - - COON, C. S. - 1950 A Reader in General Anthropology. New York. - - CRESSMAN, L. S. - 1942 Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin. - Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication No. 538. - Washington. - 1956 Klamath Prehistory. - Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, - New Series, Vol. 46, Part 4. - Philadelphia. - - DANIELS, H. S. - 1941 The Ute Indians of Southwestern Colorado. - Durango Public Library Museum. - Durango. - - DAUGHERTY, R. D. - 1956 Early Man in the Columbia Intermontane Province. - University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 24. - Salt Lake City. - - DAVIS, E. M. - 1956 Archaeological Survey of the Big Sandy Reservoir Area, - Southwestern Wyoming. Notebook No. 2, - Laboratory of Anthropology, - University of Nebraska. - Lincoln. - - DICK, H. W. - n.d. Archaeology of Bat Cave. Ph.D. Dissertation, - Harvard University (manuscript). (Cambridge.) - - 1952 Evidences of Early Man in Bat Cave and on the - Plains of San Augustine, New Mexico. - _In_ Selected Papers of the 29th International - Congress of Americanists, pp. 158-63. - Chicago. - - DOUGLAS, F. H. and J. JEANCON - 1930 The Ute Indians. Leaflet No. 10, - Denver Art Museum. - Denver. - - DUNBAR, J. B. - 1880 The Pawnee Indians, Their History and Ethnography. - Magazine of American History, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 241-281. - - FENENGA, F. - 1953 The Weights of Chipped Stone Points: - A Clue to Their Functions. - Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, - Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 309-323. - Albuquerque. - - FENNEMAN, N. M. - 1931 Physiography of Western United States. - McGraw-Hill. New York. - - FLINT, R. F. - - 1957 Glacial Geology of the Pleistocene Epoch. - Wiley and Sons. New York. - - FORBES, LITTON - 1882 Les Utes du Colorado. - Bulletin de La Societé D’ anthropologie (L.C.) de Paris. - Tome cinquieme, troisieme serié. - Paris. - - FORBIS, R. G. - 1959 Personal communication. - - FORBIS, R. G., and J. SPERRY - 1952. An Early Man Site in Montana. - American Antiquity, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 127-33. - Salt Lake City. - - FOWLER, MELVIN L. - 1959 Modoc Rock Shelter: An Early Archaic Site in Southern Illinois. - American Antiquity, Vol. XXIV, No. 3, pp. 257-270. - - GALINAT, W. C. - 1958 Maize Genetics Cooperation—News Letter, No. 32 - for March 15, 1958. - - GIFFORD, E. W. - 1940 Apache-Pueblo, Culture Element Distribution IV, - Anthropological Records. Berkeley. - - GILMORE, M. R. - 1913 The Aboriginal Geography of the Nebraska Country. - Mississippi Historical Association, Vol. 6, pp. 317-31. - 1919 Uses of Plants by the Indians of the Missouri-River Region. - 33rd Annual Report, Bureau of American Ethnology. - Washington. - - GRASS, P. - 1904 Grass’s Journal of the Lewis and Clarke Expedition - (reported from the 1811 edition. J. K. Hosmer, ed.) - A. C. McClury and Co. Chicago. - - GRIFFIN, J. B. - 1953 Archaeology of the Eastern United States. - University of Chicago Press. Chicago. - - GRINNELL, G. B. - 1912 Pawnee Hero Stories and Folk Tales. New York. - - GUNNERSON, J. - 1954 Fremont Ceramics. _In_ Papers of the Third - Great Basin Archaeological Conference. - Utah University Anthropological Papers, No. 22. - Salt Lake City. - 1956 Plains-Promontory Relationships. - American Antiquity, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 69-72. - Salt Lake City. - - HARRINGTON, H. D. - 1954 Manual of the Plants of Colorado. Sage Books. - Denver. - - HAURY, E. W. - 1950 The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Ventana Cave, Arizona. - University of Arizona, University of New Mexico Presses. - Tucson and Albuquerque. - - HEIZER, H. F. - 1958 Guide to Archaeological Field Methods. - Third Revised Edition, National Press. - Palo Alto. - - HEWES, GORDON W. - 1952 California Flicker-Quill Headbands in the Light - of an Ancient Colorado Cave Specimen. - American Antiquity, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 147-54. - Salt Lake City. - - HILL, A. T. and M. F. KIVETT - 1940 Woodland-like Manifestations in Nebraska. - Nebraska History, Vol. XXI, No. 3, pp. 146-243. - - HUNT, C. B. - 1954 Pleistocene and Recent Deposits in the Denver Area. - Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin, 996-C. - Washington. - - 1955 Geology of the Taylor Site. - _In_ Wormington and Lister, 1956, _op. cit._ - - HURST, C. T. - 1944 Excavation in Cave II, Tabeguache Canyon, - Montrose County, Colorado, 1943. - Southwestern Lore, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 2-14, - Gunnison. - 1945 Completion of Excavation of Tabeguache Cave No. II. - Southwestern Lore, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 7-12. - Gunnison. - - HURST, C. T., and E. ANDERSON - 1949 A Corn Cache from Western Colorado. - Am. Antiq., Vol. XIV, No. 3, pp. 161-167. - - HYDE, G. E. - 1951 Pawnee Indians. University of Denver Press. - Denver. - - IRVING, J. T. - 1835 Indian Sketches, - Taken During an Expedition to the Pawnee Tribes. - Carey, Lea and Blanchard. - Philadelphia. - - IRWIN, C., and H. IRWIN - 1957 Archaeology of the Agate Bluff Area. - Plains Anthropologist, No. 8. Lincoln. - n.d. Woodland Cultures of the Denver Area. - - JAMES, E. - 1932 The Archaeology of East Texas. - American Anthropologist, N. S., Vol. 34, pp. 607-687. - Menasha. - - JAMESON, SYDNEY J. S. - 1958 Archaeological Notes on Stansbury Island. - University of Utah Press. - Salt Lake City. - - JENNINGS, J. D. - 1957 Danger Cave. - Memoirs of the Society for American Antiquity, No. 14. - Salt Lake City. - - JENNINGS, J. D. and E. NORBECK - 1955 Great Basin Prehistory: A Review. - American Antiquity, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 1-11. - Salt Lake City. - - KEHOE, T. - 1955 (Billy Big Springs Site). - _In_ Museum Notes and News, - Museum of the Plains Indian. - Browning. - - KELLEY, J. C. - 1947 The Cultural Affiliations and Chronologic Position - of the Clear Fork Focus. - American Antiquity, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 97-109. - Menasha. - - 1959 The Desert Cultures and the Balcones Phase: - Archaic Manifestations in the Southwest and Texas. - American Antiquity, Vol. XXIV, No. 3. - Salt Lake City. - - KELLEY, J. C., T. N. CAMPBELL, and D. J. LEHMER - 1940 The Association of Archaeological Material with - Geological Deposits in the Big Bend Region of Texas. - Bulletin Sul Ross Teachers College. Vol. XXI, No. 3. - Alpine. - - KIDDER, A. V. - 1932 The Artifacts of Pecos. R. S. Peabody Foundation Papers, - Yale University Press. - New Haven. - - KIDDER, A. V., and S. J. GUERNSEY - 1931 Archaeological Exploration in Northeastern Arizona. - Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 65. - Washington. - - KIVETT, M. F. - 1952a Woodland Sites in Nebraska. - Nebraska State Historical Society Publications - in Anthropology, No. 1. - Lincoln. - - 1952b The Woodruff Ossuary, - a Prehistoric Burial Site in Phillips County, Kansas. - River Basin Survey Papers, No. 3 - Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Bulletin 154. - Washington. - - KLUCKHOHN, C. K. - 1939 The Place of Theory in Anthropological Studies. - Philosophy of Science, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 328-344. - - KRIEGER, A. D. - 1944 The Typological Concept. American Antiquity, - Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 271-88. - Menasha. - - KROEBER, A. L. - 1910 Notes on the Ute Language. - American Anthropologist, N. S., Vol. X. pp. 74-87. - Lancaster. - - 1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. - University of California Publications - in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 38. - Berkeley. - - 1953 (ed.) Anthropology Today: an Encyclopedic Inventory. - - LAUGHLIN, W. S. and GORDON H. MARSH - 1954 The Lamellar Flake Manufacturing Site on Anangula Island, - in the Aleutians. - American Antiquity, Vol. XX, No. 1, pp. 27-39. - Salt Lake City. - - LESSER, A. - 1933 The Pawnee Ghost Dance. Hand Game. - Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, - No. XVI, pp. 1-337. - New York. - - LINTON, RALPH - 1922a The Thunder Ceremony of the Pawnee. - Field Museum Papers, Leaflet No. 5. - Chicago. - 1922b The Sacrifice of the Morning Star by the Skidh Pawnee. - Field Museum Papers, Leaflet No. 6. - Chicago. - - LISTER, R. H. - 1951 Excavations at Hells Midden, Dinosaur National Monument. - University of Colorado Studies, Series in Anthropology, No. 3. - Boulder. - - 1953. The Stemmed Indented Base Point, a Possible Horizon Marker. - American Antiquity, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 264-5. - Salt Lake City. - - LOUD, L. L. and M. R. HARRINGTON - 1929 Lovelock Cave. - University of California Publications in American - Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 25. - Berkeley. - - LOWIE, R. H. - 1924 Notes on Shoshonean Ethnography. - Anthropological Papers of the American Museum - of Natural History. Vol. XX, Part II. - New York. - - MacWHITE, EOIN - 1956 On the Interpretation of Archaeological Evidence - in Historical and Sociologist Terms. - American Anthropologist, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 2-26. - Menasha. - - MALOUF, CARLING - 1940 Prehistoric Exchange in the Northern Periphery - of the Southwest. - American Antiquity, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 115-122. - Salt Lake City. - - MANGELSDORF, P. C. and R. G. REEVES - 1939 The origin of Indian Corn and its relatives. - Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 574. - - MANGELSDORF, P. C. and C. E. SMITH, JR. - 1949 New Archaeological Evidence on Evolution in Maize. - Bot. Mus. Leaflet. Harvard University 13: 213 247. - Cambridge. - - MANGELSDORF, P. C. and R. H. LISTER - 1956 Archaeological Evidence on the Evolution of Maize - in Northwestern Mexico. - Bot. Mus. Leaflet, Harvard University 17: 151 178. - Cambridge. - - MANGELSDORF, P. C. - 1959 Personal Communication. - - MARTIN, P. J. B., E. BLOEHM, HUGH C. CUTLER, R. GRANGE, JR. - 1952 Mogollon Cultural Continuity and Change: - The Stratigraphic Analysis of Tularosa and Cordova Caves. - Fieldiana: Anthropology, Vol. 40. - Chicago Natural History Museum. - Chicago. - - MASON, J. A. - 1940 Myths of the Uintah Utes. - Journal of American Folklore, Vol. XXIII, No. LXXXIX. - - MORRIS, E. and R. BURGH - 1954 Basketmaker II Sites Near Durango, Colorado. - Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 604. - Washington. - - MORSS, NOEL - 1931 The Ancient Culture of the Fremont River in Utah. - Peabody Museum Papers, Vol. 12, No. 3. - Cambridge. - - MULLOY, W. - 1952 The Northern Plains. - _In_ Archaeology of the Eastern United States. - Edited by J. B. Griffin, pp. 124-380. - Chicago. - - 1954a The McKean Site in Northeastern Wyoming. - Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 10, - No. 4, pp. 432-460. - Albuquerque. - - 1954b Archaeological Investigations in the Shoshone Basin, - University of Wyoming Publications, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 1-70. - Laramie. - - MURDOCK, G. P. - 1949 Social Structure. Macmillin, New York. - - NICKERSON, N. H. - 1953 Variation in Corn Cob Morphology Among Certain - Archaeological and Ethnological Races of Maize. - Ann. Missouri Bot. Garden, No. 40, pp. 79-111. - St. Louis. - - 1954 Personal Communication in Wormington, - A Reappraisal of the Fremont Culture. - Denver Museum of Natural History Proceedings, No. 1. - Denver. - - OPLER, M. K. - 1939 Southern Ute Pottery Types. - The Master Key, Vol. XIII, No. 1, pp. 161-63. - Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. - - 1941 The Southern Utes of Colorado. In Linton, R. (ed.), - Acculturation in Seven American Indian Tribes, pp. 119-203. - New York. - - PALMER, E. G. - 1866-1877 The Utah Utes, ed. by R. Heizer. - Utah University Anthropological Papers, No. 17. - Salt Lake City. - - PEARCE, J. E. - 1932 The Present Status of Texas Archeology. - Bull. of the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society, - Vol. 4, pp. 44-54. - Austin. - - POWELL, J. W. - 1875 Exploration of the Colorado River. - Smithsonian Institution, - Washington. - - RENAUD, E. B. - 1931 Archaeological Survey of Eastern Colorado. - University of Denver. - Denver. - 1932 Archaeological Survey of Eastern Colorado, Second Report. - University of Denver. - Denver. - 1942 Reconnaissance in the Upper Rio Grande Valley, - Colorado and Northern New Mexico. - University of Denver Archaeological Series, No. 3. - Denver. - 1946 Archaeology of the Upper Rio Grande Basin in - Southern Colorado and Northern New Mexico. - University of Denver, Archaeological Series, No. 5. - Denver. - - ROCKWELL, WILSON - 1956 The Utes—A Forgotten People. Sage Books. - Denver. - - SAPIR, E. - 1931 Southern Paiute. American Academy of Arts and Sciences. - Boston. - - SAYLES, E. B. and E. ANTEVS - 1941 The Cochise Culture. Medallion Papers, No. 29, - Gila Pueblo, Globe. - - SCHROEDER, A. H. - 1953 Statement on the Early History and Archaeology of - the Gunnison River Basin. - Southwestern Lore, Vol. XIX. No. 3, pp. 3-11. - Boulder. - - SELLARDS, E. H., GLEN L. EVANS and GRAYSON MEADE - 1947 Fossil Bison and Associated Artifacts from - Plainview, Texas, with Description of Artifacts by - Alex D. Krieger. - Bulletin Geological Society of America, Vol. 58, pp. 927-954. - - SHAPIRO, MEYER - 1954 Styles. _In_ Kroeber, 1953, _op. cit._ - - SMITH, E. R. - 1952 Archaeology of Deadman Cave; A Revision. - University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 10. - Salt Lake City. - - STEWARD, J. H. - 1937 Ancient Caves of the Great Salt Lake Region. - Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 116. - Washington. - 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Socio-political Groups. - Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 120. - Washington. - 1940 Native Cultures of the Intermontane (Great Basin) - Area. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, - Vol. 100, pp. 445-503. - Washington. - - STEWART, O. C. - 1942 Ute—Southern Paiute, Culture Element Distribution, VI - Anthropological Records. - Berkeley. - - 1957 Shoshonean Indians. The Encyclopedia Americana, pp. 754-55. - New York. - - STRONG, W. D. - 1935 An Introduction to Nebraska Archaeology, - Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 93, No. 10. - Washington. - - SUHM, D. A., A. D. KRIEGER and E. B. JELKS - 1954 An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archaeology. - Bulletin Texas Archaeological Society, Vol. 25. - Austin. - - TAYLOR, D. C. - 1957 Two Fremont Sites and Their Position in - Southwestern Prehistory. - Utah University Anthropological Papers, No. 29, - Salt Lake City. - - TAYLOR, W. W. - 1943 A Study of Archaeology. - American Anthropological Association Memoir No. 69. - Menasha. - - TRAIN, P., J. R. HENRICKS, W. A. ARCHER - 1941 Medicinal Uses of Plants. Bureau of Plant Industry, - U. S. Department of Agriculture. - Washington. - - UNDERHILL, RUTH M. - 1953 Red Man’s America. University of Chicago Press. - Chicago. 1958 Personal Communication. - - VESTAL, P. A. - 1940 Notes on a Collection of Plants from the Hopi - Indian Region of Arizona. - Botanical Leaflets, Harvard University, Vol. 8, No. 8. - Cambridge. - - VESTAL, P. A. - 1952 Ethnobotany of the Ramah Navajo. - Peabody Museum Papers, Vol. 40, No. 4. - Cambridge. - - WARREN, E. R. - 1942 Mammals of Colorado. - Kansas University Publications. - - WEDEL, W. R. - 1934 Contributions to the Archaeology of the - Upper Republican Valley, Nebraska. - Nebraska Historical Magazine, Vol. XV, pp. 132-290. - Lincoln. - - 1938 The Direct-Historical Approach in Pawnee Archaeology. - Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 97, No. 3, - Washington. - - 1941 Environment and Native Subsistence Ecology - in the Central Great Plains. - Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 101, No. 3. - Washington. - - WEDEL, W. R. and M. F. KIVETT - 1956 Additional Data on the Woodruff Ossuary, Kansas. - American Antiquity. Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 414-416. - Salt Lake City. - - WELLHAUSEN, E. S., L. M. ROBERTS and E. HERNANDEZ X. - in collaboration with P. C. MANGELSDORF. - 1952 Races of Maize in Mexico. - The Bussey Institution of Harvard University. - Cambridge. - - WHEELER, R. P. - 1952. A Note on the “McKean” Lanceolate Point. - Plains Archaeological Conference News Letter, - Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 45-50. - Lincoln. - - 1957 Duncan and Hanna Points. - Plains Anthropologist, No. 1, pp. 7-14. - Lincoln. - - WHITING, A. F. - 1939 Ethnobotany of the Hopi. - Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin No. 15. - Flagstaff. - - WILLEY G. R. and PHILLIP PHILLIPS - 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. - University of Chicago Press. - Chicago. - - WORMINGTON, H. M. - 1955 A Reappraisal of the Fremont Culture. - Proceedings, No. 1, Denver Museum of Natural History. - Denver. - 1957 Ancient Man in North America. Fourth Revised Edition. - Popular Series, No. 4, - Denver Museum of Natural History. - Denver. - - WORMINGTON, H. M. and R. H. LISTER - 1956 Archaeological Investigations on the Uncompahgre - Plateau in West Central Colorado. - Proceedings No. 2, Denver Museum of Natural History. - Denver. - - ZINGG, H. M. - 1939 The Ute Indians in Historical Relation to - Proto-Azteco-Tanoan Culture. - University of Denver Contributions to Ethnography, No. 2. - Denver. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EXCAVATIONS AT THE LODAISKA -SITE IN THE DENVER, COLORADO AREA *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |