Number 1 Three Fremont Sites in Emery County, Utah by David B. Madsen. .... (University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology), Lori ...... portion of the Northwest Quarter of Section 1, Township 4 South, Range 1 ...... 1998 Carcass Corners (42WN1975): A Late Archaic Site in Wayne County, Utah.
CUMULATIVE INDEX Antiquities Section Selected Papers Number 1 Three Fremont Sites in Emery County, Utah by David B. Madsen. Volume I, Page 1. Number 2 Innocents Ridge and the San Rafael Fremont by Alan R. Schroedl and Patrick F. Hogan with an appendix by La Mar W. Lindsay. Volume I, Page 29. Number 3 An Archeological Survey of the Northeast Portion of Arches National Park by Michael S. Berry. Volume I, Page 67. Number 4 An Archeological Reconnaissance of the White River Area, Northeastern Utah by Michael S. Berry and Claudia F. Berry with illustrations by La Mar W. Lindsay. Volume II, Page 1. Number 5 Man, Mammoth, and Lake Fluctuations in Utah by David B. Madsen, Donald R. Currey, James H. Madsen, Jr. Volume II, Page 43. Number 6 Bulldozer Dune (42SL46) by David B. Madsen. Volume II, Page 59. Number 7 Interstate Highway 1-70 Salvage Archeology by Curtis J. Wilson and Howard L. Smith with ceramic analyses by John Fritz and Christine Plimpton. Volume II, Page 67. Number 8 Unusual or Enigmatic Stone Artifacts: Pots, Pipes, Points, and Pendants From Utah by La Mar W. Lindsay. Volume II, Page 104. Number 9 Archeological Survey of The Bluff Bench/San Juan River and White Mesa Areas, San Juan County, Utah 1973-1974 by Richard E. Fike and La Mar W. Lindsay. Volume III, Page 1. Number 10 Pint-Size Shelter by La Mar W. Lindsay and Christian K. Lund with appendices by La Mar W. Lindsay and Donald R. Currey. Volume III, Page 25. Number 11 Archeological Investigations in the Maze District Canyonlands National Park, Utah edited by William A. Lucius with contributions by Patrick Hogan, Leonard Losee, and William A. Lucius. Volume III, Page 75. Number 12 Backhoe Village by David B. Madsen and La Mar W. Lindsay with appendices by Jan Andrews and Joseph C. Winter. Volume IV, Page 1. Number 13 An Archeological Survey of the Upper White Canyon Area, Southeastern Utah by Philip M. Hobler and Audrey E. Hobler with an appendix by Polly Schaafsma. Volume V, Page 1. Number 14 Prehistory of the Deep Creek Mountain Area by La Mar W. Lindsay and Kay Sargent. Volume VI, Page 1.
CUMULATIVE INDEX Antiquities Section Selected Papers Number 15 Trace Element Analysis of Obsidian Sources and Artifacts from Western Utah by Fred W. Nelson and Richard D. Holmes. Volume VI, Page 65. Number 16 Fremont Perspectives edited by David B. Madsen. Volume VII, Page 1. Number 17 Archaeological Investigations at the Prison Site (42SL186) by Andrew T. Yentsch, Ronald J. Rood, Kevin T. Jones, and Lindsay A. Fenner with appendices by Kathleen Nicoll, Richard E. Hughes, Linda Scott Cummings and Chad Yost. Volume VIII, Page 1.
©Copyright 2009 Antiquities Section Utah Division of State History
Editor’s Preface This volume is the eighth in a monograph series designed to examine and interpret the prehistoric cultures of Utah. The Antiquities Section Selected Papers (ASSP) monograph series was created in 1975 by then State Archaeologist David Madsen. The series was begun with three goals: 1) to provide a vehicle for the publication of research carried out by the Antiquities Section; 2) to provide an outlet for archeological reports which do not have a general distribution (i.e., investigations done in conjunction with environmental impact statements); and 3) to allow publication of valuable manuscripts now on file and republication of articles now out of print and unavailable (David B. Madsen, June 1975. Editor’s Preface to Antiquities Section Selected Paper Volume 1). We are pleased to revive the series, after some twenty-nine years of dormancy. With the advent of digital publishing, we are now able to make manuscripts available at a fraction of the cost and effort of producing printed copies. All volumes of the ASSP will now be published digitally. Volumes I – VII are now available digitally as well, on the Division of State History website. Manuscripts from all sources, including state and federal agencies, educational institutions, and private individuals, will be accepted for examination and possible publication. Submitted articles will be reviewed by the Antiquities Section staff or other qualified reviewers in the case off ancillary reports. Papers will be published on an irregular basis, depending on the number and quality of reports on file. Kevin T. Jones, with help from David B. Madsen
Archaeological Investigations At The Prison Site (42SL186)
By: Andrew T. Yentsch Ronald J. Rood Kevin T. Jones Lindsay A. Fenner
Antiquities Section Utah Division of State History
With Appendices by: Kathleen Nicoll Richard E. Hughes Linda Scott Cummings and Chad Yost
ANTIQUITIES SECTION SELECTED PAPERS Number 17
PREFACE Archaeological site 42SL186, also known as the Prison Site, is an Archaic-age site located in the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley, north of the Utah State Prison and Point of the Mountain. It was discovered and recorded by Sagebrush Archaeological Consultants in 1991 during a cultural resources survey for the West Valley Highway II (Bangerter) project. During construction of the highway, excavated waste materials were deposited on the southern third of the site, adversely affecting the site. A cooperative agreement between the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and the Antiquities Section of the Utah Division of State History was reached in 1999 in which several state agencies involved in the management of the site provided funding for the Antiquities Section to conduct investigations at the site to determine the nature of the deposits that had been affected. The Antiquities Section of the Utah Division of State History conducted limited testing excavations on this site from March to October 2007. The data recovery and analyses for the site were centered on the acquisition of data related to chronology, subsistence, seasonality, and mobility of the prehistoric inhabitants of the Salt Lake Valley. These excavations resulted in the discovery of three buried cultural features (two habitation structures and a roasting pit), a possible activity area, and the recovery of nearly 30,000 prehistoric artifacts. Radiocarbon estimates and diagnostic artifacts indicate occupations that began sometime before 3,000 years ago and continued to roughly 1,600 years ago. The presence of a prehistoric structure in the Salt Lake Valley, regardless of age, is a significant discovery in itself as archaeological sites in the valley are rare. The dates obtained from cultural features, the wide range of artifact types and sourcing data, as well as the intriguing pollen and macrofloral evidence further enhances the importance of this site to the prehistory of the region.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We first of all want to thank former Utah State Senator Mont Evans for his vision and efforts to protect and preserve the bluffs and wetlands along the Jordan River where the Prison Site lies. We also thank the Utah Department of Transportation, the Utah Department of Corrections, the Utah Department of Community and Economic Development, and the Utah Department of Administrative Services for taking action to support limited mitigation after the unfortunate dumping of waste material on the site during construction of the Bangerter Highway. Raylene Ireland, Executive Director of the Utah Department of Administrative Services and David Winder, Executive Director of the Department of Community and Economic Development were particularly effective and supportive. This project benefitted from significant support from the Utah Department of Community and Culture and the Division of State History, particularly Yvette Diaz, Palmer DePaulis, Ally Isom, Phil Notarianni, and Wilson Martin. Of course, nothing would have been accomplished without the assistance of our colleagues in the Antiquities Section, and our small army of volunteers. Thanks go out to Renae Weder, Kristen Jensen, Arie Leeflang, Matt Seddon, and Rob Ware of Antiquities. Thanks also to Shannon Arnold Boomgarden from the Anthropology Department at the University of Utah for the GIS and mapping expertise during the initial phases of the project. We also thank Rachelle Green, Jamie Clark, Chris Filimoehala, Reilly Jensen, Brenda Hill, Brent Larsen, Amy Spurling, and Lindsey Kester from the Anthropology Department at the University of Utah for their efforts in both mapping and excavation. We especially thank Duncan Metcalfe of the University Of Utah Department Of Anthropology for allowing us the use of equipment and man power, as well as many informal discussions on our findings. Kathleen Nicoll from the Geography Department at the University of Utah provided the on-site geological and geomorphological analysis at this site. Other students who volunteered their time on this site include Victoria Gardner (Brigham Young University), Jessica Blaz (University of Arizona), Dee Stevens (Willowcreek H.S. History teacher), Wendy DeMan (Skyline H.S.), Nick Jones (East H.S.), Jaden Stewart (Woods Cross H.S.), Abram Sorenson (Wasatch Junior High School), Felicia Prevo (South Kearns Elementary School), and Alexis Hill (Age 10). We also thank the following industry professionals for their time and effort during our excavations: Joel Boomgarden (SITLA), Sonia Hutmacher (AMEC, Inc.), Phoebe Eskenazi (University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology), Lori Hunsaker (PLPCO), and Ken Mears (M2 Laser Technologies). Neil West, Joanne West, Roy MacPherson, Doug Campbell, Megan Van Frank, Annie Sager, and Marty Thomas from the Salt Lake Chapter of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society (USAS), and Andrea Barraclough also helped us greatly with their time and effort. As part of our public outreach, we conducted a field school to introduce young minds to the science of archaeology. Participants in the field school included fourth and fifth grade students from schools throughout the Salt Lake Valley. Mariah Van Maren, Casey Koldewyn, i
Jennifer Kyle, Alyson Kyle, Mitch Carlisle, Ian Foster, Stewart Foster, Simi Kaur, Komal Kaur, Patrick McAtee, and Jace Isom not only learned field methods, but also added a significant amount of data. Pollen and macrofloral analyses by Linda Scott Cummings and her associates at the Paleo Research Lab provided substantive information about the types of vegetal resources utilized by the prehistoric inhabitants of 42SL186. Dr. Richard E. Hughes of the Geochemical Research Laboratory performed the obsidian sourcing analyses. Without the assistance from the aforementioned individuals, none of this would have been possible. And although it seems inadequate, THANK YOU TO YOU ALL!!
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ 1 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 2 LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................................................................................... 6 HISTORIC OVERVIEW.............................................................................................................. 11 Paleoindian ............................................................................................................................... 12 Archaic...................................................................................................................................... 12 Fremont..................................................................................................................................... 13 Late Prehistory.......................................................................................................................... 14 Historic ..................................................................................................................................... 16 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ............................................................................................................. 16 NEARBY SITES .......................................................................................................................... 18 NATIONAL REGISTER EVALUATION................................................................................... 19 METHODS ................................................................................................................................... 20 TESTING AND EXCAVATION ................................................................................................. 24 Testing Methodology ................................................................................................................ 24 Trenches.............................................................................................................................. 24 Excavation units.................................................................................................................. 28 Sediment Descriptions ........................................................................................................ 37 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 39 Housepit .................................................................................................................................... 41 Possible Housepit...................................................................................................................... 49 Roasting Pit............................................................................................................................... 50 Activity/Use Area ..................................................................................................................... 55 ARTIFACTS................................................................................................................................. 55 ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................... 56 Ceramic Artifacts ...................................................................................................................... 56 Lithic Artifacts .......................................................................................................................... 57 Flaked Stone Tools .............................................................................................................. 58 Unifaces .......................................................................................................................... 59 Bifaces............................................................................................................................. 61 Drills ............................................................................................................................... 66 Projectile Points.............................................................................................................. 66 Cores ............................................................................................................................... 71 Debitage.......................................................................................................................... 71 Groundstone....................................................................................................................... 74 Miscellaneous Objects ....................................................................................................... 76 Fire-Cracked Rock (FCR).................................................................................................. 76 Bone Artifacts ........................................................................................................................... 78 Worked Bone ....................................................................................................................... 78 Awls................................................................................................................................. 78 Needles............................................................................................................................ 79 Flaker.............................................................................................................................. 79 Incised Bone.................................................................................................................... 79 1
Non-Worked Bone ............................................................................................................... 81 F-15 AREA ................................................................................................................................... 88 RADIOMETRIC DATES............................................................................................................. 92 OBSIDIAN SOURCING .............................................................................................................. 93 FLORAL REMAINS AND RESIDUE ANALYSIS.................................................................. 100 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................... 102 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 113 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31.
Map showing the general location of the project area.................................................. 7 Map showing the location of the project area .............................................................. 8 Map showing the original site boundary ...................................................................... 9 Topographic map generated from Total Station mapping portion of the project....... 21 Topographic map showing the location of the Feature Areas.................................... 23 Map showing the locations of the backhoe trenches .................................................. 27 Profile view of the west wall of Feature 3.................................................................. 28 Excavated units in the Feature 5 Area........................................................................ 29 Profile view of the north wall of grid unit N 766 E 604 in the F-5 Area ................... 30 Excavated units in the Feature 7 Area........................................................................ 31 Profile view of the east wall of grid unit N 1004 E 1000 in the F-7 Area ................. 32 Plan view of the F-15 Area block excavation ............................................................ 33 Plan view of the northern block excavation unit in the F-16 Area............................. 34 Plan view of northern block unit showing the location of backhoe trench number 5 ……………………………………………………………………………….......... 35 Plan view of the southern block excavation unit in the F-16 Area ............................ 36 Profile view of west wall of grid unit N 738 E 655 in the F-16 Area ........................ 37 Map showing the locations of all sub-surface cultural features identified during this project ...................................................................................................................... 39 Profile of the east wall of backhoe trench number 4, showing the F-25 staining ...... 41 View of F-25 after excavation was completed ........................................................... 42 Plan view map of Feature 25 ...................................................................................... 43 FCR concentration (F-29) located at floor contact within the central portion of F-25 .................................................................................................................................. 44 Second FCR concentration (F-30) identified within F-25.......................................... 45 Groundstone and artiodactyl bones found lying at the fill/floor contact (F-32) within Feature 25................................................................................................................. 46 Shallow, basin-shaped central hearth (F-33) identified within Feature 25 ................ 47 Cross-section views of the Feature 25 basin-shaped floor ......................................... 48 Image of the north wall profile of backhoe trench #9 showing the F-26 stain........... 49 Profile sketch of Feature 26 showing the location from which sediment was removed for radiometric analysis............................................................................................ 50 Image showing F-19 (left frame) and F-24 (visible in trench wall) before excavation .................................................................................................................................. 51 Profile sketch of F-24 ................................................................................................. 51 Thermal feature (F-24) after fill was removed ........................................................... 52 View of the fire altered stones comprising F-19 ........................................................ 53 2
Figure 32. Figure 33. Figure 34. Figure 35. Figure 36. Figure 37. Figure 38. Figure 39. Figure 40. Figure 41. Figure 42. Figure 43. Figure 44. Figure 45. Figure 46. Figure 47. Figure 48. Figure 49. Figure 50. Figure 51. Figure 52. Figure 53. Figure 54. Figure 55. Figure 56. Figure 57. Figure 58.
Ceramic artifacts from 42SL186 ................................................................................ 57 Image of a uniface ...................................................................................................... 60 Spokeshaves ............................................................................................................... 61 Bifaces ........................................................................................................................ 64 Distribution map of bifacial artifacts.......................................................................... 65 Drill............................................................................................................................. 66 Elko Series Points....................................................................................................... 67 Gypsum, Pinto, and Humboldt Points ........................................................................ 68 Single-tanged point..................................................................................................... 69 Projectile point distribution map ................................................................................ 70 Thermally altered artifacts from the surface of 42SL186 .......................................... 73 Examples of groundstone items.................................................................................. 74 Distribution map of the identified groundstone items................................................ 75 Quartzite bead............................................................................................................. 76 Bone tools................................................................................................................... 78 Incised bone artifacts.................................................................................................. 80 Identified faunal remains from F-25........................................................................... 83 Feature 25 Categorized Bone ..................................................................................... 84 Feature 25 burned and unburned bone ....................................................................... 84 Floor contact faunal distribution densities in Feature 25 ........................................... 85 Artiodactyla body part representation from Feature 25 ............................................. 86 Percentages of spiral fractures; Large Mammal bone, Feature 25 ............................. 87 Ovis Canadensis mandible fragment .......................................................................... 87 Faunal remains from F-25 .......................................................................................... 87 Mule deer phalange showing spiral fracture .............................................................. 88 Topographic map showing the location of the F-15 Area.......................................... 89 Results of the F-15 mapping project .......................................................................... 91 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Backhoe Trench provenience information..................................................................... 24 Table 2. 42SL186 ceramic inventory........................................................................................... 56 Table 3. Scraper data.................................................................................................................... 59 Table 4. Biface data ..................................................................................................................... 62 Table 5. Bifacial, non-hafted blades ............................................................................................ 64 Table 6. Analysis of lithic debitage flaking stages from the surface assemblage........................ 72 Table 7. Analysis of lithic debitage flaking stages from the excavated assemblage ................... 73 Table 8. Worked Bone Artifacts .................................................................................................. 81 Table 9. Breakdown, by category and NISP of faunal remains from the house floor of F-25 .... 82 Table 10. Flaked stone tools encountered in the F-15 Area ....................................................... 90 Table 11. Analysis of lithic debitage flaking stages from the F-15 Test Area ............................ 92 Table 12. Radiocarbon dates........................................................................................................ 93 Table 13. Source location and relative distance from 42SL186 .................................................. 94 Table 14. Field Specimen Number, form, provenience, and source location for obsidian.......... 95 Table 15. Quantitative EDXRF Data ........................................................................................... 98 Table 16. Semi-Quantitative Element Data ................................................................................. 99 Table 17. Radiocarbon dating results......................................................................................... 104 3
4
INTRODUCTION In the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley, near the Utah State Prison, is an Archaic-age archaeological site known as the Prison Site (42SL186). It is located on the bluffs to the east of the Jordan River in an area that is classified as “open space” and was designated as part of the “Jordan River Critical Land” area by the Utah State Legislature in 2000. A conservation easement protecting 230 acres from potential development, including the land on which the site sits, was signed in 2009. The site has been evaluated as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The site was discovered and recorded by Sagebrush Archaeological Consultants in 1991 during a cultural resources survey for the West Valley Highway II (later called the Bangerter Highway) project. It was identified as a large prehistoric lithic scatter/camp site comprised of lithic flakes and a few pieces of groundstone covering an area of roughly 100,875 square meters (807 meters north to south, 125 meters east to west). Sagebrush conducted sub-surface testing at the site in 1993, which included three one meter by one meter excavation units and five backhoe trenches. This subsequent testing revealed subsurface cultural deposits of up to a meter in depth, as well as a buried hearth feature. Carbon-stained sediment recovered from the hearth was radiocarbon dated to 3040 B.P. (Polk et al. 1994), making it one of the earliest dated sites in the Salt Lake Valley. The alignment of the Bangerter Highway was re-routed to avoid any adverse impacts to the site, or to the wetlands below. During construction of the highway, excavated waste materials were deposited on the southern portion of the site, adversely affecting roughly one-third of the site. An agreement was made between the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Allstate Construction to recontour, landscape, and re-seed the disturbed portion of the site under the supervision of an archaeological monitor from P-III Associates (Birnie 2000). A cooperative agreement between UDOT and the Antiquities Section of the Utah Division of State History was reached in 1999 in which several state agencies involved in the management of the site provided funding for the Antiquities Section to conduct limited data recovery and to provide information to the public about the Prison Site. The data recovery project at 42SL186 was designed to accomplish a number of goals, centered on the acquisition of data about the site in order to address questions related to chronology, subsistence and settlement patterning, seasonality and mobility, site structure and function, and the methodological question of the role played by lithic scatters in Great Basin archaeology. An additional goal of the project involved public outreach to increase local knowledge of the region’s archaeological heritage, as well as to provide the local avocational organizations with some “hands on” archaeological training and experience. Thirty-seven individuals of university level archaeology students (University of Utah, B.Y.U., the University of Arizona), local avocational archaeologists (Utah Statewide Archaeological Society), high school students (East High School and Woods Cross High School), and professional archaeologists from other state agencies (PLPCO and SITLA) volunteered to assist with this project. In addition, an Archaeological Field School comprised of twelve fourth and fifth graders from local schools took place on the site in early June of 2007. The results would not have been possible without the help from these individuals. State History has also involved the public by
5
conducting tours of the site for roughly 150 school children, policy makers, the media, and the general public. Traditional archaeological survey and excavation techniques were employed, along with a suite of newer techniques such as the use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS), Geographic Information System (GIS) software, and a Microsoft Access site form database. This report details the results of a limited testing/data recovery plan that was undertaken at 42SL186 by the Antiquities Section of the Utah Division of State History from October 2006 through September 2007. The project included a re-survey of the area, intensive GPS and Total Station mapping, surface collection of formal artifacts, and formal excavation. This project was conducted with the cooperation of the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands under the Antiquities Section, Utah Division of State History Antiquities Permit number U-07-UC0017s(e). Under the direction of State Archaeologist Kevin T. Jones (Principal Investigator), Assistant State Archaeologist Ronald J. Rood, and Andrew T. Yentsch (Project Director), fieldwork was conducted by Antiquities Section staff with the assistance of volunteers from the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society’s (USAS) Salt Lake/Davis County Chapter, the Department of Anthropology at the University of Utah, the Department of Geography at the University of Utah, the Governor’s Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office (PLPCO), the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), and many other individuals. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Prison Site (42SL186) encompasses an area of approximately 80 acres, and is located 1.5 miles north of the Utah State Prison in the southernmost portion of Salt Lake County, Utah (Figures 1 and 2). It is situated on a terrace east of the Jordan River overlooking the river valley, at an elevation of 1380 meters (4415 feet) above mean sea level. The legal description of the project area covers a large portion of the Northeast Quarter of Section 2, as well as a smaller portion of the Northwest Quarter of Section 1, Township 4 South, Range 1 West, Midvale, Utah Quadrangle, USGS 7.5’ Topographic map (1963; P.R. 1969 and 1975). As currently defined, the site extends 1,067 meters north-to-south by 300 meters east-to-west, covering an area of 320,100 square meters. While it is entirely possible that the site was larger prehistorically, historic activities have altered the landscape to the extent that for the purposes of the current investigation the site is being defined as being bounded on the north by Corner Canyon Creek, on the south by an old prison dump access road, on the east by the Lehi Bamburger Railroad (Denver and Rio Grande), and on the west by the Jordan River Parkway (Figure 3). The area lies in the eastern Great Basin, which has a continental climate that is conditioned and characterized by the west to east flow of air related to the positioning of the jet stream and the orographic effects caused by changes (sometimes drastic) in topography (Burnham 1950). Temperature and precipitation regimes are typical of the northern Utah valleys of the Great Basin. Summers are typically warm and dry, the mean annual temperature being 51.8 degrees Fahrenheit. July and August are the hottest months on average, with temperatures reaching as high as 107 degrees. January is typically the coldest month of the year, temperatures averaging 27.2 degrees. The Salt lake Valley averages approximately 200 frost-free days per year. Annual precipitation averages 15.27 inches in the Salt Lake Valley falling primarily in March and April (Eubanks 1979). 6
The area lies within the Wasatch Front Valleys subdivision of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province as defined by Stokes (1977; 1986), of which the Great Basin of the Western United States is a part. While the Great Basin is defined as an area of internal drainage between the Sierra Nevada and Wasatch Mountain Ranges, the Basin and Range is a much larger area comprised of alternating short mountain ranges surrounded by alluvium-filled valleys and bounded by normal faults that extends from Oregon and central Idaho to west Texas and Mexico. The Wasatch Front Valleys subdivision is comprised of a number of spurs that divide the area into distinct geographic segments (Stokes 1977).
Figure 1. Map showing the general location of the project area.
7
Figure 2. Map showing the location of the project area. Southeast Quarter of the Midvale Quadrangle, USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map, 1963 (Photo Revised 1969 and 1975).
8
Figure 3. Map showing the original site boundary as defined by Sagebrush Consultants and the new boundary as defined by the Antiquities Section. From the Southeast Quarter of the Midvale Quadrangle, USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map, 1963 (Photo Revised 1969 and 1975). Arrow points north.
9
Archaeological site 42SL186 is located on a river terrace in the south end of the Jordan Valley (Salt Lake Valley), within the Jordan River Watershed. The Jordan River Watershed is bounded on the east by the Wasatch Mountains, on the west by the Oquirrh Mountains, and on the south by the Traverse Range. The Traverse Mountains form a spur of the Wasatch Range, separating the Salt Lake Valley from the Utah Valley to the south. Although not precisely mapped in this area of the valley, the bluffs on which the site is situated are within the known elevation limits of the Stansbury level of Pleistocene Lake Bonneville (Currey et al. 1983; Kathleen Nicoll, University of Utah Dept. of Geography, personal communication, 2007), which receded around 14,000 years before present (B.P.) with the catastrophic breach of the Zenda Threshold (Currey 1982). By 10,000 years ago, Lake Bonneville had desiccated to a level near its present size and climatic conditions were similar to those of today, only slightly cooler (Madsen 1996). Archaeological evidence indicates that people inhabited the caves of the western Utah deserts by 10,000 B.P. (Madsen 1996), maybe as early as 12,300 B.P. (Rhode et al. 2005). In the Salt Lake Valley, lake levels would have dropped to a point in the area under investigation to allow human occupation sometime after 13,000 B.P. (Currey 1982). The plant communities occurring in the Jordan River Valley in the vicinity of 42SL186 contain taxa characteristic of the Upper Sonoran Life Zone as defined by Merriam and Steineger (1890; see also Cronquist et al. 1972 for review). These communities consist of upland terrace, a riparian zone, and an emergent marsh community. The site itself is located on an upland terrace of the Jordan River floodplain. This terrace is approximately 13 meters (50 to 60 feet) higher than the floor of the historic floodplain and can be characterized as well-drained rangeland. The area is dominated by native woody shrubs including sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamus nauseosus) and greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), as well as non-native Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) and musk thistle (Carduus nutans). Grasses include crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and tall wheatgrass (Thinopyrum ponticum), as well as various native bunchgrasses. Below the upland terrace on which 42SL186 is located are areas of riparian communities that are currently dominated by exotic species such as Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), the result of grazing activities and historic impacts to streamflow. Cottonwood (Populus spp.) and willow (Salix sp.) are the native species found in the wellwatered areas, but overgrazing and historic stream alteration has allowed the more droughttolerant olive and tamarisk to dominate these areas. The floodplain itself (at least the northern portion) was historically comprised of emergent marsh species including rushes (Juncus spp.), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), Muhly scratchgrass (Mulenbergia asperifolia), sedges (Carex spp.), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum), and redtail (Agrostis borealis). Spike rush (Eleocharis spp.), duckweed (Lemna spp.), cattail (Typha angustifolia), bulrush (Schoenoplectus spp.), and arrowcane (Phragmites spp.) are also present in the wetland areas. As mentioned previously, Russian thistle and musk thistle have invaded the area. Other invasive, noxious weeds are found on-site: hoary cress (Cardaria draba) and Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens) are but two. 10
During the initial recording of the site, it was heavily vegetated with shadscale, sagebrush, and grasses (Polk 1991; Polk et al. 1994). Since that time, however, a series of surface fires has allowed a dense cover of bunch grasses to develop over at least the northern two-thirds of the site, the eastern periphery maintaining the dense cover of sage and rabbitbrush. Historically, the area along the Jordan River has been home to a diverse array of wildlife containing species associated with the Great Basin Faunal Area (Durrant 1952). Coyote (Canis latrans), wolves (Canis lupus), mountain lion (Puma concolor), black bear (Ursus americanus), wolverines (Gulo gulo), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), beaver (Castor canadensis), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) are all documented in the historic record. Historic development and urbanization have had dramatic impacts on the wildlife along the Jordan River; however, mule deer, elk (Cervus canadensis), coyote, red fox, muskrat, beaver, striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), the occasional mountain lion, and several small rodents can still be seen in the area. Due to its geographic position connecting Utah Lake and Great Salt Lake, the Jordan River corridor has provided habitat for breeding, wintering, and subsistence for a variety of waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and passerines. Almost 200 species of birds are known to visit the area for food and shelter (see Bloodworth 2006). During our excavations, ducks (Anas spp.), geese (Branta canadensis), white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhyncos), and Coot (Fulica americans) were observed in the wetlands below the site. Red-Tail hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Turkey vultures (Cathartes aura), Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) and a Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalia) were also seen flying through the area. The soils on-site consist of silty-sand and sandy-silt aeolian and alluvial deposits, with the western terrace of the site being exposed to erosional weathering. The west-central section of the site lies in a deflated dune area, while much of the southern portion of the site has been impacted by modern agricultural, grazing, and construction activities. The property is currently owned by the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, but was previously managed by Utah Correctional Industries for the Division of Facilities Construction and Management (DFCM- owners), who leased a portion of the land to the Goff Cattle Company for grazing (Polk 1991; Polk et al. 1994). HISTORIC OVERVIEW The prehistory of the eastern Great Basin is commonly divided into several periods, each thought to represent a distinct subsistence strategy and way of life. While terminology sometimes differs between researchers, the basic periods are: 1) Paleoindian (12,000-9,000 B.P.); 2) Archaic (8500-1500 B.P.); 3) Fremont (1500-600 B.P.); and 4) Late Prehistoric (600-150 B.P.). Following is a brief summary of the archaeological and ethnographic evidence of the prehistoric groups that inhabited the region, as well as a basic description of the Euro-American settlement of the southern portion of the Salt Lake Valley. Many descriptions of these archaeological complexes have appeared elsewhere, and should be consulted for a fine grained and comprehensive description of each (Aikens and Madsen 1986; Janetski 1991; Janetski and Smith 2007; Madsen and Simms 1998; Marwitt 1986; Kelly 1997; Thomas et al. 1986; Jennings 1978; Simms 2008). 11
Paleoindian The Jordan River Valley has served as a vital resource area to humans for thousands of years. While there is little concrete archaeological evidence to date, it is likely that the first inhabitants of the region were Paleoindians who arrived at least 11,500 years ago (Grayson 1993). The earliest well-documented and dated site representing this period in Utah is Danger Cave, near Wendover (Jennings 1957; but see Rhode et al. 2005). Dates obtained from hearths at this site show human occupation of the cave at approximately 10,300 years before the present era (B.P.). Much of the evidence for the earliest residents of the Great Basin comes from areas surrounding Pleistocene lakes and marshes, as is the case with Danger Cave which is on the periphery of land which was once marshland created around the ancient boundary of the Great Salt Lake. These areas would have been very attractive to these earliest people to supplement their diets of big game with pickle weed, prickly pear, and various marsh grasses. Marsh lands during this time would have been particularly rich in resources as environmental reconstructions point to a much cooler and moister climate than the present (Graf and Schmitt 2007; Beck and Jones 1997; Kelly 2001; Currey and James 1982; Rhode et al. 2006). It is commonly thought that Paleoindians were highly mobile hunters and foragers who followed and focused on hunting “big game” such as Columbian Mammoth, camels, bison, and horses (but see Beck and Jones 1997 and references therein). Archaeological sites containing remains of these large Pleistocene mammals are associated with fluted points (Clovis and Folsom), unfluted points (specifically Black Rock Concave base and Great Basin Concave base variants), and large stemmed points of the Great Basin Stemmed and Windust varieties (Beck and Jones 1997). While evidence is scant from dated contexts in Utah (Aikens and Madsen 1986; but see Schroedl 1991), there is more ample evidence from Nevada and throughout the Colorado Plateau, where these dart points are the most substantial evidence associated with the peoples of the late Pleistocene (Beck and Jones 1997; Stiger 2001). Archaic These first inhabitants were followed by Archaic groups, which occupied the region from about 8,000 years to 1,500 B.P. This transition is marked at the end of the Pleistocene by the disappearance of the mega-fauna and a shift to the exploitation of a wider range of plant and animal resources (Cassells 1997). This dramatic shift can be at least partially explained by the change in environmental conditions. According to Beck and Jones (1997), after 8,000 B.P. conditions were considerably dryer than the preceding four thousand years. The increase in the archaeological record of groundstone implements (manos and metates in particular), as well as a greater frequency of birds, fish and small mammal bones shows a broader diet and a greater reliance on resources which have lower return rates (Beck and Jones 1997; Cassells 1997), but which may occur in higher densities at specific places at certain times of the year. Archaic populations practiced a highly mobile hunter-gatherer lifeway. Following the seasonal availability of plant and animal foods for subsistence, the Archaic traveled in small groups and were able to cover large amounts of ground in a relatively short amount of time (Cassells 1997; Grayson 1993). This time of prehistory in the Great Basin is accounted for with a much higher frequency of sites than the preceding Paleoindian period, with the majority of these sites being within 12
caves. While it is possible that at this time people utilized caves at a higher rate to open sites, the factors which made them attractive for dwellings and shelters thousands of years ago also make them attractive for preserving the cultural remains they contain, and have more than likely skewed the record towards cave sites (Cassells 1997; Madsen 1976). The Archaic period is commonly broken down into the Early, Middle, and Late phases. These titles, while convenient for delineating their rough timeframes, do not mark a substantial transition in tool typology, cultural remains or subsistence patterns, but rather slight changes in the archaeological record. One of the greatest transitions among the Archaic is the observation that tool kits become increasingly similar, from Early to Late, most likely as a result of greater contact and exchange of information among Archaic peoples (Cassells 1997). Approximately 2,000 years ago, the appearance of ceramics, the bow and arrow, and maize horticulture mark the end of the Archaic tradition in the eastern Great Basin. Whether or not these new technologies developed in situ, or were introduced from elsewhere has been a focal point of debate for decades (Madsen and Berry 1975; Aikens 1976; Webster 1980), and whether or not there was a cultural hiatus or a slow in situ development of new technologies is outside the scope of our research here. However, the introduction of maize from the south and the apparent replacement of Atl-Atl hunting technology with that of the bow and arrow sometime within the 3500 B.P. and 1500 B.P. timeframe mark the development of a Formative complex in the region known as the Fremont. Fremont The Fremont occupied portions of the eastern Great Basin from about 1600 to 700 years ago. The Fremont archaeological complex has generally been characterized by plain grayware ceramics, one rod-and-bundle basketry, unfired clay figurines, a distinctive moccasin style containing the dew claws of deer, small corner-notched projectile points, a distinctive rock art form, and a combination of hunting and gathering with corn agriculture, depending on fluctuations in climate as well as the availability of wild foods (Barlow 2002; Jennings 1978; Madsen and Simms 1998). While many of these attributes hold true for all those characterized as Fremont, there is such a wide range of attributes and lifeways that the Fremont can often be seen as more of a geographical classification than based solely upon their cultural characteristics. The transition to the Fremont complex is predominantly characterized by the appearance of maize. Along with maize there is also the emergence of other domesticated plants such as beans and squash, there is the appearance of pottery, the bow and arrow, storage structures such as granaries, as well as evidence of more permanent and substantial housing (Marwitt 1986). The frequency of these finds in the archaeological record varies greatly with reliance upon agricultural versus hunter-gatherer subsistence practices. There is also evidence of more extensive trade networks, with greater varieties of obsidian, chert, ceramics, and shell (Hughes and Bennyhoff 1986). The Fremont have been broken up into five subdivisions based on differences in material culture – Great Salt Lake, Sevier, Parowan, San Rafael, and Uinta (Marwitt 1970). In addition to being broken up temporally, each group is characterized by their own regional variants of projectile point, pottery, figurines, masonry, and dependence on horticulture (Cassells 1997; 13
Jennings 1978; Marwitt 1986). Those groups who made the Jordan River Valley their home would most commonly be considered to be of the Great Salt Lake variant. Late Prehistory By around A.D. 1300, with a few exceptions in northwestern Colorado (see Creasman and Scott 1987), the Fremont are no longer visible in the archaeological record. This transition from Fremont to historical groups is quite stark with the virtual disappearance of maize agriculture and the abandonment of large regions within a very short period of time. We don’t know if it was because of a period of drought, overpopulation of specific areas, new people coming into the area and competing for the same resources, or a combination of these factors, but the Fremont as an identifiable complex were gone. We know from the observations and ethnographic work of Franciscans Dominguez and Escalante (1776), Lewis and Clarke (1805), John Wesley Powell (1868-1873), and Julian Steward (1938) that the inhabitants of the Great Basin had returned to a largely hunting and gathering existence (Jennings, 1978). It can be inferred from these ethnographies that the historically known tribes (the Paiute, Ute, Shoshone and Gosiute) were hunter-gatherers, living in small kin-based bands, probably in brush covered wickiup-like domiciles, and following an annual cycle of exploiting plant and animal resources (Steward 1938). The archaeological record of the historic groups is poor, in terms of remains and of dateable materials, to the extent that the recovery of small, side-notched projectile points and their distinctive ceramics are often the only archaeological evidence (Jennings 1978). However, these groups are well documented in the historic literature. Much of the historical literature focuses upon their mobile hunting, fishing, and gathering lifeway for subsistence (Janetski 1991; Steward 1938). This transition to a hunter-gatherer subsistence yielded a lifeway much like that of the Archaic. With this there is also the transition back to less substantial housing and a lower population density. The continued use of the bow and arrow, as evidenced by distinctive projectile points commonly referred to as Desert Side-notched, and of ceramics are often the only archaeological markers distinguishing the historic groups from the Archaic (Janetski and Smith 2007). Various Ute bands made the area around Utah Lake and along the Jordan River to the Great Salt Lake their home, while the Ute’s’ northern neighbors, the Shoshone, their western neighbors, the Gosiute, as well as the Paiute also utilized the area during this time. While separate, these groups speak similar languages, each belonging to the Numic Language Family. Not enough is known about the ancient practices of the Ute and the Shoshone, as by the time ethnographers were focusing on the Great Basin in the 1930’s many of these groups had already been displaced and had lost many of their cultural practices. The Gosiute on the other hand, were able to stay on their native lands and thus keep more in the way of their histories (Janetski 1991; Thomas, Pendleton, and Cappannari 1986). Only rough boundaries of these groups exist, as each group led a highly mobile lifeway, following seasonal resources of available game, fish, and plants. The large collective of Ute peoples occupied land all over Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. The Western Ute occupied lands of central and northern Utah, including areas west of the Colorado River, along the Wasatch Front, around Utah Lake, and in the Uinta Basin. Ethnographically, the Western 14
Ute have been broken up into regional variants- the Uintah, Pahvant, Sanpits, Moahunts, Seuvarts, and Timpanogots (Janetski 1991). As part of the Ute hunter-gatherer lifeway, fish was a major staple for subsistence, primarily for those around Utah Lake, along the Jordan River, and up to the Great Salt Lake. Of particular importance were Bonneville cutthroat, trout, suckers, Utah chub and Mountain whitefish. According to some informants small game was more important than large game to certain Ute groups, although deer, bison, mountain sheep, elk, antelope and bear are still represented in the archaeological record. Of the plant life exploited, pinyon nuts are of great importance all over much of the Great Basin and Utah. Berries, roots, nuts, seeds, and greens were also very important for subsistence (Janetski 1991). Through many different accounts ranging from informants to ethnographers, the Ute tradition of housing is fairly consistent. Traditional Ute housing was generally either a Willow House or a Domed Wickiup, both very common throughout the Great Basin (Jennings 1978; Smith 1974). Both are circular with numerous poles leaning together and generally tied at the top. They are then covered with a combination of willows, long grass bark, and skins. The Ute would generally set up these Willow Houses in what are called camp groups, consisting of five to ten families. These camp groups were often larger for the Ute around Utah Lake than those around the Great Salt Lake, as this region was able to hold a higher number of people due to the abundance of food and fish around Utah Lake (Janetski 1991). In the 1850’s the Western Ute around Utah Lake encountered Mormon pioneers, where conflicts arose from the very beginning. A reservation was established in 1855 at the south end of Utah Lake, and the Ute of this region were displaced here. While they were still able to continue many of their previous subsistence patterns here, their proximity to the settlers was not tolerable and they eventually abandoned this region and moved to a reservation in northeastern Utah’s Uinta Basin, where they remain today (Janetski 1991; Callaway, Janetski, and Stewart 1986). Like their neighbors the Ute, the Shoshone were organized in small, mobile groups, primarily following a hunter-gatherer subsistence strategy, with Bighorn sheep contributing a major component to their diet (Thomas, Pendleton, and Cappannari 1986; Steward 1943). Research done by Steward (1938) among the Northern Shoshone in Nevada has shown that the nuclear family was the center of all sociopolitical organization. Also interesting was that nothing traditionally existed among the Shoshone to bring their large groups together into the bands in which Europeans placed them (Janetski 1991). The Gosiute traditionally occupied the land in the deserts of western Utah. The Gosiute are most closely related with the Western Shoshone peoples. Traditionally they lived in conical wickiups (Steward 1943; Thomas, Pendleton, and Cappannari 1986). Today there are two reservations in western Utah to which the Gosiute have been displaced (Thomas, Pendleton, and Cappannari 1986; Clemmer and Stewart 1986). While the Northern Paiute occupied lands all over the Great Basin, it was the Southern Paiute who once occupied lands among the southern portions of Utah, northern Arizona and Nevada (Stewart 1942; Kelly and Fowler 1986). While the Shoshone did not have anything 15
more powerful than the nuclear family for sociopolitical organization, it appeared that the Paiute had a few other groups they associated with, such as fishing cliques- which would have been important for subsistence survival, and the camp group, consisting of five to ten nuclear families in size (Janetski 1991). There are reservations in Nevada and southern Utah where the Paiute now live (Clemmer and Stewart 1986). Historic Era The first exploration of the region by non-native Americans occurred in 1776, during an expedition of fathers Francisco Atanasio Dominguez and Silvestre Velez de Escalante. While this expedition only made it as far north as the Traverse Mountains and did not enter the Salt Lake Valley, their accounts of the Ute peoples around Utah Lake are the only first hand accounts prior to the 1800’s of any Ute group (Janetski 1991). In the years following the Dominguez and Escalante expedition, the area was traveled extensively by trappers and explorers, many of whom provided information on the native peoples’ activities. Osborne Russell, Jim Bridger, Louis Vasquez, Etienne Provost, Kit Carson, John C. Fremont, Jedediah Smith, and James Beckwourth all traveled throughout the valley from the 1820’s to the 1840’s (Sillitoe 1996; Morgan 1995). Although highly skewed and biased, the accounts from the Spaniards, explorers, and trappers are the only accounts of the aboriginal inhabitants and the geographic features of the region before the arrival of the Mormon settlers in 1847. In 1849, South Willow Creek became home to Ebenezer and Phoebe Brown and their children, the first family to officially settle the area that would become known as Draper. This was a time of great development in the Salt Lake Valley as many areas were being populated by settlers. The area grew, attracting mostly families and cattle ranchers, and in 1854 the town’s first post office was established. Work on a fort in Draper was also started in 1854, although it was never completed as fears of hostilities stemming from the Walker Wars never materialized. Polk et al. (1994) provide a detailed historical overview of the late Nineteenth/early Twentieth Century for the area. Therefore, one should consult this source for more information. The city was incorporated on the 22nd of February, 1978 (for more see Still 2000 and Draper Historical Committee, 2001). Archaeological sites representing all but a Paleo-Indian occupation in the Salt Lake Valley have been documented over the last one hundred years. However, extensive development, agricultural practices, and artifact collecting have destroyed much of the evidence of the prehistoric human presence in the valley. PREVIOUS RESEARCH The initial survey of site 42SL186 in 1991 described the surface artifacts as consisting primarily of tertiary chalcedony and chert flakes dispersed over a large area. Three or four tertiary obsidian flakes, as well as a few groundstone fragments were also observed. Two lithic tools were recorded: one red and black mottled chert biface fragment, and one small, tan chert side-notched projectile point. The quantity of lithic debitage was estimated to be from 100 to 500 pieces (Polk 1991). Seven shovel probes, reaching a depth of 30 to 40 centimeters (cm), 16
were placed within the site boundaries to investigate the possibility of subsurface cultural deposits. Sediments from these probes were screened using one-quarter (1/4) inch mesh screens, yielding a small amount of chert and obsidian debitage. Most of the artifacts were found to be located in the northern portion of the site, primarily in the area of a deflated sand dune (Polk et al. 1994). The results of the 1991 testing prompted further investigations at the site, as one of the proposed corridors for the Bangerter Highway was routed through the southern portion of the site, an action with possible adverse effects. Sagebrush Archaeological Consultants conducted additional test excavations in 1993 in response to this possible alternative. Five additional shovel probes were placed in the northern portion of the site, to a depth of 36 centimeters below the present ground surface (cm bpgs). Sediments from these tests were screened through ¼- inch mesh, two of which yielded artifacts: two secondary flakes from probe “C” and ten secondary and tertiary flakes from probe “E” (Polk et al. 1994). To better determine the degree of subsurface cultural deposits on-site, further testing was conducted with three one meter by one meter excavation units and five backhoe trenches within the northern portion of the site. All three of the one meter by one meter excavation units, as well as two of the five backhoe trenches yielded cultural materials. Artifacts were found in the two trenches at depths of 0-22 cm bpgs and 72-80 cm bpgs. Cultural materials were located 0-10 cm bpgs, 0-30 cm bpgs, and at various depths between 0-80 cm bpgs within the excavation units. Test Unit 1 yielded 47 tertiary and five secondary flakes, six pieces of lithic shatter, and two groundstone fragments. Test Unit 2 produced five tertiary flakes. Twenty-two tertiary and four secondary flakes, as well as one bone fragment were found in Trench 3. Trench 5 yielded one primary flake, six tertiary flakes, five secondary flakes, one mano fragment, four pieces of fire-cracked rock, one chert core, and a thermal feature. Test Unit 3 was placed in backhoe Trench 5 when a hearth feature was discovered. The hearth feature was the only feature observed on-site, at a depth of 72-80 cm bpgs (Test unit 3, trench 5). It measured 1.5 meters in length, consisting of an arc-shaped alignment of river cobbles that had been altered by fire. An ash-stain was associated with the cobbles, and a sample was collected and dated by Beta Analytic, Inc. The stain was dated to 3040 +/- 80 B.P. (Beta 69460). Fire cracked rock, groundstone, and lithic debitage were associated with the feature and with soil directly above it. A 20 centimeter-thick stratum with no associated cultural material was located directly above the stratum containing the hearth feature. All of the cultural deposits discovered during these investigations were located within the weathering dunal area in the northern section of the site, as well as along the western edge and southwestern area of the terrace. No subsurface deposits containing cultural debris were located in the eastern and northeastern portions of the site. Work at the site was halted once cultural deposits were encountered (Polk et al. 1994). Based on the radiocarbon date from the hearth feature, Polk et al. (1994) suggested that the period of prehistoric occupation can be classified as the Black Rock Period (6000 to 1500 B.P.) of the Archaic(see Aikens and Madsen 1986 for review). They suggested the site served as a short-term campsite, due to the lack of a living surface associated with the hearth feature. They did, however, recognize the fragile nature of the site and the disturbances that have occurred there. They suggested that only very deeply buried deposits would remain undisturbed in this area (Polk et al. 1994).
17
NEARBY SITES A file search was conducted on October 16, 2006 at the Antiquities Section office, Utah Division of State History, Salt Lake City to determine if any additional prehistoric or historic sites had been recorded in the vicinity of 42SL186 since 1999. An arbitrary four-mile buffer area was chosen within which to look for sites. A number of historic sites (n=22) are located within this area. Five prehistoric sites had also been previously recorded in the area. Site 42SL191 is located approximately one mile northwest of The Prison Site, on a sandy, dunal ridge immediately west of the Jordan River. It is easily visible from the western edge of 42SL186. The site was recorded as a prehistoric use area, but extensive backhoe testing yielded no buried deposits. It was considered ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The site was dominated by secondary quartzite thinning flakes, although several obsidian flakes were also noted. Using lithic cross dating, the site was dated to A.D. 750-1350, based on the recovery of a Bear River Side-notched projectile point. Fire cracked rock and fragments of groundstone were also present (Senulis 1992). Situated on a sandy terrace just east, and above the floodplain of the Jordan River, approximately two miles southwest of The Prison Site, is site 42SL192. This site was recorded as a small, sparse lithic scatter containing six lithic flakes of chert and quartzite, as well as a single mano fragment made of a tan quartzite. Circular shovel probes were used to test this site for subsurface cultural materials. None were found. This site was considered ineligible for inclusion in the National Register (Polk 1992). Site 42SL215 is located approximately 0.5 miles south of The Prison Site, on a sandy bluff east of the Jordan River and overlooking the Jordan River Valley. The site was recorded as a prehistoric lithic scatter/camp site. The observed assemblage consisted of eight to ten chert and fine-grained quartzite lithic flakes. A single piece of fire-cracked rock was observed, eroding out of the slope below the bluff edge. Backhoe testing did not reveal any significant buried cultural components, and was assessed as non-significant and ineligible for inclusion in the National Register (Weymouth 1994). Site 42SL219 is a lithic and ceramic scatter/open campsite that is located on a bench east of, and overlooking the Jordan River 3.5 miles northeast of The Prison Site. This site is located on the edge of a plowed field, partially exposed in a two-track farm access road. The site consists of more than twenty chert and quartzite secondary reduction flakes, two sand tempered grayware ceramic sherds, a single mano, two battered implements, a burned daub fragment, and a pecked stone slab. Tested with hand-excavated pits, shovel scrapes, and backhoe trenches, no buried deposits were found. The site was considered not eligible for inclusion in the National Register (Nielson 1994a). Site 42SL220 is a prehistoric lithic scatter that is scattered along the edge of a bench east of, and overlooking the Jordan River, 3.7 miles northeast of 42SL186. The site consists of a light scatter of quartzite and chert reduction flakes (n=8). One piece of fire-cracked rock was also observed. This site was tested using shovel scrapes, pits, and backhoe trenches, and due to the lack of buried features or depth, was deemed ineligible for inclusion in the National Register (Nielson 1994b). 18
Three documented historic sites can also be found in the immediate vicinity of 42SL186. Site 42SL283 is a historic homestead/farm located in the Jordan River floodplain below the bluffs on which the northern portion of the Prison Site is located. Structural remains include a concrete foundation, a standing concrete silo, a possible brick and stone house foundation, bricklined depressions that may be the remains of cellars, a post corral, and concrete water trough. This site was considered eligible for nomination in the National Register (Eccles 1998). The second site (42SL284) is the historic Galena Canal that is located directly below the bluff in the west-central portion of 42SL186. This feature is an earthen constructed, open canal that was excavated into the base of the bench on the east side of the Jordan River in 1873 to supply water to the copper and lead smelters then in operation in the Midvale area. The canal runs in a northerly direction for approximately 12 kilometers, terminating at the former site of the United States Smelting Refining and Mining Company smelter in Midvale. The canal was in continual use until the early 1970’s when the aforementioned smelter closed. This site was considered eligible for nomination in the National Register (Eccles 1998). The third site consists of an historic trash dump that directly adjoins the northeastern boundary established for the site under discussion here. Site 42SL328 consists of mostly domestic and utilitarian items dating between the 1940’s and 1950’s: glass, metal, barbed-wire, an enamel bowl, and numerous other historic items. A license plate dated to 1966 was the only diagnostic artifact encountered. This site was deemed non-significant and not eligible for inclusion in the National Register (Crosland 2000). NATIONAL REGISTER EVALUATION The significance of 42SL186 and its status for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places was evaluated by applying the criteria outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60.4, which states: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: A. B. or C.
D.
that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; that embody the distinctive characteristic of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or that have yielded, or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.
19
This site was deemed eligible for inclusion in the National Register under criterion D, “because of its potential to provide information about prehistoric settlement and subsistence patterns in the southern Salt Lake Valley” (Polk 1991). Since the site is located on land that is protected as open-space by legislative action (Utah Code 63A-5-222), long-term research is possible. The unique nature/protection of the site can allow for more detailed methodological and theoretical questions and tests to be developed than might normally be the case in current archaeological projects, when schedules do not allow flexibility, and when the potential for destruction of a given site is high. Further investigations at 42SL186 will undoubtedly add to the significance of this site for better understanding the prehistoric occupants of not only the Salt Lake Valley, but the eastern Great Basin in general. METHODS The investigations at 42SL186 were conducted as part of a limited testing/phased data recovery plan. The first phase included a resurvey of the site area, as well as an intensive mapping project to accurately reflect the on-site topography. Standard archaeological survey methods (cf. Banning 2002) were employed, in which systematic parallel transects spaced no more than 15 meters apart were walked. When an artifact was located, the survey crew intensively examined a 30 to 50 meter radius surrounding the item to determine whether it should be recorded as a distinct artifact concentration within the boundaries of the site. No surface features were identified during the resurvey of site 42SL186. In order to maintain consistency and control during this project, as well as to aid in the documentation, description and identification of relationships between observed phenomena, the Feature System was employed to record all information. The feature system was developed by Jesse D. Jennings and has been used by the University of Utah for more than thirty years (Antiquities Section, Utah Division of State History Field Manual; The University of Utah Archaeological Center Laboratory Manual). The feature concept allows a researcher the ability to assign a number to any phenomenon he or she wishes to keep track of, make descriptive notations about that phenomenon without providing premature interpretation, and ultimately (at the conclusion of the excavation) provide interpretive definition and identification for what has been encountered once all of the data is available. Field notes, field specimen logs, plan maps, profile maps, and photographs were utilized to describe and provenience all objects and features. The resurvey of the site area was conducted to locate any artifacts or features exposed since 1991. The resurvey that was performed during the initial stage of the present project extended the original site boundary defined by Sagebrush Consultants (1991) roughly 260 meters further north. It also extended the eastern boundary, at least in the southern portion of the site where there is room for expansion, another 175 meters to the east. This is a significant increase in overall areal extent. In conjunction with the resurvey, an intensive mapping project was undertaken. The surface area of the site was mapped with a Sokkia Total Station to obtain a precise representation of the topography of the site as well as to delineate and obtain provenience data for the site boundaries and any surface features accurately. As mentioned previously, no surface features were identified during the survey. Figure 4 presents the map generated from this portion of the project. Additionally, site sketch map information was collected using a Trimble
20
Geo-Explorer II GPS receiver. The GPS data was differentially corrected and imported into a Geographic Information System (GIS) using Pathfinder Office and Arc-View programs.
Figure 4. Topographic map generated from Total Station mapping portion of the project.
21
During site documentation, area and concentration boundaries were established, appropriate site forms were completed, site maps were produced, and artifact inventories were taken. Since more than 500 artifacts were estimated to be present on the surface of this site, a total artifact inventory of judgmentally-placed representative sample areas was performed. Diagnostic artifacts, groundstone, and tools were plotted individually. Diagnostic artifacts are defined as those for which a cultural chronology has been established and can be used to establish a specific period of use. All diagnostic artifacts located during the survey were described in the field and all prehistoric diagnostic artifacts were collected for further laboratory analysis and possible illustration. All collections are curated at the Utah Museum of Natural History at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. A primary site datum had been established previously by Sagebrush Consultants at a point in that is located roughly in the west-central portion of the site, approximately 20 meters east of a deflated dune area. The datum is marked by a one-meter long rebar stake with a stamped cap containing the site’s trinomial designation (42SL186), graphically displayed in Figure 4. Once documentation and mapping had been completed, a grid system was created to maintain horizontal control during excavation. While not physically laid out over the entire site, a metric grid system was created that would allow us to accurately describe any point on the site in relation to its orientation (north-south axis), as well as providing the ability to describe possible associations of artifacts and features within the excavated areas. The block system employed utilized one meter by one meter squares that were assigned north-south and east-west coordinates (e.g.: N 756 E 800), centered on a hypothetical zero (N 000 E 000). Units were identified by the coordinates of the southeast corner of each square. This system would ultimately allow us to explore the relationships of one area of the site to features or artifacts over the entire site. Due to the extensive area covered by this site, we then partitioned the site into “Feature Areas”, containing higher densities of surface artifacts, where we would focus our excavations. Figure 5 shows the Feature areas created during this project. In order to maintain vertical control and to adequately describe, define, and identify the associations of artifacts, features, sequences of strata, and intrusive (or non-cultural) elements, a number of test units were excavated to explore the stratigraphy across the site. Five one meter by one meter test units were excavated in different areas of the site to obtain a preliminary idea of the nature of the sediments and the relative complexity of the stratigraphy, as well as to see if there was continuity in the deposition of sediments across the site. Each unit was excavated in 10 centimeter increments to various maximum depths. The exposed sediment profiles of the abutting walls were photographed, sketched, and documented in the Feature 1 (F-1) Notes. Once the stratigraphy was identified, excavation proceeded by stratigraphic levels. All obsidian artifacts encountered were collected, cataloged, and a sample set (n=42) was sent to Dr. Richard E. Hughes at the Geochemical Research Laboratory in Portola Valley California for non-destructive, energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence (edxrf) sourcing analysis. Nine bulk sediment samples were obtained from four subsurface features and sent to Beta Analytic, Inc. in Miami Florida for radiometric dating. An additional nine bulk sediment samples, as well as 20 pieces of fire-cracked rock (FCR) and six groundstone items, were
22
collected and sent for flotation and starch-grain extraction analysis to Dr. Linda Scott Cummings and the Paleo Research Institute of Golden, Colorado.
Figure 5. Topographic map showing the location of the Feature Areas defined during the course of the current project.
23
TESTING AND EXCAVATION Testing Methodology Traditional archaeological excavation techniques, as well as a little help from machines, were employed to investigate whether or not cultural materials were present below the present ground surface. Backhoe trenching was used to expose stratigraphy and to explore for subsurface cultural deposits and features. On a site as large as 42SL186, utilizing machinery to perform these tasks is far more economical than using hand excavation techniques. Twelve backhoe trenches removed 190 linear meters of soil, while 95 square meters (to various depths) were removed by hand in the search for subsurface cultural material. All test units, excavation units, and trenches were oriented along north-south or east-west axes and laid out using compass lines for angle and tape measures for distance. All excavated units were defined horizontally by nomenclature described in the “Methods” section above. All units can be related to a grid system covering the entire site. The backhoe trenches were numbered from one to twelve and were excavated by Lyndon Jones Construction, LLC on June 12, 2007. All excavated units were plotted on the site map (Figures 6-9), photographs were taken, profile sketches drawn, and sediment descriptions were taken. Profiles are provided in Appendix E following the report. Trenches one, two, four, and six were oriented on a north to south trending axis. Trenches three, five, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, and twelve were oriented east to west. All excavated units were re-filled in September 2007, at the conclusion of the excavation portion of the project. Trenches Trenches one through twelve were excavated using a Case 590 Turbo 4x4 Construction King rubber tire backhoe/front-end loader equipped with a 55 centimeter (21 ¾”) wide, 52 centimeter (20 ½”) deep bucket. Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates were obtained with a Trimble GeoExplorer 3 handheld GPS unit for one end of each trench: the north end for the north to south trending trenches, and the east end for those trenches on an east to west axis. Backhoe trench data is provided in Table 1. Trench Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Orientation N to S N to S E to W N to S E to W N to S E to W E to W E to W E to W E to W E to W
Table 1. Backhoe Trench information.
24
Length 15 m 15 m 15 m 15 m 15 m 10 m 21 m 15 m 28 m 10 m 15 m 15 m
Two crew members monitored the backhoe excavation at all times. Excavation was periodically stopped to examine the profiles and floors of the trenches for cultural deposits. Representative samples of the back dirt were screened through ¼- inch wire mesh for the recovery of artifacts. Due to the results of previous testing on the site (Polk et al. 1994) and knowledge of subsurface artifacts, our primary objectives were to locate any additional buried features. Random samples of the back dirt were screened as spot-checks for the presence of artifacts. Cultural materials were encountered in all of the trenches. A portion of each trench was chosen to be profiled and drawn, based on the relative clarity of individual strata. Because of the varied orientation of the trenches, no standard procedure was used for drawing the same wall or aspect in each trench. Profile sketches of a portion of each trench are provided in Appendix E. Trench One. Trench One was located in the northern portion of the site, on the western edge of the area designated as the Feature 7 (F-7) Area. This trench was oriented on a north to south axis, was 15 meters in length, and excavated to a maximum depth of 115 cm bpgs. Five separate sedimentary strata were identified in the trench profile, but no cultural features were observed. Trench Two. Trench Two was located in the east-central portion of the site, within the area designated as the Feature 15 (F-15) Area. This trench was oriented on a north to south axis, was 15 meters in length, and excavated to a maximum depth of 135 cm bpgs. Five separate sedimentary strata were identified in the trench profile, but no cultural features were observed. Trench Three. Trench Three was located in the east-central portion of the site, within the area designated as the F-15 Area. This trench was oriented on an east to west axis, was 15 meters in length, and excavated to a maximum depth of 150 cm bpgs. Five separate sedimentary strata were identified in the trench profile, but no cultural features were observed. Trench Four. Trench Four was located in the east-central portion of the site, within the area designated as the F-15 Area. This trench was oriented on a north to south axis, was 15 meters in length, and excavated to a maximum depth of 110 cm bpgs. Three separate sedimentary strata were identified in the trench profile. A basin-shaped, carbon-stained layer of sediment measuring 3.54 meters in length was discovered approximately 4.66 meters south of the north end of the trench. This stain was visible in profiles of both trench walls at a depth of 49 cm bpgs and contained numerous pieces of lithic detritus, groundstone fragments, and fire-cracked rock (FCR) that were protruding out of the exposed surface. This staining was assigned Feature Number 25, was excavated completely, and has been interpreted as the remains of a house structure and described in greater detail in the “Results” section. Trench Five. Trench Five was located in the east-central portion of the site, within the area designated as the F-15 Area. This trench was oriented on an east to west axis, was 15 meters in length, and excavated to a maximum depth of 122 cm bpgs. Six separate sedimentary levels were identified in the trench profile, but no cultural features were observed. Trench Six. Trench Six was located in the east-central portion of the site, within the area designated as the F-15 Area. This trench was oriented on a north to south axis, was ten meters in length, and excavated to a maximum depth of 160 cm bpgs. Five separate sedimentary strata were identified in the trench profile, but no cultural features were observed. 25
Trench Seven. Trench Seven was located in the east-central portion of the site, within the area designated as the F-15 Area. This trench was oriented on an east to west axis, was 21 meters in length, and excavated to a maximum depth of 133 cm bpgs. Five separate sedimentary strata were identified in the trench profile, but no cultural features were observed. Trench Eight. Trench Eight was located in the west-central portion of the site, within the area designated as the Feature 16 (F-16) Area. This trench was oriented on an east to west axis, was 15 meters in length, and excavated to a maximum depth of 70 cm bpgs. Five separate sedimentary strata were identified in the trench profile, but no cultural features were observed. Trench Nine. Trench Nine was located in the west-central portion of the site, within the area designated as the F-16 Area. This trench was oriented on an east to west axis, was 28 meters in length, and excavated to a maximum depth of 90 cm bpgs. Five separate sedimentary strata were identified in the trench profile. Located 8.5 meters east of the western end of backhoe trench number nine, a roughly basin-shaped charcoal-stained layer of sediment (similar to the one found in trench number 4) was observed. This stain consisted of dark grey carbon-stained sediment that was visible in the profiles of both trench walls at a depth of 81 cm bpgs. The stain measured 3.95 meters in length, had a maximum depth of fill of 21 centimeters, and contained numerous pieces of lithic debris and fire-cracked rock (FCR) that were protruding out of the exposed surface. A complete quartzite metate (FS 341.1) and a mano fragment were revealed at roughly 50 cm bpgs, in the trench, approximately a meter-and-a-half away from the stain during excavation. This stain was assigned Feature Number 26 and has been interpreted as the possible remains of a house structure. This feature was only partially excavated in order to obtain bulk sediment samples for radiometric analysis. Trench Ten. Trench Ten was located in the west-central portion of the site, within the area designated as the F-16 Area. This trench was oriented on an east to west axis, was ten meters in length, and excavated to a maximum depth of 105 cm bpgs. Six separate sedimentary strata were identified in the trench profile, but no cultural features were observed. Trench Eleven. Trench Eleven was located in the west-central portion of the site, within the area designated as the F-16 Area. This trench was oriented on an east to west axis, was 15 meters in length, and excavated to a maximum depth of 88 cm bpgs. Four separate sedimentary strata were identified in the trench profile, but no cultural features were observed. Trench Twelve. Trench Twelve was located in the west-central portion of the site, within the area designated as the F-16 Area. This trench was oriented on an east to west axis, was 15 meters in length, and excavated to a maximum depth of 110 cm bpgs. Four separate sedimentary strata were identified in the trench profile, but no cultural features were observed.
26
Figure 6. Map showing the locations of the backhoe trenches. Arrow points north.
27
Excavation units In addition to the backhoe trenches, hand excavation was conducted in eight areas within the site boundaries. Three one meter by one meter units and five block excavation grids were utilized at 42SL186. Subsurface artifacts were encountered in every unit, consisting of lithic tools, debitage, processed animal bone, bone tools, groundstone, and fire-cracked rock (FCR). The maximum depth of subsurface cultural materials varied across the site, from roughly 18 cm bpgs in the Feature 5 (F-5) Area to 90 cm bpgs in the F-16 Area. All sediment that was hand excavated was passed through one-eighth inch wire mesh screen. All artifacts retrieved were bagged and labeled according to horizontal and vertical location, and returned to the archaeological laboratory at the Antiquities Section office for cleaning and further analysis. Following is a discussion of the excavations. Feature 3 (F-3) was the first test unit opened during the project reported here. This was a one meter by one meter unit located in the northwest portion of the site, approximately five meters from the bluff edge. This unit was assigned grid coordinates N 1019 E 952. Excavation revealed five identifiable sediment levels to a maximum depth of 75 cm bpgs (Figure 7), the uppermost level showing indications of a recent surface fire. Only six artifacts were recovered (four pieces of debitage and one piece of FCR), confined to the upper 30 centimeters of the unit.
Figure 7. Profile view of the west wall of Feature 3. Arrow points north.
28
The second test unit (Feature 4) consisted of a one meter by 1.3-meter excavation unit located along the western bluff edge, on the north bank of an erosional cut bank, roughly in the middle of the site. The primary purpose for excavating here was to expose a profile for geomorphologic examination. All sediment consisted of a pale brown to light tan colored, finegrained sandy silt containing light clay content. This unit was excavated to a maximum depth of 50 cm bpgs, yielding six artifacts (all debitage). The artifacts were confined to the upper 30 centimeters: three flakes in level 0-10 cm bpgs, one flake from 10-20 cm bpgs, and two flakes from 20-30 cm bpgs. The Feature 5 (F-5) Area, located in the west-central portion of the site, consisted of fourteen one meter by one meter square units oriented on an east-west axis. Excavation in this area was centered on grid coordinates N 765 E 602. It was initially laid out as a 10-meter-long grid-line oriented on a north to south axis around which a local grid system could be created. This grid system could be linked with the larger grid covering the entire site. Excavation revealed three sedimentary levels (Figure 9) to a maximum depth of approximately 30 cm bpgs. Excavation was halted at a point when artifacts no longer appeared in the screens. Artifacts recovered from the Feature 5 Area include two Elko Corner-notched projectile point fragments (FS 185.1 and FS 213.1), five biface fragments (FS 195.1, 227.1, 233.1, 256.1, and 277.1), one utilized flake, one quartzite hammerstone (FS 342.1), lithic debitage (n= 1,247), obsidian debitage (n= 13), bone (n= 75), unidentifiable groundstone fragments (n= 2), and FCR (n= 409).
Figure 8. Excavated units in the Feature 5 Area. Arrow points north.
29
Four identifiable sediments were identified during excavation and are shown in Figure 9. Although 1,755 artifacts were recovered during excavation, no subsurface features were identified.
Figure 9. Profile view of the north wall of grid unit N 766 E 604 in the F-5 Area. Arrow points north.
In the northeastern most portion of the site, the Feature 7 (F-7) Area block excavation consisted of 33 one meter by one meter square units, centered on grid coordinates N 1004 E 1000 (Figure 10). This area was the initial focus of attention for this project due to large numbers of surface artifacts, as well as an area of deflation in the center of the artifacts that corresponded with a discoloration of the surface vegetation. The area itself encompasses land north of the dirt two-track that runs east to west from the railroad tracks down to the Jordan River Parkway trail below the site, and up to the barbed-wire fence on the north end of the site that divides a parcel of privately-owned land from the State owned property. It was in this area that the field school for fourth and fifth grade students was held. Three distinguishable sediment levels were identified in this area, to a maximum depth of 50 cm bpgs (Figure 11). Sediments were heavily bioturbated, making the context and origin of cultural materials uncertain. Geomorphic examination determined this area to be a natural low spot on the landscape, causing cultural items to settle in this area. Items have been further
30
shifted and mixed by the activity of rodents. Because of this information, once the field school was completed, excavation in this area ceased.
Figure 10. Excavated units in the Feature 7 Area. Arrow points north.
31
Figure 11. Profile view of the east wall of grid unit N 1004 E 1000 in the F-7 Area. Arrow points north.
While no subsurface features were identified in this area, 5,485 artifacts were collected from the excavations here for further analysis. These included one Elko Corner-notched projectile point fragment (FS 18.1), one complete bifacial blade (FS 13.1), eight biface fragments (FS 71.1, 72.1, 79.1, 86.1, 101.1, 120.1, 130.1, and 132.1), one quartzite core (FS 126.1), one utilized flake, one quartzite drill and one drill tip fragment (FS 76.1 and 121.1), one quartzite uniface (FS 87.1), lithic debitage (n= 3,508), obsidian debitage (n= 3), faunal bone (n= 290), unidentifiable groundstone fragments (n= 3), and FCR (n= 1,669). This accounts for 19.3 % of the total collected artifact assemblage (n=28,464) of this site. The third one meter by one meter test unit was located in the eastern portion of the Feature 15 (F-15) Area along the east-central portion of the site. It was assigned grid coordinates N 740 E 821. This unit was excavated to a maximum depth of 30 cm bpgs, yielding artifacts comprised of lithic detritus (n= 19), FCR (n= 49), and bone (n= 21). A large stemmed point or knife fragment was discovered approximately 25 cm bpgs in this unit. This artifact (FS 328.1) 32
has the morphological characteristics of a Paleoindian-like, Windust variety, large, stemmed point. There is not enough of the specimen present to analyze the artifact more completely. Because of this find, backhoe trench number three was excavated from the western edge of this unit to the west for an additional 15 meters. The F-15 excavation block consisted of 21 conjoined one meter by one meter square units (Figure 12) located along the western edge of the F-15 Area in the east-central portion of the site, centered roughly on Backhoe Trench Number 4. Excavation here centered on grid coordinates N 800 E 860. This grid block was excavated because of darkly-stained sediment discovered in the profile of the backhoe trench. Excavation revealed a roughly oval shaped, shallow basin that has been interpreted as the remains of a house structure. This feature, Feature 25, is described more completely later.
Figure 12. Plan view of the F-15 Area block excavation. Arrow points north.
33
Some 13,005 artifacts were recovered during excavation here, including two Elko Corner-notched projectile point fragments (FS 807.1 and 915.1), one Elko Side-notched projectile point fragment (FS 808.1), one complete corner-notched bifacial blade (FS 897.1), eight biface fragments (FS 850.1, 851.1, 873.1, 878.1, 897.1, 924.1, 926.1, and 1051.1), one quartzite core (FS 928.1), three utilized flakes, three scrapers, and one quartzite bead (FS 904.1). One grayware ceramic sherd (FS 793.1) was also recovered from this block. All bone tools, including 11 pieces of incised bone, two bone awls (FS 775.1 and 1052.1), two bone needles (FS 914.1 and FS 999.1), two pieces of flaked bone (FS 806.1 and FS 852.1), and one bone flaker (FS 883.1) were found in the F-15 block excavation. Seven canid teeth (FS 809.1) and 17 small fragments of red ochre were also recovered. In addition, 2,887 pieces of lithic debitage, obsidian debitage (n= 123), faunal bone (n= 4,920), incomplete groundstone fragments (n= 9), and FCR (n= 4,988) were collected. This accounts for 45.7 % of the total collected artifact assemblage (n=28,464) of this site. Two block units were excavated in the Feature 16 (F-16) Area, a northern and a southern block. This area was located in the central portion of the site, approximately 14 meters east of the north to south trending portion of a deflated dune area, and 17.5 meters due west of the site datum. The area consisted of two separated blocks of conjoined one meter by one meter square test units that were initially excavated to search for the north to south trending Backhoe Trench Number 5 and its associated thermal feature excavated during the 1993 project (see Polk et al. 1994).
Figure 13. Plan view of the northern block excavation unit in the F-16 Area. Arrow points north.
34
The northern block unit of the F-16 Area was initiated during the relocation efforts for backhoe trench number five and the thermal feature uncovered during the 1993 excavations. Excavations here consisted of seven one meter by one meter square excavation units centered on grid unit N 746 E 655. Sediments removed during the relocation and removal of trench fill were not screened. Once the thermal feature was identified, one meter by one meter squares were laid out to the north and to the south of the feature in order to expand the excavation into undisturbed deposits. All sediments from this point on were passed through one-eighth inch mesh screen. Artifacts recovered from the northern portion of the F-16 Area included a Rose Spring Cornernotched projectile point fragment (FS 689.1), one biface fragment (FS 679.1), one core, lithic debitage (n= 793), obsidian debitage (n= 20), faunal bone (n= 788), three mano fragments, one basin-shaped metate fragment, unidentifiable groundstone fragments (n= 7), and FCR (n= 751).
Figure 14. Plan view of northern block unit showing the location of backhoe trench number 5, excavated by Sagebrush Consultants in 1993, that was re-excavated during the current project (F-17). Arrow points north.
35
The southern block unit was comprised of sixteen one meter by one meter square units, nine of which were excavated to a maximum depth of 90 cm bpgs. These excavations were centered on grid coordinates N 738 E 656. Excavation in this area was also initiated during the relocation efforts for backhoe trench number five and the thermal feature uncovered during the 1993 excavations. All sediment was screened through one-eighth inch mesh. However, once the trench was located and its edges delineated, the fill was removed without screening. Artifacts recovered from the southern portion of the F-16 Area include a Rose Spring Corner-notched projectile point base fragment (FS 413.1), a Cottonwood Leaf-shaped projectile point (FS 430.1), a spokeshave (FS 562.1), three biface fragments (one serrated [FS 476.1] and one of obsidian [FS 605.1]), lithic debitage (n= 2,831), obsidian debitage (n= 84), bone (n= 1,796), one mano fragment, one metate fragment, one quartzite disc fragment (FS 494.1), unidentifiable groundstone fragments (n= 12), and FCR (n= 1,050).
Figure 15. Plan view of the southern block excavation unit in the F-16 Area, F-35 is shaded. Arrow points north.
36
Six identifiable stratigraphic levels were identified in the southern block area, and are presented in Figure 16.
Figure 16. Profile view of west wall of grid unit N 738 E 655 in the F-16 Area. Arrow points north.
Sediment Descriptions The stratigraphic sequence originally defined during the 1993 excavations at 42SL186 (Polk et al. 1994), has been expanded and refined as the result of the more intensive excavations reported here. The following descriptions of the deposits were essentially created during the field portion of this project. Subsequent examination of the field notes and profile sketches has allowed for some modification to these descriptions. The sediments on-site consist almost entirely of silty sand and sandy silt deposits, with the western terrace of the site being exposed to erosional weathering. While the nature and strata of the deposits follow the same general pattern across the site, differences in aggradation and degradation processes across the site were observed. A complete geomorphologic investigation, using standard geomorphic methods of sediment identification and description (cf. Birkeland et al. 1991), was performed by Kathleen Nicoll of the Department of Geography at the University of Utah and can be found in Appendix A. Munsell Soil Charts were used for assistance in description and to provide standardized sediment colors (Munsell Color 2000). Six sediment 37
types, constituting five distinguishable layers across the site, which were differentiated by color, composition, and levels of compactness, were observed during the course of excavation. Artifacts were encountered in all but the lowest (Stratum V) sediments. The following is a brief description of the sedimentary stratigraphy observed at 42SL186. Stratum I. Stratum I consists of the vesicular horizon (Munsell 2.5Y5/3) and upper root zone, sediment consisting of a grayish-brown colored (Munsell 10YR5/2) silty sand. The deposits are loosely consolidated, having been disturbed by pastoral and agricultural activities in the area. In addition, numerous insect and rodent burrows originate and cut through this level, which varies in thickness from two centimeters to 15 centimeters across the site. There is evidence in some areas of the site (F-7 and F-5 Areas) of recent surface fires, having carbonized the root structures of the surface vegetation. Stratum II. Stratum II is composed of a medium-brown (Munsell 10YR5/2) colored, loosely compacted, often “blocky” and easily collapsible sandy silt. These deposits vary from roughly four centimeters to 50 centimeters in thickness across the site. In most areas of the site, this stratum preserves evidence of extensive burrowing activity. It also contains root structures of some of the larger surface vegetation. Stratum III. Stratum III consists of a medium-brown (Munsell 10YR5/2) colored, moderately compacted sandy silt. The Stratum III deposits ranged from four centimeters to 25 centimeters in thickness across the site. Stratum IVa. The Stratum IVa deposits were not observed over the entire site, but were identified in the F7, F5, and F16 Areas. These deposits were also observed in backhoe trenches 5, 6, and 8. These deposits consist of a whitish colored (Munsell 10YR6/4 - 10YR7/2) sandy-silt layer containing clays and minor calcium carbonates that have leached from sediments above and below. This layer was extremely compacted, requiring picking/chipping to excavate. Stratum IVb. In those areas where the calcium carbonate was not present, a mixing of the Stratum III and Stratum V sediments was observed. This level, where present, is characterized as a light brown (Munsell 10YR5/2) sandy-silt with some clay content. Stratum V. The sediments comprising Stratum V can be described as consisting of pale brown to whitish (Munsell 2.5Y5/3) colored, fine-grained silt. This layer also contains varying amounts of clay and iron oxides across the site. With the exceptions of the three cultural features that cut into this layer (F-24, F-25, and F-26), this sediment appears to be culturally sterile.
38
RESULTS The limited testing/data recovery project at 42SL186 resulted in the discovery of three buried cultural features, a possible activity area, and the recovery of nearly 30,000 artifacts. The artifact assemblage consisted of three primary classes: lithics, ceramics, and bone. These classes were further subdivided for more accurate descriptions. The lithic assemblages were comprised of flaked stone tools, debitage, groundstone, and fire-cracked rock (FCR). The bone assemblage was subdivided into worked and non-worked bone. Cultural Features Non-portable cultural features encountered during the course of investigations at 42SL186 were the remains of two structures (which have been interpreted as dwelling units), a localized use-area surface, and the remains of a probable roasting pit. Figure 17 shows the locations of all subsurface cultural features identified during this project.
Figure 17. Map showing the locations of all sub-surface cultural features identified during this project.
39
DWELLINGS Two structural features were identified during the excavations presented here, one of which was excavated completely. The first of these features was interpreted as a dwelling unit on the basis of size, shape, fairly well-marked floor, and a centrally located basin-shaped hearth, as well as by the recovery of various implements from the floor and fill. A second (unexcavated) feature was also identified as a dwelling unit because of its size and shape, and because of similarities of the fill material to that of the excavated feature. These features are consistent with descriptions of habitation structures from both the archaeological record (Larsen 1997; Smith 2003; Stiger 2001) and brush shelters utilized by the historic groups inhabiting the region at contact (Simpson 1876; Dutcher 1893; Steward 1941, 1943). In their most general form, Archaic-age dwellings can be described as semi-subterranean pithouses, with no prepared floor, roughly round or oval in plan view and roughly basin-shape in profile. The fill from the house is stained dark from charcoal and with very few exceptions contains a high frequency of cultural materials (Larsen 1997). Most pithouses are small and shallow, averaging less than 4.0 meters in diameter and 60 centimeters in depth. Evidence of superstructures or postholes is not frequent, and when they are observed they lack clear patterning (Smith 2003). Frequently observed are internal fire hearths. These hearths are rather simple, not often with a prepared surface, consisting mainly of a charcoal basin containing large amounts of FCR. Large quantities of faunal bone are also observed, from both internal and external features. The majority of this bone is highly fragmented, presumably from intensive processing for marrow extraction. Also frequently recovered are bone tools, awls presumably for sewing, and ornaments of stone, bone beads, and drilled shells (Larsen 1997). The variation in Archaic dwellings can be explained as a relationship between the energy invested and the expected amount of time spent in one locality (Larsen 1997; Smith 2003; Thompson et al. 1996). Thompson et al. (1996) describe three classifications of dwellings as a result of time invested in the structure as well as the density and variety of cultural remains and associated features found within. The first class, “Temporary Shelter”, is in essence just a temporary sun and wind break, made of brush or wood. This has the least time investment and as a result has the lowest density of cultural remains. The next class, “Housepit”, requires a greater time investment. While it may not have a prepared surface, Housepits are basin-shaped, shallow and oval in plan view. Internal and external features are often present, occurring with a higher frequency of cultural material. A Housepit may also be brush covered, but the materials and construction are made for the longer term. The final classification is “Pithouse”. According to Thompson et al. (1996) a Pithouse consists of a more circular, deep basin. Interior features, such as storage units, and architectural features are important classifiers, as is the presence of middens, as they indicate a longer occupation. Descriptions of shelters from the ethnohistoric and ethnographic records include those used by the “Panamint Indians” (Southern Paiute) of the Inyo area of California. They are described as being small, circular structures eight to ten feet in diameter, with enough room to accommodate one family. The walls were merely the broken branches of pinyon, as well as small bushes, piled up into loose rows two or three feet thick, and just as high. The circle was 40
broken where entrance was needed. Their uses seemed primarily to function as privacy and windbreaks for the occupants. A fire hearth was located in the center of the structure, and the floor was smooth, clear of debris, and carpeted by a layer of thick, fine, gray dust (Dutcher 1893). Fireplaces within these structures were not intentionally dug, but a slight pit was left from repeated cleaning (Steward 1943). Similar descriptions of shelters and houses are provided by Simpson (1876) for Gosiute structures near Deep Creek. Willow, sagebrush, and cattail were used in the construction of these structures, which were often used as temporary shelters (Steward 1943; Simpson 1876). All of these materials are found in the vicinity of the Prison Site. Housepit Feature 25 (F-25) consisted of the remains of a house structure located in the west-central portion of the site, within the F-15 Area. This feature was centered approximately at grid coordinates N 800 E 760. During backhoe exploration for buried cultural features, a roughly basin-shaped and carbon-stained layer of sediment was discovered in trench number four, approximately 4.66 meters south of the north end of the trench. This stain was visible in profiles of both trench walls at a depth of 49 cm bpgs. The stain measured 3.54 meters in length, had a maximum thickness (depth of fill) of 21 centimeters, and contained numerous pieces of lithic detritus, groundstone fragments, and fire-cracked rock (FCR) that were protruding out of the exposed surface. Figure 18 shows a profile view of F-25 as seen when discovered.
Figure 18. Profile of the east wall of backhoe trench number 4, showing the F-25 staining. Arrow points north.
41
Excavation revealed a roughly elliptical, basin-shaped depression associated with the layer of stained sediment. Feature 25 measured 4.5 meters north to south and 3.9 meters east to west. This structure was cut into a layer of fine-grained, pale brown sandy-silt (F-27) by its prehistoric occupants, the level of origin being between 40 to 50 cm bpgs. The fill sediment was considerably darker in color than that surrounding the feature. The entire fill was removed, revealing a highly compacted floor (F-31) approximately 55 to 65 cm bpgs that was not visible in profile. The floor was very hard, somewhat structured, and pocked with insect cases containing fill of both lighter and darker color, giving the sediment a mottled appearance. Twenty-nine bulk sediment samples were removed for water screening (n=13), flotation (n=10), and radiometric (n=6) analysis, the remainder was screened through one-eighth inch mesh and resulted in the recovery of 6,186 artifacts. Artifacts included flaked stone tools (n=7), lithic debitage (n= 873), groundstone (n= 1), one stone bead (FS 904.1), FCR (n= 1,907), bone tools (n= 3), and faunal remains (n= 3,394), the majority of which were heavily processed and fragmented. No charcoal was recovered from the fill, however. Three bulk samples of more than 1,000 grams each of carbonized sediments (Beta- 235165, 235166, 235167) were obtained from the floor/fill interface of Feature 25 and returned dates of 2320 +/- 40 B.P., 2410 +/- 40 B.P., and 2450 +/- 40 B.P. respectively.
Figure 19. View of F-25 after excavation was completed. Dots indicate outline of structure. Photo taken looking northnortheast.
42
During the removal of the fill, several concentrations of FCR, and bone were encountered. If a concentration appeared to be confined within a specific area of the structure, it was assigned an individual Feature Number (F-#). Four such features were identified within F25; their locations are shown in Figure 20. These included two concentrations of FCR (F-29 and F-30), a concentration of bone fragments and groundstone (F-32), and a centrally located hearth feature (F-33).
Figure 20. Plan view map of F-25 along with associated internal features and samples obtained for additional analysis. Arrow points north.
43
Two identifiable concentrations of FCR were encountered during the removal of fill sediment from F-25. The first (F-29) was located roughly in the center of the structure, immediately north, northeast of a hearth feature, and consisted of 93 pieces of fire affected quartzite covering an area 70 by 93 centimeters in size. The rocks comprising this feature were fractured and angular and were found to be lying on and slightly above the floor of F-25. Artifacts recovered from the screen in the vicinity of these stones (and most likely associated with them) included numerous calcined and unburned small bone fragments, as well as an obsidian projectile point fragment (FS 926.1).
Figure 21. FCR concentration (F-29) located at floor contact within the central portion of F-25. Trowel points north.
A smaller concentration of FCR (F-30) was identified in the northwest corner of F-25, consisting of 31 elements covering an area approximately 28 by 20 centimeters. This concentration consisted of a cluster of angular rock fragments measuring from five to six centimeters in size that were associated with the wall/floor contact zone of F-25 in grid unit N801 E 759.
44
Figure 22. Second FCR concentration (F-30) identified within F-25. This concentration was located in the northwest corner of the Feature 25 structure. Arrow points north.
Feature 32 (F-32) consisted of a cluster of three animal bone fragments and a groundstone fragment lying on the floor of F-25 in the south-central portion of the structure; approximately 22 centimeters south-southwest of a hearth feature (see Figure 20). The bones include a 58.4 millimeter long fragment of the left zygomatic of a medium-sized artiodactyl (FS 992.1), most likely a deer, as well as two fragmented pieces of medium-sized mammal bone (FS 991.1 and FS 993.1) that also appear to represent remnants of an artiodactyl. One element (FS 991.1) measures 78.7 millimeters in length and 26.1 millimeters in width, the other (FS 993.1) is 39.5 millimeters long and 15.7 millimeters wide. The groundstone fragment (FS 994.1) appears to be a small slab-type metate fragment made of a gray colored quartzite that measures 63.5 by 60.9 by 31.7 millimeters in size. This fragment has been shaped, ground and pecked, and shows evidence of having been burned. It shows discoloration in the form of a whitish, ashy staining covering roughly one-half of the specimen. It is likely that once its usefulness as a grinding platform had passed, it was re-used as a cooking implement; something witnessed a great deal at this site.
45
Figure 23. Groundstone and artiodactyl bones found lying at the fill/floor contact (F-32) within F-25. Arrow points north.
Feature 33 “Hearth” What is being interpreted as a fire hearth was located roughly in the center of the structure. It was a fairly simple, expediently-constructed feature immediately on the occupation surface. It was an amorphous, roughly circular to elliptically-shaped area of charcoal-stained sediment (Figure 24). This stain was basin-shaped in profile, with no apparent modification of the ground surface (no intentionally excavated pit or rock lining). This feature (F-33) measured 83 centimeters in length, was 72 centimeters wide, and had a maximum depth of six centimeters. Three bulk sediment samples of more than 1,000 grams each of low carbon sediment were obtained from F-33 for radiometric analysis (Beta- 235168, 235169, 235170), as well as one bulk sample for flotation analysis. Radiocarbon analysis returned dates of 2330 +/- 40, 2360 +/- 40, and 2280 +/- 40 B.P. respectively. Five pieces of lithic debitage and one piece of faunal bone were recovered during the excavation of this feature.
46
Figure 24. Shallow, basin-shaped central hearth (F-33) identified within F-25. Arrow points north.
Evidence from excavation suggests that F-25 was a structure. The shallow, basin-shape, along with the presence of a central fire hearth (F-33), and artifacts on the floor justify this. The size and shape of the basin are consistent with both the excavated remains of house structures and those described in the archaeological, ethnohistoric, and ethnographic records (Larson 1997; Smith 2003; Simpson 1876; Dutcher 1893). Profiles of F-25 show an irregular and uneven, shallow-sloping floor. Cross-section views across the long axis of the feature show that the slope of the floor is fairly consistent, although the basin-shaped slope is more gradual on the eastern side of the structure (Figure 25). This may be the result, however, of the point through which the backhoe trench truncates the structure. No definite break was observed around the perimeter of the basin that would indicate a door or entryway. Such access features are noted in both the archaeological (Shields 1980) and historic/ethnohistoric literature (Simpson 1876; Dutcher 1893). There is the possibility, however, that any type of entrance (if present) may have been destroyed during excavation of the trench by the backhoe. No pits or other internal features that could be interpreted as storage facilities were identified. No post molds were found within or immediately adjacent to the feature, therefore it is not possible to make any statements about a possible superstructure. There is no evidence to suggest that the structure had burned. The intercepts of the calibrated dates
47
obtained from six bulk sediment samples strongly cluster around an age of 2340 B.P., suggesting a temporal placement for this structure firmly within the Archaic.
Figure 25. Cross-section views of the F-25 basin-shaped floor. Arrow points north.
48
Possible Housepit Located approximately 130 meters to the south-southeast of F-25 is another possible structure that has been interpreted as the remains of a housepit. This feature was also discovered during backhoe exploration for buried cultural features. It was centered approximately at grid coordinates N 741 E 650. Feature 26 (F-26) consisted of a roughly basin-shaped charcoalstained layer of sediment that was located 8.5 meters east of the western end of backhoe trench number nine. This stain consisted of dark grey carbon-stained sediment that was visible in the profiles of both trench walls at a depth of 81 cm bpgs. The stain measured 3.95 meters in length, had a maximum depth of fill of 21 centimeters, and contained numerous pieces of lithic debris and FCR that were protruding out of the exposed surface. A complete quartzite metate (FS 341.1) and a mano fragment were revealed in the trench at roughly 50 cm bpgs, approximately a meter-and-a-half away from the stain during excavation. Figure 26 shows the profile of F-26 in trench number nine as discovered during testing.
Figure 26. Image of the north wall profile of backhoe trench #9 showing the F-26 stain.
This feature was only partially excavated in order to extract samples for chronological analyses. Two bulk sediment samples were obtained from the western portion of the stain as exposed in the profile of the north trench wall (Figure 27). These samples (Beta- 235171 and 235172) were comprised of more than 1,000 grams each of low carbon sediment. Analysis returned dates of 2000 +/- 50 B.P. and 1720 +/- 40 B.P. respectively. While not excavated during this project, it does hold potential for future research, as it lies in close proximity to two other buried cultural features: the activity area (F-35) described below, and a thermal feature (F24). It also indicates, based on the radiometric results, use of the area during the Late Archaic period.
49
Figure 27. Profile sketch of F-26 showing the location from which sediment was removed for radiometric analysis. Arrow points north.
ROASTING PIT The “fire-hearth” identified and partially excavated during the 1993 investigation was reexcavated during this project, and has been reinterpreted as the remnant of a roasting pit. This feature was centered approximately at grid coordinates N 746 E 655. Located in the F-16 Area (as defined during the course of the present study) in the west-central portion of the site, Feature 1 (as defined by Sagebrush Consultants) consisted of a dark gray, ash-stained layer of sediment measuring approximately 1.5 meters in length, roughly 20 centimeters thick, and occupied a depth of 72 to 80 cm bpgs to roughly one meter below present ground surface when discovered in 1993 (Polk et al. 1994). In addition, “nine fire-altered river cobbles, arranged in a arc pattern” (and that are most likely associated with this feature) were uncovered immediately adjacent to the stain. For the purposes of the current investigation, we separated the two, assigning Feature 19 (F-19) to the stones and Feature 24 (F-24) to the charcoal-stain. Figure 28 shows F-19 and F24 as they appeared upon re-excavation and prior to removal of the fill.
50
Figure 28. Image showing F-19 (left frame) and F-24 (visible in trench wall) before excavation. Trowel points north.
Figure 29. Profile sketch of F-24. Arrow points north.
51
Feature 24 (F-24) is a roughly trough-shaped pit, filled with carbon (charcoal)-stained densely compacted sandy-silt. The stain measured 1.6 meters in length, but due to removal of an unknown portion of the feature by the excavation of the trench in 1993, its lateral extent remains unknown. The level of origin was located approximately 54 cm bpgs, originated and cut into the Stratum V sediments. This pit shows no indication of having been lined or rimmed, but was simply dug into the sterile sandy-silt subsoil of the site. It is not found within a structure, but it may correspond with an outdoor use area to the south. Figure 30 shows the F-24 thermal feature after excavation was concluded. The pit was fairly deep (~ 30 to 45 centimeters), with steeply sloping walls that grade at the bottom to a basin shape. There was no visible charcoal remaining in the pit, meaning that either: a) the fuels used in heating were completely combusted, or b) that the pit had been cleaned after use and subsequently filled by surrounding sediment. Scenario “a” is more likely, as burned bone and FCR were recovered from the fill. The fill was removed in its entirety for flotation, water-screening, and radiometric analysis. Cultural material observed during the excavation of the fill of F-24 included lithic debitage, bone, and FCR. One bulk sample was sent to Beta Analytic, Inc. for dating purposes, two bulk sediment samples were sent to Dr. Linda Scott Cummings for analysis.
Figure 30. Thermal feature (F-24) after fill was removed. Trowel points north.
52
The radiometric analysis was performed on a bulk sample (Beta- 236619) of more than 1,000 grams of low carbon-content sediment, returning a date of 2910 +/- 40 B.P. The intercept date of 3060 B.P. for this sample is consistent with that generated during the 1993 investigation (3040 +/- 80 B.P.) and suggests placement in the Archaic period. While not found within the stained sediment, Feature 19 (F-19) consisted of eleven stone elements covering an area measuring 48 centimeters north to south by 37 centimeters east to west. All of the stones show evidence of alteration by heat: they are all discolored by varying degrees from white, to grey, to black. These stones were located immediately adjacent to the stained sediment, on the western edge of grid unit N 745 E 655, at various depths from 55 to 59 cm bpgs. Two of these stones are identifiable as one-handed manos. It is highly probable that these stones were incorporated into the thermal feature described above (F-24) for use in fire containment and/or heat reflection or retention, as they all exhibit characteristics common to fire altered stones: discoloration and thermal cracking (crazing). Figure 31 shows the configuration of these rocks when uncovered during the present project. It is not known to what extent these elements were moved during the 1993 excavations.
Figure 31. View of the fire altered stones comprising F-19. Trowel points north.
Humans can change the chemistry of food tissues, making them less toxic, more digestible, and preservable by heat treating them (Wandsnider 1997). There is ample ethnographic description of the use of pit roasting of certain vegetal resources by the Aboriginal inhabitants of the region surrounding site 42SL186 (Steward 1943; Chamberlain 1911, 1947; Moulton 2002; Ferris 1940). Pits were often used for roasting wild onions, tubers such as camas,
53
Yampa, bitterroot, biscuit root, sego lily, wild thistle, and tobacco root. A large rock was placed in the center of the pit which was sometimes rock-lined, other times not. Roots were placed on top of the rocks, covered with grass and earth, and cooked for a number of hours (Steward 1943). In the Journal of Lewis and Clark, the roasting process for camas root is described in which the pit is said to be 2 ½ feet deep in the center and 10 feet in diameter (Moulton 2002). Additional records describe the excavation of round holes two feet deep and three feet in diameter which are filled with stones, a hot fire started on top, and covered with earth for up to fifteen hours in order to cook camas roots (Ferris 1940). These ethnographic descriptions can be compared to examples of roasting pits from the archaeological record. In general, pits were dug in the ground in order to steam-cook or slowroast roots and other foods. The size and shape of a pit feature may be related not only to the quantity of the item being processed for consumption, but also to the chemical qualities of the items cooked (Lepofsky and Peacock 2004; Hayden and Cousins 2004; Thoms 1989). Resources containing complex carbohydrates require longer cooking times than do those containing primarily starch (Wandsnider 1997; Lepofsky and Peacock 2004). Also, the amount of rock used for cooking would have depended on the amount and type of food being processed. This translates to pits filled with gray, charcoal-stained sand in the archaeological record. Some pits contain abundant rock elements within the fill (Francis 2000; Thoms 1989), while others contain few or no rocks (Hayden and Cousins 2004; Wandsnider 1997; Thoms 1989), depending on what was being cooked. Roasting pits lacking rock lining have been interpreted as being used to slow-roast seed resources and are known from Paleoindian through Late Prehistoric sites in the northwestern Plains (Wandsnider 1997), as well as meat-roasting and wild onion processing pits from the Columbia Plateau (Hayden and Cousins 2004; Thoms 1989). The sediment in which the pit was excavated served as the heat reservoir, and the relative amount of rock present in the feature may indicate the length of time an elevated cooking temperature was maintained (Wandsnider 1997; Thoms 1989). The seeds and rhizomes of cattails (Typha latifolia), the seeds and root-stocks of bulrush (Scirpus lacustris), wild onions (Allium bisceptrum), and biscuit root (Lomatium macrocarpum) occur locally, and are known to have been food resources to the aboriginal inhabitants of the Salt Lake Valley and surrounding region (Chamberlain 1911). Vegetable resources were not the only food items prepared in pits. Animal resources were also readied for consumption in these features. The ethnographic and archaeological records contain references to pit-roasting meat (deer, rabbits, squirrels), insects, and crickets (Steward 1943; Wandsnider 1997 and references therein). The methods for roasting these items are virtually identical to those for roasting roots and tubers described above. Meat-roasting pits typically contain abundant faunal remains and little or no FCR. They commonly measure about 100 by 40 by 30 centimeters (Hayden and Cousins 2004) in size. The roasting of both plant material and meat may have been performed for the storage of winter food resources, to reduce additional weight of the resource (water content) for transport, or to feed large numbers of individuals (Hayden and Cousins 2004; Thoms 1989). Thermal features interpreted as roasting pits in the archaeological record are commonly associated with root-harvesting locations, lithic scatters, and campsites. The general lack of lithic detritus found within the fill or surrounding the F-24 pit feature at 42SL186 would suggest that it was used for cooking food, not for the thermal alteration of toolstone material. The 54
general paucity of FCR and abundant faunal remains may indicate meat-roasting was the primary function of the pit at 42SL186. The lack of charred material recovered from the pit during excavation, coupled with the cluster of FCR located immediately adjacent to the pit (F-19) suggests that it may have been used only once (or multiple times during the same, short-term occupation), and cleaned out prior to abandonment. Additionally, the lack of a rimmed crest, the lack of identifiable superimposed heating features, and the general paucity of accumulations of associated materials such as FCR, ash, and other debris indicates that this feature represents a single use. As mentioned previously, bulk sediment samples were analyzed by the Paleo Research Institute for starch grain and phytolith analysis, and will be discussed later in this report. Whether pit-roasting, pit-baking, or hot sand roasting, any of the items listed above served as important food resources in the past and may have constituted the food items cooked in the pit found at 42SL186. Whatever the case may be, it is likely that the occupants of 42SL186 collected and processed the resource, ate some on the site, then packed some for storage and continued on their subsistence travels (Hayden and Cousins 2004). ACTIVITY/USE AREA This area, located in the F-16 Area of the west-central portion of the site, showed evidence of intensive activity in the form of a much higher than average (for this site) density of artifacts. Approximately 2.5 meters north of backhoe trench number 9, and centered approximately at grid coordinates N 737 E 655, exploratory excavation designed to expose backhoe trench number five (excavated by Sagebrush Consultants in 1993) resulted in the discovery of what may be either an activity area, or a secondary refuse area, associated with either F-26 or F-24. This locus of activity was designated as Feature 35 (F-35). Some 2928 artifacts were found within 20 centimeters of sediment covering a four square-meter area (grid units N 737 E 655, N 737 E 656, N738 E 655, and N 738 E 656) between 60-80 cm bpgs. Artifacts consisted of lithic debitage (n= 1,382), both burned and un-burned faunal bone (n= 1,074), groundstone fragments (n= 6), and FCR (n= 472). Although a clearly delineated or well marked use surface was not identified, a high artifact density and close proximity to both a possible structure and roasting feature indicates a fairly intense and perhaps prolonged (although not necessarily continuous) usage. Unfortunately, no datable materials were identified which could tie this feature to either of the two features in the vicinity. ARTIFACTS All artifacts observed at 42SL186 were analyzed. Surface artifacts were mapped with a Trimble Geo-Explorer III handheld GPS unit and recorded in the field. Formal artifacts were mapped, described, and collected for further analysis. Surface groundstone items and lithic debitage were recorded, described, and left in-situ. Subsurface artifacts that were encountered during the course of excavation were recorded, bagged, given field specimen (FS) numbers, and returned to the Antiquities Section Archaeology Lab at the Division of State History. While in the lab, they were analyzed using the appropriate methodology for each artifact type, cleaned, and catalogued for placement in the Utah Museum of Natural History.
55
Broad categories such as debitage, biface, projectile point, groundstone, etc. were used to initially separate the artifacts into general groups based on material type, morphological attributes, and implied function. Each of those categories was then further subdivided into smaller categories as needed. Approximately 30,000 prehistoric artifacts were encountered during the investigations undertaken at the Prison Site, 28,464 of which were collected for further analysis. The artifact assemblage consisted of three primary classes: lithics, ceramics, and bone. These classes were further subdivided for more accurate descriptions. The lithic assemblage was comprised of flaked stone tools, debitage, groundstone, and fire-cracked rock (FCR). The ceramic assemblage consisted entirely of broken grayware sherds. The bone assemblage was subdivided into worked and non-worked animal bone. The historic artifacts were comprised of a variety of items, which included broken bottle glass, tin cans, ceramic insulators, wood and fencing material, and other items associated with historic farming/ranching operations. No historic artifacts were collected. ANALYSIS Ceramic Artifacts The analysis of ceramic artifacts follows a combination of R.E. Madsen’s (1977) and D.B. Madsen’s (1979) approaches of describing the morphological attributes of these items. Seven ceramic sherds were observed, all of which were collected for additional analysis. Each piece was measured, weighed, and described. In addition, a small corner was broken off of each sherd to create a fresh break for temper analysis, and examined under a microscope. Interior surface, exterior surface, and core color were crosschecked with a Munsell Soil Color Chart (2000) for color descriptions. Measurements of inclusions used as temper in the core were assigned a size classification as follows: 1.0 millimeters = Medium, >1.0 millimeters = Large. All ceramics observed were of a fragmentary nature, without any diagnostic elements such as rims or necks. Vessel form, therefore, is indiscernible. The ceramics observed during the course of investigations reported here fall into one named category: Great Salt Lake Grayware. None of the sherds have a slipped surface, and while there is variability in the amount and material-type found as inclusions in the core, all but one of the sherds exhibit quartz as the primary tempering material. Of interest was the use of iron pyrite as a tempering agent in one of the specimens. Table 2 provides analysis data for the ceramics encountered. FS # 260.1 261.1 302.1 304.1 320.1 321.1 793.1
Depth Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface
LxWxTh(mm)
Interior
Exterior
Paste
Temper
15.3 x 14.2 x 4.2 26.7 x 25.5 x 5.1 20.0 x 16.0 x 5.2
2.5 Y 7.5/1 2.5 Y 7.5/1 2.5 Y 7.5/1 2.5 Y 7.5/1 2.5 Y 7.5/1 10 YR 5.5/3 2.5 Y 6.5/3
10 YR 5.5/1 10 YR 6.5/1 10 YR 6.5/1 10 YR 6.5/1 N/A 10 YR 5.5/3 2.5 Y 5.5/3
2.5 Y 7.5/1 2.5 Y 6.5/1 2.5 Y 6.5/1 2.5 Y 6.5/1 2.5 Y 6.5/1 10 YR 5.5/3 2.5 Y 5.5/3
Q, M Q, M Q, M Q, M Q, M Q, M, P Q, M
28.5 x 29.2 x 4.1 8.7 x 7.6 x 2.9 15.0 x 12.1 x 5.6 7.6 x 6.6 x 3.0
Table 2. 42SL186 ceramic inventory.
56
Type GSL GSL GSL GSL GSL GSL GSL
Great Salt Lake Grayware Ceramics of the Great Salt Lake variety were the only type found. This type has had a variety of designations and sub-types (i.e. Great Salt Lake Buff and Knolls Gray) in the past (Madsen 1979), but for this analysis all variants were analyzed as Great Salt Lake Gray. There is a great deal of variation in Great Salt Lake pottery, but common characteristics include: coiled construction; a quartz, sand, and mica (muscovite and biotite) temper which makes up roughly 30 to 50 percent of the vessel wall; often smoothed and scraped surfaces, sometimes polished, and striations from smoothing are frequently present on the interior surface (Madsen 1977). Seven sherds fitting into this category were collected and analyzed, representing a wide range of variation common to this ceramic type: from buff to medium gray in color, thin-walled to thickwalled (ranges from 4.1 millimeters to 8.2 millimeters), and varying tempering compositions.
Figure 32. Ceramic artifacts from 42SL186. FS Numbers 261.1, 304.1, 302.1, 260.1, and 321.1.
Lithic Artifacts All artifacts derived from stone sources were categorized under the lithic class of artifacts. This class was further subdivided to include flaked stone tools, cores, debitage, groundstone, fire-cracked rock (FCR), and miscellaneous items. Flaked stone items comprised the largest portion of the artifact assemblage at 42SL186, consisting of more than 11,590 specimens. The geologic composition of the local mountains consists of outcrops of rocks dating from the Precambrian through the Pliocene. Limestone, sandstone, shale, conglomerate, siltstone and quartzite can be found in the Wasatch Range to the north/northeast. The Traverse Mountains, south of the site, consist primarily of Pennsylvanian Oquirrh Formation quartzite with some calcareous limestone and sandstone (Beik 2005). The quartzites from this formation are relatively fine-grained, and certain beds of limestone within this formation contain chert nodules (Black 1983). Most of these formations are covered by Pleistocene glacial deposits as 57
well as lakeshore sand and gravel alluvium derived from Lake Bonneville. Much of the Oquirrh Formation quartzites have eroded into cobbles and gravels that have been rounded by fluvial and lacustral activity during the Quaternary, and can be found throughout the Jordan (Salt Lake) Valley. Prehistoric activities, as well as historic farming and ranching activities have no doubt cleared the immediate vicinity around 42SL186 of readily available toolstone material. Following is a brief discussion of the toolstone materials identified during the project at 42SL186. Raw Materials While the most abundant toolstone material encountered at 42SL186 is quartzite (n=2203 of that analyzed thus far) derived primarily from the Oquirrh Formation (Kathleen Nicoll, University of Utah Dept. of Geography, personal communication, 2007), other materials were identified during this project. While not exhaustive, this list includes metaquartzite, opalite (n=4), chert (n=39), chalcedony (n=3), basalt (n=3), and obsidian (n=266). The toolstone materials come in a wide variety of colors: white, pink to red, yellow, orange, light to dark shades of grey, to hues of brown derived from included accessory minerals. As mentioned above, most of the material (while not available on-site) can be found in the vicinity of 42SL186 in the form of eroded pebbles and boulders along the Jordan River. This material can also be found eroding from the Oquirrh Mountains to the west and in the Traverse and Wasatch Mountains to the south (Traverse) and east (Wasatch). In fact, a number of prehistoric quartzite and chert quarry locations have been documented in the Traverse Mountains to the south and west of the site (Black 1983). This fact may account for the dominance of quartzitic materials observed on the archaeological site. Opalite, a brittle, microspherical form of quartz, is also known from the Traverse Mountains (Beik 2005). Obsidian is not found locally, but because of very specific and individual chemical signatures within the rock, can be traced to their source locations. The closest known source locations (Malad, Idaho; Wildhorse Canyon, Utah; Topaz Mountain, Utah) average approximately 187 kilometers (116 miles) away and have been documented as source locations for materials recovered from archaeological sites throughout Utah (Janetski and Smith 2007; Nelson and Holmes 1979). Investigating the source materials used in the production of stone tools allows researchers to investigate population movements and possible trade networks, aspects of which will be discussed further in the “Obsidian Sourcing” section. Flaked Stone Tools Flaked stone tools can be defined as stones from which flakes have been removed as a result of human intent or use (Whittaker 1994; Crabtree 1972; Odell 2003). This category includes both formal and expedient tools such as unifaces, bifaces, projectile points, and drills, and is distinguished from groundstone artifacts. Eighty-seven flaked stone tools were collected during the course of investigations at 42SL186. All flaked stone tools were examined macroscopically and microscopically for signs of edge wear (either use wear or edge grinding) and were sorted by tool type.
58
Unifaces Unifaces are flakes that have been shaped by the intentional removal of flakes from only one side or surface, and along one or more margins of a tool, by percussion (Whittaker 1994; Odell 2003; Crabtree 1972). Eight of the collected artifacts fall into this category, which includes non-descript unifacial tools, scrapers, and spokeshaves. Scrapers Scrapers are an example of unifacial tools, which exhibit a steep working edge (>45 degrees), that would be useful as scraping tools, tools for planing wood or bone, or for cutting (Whittaker 1994). Seven artifacts were identified and classified as scrapers, data for which is provided in Table 3. These include domed scrapers, side scrapers, and complex scrapers. Domed Scrapers: These artifacts can best be described as thick, domed flakes with steep unifacial retouch extending around the edges. One artifact matching this description (FS 1010.1) was identified. This artifact is a tan colored quartzite flake measuring 46.8 by 30.4 millimeters, and rising in a domed manner to a maximum thickness (in the center) of 12.2 millimeters. Side Scrapers: Side scrapers are best described as elongate forms with one or both parallel edges showing retouch and/or use. Five items matching this description were identified (FS 208.1, FS 615.1, FS 1012.1, FS 1036.1, FS 1061.1, and FS 1072.1), one of which (FS 615.1) showed characteristics of thermal alteration in the forms of discoloration and thermal induced cracking (crazing). Complex Scrapers: Complex scrapers are those tools that exhibit unifacial modification along more than one surface. Two artifacts match this definition (FS 606.1 and FS 842.1), although one (FS 606.1) also contains a crescent-shaped notch and has been analyzed as a spokeshave (see below). The other specimen (FS 842.1) exhibits unifacial modification along more than one surface, is derived from a flake of mahogany obsidian, and measures 21.8 by 21.3 by 3.4 millimeters. FS Number 208.1 615.1 842.1 1010.1 1012.1 1036.1 1061.1 1072.1
Material Quartzite Chert Obsidian Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite
Size (L x W x Thick) 60.2 x 32.5 x 7.5 mm 44.6 x 22.4 x 6.4 mm 21.8 x 21.3 x 3.4 mm 46.8 x 30.4 x 12.2 mm 62.6 x 34.4 x 6.7 mm 43.0 x 25.1 x 8.7 mm 30.1 x 31.5 x 9.4 mm 24.9 x 10.0 x 6.4 mm
Table 3. Scraper data from 42SL186.
59
Type Side Side Complex Domed Side Side Side Side
Figure 33. Image of a uniface (FS 2.1, top left) and an assortment of scrapers. From left to right, starting top row: FS 1012.1, 208.1, 1036.1, 1010.1, and 842.1.
Spokeshaves These are unifacial tools that have at least one retouched lunate (crescent or moonshaped) notch in one of the edges. While a spokeshave is typically thought of as a tool used to shape and smooth wooden rods and shafts, it is difficult to determine if this was actually the function of these tools. Three of these items were recovered (FS 303.1, FS 562.1, and FS 606.1) and are shown in Figure 34. The first is a purple opalite specimen (FS 303.1) with a crescentshaped notch along the lateral edge, showing evidence of microflaking on the ventral surface of the notch. The second (FS 562.1) is a tan colored quartzite item with three such notches on three opposing sides, one of which shows microflaking on the ventral surface. The third (FS 606.1) is a fine-grained, brown with greenish tint colored quartzite specimen that exhibits steep edge angles (>45 degrees) along all intact edge surfaces, as well as a lunate notch with microflaking
60
on one of the lateral edges. It is likely, based on morphology and retouch, that this tool served dual functions of scraper and spokeshave.
Figure 34. Spokeshaves (FS 562.1 and FS 303.1) and perforator (FS 322.1) from 42SL186.
Perforator One artifact can be defined as a perforator (FS 322.1). This item is roughly triangular in outline, with a flat to slightly convex base, converging to a sharp point at the distal end. The point is triangular in cross-section, rather than the diamond-shape of a drill. It is unifacially flaked with some bifacial retouch to the area where the point is formed. It is fashioned from a grayish-brown quartzite and measures 29.1 by 21.8 by 6.9 millimeters. Bifaces Bifaces are tools that have been shaped by the intentional removal of flakes from opposing sides by percussion (Whittaker 1994; Crabtree 1972; Odell 2003). They lack hafting elements (notches or stems) that would identify them as projectile points, and have therefore been placed in their own category. The classification system used in the analysis of the Prison Site assemblage combines the biface manufacturing stages defined by Wenker (2000) and Whittaker (1994). The stages of biface manufacture are:
61
Stage 1 Bifaces. Bifaces fitting into this category exhibit only minimal modification and may be indistinguishable from bifacial cores. These bifaces represent the initial stages of raw material procurement and/or testing. Stage 2 Bifaces. This category also includes those items in the initial stages of thinning, with controlled flaking around part or all of the tools edge. The flaking is irregular and flake scars usually do not cross the midline of the tool. Stage 3 Bifaces. These items represent the stages of thinning the item’s cross-section without diminishing the outline shape of the tool. Stage 4 Bifaces. These items are still being thinned, but initial shaping is coming into play and the item’s final shape is started. Stage 5 Bifaces. These bifaces are completely thinned and final shaping is being performed, or is complete. Pressure flaking may also be applied. These can be classified as highly symmetrical. These bifaces exhibit well-controlled flaking and the edges are straight and regular. Forty-eight bifaces were collected from 42SL186, the data for which is presented in Table 4. While projectile points are commonly analyzed separately from bifaces, a number of probable projectiles were either too fragmentary or did not match with any particular “type”, and were subsequently analyzed as bifaces.
FS #
LOCATION
DEPTH
MATERIAL
STAGE
MEASUREMENTS
13.1 21.1 71.1 72.1 76.1 79.1 86.1 101.1 120.1 121.1 126.1 130.1 132.1 162.1 195.1 209.1 227.1 233.1 256.1 262.1 277.1 301.1 305.1
F2 F2 F7 Area F7 Area F7 Area F7 Area F7 Area F7 Area F7 Area F7 Area F7 Area F7 Area F7 Area F2 F5 Area F2 F5 Area F5 Area F5 Area F2 F5 Area F2 F2
Surface Surface 0-10 cm 0-10 cm 0-10 cm 20-30 cm 0-10 cm 30-40 cm F9 F9 F9 F8 0-10 cm Surface 0-10 cm Surface Surface F13 F12 Surface F13 Surface Surface
Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Red Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Black Quartzite
5 4 3 5 5 3 4 3 3 5 1 2 5 4 4 3 3 4 5 1 4 4 4
45.2 x 36.4 x 7.9 mm 20.4 x 29.8 x 5.6 mm 29.8 x 26.6 x 8.6 mm 26.1 x 25.5 x 4.7 mm 32.3 x 13.3 x 5.0 mm 16.9 x 18.4 x 7.7 mm 19.4 x 33.4 x 8.3 mm 26.4 x 15.0 x 10.2 mm 27.9 x 26.5 x 7.9 mm 7.1 x 6.1 x 3.7 mm 29.2 x 41.5 x 17.4 mm 27.8 x 9.1 x 6.1 mm 17.5 x 22.5 x 5.3 mm 31.7 x 24.4 x 5.9 mm 11.9 x 9.1 x 3.0 mm 50.9 x 38.3 x 10.1 mm 43.5 x 33.4 x 13.4 mm 19.2 x 22.3 x 6.3 mm 14.0 x 8.3 x 3.8 mm 33.7 x 23.2 x 10.6 mm 17.5 x 22.4 x 6.7 mm 10.0 x 21.0 x 5.3 mm 22.8 x 19.2 x 4.3 mm
62
FS #
LOCATION
DEPTH
MATERIAL
STAGE
MEASUREMENTS
306.1 328.1 476.1 481.1 605.1 607.1 616.1 644.1 679.1 826.1 850.1 851.1 873.1 878.1 924.1 928.1 1010.1 1011.1 1051.1 1058.1 1059.1 1060.1 1062.1 1064.1 1071.1
F2 F15 Area F16 Area F16 Area F16 Area F15 Area F15 Area F16 Area F16 Area F2 F15 Area F15 Area F15 Area F15 Area F15 Area F15 Area F15 Area F16 Area F15 Area F2 F15 Area Trench 3 F15 Area F5 Area F5 Area
Surface 20-30 cm 30-40 cm 70-80 cm F21 Surface Surface F23 F23 Surface F23 F23 F2 F23 F25 F25 F23 76 cm F23 Surface Surface 15 cm Surface 10-20 cm F12
Grey Quartzite Rust Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Black Obsidian Grey Quartzite Black Obsidian Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Opalite Grey Quartzite Brown Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey Chert White/Grey Quartzite Grey Quartzite Black Obsidian Purple Quartzite Grey Quartzite Grey/Pink Quartzite Tan Quartzite Grey/Purple Quartzite Grey Quartzite
1 5 5 3 5 2 5 1 5 4 5 2 4 4 2 1 3 5 2 5 5 3 5 2 5
54.4 x 58.3 x 20.5 mm 28.8 x 27.4 x 6.4 mm 19.7 x 18.2 x 3.6 mm 44.9 x 26.3 x 5.6 mm 10.5 x 7.6 x 2.2 mm 34.1 x 33.1 x 13.5 mm 19.7 x 13.4 x 3.8 mm 43.3 x 29.4 x 19.4 mm 19.5 x 13.9 x 4.8 mm 50.6 x 23.5 x 9.7 mm 16.0 x 14.6 x 5.1 mm 41.1 x 23.4 x 8.7 mm 42.3 x 29.2 x 10.0 mm 36.7 x 30.5 x 8.1 mm 22.7 x 21.4 x 12.6 mm 47.9 x 35.4 x 12.7 mm 46.0 x 30.5 x 12.7 mm 15.2 x 8.0 x 5.8 mm 15.6 x 8.2 x 3.4 mm 10.9 x 9.3 x 4.8 mm 24.6 x 17.1 x 3.9 mm 37.4 x 16.0 x 10.5 mm 28.5 x 33.0 x 8.7 mm 36.3 x 17.8 x 11.5 mm 0.7 x 0.5 x 0.2 mm
Table 4. Biface data for 42SL186.
The dominance of Stage 5 bifaces over all others (35.4% of total), including cores, suggests that toolstone was being reduced at a different location and transported to the site as finished (or almost finished) pieces. The predominant reduction stages represented by lithic debitage observed at the Prison Site consist of middle and late stage tertiary flakes which would also suggest that bifaces transported onto the site were in later stages of reduction and that the maintenance and repair of stone tools, not the production of, was occurring here. Bifacial Blades This artifact form consists of bifacially flaked items that are generally triangular to lanceolate in form (Figure 35), exhibiting a cutting edge around the entire circumference, and lacking tangs or other indicators of hafting (Aikens 1970). These artifacts are being interpreted as general purpose tools that could be used for a multitude of tasks including cutting, scraping, and incising. Based on the complete specimens, mean length is 35.5 millimeters with a standard deviation of 13.06. Mean width is 27.27 millimeters with a standard deviation of 8.19. Eleven specimens fit into this category.
63
FS #
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Weight (g)
13.1 21.1 162.1 209.1 305.1 481.1 607.1 826.1 873.1 878.1 1058.1
45.2 20.4 31.7 50.9 22.8 44.9 34.1 50.6 42.3 36.7 10.9
36.4 29.8 24.4 38.3 19.2 26.3 33.1 23.5 29.2 30.5 9.3
7.9 5.6 5.9 10.1 4.3 5.6 13.5 9.7 10.0 8.1 4.8
13.8 3.9 5.2 19.1 2.0 6.0 14.4 12.4 12.3 8.3 0.4
Table 5. Bifacial, non-hafted blades.
Figure 35. Bifaces from 42SL186. From left to right: FS 13.1, 481.1, 897.1, and FS 328.1.
Hafted Bifaces Hafted bifaces are flaked stone tools that are large and bifacially flaked, with some specialized morphological feature such as a tang or notches that would facilitate hafting. While projectile points fall into this category, they are being separated and described in another section below. For the purposes of this report, hafted bifaces, while often similar to projectile points morphologically, are much larger in size. Only one specimen (FS 897.1), of white quartzite, was recovered from the floor/fill interface of the F-25 Housepit. It is a complete specimen measuring 60.2 millimeters long, 31.7 millimeters in width; it has a maximum width of 31.8 millimeters, and is 16.4 millimeters thick at the neck (hafting width). It is corner notched and most likely represents a knife. One additional find deserves mention. A large stemmed point or knife was discovered approximately 25 cm bpgs in grid unit N 740 E 821 of test unit number 3. No use wear or edge grinding was observed. This artifact (FS 328.1) has the morphological characteristics of a 64
Paleoindian-like, Windust variety, large, stemmed point. There is not enough of the specimen present to analyze the artifact more completely, but it is highly probable that this specimen represents the remains of a knife (Figure 35).
Figure 36. Distribution map of bifacial artifacts.
65
Drills Drills are bifacial tools with narrow shafts rather than broad blades. They are usually diamond-shaped in cross-section at their short axis. They were used in a rotary motion in order to perforate rigid items. Three drill fragments and one almost complete drill (that was broken into two pieces during excavation) were observed and collected during the investigations at 42SL186: FS 76.1, FS 121.1, FS 1011.1, and FS 1058.1. The most complete specimen measures 32.3 millimeters in length, with a maximum width of 13.2 millimeters, and a width of 7.8 millimeters along the shaft. This item has a flared base and an elongated distal end. It appears as though the tip is the only portion missing.
Figure 37. Drill (FS 76.1) from the F-7 Area. It was broken during excavation.
Projectile Points Projectile points are bifacial tools that exhibit formal hafting elements at their bases. While there has been much debate concerning morphological typologies and the effects of rejuvenation on projectile form in the past (Flenniken and Raymond 1986; Thomas 1986; Flenniken and Wilke 1989; O’Connell and Inoway 1994), the often broken or “spent” form is commonly what the archaeologist encounters. Therefore, the established typologies provide the basis for the reporting here. The projectile points from 42SL186 were measured and placed into the commonly accepted categories for Great Basin projectile points outlined by Thomas (1981), with additional descriptions following Holmer (1979, 1986).
66
Eighteen clearly identifiable projectile points were collected and can be placed into seven known types. Types representative of the Archaic (n=15) and the Fremont archaeological complexes (n=3) were observed, those representing the Archaic period dominating (Elko Series: n=9). Following are descriptions for the point types identified. Elko Corner-Notched Points. This point type can be characterized as consisting of a “triangular blade form with straight to slightly convex edges. The corner notches form tangs and an expanding stem that is narrower at its base than the maximum blade width. The base ranges from slightly concave to slightly convex” (Holmer 1979). The Elko series points are considered the least temporally diagnostic of the point types found in the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. They seem to appear first in the Eastern Great Basin and Colorado Plateau sometime after 7600 B.P., with a temporal span of 3500 and 1400 B.P. everywhere in the Great Basin (central and western portions included). In addition, there are no morphological characteristics of this point type that differentiates one time period from another (Holmer 1979). With a roughly 7,000 year temporal span, and two distinct “hiatus” periods for this point type, assigning a specific age is problematic. Eight points of this type were observed (FS 1.1, 18.1, 172.1, 185.1, 213.1, 323.1, 807.1, and 915.1).
Figure 38. Elko Series Points: FS 807.1, FS 213.1, FS 323.1.
Humboldt Concave-Base Points. The Humboldt series points are lanceolate-form points that are un-notched, concave-based projectile points of variable size (Thomas 1981). While these points are considered poor temporal markers by Thomas (1981; 17), an Archaic time frame of roughly 5000 B.P. to 1300 B.P. can be assigned. One point of this type of was found (FS 1034.1). Gatecliff Series Points. This class, following Thomas (1981), consists of the previously defined Elko Contracting-stem (sometimes called Gypsum points) and Pinto series points. This 67
class is comprised of medium to large contracting and split-stem projectile points with weight greater than one gram. The temporal range for this class is from roughly 5000 B.P. to 3300 B.P. Four specimens fitting into this class type were identified. Pinto: This point classification, used by Holmer (1979), but subsumed into the Gatecliff Series by Thomas (1981), consists of triangular-shaped, unnotched blades with convex edges. The stems of these points are basically parallel-sided to slightly expanding. While there are some discrepancies in dates across the Great Basin, a temporal span from roughly 8300 B.P. to 3000 B.P. is fairly accepted (Holmer 1979; Thomas 1981). Three points (FS 14.1, FS 926.1, and FS 1035.1) falling into this variety were recorded, one of which was a complete, red quartzite specimen. Gypsum: This point classification, also subsumed into the Gatecliff Series by Thomas (1981), consists of triangular-shaped blades with convex edges. They also exhibit (and this is a differentiation from the Pinto Series) contracting, convex-based stems (Holmer 1979). The timeframe for these points spans the period from 5000 B.P. to 1500 B.P. (Holmer 1986). One complete specimen (FS 3.1) fitting this description was observed. Large Side-Notched Points. This point class lumps together a number of previously defined point types including Northern Side-notched, Elko Side-notched, and Rose Spring Sidenotched (Thomas 1981). While points fitting into this category in the Eastern Great Basin have fairly limited age ranges (Northern Side-notched: 7000 to 6300 B.P.; Rocker Side-notched: 6800 to 5300 B.P.; Sudden Side-notched: 6400 B.P. to 4700 B.P.), Thomas states that there was not a large enough sample to provide temporal information, but that they are older than the 1300 B.P. emergence of the Desert Side-notched type (Thomas 1981). Two points of this type were observed (FS 6.1 and FS 808.1), most likely attributable to the Elko Side-notched variety described by Holmer (1979).
Figure 39. From left to right: Gypsum (FS 3.1), Pinto (FS 1035.1), Humboldt (1034.1), Pinto (FS 926.1).
68
Rosegate Series Points. This point class lumps together the previously defined Rose Spring and Eastgate point types (Thomas 1981). These points are characterized as small, cornernotched points with expanding (although sometimes negligibly) stems. The temporal range for this class is from roughly A.D. 500 to A.D. 1300, but since these points are commonly associated with bow and arrow hunting technology, most likely emerge earlier (see Holmer 1986). Two of these points were identified (FS 413.1 and FS 689.1). Cottonwood Leaf-shaped Points. This point class consists of small, un-notched, and basally rounded variants of the Cottonwood Triangular type (Thomas 1981). While Thomas provides a late introduction of this type (post- A.D. 1300), it likely appeared slightly earlier (see Holmer’s discussion of the Cottonwood Triangular Points, 1986). One point fitting into this category was recovered from the F-16 Area (FS 430.1). Single-Tanged Point. One specimen was collected that contains only one lateral corner notch. This specimen (FS 172.1) is leaf-shaped in outline, bifacially flaked, and measures 29.3 millimeters long, 21.5 millimeters wide, and 3.5 millimeters thick (Figure 40). It is most likely a rejuvenated projectile.
Figure 40. Single-tanged point (FS 172.1) from the surface of the F-15 Area.
69
Figure 41. Projectile point distribution map.
70
Cores Cores, or large pieces of host material from which flakes are removed, were relatively uncommon (n=4 collected) in the lithic assemblage at 42SL186 (FS 126.1, 306.1, 644.1, and 928.1). The low number of cores in relation to finished bifaces and debitage suggests that some tool manufacture did occur on-site, but was not a major activity. Tools were most likely made elsewhere and brought to the site, maintenance and repair occurring as needed. Hammerstone A single hammerstone was recovered from the Feature 13 stratigraphic level (approximately 16 cm bpgs) in excavation unit N 766 E 602 in the F-5 Area. The material is a fairly coarse-grained, grey quartzite. It exhibits heavy battering at both ends as well as along one lateral margin, and numerous flake scars suggest that it was also used as a core prior to its use a hammering implement. Debitage An inventory of the morphological characteristics of flaked stone debitage was performed. It is estimated that more than 1000 pieces of debitage are present on the surface of the site, comprised of various colors of quartzite, metaquartzite, silt-stone, opalite, chert, and obsidian. A total of 11,500 pieces of debitage were recovered during the course of excavation and collected for further study. To date, 2,019 pieces of debitage have been examined macroscopically and microscopically for signs of use, edge grinding, or any other evidence of unnatural wear. Analysis completed thus far consists of all collected obsidian debitage, as well as a random sample (in a checkerboard-like distribution) of debitage from the floor/fill interface from F-25. Analysis of these elements is ongoing. The analysis of lithic debitage focused on the basic features of the flakes themselves. The first step in the analysis process was to determine a flaking stage: primary, secondary, or tertiary. This was determined by the amount of cortex present on the dorsal surface of the artifact. A primary flake retains roughly 95% cortex on the dorsal surface, a secondary flake 194%, a tertiary flake has no cortex at all. The second step in the analysis was to make a determination of the stage of reduction (early, middle, or late) represented by each individual flake in the assemblage. This determination was based on multiple variables, which included but were not limited to: platform preparation characteristics, flake size and shape, and the total number and direction of dorsal scars. The criteria used, as well as the method for identifying the stage of reduction follows Wenker (2000), which is a simplified version of Flenniken (2002). Early-stage flakes are those that can be classified as having been produced during the initial stages of core reduction, by hard-hammer percussion techniques. These flakes typically include broad, simple platforms with little or no platform preparation, a thick transverse crosssection, a low frequency of dorsal flake scars, and quite often have cortex remaining on the dorsal surface.
71
A middle-stage flake can be characterized as having a prepared platform, often multifaceted, which represents a small segment of a prepared and often dulled (by grinding) bifacial tool edge. Also known as biface-thinning or biface-reduction flakes, these flakes may also exhibit some combination of the following attributes: 1) a thin, transverse cross-section, 2) an expanding, “teardrop” shape with feathered terminations, 3) multiple flake scars originating from varied directions, 4) a lipped platform, and 5) little or no cortex on the dorsal surface. Late-stage flakes (i.e. - pressure flakes) are usually very small, narrow, and elongated flakes with multiple dorsal flake scars. They exhibit platforms prepared by grinding, are multifaceted, and contain no cortex on the dorsal surface. For those pieces that are either incomplete or do not exhibit the characteristics needed to identify which stage of reduction produced them, the category of “Fragment” is often (and was in our situation) used. A utilized flake can be defined as a flake that has not been modified after its removal from a core, but shows signs of obvious use-wear such as micro-flaking or edge rounding. Using these criteria, representative samples of surface debitage (n=287) were analyzed on-site. The reduction stages of surface debitage are summarized in Table 6. Early Middle Late Fragment Total % Primary (>95%) Secondary (1-94%) 25 Tertiary (0%)
1
1
1
1
4
30
10 89
24
125
44
63
256
Total
49
126
44
68
287
%
17
44
15
24
100
Table 6. Analysis of lithic debitage flaking stages from the surface assemblage. Percentages were rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a percent.
In addition, the analysis of the 11,500 pieces of debitage collected from the excavation units follows the guidelines and definitions in use at the Archaeological Center at the University of Utah (Wenker 2000). All specimens were weighed, placed into size classes, and examined microscopically in order to determine if there was any edge wear, microflaking, or platform preparation visible. The reduction stages of subsurface/excavated debitage are summarized in Table 7. While this analysis is ongoing, 2,019 samples from different depths from various locations across the site, as well as from the fill and floor interface of F-25 were analyzed in order to provide a representation of the stages of reduction at 42SL186. All obsidian specimens were also analyzed. A complete table of data pertaining to debitage analysis is on file with the Antiquities Section, Utah Division of State History.
72
Early Middle Late Fragment Total
%
Primary (>95%)
2
Secondary (1-94%)
5
Tertiary (0%)
85
1245 223
438
1991 98.6
Total
92
1254 223
450
2019
%
4.6
62.1
22.3
9
11
1
3
0.2
11
25
1.2
100
Table 7. Analysis of lithic debitage flaking stages from the excavated assemblage. Percentages were rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a percent.
In addition to the size, weight, and morphological attributes of individual flakes, the presence or absence of heat treatment (thermal alteration) was noted for each specimen. In all, 447 specimens showed evidence of thermal alteration, all but two were debitage. The nondebitage items were a side-notched projectile (FS 6.1) that was manufactured from a gray, finegrained quartzite material that was both discolored and had pot lid scars on both the dorsal and ventral surfaces, and a scraper (FS 615.1) that was both discolored and exhibited crazing (Figure 42).
Figure 42. Thermally altered artifacts from the surface of 42SL186. The projectile on the left (FS 6.1) is a gray, fine-grained quartzite that shows a white discoloration as well as pot lid scars. The scraper on the right (FS 615.1) is discolored, and contains thermal cracks (crazing) in the lighter/whitish area to the top of the artifact.
73
Three types of heat treatment/burning were identified in the lithic assemblage at 42SL186: discoloration, potlidding, and crazing. One hundred nineteen items showed some sort of discoloration, primarily orange and reddish-pink colors visible on the cortical surface. Potlidding was observed on 115 specimens analyzed thus far. A pot lid is a concave scar that is round in plan view, plano-convex in profile that is the result of the rapid contraction and expansion of lithic raw material when heated. Both discoloration and potlidding were observed on 217 pieces. Crazing consists of minute surface cracks that are generally cross-hatched, resulting from over-heating siliceous toolstone materials (Crabtree 1972). Only four items exhibited this form of heat treatment. Thermal alteration of lithic materials allows for more precise and predictable removal of flakes during the reduction process (Crabtree 1972). Although the indicators of heat treatment witnessed at 42SL186 can result from the accidental over-heating of material during the treatment process, it is more likely that they are the result of post-depositional burning. Heat treating the quartzite materials that dominate the assemblage of 42SL186 would not enhance the quality of the material enough to justify expending the time or the effort. Groundstone The groundstone assemblage from 42SL186 consists of complete and fragmented manos, metates, and other stone items that have been ground, battered, pecked, abraded, or otherwise smoothed and shaped by human use. These items were used historically to grind plant material as well as animal bones which were pounded or ground, cooked or mixed with fat, and eaten (Stewart 1941; Steward 1941; Gilmore 1953). The toolstone material (quartzite, quartz monzonite, and basalt) for these implements, while not obtainable in the immediate vicinity of the site, is locally available.
a.
b.
c.
Figure 43. Examples of groundstone items from 42SL186: a.) quartz monzonite one-handed mano (FS 4.1); b.) quartzite slab-metate fragment (FS 12.1); c.) quartzite “ball” (FS 8.1).
Forty-seven pieces of groundstone (whole or fragmentary) were identified at 42SL186, and were described and analyzed in a manner similar to Adams (2002). Four complete manos, 16 mano fragments, 13 metate fragments, and one complete basin-type metate (FS 341.1) were 74
documented, photographed, and mapped with the GPS and Total Station units. Of the groundstone artifacts identified at 42SL186, 83% (n=38) were produced from quartzite, five (11%) were made from quartz monzonite (“Temple Granite”) that most likely came from Little Cottonwood Canyon, and two (4%) which were made from an igneous material that is most likely basalt. One item (FS 714.1) appears to derive from shale. The most common surface alterations consist of grinding and pecking, although shaping and polish from use are also present on some items. It should be noted that numerous fragments of fire-cracked rock exhibited some characteristics of groundstone implements. Due to their fragmentary and damaged nature, the positive identification as to form was not possible. Therefore, these items were labeled as fire-cracked rock and are discussed below. Ball One additional find deserves mention. A ground and pecked “ball” made of a darkbrown quartzite was discovered (Figure 43c). This object has been pecked, ground, shaped, and polished into a roughly spherical shape, measuring 20.4 by 20.1 by 18.1 millimeters. Similar objects have been documented by Aikens at Injun Creek (1966), and Allison et al. (2000) at the Hot Springs Lake Site (42Dv2).
Figure 44. Distribution map of the identified groundstone items.
75
Miscellaneous Objects Stone Bead One stone bead (FS 904.1) was recovered during the course of excavation, from the fill of F-25. This object is round in outline and flat in cross-section, and appears to be biconically drilled in the center. Both the top and bottom surfaces (in profile view) have been ground and shaped, creating a concave surface. The diameter of the bead is 9.5 millimeters, it is 5.5 millimeters in thickness, with a hole diameter of 2.5 millimeters. The material is a light-brown, medium-grained quartzite.
Figure 45. Quartzite bead (FS 904.1) recovered from the housepit fill of F-25.
Polished Disk One artifact (FS 494.1) can be characterized as having been intentionally shaped, and exhibits a high surface sheen without any obvious use-wear. This specimen is a thin, tabular, oval-shaped piece of black quartzite that has been formed by pecking and grinding (almost beveled) around the edges. This specimen is round to elliptical in outline with very smooth and flat, polished surfaces. This may be a pendant, or some type of rubbing or polishing stone (cf. Aikens 1966: 45-46; 1967: 52-53). Length is 25.4 millimeters, width is 23.3 millimeters, and thickness is 4.8 millimeters. Fire-Cracked Rock (FCR) Fire-cracked rock (FCR) was the most common artifact class encountered during this investigation. More than 8,869 pieces of Fire-cracked-rock (FCR) were observed throughout this project, comprised almost entirely of a gray colored quartzite material. This artifact type was found to be widely dispersed throughout the site, but was concentrated more heavily in those areas containing cultural features. As mentioned in the groundstone discussion above, a fairly large number of groundstone items lacked the possibility of positive identification as groundstone, showed evidence of thermal alteration, and were subsequently labeled as FCR. 76
Since rocks do not occur naturally in any quantity on this site, materials for cooking and the processing of food had to be brought to the site. Therefore, given transport costs, it is not surprising to see the re-use of groundstone (which is derived from similar material to that of the rocks used for the processing of food) for cooking. Fire-cracked rock can be characterized (and distinguished from natural stone materials) as being very angular and blocky in appearance, with some discoloration caused by the heating process. As stones are continually heated and cooled, the thermal properties of the stones cause them to expand and contract, causing them to crack and break down to smaller fragments. There comes a point when the thermal capacity of the stone can no longer retain the heat required to cook food or boil water. When a stone reaches a point when it can no longer effectively conduct heat transfer, it is discarded for another stone that will accomplish the task (Jensen et al. 1999). The use of stones for cooking is well documented in the ethnographic literature (Smith 1974; Fowler 1986; Steward 1941). Boiling, either water for stew-like concoctions, meat, or seed meal used in preparing mush or gruel, was common (Fowler 1986). In addition, large game was sometimes cooked by filling the body cavity with hot rocks and water (Fowler 1986). More often, though, boiling required the use of water tight, often pitch-lined baskets (Steward 1941; Gilmore 1953). Pit roasting also utilized stones. Pinyon cones were roasted to release the seeds. Other seed resources, such as Indian Rice Grass, were also processed in this manner (Jensen et al. 1999; Simms et al. 1999). Most root resources require thermal alteration to remove or stabilize toxins and make them suitable for human consumption (Fowler 1986; Wandsnider 1997). In describing the cooking of tubers (Camas), Meriwether Lewis described the utilization of four to six pounds of stones that were heated directly by fire to a red-hot state in pits that were two-feet in depth. Part of the cooking process involves pouring water on and around the stones to produce steam to aid in the cooking of the roots (Moulton 2002). This process would aid in the fragmentation of the heating stones (the heating and rapid cooling) that results in the tell-tale angular blockiness indicative of this artifact type. Experimental replication on the production of FCR by students at Utah State University in the late 1990’s refined estimates on the duration of site occupation and intensity of activity by examining the breakdown rates of rocks used for cooking, identifying the relative size grades of re-usable versus discarded stones, and recording the decline in efficiency as the stone fragment got smaller (Jensen et al. 1999). Although not attempted on the FCR assemblage at 42SL186, similar experiments can be performed later if so desired. At this point, the FCR from 42SL186 has been counted, weighed, and a representative sample measured in order to identify the potential range of variance for this artifact type. While elements exhibiting characteristics of this artifact type cover virtually any size grade imaginable, high intensity surface fires can create similar morphological markers on small stone pieces. We therefore created a minimum size that we could use with a fairly high level of certainty for classifying these items as culturally derived. Overall, this artifact class ranges from 5.3 by 4.0 by 1.4 millimeters, to pieces larger than 120.7 by 80.9 by 75.7 millimeters in size.
77
Bone Artifacts Worked Bone Eighteen bone artifacts, bearing intentional shaping or other marks of human origin, were discovered during this project. Worked bone artifacts include awls, needles, incised bone, a flaker, and miscellaneous flaked bone fragments. Table 7 presents data relevant to these artifacts. Awls Two bone awls were identified during excavation. Awl 1 (FS 775.1), which consists of one piece, is 78.0 millimeters long and 9.0 millimeters wide. Awl 2 (FS 1052.1), which consists of four fragments, refits to a length of 76.5 millimeters. These awls show extensive grinding and smoothing along their margins, with smoothing striations still visible on the artifacts. They also have carefully smoothed and rounded butts. Both awls were recovered from the Feature 23 sediment layer directly above the excavated housepit (F-25) feature.
Figure 46. Bone tools. Top row, from left to right: awl #1 (FS 775.1), awl #2 (FS 1052.1), and flaked bone fragment #2 (852.1). Bottom row, from left to right: needle #1 (FS 914.1) and needle tip (FS 999.1). Large tool on the right is a possible flaker (FS 883.1).
78
Needles Of the worked bone, two needles have been identified. Needle one (FS 914.1) is 47.4 millimeters in length and 4.2 millimeters wide. The second needle (FS 999.1), which is only the tip, is 12.3 millimeters in length and 3.2 millimeters in width. These needles show extensive grinding and smoothing along their margins, with slight smoothing striations still visible on needle one. These artifacts have been carefully smoothed and have definite “heads” to them. Both needles were recovered from the floor of the excavated housepit (F-25). Flaker One possible flaker was recovered during this project. This flaker (FS 883.1) has been identified as such on the basis of end-wear patterns. The end-wear consists of a somewhat blunted, broad tip which shows extensive rounding and smoothing along only one end of the artifact. Two small flake scars are visible on the tip, otherwise no other use wear is visible on the artifact. It is 112.9 millimeters long and 18.4 millimeters wide, with no evidence of shaping or other modification. This flaker was recovered from the floor of the excavated housepit (F-25). Incised Bone This category consists of eleven pieces of fragmented faunal bone that have been incised on one surface (FS 774.1, 792.1 814.1, 818.1, 824.1, 858.1, 872.1, 891.1, 1053.1, 1054.1, 1070.1). In all but one case (FS 1053.1), the incised bone has been painted with a red substance, probably ochre, on the incised surface. All fragments have slight white and orange discolorations on their smooth side. This is most likely a result from having been burned. One fragment (FS 858.1) has two striations, one much fainter than the other, on its smooth side. The fragments of incised bone range in size from 15.2 by 9.8 by 1.7 millimeters to 5.2 by 3.6 by 1.8 millimeters. Their function is unknown at this time, but the decorative incising and painting may indicate ornamental use, or use as gaming counters. In all but two cases the incised bone was recovered from the Feature 23 sediment layer directly above the housepit (F-25) feature. The remaining two (FS 814.1 and 872.1) were recovered from the Feature 28 sediment layer, which is the root zone layer above the housepit (F-25) feature.
79
Figure 47. Incised bone artifacts. Top row (l-r): FS 1053.1, 814.1, 858.1. Second row (l-r): FS 824.1, 774.1, 818.1. Third row (l-r): 891.1, 1054.1, 792.1. Bottom row: FS 872.1 and 1070.1.
Flaked Bone Fragment Two miscellaneous worked bones have been identified simply as flaked bone fragments. The first flaked bone fragment (FS 806.1) is just a tip remaining from the original bone fragment, with a length of 21.0 millimeters. This bone fragment has possibly had some shaping, to form a tapered form, and has had a flake just over half the length of one side removed. This flaked bone fragment was recovered from the Feature 23 sediment layer directly above the housepit feature (F-25). The second flaked bone fragment (FS 852.1) is a rib bone measuring 77.6 millimeters in length. This bone has been worked so that it tapers at one end, and has a number of faint scratches running oblique with the bone fragment. It has also had a flake removed on this same end, making any other assessment of this worked bone difficult. This flaked bone fragment was recovered from the floor of the excavated housepit (F-25).
80
FS #
Artifact Type
774.1 Etched bone 775.1 Awl 792.1 Etched bone 806.1 Flaked Bone 814.1 Etched bone 818.1 Etched bone 824.1 Etched bone 852.1 Flaked Bone 858.1 Etched bone 872.1 Etched bone 883.1 Flaker 891.1 Etched bone 914.1 Needle 999.1 Needle 1052.1 Awl 1053.1 Etched bone 1054.1 Etched bone 1070.1 Etched bone Table 8. Worked Bone Artifacts.
Length
Width
Thickness
9.6 mm 78.0 mm 8.0 mm 21.0 mm 12.3 mm 8.0 mm 6.8 mm 77.6 mm 15.2 mm 7.2 mm 112.9 mm 5.2 mm 47.4 mm 12.3 mm 76.5 mm 10.1 mm 7.5 mm 7.7 mm
5.2 mm 9.0 mm 5.2 mm 9.2 mm 9.8 mm 6.5 mm 4.5 mm 14.3 mm 9.8 mm 5.8 mm 18.4 mm 3.6 mm 4.2 mm 3.2 mm 8.3 mm 7.9 mm 5.6 mm 5.3 mm
1.7 mm 7.5 mm 1.7 mm 6.1 mm 1.8 mm 1.8 mm 1.8 mm 5.9 mm 1.7 mm 1.7 mm 8.3 mm 1.8 mm 3.7 mm 2.1 mm 5.9 mm 1.7 mm 1.8 mm 1.5 mm
Comments Red pigment Red pigment Red pigment Red pigment Red pigment Red pigment Red pigment Red pigment Tip fragment 4- pieces refit Red pigment Red pigment
Non-Worked Bone The 2007 testing project at 42SL186 resulted in the recovery of 7,865 pieces of nonworked faunal bone. As mentioned previously, surface artifacts of this class were not analyzed because of the uncertainty of the agent of deposition. Due to time constraints, for the purpose of this report only those bones and bone fragments recovered from the house fill of F-25 were analyzed. All remaining sub-surface faunal materials will be analyzed in the near future. Specimens were analyzed recording several types of data, including: the size and weight; species and element type; side; and the presence or absence of burning, butchering marks, and/or natural environmental modification (such as root etching or weathering). When able, “burning damage”, based on the variability in color (Stiner et al. 1995), was recorded: blackened specimens were classified as burned, and white or bluish-gray bones were labeled as calcined. Taxonomic identifications were based on comparisons with the comparative collection at the Antiquities Section of the Utah Division of State History’s Archaeology Lab, as well as with the aid of published keys (such as Lawrence 1951; Gilbert 1980). A total of 2,622 specimens were examined, of which 36 were identifiable. Faunal material from the interior of F-25, house fill, and floor contact was analyzed to identify species and size categories of the bone. As much of the bone from 42SL186 is highly fragmented due to both natural and cultural factors, most of the bone could not be identified to specific taxa. Size categories, as discussed by Lyman (1979) were employed to glean a more complete picture of faunal material from this feature.
81
Bone from archaeological sites is generally highly fragmented through cultural processing and natural factors. Thus, very little of the bone can be identified based on visual inspection alone. Using general size categories provides some additional information for bone that is basically unidentifiable. In this report, the categories used are: Indeterminate Mammal: These are generally small fragments of burned and unburned bone of which the only information available is that the bone is from a mammal. This identification is based primarily on bone wall thickness. Indeterminate Large Mammal: In this case, we can determine the bone is from a mammal within the size range of pronghorn to bison. Again, bone wall thickness is the primary indicator. In some cases, the specific element can be determined. Indeterminate Small Mammal: These bones are typically long bone diaphysis fragments in the size range of rabbits or hares. Indeterminate Large Bird: From this assemblage, one bone was determined to be a bone from a goose-size bird. DSP (Deer-Sheep-Pronghorn-Sized): Bone fragments that can sometimes be identified to element but not specifically to a genus or species that are in the general size range of these artiodactyls are assigned to the DSP category. The sample of faunal remains from the F-25 Housepit is relatively small. Some 2622 bones and bone fragments were recovered during excavation, as well as from water-screened samples from the floor contact of the feature. Most of this bone could only be identified as indeterminate mammal bone. Table 9 presents the breakdown, by category and Number of Individual Specimens (NISP*), of faunal remains from the house floor of F-25. Genus/species/Category Odocoileus hemionus Lepus sp. Sylvilagus sp. Canis sp. Ovis canadensis Microtus sp. c.f. snake (unknown snake)
NISP* 7 22 3 1 1 1 1
Artiodactyla DSP (Deer-Sheep-Pronghorn-Sized) indt. Large Mammal indt. Small Mammal (rabbit-sized) indt. Mammal indt. Large Bird (goose-sized) TOTAL
4 19 22 8 2532 1 2622
Table 9. Breakdown, by category and NISP of faunal remains from the house floor of F-25.
82
Identified faunal remains from the excavated housepit (F-25) include no real surprises in that mule deer, jackrabbit, cottontail rabbit, bighorn sheep, an unknown snake (vertebra only), a vole mandible and one canid tooth fragment were identified (Figure 48). What is lacking from this assemblage is very interesting and worthy of additional consideration. First, there is a lack of fish bone from this site and given the proximity of the site to the Jordan River, this is interesting because we know that fish were intensively procured from the Jordan River further south during the late prehistoric period (see Janetski and Smith 2007). Second, given the current population of pocket gophers and ground squirrels on the site, the lack of intrusive rodent bone from this Archaic component is surprising and interesting. Feature 25 Identified Fauna c.f. snake (unknown snake) Microtus sp Ovis canadensis Canis sp. Sylvilagus sp. Lepus sp Odocoileus hemionus 0
5
10
15
20
25
NISP
Figure 48. Identified faunal remains from F-25.
Categorized bone from F-25 is perhaps the most interesting. With such a large part of the assemblage (96%) being identified as indeterminate mammal, it is clear that the assemblage is highly fragmented. Further, a high percentage of the assemblage (55%) is either burned or calcined suggesting cultural, rather than natural modification. Again, the lack of intrusive rodent bone into F-25 strongly indicates this assemblage is relatively free of intrusive materials. The high percentage of highly fragmented burned and calcined bone from the interior and floor of the structure in association with concentrations of FCR (Feature 32) is suggestive of bone grease production. Fragmented categorized bone comprises over 95 percent of the F-25 assemblage, and is illustrated in Figure 49.
83
Feature 25 Categorized Bone indt. Large Bird (goose sized) indt. Mammal indt. Small Mammal (rabbit sized) indt. Large Mammal DSP (Deer-Sheep-Pronghorn Sized) Artiodactyla 0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 NISP
Figure 49. Feature 25 Categorized Bone.
Faunal Distribution within Feature 25 On the floor and immediate floor contact of F-25 there is an interesting distribution of faunal material. During excavation, bone was found in contact with the floor in several places, but is highly concentrated in the area of the central hearth feature (F-33). Much of this bone is highly fragmented and burned/calcined fragments suggesting bone processing was a major activity associated with the hearth feature within the house. In fact, over 55 percent of the entire assemblage of bone is either burned (n=129) or calcined (n=1,322). Figure 50 illustrates detail on the burned bone from F-25, and Figure 51 shows the distribution of faunal material on the floor of F-25.
Feature 25 Burned, Unburned and Calcined Bone Calcined Burned Unburned 0
10
20
30 Percentage
Figure 50. Feature 25 burned and unburned bone.
84
40
50
60
The main bone concentration within F-25 on the floor contact is in the area of FCR clustered to the southwest of F-33 (F-32) and F-33, as well as in the grid unit just south of F-33 (Figure 51). The concentration of fire-cracked rock (F-32) and the high concentration of bone suggest floor contact materials are in primary context and there was no cleaning or sweeping of the house floor prior to abandonment.
Figure 51. Floor contact faunal distribution densities in F-25.
85
Artiodactyla Body Part Distribution Although the sample is small, Figure 52 shows a representation of the Artiodactyla (deer, sheep, DSP) body parts identified from F-25. Seventeen bones could be identified to element. Of these, toe bones (phalanges) n=2 comprise 35 percent of the n=1 n=1 assemblage. It is interesting that n=1 all but one of the phalanges was burned and exhibit spiral breakage suggesting these very n=1 low utility elements were being n=1 processed by the inhabitants of Fn=2 n=2 n=1 25. It is perhaps more interesting n=2 that other low-utility elements are lacking in the assemblage and n=4 there are no metapodial elements. n=1 These are of high density and are usually preserved in n=1 archaeological sites. Within the ARTIODACTYLA BODY PARTS, FEATURE 25 DSP category, there are an st 1 phalange = 4 (NISP) additional five bones that are long nd 2 phalange = 1 rd 3 phalange =1 bone fragments with spiral Humerus = 1 fractures, but we could not Scapula = 1 Mandible = 2 determine which bone was Occipital =1 represented. Represented Zygomatic = 1 Thoracic Vert. = 1 artiodactyla elements do suggest a Rib = 2 lack of lower limbs, vertebra, and Pelvis = 1 Tibia = 2 complete bones in the assemblage. Figure 52. Artiodactyla body part representation from F-25.
Butchering Cut marks were noted on one single DSP rib fragment. One clear impact scar was noted on a DSP long bone diaphysis fragment, possibly a tibia. Spiral fractures are common in this collection with over 77 percent of the assemblage of deer, DSP and indeterminate large mammal bone showing spiral breaks (Figure 53). Gnawing Five bones show evidence of canid gnawing. Included are three large mammal bones and two Lepus elements. Two bones, both indeterminate mammal bone fragments, appear to be bones passed through canid digestive tracts.
86
Weathering Percentages of Large Mammal Bone with Spiral Fractures 100 80 Percent of 60 category 40 20 0 Odocoileus DSP (Deer- indt. Large Mammal hemionus SheepPronghorn Sized)
The bone from F-25 is not weathered. Some minor root etching was noted on some of the larger fragments and some of the large mammal bone does exhibit longitudinal breaking or cracking. Overall, the bone is well preserved and in very good shape.
Figure 53. Percentages of spiral fractures; Large Mammal bone, F-25.
Summary and Discussion The faunal assemblage from the excavated housepit (F-25) suggests intensive bone processing focused on both deer-sized mammals and jackrabbits. From within the house, it appears that bone processing was a component of activities conducted within the house and this refuse was left at the time of abandonment. Large mammals include deer and bighorn sheep, and are represented by seven and one bone respectively. Jackrabbits comprise the highest percentage of the identifiable collection (61%) but there were only 36 bones that could be identified to the level of genus. Over 55 percent of the assemblage is burned or calcined and a high percentage (77%) of the large mammal bone from F-25 shows spiral fractures.
Figure 54. Ovis Canadensis mandible fragment.
Figure 55. Faunal remains from F-25.
87
An interesting aspect of this assemblage is the degree of bone breakage noted (Figure 53), and observed breakage on very low utility bones like phalanges (Figure 56). From Feature 25, six phalanges from large mammals (deer, sheep) were identified and five of these show evidence of spiral fractures and burning. Phalanges do not contain very much bone marrow but the breakage does suggest cultural modification and processing. This may indicate food stress or insecurity. Similar bone breakage patterns have been noted at the Fremont-age Mushroom Springs Site on Antelope Island (Rood n.d.), and from the Archaic-age winter camps in Colorado (see Rood 1991).
Figure 56. Mule deer phalange showing spiral fracture.
FEATURE 15 AREA A methodological issue that the Prison Site can begin to address is the role of lithic scatters in archaeology. These types of sites are often classified as non-significant and not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The three lithic scatter/camp sites located in proximity to 42SL186 illustrate this fact. In fact, were it not for the recovery of a radiocarbon date as the result of more intensive testing, site 42SL186 may also have been deemed insignificant, as no diagnostic specimens were identified. The relationship between surface artifacts and buried deposits can be investigated at the Prison Site. One question that we would like to address in the future is: how does the surface assemblage of the site change over time? Are there horizontal and vertical movements of artifacts across the site? These questions have been investigated by Mark Stiger (1993) at the Tenderfoot Site, an Archaic site in western Colorado. With a long-term surface-mapping project in a designated area of the site, the movement of surface artifacts and changes in the surface assemblage over time can be explored. An initial mapping of all surface artifacts with a handheld GPS unit was performed prior to testing and excavation at 42SL186. This exercise was useful in exploring the density of artifacts across the site, identifying any possible patterns in the assemblage, and the variation in the distribution of raw material types across the site. This also allowed researchers to form hypotheses about how the surface distribution of artifacts may relate to the subsurface cultural deposits on this site, and how this relationship may be obscured or strengthened over time. The designated study area is located on the east-central portion of the site and was designated as the Feature 15 (F-15) Area. This area was mapped with the total station and the boundaries delineated. This area can be relocated and re-mapped with a total station in the 88
future. Changes in the surface expression of artifacts can be examined at that time. This type of study can be repeated over a period of several years, if the researchers deem the changes significant enough to continue. Having the ability to conduct studies such as this is just one benefit of having a protected site. As mentioned above, the F-15 Area is located in the east-central portion of the site. It is an area that runs 130 meters north to south and 126 meters east to west. This area was utilized by ecologist Ben Bloodworth of the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands (a Section of the Utah Division of Natural Resources) as a weed abatement test area. Ben utilized approximately 150 goats to eliminate the cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Russian thistle (Salsola iberica), and musk thistle (Carduus nutans) from the area without the use of herbicides. The goats would only eat the undesirable/invasive vegetation with very little impact to the native plant species that also occupy the area (sagebrush and rabbitbrush). He used an electric fence to contain the goats within a specified area.
Figure 57. Topographic map showing the location of the F-15 Area.
89
Although some trampling and displacement of artifacts did result from the presence of the goats, it was our best opportunity to perform the experiment. Due to the very poor surface visibility over most of the site, the goats cleared virtually all of the surface grasses and gave us visibility of roughly 98 percent. Now that we could see the surface and were not relegated to looking for artifacts on the back dirt piles of the burrowing animals, we decided that an intensive survey, marking of all artifacts, and GPS mapping would provide us with a better idea of the surface density of artifacts in this portion of the site. With the help of a field school of fourth and fifth graders, we lined up and surveyed the area in three meter wide transects, marking every artifact encountered with a pin-flag. Figure 58 shows the results of the mapping project in the F15 Area. A total of 495 artifacts were encountered during the course of this test. They consisted of four subdivisions of the lithic class of artifacts: bifacial flaked stone tools, lithic debitage, firecracked rock, and groundstone. The seven ceramic artifacts observed, collected, and reported in the “Ceramic Artifacts” section, also came from this area. Toolstone materials were consistent with other artifacts encountered during the present course of investigation. These materials consisted of white, red, pumpkin, Tiger, Peach, and brown/red mottled Cryptocrystalline Silicates (Chert); rose, white, gray, and red quartzite; tan and red banded siltstone; basalt; and obsidian. A very small fraction of these (n=5) showed evidence of thermal alteration in the form of discoloration (n=3) and potlidding (n=2). In all, we encountered and mapped nine flaked stone tools (which were collected). These tools and their Field Specimen Numbers (FS) are shown in Table 10. FS Number 306.1 303.1 305.1 302.1 323.1 1036.1 301.1 615.1 616.1
Tool Type Grey quartzite core Purple opalite spokeshave Grey quartzite biface tip fragment GSL grayware sherd Tan quartzite Elko Side-notched point Brown/yellow quartzite scraper Quartzite biface fragment Red chert scraper Obsidian biface tip fragment
Table 10. Flaked stone tools encountered in the F-15 Area.
90
Tool Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Figure 58. Results of the F-15 mapping project. Arrow points north.
91
One hundred fifty-one pieces of lithic debitage were tallied and analyzed in the field using the morphological characteristics of the specimens to ascribe the appropriate reduction stages to each piece. None of these items were collected. However, Table 11 shows the breakdown of lithic detritus encountered during this portion of the fieldwork. Early Middle Late Fragment Total % Primary (>95%) Secondary (1-94%) 16
1
Tertiary (0%)
14
60
Total
30
61
%
20
23 23
40.4 15.1
1
1
2
19 12.6
34
131 86.7
37
151
24.5
0.7
100
Table 11: Analysis of lithic debitage flaking stages from the F-15 Test Area. Percentages were rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a percent.
We also documented 321 pieces of FCR, derived almost entirely of quartzite, although a small number were from basalt. None of these items were collected, but each item was mapped and relatively size-graded. The FCR specimens from the F-15 Area are consistent in composition to those for the site as a whole and range from fragments that measure 5.3 by 4.0 by 1.4 millimeters, to pieces larger than 120.7 by 80.9 by 75.7 millimeters in size. Fourteen groundstone items were documented, derived almost entirely of quartzite, although a small number were from basalt. One mano fragment was formed from the same type of quartz monzonite (Temple granite) as FS 4.1 that was found in the F-7 Area in the northern section of the site. RADIOMETRIC DATES Nine samples were obtained from four sub-surface cultural features for radiometric analysis. Due to the lack of any observable organic material, bulk sediment samples were collected from the floor fill of the excavated housepit (F-25), from the fill of the hearth feature within the housepit (F-33), from the fill of the roasting feature (F-24), and from the northern profile of the floor fill of the possible housepit that was not excavated (F-26) in Backhoe Trench number 9. Each of these samples consisted of a dark grey, carbon-stained (charcoal colored) sediment that was collected and sent for radiocarbon analysis to Beta Analytic, Inc. of Miami, Florida. Dates were obtained from bulk samples of over 1,000 grams of low carbon sediments. Due to low carbon content, all samples had to be run using AMS methods. A more comprehensive treatment of the dates is provided in Appendix C. The dates presented in Table 12 clearly show that those portions of the site that produced datable materials can be placed in the Archaic period. It also shows almost 1,500 years of utilization of the site by prehistoric inhabitants of the region. The earliest date falls within the latter parts of the Middle Archaic, the remainders cover virtually all of the Late Archaic.
92
C14 Age 2 Sigma Range Sample Number Conventional (Cal) B.P. Intercept Context/Depth Beta- 235165 2320 +/- 40 B.P. 2360 to 2310 2340 B.P. F-25 Beta- 235166 2410 +/- 40 B.P. 2610 to 2590 2360 B.P. F-25 Beta- 235167 2450 +/- 40 B.P. 2720 to 2350 2480 B.P. F-25 Beta- 235168 2330 +/- 40 B.P. 2360 to 2320 2340 B.P. F-33 Beta- 235169 2360 +/- 40 B.P. 2470 to 2330 2350 B.P. F-33 Beta- 235170 2280 +/- 40 B.P. 2350 to 2300 2330 B.P. F-33 Beta- 235171 2000 +/- 50 B.P. 2100 to 2090 1940 B.P. F-26 Beta- 235172 1720 +/- 40 B.P. 1720 to 1540 1620 B.P. F-26 Beta- 236619 2910 +/- 40 B.P. 3210 to 2940 3060 B.P. F-24 *Beta-69460 3040 +/- 80 B.P. F-24 _____________________________________________________________________ Table 12. Radiocarbon dates. All samples are bulk sediment. * Sample Beta-69460 obtained by Sagebrush Consultants in 1993. Beta-236610 is our date on the same feature.
OBSIDIAN SOURCING A sample set representing 15.8 percent (n=42) of all obsidian artifacts recovered (n=266) was sent to Dr. Richard E. Hughes at the Geochemical Research Laboratory in Portola Valley California for non-destructive, energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence (edxrf) sourcing analysis. The artifacts selected for sourcing analysis included two complete artifacts (one projectile point and one scraper), one projectile point fragment, two biface fragments, and debitage obtained from various depths from varying areas across the site (Table 13). Our intention was to explore any possible differences in source locations from randomly sampled specimens thought to represent homogeneous deposits across the site. No variation in stratigraphic or horizontal location was noted. Table 12 presents the provenience information for the sourced artifacts. A more comprehensive treatment of the data is provided in Appendix B. The methods employed by Dr. Hughes use non-destructive energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence (edxrf) spectrometry to determine the major, minor, trace, and rare earth element composition of volcanic rocks (predominantly obsidian, dacite, and basalt), as well as the distinctive combinations of various chemical elements to determine the likely geologic source of origin for archaeological artifacts. Analysis Analytic methods include both quantitative and semi-quantitative methods. Quantitative Analysis uses quantitative composition estimates in parts-per-million (ppm) and weight percentages via x-ray defraction techniques in order to make non-destructive artifact to source comparisons for known volcanic glass locations. Artifacts must be of sufficient size, a minimum of 9 to 10 millimeters in diameter and at least 1.5 to 2 millimeters in thickness, in order for the xray beam to be directed and penetrate properly. However, if artifacts are smaller than the required size for quantitative analysis to be performed, mathematical algorithms can be used to provide reliable source-data information. Semi-quantitative Analysis utilizes elemental peak counts and their ratios to make reliable artifact-to-source correspondences for artifacts that are
93
smaller (
Figure 5
N
Looking west from the site across the valley to the western Traverse Mountains
Various artifacts found at the “Prison Site”
Typical quartzite derived from the Oquirrh Formation
Figure 6
Figure 7
lateral
vertical
Krotovina (in this case, rodent burrows) are a common indicator of site bioturbation
Test Unit #1
Figure 8
Av horizon 10 YR 5/2
Rootlets 10 YR 5/2
C horizon
Stratum V Feature 27
2.5 Y 5/3
Plant roots tend to mix sediments by translocating clays downward toward the Parent material (C horizon)
Figure 9
silt-lined krotovina (insect burrows)
carbonate & clay-coated rootlets burrow
mottled, pelleted texture
Photos of trenches east of Trench 1 in the area of feature 7. Presence of slag materials incorporated from the nearby railroad bed within the section attests to the efficiency of particle mixing via bioturbation
Figure 10
RR bed
N
Bits of slag are floating in the section
Figure 11
Steep Mountain of the Traverse Range
N
Trench 5 reveals a thick soil zone >> Clearly the surface of this terrace has experienced weathering for some time
Figure 12
B
P
