Transcriber’s Notes:

  Underscores “_” before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_
    in the original text.
  Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals.
  Illustrations have been moved so they do not break up paragraphs.
  Typographical and punctuation errors have been silently corrected.




                   Excavations at the LoDaisKa Site
                                in the
                        Denver, Colorado, Area

                                  by
                         H. J. AND C. C. IRWIN

                            [Illustration]

                         Supplementary Reports
                                  by
                W. C. Galinat, C. B. Hunt, G. E. Lewis,
                      R. Rodden, D. R. Whitehead

                 THE DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
                           Denver, Colorado
                Proceedings, No. 8      October 1, 1959

                            LITHOGRAPHED BY
                     THE PEERLESS PRINTING COMPANY
                           DENVER, COLORADO

[Illustration: FIGURE 1—Area of Study.]




Acknowledgments


This report, like most archaeological publications, was made possible
only through the contributions and cooperation of many individuals. It
is difficult to thank them all adequately.

Our greatest debt is to the editor of this publication, H. M.
Wormington. She has provided an incalculable amount of information
and assistance. More important, however, we have had the advantage
of her knowledge and experience and have profited endlessly from her
suggestions and criticisms. Without her guidance and encouragement this
report could not have been prepared. We are also greatly indebted to
Alfred M. Bailey, Director of the Denver Museum of Natural History, who
made it possible for this report to appear in the Proceedings Series.

We are deeply grateful to the individuals who gave their valuable time
and efforts to the preparation of the supplementary reports: Donald R.
Whitehead, for his pollen studies; Robert J. Rodden, for the chemical
and physical analyses of the soils; Edward Lewis, for his report on
the identification of the fauna; Charles B. Hunt, for his description
of the geology of the area; Walton C. Galinat, for identification and
comments on the plant remains; and M. G. Towle, for her supplementary
floral studies.

We are deeply indebted to James B. Griffin for his acceptance of carbon
samples, which may ultimately provide an accurate chronology for the
site. We owe a special debt of thanks to Jesse D. Jennings, Richard
G. Forbis, Clyde Kluckhohn, Ruth M. Underhill, Evon Z. Vogt, Gordon
R. Willey, and Stephen Williams. They contributed their valuable time
and professional knowledge in their comments and criticisms of the
paper. Paul C. Mangelsdorf provided helpful suggestions and important
information on the maize section.

Others whose reading of the manuscript we have benefited from are J. O.
Brew, J. B. Griffin, H. L. Movius Jr., and H. Smith.

J. O. Brew kindly made available to us collections in Peabody Museum,
Harvard for study. We are grateful to Arminta Neal for her comments
and suggestions on the illustrations. Photographic credits are as
follows: Figure 2, T. S. Lovering (U.S.G.S.); Figure 3, F. M. Van Tuyl
(U.S.G.S.); Figure 31 left and Figure 60, R. J. Rodden; Figure 76, R.
F. Forbis. Within the supplementary reports, Figure 66 was drawn by C.
B. Hunt (U.S.G.S.), and Figures 67 and 68 by R. J. Rodden. All other
illustrations were prepared by the authors.

We are also grateful to LoDaisKa Bethel and her family. Her enthusiasm,
knowledge of the area, and scientific spirit were ultimately
responsible for these excavations. To Otto Sanger we are indebted for
the initial permission to excavate, for his friendship, and for the
innumerable kindnesses which he and his family subsequently extended to
us. Last, but by no means least, we wish to thank our mother, Eleanor
C. Irwin, who has played a vital part in every stage of this operation,
from field assistant and cataloguer, through to the final stages of
typing and proofreading.




TABLE OF CONTENTS


      I. Introduction                                                  1
            History of the Investigation                               1
            Physiography                                               1
            Fauna and Flora of the Region                              3
            Description of the Site                                    5
            Method of Excavation                                       5
            Preliminary Discussion of the Stratigraphy                12
            Objectives of the Monograph                               15
      II. The LoDaisKa Site: Features                                 17
     III. The LoDaisKa Site: Typology                                 21
            Method                                                    21
            Chipped Stone                                             22
              Projectile points                                       22
              Knives                                                  34
              Scrapers                                                42
              Spoke-shaves                                            43
              Drills                                                  43
              Perforators                                             51
              “Gravers”                                               51
              Other prismatic flakes                                  51
              Choppers or hammerstones                                54
              Cores                                                   55
            Ground Stone                                              58
              Milling stones                                          58
              Handstones                                              58
              Shaft-smoother                                          66
              Pigment stones                                          67
            Bone                                                      69
              Beads                                                   69
              Used bone fragments                                     69
              Notched bone                                            69
              Rib and scapulae cutting tools                          69
              Gaming pieces                                           69
              Awls                                                    73
              Cut bone                                                74
              Tools of antler and bone                                74
              Flakers                                                 74
            Problematical Objects                                     78
              Mica fragments                                          78
              Crystal                                                 79
              Clay Ball                                               79
              Wood                                                    79
              Leather                                                 79
              Cordage                                                 79
            Pottery                                                   82
              Plain                                                   82
              Surface roughened                                       83
      IV. Geology of the LoDaisKa Site by Chas. B. Hunt               89
       V. Mechanical and Chemical Analysis of the Soils
               of the LoDaisKa Site by R. J. Rodden                   91
            Introduction                                              91
            Sampling                                                  92
            Results and Discussion                                    94
      VI. Faunal Remains in the LoDaisKa Site by Edward Lewis, et al 100
            Classification used in this report                       102
     VII. Plant Remains from the LoDaisKa Site by Walton C. Galinat:
               additional identifications by M. C. Towle             104
    VIII. Fossil Pollen and Spores from the LoDaisKa Site by
               Donald R. Whitehead                                   114
      IX. Ethnographic Comparisons                                   118
            The Ute                                                  119
            The Pawnee                                               124
       X. Dating the LoDaisKa Remains                                128
      XI. Reconstruction and Interpretation
            Culture Complex A                                        128
              Typological Affiliations                               128
              Cultural Reconstruction                                130
            Culture Complex B                                        132
              Typological Affiliations                               132
              Cultural Reconstruction                                134
            Cultural Complex C                                       135
              Typological Affiliations                               135
              Cultural Reconstruction                                138
            Culture Complex D                                        140
              Typological Affiliations                               140
              Cultural Reconstruction                                143
            Other Remains                                            145
     XII. Discussion                                                 146
            Traditions at LoDaisKa                                   146
            The Site in a Larger Context                             147




                         MAPS
    _Figure_                                            _Page_
       1—Area of study                                     ii
      66—Geologic Map of the LoDaisKa Site                 90
      74—Location of principal sites referred to in text  131




ILLUSTRATIONS


    _Figure_                                           _Page_
      2—Topography of the Morrison area                    x
      3—Morrison biome                                     2
      4—LoDaisKa Site                                      6
      5—LoDaisKa Site                                      7
      6—Vertical section of overhang                       8
      7—Diagram of area excavated                         10
      8—Surface contours of LoDaisKa Site                 11
      9—Profile No. 1                                     13
     10—Profile No. 2                                     14
     11—Profile No. 3                                     15
     12—Block Diagram                                     16
     13—Features of LoDaisKa Site                         18
     14—Cists                                             20
     15—Projectile points, Type A                         23
     16—Projectile points, Type A, A₂; Type B             24
     17—Projectile points, Type C                         25
     18—Projectile points, Type D                         26
     19—Projectile points, Type E                         27
     20—Projectile points, Type F; Type G                 28
     21—Projectile points, Type H                         29
     22—Projectile points, Type H                         30
     23—Projectile points, Type I                         31
     24—Projectile points, Type J                         32
     25—Projectile points, Type K                         33
     26—Projectile points, Type aa; Type bb               35
     27—Projectile points, Type bb₁; Type xx; Type cc     36
     28—Knives, Type one                                  38
     29—Knives, Type two; Type three                      39
     30—Large knife, Type two                             40
     31—Large knives, Type two                            41
     32—End scrapers, Type one                            44
     33—End scrapers, Type three; Type two                45
     34—Side scrapers                                     46
     35—Discoidal scrapers                                47
     36—Uncompahgre scrapers                              48
     37—Serrated scrapers; spoke-shave                    49
     38—Drill types one-four; gravers                     50
     39—Perforators; flake knife, hafted knife            52
     40—Prismatic flakes                                  53
     41—Prismatic flakes                                  54
     42—Choppers and hammerstones                         55
     43—Large milling stones                              62
     44—Flat granite milling stone                        63
     45—Sandstone milling slabs                           64
     46—Handstones                                        65
     47—Atlatl weight; abrader                            66
     48—Pigment stones                                    67
     49—Bone beads; awls, type four                       68
     50—Rib-scapula cutting implements                    70
     51—Problematical pieces; worked mica; gaming pieces  71
     52—Gaming pieces                                     72
     53—Awls, type one                                    75
     54—Awls, type one; type two; type three              76
     55—Miscellaneous bone tools                          77
     56—Quartz crystal                                    78
     57—Clay ball                                         80
     58—Wood fragments                                    81
     59—Plain Pottery bowl                                82
     60—Plain Pottery sherd                               83
     61—Surface roughened Pottery, Class I                84
     62—Surface roughened Pottery, Class I; Plain Pottery 85
     63—Surface roughened Pottery, Class II               86
     64—Surface roughened Pottery, Class II               87
     65—Surface roughened Pottery, Class III              88
     67—Soil Analysis: Size distribution                  95
     68—Soil Analysis:
           Relative importance of fines;
           Concentration of calcium carbonate;
           Concentration of soluble iron                  97
     69—Floral remains                                   108
     70—Floral remains                                   109
     71—Maize, Chapalote                                 111
     72—Maize, “Popcorn”                                 112
     73—Maize, Dent                                      113
     75—Artifacts from nearby Woodland sites             133
     76—Projectile points from Signal Butte              137




TABLES


    Table    I—Projectile point provenience                   37
    Table   II—Artifacts exclusive of projectile points
                and ground stone                          56, 57
    Table  III—Milling slabs, complete specimens              59
    Table   IV—Milling slabs, fragmentary specimens           60
    Table    V—Handstones                                     61
    Table   VI—Soil Analysis:
                Distribution of particle-size fractions   93, 94
    Table  VII—Faunal remains                                103
    Table VIII—Floral remains                                107

[Illustration: Courtesy U.S. Geological Survey

FIGURE 2—Topography of the Morrison Area, just north of Site (Looking
North). Center, Dakota Sandstone (Hogback). Left of center, light
colored broken rocks, Fountain Sandstone. Left, Rocky Mountain
Foothills.]




Investigations At The LoDaisKa Site




Introduction


HISTORY OF INVESTIGATION

The foothills of the Rocky Mountains, although readily accessible, are
archaeologically almost unknown. Geographically they lie between two
culture areas—the Desert Culture of the Great Basin to the west and
the Plains cultures to the east. Environmentally the region preserves
a special character unlike either the Basin or the Plains. The area
around the town of Morrison, Colorado, some fifteen miles west of
Denver, seemed to offer unusual potentialities for archaeological
investigation because of the prominent rock formations and the
possibilities of overhangs. Very little previous work had been done in
the vicinity.

Dr. E. B. Renaud undertook the first archaeological reconnaissance of
the area in 1931 and 1932. His survey was brief, but indicated the
presence of several sites. However, the Morrison area is not ideal
for the location of archaeological remains, principally because its
mesophytic environment gives rise to little erosion. Since 1931 the
only investigation was carried out by amateurs of the region. The
most extensive survey was done by LoDaisKa Bethel, to whom we owe
the discovery of the present site. The authors became aware of the
importance of the area after a surface survey, and after the excavation
of two rockshelters containing the remains of the Plains Woodland
Culture (Irwin and Irwin, n.d.). Subsequent contact with Mrs. Bethel
led to the excavation of the LoDaisKa Site.


Physiography

The LoDaisKa Site is located beneath an outcrop of Fountain Sandstone,
about a mile south of Morrison, on the ranch of Otto Sanger.
Physiographically the Morrison area is part of the Southern Rocky
Mountain Province. Broad elevated strips of granite, running north
and south, are flanked by dipping sedimentary rocks. The latter are
generally lower and form foothills. Both once formed continuous
anticlinal structures, now deeply eroded (Fenneman, 1931). The granite
masses are usually mountainous, but occasionally form vast plateaus
such as South Park. Locally they are capped by remnant sedimentaries.

[Illustration: Courtesy U.S. Geological Survey

FIGURE 3—Morrison Biome, looking west. Central Ridge is the Hogback.
Note encroachment of trees along watercourses and at higher
elevations.]

For over half the mountain frontage of this Province, a very resistant
formation, the Dakota Sandstone, creates a “hogback”. A valley of
weaker sedimentaries lies between it and the foothills, beginning about
two miles to the west. The Fountain Sandstone, locally known as the
“Red Rocks” formation, outcrops in this depression.

Mountain streams collecting in the inter-ridge valley form a trellis
drainage pattern. Master streams cut through the Dakota Formation
creating watergaps. The LoDaisKa Site lies in the shelter of an outcrop
of the Fountain Sandstone which rises some 60 feet above the valley.
The site lies at an elevation of about 6200 feet.

CLIMATE

                Precipitation                    Temperature
                                                Mean       Mean
              Av. Ann.    Max.    Min.   Mean Ann.  Ann. Max.  Ann. Min.
    Morrison    14.20″    22.96″  7.51″    [1]
    Denver      15.70±″   23.10″  7.84″    50.3°      63.2°      37.3°
              Av. Ann. Snowfall
                55.6″

[1] No available temperature or snowfall records for Morrison. Morrison
lies about 18 miles west of the Denver Record station and is slightly
higher. Temperatures do not differ appreciably from Denver. Data was
collected in 1941-1956 for Morrison, 1905-1957 for Denver.


Fauna and Flora of the Region

The Morrison area as a floral biome is characterized by its
transitional nature, from the plains to the east and the mountains
to the west. Harrington (1954) has designated the environment as the
Mountain Shrub Subdivision of the Mountain and Plateau Area.

Especially characteristic of the zone are the following plants:

    _Quercus Gambelli_—scrub oak
    _Prunus Virginianus melanocarpa_—wild plum
    _Crataegus_ spp. (Probably succulenta)—hawthorn
    _Amelanchier_ spp.—service berry
    _Crysothamus Lanceolata_—rabbit brush
    _Rhus trilobata_—poison ivy
    _Rosa Woodsi_—wood rose


From the Ponderosa Pine-Douglas Fir Subdivision the following
characteristic plants overlap:

    _Pseudotsuga taxifolia_—douglas fir
    _Pinus Ponderosa_—Ponderosa pine
    _Mahonia Berberis aquifoliam_—Oregon grape
    _Arctosaphylos uva-ursi_—kinnikinick
    _Rubus occidentalis_—blackberry
    _Rubus stigosus_—raspberry
    _Populus tremuloides_—quaking aspen


These distinctive plants have invaded from the prairie fringe:

    _Stipa cometa_—needle grass
    _Agropyron smithii_—wheat grain
    _Boutelorea grasilis_—grama grass
    _Boutelorea curtipendula_—grama grass
    _Poa fendleriana_—bluegrass
    _Sphaeralcea ceccinea_—globe mallow
    _Helianthus petiolaris_—sunflower
    _Chrysopsis rillosa_—golden aster
    _Muhlenbergia montana_—muhly
    _Yucca glauca_—yucca
    understory of sedges and broad-leaf herbs

The nature of the faunal belt characteristic of the Transition Zone
is varied. Both boreal and austral mammals are represented. Only six
species appear restricted to it, two squirrels of the _Sciurus aberti_
group, three pocket gophers of genus _Thomomys_ and a small brown bat.
The following mammals are not restricted to the Transition Zone but are
characteristic of it in the eastern foothills:

    _Eutamias quadrivitratus_—Say chipmunk
    _Peromyscus nastus_—Estes Park cliffmouse
    _Neotoma fallax_—Gale wood rat
    _Lepus campestris_—White-tailed jack rabbit
    _Sylvilagus nuttalli pinetis_—Rocky Mountain cottontail
    _Canis lestis_—Mountain coyote
    _Lynx uinta_—Mountain wildcat
    _Mephitis hudsonica_—Northern plains skunk

Mammals common to the Transition and Upper Sonoran Zones include:

    _Antilocapra americana_—Antelope
    _Odocoileus virginianus_—Macrourus white-tailed deer
    _Onychomys brevicaudus_—Grasshopper mouse
    _Castor canadensis frondator_—broad-tailed beaver
    _Canis Occidentalis_—Grey wolf
    _Spilogale tenuis_—Rocky Mountain spotted skunk
    _Eptesicus fuscus_—Brown bat

The following are common to the Transition and Canadian (mountain)
Zones:

    _Cervus canadensis_—Elk
    _Callospermophilus lateralis_—Say ground squirrel
    _Eutamias amvenus operarius_—Colorado chipmunk
    _Erethiron epixanthum_—Yellow haired porcupine
    _Eutamias mihumus consobrinus_—Least chipmunk
    _Microtus nanas_—dwarf field mouse
    _Microtus pennsylvanicus_—Saguache meadow mouse
    _Zapus princeps_—Rocky Mountain jumping mouse
    _Vulpus macrourus_—Western fox
    _Ursus americanus_—Black bear

Common to the Transition, Canadian and Upper Sonoran Zones are:

    _Odocoileus hemionus_—Mule deer
    _Cynomys gunnisoni_—Gunnison prairie dog
    _Cynomys leucurus_—White-tailed prairie dog
    _Felis oregonensis hippolestes_—Mountain lion
    _Lutreola vison energunenos_—Mink
    _Putorius arizonensis_—Mountain weasel
    _Taxidea taxus_—badger

The above lists were drawn mainly from Meritt Cary’s _Biological Survey
of Colorado_ (1911). Though this is the most complete work available,
it is somewhat out of date and contains certain species names that have
been superseded. An effort was made to check this with more modern
works, such as Warren’s _Mammals of Colorado_ (1942), but this was not
always possible.


Description of the Site

The rockshelter itself is now a moderately large overhang, measuring
some 40 feet in width and 15 feet in depth. As Fig. 6 indicates,
the ceiling slopes upward rapidly and only the inner yard or so is
completely protected from rain or drizzle. When first inhabited, the
floor of sand and gravel sloped up to the mouth (west), and presumably
continued into the flat valley outside. At the time of excavation,
however, the surface sloped to the north. This difference appears to
have been due to the collapse of a considerable portion of the adjacent
cliff face, creating an enormous mound of dirt and sandstone, which
washed in from the north during the latest stages of occupation.

The small intermittent stream, Strain Gulch, flows in front of the
shelter on a southwest-northeast axis. It has cut down its bed to a
gravelly-bouldery layer corresponding to the lowest level at LoDaisKa.
The fill between the stream and the site is of a wet limey nature.
Excavation was extended in this direction as far as was feasible.
Beyond the stream lies a valley about one-half mile wide, bounded on
the west by the foothills of the Rocky Mountains.


Method of Excavation (Fig. 4)

In preparation for excavation, a vertical rod was driven in the
southern sector and the datum point established twenty inches above
the ground surface at this spot. A second stake was located on
a north-south line from the first (using magnetic north) at the
opposite end of the shelter. A horizontal line connecting these
stakes at the level of the datum point was considered the baseline.
The area of the rock shelter to be excavated was then laid out in
one yard squares. Letters were assigned to the grid lines running
east-west, and numbers to those running north-south. Each square was
designated by the grid lines intersecting at its northeast corner.
To facilitate exact measurement, a series of stakes was set up along
the baseline at intervals of two yards. From locations on the stakes
on the same horizontal plane as the datum point, lines were extended
to corresponding pitons driven into the rear wall of the overhang. A
second series of connecting lines formed a suspended grid of two yard
squares.

[Illustration]

[Illustration: FIGURE 4—LoDaisKa Site. Above, prior to excavation
(Looking North). Below, preliminary test trench. Note homogeneous
character of deposit.]

[Illustration]

[Illustration: FIGURE 5—LoDaisKa Site. Above, during excavation
(Looking South). Below, just prior to completion, all but one strand of
aerial grid removed. (Looking North).]

[Illustration: LODAISKA SITE

FIGURE 6—Vertical section of Overhang.]

A preliminary test trench one yard wide and four yards long, was dug in
squares M6-9 to determine whether complete excavation was warranted.
Subsequent yard square test pits were sunk at P 7-8 and K 8. It was
hoped that these would indicate the nature of the geologic stratigraphy
and at least suggest the range of cultural materials which might be
expected. Since excavation seemed warranted, the entire area to be
worked was cleared of the surface layer of manure.

As set forth in the description of the site, the recent floor sloped
up toward the northwest (Fig. 8). Test excavations indicated that the
basal layer was approximately horizontal in a north-south direction,
but sloped gently up toward the west. There seemed to be no significant
correlation between geologic stratigraphy (see below) and typology
in any except the lowest layer, which had not yet been extensively
investigated. Because the evidence was as yet so scanty, it was
decided to excavate with reference to both the surface and the datum
point. Each square was treated as a separate unit and, except where
natural levels were apparent, excavation proceeded in four inch levels
measured from the surface at the northeast corner. Each level was also
correlated with the datum point.

Both typological provenience and the position of the basal layer
indicated that the major portion of the deposit had been laid down
horizontally. To test this hypothesis a careful watch was kept for
fragmentary specimens, in the hope of finding corresponding pieces from
separate locations. The relative positions of these would suggest the
nature of the surface on which they were deposited. Ten such fragments
found comprised five artifacts: three potsherds, one handstone and
one fragmentary grinding slab. Though some occurred as much as twelve
yards apart, each pair fell within the same vertical level. From
this analysis it appeared that the occupation levels were in fact
approximately horizontal.

Stepped excavation seemed advisable in view of the unconsolidated
nature of the deposit (Fig. 5). Vertical exposures more than two feet
high collapsed as soon as the lower portions became thoroughly dry.
These conditions made stratigraphic columns or balks impractical in
most instances. However, by the use of rip-rapping, it was possible to
leave a reference balk one foot wide on the north side of line N 5-11.

All material recovered was sifted through quarter inch mesh screens.
Since it was fairly loose and dry, most of the earth was removed with
shovels. Trowels, brushes and a flexible baby bottle for blowing were
employed when features or artifacts _in situ_ were encountered. The
location of the screening dump was determined by test augering of the
area between the site and the creek. This dump was separated from the
excavation by a catwalk and low earthworks. The latter served the dual
purpose of guarding against sliding from the dumps, and keeping out
water which often poured over the edge of the overhang in the extremely
rainy season of 1957.

[Illustration: LODAISKA SITE

FIGURE 7—Diagram of area excavated at the LoDaisKa Site.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 8—Surface contours of LoDaisKa Site, prior to
excavation.]

Artifacts were sacked and later marked by level and square. Floral
remains were similarly treated. Faunal material was rather sparse, and
was therefore segregated by twelve inch levels measured from the datum
point. All features were recorded and located on the map by means of a
transit, and located vertically by measurements from the baseline.


Preliminary Discussion of the Stratigraphy

The method and objectives of this monograph can best be understood in
relation to the nature of the stratigraphic situation. Therefore, it
appears desirable to present first a basic and unelaborated view of
the stratigraphy which will be discussed more fully later. As shown in
Figs. 9, 10, 11 and 12, there were four levels of natural stratigraphy.
When excavation of the test trench and adjoining pits was finished,
it appeared that only the lowest could be correlated with any single
culture. However, the others were useful in intra-site correlation.
This lowest level (four) was a bed of indefinite depth, composed of
gravel and boulders of Late Wisconsin age (Hunt, this report). Above
it lay a homogeneous deposit (level three) consisting of sand and
silt mixed with cultural debris, from 54 to 63 inches thick. About
three-fourths of the way up there was a scatter of rather large rocks
and gravel, which appears to represent some kind of maximum inwash or
roof-fall into the site. The next natural level (two) is of reddish
sand, a maximum of one foot thick, with very sparse cultural materials.
This red sand layer is considerably thicker in the southern end of
the site than elsewhere, tapering off gradually to the north till it
disappears about on line H. The same is true of the top layer (one),
a bed of dusty brown fill about four inches thick in the main part of
the site, showing a slightly greater intensity of occupation. Together
these produce a floor sloping down toward the north. The whole unit
finally was overlain by a layer of cow dung.

The authors recognize several occupations or cultural units at the
site. The first is confined to the lowest geological layer, and
appears to represent remnants of an Early Lithic stage on the Plains.
The second has roots in the Great Basin and is confined to the
third geological layer. It is represented in its purest form from
the beginning of the third natural level to about 72 inches below
the baseline. However, some types characteristic of this occupation
continue upwards, tapering off slowly and disappearing at about 53
inches below baseline. The third unit represents a Plains oriented
culture, beginning at about 72 inches below the baseline and extending
to about 53 inches. The fourth occupation is a variant of Plains
Woodland Culture extending from about 53-30 inches below baseline. The
final occupation begins at about 48 inches and extends to the surface.
The authors feel that it represents a variant of the Fremont Culture of
Utah and western Colorado.

[Illustration: Legend]

[Illustration: PROFILE No. 1 LODAISKA SITE

FIGURE 9—Profile of Face of J 7-11.]

[Illustration: PROFILE No. 2 LODAISKA SITE

FIGURE 10—Profile of Face of M 6-11.]

[Illustration: PROFILE No. 3 LODAISKA SITE

FIGURE 11—Profile of Face of Q 6/7—9/10.]

These divisions are arbitrary and based on typology. There is some
degree of overlap. Since the fill is shallow compared to the time range
represented, there was undoubtedly a considerable amount of mixing,
plus the ever present chance of re-use. Characteristically, as Jennings
(1957) found at Danger Cave, the beginning of any cultural type is more
apt to be a synchronic affair than its end.


Objectives of the Monograph

The bulk of the present monograph will be devoted to a description of
the cultural remains uncovered at the LoDaisKa Site, and delineation
of the circumstances of their discovery. However, an accumulation of
facts loses much of its significance if no attempt at organization and
interpretation is made. “The archaeologist must make some effort to
integrate as well as observe his material, or he becomes a technician
rather than a scientist.” (Heizer, 1958). It is realized that cultural
units must be defined primarily on the basis of typology, because of
the general lack of corresponding geological units. In this connection,
the present state of flux in Great Basin taxonomy renders the results
less absolute than might be desired. For this reason considerable
emphasis has been placed on making as much as possible of the raw data
available.

[Illustration: BLOCK PROFILE, LODAISKA SITE

EXCLUDING COW DUNG LAYER

FIGURE 12—Block Diagram showing relation of the strata.]

The object of the interpretive study will be twofold: 1) to make a
comparative analysis of the typology of the LoDaisKa artifacts in
relation to both the Plains and Great Basin Culture areas (see Kroeber,
1939); 2) to make some attempt, on the basis of the archaeological
remains and analogies with ethnologically observable data, to provide
some insight into the total culture of the inhabitants as it existed at
the time of occupancy. Of course, as one progresses further from the
empirical evidence, to higher levels of interpretation the reliability
of the conclusions decreases proportionately (MacWhite, 1956).

The primary difficulty, as indicated, is the absence of
stratigraphically isolated culture units. Because of this a certain
amount of overlap is to be expected: a small geologic unit represents
a long and apparently uninterrupted occupational continuum. The
resultant telescoping would increase the effects of trampling and other
disturbance. However, it became increasingly apparent during excavation
that, on the basis of typology and overall stratigraphic relationships,
at least four complexes should be recognized; a broken point and a few
flakes found in the lowest geologic stratum suggest a fifth. Two of
these cultures appear to be affiliated with the Great Basin, three with
the Plains.




THE LODAISKA SITE

FEATURES


Hearths (Fig. 13)

Eleven hearths were found; they may be characterized briefly as follows:

_Hearth A._ Location: south edge square P8-9, top 36 inches below
baseline. Simple pit excavated into underlying soil, filled with
charcoal and ash, seven inches deep and ten inches in diameter.

_Hearth B._ Location: center at axis of lines 0 and 8-9, top 56 inches
below baseline. Concentration of charcoal and ash, no pit, nine inches
thick, eight inches wide and 13 inches long.

_Hearth C._ Location: square L9, top 48 inches below baseline.
Concentration of charcoal and ash: rock-filled. Twelve inches thick, 15
inches wide, 28 inches long.

_Hearth D._ Location: square J9, top 40 inches below baseline.
Concentration of charcoal and ash six inches thick. Almost circular, 12
inches in diameter.

_Hearth E._ Location: square K9, top 60 inches below baseline.
Rock-filled, charcoal and ash mixed in. Six inches thick, almost
circular, 12 inches in diameter.

_Hearth F._ Location: between squares 08-9 and 07-8, top 61 inches
below baseline. Charcoal and ash; rock-filled. Nine inches thick,
almost circular about 16 inches in diameter.

_Hearth G._ Location: square N7-8, top 30 inches below baseline.
Charcoal and ash interspersed with small rocks. Sixteen inches thick,
27 inches long, 18 inches wide.

_Hearth H._ Location: square J8, top 40 inches below baseline. Charcoal
and ash and rock. Thickness nine inches, length 20 inches, width 15
inches. This hearth was oriented with its length parallel to the rear
wall of the shelter, while all other oblong hearths lay with their
length at right angles to it.

[Illustration: FIGURE 13—Features.]

_Hearth I._ Location: square E7, top 49 inches below baseline. Charcoal
and ash rock-fill. Ten inches thick, 16 inches long, 12 inches wide.

_Hearth J._ Location: square L7, top 72 inches below baseline. Charcoal
and ash concentration interspersed with rocks somewhat larger than
those found in other hearths. Eight inches thick, 15 inches wide, and
28 inches long.

_Hearth K._ Location: square L7, top 40 inches below baseline. Charcoal
and ash with a few rocks. Eight inches thick, 15 inches long and 12
inches wide.

_Hearth L._ Location: center at axis of Lines 0 and 6-7. Top 42 inches
below baseline. Charcoal and ash, rock-filled. About eight inches
thick, more or less circular, approximately nine inches in diameter.

In addition to these hearths the whole shelter had minor concentrations
of charcoal and ash in every level. Such debris was, in fact, found
throughout the soil in varying quantities.


Cists (Fig. 14)

Three features encountered were termed cists. All were located in the
rear of the shelter in the center section. All were flat-bottomed
basins dug into the sand underlying the Piney Creek alluvium (see C.
B. Hunt’s report below). Around the sides of these were set small
rocks with more or less flat surfaces. Within Cists A and C were found
remains of seeds.

_Cist A._ Location: square J11, top 102 inches below baseline. Almost
circular, inside diameter at top 14 inches, bottom eight inches. Five
inches deep. Contents: Dirt covering cache of acorns decomposed except
for a thin shell. No ash or charcoal.

_Cist B._ Location: square L11, top 100 inches below baseline.
Circular. Inside diameter at top, 17 inches, at bottom 11 inches. Depth
7 inches. No contents but dirt. This differs from the other two, also,
in that it is more basin-shaped with less steep walls.

_Cist C._ Location: square L11 overlapping into K11, top 90 inches
below baseline. Circular. Inside diameter at top 13 inches, at bottom,
8 inches. Depth 6 inches. Contents: _Graminae_ (spp.), _Grayia
brandegei_, _Lithospermum boraginaceae_ ruderale, all in small
quantities (see botanical report below).

[Illustration]

[Illustration: FIGURE 14—Features. Above, Cist C. Below, Cist A.]




TYPOLOGY


Method

One often notices an emphasis on projectile points in archaeological
reports, especially in studies of non-ceramic or pre-ceramic cultures.
Archaeology as a historical science must integrate all the data with
their own context and with events which preceded and followed. In
searching for data that provide such chronological and geographical
correlation (e.g. horizon styles in the sense of Willey and Phillips),
there are certain basic needs. Though any cultural element could be
used in correlations of this kind, some are less useful because their
forms are governed by function, and others are fundamentally common and
form traditions rather than horizon styles (e.g. grinding stones in
some parts of the United States). A horizon marker must have some kind
of stylistic development which allows variation outside of function.
In cultures without pottery, as Willey and Phillips have pointed out
(1958), projectile points become the most important artifacts in
classification and integration because, 1) the usual economic mode of
subsistence of people at this level renders a plentiful supply of such
artifacts, and 2) as artistic representations they are sensitive to
styles yet remain stable for adequate periods of time.

Projectile points from the LoDaisKa Site are therefore treated
differently from certain other artifacts. We have illustrated all of
the projectile points from pre-ceramic levels. Where these make up a
type all of the artifacts of this type, even though it may extend into
ceramic times, are so treated. This has been done for two reasons:
1) A major portion of the material is apparently affiliated with the
Great Basin. Great Basin types are extremely variable and difficult to
classify. 2) Cultures of that area have been, until recently, little
investigated and cultural patterns which are not now recognized may
some day be distinguished; the authors hope to create a record which
will be useful even when new data come to light. For ceramic periods
we forgo such detail for two reasons: 1) Pottery is present as a more
sensitive marker. 2) The points found are usually uniform enough to fit
into a few internally consistent categories.

We have divided projectile points into 16 categories, 8 major ones.
This is primarily for convenience; secondly because some categories
probably do represent cultural types; and thirdly because there are
morphological ranges which may be described briefly in terms of a basic
pattern. We believe with Cressman (1956) that some form existed in
the minds of their makers and that a certain amount of variation is
consistent within a type. It is worth noting the testimony of certain
Ute informants who claimed that each tribe made its own recognizable
form of point. (See below, p. 122.)




PROJECTILE POINTS: CLASSIFICATION


Dart Points

    A    Blade wide, leaf-shaped, edge usually convex, stem
         straight or contracting, leaving pronounced
         shoulder, no barb, base concave. Largest 1½34? ×
         ¹⁵/₁₆ inches, smallest ⅞ × ⁹/₁₆ inches, (Fig. 15).

    A1   Blade wide, leaf-shaped, edge convex, stem
         expanding, shoulder, no barb, concave base. Two
         specimens, ¾ × ½, 1? × ½ inches, (Fig. 16).

    A2   Blade triangular, straight edge, lateral barb,
         stem straight—slightly contracting, base deeply
         concave. Two specimens, ⅞ × ⅝, 1¼ × ⅞ inches, (Fig. 16).

    B    Blade leaf-shaped, edges convex, stem contracting
         but no shoulder, base concave. Largest 1½? × ⅝,
         smallest 1? × ½ inches, (Fig. 16).

    C    Blade triangular, edge straight or slightly
         convex, all serrated, pronouncedly expanding base
         as wide or wider than blade giving the impression
         of high corner notches, definite barb rare.
         Largest 1⅜ × ⅝, smallest ⅞? × ⅝ inches, (Fig. 17).

    C1   Blade triangular, two specimens straight sides,
         one shouldered, all deeply serrated, two concave
         based, one straight. Three specimens, 1½? × ¾, 1¼
         × ½, 2? × ¾ inches, (Fig. 17).

    D    Blade triangular, length three to four times the
         width, edge sinuous: tapering from barb to center,
         expanding toward point, then tapering off; stem
         expanding, narrower than blade, base concave or
         straight. Largest 2¼? × ⅞, smallest 1½ × ¾ inches,
         (Fig. 18).

    E    Blade triangular to leaf-shaped, edges straight or
         convex, shallow to deep side notches, base concave
         or convex, expanding or contracting. Largest 1¾? ×
         ¾, smallest ¾ × ½ inches, (Fig. 19).

    F    Blade triangular to leaf-shaped, straight to
         curving edges, stem nearly as wide as blade,
         giving almost the appearance of side-notching,
         base straight to slightly convex, two specimens
         serrated. Largest 1⅞ × ¾, smallest 1¼ × ¾ inches,
         (Fig. 20).

    G    Blade triangular, edge concave, stem narrow,
         straight or slightly expanding and rather
         small, barbs projecting to level of base giving
         impression of double basal notch, base convex.
         Largest 1 × 1, smallest ⅞ × ¾ inches, (Fig. 20).

    H    Blade triangular to leaf-shaped, rounded
         shoulders, stem narrower than blade, base rounded,
         serrated. Largest 1½ × ½, smallest ⅞ × ½ inches,
         (Figs. 21, 22).

    I    Blade triangular, curving edges, stem narrower
         than blade, expanding, giving the appearance of
         corner notching, barbs straight, distinct, base
         convex. Largest 1½? × 1, smallest ¾ × ⅝ inches,
         (Fig. 24).

    J    Blade triangular to leaf-shaped, edges straight
         or slightly convex, four serrated, base expanding,
         corner-notched, barb pronounced, base straight
         or convex. Largest 1¼ × ⅞, smallest 1 × ⅝ inches,
         (Fig. 24).

    K    Blade triangular, sides straight or slightly
         convex, distinct down-curving barbs, base
         expanding narrower than blade, gives appearance
         of corner notching, base straight or slightly
         concave, four serrated. Largest 2 × 1, smallest
         ⅞ × ⁵/₁₆ inches, (Fig. 25).

    L    Two specimens of quartzite, both shown in Fig.
         25. Blade leaf-shaped, indented bases, oblique
         parallel flaking, edges ground on first specimen
         in Fig. 23 about one inch up from base. The second
         specimen also has ground edges.

[Illustration: FIGURE 15—Projectile Points, Type A.]

[Illustration: TYPE A1]

[Illustration: TYPE A2]

[Illustration: TYPE B

FIGURE 16—Projectile Points, Types A1 A2 B.]

[Illustration: TYPE C]

[Illustration: TYPE C1

FIGURE 17—Projectile Points, Types C and C1.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 18—Projectile Points, Type D.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 19—Projectile Points, Type E.]

[Illustration: TYPE F]

[Illustration: TYPE G

FIGURE 20—Projectile Points, Types F and G.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 21—Projectile Points, Type H.]

[Illustration: TYPE H]

[Illustration: UNIQUE SPECIMEN

FIGURE 22—Projectile Points, Type H and Unique Specimen.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 23—Projectile Points, Type L.]

[Illustration: TYPE I]

[Illustration: FIGURE 24—Projectile Points, Types I and J.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 25—Projectile Points, Type K.]


Arrow Points

    aa   Blade triangular, corner-notched, length 1¼ times
         the width, base generally convex, expanding, often
         just slightly narrower than blade. Largest 1⅛ ×
         ½, smallest ⅝ × ½ inches. Points of this type are
         generally much lighter and thinner than those
         above, (Fig. 26).

    bb   Blade triangular, edges either convex or concave,
         specimen’s length generally twice width, almost
         all serrated, stems usually straight, generally
         ½ width or less. Largest 1 × ½, smallest ¾ × ⅝
         inches. A variation of this type is less long
         in relation to width, but has its base located
         a-centrally. Careful examination reveals no
         differential of wear on the sides such as would
         be expected if they were used as knives. (Fig. 26).

    cc   These points are located morphologically between
         types aa and bb and do not fit into either category.
         Largest 1¼ × ⅜, smallest ⅝ × ½ inches, (Fig. 27).


Other Projectile Points

    x    A blunt point, large expanding base, shoulders
         pronounced, blade semi-ellipse shaped. One point 1
         × ⅞ inches, (Fig. 27).

    xx   Four specimens, located stratigraphically in
         pre-pottery levels. All are flake points, rather
         small and light, in general fit into category H.
         Largest 1 × ½, smallest ¾ × ⅝ inches. These may
         have been children’s toys? (Fig. 27).

           A “grainy” quartzite was used for 85 percent
         of the dart points. For the arrow points, the
         preference was not as marked, for it constituted
         only 55 percent of the total. The remainder were
         of crypto-crystalline or “flinty” quartz.


Knives (Figs. 28-31)

There are four types of knives or bifacially worked cutting implements.
All are relatively thin, less than ¼ inch thick, and flaked on both
sides, often with broad shallow chipping. The first type consists of
small ovoid bifaces. The largest of these measures 2¼ × 1 inch, the
smallest ⅞ × ⅝ inches with most being about 1 × ¾ inches. The majority
resemble Fig. 28, being slightly asymmetrical although some are more
triangular. They were probably used as small knives, possibly hafted.
Since the point is usually off-center, and they are generally thick
in relation to their size, they do not appear to be projectile point
blanks, though a few of the finest may have been. They are usually of a
crypto-crystalline quartz. One is of obsidian. There is a total of 41
pieces.

[Illustration: aa]

[Illustration: bb

FIGURE 26—Projectile Points, Types aa and bb.]

[Illustration: bb]

[Illustration: xx]

[Illustration: cc

FIGURE 27—Projectile Points, Types bb, xx, cc.]




TABLE I

PROJECTILE POINT PROVENIENCE


                     (Notice Overlap)

    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      Depth | |  |  | | |  | | | | | | | | | |  |  |   |  |
       in   | |  |  | | |  | | | | | | | | | |  |  |   |  |
     inches |A|A1|A2|B|C|C1|D|E|F|G|H|I|J|K|L|aa|bb|bb1|cc|xx
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
        4-8 | |  |  | | |  | | | | | | | | | |  |  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
        8-2 | |  |  | | |  | | | | | | | | | |  |  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      12-16 | |  |  | | |  | | | | | | | | | |  |  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      16-20 | |  |  | | |  | | | | | | | | | |  |  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      20-24 | |  |  | | |  | |1| | |2| | | | |  |  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      24-28 | |  |  | | |  | | | | | | | | | |  |  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      28-32 | |  |  | | |  | |1| | | | | | | |  | 4|   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      32-36 | |  |  | | |  | | | | | | | | | |  | 3|   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      36-40 | |  |  | | |  | | | | |1| | |1| | 3| 4| 1 | 4|
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      40-44 |2|  |  | | |  | |1|1| |4| | | | | 4| 8| 3 | 2| 5
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      44-48 | |  |  |1|2|  | |1|1|1|2| | | | | 5| 6|   | 3| 2
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      48-52 |2|  | 1|2|1|  | | |1| |3| | | | |10| 2| 2 |  | 2
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      52-56 |2|  |  |1|1| 1|1|1| |2|1| | |2| | 6| 2| 1 |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      56-60 |3|  | 1|2|2|  | | |1| |1| |2| | | 5|  |   | 4| 2
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      60-64 |4|  |  | |1|  |1| | |1| |1|1| | | 4|  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      64-68 |1|  |  |2|1| 1| |2| | |1| | |1| |  |  |   |  | 2
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      68-72 |5|  |  | |1|  |1|1|1| |3| | |1|1|  |  |   |  | 1
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      72-76 |1|  |  |1| |  |1| | |1|1| | | | |  |  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      76-80 | |  |  | |1| 1|1|2|2| |1|1|2|1| |  |  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      80-84 | | 1|  |1| |  |2| | | |1| |1| | |  |  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      84-88 | |  |  | | |  | |1| | |2| | |2| |  |  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      88-92 | |  |  | | |  | | | | |2|1|2| | |  |  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
      92-96 | | 1|  | | |  | | | | | | | |1| |  |  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
     96-100 | |  |  | | |  | | | | | | | |1| |  |  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
    100-104 | |  |  | | |  | | | | | | | | | |  |  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
    104-108 | |  |  | | |  | | | | |1| |1| |1|  |  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---
    108-112 | |  |  | | |  | | | | | | | | | |  |  |   |  |
    --------+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+--+---

There are 25 specimens of the second type. These are characterized by
an asymmetrical triangular form, usually with one gently curving side,
a second more rounded side, and straight or slightly rounded base (Fig.
29). In general they show flat broad flakes at right angles to the
edges with short retouch flakes and usage scars all around. The largest
is 3¾ inches long, and two inches wide, and is made of obsidian (Figs.
30, 31). Another example is 3¾ inches long and 1½ inches wide (Fig.
31). The smallest is 1¾ × 1 inch.

[Illustration: FIGURE 28—Knives, type one (Small ovoid bifaces). Actual
size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 29—Knives. A-F, type two. G-K, type three. Actual
size.]

The third group includes 14 examples. The construction of these is
similar to group two, but they are generally thicker, more symmetrical
and usually longer and narrower. The largest is 2½ × 1, the smallest 1½
× ¾ (Fig. 29).

There are in addition 15 broken pieces belonging to one or the other of
the last two categories.

Eleven pieces were classified as flake knives. These are characterized
by manufacture on a flake, with flaking on both faces but only along
one edge. Shape is variable, but the cutting edge is generally curved.
Largest, 2 × 1¾ inches, smallest 1½ × 1 inch.

One large stemmed artifact with straight sides and a blunt point is
felt to have been a hafted knife. The base is broken. Estimated length,
2 inches, width 1⅓ inches. The material is quartzite.

For all the categories of cutting implements, approximately 70 percent
were made of flinty or crypto-crystalline quartz; a rather large number
were of fossilized wood, not commonly used for other artifacts.

[Illustration: FIGURE 30—Large obsidian knife, type two. Actual size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 31—Large Knives, type two. Slightly larger than
actual size.]


SCRAPERS


End Scrapers (Figs. 32, 33)

The end scrapers are divisible into three categories. The first form is
a flat scraper, generally triangular to oval in outline. The working
end is often thin. There are a few true snub-nosed scrapers in this
category. The second type is generally fan-shaped with a wide thin bit.
The opposite end usually tapers to a sharp edge which could have had
secondary use as a cutting tool. The third variety includes rougher
forms, though there are a few well made specimens. All have a distinct
keel. There are 31 of the first type, the smallest ½ × ⁷/₁₆; the
largest 1¼ × 1½ inches. Of the second group there are 17 specimens, the
smallest 1¼ × ¾; the largest 1½ × 1¼ inches. There are 10 of the third
form, the smallest 1 inch square, the largest 2½ × 1½ inches. Seventy
percent of the scrapers are of crypto-crystalline quartz.


Side Scrapers (Fig. 34)

Twenty-three specimens are classified as side scrapers. In general,
as with discoidal scrapers, it is hard to draw a line between these
and utilized flakes. An arbitrary division was made because, when
the material was laid out, some specimens consistently showed more
regular work or flaking than others. The largest of these is 2½ × 1
inch, the smallest 1¼ × 1 inch. In general, they are long flakes with
considerable flat flaking and/or retouch along one face, usually on
only one edge. Quartzite and crypto-crystalline quartz were about
equally popular.


Discoidal Scrapers (Fig. 35)

Twenty-five artifacts are classified as discoidal scrapers. Again, as
noted in the case of side scrapers, the dividing line between some of
these and certain utilized flakes is somewhat arbitrary. Generally
these artifacts are steeply flaked, by percussion, on both faces and
all edges, giving them a rather rounded appearance. The largest is 2½
× 2¼ inches, the smallest ¾ × 1½ inch. Quartzite and flinty materials
show about equal usage.


Serrated Scrapers (Fig. 37)

There are 21 serrated scrapers. These are usually serrated on one edge
only, but other sides often show secondary usage. The serrations appear
to have been made in the course of the primary flaking, by blows dealt
at intervals, with the remaining protrusions left instead of being
chipped off. Some with steep sides would have been useful as scrapers,
but several small thin specimens could have been used as saws. Flinty
materials were preferred. The largest is 2 × 1¼, the smallest 1 × ¾
inches. From the ethnographic data (see below) it is interesting to
note that the Ute used serrated scrapers for taking the hair off hides.


“Uncompahgre” Scrapers (Fig. 36)

Six complete and one broken artifact are included in this category.
They conform in general to Wormington and Lister’s (1956) description
of those found at the type locality. Those at LoDaisKa are smaller.
Specifically they are flakes, usually triangular, although one is
rectangular. One edge is flaked on one face alone, one or more edges
are flaked on both faces. The butt, generally the striking platform
of the flake, is usually unflaked and thick. They appear to have been
serviceable without hafting, and are probably a multiple purpose tool,
possibly with a specific combination of uses. The largest is 2 × 1¾
inches; the smallest, 1¼ × ⅞ inches. All but one are quartzite.


Hafted Scrapers

One artifact was found that could be described as a hafted scraper.
It is 1 × 1¼ inches, with a semicircular working bit, straight barbs,
expanding stem, narrower than a blade, and a rounded base. It could
have been made from a type H projectile point.


Spoke-shaves (Figs. 37, 39)

Two artifacts are designated spoke-shaves. One is combined with a
perforator; the other is made from a large flake. Both exhibit simple
steep flaking. The working surfaces are arcs of about 100° on small
circles, ½ inch in diameter.


Drills (Fig. 38)

Though only five specimens were recovered that can be classified
as drills, they comprise four types. The first, represented by one
specimen, is of the expanding base T-shaped variety. The base is
flattened and the point is diamond-shaped in cross-section; the
flakes were struck from either side to meet in the middle and form
the central ridge. The second type, possibly a variant of the first,
comprises two specimens, one fragmentary. The bases expand but are
thick and irregular, rather than flat. The point of the complete
example is biconvex to diamond-shaped in cross-section and exhibits
fine workmanship. The third type differs from the first two in having
a straight base. It is biconvex in cross-section, with rather fine
flaking meeting along the midline. The fourth variety has the outline
of a small side-notched projectile point. Upon examination, however,
the edges of the lower one-third of the point show signs of extensive
abrasion and polishing. It is very probable that such a tool was hafted
for use. The method of usage is less certain for the others. All five
were made from varieties of flinty quartz.

[Illustration: FIGURE 32—End scrapers, type one. A-E snub-nosed. Actual
size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 33—End scrapers. A-C, type three. D-F, type two.
Actual size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 34—Side scrapers. Actual size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 35—Discoidal scrapers. Actual size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 36—Uncompahgre scrapers. Actual size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 37—A-E, serrated scrapers. F, spoke-shave. Actual
size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 38—A-D, drill types one-four. E-I, gravers.
Actual size.]


Perforators (Figs. 38, 39)

Twenty-one specimens are considered to have been used as awls or
perforators. Though individual form varies greatly, most are made on
plano-convex or concavo-convex flakes. Flaking is concentrated on the
short point, though it sometimes extends further on one or both faces.
Occasionally, one or more of the edges have seen secondary use as a
scraper. Of the total, nine specimens are of flinty material, one of
obsidian. The remainder are quartzite (8) or quartz (3). They range in
length from ¾ to 2½ inches, and from ½ to 1½ inches in width.


“Gravers” (Fig. 38)

The term “graver” is not especially desirable since 1) it implies
function, and 2) it is generally applied to a special form associated
with the Upper Paleolithic of Europe. Nevertheless, the term is
also used in connection with sharp-pointed flakes employed in
making incisions, and as such is well entrenched in the literature.
These tools were divided into two categories. The first contains 16
specimens. These were all made from irregular flakes, the largest
1⅜ × 1⅛ the smallest ¾ × ½. There are one or more points on each.
Usually the point shows evidence of usage on one or two sides only.
Some show scars all around. The second class, comprising 14 specimens,
is distinguished by the fact that all are made from prismatic flakes
(see below). Usually there is only one point on each. Despite their
diminutive size (the largest 1½ × ⅝ inch, smallest, ¾ × ¼), tests made
by the authors involving cutting bone, showed even the smallest to be
an efficient tool.

Most of these artifacts are of the flinty variety of quartz, often
fossilized wood.


Prismatic Flakes (Figs. 40 and 41)

Of the total number of flakes recovered certain appeared
technologically distinctive and were classified as prismatic. The
primary characteristics of these are a length exceeding twice the
width, a striking platform at one end with a small bulb of percussion
and ripple marks radiating from it. In addition, most of these exhibit
a longitudinal ridge or ridges formed by facets intersecting at a low
angle, representing the intersection of former flake scars. Most of the
striking platforms are plain, but about 30 percent show a series of
tiny flake scars which may be evidence of preparation. They range in
length from 2¼ to ⅝ inches and in width from ³/₁₆ to ¾ inches.

Sixty-two of these show signs of use. Thirty had apparently served as
gravers (see above). Thirty-two show usage marks caused by cutting,
and 14 of these had served secondarily as small scrapers. About 80
percent of the utilized prismatic flakes are of a flinty material.
The remainder are of quartzite. Of the unmodified specimens, about 65
percent were of flinty quartz, 30 percent of quartzite, and 5 percent
of quartz.

[Illustration: FIGURE 39—A-F, perforators. G, flake knife. H, hafted
knife. Actual size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 40—Prismatic flakes. A-I, gravers. J-L, cutting
edges. Actual size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 41—Prismatic flakes, cutting implements. Actual
size.]


Choppers or Hammerstones (Fig. 42)

Forty-one implements are classified as choppers or hammerstones.
Seventy percent of these are of rock quartz, 20 percent of a
metamorphic rock, usually schist, and 10 percent of a grainy quartzite.
Due to the nature of the material it is extremely difficult to
determine whether such artifacts were used primarily as hammerstones
or choppers. There are no small round heavily battered specimens which
could be considered as hammerstones only. The pieces usually exhibit
one sharp edge and one or more blunt battered edges. The first two
lithic materials mentioned fracture rather easily, and the tools
were probably used and discarded at will. Rock quartz and various
metamorphic rocks are plentiful in the area, making such careless use
practical; quartzite and flinty materials are rather scarce, (see
below). The largest of these tools measures 5 × 5½ inches, the smallest
1¼ inches square.


Cores

Only eight specimens are considered to have been cores. Three are of
quartzite, three of agate and two of fossilized wood. The largest is
about 3 × 3 × 2 inches, the smallest about a one inch cube. All are
irregular, none fluted or prismatic. Since there were so few cores
it is believed that the primary work of preparing flakes took place
elsewhere, perhaps at the source of the material.

[Illustration: FIGURE 42—Choppers and hammerstones, ½ actual size.]




TABLE II

Artifacts exclusive of projectile points and ground stone

       ------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
        Unique Artifacts |16-|20-|24-|28-|32-|36-|40-|44-|48-|52-|56-|60-|
                         |20 |24 |28 |32 |36 |40 |44 |48 |52 |56 |60 |64 |
       ------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
     Knives, leaf-shaped | 1 |   | 2 |   | 1 |   |   | 2 | 3 |   | 1 | 1 |
              triangular |   |   | 2 |   |   | 1 |   | 1 |   |   |   | 4 |
              flake      |   |   |   | 1 |   |   |   | 2 | 2 |   |   |   |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Scrapers, end     |   |   | 3 | 5 | 4 |   | 9 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 3 |
                   side  |   |   | 1 | 1 |   | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
              discoidal  |   |   |   |   | 1 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
               serrated  |   |   |   |   | 1 | 4 |   | 4 | 1 | 3 |   |   |
          “Uncompahgre”  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | 2 |   |   |   |   |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Spoke-shaves      |   |   |   | 1 |   |   |   |   | 1 |   |   |   |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Projectile point  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
            drills       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
          expanded base  |   |   |   |   | 2 |   |   |   |   |   |   | 1 |
       straight shafted  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Perforators       | 1 |   | 2 |   |   | 2 |   | 6 | 2 |   | 1 | 2 |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Prismatic flakes, |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
             unmodified  |   |   |   |   |   | 1 |   | 4 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 3 |
             cutting     |   |   |   |   |   |   | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 2 |
             engraving   |   |   |   | 1 |   | 1 |   | 2 | 1 |   |   | 2 |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Gravers, others   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      Small ovoid bifaces|   | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3 |   |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Utilized flakes   | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 9 |10 | 9 |11 |10 |14 | 1 |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
     Chopper/hammerstones|   |   |   | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 1 |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Cores             |   |   |   | 2 | 1 |   |   | 2 |   |   | 1 |   |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    Small stone ornaments|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
         or gaming pieces|   |   |   |   |   |   |   | 2 |   |   |   | 1 |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Paint stones      |   |   |   |   | 1 | 1 |   |   |   |   |   | 1 |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      Bone awls, splinter|   |   | 1 |   |   | 1 | 1 |   |   |   | 3 |   |
            with head    |   |   |   |   | 1 | 1 |   |   |   |   |   |   |
               sliver    |   | 1 |   |   | 1 | 1 | 1 |   | 2 |   |   |   |
         undetermined    |   |   |   | 1 |   | 1 |   | 1 |   | 1 | 1 | 2 |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Rib/scapula knives|   |   |   |   |   | 1 |   |   | 1 |   | 1 |   |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      Used bone splinters|   |   |   |   | 1 |   |   | 1 |   |   | 1 |   |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Flakers, antler   |   |   |   |   | 1 | 1 |   |   |   |   |   | 1 |
                  bone   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | 1 |   |   |   |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Gaming pieces     |   |   |   |   | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |   |   |   |   |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Beads, tubular    |   |   | 1 |   |   |   | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 |   | 2 |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Ornaments, tooth  |   |   |   |   |   | 1 |   |   |   |   |   |   |
                   bone  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | 1 |   |   |   | 1 |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Mica, worked      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | 1 | 1 |   | 1 |   |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Leather fragments |   |   | 2 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       Wood shafts       |   |   |   |   |   | 1 | 1 |   | 1 |   |   |   |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
     Pottery, cordmarked,|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
                   a     |   | 2 |   |   | 2 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 10| 6 |   |   |
                   b     |   |   |   | 1 |   | 2 | 3 |   | 2 |   |   |   |
                   c     |   |   |   | 2 | 1 |   | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |   |   |
               Plain     | 1 | 1 | 1 |   |   | 3 | 2 | 1 |   |   |   |   |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
                         |   | A | B |   | C |                       | D |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

       ------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
        Unique Artifacts |64-|68-|72-|76-|80-|84-|88-|92-| 96-|100-|104-|
                         |68 |72 |76 |80 |84 |88 |92 |96 |100 |104 |108 |
       ------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
     Knives, leaf-shaped |   | 1 |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
              triangular | 2 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |  1 |  1 |    |
              flake      |   |   | 1 | 2 |   | 1 |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Scrapers, end     | 7 |   | 2 |   | 1 | ? |   | ? |  ? |    |    |
                   side  |   | 2 | 2 | 1 |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
              discoidal  |   | 2 | 1 |   | 1 |   | 1 |   |    |    |    |
               serrated  | 1 |   | 3 | 3 |   |   |   |   |  1 |    |    |
          “Uncompahgre”  |   |   |   | 3 |   | 2 |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Spoke-shaves      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Projectile point  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
            drills       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |  1 |    |    |
          expanded base  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
       straight shafted  |   |   | 1 |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Perforators       | 3 | 1 | 1 |   | 1 |   | 1 |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Prismatic flakes, |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
             unmodified  | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |   |    |    |    |
             cutting     | 2 | 4 | 7 | 2 |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
             engraving   | 1 |   | 4 |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Gravers, others   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
      Small ovoid bifaces| 9 |   |   |   | 1 |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Utilized flakes   | 9 | 6 | 6 | 5 |   | 2 | 1 | 1 |  1 |    |  1 |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
     Chopper/hammerstones| 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |   |   | 1 |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Cores             | 4 |   |   |   | 1 |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
    Small stone ornaments|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
         or gaming pieces|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Paint stones      | 1 |   | 3 | 1 |   | 1 |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
      Bone awls, splinter|   | 1 |   | 1 | 1 |   |   | 1 |    |    |  1 |
            with head    | 2 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |  1 |    |
               sliver    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
         undetermined    |   | 1 |   | 1 |   |   | 1 |   |    |  1 |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Rib/scapula knives|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
      Used bone splinters|   | 1 |   |   |   |   | 1 |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Flakers, antler   |   |   |   |   | 1 |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                  bone   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Gaming pieces     |   |   |   |   | 1 |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Beads, tubular    | 1 |   | 1 | 1 |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Ornaments, tooth  |   |   |   |   |   |   | 1 |   |    |    |    |
                   bone  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Mica, worked      | 1 | 2 |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Leather fragments |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
       Wood shafts       |   |   | 1 |   | 1 |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
     Pottery, cordmarked,|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                   a     | ?1|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                   b     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                   c     | ?1|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
               Plain     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
                         |   | E | F | G |       | H |                  |
                         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+

                     LEGEND:
                         A - Wood awl
                         B - abrading stone
                         C - Elk antler tool
                         D - Atlatl weight?
                         E - Limestone pendant
                         F - Quartz crystal
                         G- -Clay ball
                         H- -Notched rib


Milling Stones (Figs. 43, 44, 45)

Characteristics of grinding stones at LoDaisKa are largely summarized
in Tables III and IV. These are presented in the hope that future
studies will make it possible to distinguish cultural associations from
such tools, although as Haury (1950) and Jennings (1957) reiterated,
metates or grinding stones are often so nondescript as to defy cultural
interpretation. Dealing for the most part with complete examples, there
seem to be two general types: large worn boulders, and flat slabs
often with a slight depression. The former are usually of an igneous
material. Either type may be intentionally shaped. Most were more
or less rectangular. The largest of the first type weighs about 120
pounds, and is 2 feet 3 inches long × 14 inches wide. The smallest is
11 inches × 12 inches and weighs about 20 pounds. Of the second type
the maximum is 1½ feet × 14 inches, the minimum 10 inches × 12 inches.
Shaping, when present, is confined to percussion and smoothing around
the edges. Pecking probably served to roughen the surface.

A number of specimens in the ½ to ¾ inch thick class were made of
hard fine sandstone. On some of the large fragments both faces appear
parallel with no concavity. Only one fairly complete example of this
type was found. This (Fig. 45) is a roughly triangular section about
5 inches on a side. It was found in Hearth B. It shows no basin and
is very smooth. Two sides appear to have been the original edges of
the complete specimen. These are roughly shaped. The smoothing extends
all the way to these edges. There is ethnological evidence, (see
below Lowie, 1924; R. M. Underhill, p.c.) that stones similar to this
specimen were used for cooking stones. Since most of the artifacts of
this type are small pieces, it would be hard to distinguish definitely
between a small section of a cooking stone and a section of a slab
metate. Lacking further proof, these have been treated as grinding
stones, with this possible reservation.


Handstones (Fig. 46)

One hundred and four specimens are classed as handstones or handstone
fragments. Of these 50 could not be classified further except that 40
were of igneous rock and 10 of sandstone. The general data pertaining
to handstones is summarized in the chart. The largest of these is 8 ×
4 inches, the smallest 4 × 3 inches. All appear to have been used in
one hand. Seventy-five percent are made of igneous rock, usually of a
metamorphic type such as schist. This choice was probably due to the
scarcity of good sandstone in the area. There are two basic types,
those used on one and those used on two sides. For both these groups
there is a variant which has a center ridge formed by the meeting of
two grinding surfaces on each face. Probably the simple motion of
pushing forth, rocking, and then pulling back caused this. One of
these has the ridges on its two sides at right angles to each other.
Some specimens are pecked. These forms seem to lack distributional
significance.




TABLE III

Grinding Slabs, Complete Specimens


    ----------------+-------------------
        Igneous     |    Sandstone
    ----------------+-------------------
    Flat     Shaped |  Slab   Shaped
    Boulder         |
    ----------------+-------------------
                                      24
    ------------------------------------
                                      28
    ------------------------------------
                                      32
    ------------------------------------
                                      36
    ------------------------------------
                                      40
    ------------------------------------
                                      44
    ------------------------------------
        1                             48
    ------------------------------------
                                      52
    ------------------------------------
                                      56
    ------------------------------------
                                      60
    ------------------------------------
        3       1       1             64
    ------------------------------------
        1       1       1             68
    ------------------------------------
        3       1       1             72
    ------------------------------------
        3       1                     76
    ------------------------------------
                2               1     80
    ------------------------------------
                                      84
    ------------------------------------
                                      88
    ------------------------------------
                1                     92
    ------------------------------------
                                      96
    ------------------------------------
                                     100
    ------------------------------------
        1                            104
    ------------------------------------
                                     108
    ------------------------------------
                                     112
    ------------------------------------


TABLE IV

Grinding Slabs, Fragmentary Specimens

      +------------------------------+--------------------------------+
      |             Igneous          |           Sandstone            |
      +----------------+-------------+---------------+----------------+
      | Two Sides Used |One Side Used| One Side Used |  Two Sides Used|
      | Pecked         | Pecked      |        Pecked | Pecked         |
      +-+--+--+--+--+--+-+-+--+-+----+--+-+--+--+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+--+
      |                  Thickness   in   inches                      |
      |½| ¾|1½|½ |¾ |1½|½|¾|1½|½| ¾  |1½|½|¾ |1½|½|¾ |1½|½|¾|1½|½|¾|1½|
      |-| -|- |- |- |- |-|-|- |-| -  |- |-|- |- |-|- |- |-|-|- |-|-|- |
      |¾|1½|3 |¾ |1½|3 |¾|1|3 |¾| 1½ |3 |¾|1½|3 |¾|1½|3 |¾|1|3 |¾|1|3 |
      +-+--+--+--+--+--+-+-+--+-+----+--+-+--+--+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+--+---
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | |    |  | |  |  | |  |  | | |  | | |  | 20
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | |    |  | |  |  | |  |  | | |  | | |  | 24
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | | 1  |  |2|  |  | |1 |  | | |  |1|1|  | 28
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | | 1  |  |1|2 |  | |  |  | |1|  |2|4|  | 32
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | |    |  |3|4 |  | |  |  | |1|  |1|1|  | 36
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | | 2  |3 |5|1 |2 | |1 |1 | | |  |1|1|  | 40
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | |    |  |4|4 |  |1|1 |  |1| |  |1|1|  | 44
      | |  |  |  |1 |  | | |  |2| 2  |2 |2|2 |1 |1|1 |  | | |  |1|2|  | 48
      | |  |  |  |  |  |1| |1 | |    |1 |3|2 |  | |  |  | |2|1 |1|1|  | 52
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  |1| 2  |3 |3|2 |3 | |  |  | |1|  | | |  | 56
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  |2| 3  |3 |3|2 |1 |1|  |  |1| |  |1|3|  | 60
      | |  |1 |  |  |1 | | |  | | 1  |4 |1|3 |1 |1|  |  | | |  | | |  | 64
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | | 4  |2 |2|5 |2 | |  |1 | | |  |1|2|2 | 68
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | | 1  |2 |2|  |  | |  |  | | |  | | |  | 72
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | | 1  |  | |3 |1 | |  |  | | |1 | |2|  | 76
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | | 1  |4 |2|2 |  | |  |  | | |  | | |2 | 80
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  |1|    |1 |1|  |2 |1|  |  | | |  |1| |  | 84
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | | 2  |  | |  |1 | |  |  | | |  | | |  | 88
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | |    |  |2|3 |  | |1 |  | | |  | | |  | 92
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | |    |  | |1 |  | |  |  | | |  | | |  | 96
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | | 1  |  | |  |1 | |  |  | | |  | | |  |100
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | |    |  | |1 |  | |  |  | | |  | | |1 |104
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | |    |  | |  |  | |  |  | | |  | | |  |108
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | |    |  | |  |  | |  |  | | |  | | |  |112
      | |  |  |  |  |  | | |  | |    |  | |  |  | |  |  | | |  | | |  |116
      +-+--+--+--+--+--+-+-+--+-+----+--+-+--+--+-+--+--+-+-+--+-+-+--+---




TABLE V


                              Handstones
    ----------------------------------+---------------------------------
               Igneous                |              Sandstone
    -----------------+----------------+-------------------+-------------
       Biface        |     Uniface    |       Biface      |   Uniface
    -----------------+----------------+------------+------+-------------
        Four         | Four           |     Four          |
        Plane        | Plane          |     Plane         |
    -----------------+----------------+-------------------+-------------
    Pecked     Pecked|         Pecked |   Pecked   Pecked | Pecked
    -----------------+----------------+-------------------+-------------
                                                                      28
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      32
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      36
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
      1                                         1                 1   40
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                        2                                             44
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      48
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                        6                 1           3               52
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                        2     2                                       56
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
      1     2           2          1      1                       2   60
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      1     1         64
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
      1     1                             4                           68
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
            1                             1     1                     72
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
      1                            1      2                           76
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1   80
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1         84
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                        2                       2                     88
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
      1                 2                                             92
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      1               96
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                  1                                                  100
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     104
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     108
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          1                          112
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

[Illustration]

[Illustration: FIGURE 43—Large milling stones. Above, granite. Below,
sandstone.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 44—Flat granite milling stone.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 45—Sandstone milling slabs, ½ actual size. Above,
flat without depression. 1 inch thick. Below, with depression.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 46—Handstones. A-B, four-plane. ½ actual size.]


Shaft-smoother

One shaft-smoother was found, with lengthwise grooves on both faces.
The lower is very shallow; the upper is clearly formed, and measures
³/₁₆-⁴/₁₆ inches wide and ⅛ inch deep (see Fig. 47).


Pigment Stones (Fig. 48)

Eleven objects are classified as pigment stones. Four are lumps of
red ochre. There is no proof that they were used for paint, but as
Coon (1950) has noted, the use of some sort of paint is practically
universal among primitive people. The largest weighs about three
ounces, the smallest about two. Three pieces of yellow ochre were
found. One is a great lump weighing about two pounds. The other two are
flat ground palettes, slightly irregular, one about 1 × 2, the other 3
× 4 inches and both about ¼ inch thick.

[Illustration: FIGURE 47—Above, “Atlatl weight”. Below, abrader. Actual
size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 48—Pigment stones, ½ actual size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 49—A-G, Beads. H-J, Awls type four.]


BONE ARTIFACTS


Beads (Fig. 49)

There are numerous tubular beads of bird and small mammal bones. These
range in length from 1⅜ inches to ½ inch; most are of the shorter
variety. Apparently the bone was polished and prepared, then a groove
or series of grooves was cut, the sections broken out, and the ends
smoothed.

Two lower canine teeth, (one of badger, _taxidea_, the other
unidentified), were evidently used as ornaments. Both show a lustrous
polish. At the end of the root a small groove, or series of parallel
incisions, was cut out for suspension. One is ¼ inch, the other 1 inch
in length. A small (1 inch × ½ inch) piece of bone (Fig. 51, top left)
with a groove cut at the top may have been used as a pendant.


Used Bone Fragments

There are ten other fragments of bone which show use. The largest of
these measures 4¼ × ¾ inches, the smallest, 3¼ × ⅝ inches. One or more
edges are worn, suggesting use as a scraper or cutting edge. Bones of
large animals, probably long bones, appear to be represented. On most,
the working edge is concave, although on a few it is flat.


Notched Bone

One bone is similar to those described above but has a series of
notches along one edge. It is 4 inches long and ⅝ inches wide.


Rib-scapula Cutting Tools (Fig. 50)

There are nine rib and one scapula fragment that show wear along a
sharp edge. These appear to have been used as cutting implements. Some
are polished along the flat face, perhaps from use in some kind of
smoothing. Many Southwestern tribes, e.g. the Papago, use similar tools
to remove hair from fresh hides. It is difficult to know whether these
represent complete tools or fragments. The largest is 7 inches long,
the smallest 2½ inches long. The identifiable specimens are of bison or
mule deer (_Odocoileus hemionus_).


Gaming Pieces (Figs. 51, 52)

Seven specimens of worked bone are thought to have been used as
gaming pieces. For three of these, this designation is relatively
certain. These are small flat oblong objects with a series of parallel
striations on the edges of one face. In addition, two have a line of
indentations running up the center. These depressions were probably
drilled (see Fig. 52).

[Illustration: FIGURE 50—Rib-scapula cutting implements. ¾ actual
size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 51—A-D, problematical pieces. E-G, worked mica.
H-N, gaming pieces.]

A fourth piece appears to be an unfinished example, and provides some
data on the method of manufacture. Apparently, the length of bone
(rib?) to be utilized was cut to the desired width and partially
smoothed; the ends were rounded and also partially finished; then
several sections of the length of the proposed gaming piece were cut
off by grooving and fracturing. The piece was then smoothed to the
proper shape, the striations cut, and the indentations drilled.

The other three specimens included here are somewhat problematical.
One approximates the shape of the unfinished gaming piece. The second
is a piece of skull cap, (species unidentified) of the same general
shape as the above; two of the sides are formed by suture lines, the
ends by polishing. The third fragment is in the same size range and has
serrated edges. The dimensions of the gaming pieces can be seen in Fig.
51.

[Illustration: FIGURE 52—Gaming pieces, 2× actual size.]


Awls (Figs. 49, 53 and 54)

Forty-one specimens, fragmentary and complete, were classified as awls.
These were segregated into four principal types, classified on the
basis of form, type of bone utilized, size, and extent of polish. The
most numerous type are those which retained the head or epiphesis of
the bone (see Kidder, 1932). It is probable that two subtypes of this
category may be recognized on the basis of size and extent of polish.
The first comprises one complete and seven broken specimens (see
Fig. 53). The former is a long slender implement of deer metatarsal,
tapering to a fine point with a circular-section. It is 8⅜ inches in
length and ¾ inches in its greatest diameter. Polish extends the full
length and circumference, and the “head” has been altered by four
intersecting V-shaped grooves, forming a cross. The remaining seven
include two with the head intact, and five points and midsections
classified with the above because of the overall workmanship. The most
complete measures 6¼ inches in length without the head. Technologically
this group is marked by primary abrasion parallel to the long axis and
secondary work at right angles to it. There are numerous instances of
the transverse cutting across the longitudinal striae, suggesting that
the former was the finishing process. Though positive identification
is in several instances impossible, most appear to have been made from
deer metatarsals. All except one were located below 84 inches. The
exception is of interest. It is a specimen about three inches long,
subjected to calcination and subsequent patination all over, except
for a section midway along its length that retains its natural color.
It seems possible that this area had been bound with leather or some
foreign substance which affected the weathering of the specimen.

The second subdivision of the type retaining the head is characterized
by a greater width relative to length, and the more restricted extent
of polish. The three complete specimens range from 3⅞ to 5¼ inches
in length, and up to 1⅛ inches in greatest diameter. Polish extends
only a short distance beyond the point, which has an oval flattened
cross-section. All abrasion scratches are parallel to the short axis.
These were manufactured respectively from a bison rib, a metapodial and
metatarsal of mule deer (_Odocoileus hemionus_).

The second major type is that of “splinter awls”; it also may be
subdivided. The first subdivision consists of 5 splinters of large
mammal bone, sharpened at one end. Complete pieces range from 3½ to 4⅜
inches in length and from ⅜ to ¾ inches in greatest width. The second
group of six pieces is similar, but the working end is rounded and
flattened rather than sharp. They range from 2⅞ inches to 3½ inches
long and from ⅜ to 1 inch in width. Abrasion in both groups was at
a high angle to the long axis, and in some cases produced a faceted
appearance.

The third type comprises three awls made of small mammal bones, two
retaining the heads, the third without. These exhibit sharpened points.
The longest is 4 inches, the smallest, one inch long.

The final type comprises five very small splinters of bone from ⅝ to
one inch in length. One is of bird bone, the others of small mammal
bones. Each is sharpened on one end, blunted or rounded on the other.
It is possible that these were hafted. Their size and shape makes it
unlikely that they could have been employed in the hand alone.

There was undoubtedly some difference in the use of these different
types of tools. Perhaps the longer finer ones were employed in the
manufacture of basketry, while the sharpened splinters served best as
hide perforators.


Cut Bone

There is one fragmentary bone about 7 inches long, that was evidently
left over from the production of a splinter awl. It illustrates the
technique of bone cutting that was probably employed for producing
tools. A groove about ¹/₁₆ of an inch deep was cut encircling the
bone, and it was shaped into two pieces. Apparently some preliminary
smoothing had already been done, as suggested by additional scoring
marks. The authors tested various tools to determine which might be
most efficient in cutting such a groove. Flat sharp flakes or knives
could be used, but usually not enough pressure could be brought to
bear without breaking the tool. However, certain implements, called
“gravers” in this paper, were rather well adapted for such work.
The tool could be used as a plane for cutting. The two techniques
mentioned, in fact, could be compared to the cutting of wood with a
knife and with a saw whose teeth act as a multiple plane.


Tools of Antler and Bone

A problematical artifact is the base of an elk (_Cervus canadensis_)
antler shown in Fig. 55. The working end of this is a tapering blade
which ends in a flat chisel-like tool about ¾ inch broad.


Flakers (Fig. 55)

There are four fragments of horn that appear to have been flakers.
Two are pointed implements 1¼ inches long, two are fragments that
lack tips. These are about 3½ inches long. All are of deer antler
(_Odocoileus hemionus_), and show various gouges and worn places.

One bone 7¼ inches long also appears to have been used as a flaker.
The blunt point has been shaped, but other modification seems to have
been unintentional and consists of irregular worn and scored areas.
Distribution of this scoring suggests that the tool was used in the
left hand.

[Illustration: FIGURE 53—Awls, type one, ¾ actual size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 54—Awls, A-C, type one. D, type two. E, type
three, ⅔ actual size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 55—A, elk antler tool. B, long bone flaker. C,
antler flaker. D, cut bone. E-F, antler flaker points. ½ actual size.]


MISCELLANEOUS ARTIFACTS


Problematical Objects (Fig. 51)

There are four stones of problematical use. Three of these have the
form of an isosceles triangle. The two smallest measure about ½ inch
on a side. Perhaps these were gaming counters or ornaments. The larger
piece is about 1¾ inch on a side with one broken corner, and has 2
small notches on either side of the apex. This was very probably a
pendant. The fourth specimen in this class is more or less oval, very
thin, with ground edges. It is about 1½ inches long and may have been
an ornament or gaming counter. The first two pieces are of sandstone,
the third of limestone, and the last of feldspar.

An ovoid piece of granite measures 2⅛ × 1¼ inches, and appears to have
been ground into its present shape. It has a smoothed flattened area
on one side, and may well have been an atlatl weight. This cannot
be proven since there are no further indications, such as a groove.
However, there are similar ungrooved stones in place on atlatl throwers
from the Southwest, in the Peabody Museum collections, which the
authors have examined.


Mica Fragments (Fig. 51)

There are six fragments of mica that apparently were shaped for some
reason. Four of these were cut into figures more or less like arrow
points. The largest is 2 × 1 inch, the smallest complete piece, ¾ ×
¾ inch. They may have had ceremonial significance. A fifth specimen
is square, ¾ × ½ inch in width and length; and the sixth more or less
round, about ½ inch in diameter. There were other pieces of mica found
at the site, but these were unshaped.

[Illustration: FIGURE 56—Quartz crystal. Actual size.]


Crystal (Fig. 56)

A well formed quartz crystal was found; it is topaz in color and about
an inch square in cross-section. Such crystals have an extensive
history in some Archaic sites, such as those in California. They
probably had some ceremonial purpose perhaps as a part of a shaman’s
paraphernalia.


Clay Ball (Fig. 57)

A small round ball of clay about 1¼ inches in diameter was recovered.
Around the circumference is a raised ridge such as would have been
produced if the clay had filled a skin sack with the seams on the
outside. If such were the case it might have served as a bolas weight.


Wood Fragments (Fig. 58)

There are several fragments of wood that appear to have been modified
by the inhabitants. Two of these could easily have been pieces of
arrow shafts. One is ³/₁₆ inch in diameter, 2½ inches long; the other ¼
inch in diameter, and 1¾ inches long. Both show no remnants of bark and
appear to have been scraped smooth. There are two similar specimens,
1 and 2 inches long, and ⁵/₁₆ and ⁷/₁₆ inch in diameter respectively.
Observations of ethnological materials suggest that these were too
large and heavy to shoot with an ordinary bow and arrow. Perhaps these
are fragments of atlatl foreshafts. The fifth specimen is also ⁷/₁₆
inch in diameter, 2¼ inches long, and is pointed. It was probably the
butt end of a foreshaft. Ethnologic parallels indicate that it was too
sharp to be the point of a firedrill (see Fig. 58).

A sixth wood specimen is a flat piece 3½ × ³/₁₆ inches in maximum
dimensions. Its use is unknown.

A seventh specimen is a short piece 2 inches long, shaped all around,
and tapering to a point at one end. It was cut from a tree gnarl, and
probably served as an awl.


Leather

There are two small pieces of leather. One is probably part of a thong
or cord; the use of the other is unknown.


Cordage

A piece of twisted fiber was found. It appears to have been one strand
of a multi-strand cord. The fiber is made from yucca leaves.

[Illustration]

[Illustration: FIGURE 57—Clay ball. Above, in _situ_. Below, note
raised central ridge.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 58—Wood fragments. A-D, arrowshaft fragments(?)
E, butt end of dart foreshaft. F, dart shaft fragments(?) Actual size.]


POTTERY


Plain Pottery (Figs. 59 and 60)

Plain pottery includes one restorable bowl and eight additional sherds.
Construction is hard to determine from so small a number of sherds,
but indications suggest coiling and scraping. Coils were fairly wide
(see Fig. 60). Core color is usually grey to black though one sherd is
oxidized to a brick red. Firing was done in a “reducing atmosphere”,
with some scattered spots oxidized. The temper is angular with
occasional mica fragments visible; it is probably crushed granite.
Some sherds may contain a small amount of quartz sand. The size of the
temper is variable, usually fine with a few large granules mixed in.
Vessel walls are usually fairly strong. The pottery is friable, not
flaky. Both surfaces are unslipped, and smoothed on all specimens.
The exterior is a brownish black, the interior is black. One sherd,
however, is dull grey. Thickness is from ¼-⁵/₁₆ inch, one sherd ³/₁₆
inch. The only partially complete form observed is a bowl. However,
another large sherd (about 8 inches square) suggests part of the wall
of a pot, perhaps with an incurving shoulder. The bowl has a mouth
diameter of 5½ inches, and in vertical cross-section resembles a
parabolic curve 3¼ inches high. Rims in general are gradually tapered.

[Illustration: FIGURE 59—Plain pottery bowl. White portions restored, ⅔
actual size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 60—Plain pottery sherd, showing coiled
construction. Actual size.]


Surface Roughened Pottery (Figs. 61-65)

Pottery in this category is divided into three classes. Pottery of
Class I includes 7 sherds. These were manufactured by the paddle and
anvil technique. Temper is sand, and is not too abundant. The clay is
micaceous and the texture somewhat granular, tending to shatter along
fairly regular lines. Hardness is 3.5-4.5; color grey to brownish
continuous all the way through. Exterior surfaces all show parallel
lines of cord-marks, about five to the inch. Impressions of individual
strands can be seen in the clay, somewhat flattened and slightly
smoothed. Interior surfaces were smoothed and scraped. One rim sherd
has diagonal impressions that extend to ¼ inch of the flattened lip.
There is no decoration. Vessel size cannot be determined. Thickness is
from ⁵/₁₆-⁶/₁₆ inch. One sherd from near the base suggests a conoidal
bottom.

Two sherds of this class have different exterior treatment. One of
these appears to have been impressed by basketry, apparently coiled
with a simple rod foundation. The other has been impressed with an
unknown fabric.

[Illustration: FIGURE 61—Surface roughened pottery, Class I.]

Class II includes 15 sherds. These resemble those of I in many
respects: The manufacture was by paddle and anvil; the temper is of
sand or possibly crushed rock, generally fine and not too abundant, and
the clay is micaceous. The texture, however, is flaky with a tendency
to fracture along irregular lines. Hardness is about 3.5, color grey to
brown generally continuous through the sherd. A few have blacker cores.
Exterior surfaces were treated with parallel lines of cord impressions
10-15 to the inch with very little smoothing. Interiors were smoothed,
but do not show the evidences of scraping as with I. There is one
rim sherd; vertical impressions on this extend over the lip which
has been flattened. No decoration occurs. The thickness ranges from
³/₁₆-⁴/₁₆ inch. One large sherd about 4 × 3 inches suggests vessels of
considerable size.

[Illustration: FIGURE 62—Surface roughened pottery, A, Class I. B and
C, Class I variant.]

Pottery of Class III in most aspects resembles that of Class II: paddle
and anvil technique in manufacture, temper of sand or crushed rock,
fine, not abundant, micaceous clay. The texture is very flaky tending
to fracture along irregular lines. Color grey to brown, usually the
latter, generally continuous through the sherd; some, however, have
blacker cores. Exterior surfaces were treated with two sets of parallel
cord marks one extending vertically from the rim, the other at an
angle of about 45 degrees. This gives a sort of criss-cross effect,
different, however, from the random application of Upper Republican
sherds (see Wedel 1934, Strong 1935). Interior surfaces were smoothed.
On one large rimsherd cord marks extend over the flattened lip. No
shoulder is in evidence, and indications suggest fairly large pots
with mouth diameter of about 10 inches, height 12 inches. The camber
of the sherds indicates forms with pointed bottoms. Thickness is from
³/₁₆-⁴/₁₆ inches. There is no decoration. Hardness is about 3.5.

[Illustration: FIGURE 63—Surface roughened pottery, Class II.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 64—Surface roughened pottery, Class II.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 65—Surface roughened pottery. Class III.]




Geology of the LoDaisKa Site[2]

By CHAS. B. HUNT


The LoDaisKa (Sanger) Site, about a mile and half south of Morrison,
Colorado, is a rockshelter under a projecting ledge of Paleozoic
(Pennsylvanian) sandstone that dips steeply east. The pre-ceramic
occupation layers at this site are believed to correlate with the Piney
Creek alluvium (Hunt, 1954, p. 114). The accompanying map (Fig. 66)
illustrates the general geologic setting of the site; it shows the
general distribution of one upper Pleistocene and two Recent units.

[2] Publication authorized by the Director, U. S. Geological Survey.

The upper Pleistocene unit (Qg on the map) is a bouldery gravel with
which is included some variegated, silty and clayey alluvium. This
bouldery gravel is exposed in Strain Gulch upstream from the site,
and it covers much of the upland northwest of that part of the Gulch.
Downstream from the site this bouldery gravel is southeast of the Gulch
and forms the high terrace extending from the site to the highway.
Because the deposit is bouldery, and because the boulders are little
weathered the deposit is assumed to be Wisconsin in age.

The alluvium with variegated colors mapped with this bouldery gravel
is exposed in Strain Gulch about 700 feet northeast of the site, and
in the tributary from the west that joins Strain Gulch about 200 feet
upstream from the highway. In this latter tributary the alluvium rests
on strata of Paleozoic age. At both localities the variegated alluvium
is overlain by dark-colored, sandy and silty alluvium.

The variegated alluvium has a distinct, lime-enriched zone, probably
representing the alluviated layer of an old soil from which the upper
layers have been eroded. The lime-zone is comparable in thickness to
that found in soils in Wisconsin age in the Denver area. Moreover, at
the outcrop in Strain Gulch, the lower part of the alluvium is stained
with iron oxide about the way deposits of Wisconsin age are stained
in the Denver area. However, the dating of the deposits is uncertain
because it has not been established whether the layers enriched in lime
and iron are the result of surficial weathering or ground-water action.

Probably, though, these deposits are late Pleistocene in age, and
fossils in them probably will include the Pleistocene forms.

[Illustration]

[Illustration: FIGURE 66—GEOLOGIC MAP OF LODAISKA SITE]

Overlying the bouldery gravel and the variegated alluvium is a
dark-colored, sandy and silty alluvium (Qp on the map), 1 to 6 feet
thick, that looks quite like the Piney Creek alluvium in the Denver
area. Both the Piney Creek and this alluvium are of Recent age. Fossil
bones were found in the alluvium at two places near the site (A and B
on the map). At A, 1 foot below the surface, articulated bones were
found; at B, a single bone was found and it was not in place, but
from a plowed surface on the upland. At this locality a chert flake
was found also. The bones were examined by Edward Lewis of the U. S.
Geological Survey and C. B. Schultz and L. G. Tanner of the University
of Nebraska State Museum and Geology Department. Their identifications
are as follows:

    Locality A, fragments of a vertebra, femur, epiphysis,
         and ribs of _Bison bison_ (Linnaeus) of Recent age,
         and

    Locality B, the badly weathered astragalus of a large
         bovid, either _Bos Taurus_ or _Bison bison_ (Linnaeus)
         of Recent age.

The unconformity at the base of the dark-colored alluvium is well
exposed at the localities indicated on the map.

Fragments of charcoal were found in the alluvium 200 feet upstream from
the site. This alluvium probably correlates with the pre-ceramic layers
of the occupation levels at the site, which, as reported by Lewis in an
accompanying paper, also contains vertebrate remains of Recent age.

The youngest deposit, a bouldery gravel confined to the present washes,
is a lag concentrate of the boulders and cobbles that are left by
washing out finer grained sediments from the Pleistocene deposits. This
deposit, and the arroyo-cutting with which it is associated, probably
developed throughout the period of the ceramic levels.

                           REFERENCE CITED

    Hunt, Chas. B., 1954 Pleistocene and Recent deposits in the
    Denver area, Colorado: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 996-C, p. 91-140.




Mechanical and Chemical Analyses of the Deposits of the LoDaisKa Site

By ROBERT J. RODDEN


Introduction

Mechanical and chemical analyses of the deposits of the LoDaisKa Site
were made in an attempt to establish whether or not any paleosols or
ancient weathered zones were present. No clear profile development
could be observed in the field and it was hoped that laboratory
analysis might confirm this impression. The occurrence of such
features might serve for correlation between sites in the area and
aid in interpreting the paleoclimatic and geomorphic history of the
deposits (Miller and Leopold, 1953).


Sampling

Samples for laboratory analysis were collected from two different
parts of the site. Those upon which most of the present conclusions
are based were taken in continuous two-inch intervals down a vertical
face in Square M11 (see Figs. 7 and 10), very near the back wall of the
rockshelter. They were not collected until after much of the site had
been excavated and it was only near the rear wall that a relatively
complete section could be obtained. Rodents had disturbed the upper
levels and only the profile from 38-102 inches below baseline was
studied. Because the location of this sample might very well reflect
the influence of the overhang on the particle size distribution of the
deposits, another sample section was taken in front of the shelter.
Stratigraphic relations and similarities in the archaeological
materials suggested that the deposits extended essentially horizontally
from the front to the back of the site, and that correlations for
six-inch horizontal levels were generally warranted. The samples
from Square J8 were collected in continuous six-inch intervals from
a point 38 inches below baseline. The expected horizontal variation
with respect to particle size distribution was, in fact, not borne out
by the results of this second sampling. A comparison of the median
diameter and sorting coefficients of the samples suggests that both
samples are generally representative of the deposits and of variations
within them (see Figs. 67, 68):

    Median diameter of 7 samples from
        the back of the shelter (M11)    0.61-0.75mm.

    Median diameter of 4 samples from
        the front of the site (J8)       0.60-0.70mm.

    Average sorting coefficients of
        7 samples from M11               2.20 (relatively well-sorted)

    Average sorting coefficients of
        4 samples from J8                2.18

One would not expect that the results of the chemical analyses would be
appreciably affected by the location of the sample.


Table VIa

Particle-size fractions, in millimeters; expressed in percent of total
weight of sample.

                 |2.00 |1.00 |0.71 |0.50 |0.351| 0.25|0.177|0.125|0.088|
                 |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |
            2.00 |1.00 |0.71 |0.50 |0.351|0.25 |0.177|0.125|0.088|0.062|0.062
     ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----
     38-40  12.46 20.50 11.79 10.28  8.97 10.17  5.65  5.45  4.46  3.19  5.78
     40-42   9.67 18.18 11.67 11.63  9.17 11.67  6.59  6.03  4.99  3.26  6.18
     42-44   9.61 19.22 12.69 11.49  9.43 10.75  5.99  5.68  4.57  3.18  5.99
     44-46   5.22 16.99 12.08 11.78  9.81 12.14  6.86  6.82  5.52  4.04  7.18
     46-48  11.59 19.56 12.12 11.34  9.11 10.72  5.64  5.15  4.18  2.84  5.79
     48-50  11.60 20.28 12.37 11.93  9.76 10.89  5.63  5.15  3.89  2.62  5.15
     50-52   8.28 19.70 11.84 11.48 10.16 11.91  6.45  6.13  4.75  3.26  4.84
     52-54  11.42 20.22 11.91 10.96  9.14 11.08  6.09  5.58  4.67  3.15  5.12
     54-56  14.33 20.44 11.84 11.23  8.65 10.45  5.61  5.23  4.14  2.77  4.19
     56-58  10.30 21.69 11.77 11.35  9.20 10.81  5.86  5.57  4.57  3.02  5.24
     58-60  16.89 24.64 11.88 10.54  8.62  9.50  4.35  3.68  2.88  2.23  4.02
     60-62   8.24 20.08 11.99 11.61  9.74 11.86  6.32  5.87  4.67  3.68  4.48
     62-64   5.49 22.90 12.42 11.05  8.51 10.08  5.16  4.90  3.81  2.78  3.96
     64-66  10.51 22.60 12.93 10.57  9.46 11.17  6.00  5.78  4.33  2.76  3.60
     66-68   9.43 19.53 12.27 11.57 10.00 12.74  6.79  6.23  4.38  2.66  3.46
     68-70  14.23 23.83 13.13 11.22  8.63  9.38  4.84  4.26  3.25  2.33  4.35
     70-72   8.14 18.47 11.80 11.25  8.55 10.64  6.15  6.11  5.06  3.94  9.09
     72-74   7.38 18.95 11.33 11.13  8.00 10.96  6.21  6.15  5.19  4.23  9.72
     74-76  10.42 22.84 12.38 10.90  8.04  9.28  5.13  4.67  3.90  3.20  7.62
     76-78  10.87 19.63 11.92 11.63  8.78  9.60  5.29  4.93  4.04  2.97  9.86
     78-80  11.42 21.31 12.33 11.10  8.84  9.45  5.15  4.71  3.83  2.80  8.42
     80-82  10.77 17.36 11.40 10.96  9.01 10.33  5.84  5.52  4.59  3.38 10.05
     82-84   7.49 21.36 12.75 11.80  9.50 10.88  5.70  5.02  3.82  6.57  8.26
     84-86   6.73 15.60 12.35 13.82 12.79 16.23  7.83  5.78  3.40  1.69  3.18
     86-88   9.80 20.03 12.32 12.32 10.86 13.50  6.59  5.12  3.06  1.55  2.50
     88-90  20.57 26.22 12.92 10.31  7.38  7.68  3.51  2.73  1.84  1.21  4.41
     90-92   9.22 25.22 13.73 11.55  8.48  9.36  4.66  4.19  3.09  2.18  7.40
     92-94  16.17 26.24 13.94 10.33  7.63  7.68  3.85  3.35  2.47  1.79  6.48
     94-96  13.87 19.98 12.52 12.28 10.62 12.19  5.50  4.10  2.45  1.29  2.36
     96-98  14.62 19.87 11.85 12.02 10.58 12.16  5.84  4.60  2.81  1.55  3.19
     98-100  9.98 21.28 12.61 12.60 11.25 13.05  6.29  4.95  2.94  1.57  3.00
    100-102 13.75 23.24  9.20 13.73 11.31 12.00  4.93  3.77  1.82  0.77  1.20

Distribution (weight percent) of particle-size fractions for samples
from Square M11, LoDaisKa site. Samples taken in continuous two-inch
intervals from 38 inches below baseline.


Table VIb


               Particle-size fractions, in millimeters;
            expressed in percent of total weight of sample

                   2.00     1.00     0.71     0.50     0.351
                     -        -        -        -        -
           2.00    1.00     0.71     0.50     0.351    0.25

    W1     9.21    19.71    11.54    10.53     8.88    11.12
    W2    16.32    20.19    11.99    10.93     8.43     9.70
    W3    28.25    25.09    11.02     8.32     6.00     6.56
    W4    17.98    23.49    12.39    10.83     8.98     9.94
    W5     7.16    18.90    11.67    11.49     9.97    12.39
    W6
    W7    14.00    19.37    11.38    11.45     9.53     8.75
    W8    13.48    18.44    11.66    12.29    11.55    13.51
    W9    12.32    16.36    10.68    11.08    10.98    14.18
    W10   10.11    16.27    10.72    12.54    12.11    15.34
    --------------------------------------------------------
          0.25     0.177    0.125    0.088
            -        -        -        -
          0.177    0.125    0.088    0.062    0.062

    W1    6.19     6.19     5.06     3.31     5.25
    W2    4.85     4.46     3.53     2.28     3.32
    W3    3.20     2.99     2.25     1.07     1.98
    W4    4.41     3.54     2.17     1.28     0.89
    W5    6.27     5.67     4.21     2.66     3.91
    W6
    W7    9.12     4.62     2.46     0.85     0.56
    W8    6.44     5.53     3.45     1.77     2.00
    W9    7.56     5.76     3.34     1.72     3.01
    W10   7.02     5.06     2.86     1.68     2.46

        Distribution (weight percent) of particle-size
        fractions for samples from Square J8, LoDaisKa
        site. Samples taken in continuous six-inch
        intervals from 38 inches below baseline.


Results and Discussion

The two levels represented in the section from M11 extend over the
whole area of excavation and make up most of the deposits of the
site. A late Pleistocene bouldery gravel, with which is included some
variegated silty and clayey alluvium, is separated from the overlying
dark-colored sandy and silty “alluvium” by a definite erosional break
representing an unknown interval of time (Hunt, this report). There is
a higher red sand layer and a younger bed of dusty brown fill which is
found just below the surface; both of these are relatively quite thin
and extend only over part of the area of the site. As the dark-colored
homogeneous sands and silts made up most of the deposits of the site,
and contained most of the cultural remains, they will be our particular
concern.

The results of sieve analyses made on the samples from the front and
back of the site have been summarized in Tables VIa and VIb; the
breakdown into the various particle size fractions is by weight. This
was done to 1) describe the physical nature of the deposits and 2) to
determine the nature of textural variation of the samples.

[Illustration]

[Illustration: FIGURE 67—Above: Size-distribution curves for typical
samples of the deposits of the LoDaisKa Site, Square M11.

Below: Size-distribution Curves for typical samples of the deposits of
the LoDaisKa Site, Square J8.]

Local differences and variations in the parent rock and relief have a
profound effect on soil characteristics (Thorp, 1941). In the present
instance, there is no evidence of any appreciable change in the relief
of the area immediately surrounding the site since the beginning of
human occupation. The site is located towards one end of the relatively
steep slope of outwash debris from the Fountain Formation which forms
the overhang and extends upslope above the site. The deposits which
make up the site are also the product of slope wash and of weathering
of the overhang; they are some six feet above the level of the stream
in Strain Gulch. The height of the deposits above modern stream level
makes it seem most unlikely that the site was ever flooded in Recent
times (Hunt, personal communication—Irwin and Irwin). Accordingly, the
deposits would be a colluvium rather than alluvial in nature and would
be derived from the overhang. Mechanical analyses of several samples of
the Fountain Sandstone from the overhang suggest that the sandstone as
it is found above the site is quite homogeneous, although it varies in
color from white to maroon (see pg. 99 of this report):

    Diameter in mm.   Percent by weight
      2.00                19.33%
      2.00-1.00           16.51%
      1.00-0.71            8.64%
      0.71-0.50            8.33%
      0.50-0.351           8.61%
      0.351-0.25           8.89%
      0.25-0.177           5.51%
      0.177-0.125          5.68%
      0.125-0.088          4.69%
      0.088-0.062          3.37%
      0.062               10.40%
                          ------
                          99.96%

These results compare closely with the analyses of the deposits making
up the site, and suggest that weathering of the parent material
was primarily dissolution, probably accompanied by some mechanical
disintegration.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration: FIGURE 68—Above: Changes in relative importance (weight
percent) of fine silt and clay fraction with depth below 38 inches
below baseline, LoDaisKa site.

Center: Changes in concentration of total calcium carbonate with depth
below 38 inches below baseline, LoDaisKa site.

Below: Changes in concentration of total soluble iron with depth below
38 inches below baseline, LoDaisKa site.]

Representative particle size distributions of the deposits are shown
in the cumulative curves in Fig. 67. The median diameters and sorting
coefficients, as we have already noted, suggest a uniform distribution
of particle sizes, with the exception of the sample (W3) from depth
52-58 inches below baseline in front of the site. The median diameter
of this sample is 1.32 mm., considerably larger than that (0.60-0.70
mm.) for the rest of the deposits. A line of much larger rocks at
this level gives evidence of a period of rock fall, although this
does not seem to extend to the very back of the shelter, and is not
represented in the sample collected there. The human occupation of
the site is uninterrupted, and there is no suggestion that this fall
reflects any change in the mode of deposition or any change in climate.
Increased aridity may have brought about an important increase in
aeolian deposition in the area during some period of occupation, but
the location of the site in a sheltered valley makes it unlikely that
this would be indicated by the deposits. Any significant change in the
relative importance of the coarse and fine fractions—suggesting perhaps
such a change in deposition—would be reflected in the median diameters
of the samples (Jenny, 1941). The similarity in the median diameters of
the particles from the deposit gives evidence of a relatively uniform
mode of deposition.

The amount of uncombined carbonate and “free” or acid-soluble iron
oxide in the clay and silt fraction (finer than 0.062 mm.) of the
samples from the back of the shelter (M11) was determined by chemical
analysis. The results of these analyses have been summarized in Fig.
68, where the percentage of the fines by weight has also been plotted.
The uncombined oxides and carbonates (iron oxide and calcium carbonate)
are present in the fine fractions especially in the form of an adsorbed
coating on the surfaces of the particles, and also as precipitates
acting as cementing materials to bind them together (Carroll, 1958;
Deb, 1958; Barshad, 1958). The free iron oxides were obtained by
dissolving the sample in 10% HC₁ (by volume) and digestion over a
steam bath. It is assumed that any dissolution of the clay minerals is
insignificant and that the amount of soluble iron determined is truly
representative of the uncombined iron oxide in the sample (Barshad,
1958). The amount of carbonate was determined in the form of CO₂,
by digesting the sample in 0.1N HCl; it is assumed that all of the
carbonate occurred in the form of calcium carbonate.

A carbonate and iron oxide analysis was run on several samples of the
Fountain sandstone which made up the roof of the rockshelter, in order
to determine the amount of variation in the parent material:

    Sample  Percent Carbonate        Percent Iron
              (by weight)             (by weight)
                               sol.      insol.    total
    Light
      No. 1      0.34%        0.43%      0.14%     0.57%
      No. 2      0.31%        0.38%      0.13%     0.51%
    Red
      No. 1      0.08%        4.95%      0.62%     5.57%

The amount of soluble iron is quite variable in the parent material; it
forms a coating on the primary minerals and gives the rock its red or
maroon color. It is interesting to note that the soluble iron in the
deposits, presumably derived from the Fountain sandstone, maintains a
rather regular increase to a maximum at 102 inches below base-level.
The amount of carbonate in the parent rock, by contrast, is certainly
not enough to account for the variation which was found in the deposits
and for the concentration of CaCO₃ at the particular levels. In the
present instance there seems to be a definite independence in the
movement and location of concentration of the soluble iron and of the
fine silt and clay, which seem to be associated with concentrations of
carbonate. The calcium carbonate occurs in the form of a coating on the
fine particles and, more important, as a cement binding the particles
together. This was particularly noticed on the artifactual and bone
materials from the deposits from 70 to 94 inches below baseline.

The differential accumulation of calcium carbonate in the profile is
due to either variations in the texture of the deposits, with the
greater accumulations occurring in the zones of finer particle size,
or to the processes of weathering of the deposits (Miller and Leopold,
1953). The present study suggests that changes in the distribution of
calcium carbonate and the fine silt and clay fractions in the deposits
cannot be related to variations in the parent material, relief in the
immediate area, or the mode of deposition. Concentrations of calcium
carbonate may be associated with changes in the depth of the water
table or in drainage conditions. There is no evidence that the water
table ever came close to the surface in this area in Recent times; at
present it is something more than 150 feet below the level of the site.
Internal and external drainage conditions of the deposits have probably
not changed since the beginning of human occupation of the shelter,
being largely determined by the nature of the relief and parent rock.

It is possible that the particular accumulation of calcium carbonate
and of fine silt and clay between 68 and 96 inches below base-level
are the result of downward migration and concentration of the fine
fraction and CaCO₃ due to weathering processes—defining a paleosol.
Some change in climatic conditions, perhaps just sufficient to modify
to some extent the nature of the vegetation cover (Nikiforoff, 1937)
seems to offer one logical explanation for the distribution of calcium
carbonate, and of the fine silt and clay fraction—the products of soil
development in semi-arid environments (Bryan and Albritton, 1943). It
is hoped that x-ray and mineralogical analysis of the samples will
definitely establish whether or not we are dealing with a buried soil.

If we do interpret the results of the chemical analyses as indicating a
period of increased aridity over conditions as they now exist in the
area, one could establish a _terminus post quem_ for the archaeological
complexes below approximately 64 inches below baseline. Accordingly,
the artifactual materials with Great Basin influences and the earlier
Duncan types may date from some time late in the Altithermal. This
interpretation would not be completely out of keeping with a dating of
the archaeological materials on typological grounds.


Acknowledgments

The author is particularly indebted to Dr. C. J. Rodden for his
interest and assistance in the chemical analyses, and to Prof. John P.
Miller for his suggestions and helpful criticisms of the preliminary
draft of this manuscript.


References

    Barshad, I., 1958 _Soil Development_:
         Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, 69 p.
    Bryan, K. and Albritton, C. C., 1943,
         Soil phenomena as evidence of climatic change:
         Amer. Jour. Sci., 241, 469.
    Carroll, D., 1958,
         Role of clay minerals in the transportation of iron:
         Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 14, 1.
    Deb, B. C., 1958, The movement and precipitation of
         iron oxides in podzol soils: reprint.
    Hunt, C. B., 1954,
         Pleistocene and Recent Deposits in the Denver Area,
         Colorado: U.S.G.S. Bull. 996-C, 140 p.
    Jenny, H., 1941, Factors of soil formation, a system of
         quantitative pedology.
         McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.,
         New York.
    Knight, S. H., 1929, The Fountain and the Casper
         formations of the Laramie Basin:
         Contri. from Dept. of Geology of Columbia Univ.,
         XL, No. 5, 82 p.
    Miller, J. P. and Leopold, L. B., 1953, The use of
         soils and paleosols for interpreting geomorphic
         and climatic history of arid regions:
         Res. Council of Israel. Spec. Publ. No. 2, 453.
    Miller, J. P., and Wendorf, D. F., 1958, The alluvial
         chronology of the Tesuque Valley, New Mexico:
         Jour. Geol., 66, 177.
    Nikiforoff, C. C., 1937,
         General trends of the desert type of soil formation:
         Soil Sci., 43, No. 2, 105.
    Simonson, R. W., 1954,
         Identification and interpretation of buried soils:
         Amer. Jour. Sci., 252, No. 12, 705.
    Thorp, J., 1941,
         The influence of environment on soil formation:
         Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 6, 39.




Vertebrate Fossils from the Rockshelter at the LoDaisKa Site[3]

By EDWARD LEWIS


[3] Publication authorized by the Director, U. S. Geological Survey.

Cynthia and Henry Irwin excavated the rock shelter at the LoDaisKa Site
on the Otto Sanger property by Strain Gulch near Morrison, Colorado
1956-1957. The vertebrate fossils were identified by the Upper Cenozoic
Research Group: C. B. Schultz, T. M. Stout, and L. G. Tanner of the
University of Nebraska, and Edward Lewis of the U.S. Geological Survey.
Minor elements of the vertebrate fauna identified by them include 1
amphibian bone fragment, 2 lacertilian reptile vertebrae, and 16 bird
bones and fragments of undetermined genera and species. All the other
vertebrate remains were mammalian and include:

     _Lagomorphs_, gen-sp. undet.
     _Lepus_ sp.†
     _Cynomys_ sp.†
     _Citellus_ sp.†
     _Tamias_ sp. or _Eutamias_ sp.
    ?_Thomomys_ sp.
     _Castor canadensis_ Kuhl
    ?_Peromyscus_ sp.
      Microtinae, gen. and sp. indet.
     _Canis_ sp.†
     _Mephitis_ sp.
     _Taxidea_ sp.†
    ?_Felis_ (Puma) sp.
     _Cervus canadensis_ (Erxleben)†
     _Odocoileus_ sp.†
     _Odocoileus_ sp. cf. _O. hemionus_ (Rafinesque)
    ?_Bos taurus_ Linnaeus[4]
     _Bison bison_ (Linnaeus)†
     _Ovis canadensis_ Shaw

From one to seven individuals are represented by each of these names
except _Odocoileus_, which accounts for the great majority of the
specimens. We conclude that the people who were responsible for this
deposit lived, while at this site, on a diet in which venison, probably
from the Mule Deer (_Odocoileus hemionus_), predominated. There are
surprisingly few _Bison_ bones, and just one specimen each of “Elk” and
Bighorn.

All of this fauna still lived in the same general area in historic
times; it is a Recent fauna. The symbol (†) marks genera and species
known to occur in the fauna of the Piney Creek alluvium (Hunt,
1954, p. 114-117).[5] These elements of the Piney Creek fauna have
previously been reported from the nearby Denver area by Hunt (1954, p.
118), and have been identified by the Upper Cenozoic Research Group
in the collections made by Scott[6] from the nearby Kassler area,
and by Hunt[7] from the dark-colored, sandy and silty alluvium that
occurs along Strain Gulch near the Sanger Site. It seems reasonable
to believe that the age of the main deposit in the shelter, below the
ceramic occupation layer, is approximately equivalent to the age of
the dark-colored, sandy, silty alluvium and that of the Piney Creek
alluvium.

[4] Apart from the fact that this specimen may represent _Bison bison_
rather than ?_Bos taurus_, the possibility exists that it is an
accidental, late Recent association introduced by outside agency, as
would be the case in a burial by a carnivore or man.

[5] Hunt, Chas. B., 1954, Pleistocene and Recent Deposits in the Denver
Area, Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 996-C, p. 91-140.

[6] Scott, Glenn R., Geology of the Kassler Quadrangle, Colorado;
manuscript in preparation.

[7] Hunt, Chas. B., Geology of the LoDaisKa site, p. 89, present
publication.

               Classification used in this report:

    Animal Kingdom
        Class Amphibia
        Class Reptilia
            Subclass Lepidosauria
                Order Squamata
                    Suborder Lacertilia (lizards)
        Class Aves
            Subclass Neornithes
                Superorder Neognathae (modern flying birds)
        Class Mammalia
            Subclass Theria
                Infraclass Eutheria (placental mammals)
                    Order Lagomorpha (hares, rabbits, and pikas)
                       _Lepus_ (hares and “jack” rabbits)

                    Order Rodentia (rodents)
                        Family Sciuridae (squirrels)
                            _Cynomys_ (prairie “dog”)
                            _Citellus_ (ground squirrel)
                            _Tamias_ & _Eutamias_ (chipmunks)
                        Family Geomyidae
                            _Thomomys_ (pocket gopher)
                        Family Castoridae
                            _Castor_ (beaver)
                        Family Cricetidae
                          Subfamily Cricetinae
                            _Peromyscus_ (white-footed mouse)
                          Subfamily Microtinae (field mouse)

                    Order Carnivora
                        Family Canidae
                            _Canis_ (dog, coyote, or wolf)
                        Family Mustelidae
                            _Mephitis_ (skunk)
                            _Taxidea_ (American badger)
                        Family Felidae
                            _Felis_ (lynx, puma, etc.)

                    Order Artiodactyla
                        Family Cervidae
                            _Cervus_ (elk)
                            _Odocoileus_ (mule and white-tailed deer)
                        Family Bovidae
                            _Bos_ (domestic cattle)
                            _Bison_
                            _Ovis_ (bighorn sheep)


     Table VII—Faunal Remains, LoDaisKa

                           ---+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-
                              |  A |  B |  C |  D |  E |  F |  G |  H |
                              12   24   36   48   60   72   84   95  108
     -------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-
      Amphibian               |    |    |    |  2 |  1 |    |    |    |
      Reptile                 |    |    |    |    |    |    |  2 |    |
      Bird                    |    |  3 |    |  2 |    | 11 |    |    |
      Lagomorphs, sp. undet   |    |    |    |  4 |    |    |  1 |    |
      Lepus                   |    |    |    |    |    | 18 |    |    |
      Rodentia, undet.        |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |  2 |
     _Cynomys_                |    |  4 |  1 |  1 |    | 20 |  3 |  1 |
     _Citellus_               |    |    |    |    |    |  3 |  1 |    |
     _Tamias_ and _Eutamias_  |    |  1 |    |    |    |  2 |    |    |
     _Thomomys_               |    |    |    |    |    |  2 |    |    |
     _Castor_ (_canadensis_)  |    |    |    |    |    |  2 |    |    |
     _Peromyscus_             |    |    |    |    |    | ?3 |    |    |
      Microtine               |    |    |    |  2 |    |  4 |    |    |
      Carnivore, undet.       |    |    |    |    |  1 |  1 |    |    |
     _Canis_                  |    |  1 |    |    |    |    |    |    |
     _Mephites_               |    |    |    |    |    |    |  1 |    |
     _Taxidea_                |    |    |    |    |    |  1 |    |  1 |
     _Felis_                  |    |    |    |    |    |  3 |    |    |
     _Cervus_                 |    |  1 |    |    |    |    |    |    |
     _Odocoileus_             |    | 26 | 18 | 32 | 42 | 44 | 70 | 17 |
    ?_Bos_                    |    |    |  6 |    |    |    |    |    |
     _Bison_ (_bison_)        |    |    |  4 |    |  5 |  7 | 11 |    |
     _Ovis_ (_canadensis_)    |    |  1 |    |    |    |    |  1 |    |
                              +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-




Plant Remains from the LoDaisKa Site

By WALTON C. GALINAT


(Below Dr. Galinat has identified key specimens from the site from
which data table was completed).

    Area I 82-108 inches

            Gramineae
    Grass fragments—glumes and stems—S/F10/109-113
                (numbers refer to stratigraphic position)

            Liliaceae
    _Allium_ (_cernuum_?)—wild onion seed—S/G11/103-107

            Fagaceae
    _Quercus_ spp.—acorn S/L11/102-106

            Chenopodiaceae
    _Grayia Brandegei_—carbonized fruits—S/L11/108-112

            Rosaceae
    _Crataegus_ spp.—partially decayed fragments of hawthorn
                fruits—S/JK11/80-84


Area II 72-82 inches

            Musci
    _Polytrichum_ (_commune_?)—S/J11/78-82—this large
                  hair-cap moss may have been used as
                  padding or insulation.

            Gramineae
    _Zea Mays L._—S/G10/75-79—decayed corn cob of 14
                rows and medium diameter similar to that
                of Chapalote maize.
              —S/G10/78-82—fragments, the same as above.

    _Paspalum_ spp.—grain—S/K11/78-82
                glumes—S/K11/78-82
                stem—S/L11/78-82

            Cyperaceae
    _Scleria_ spp.—grain—S/L11/78-82 } These sedges
                                     } indicate the
                                     } presence of a
                                     } permanent source
                                     } of water in
    _Carex_ spp.—grain—S/L11/78-82   } the area.

            Chenopodiaceae
    _Chenopodium_ spp.—fruit—S/L11/78-82

            Leguminoseae
    _Lupinus perennis L._—carbonized immature beans—S/L11/78-82
                —May have been roasted as a green vegetable.


Area III 57-72 inches

            Cyperaceae
    _Scleria relicularis_—grain, spikelet, and plant fragments
                —S/I9/65-69 (three samples).

            Chenopodiaceae
    _Chenopodium_ spp.—seed—S/L6/68-72

            Rosaceae
    _Crataegus_ spp.—partially decayed fragments of hawthorn
                fruits—S/J11/70-74

            Umbellifereae
    _Taenidia_ spp.—tiny seeds—S/F8/61-55 and S/19/65-69


Area IV 0-57 inches

            Pinaceae
    _Juniperus_ spp.—wood fibers—S/K9/46-50

            Gramineae
    _Zea Mays_—fragments from a small diameter, 16-rowed
                cob. Must have borne small kernels, possibly
                a popcorn. S/I11/53-57
              —one kernel of a dent corn—S/0910/22-26.
                Not highly dented, in size and shape does not
                closely resemble modern commercial varieties.
              —one large kernel of yellow sweet corn resembling
                that of modern varieties. Must be
                an intrusion. S/010/MIRB
                    (S/010/MIRB was a portion of a collapsed
                    material with no stratigraphic position).
    _Muhlenbergia_ spp.—florets with grain destroyed.
                              S/08-9/31-35

            Rosaceae
    _Prunus_ spp.—one stone (drupe). S/L7/26-30
            Leguminoseae
     One fragment from a large pod (legume). S/L7/26-30
             Boraginaceae
    _Lithospermum ruderale_—medicinal fruit may have been
                used as a contraceptive—S/L11/50-54




Authors’ Comments on Floral Remains

It is interesting to note the following uses of some of these plants by
modern Indians in the general area.

    Boraginaceae, _Lithospermum ruderale_
        Shoshone—contraceptive
        Gosiute—seeds eaten as food

    Chenopodiaceae, _Chenopodium_
        Hopi—seeds ground for mush
        Navajo—seeds ground for food

    Chenopodiaceae, _Grayia_
        Gosiute—seeds gathered

    Fagaceae, _Quercus_
        Navajo—eaten raw, boiled, roasted, dried like corn meal
        Gosiute—eaten in season

    Gramineae, _Muhlenbergia_
        Hopi—seeds ground for bread meal

    Leguminoseae, _Lupinum_
        Gosiute—gathered. Use?

    Musci, _Polytrichum_
        Gosiute—use?

    Pinaceae, _Juniperus_
        Gosiute—various uses
        Shoshone—twigs used for medicinal tea
        Navajo—needles used for cold lotions

For further information see: Chamberlain, 1911; Train, Henricks,
and Archer, 1941; P. A. Vestal, 1952, P. A. Vestal, 1940 and the
bibliographies appended to these works.


Authors’ Comments on Maize from LoDaisKa

Six specimens of _Zea mays_ were recovered from the LoDaisKa Site.
These were distributed vertically through the deposit, with 3 assigned
to Complex D, 1 to Complex B, and 2 to Complex A. These few examples
represent 3 different types of corn. In order to understand the
significance of the LoDaisKa material, an attempt has been made to
relate it to other prehistoric maize developments.


Table VIII—Floral Remains

                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
                         |16|20|24|28|32|36|40|44|48|52|56|60|64|68|
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
    Boraginaceae         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
      _Lithospermum_     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1|  |  |  |  |
          _ruderale_     +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
    Chenopodiaceae       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
      _Chenopodium_      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
      _Grayia Brandegei_ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
    Cyperaceae           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
      _Carex_            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
      _Scleria_          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1|
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
    Fagaceae             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
      _Quercus_          |  | 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1|  | 3| 1|  |  | 1|  |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
    Gramineae            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
      _Muhlenbergia_     |  |  |  |  |  | 1|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
      _Paspalum_         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
      _Zea Mays_         |  |  | 1|1?|  |  |  |  |  |  | 1|  |  |  |
       spp.              |  |  |  | 1|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
    Leguminoseae         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
      _Lupinus perennis_ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
      spp.               |  |  |  | 1|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
    Lilliaceae           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
      _Allium_           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
    Musci                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
      _Polytrichum_      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1|  |  |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
    Pinaceae             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
      _Juniperus_ spp.   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1|  |  |  |  |  |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
    Rosaceae             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
      _Cretaegus_        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1|  |  |  |  |  |
      _Prunus_ spp.      |  | 1| 2| 4| 5| 1| 1| 1|  |  |  |  |  |  |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
    Umbelliferae         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
      _Taenidia_ spp.    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1| 1|
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
                         |72|76|80|84|88|92|96|100|104|108|112|116|120|
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    Boraginaceae         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
      _Lithospermum_     |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2| 1 | 1 | 1 |   |   |   |
          _ruderale_     +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    Chenopodiaceae       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
      _Chenopodium_      | 1|  | 1|  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
      _Grayia Brandegei_ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   |   | 1 |   |   |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    Cyperaceae           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
      _Carex_            |  | 1| 1|  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
      _Scleria_          |  |  | 1|  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    Fagaceae             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
      _Quercus_          | 3| 4| 3|  |  | 2| 1| 1 | 1 |   |   |   |   |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    Gramineae            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
      _Muhlenbergia_     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
      _Paspalum_         |  |  | 1|  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
      _Zea Mays_         |  |1?| 2|  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
       spp.              |  |  | 1|  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    Leguminoseae         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
      _Lupinus perennis_ |  |  | 1|  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
      spp.               |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    Lilliaceae           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
      _Allium_           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   | 1 |   |   |   |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    Musci                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
      _Polytrichum_      |  |  | 1| 1|  |  | 1|   |   |   |   |   |   |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    Pinaceae             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
      _Juniperus_ spp.   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    Rosaceae             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
      _Cretaegus_        |  |  |  | 1|  |  |  | 1 |   |   |   |   |   |
      _Prunus_ spp.      | 1|  | 5|  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    Umbelliferae         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
      _Taenidia_ spp.    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
                         +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+

[Illustration: FIGURE 69—Floral Remains.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 70—Floral Remains.]

Maize (_Zea mays_) was originally thought to have descended from
teosinte, (_Euchlaena_), a wild plant occurring in Mexico. Now however,
most authorities believe that a primitive maize originated as a
distinct plant. (Mangelsdorf and Reeves, 1939). Teosinte, according to
their hypothesis is a later hybrid of maize and its distant relative,
_Tripsacum_. (A common species of _Tripsacum_ is Gama grass.) Pollen
studies of deep cores taken in Mexico City indicate that wild maize
may have grown in that area well back into the last iinterglacial.
(Barghoorn, Wolfe and Clisby, 1954).

From these obscure beginnings, maize underwent considerable development
and diversification, and later in many cases mixed with teosinte. One
of the basic races which evolved is represented by a modern Mexican
type called “Chapalote”. (Wellhausen et al., 1952). The three specimens
assigned to Complex D at LoDaisKa were identified as belonging to the
Chapalote type. W. C. Galinat has reviewed the early distribution
of Chapalote as follows: “The present-day Mexican race of maize
called ‘Chapalote’ was one of the basic races in North America in
prehistoric times. A re-examination of the actual cobs, photographs or
descriptive literature covering 14 sites in northwestern Mexico and
the southwestern United States suggests, that the archaeological maize
from this area was either pre-Chapalote, Chapalote or a more evolved
and more tripsacoid derivative called ‘Basketmaker’ corn. The Mexican
states with prehistoric Chapalote are Michoacan (lava impressions),
Sonora (Dark Cave), and Chihuahua (Swallow Cave, Slab Cave, Tau Cave,
Olla Cave). In the region now the United States, Chapalote occurred in
Arizona (Richards Cave, Tonto Cave, Painted Cave), Colorado (Cottonwood
Cave, LoDaisKa Cave), and New Mexico (Bat Cave, Tularosa Cave,
Cebollita Cave).”[8]

[8] Reprinted with the author’s permission from _Maize Genetics
Cooperation—News Letter_, No. 32 for March 15, 1958.

In investigating interrelationships one criterion to consider is the
degree of evolution of the Chapalote: Specimens from LoDaisKa are less
primitive than the pre-Chapalote pod-pop corn from the first stratum
of Bat Cave (Dick, n.d., and Mangelsdorf and Smith, 1949). At the
other extreme they are less evolved than the material from Cottonwood
Cave. (Hurst, 1948). They are closer to some of the specimens from the
pre-ceramic levels of Swallow Cave, Chihuahua (Mangelsdorf and Lister,
1956).

A second criterion for comparison is the amount of mixing with
teosinte. Several archaeological sequences in this area show a rather
sudden alteration in maize type due to an introgression of teosinte,
e.g. Bat Cave, Swallow Cave, Tularosa Cave. Mangelsdorf and Lister (op.
cit., p. 173-4) conclude that “a very marked change in the maize of
northwestern Mexico and adjoining area of New Mexico occurred at about
750 ± 250 A.D.” The LoDaisKa specimens show no evidence of teosinte
introgression. In this they approximate most closely the pre-ceramic
material from Swallow Cave, maize from Strata II and III of Bat Cave
and early levels of Tularosa Cave.

[Illustration: FIGURE 71—_Zea mays_, Chapalote type. Above, fragments
of cobs from LoDaisKa Site. Below, Modern Chapalote maize. (Lent by W.
C. Galinat). 2× actual size.]

[Illustration: FIGURE 72—_Zea mays_, fragments of cob of popcorn(?). 2×
actual size.]

The fourth example of corn was assigned to Complex B. W. C. Galinat
(this report) described it as a 16-rowed cob with very small kernels,
“possibly a popcorn”. With only this cob preserved, little more
can be determined. It is evidently more evolved than the previous
specimens. According to P. C. Mangelsdorf, (Personal Communication,
1959), the high row number and small size are similar to a Mexican type
called _Conico_, but it is more probable that the LoDaisKa variety
is ultimately derived from a Chapalote-teosinte mixture. Teosinte
introgression often involves a high degree of variability, which could
include the small 16-rowed form. Kivett (1952a) reports popcorn from
a Woodland Site in Nebraska, and Mangelsdorf (Personal Communication,
1959) believes that this is probably Chapalote.

It is probable that a second type of maize was also cultivated at this
time. Two single component Woodland sites in the Morrison area have
yielded a dent-type corn. (Irwin and Irwin, n.d.).

[Illustration: FIGURE 73—_Zea mays_, “dent” variety. Left kernel from
LoDaisKa site. Right, modern (hybrid) dent maize. Actual size.]

The remaining two maize specimens consist of kernels rather than cobs
and were assigned to Complex A. They were identified as a variety
of dent corn. This is a much more evolved type, resulting from the
crossing of a flinty starch corn with a softer type, and probably
originally involving _teosinte_ introgression. A dent maize is
characteristic of sites of the Fremont Culture in Utah (Wormington,
1955). Its occurrence has been the subject of much discussion. Fremont
maize shows some similarities to pyramidal dent corn of the Mesa
Centrale (Mexico), and even more to _Zapalote Chico_, a type grown on
the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. It is present in some Basketmaker sites,
but not in the later Pueblo localities. Various authorities, (Nickerson
in Wormington, 1955; Carter, 1945; Anderson, 1948) have expressed doubt
that dent corn reached the Fremont area by any direct route through the
Anasazi, Hohokam or Mogollon areas. A possible route via the Plains
was suggested, but evidence was totally lacking because of the absence
of perishables in most Plains sites. The Morrison area provides some
support of the Plains hypothesis: Fremont peoples evidently did range
into areas where dent corn was used and could have acquired it there.
However, until much more evidence is available, the question must
remain open.




Fossil Pollen and Spores from the LoDaisKa Site, Colorado

By DONALD R. WHITEHEAD


Introduction

A preliminary pollen analytical investigation has been attempted on
material from the LoDaisKa Site in order to determine the feasibility
of working with such sediments, and to see what culturally significant
plants might be represented. Due to the extremely poor preservation
in all but the lowermost levels no pollen diagram has been prepared.
Such a diagram would be misleading, because many of the original
constituents of the pollen flora might have been destroyed by
differential degradation. A brief description of the investigation
follows, with a discussion of the potentially significant grass pollen.


Techniques

All samples were prepared by boiling for six minutes in 10% KOH,
washing with 10% HCI to remove carbonates, boiling for ten minutes in
about 30% HF, actolysing for one minute, staining with fuchsin, and
mounting in silicone oil. For each sample a total of four slides was
counted by making traverses at one millimeter intervals.


Identification of Large Grass Pollen

In order to attempt an identification of the various large grass
pollen encountered, the long axis of each grain and the pore diameter
(including annulus) were measured, and the ratio between the two
plotted. Barghoorn, Wolfe, and Clisby (1954) have suggested that this
ratio can be used to supplement size measurements in attempting to
identify fossil pollen of the tribe Maydeae. However, one can not
compare directly the size data from the LoDaisKa fossils with the data
from modern pollen assembled by Barghoorn, Wolfe, and Clisby (l.c.).
Christensen (1945) has shown that not only do recent and fossil grains
of the same species differ in size (depending partly upon the type
of sediment in which the pollen is preserved), but also, different
methods of preparation greatly affect the size, often differentially
with respect to fossil and modern pollen. The recent pollen measured
by Barghoorn, Wolfe, and Clisby (l.c.) was prepared by acetolysis
and mounted in glycerine jelly. By comparing the size of modern
_Corylus avellana_ pollen prepared and mounted in this manner (ca.
28, Christensen, 1945) with the size of fossil _Corylus avellana_
pollen from a variety of sediment types prepared and mounted by the
technique used in the present investigation (ca. 24, S. T. Andersen,
pers. comm.), one can arrive at a factor (7/6) by which the size of the
fossils can be multiplied in order to compare more directly with the
data presented by Barghoorn, Wolfe, and Clisby (l.c.). It should be
emphasized that such an absolute comparison is dangerous, because there
is no way of determining precisely how the environment of preservation
at LoDaisKa has affected the pollen, and there is no guarantee
that size changes of Corylus and Gramineae pollen are absolutely
proportional.

For each grass grain both the long axis measurement and the pore axis
ratio are tabulated in the results below. Only fully expanded grains
were measured.


Sampling (Author’s Note)

The provenience of the samples analyzed below is as follows:

     All samples were taken at 6 inch intervals.

     Samples W 1-10 were collected in Square J8,
          starting at 38 inches below baseline.

     Samples E₁ 1-6 were collected in Square M11,
          starting at 38 inches below baseline.

     Samples E₂ 3-7 were collected in Square P 9-10,
          starting at 62 inches below baseline.

     _Samples E₁ 1 - E₁ 5_ (38-68″)

     Preservation extremely poor, only badly corroded pine pollen,
     a few Compositae grains, and many plant fragments
    (mostly coniferous tracheids).

     _Sample E₁ 6_ (68-74″)
         _Pinus_—9
         _Gramineae_—2, (70,21ₘ, pore obscured by detritus),
                              (40.46ₘ, 1:4.9)

     _Sample E₂ 3_ (62-68″)
         _Pinus_—10

     _Sample E₂ 4_ (68-74″)
         _Pinus_—19
         _Picea_—2
         Fern spore—1
         Gramineae—1, (71.40ₘ, pore distorted)
         unknowns—2

     _Sample E₂ 5_ (74-80″)
         _Pinus_—66
         _Picea_—1
         _Juniperus_—2
         _Quercus_—1
          Compositae (total)—24, (_Artemisia_—11,
                     _Ambrosia type_—2, Liguliflorae—1)
          Chenopodiaceae—11 Caryophyllaceae—4
          _Allium_—3 _Geranium_—1
          _Polygonum_, sect. _Pericaria_—3
          Gramineae—5, (53.55ₘ, 1:3.8), (70.21ₘ, pore
          obscured), (46.41ₘ, 1:4.3), (58.30ₘ, 1:5.5),
                     (45.22ₘ, 1:3.5) unknowns—5

     _Sample E₂ 6_ (80-86″)
          _Pinus_—60
          _Quercus_—2
          Compositae (total)—22, (_Artemisia_—14, Liguliflorae—1)
          Convolvulaceae—1 (fragment of a large periporate type)
          Caryophyllaceae—5
          Chenopodiaceae—4
          cf. Cruciferae—3
          _Polygonum_, sect. _Pericaria_—1
          _Allium_—1
          Gramineae—6, (40.46ₘ, 1:4.2), (61.88ₘ, 1:4.0),
                        (52.36ₘ, pore distorted),
                        (50.35ₘ, pore greatly enlongated),
                        (46.41ₘ, 1:4.9),
                        (45.22ₘ, 1:5.4). unknowns—10

     _Sample E₂ 7_ (86-92″)
          _Pinus_—54
          _Picea_—2
          _Juniperus_—1
          Compositae (total)—20, (_Artemisia_—11,
                     _Ambrosia_ type—1, Liguliflorae—2)
          Caryophyllaceae—2
          Chenopodiaceae—2
          _Geranium_—1
          _Lonicera_—2
          Onagraceae—2
          Gramineae—3, (50.35ₘ, pore obscured), (29.75ₘ, 1:4.1),
                        (39.75ₘ, pore distorted)
          unknowns—6

     _Samples W1 - W8_ (38-86″)

           Preservation extremely poor, only corroded pine, composite,
           and chenopod pollen. Abundant coniferous wood fragments.

     _Sample W9_ (86-92″)
         _Pinus_—14
          Chenopodiaceae—2
         _Artemisia_—1
          Caryophyllaceae—1
          Gramineae—1, (51.17ₘ, 1:3.9)
          unknowns—3

     _Sample W10_ (92″-base)
         _Pinus_—13
         _Picea_—1
         _Quercus_—5
          Compositae (total)—6, (_Artemisia_—5,
                 _Ambrosia_ type—1, Liguliflorae—1)
          Chenopodiaceae—1
         _Polygonum_, sect. (Pericaria—1)
         _Lonicera_—1
          Gramineae—6, (49.98ₘ, 1:4.2), (52.36ₘ, 1:40), (49.98ₘ, 1:4.2),
                       (58.30ₘ, 1:4.5), (57.12ₘ, 1:4.0), (54.74ₘ, 1:4.2)
          unknowns—4


Discussion

It is interesting to note that many of the plants identified from their
megascopic remains by Walton C. Galinat are likewise represented in the
pollen flora (e.g., _Allium_, _Quercus_, _Juniperus_ and chenopods).
As Galinat has also identified several fragments of _Zea Mays_, it was
hoped that pollen of _Zea_ might be found in some of the oldest levels.
Unfortunately, none of the fossil grass pollen can be definitely
identified as that of _Zea_. It seems obvious that the three largest
grass grains (over 70ₘ) are too large to be _Tripsacum_, but whether
they represent _teosinte_ or _Zea_ can not be established. The pore
of two of these was obscured by detritus, and that of the third was
greatly distorted. Thus no ratio could be established.

The remainder of the grass grains seem to fall within the limits of
the genus _Tripsacum_ (size extremes 33.6ₘ to 64ₘ, and ratio extremes
1:3.0 to 1:4.8), although the pore-axis ratio of some appears to be too
large. However, the possibility must be left open that these smaller
grains might not be _Tripsacum_. As yet there is very little pollen
size data available for the grasses of North America. Geisler (1945)
has measured pollen from 32 species and of these, _Zizania aquatica_
has the largest grains (range 38ₘ-50ₘ). It is important to note that
she did not employ acetolysis, so that this range is on the small
side. In Europe, Firbes (1936) has presented pollen size data for
103 species of grasses, and of those he studied, _Avena_, _Secale_,
_Triticum_, _Hordeum_, and _Elymus_ possess pollen as large as that of
_Tripsacum_. Hence it would appear to be necessary to study intensively
the pollen of most of our native grasses in order to establish size and
other morphological criteria for identifying the smaller LoDaisKa grass
pollen.

As the preservation is distinctly better in the lower levels of the
deposit, a careful and detailed pollen analytical investigation, with
recourse to adequate reference material might be profitable.


Acknowledgments

The present investigation was carried out in the Laboratories of the
Geological Survey of Denmark while the author was sponsored by a
Fulbright Fellowship. The author is particularly indebted to Svend Th.
Andersen for his suggestions and helpful criticisms of the manuscript.


Bibliography

    Barghoorn, E. S., M. K. Wolfe, and K. H. Clisby, 1954.
         Fossil Maize from the Valley of Mexico.
         Bot. Mus. Leaflets, Harvard University 16: 229-240.
    Christensen, B. Brorson, 1945. Measurements as a Means
         of Identifying Fossil Pollen.
         Danmarke Geologiske Undersgelse IV R., Bd. 3, Nr, 2.
    Firbes, F., 1937. Der pollenanalytische Nachweis dos
         Getreidebaus. Zeitschrift für Botanik, Bd. 31: 447-478.
    Geisler, F., 1945. A study of Pollen Grains of
         Thirty-two Species of Grasses.
         Butler Univ. Bot. Studies 7: 65-73.


ETHNOGRAPHIC COMPARISONS

Below we shall summarize the life habits of two ethnographically known
groups who lived near the Plains-Great Basin fringe. This is done in
an effort to present a brief outline of the type of life people in the
Morrison area could have lived. It is designed to serve as a guide
for interpretation of the archaeological remains, and should provide
insight into areas of social and religious action. The first group, the
Ute, are known to have lived for a time in the region; the second, the
Pawnee, were never in the area proper, but do represent the sort of
pottery-using, corn-growing Indians that had occupied it in the past.

This use of comparative ethnology and the reconstruction which follows
are in the nature of a theory, a theory of methodology. Too often,
as J. O. Brew (1946) has pointed out, archaeological fact gathering
has run riot ahead of the interpretation of these facts. Brew quoted
C. C. Kluckhohn in this respect: “In any case the alternative is not
between theory and no theory or a minimum of theory, but between
adequate and inadequate theories.... For I am afraid that many of
our anthropologists who are most distrustful of theory are like
Molière’s character who spoke prose without knowing it, for a complex
theoretical viewpoint is usually implicit in some of the most
apparently innocent statements of facts.” (Brew, 1946, p. 45; but for
full context see Kluckhohn 1939). We have striven, however, to remain
aware of the assumptions involved.


On the Ethnology of the Ute

The Ute were among the first Indians to get horses from the Spanish.
Subsequently they moved about rather freely and were rather quick to
adopt the white man’s culture whenever this was present in their area.
There are almost no early accounts of the Ute. They had neither the
spectacular aspects of the true Plains Indians, nor lands close to
the trails frequented by pioneers and early explorers. On the other
hand, they did not enjoy the isolation of many of the Great Basin
tribes which preserved their ways of life into comparatively recent
times. Thus ethnography of the Ute is relatively scant except for a
few accounts and short articles. There are three principal works. The
first is Robert Lowie’s _Notes on Shoshonean Ethnography_ (1924), based
primarily on observations at Ignacio, Navajo Springs and White Rock.
The second is Omer Stewart’s “_Culture Element Distribution: XVIII,
Ute, Southern Paiute_”, (1942), while the third is Edward Gifford’s
_Culture Element Distribution XII: Apache-Pueblo_ (1940). Another
short paper by Ralph Beals (1935) on the ethnology of Rocky Mountain
National Park adds to the picture, though he draws heavily on Lowie’s
work. Finally there is a collection of articles gathered by the Durango
Public Library and edited by H. S. Daniels (1941). This is composed of
a series of interesting papers by people intimately connected with the
area surrounding the present Ute reservation. J. Alden Mason’s article
“Myths of the Uintah Utes” (1940) contains numerous myths which may
yield scraps of ethnographic material if care is used in selection.
Other short works can be found in the bibliography and will be referred
to in the text.


Subsistence Pattern

One of the greatest problems facing the Ute and Shoshone on mountain
fringes was adaptation to several different ecological biomes. Their
success is attested to by the fact that the Ute spread all over
Colorado and southern Wyoming except the Plains.

The adoption of the horse resulted in significant changes in Ute
culture. In general, the use of horses affected hunting methods and
locomotion. Where it brought the Ute into intimate contact with Plains
Indian cultures, many of their old Basin traits were replaced by
borrowed artifacts and techniques. For example, articles of rawhide
replaced basketry in most cases (Steward, 1940, p. 422). However,
very little is known about the quasi-Plains Ute, as mountain lands
were quickly appropriated by whites. Buffalo were exterminated from
mountain parks in Colorado by 1870. The works cited refer to isolated
groups on the western fringe which retained an essentially pre-horse
culture.

The people we deal with then have the “gathering small game” traits
of Steward’s Western Subarea of the Intermontane Region. In addition,
uplands and mountain regions afforded some larger game. This dual
economy was probably a great factor in their adaptability, and it
was undoubtedly a close approximation of that of protohistoric and
prehistoric inhabitants of the area.

Except for the ecologic variation cited above, Ute culture was fairly
uniform over a wide area. Because of this and the general limitation of
data, it will be treated as a whole.


Hunting and Gathering

Seeds and berries of almost every description were gathered, mainly
by the women of the camps. According to Lowie, among the neighboring
Paviotso, men often participated in gathering piñon nuts, a fundamental
element in the diet. Stewart’s data suggests that this was probably
true of the Ute. Sunflower seeds were boiled; acorns were gathered and
treated to render them edible. Fruits were exploited where available.
These products were gathered in large baskets, certain of them being
reserved for storage. Edible roots were dug up with the aid of a
digging stick. Other gathering devices included notched poles, throwing
sticks, and seed beaters.

Among the animals hunted, Lowie mentions buffalo, elk, deer, and
rabbits; eagles were snared from pits. In Mason’s _Myths_ moose and
bear are mentioned particularly. Possibly mountain sheep and antelope
should be included in this list. Small game was important, such as
quail and rodents, i.e., prairie dogs and squirrels. Stewart lists a
number of insects eaten as part of the diet, which were roasted and
parched then often stored.

Buffalo were surrounded by a circle of men and shot. Deer were
often driven into a deep pit between converging arms of a sagebrush
enclosure. Deer, antelope and buffalo decoy masks were often used.
Rabbits and other small game were hunted by driving them into nets of
bark fiber. Rodents were smudged out, and special blunt arrows were
often used in shooting prairie dogs. Mountain sheep were pursued until
cornered and then shot with arrows.

Fish were also undoubtedly a common article of diet. John Dewey, a Ute,
told Mason about taking fish by means of arrows and fish lines, while
Lowie mentions fish shooting and describes grass rafts for the Uintah,
and Ute fish weirs.

For all hunting and fishing, ritual observances and purification were
important. Gifford mentions ceremonial sweat houses in this connection,
while Stewart lists a number of important taboos.


Food Preparation

Hand stones and grinding slabs were employed for preparing seeds and
berries. Some pounding was done. Seeds could be roasted underground or
could be made into a kind of gruel. Meat, according to McCall (Daniels,
ed., 1941), was roasted over the fire or jerked. In this connection
some statements of E. G. Palmer concerning the Paiute are of interest.
The Paiute were very similar in culture to the Ute and before 1700 were
probably indistinguishable from them (Schroeder, 1953). In particular
Palmer mentions cooking by heating rocks, covering the desired edibles
with wet grass and sprinkling them with water to create a kind of steam
bake. About their food in general Palmer says, “As to food the Pah Utes
will eat anything that will not prove absolutely poisonous soon after
being swallowed.”

Gifford notes roasting and eating of both yucca and cacti. He also
lists the use of surface salt and clay for flavoring. Small animals
were pounded up whole and cooked. Bone was cracked for marrow or ground
up and eaten if possible.


Shelter

Prior to the use of small skin tepees, the Eastern Ute used a conical
or domed-shaped shelter of brush. These were used even after white
contact, but usually only for summer habitation. The door faced east.
Gifford and Stewart both note that the Ute used available rockshelters
and lean-tos on hunting trips. C. T. Hurst in 1943 excavated an
overhang containing evidence of Ute habitation. According to several
sources, sweat houses were built.


Fire Making and Other Technologies

Lowie reports that the Ute used fire drills only rarely though an
informant told Mason that they did not use such devices. Obviously
every effort was made to keep the fire going but apparently if one’s
fire went out, one borrowed a light from a neighbor. Perhaps in an
emergency fire tools could have been made.

Concerning the stone technology of the Ute we will quote a section from
Powell (1875; noted in Lowie, 1924). “Obsidian or other stone of which
the implement is to be made is first selected by breaking up larger
masses of the rock and choosing those which exhibited the fracture
desired; then the pieces are baked or steamed—perhaps I might say
annealed—by placing them in a damp earth covered with a brush fire for
twenty-four hours, then with sharp blows they are still further broken
down into flakes approximately the shape desired. For more complete
fashioning a tool of ... horn is used.” He also states that a small
skin cushion was employed in the hand, and that often a few especially
skilled people would exchange their products for other items. Barber
(1876) notes that a Ute hunter could differentiate between the types
of stone projectile points used by various tribes. This is of special
interest to the archaeologist for it indicates that point styles for
such a group were intentional and fairly consistent over a period of
time. Stone knives, scrapers, rough flakes and drills are listed by
Gifford and Stewart in addition. According to Gifford’s informant,
stone axes were polished. Arrowheads were stemmed or stemless, while
the shafts were marked by rills engraved along the length. These were
feathered and painted.


Pottery

Lowie reports that the Ute made some pottery, and Opler (1941) found
further evidence to support the claim. However, the production appears
largely limited to cooking vessels, and stone boiling was popular.
Stewart notes the occurrence of unfired figurines made for children.


Skin Preparation and Other Technology

In skin preparation, the flesh was first removed with a serrated
scraper. For especially tough hides an adze-shaped scraper was used.
Hair was removed with a split bone, the skin then moistened, stretched
and smoked. According to Stewart this was done by the women. Some skins
were painted with designs. Gifford and Stewart both report the use of
skin shields.

Before white contact, an informant told Mason, the Ute used juniper
bark and sagebrush fiber for blankets. Sinew was employed for thread,
while pine pitch and horn served for glue. Baskets made by coiling
were manufactured, as were twined mats. Important types were conical
gathering baskets, water bottles, flat trays and dippers. Willow was
the principal material used.


Dress

The Ute used rabbitskin and deerskin blankets as well as those of
fiber. Men wore moccasins, a loincloth and some kind of garment for
the upper part of the body, and possibly leggings in the winter. Women
wore a type of skirt, moccasins, and possibly a shirt. Some Shoshones,
probably including the Ute, wore sandals. However, these would be
less suitable in rocky uplands than in mesa country. Various carrying
devices such as bags or blankets were used. Cradles of two types were
listed by Gifford.

Barber (1876) notes the extensive use by both sexes of ornaments and
charm bags of red powder, possibly hematite. Gifford and Stewart both
mention the use of paints and list beads, feather decoration and bone
ornaments. Some people were tattooed and some had their ears pierced.


Games and Dances

Lowie mentions one game played by the Ute. This is a hand game with
guessing sticks and counters. Douglas and Jeancon (1930) cite others
such as a hoop and stuffed ball game. Juggling games seem to have been
popular also. Stewart lists a number of additional games. There were
dances for both sexes accompanied by drums and notch-stick vibrators.
Other musical instruments used may have included rattles of deer
hooves, whistles, and possibly musical bows.


Social Organization

Society was probably arranged in bilateral exogamus kin groups.
Inheritance may have been patrilineal. Marriage was a rather casual
arrangement, the ceremony simple. Immediate residence was patrilocal,
or at the father’s hut. Later, the couple built their own shelter.
There was some polygamy, Steward (1938) notes that society was
organized bilaterally in most places in the Intermontane Area. Relative
equality of the sexes resulted from their approximately equal economic
importance. If bison hunting and warfare tended to give northern
Shoshone and Ute men an advantage, no formal institutions had developed
to indicate it. Social organization was Neo-Hawaiian (Murdock, 1949)
according to Stewart’s kin term list.


Religion

Some Ute recognized one especially powerful god represented by the sun,
and many lesser gods and spirits. Individuals attempted to win their
favor through magic. Myths and legends which featured these beings
were told at night around low camp fires, but only during the winter
according to Gifford. He also notes the naming of the sky as female,
the earth as male, while various constellations were also designated.
There was some development of the culture-hero idea in the person of
Coyote among the Uintah Ute. Various tales of how Coyote obtained fire
for man and helped him in other ways were related to Mason (1940).
Ceremonies or rituals were probably held in open places, most likely
in the form of dances. Medicine men or shamans were important figures.
They were learned in the myths, and practiced as healers, using charms
and herbs, some of which had true medicinal value. In addition the
shamans were skilled at setting bones. They may have gotten their power
from dreams or trances. During certain of what are termed life crises,
birth, puberty, marriage, death, there were taboo observances. Certain
foods were not eaten during pregnancy, while both Gifford and Stewart
mention a special hut where girls were secluded during the first menses.

The Ute considered certain deeds to be “right or wrong” but there was
no formal set of laws or authority to support moral judgment.


Language

The Ute language forms part of the Ute-Chemehuevi division, the
southernmost of three divisions constituting the Plateau Branch of the
Shoshonean stock of the Uto-Aztecan family. This northern orientation
of language agrees well with certain cultural traits. There is very
little structural resemblance with neighboring groups such as would be
of interest in cultural interpretation. The language is characterized
by an impression of phonetic softness rather than harshness; but of
vagueness and lack of distinctness. (See Kroeber, 1910; Sapir, 1931;
Stewart, 1957).


Disposal of the Dead

The dead were usually buried in rock crevices or were cremated.
Supposedly their possessions were destroyed at this time, and their
name became taboo in common usage.


On the Ethnology of the Pawnee

The Pawnee of Nebraska are commonly regarded as characteristic of the
semi-sedentary agricultural peoples of the Central Plains. However,
ethnographic material about them is surprisingly sparse. Because they
already had the horse by the late 17th century there is no record of
them in completely aboriginal conditions. The most complete work is
a monograph by J. B. Dunbar published in 1880, based on a series of
articles in the _Magazine of American History_. Besides this there are
the early accounts of the Lewis and Clark Expedition (see Grass, 1904)
and that of J. T. Irving (1835). More specialized works are those of G.
B. Grinnell (1912) and A. Lesser (1933). Subsequent studies are brief,
and for the most part oriented toward nineteenth century historical
events (e.g., Hyde, 1951). Wedel has included some information in his
works on Pawnee archaeology (1938) and Central Plains subsistence
(1941). Further brief articles may be found in the bibliography.


Subsistence Agriculture

Maize played an important part in the economic life of the Pawnee. Most
of the infrequent tillage was done by hoes consisting of bison scapulae
lashed to bent or forked sticks. Hoeing was done only once or twice a
year. The small cultivated patches, ranging in size from one-fourth
to four acres, were usually located in the loose alluvium along creek
bottoms. In addition to corn, beans, squash and watermelon were grown.
All agricultural work was done by the women. They also gathered a large
number of tubers, plants, berries, and fruits to supplement the diet.
These included wild plum, huckleberry, chokecherry, sand cherry, wild
potato, ground-bean and others.


Hunting

The products of the chase were also of great importance. The principal
animal sought was the bison. One or two large scale hunting trips were
organized yearly. The entire population of the earth lodge village
moved to designated hunting areas. In pre-horse times the main method
of hunting was the surround, although some hunters probably also worked
singly, as they did in later times. The only weapon regularly used was
the bow and arrow. The most important of these hunts was conducted in
the early summer and ended just in time to harvest the crops.

Although the bison was the major subsistence animal, many other animals
were hunted, especially for skins. Elk, deer, and antelope were taken
by surrounds and “still hunting” or stalking. Beaver and otter were
snared for their pelts; bears, cougars, and skunks were valued for both
meat and hides. Prairie chickens and quails were hunted by boys with
long withes.


Food Preparation

After the harvest, maize was cut from the cobs, boiled, roasted, or
dried, and stored in large bell-shaped pits. Other vegetable foods were
similarly treated. Meat was dried and/or smoked.

Corn was often pulverized in a wooden mortar. It was then boiled, or
made into cakes cooked in the ashes or on hot flat stones. Fresh corn
was also parched or boiled as hominy. Corn, beans and squash, fresh or
dry, were prepared by boiling and seasoned with tallow. Fresh meat was
either cooked in the ashes, broiled, or boiled with vegetables. Dried
meat was eaten raw or boiled. Most of the cooking was done in large
pottery vessels manufactured locally.


Shelter

During the winter the Pawnee inhabited large villages of stationary
earth covered lodges. These measured 40 feet in diameter and 16 feet
in height at the maximum. Such structures housed several related
families. They were constructed as follows: the topsoil was removed
and a framework erected. Inclined short poles were placed to form
walls. Poles set on the inner and outer framework circles came to a
blunt peak, forming the roof. Brush and willow were used for horizontal
filling. Finally, hay and sod were heaped over the structure. Entrance
was by means of a passage some 12 feet long. In the center was a fire
basin about three feet in diameter. The floor was hardened by trampling
and beating, and mats were spread over it. Sleeping places were near
the walls on slightly raised platforms of willow rods, and were often
partitioned off with skins or mats.

Summer dwellings were tepees, 12-17 feet in diameter. Twelve to 20
poles formed the framework, and the cover was of bison hide, with
openings for the entrance and smokehole. On the ground around the
central hearth were laid mats and hides. Sweat houses were used in all
seasons. These consisted of a frame of willow withes about six feet in
diameter, covered with skins. Heated stones were sprinkled with water
to produce steam.


Clothing

The man’s costume was relatively simple, consisting primarily of
breechclout and moccasins, with an additional skin robe in cold
weather. For special occasions, the men wore elaborate shirts and
headdresses of eagle feathers. Women wore moccasins, tight skin
leggings, a skirt and a shirt suspended from the shoulders by thongs.
Women wore their hair braided; the men had a horn-like scalp-lock.
Paint was the main form of personal adornment. The types preferred were
ochre, red and white clay, and yellow coloring obtained from flowers of
a species _solidago_. These pigments were commonly mixed with bison fat
or water.


Technology

There is very little descriptive material on the technology of the
Pawnee. The manufacture of most of the utilitarian objects devolved on
the women. Pottery was manufactured by the paddle and anvil technique.
According to Grinnell (1912) a wooden or basketry mold was sometimes
used for the base. Temper was of crushed rock. They wove mats of
rushes, baskets of bark, and ropes of buffalo hair. Wooden mortars,
pestles, bowls, dippers and spoons were shaped by burning and scraping.
Bison horn was also employed for spoons. A stiff grass (_Stipa funcea_)
was used for necklaces. Hide dressing and the making of clothing
occupied a considerable portion of their time. A needle of deer
metacarpal was used. Canoes were seldom made.

The men confined their technological interests to weapons for hunting
and war. Bows were commonly four feet long and were made of “bois
d’arc” (_Maciura canadensis_), hickory, “coffee bean” (_Gymnocladus
canadensis_) and juniper. Formerly bison rib and elk-horn bows were
also in use. Sinew backing was common. Arrow shafts were usually of
dogwood (_Cornus stolonifera_). These had a series of three grooves
running their length, which were variously explained as helping the
flow of blood and keeping the arrow in the wound. These grooves were
made with a very small chisel-like instrument. No information is
available concerning flint working, but each tribe or large sub-group
made a distinctive type of projectile point. Much care was lavished on
this equipment and the accompanying skin quiver. Spears and rawhide
shields were also manufactured.


Trade

Trade was not extensive among the Pawnee themselves, or between them
and neighboring tribes. However, this situation may be relatively
recent in origin, due to the hostilities arising from increased white
pressure. The main articles traded were “bois d’arc”, eagle feathers,
pipe stone, and corn.


Social and Political Organization

The Pawnee were divided into four sub-tribes or bands. Each of these
consisted of a number of villages, and each village was also an
endogamous matrilineal clan. Authority was vested in a hereditary
chief and council of “leading men”. Band unity was maintained by large
scale religious ceremonies and meetings of band councils, composed of
the village chiefs. Similar mechanisms operated at a higher level to
achieve a loose tribal organization.


Religion

The religious organization of the Pawnee was more highly developed and
more sophisticated than that of most of the other Plains tribes. At
the top of the supernatural pantheon was Tirawa, the creator. Below
him were two classes of spirits—those of the earth and those of the
heavens. The former were usually identified with animals and were the
guardians of the people as a whole; the latter represented natural
phenomena and were usually identified with stars. Foremost among these
were the Morning and Evening Stars, representing the male and female
principles, and parents of the first earth being.

Ceremonial action centered around collections of sacred objects—medicine
bundles—which were believed to have been presented to the people in
ancient times by the “gods”. Ceremonies connected with these usually
involved a sacrifice or offering, or a ritual dramatization of the
mythical receipt of the bundle. The most famous of these ceremonies
was the annual sacrifice of a young girl to the Morning Star. Other
important ceremonies revolved around the ever important corn and
buffalo.

Shamans were organized into a secret society and power was received
through instruction by an elder member. They were mediums and diviners
and officiated in ceremonies. Each owned an ornate medicine bundle
containing herbs and charms, such as fossil bones, etc. There were
also “medicine men” who specialized in healing. Sickness was believed
to be caused by intrusion of a foreign object or malign spirit, which
was removed by sucking and chanting. Various plants were utilized for
medicine, including _Artemisia bedoviciana_, _Acorus calamus_, _Monarda
fistulosa_, and _fructata_, _Mentha canadensia_ and _Argemona mexicana_.

The Pawnee language is a branch of the Caddoan family of the
Hokan-Siouan stock.


DATING THE LoDaisKa REMAINS

Willey and Phillips (1958) have pointed out the difficulty and
illogicality of attempting to date artifacts exclusively by their
affiliation. Of course, if distinct horizon-markers such as special
forms of pottery are present, perhaps the technique is warranted.
The remains at the LoDaisKa Site do not contain any such limited
horizon markers. Moreover, dating of much of the associated materials
in adjoining areas has, unfortunately, not progressed far enough to
establish chronological limits for any forms. Therefore, it was felt
that geological interpretation might be warranted. This was kindly
undertaken by Mr. C. B. Hunt whose report appears above.

The pre-ceramic levels appear to correlate with the Piney Creek
alluvium (see Hunt, 1954) and deposits equivalent geologically with
the Tsegi Creek alluvium in the Southwest. Elsewhere, Hunt has stated
that the Piney Creek may date about 1-2 millenia B.C., but is possibly
older, (Hunt, 1955). The soil studies (this report) may indicate a
somewhat greater age. Hunt feels that the ceramic levels for the most
part correlate with a period of arroyo-cutting and washing that is
assumed to be later than 1 A.D.

A series of samples for radiocarbon measurement was collected. These
were taken from various areas of the site, some in relatively dry
areas, others from more moist regions. Materials varied from seeds or
plant fragments to charcoal. It was felt that these different materials
would be helpful in indicating the effect of various factors in the C
14 method. The samples were then submitted to Dr. J. B. Griffin, of the
University of Michigan. He kindly accepted the series. The outcome of
the tests and those observations that accrue from the information will
be published as soon as the data are available. A report should be due
in a year. By this study it is hoped to establish fairly exact limits
for certain cultures in the area. In the interpretations of these dates
valuable evidence concerning cultural chronology and diffusion on the
Plains may be gained.


RECONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION


Culture Complex A

The authors believe culture Complex A is related to what has been
termed the Fremont Culture of western Colorado and eastern Utah.
Complex A appears to manifest itself between the surface (the erosional
surface below a cow dung layer) and 44-48 inches below baseline.
Complex A and the Fremont culture have a number of similarities.
Foremost among these is pottery. All the plainware found is assignable
to this complex. Although the total number of sherds is not large, one
restorable vessel is represented. In shape, method of manufacture,
temper, paste, color, and firing, this specimen approximated
Wormington’s Turner Grey Variety II (Wormington, 1955). There are two
points of difference between this and classic Fremont ceramics. First,
it is a bowl, while most Fremont vessels are handled jugs. This is
offset by the possibility that a second large sherd does come from a
small pot or jug. Also Wormington (1955) and Taylor (1957) note the
presence of bowl-forms at their sites. Second, much Fremont pottery
is calcite tempered (Burgh and Scoggin, 1948; Wormington, 1955).
However, Gunnerson (1956) has recently shown that choice of temper for
the Fremont Culture is more a function of locality than of cultural
preference.

A second correlation is found in the gaming pieces assignable to
Complex A. The three decorated pieces illustrated are almost duplicated
in some of Wormington’s illustrations and descriptions. Similar items
have had a long history in the Southwest (Morris and Burgh, 1954).

Third, there is a similarity between class bb projectile points and
certain Fremont points, particularly at Castle Park (Lister, 1951).
Features include concavity of the edges, general narrowness, straight
short bases, and frequent serrations. One of the points of Complex A
is made on a curved flake, chipped only on one face. This is a rather
distinctive type occurring also in Fremont sites. Wormington (1955),
found some peculiar asymmetrical points like Fig. 27. She found no
evidence of utilization as knives which their shape suggests.

The presence of dent corn, similar to that grown in Fremont localities
is significant in indicating similarities in the ecologic orientation
of the two groups.

Other artifacts included in the levels of Complex A are: Leaf-shaped
and triangular knives, side, discoidal and serrated scrapers, expanding
base drills, perforators, prismatic flakes?, 1 graver, small ovoid
bifaces, utilized flakes, choppers/hammerstones, paint stones,
splinter, sliver and headed awls, rib or scapulae knives, antler
flakers, tubular beads, 1 tooth ornament, leather fragments, 1 wood
arrow shaft, handstones and grinding slabs. End scrapers, perforators,
prismatic flakes, small ovoid bifaces, sliver awls, perhaps antler
flakers, and the tooth ornament are either extremely uncommon or absent
at Fremont sites. These artifacts may be associated with culture
Complex B. None are confined to the interval between the surface and
44-48 inches below baseline. Evidently they were present before the
occupation of the site by people of Complex A.

A word of caution is in order. Relatively speaking there are few
artifact types assignable to Complex A. Pottery is especially scarce.
However, projectile points of the type believed to be associated with
it make up at least 40 percent of the total in the 44″-surface levels.
We have tentatively identified it with the Fremont Culture on the basis
of the evidence above. However, since so many distinctive traits of
this culture are in the realms of architecture and perishable goods, we
are necessarily dealing with a partial inventory. Without such features
we can suggest but cannot prove.

One item of interest is the evidence that the Fremont people did reach
eastern Colorado or at least trade with people of that area. A rather
spectacular headband found in Castle Park (Burgh and Scoggin, 1948),
was made from the feathers of a yellow flicker (_Colaptes anratus
luteus_) which occurs only east of the mountains.


Cultural Reconstruction

Since Complex A largely overlapped B, cultural reconstruction will
have to be considered in the light of evidence from sites affiliated
with it. This reconstruction will be based however, on evidence from
LoDaisKa.

The economic life of the people probably revolved mainly about
hunting and gathering. Animals hunted included birds, prairie dog,
chipmunk, bighorn sheep, bison, and above all deer. The large
number of projectile points attests to the importance of hunting.
Gathering placed an emphasis on plum, acorn, and grass seeds such as
_Muhlenbergia_. Corn also appears to have been grown. Characteristics
of preservation have precluded the possibility of determining its
importance in the diet of the people. One bone of the genus Canis was
found. This may represent coyote or dog. Wormington (1955) found a bone
of genus Canis which also could have been from a domestic dog. Since
dogs were known in the Southwest from Basketmaker times, this is not an
impossibility (Kidder and Guernsey, 1931). Pieces of leather suggest
that this was used for clothing. There were also beads attesting to
ornamentation. Necklaces and elaborate dress were characteristic of the
Fremont people, as revealed by petroglyphs and various discoveries of
clothing.

Amusement, or at least recreation, is indicated by the presence of
gaming pieces. Considering the care used in making one of these objects
they must have been fairly important in the cultural pattern. Great
Basin people were often inveterate gamblers (Steward, 1940). Wormington
(1955) has recorded a Cheyenne woman’s description of a game played
with bone gaming pieces.

[Illustration: FIGURE 74—LOCATION OF PRINCIPAL SITES AND LOCALITIES
REFERRED TO IN THE TEXT.]

People of this complex appear to have been rather skilled in stone
working. Chipped projectile points are usually executed with care,
often achieving slender finely flaked forms. It is interesting to note
that stone scrapers were apparently little used by Fremont people.
Perhaps hides were prepared in other ways. Baskets were undoubtedly
made and were probably important. The awls found can attest either
to sewing or basket-making; the long slender awls would have been
especially suited for the latter. Tubular beads were made by a process
widespread in the West: incising and splitting. Pottery was roughly
made and fairly thick, but not more so than some of Wormington’s
(average thickness 5 mm.). Pottery of this rougher type is widespread
in northern Fremont locales.

Concerning the possible socio-political situation some conjecture can
be recorded. First, as Wormington (1955) pointed out, using data from
Murdock (1949), “hunting is normally a male activity and it seems
probable that agricultural pursuits were left to the women, and the
corn plots may have belonged to them. The inheritance of corn plots by
women may have served to unite nuclear families into extended families
with matrilineal descent and matri-local residence. However, emphasis
on hunting and possible warfare would tend to enhance the status of
men and descent may have been bilateral or patrilineal.” For Complex A
the latter would be especially important if the absence of quantities
of pottery indicates less emphasis on agriculture and more on hunting.
Certainly, however, the wild foods at both the LoDaisKa Site and in
Castle Park show the continued importance of gathering activities
usually associated with women.


Culture Complex B

The culture complex represented between roughly 24 and 53 inches
below baseline appears to be a manifestation of the Woodland Culture,
Orleans Aspect. The authors excavated several single component sites of
this manifestation in the area (Irwin and Irwin, n.d.). The following
artifacts, occurring in these sites and also in this depth range at
LoDaisKa, appear characteristic of the culture: cordmarked pottery,
corner-notched projectile points similar to those in Fig. 75, end
scrapers, drills, small ovoid knives, spoke-shaves, awls (splinter
or extremely small sliver types), large hafted “knives.” Large
projectile types could have been used with a spear-thrower. There are
also tubular beads, small stone triangles (possibly gaming pieces),
1 shaft-smoother, handstones and milling slabs. One decayed corn cob
was found at 53-57 inches and may belong to the Woodland levels at
LoDaisKa. This was a popcorn (see above). Dent corn has been found at
other Woodland sites in the Morrison area (Irwin and Irwin, n.d.).
Especially characteristic of this occupation was the pottery, small
ovoid knives, and sliver awls.

[Illustration: FIGURE 75—Artifacts from single component Woodland sites
in the Morrison area. Actual size.]

Establishing a closer affiliation is more difficult. In essence, much
of the material resembles that of Ash Hollow focus established in
Western Nebraska and Northern Colorado (Kivett, 1952a; Irwin and Irwin,
1957). Specifically, pottery of Class I is similar in composition, cord
application, thickness, rim styles, and absence of decoration. However,
Class II has several features reminiscent of the Keith focus pottery
(Kivett, 1952b) being a thicker ware with a more granular structure.
However, the Harlan cord-roughened pottery, assigned by Kivett to the
Keith focus, is calcite tempered and has no diagonal cord-marking.
Kivett has pointed out that clastics may have been used in areas where
calcite does not occur, or more desirable temper is at hand. The
absence of side-notched points in Woodland levels at LoDaisKa contrasts
with Ash Hollow focus sites where 30% are usually of this variety.
This constitutes another similarity to Keith focus sites, such as the
Woodruff Ossuary, where such forms do not occur. Class III pottery is
not present in Plains Woodland sites. It may be a local variation since
it is similar to II in all but cord application.

In connection with this complex, there is a C 14 date for Keith
materials of 611 ± 240 A.D. (Wedel and Kivett, 1956). For Ash Hollow
Cave tree ring estimates (Champe, 1946) place occupation at 1000-1150
A.D. However, a carbon sample from Woodland materials in the Denver
area yielded a date of 800 ± 150 A.D. (Hunt, 1954). Ash Hollow Focus
materials appear to share traits with both Valley (Hill and Kivett,
1940, Kivett 1952a, 1952b and Keith Foci). The authors feel the
manifestation at Morrison is basically similar to Ash Hollow but with a
few more traits in common with the Keith Focus.


Cultural Reconstruction

The economic life of the people of culture Complex B probably revolved
around hunting, limited agriculture, and gathering of specific foods,
mainly plums and acorns. Foods were ground on milling slabs with
handstones and perhaps, as with the Pawnee, were cooked in pots, or
made into cakes fried on a hot slab. Agriculture is indicated by
remains of corn at LoDaisKa and at nearby sites of the same culture.
In the more classic manifestations of Plains Woodland Culture evidence
is slim. Squash remains occurred at Sterns Creek (Strong, 1935)
and popcorn at the Lawson Site (Kivett, 1952a). Wedel (1934) felt
corn could not grow west of the 99th meridian in prehistoric times.
For the Upper Republican Culture an example of corn was found in
northern Colorado by the authors, (1957). In the Morrison area several
occurrences were noted (see above) in connection with the Woodland
Culture.

Animals hunted were mainly deer and bison, with smaller animals such
as prairie dogs, gophers and birds also represented. Perhaps the
importance of bison at the site is misrepresented because in dealing
with such large animals it is possible that only the meat was brought
into camp (for an example of this see Clark, 1952).

Clothing was probably of skin. Numerous scrapers attest to the
importance of hide dressing. Tubular beads and a tooth pendant provide
evidence of interest in self-ornamentation. Paint stones may have
served for pigment. Mixed with grease this could have been used for
bodily decoration, though ethnologic parallels suggest other objects
were also painted (see above).

A considerable amount of skill in stone working must have been
necessary to produce the small delicate projectile points, presumably
used with arrows. Some much larger points suggest a continued
dependence on the spear or spear-thrower. Drills may have been used to
manufacture ornaments or perform more utilitarian functions. Pottery
was durable and primarily utilitarian. Variation in pattern was
practically non-existent, but the fineness of cord-marking shows some
noticeable difference. Bone awls were mostly of the splinter type and
rather poorly made. Perhaps baskets were made, but these may not have
been too important. Awls could have been used in their manufacture or
for sewing.

Concerning the socio-political organization, some inferences can be
made. A possible sketch of the “way of life” can be found by examining
Pawnee culture as outlined above. Cultivation may have been in small
patches worked by women. Hoeing and weeding were probably spasmodic.
In view of the absence of bell-shaped storage pits or other such
facilities, we can probably infer that crop supplies were consumed in
a few seasonal feasts in the characteristic Basin style rather than
stored in the Plains manner to conserve for future needs. Despite
this, corn plots must have anchored the population to some extent. The
presence of pottery suggests a more or less settled way of life. Plains
social structure tended to be patrilocal, though there were exceptions.
A greater emphasis on hunting, such as was apparently present at
LoDaisKa, would increase the chance of such a development.

Despite the fact that the site was fairly small, there is a good deal
of evidence of Plains Woodland Culture in the area, and we can assume
some kind of inter-component interaction.


Complex C

Cultural Complex C occurs primarily between the depths of 50 to 72
inches below baseline. The definition is based on the occurrence of
a cluster of traits similar to those found in a previously defined
unmixed culture. A certain amount of the apparent overlap is due to
the telescoped nature of the stratigraphy, which aggravates the effects
of trampling and other disturbances. It is not possible on the basis
of the available evidence to determine the relationship of Complex C
to those traits which are not consistent with the culture. They may
represent traits adopted by the C people, or they could be remains of
intermittent occupation by other groups, (see above).

The closest affiliation of Complex C is to the lower level of the
McKean Site, (Mulloy, 1954a), Signal Butte I, and related sites. The
most significant typological similarities occur in the projectile point
categories. The most numerous type at the site is the shouldered,
concave based point, (24 examples), designated “Duncan” by Wheeler
(1952). “Duncan” points are very common at the McKean Site. Somewhat
less well represented at the LoDaisKa are the McKean lanceolate
types. Though the general similarity to the McKean type material is
undeniable, certain differences occur uniformly. Most noticeable is
the discrepancy in size, McKean specimens being consistently larger.
The largest LoDaisKa examples approximate the smaller or medium-sized
McKean points. The small LoDaisKa points are completely out of the
range of McKean specimens, but certain of them do resemble types from
Signal Butte I, (Strong, 1935). Such differences and similarities may
reflect distance and local stylistic variation, functions of the points
in different economies, or perhaps chronological difference.

A second trait which was found to be useful in defining Complex C
is the end scraper. Though common at all depths above 72 inches, it
is almost completely absent below and aids in segregation of the
complexes, especially C and D. Many such scrapers were found at McKean
and Signal Butte.

The third important trait of technological as well as typological
significance is the striking of prismatic flakes, presumably from
prepared cores. As in the case of projectile points, most of the
examples are smaller than those which occur at McKean. On the other
hand, they appear to be more regular with a greater percentage that
have trapezoidal sections and roughly parallel sides. Some of these
have been worked and utilized as gravers, cutting edges, and possibly
scrapers. In this respect they approach, though do not equal, the
classic northern prismatic flake assemblages. For example, they
approximate the lower part of the size range and the slightly rougher
section of the material from Anangula Island, (Laughlin and Marsh,
1954).

The vertical distribution of stone-filled hearths is not confined to
the limits of Complex C. However, those features may be related to
those at McKean where they are large and well-defined. Grinding stones
were also important at both sites.

[Illustration: FIGURE 76—Projectile points from Signal Butte
illustrated for comparison. A-C. Signal Butte I, presumably IA. D-F,
flake points, presumably IC. A-D, drawn from photostats courtesy of R.
Forbis, E-F by R. G. Forbis.]

Relations with Signal Butte I are most evident in the projectile point
category, especially in the size average. A communication received
from R. G. Forbis, to whom we are deeply indebted, indicates that the
modal weight of the Signal Butte McKean points is about .56 that of
those at the McKean Site. Further, the collections from Signal Butte
contain three flake points. One striking example of a flake point in
the shape of a “Duncan” was found at LoDaisKa, (Fig. 15, type A).
Other flake points of varying form (listed as xx) occur in Complex C
levels. Some of these are not dissimilar to that of Signal Butte I, but
Dr. Forbis feels that these may belong to a later phase than the McKean
points. The main differences lie in the relative scarcity or perhaps
absence of straight stemmed or “Duncan” types at Signal Butte I[9],
and the occurrence of flared stemmed varieties or “Hanna” points. The
former are numerous at LoDaisKa, the latter absent. There is a good
possibility that Signal Butte I should be divided into two or three
phases, with McKean points earliest, (Bliss, 1950b, and R. G. Forbis,
personal communication).

[9] American Journal of Science, Vol. 257, No. 1, Jan. ’59, p. 21
“Lamont Natural Radiocarbon Measurements V.” Dates are now available
for Signal Butte, Ia: L 385 B, 4550±220 years and Signal Butte Ic: L
385 D, 4170±250 years. However, they may suggest that there is little
time lapse between the cultures of Signal Butte I.

Relations to other known sites may also be noted. Not only the stemmed
and lanceolate points, but side-notched and certain corner-notched
types are found in Deadman Cave, Stansbury Island, and Danger Cave
(Smith, 1952; Jameson, 1958; Jennings, 1957). The total range, however,
differs considerably. There is also some similarity to materials of the
earlier levels of Birdshead Cave, (Bliss, 1950a).

The stemmed “Duncan” types have rather wide morphological similarities.
As far away as Texas, middle levels of certain sites yield similar
materials (Pearce, 1932, pp. 46-47). Pedernales points of the Edwards
Plateau Aspect are roughly comparable (Suhm, Krieger, Jelks, 1954, p.
468; Kelley, 1947, 1959). At the other extreme, Thomas Kehoe (1955)
reports finding “Duncan-like” points at the Billy Big Springs Site
in Montana. Lister (1953) has suggested that a generalized form of
indented-based, stemmed point is a horizon marker in the West and
Southwest.

A large number of the artifacts that occur with the above are of
little diagnostic value. However, some of them are probably associated
culturally and formed part of the total artifact inventory. These
include: leaf-shaped and triangular knives, end and side scrapers, and
discoidal and serrated forms, one expanding base drill, perforators,
a few small ovoid bifaces, utilized flakes, chopper/hammerstones, one
bone ornament, paint stones, headed and splintered awls, used bone
splinters, one bone knife, and one wood shaft.


Cultural Reconstruction

The economy of the people of Complex C was probably oriented toward
a combination of hunting and gathering. The former is evidenced by
the presence of animal bones and the frequency of projectile points.
The mule deer, _Odocoileus hemionus_, which represented nearly 75%
of the faunal remains, appears to have been the animal most hunted.
The projectile points are considered to have been used in connection
with atlatls. Stalking and snaring were probably prevalent methods,
although a surround or drive might have been practical in certain
seasons when the animals gathered into larger herds. The small number
of bison bones indicate that bison were also occasionally hunted. There
is a surprising lack of bones of small game, these being even less
numerous than in Complex D. Other animals included an undetermined
carnivore and some bird bones.

Numerous milling stones and hand stones as well as plant remains
attest to the continued importance of vegetable products in the diet.
The plants utilized include acorns, sedges, wild plums, chenopods and
_Umbellifereae_. Wads of moss may have been used for padding etc.

There is no information on any structures. Probably none were used
since the overhang provided rather good shelter. Large stone-filled
hearths may have been used for large scale roasting, as Mulloy (1954a)
hypothesized for the McKean Site.

Technologically the Complex C occupants possessed sufficient skill to
adapt to the environment with little evidence of elaboration. Clothing
was probably scant except for cold weather, and was possibly of skins.
In stone work, projectile points were functional, and made rather
roughly with little pressure retouch. A proliferation of scraping
tools and utilized flakes was probably a by-product of the emphasis on
hunting, and suggests that many skins were prepared. A certain amount
of technological “know-how” was required to manufacture the relatively
fine prismatic flakes. In bone work the commonest tools were awls made
on a splinter of bone worked only on the functional end. One bone
appears to have been used for flint flaking.

Despite the apparent emphasis on utility there is a certain amount of
evidence on the aesthetic side. The people had beads for adornment,
made of sections of bird bone. Fragments of hematite and limonite
indicate that they also practiced painting of some sort, perhaps on
their bodies and tools or hides.

The occurrence of pieces of worked mica may have some magico-religious
significance. Similar specimens were found in Danger Cave (Jennings,
1957) and the pieces may indicate Great Basin affiliation. However,
the greatest concentration of these is between 50 and 72 inches. These
might have been used as charms, or have been part of shamanistic
paraphernalia. Other inferences drawn from ethnology would suggest the
importance of beliefs connected with hunting.

There is no direct evidence of a socio-political nature. The size of
the site and the type economy represented indicate a small semi-nomadic
group. The possible overlap in cultural groups suggests either
intermittent occupations alternating between groups of different
cultural complexes, or the close proximity and strong influence
of such groups. In the field of social organization, many modern
hunting-gathering groups exhibit bilateral kin organization. On the
other hand the especial importance of large game would render the men’s
position of greater consequence, and the affiliation of the material
culture is oriented toward the Plains where patrilineal organization is
rather common.


Complex D

The authors believe that the culture (Complex D) represented at
LoDaisKa from 55 inches below baseline to the top of the late Wisconsin
Alluvium (erosional surface), is a manifestation of the Desert Culture
as described by Jennings (Jennings and Norbeck, 1955; Jennings,
1957). This exists in its purest form below 72 inches but there is a
persistence of some forms during the beginning of Complex C. Certain
types characteristic of the complex continue above 55 inches; they
occur, however, in diminishing quantities. There are two possible
reasons for this: 1) that the shelter continued to be occupied by
people of this affiliation; 2) that the materials worked up by the
process of re-use or trampling and mixing of the floor. There is
ethnological evidence that different tribes recognized each other’s
projectile points and often collected them (Brew, 1946). To avoid
confusion we shall treat this culture as it is manifested in its purest
form below 72 inches. Where specific shift or other phenomenon does
occur between 72-55 inches, it will be noted.

Traits characteristic of this complex are the following: projectile
points of various forms, (to be discussed below), triangular knives,
especially the second type described above, a few flake knives, side,
discoidal, serrated, and a very few end scrapers, Uncompahgre scrapers,
drills, perforators, utilized flakes, chopper/hammerstones, paint
stones, splinter awls, awls with heads (especially some very large
forms), a notched rib, used bone splinters, antler flakers, gaming
pieces (undecorated), tubular beads, a tooth pendant, worked mica,
wood shafts (large), a limestone pendant, one quartz crystal and one
clay ball. Other artifacts found in the level include a few prismatic
flakes perhaps fortuitous or intrusive, and above 60 inches a few small
projectile points that are, by any criterion (e.g. Fenenga 1953),
arrowheads. Typologically these show the greatest resemblance to forms
found in Level 3 in Hells Midden (Lister, 1951). However, since there
appear to be no allied traits they are felt to be intrusive. At least
they provide no proof of the presence of this culture.

We will discuss cultural affinities in terms of projectile points
with an eye to establishing possible lines of cultural influence from
various geographical areas. We do not suggest that in most cases more
than an idea was transmitted.

The Desert Cultures represent, according to Jennings, a “life way”,
a specific economic approach to living in a certain environment.
Though the Morrison biome differs in some respects from that of the
classic “Desert Cultures”, the nature of the problems faced and the
kinds of cultural response invoked are remarkably similar. Typological
similarities to Danger Cave materials include a high degree of
correspondence between class D projectile points and Jennings’ category
W31. This form is also found at Medicine Rock Cave, Oregon (Cressman,
1956, Fig. 41) and Kawumkan Springs Midden (type 7a, _Ibid._). It
was also present at Deadman Cave, (Smith, 1952) and at Wormington
and Lister’s (1956) Uncompahgre sites (Fig. 42 ff). Hurst (1944,
1945) named points of this type Tabeguache points. Points of a rather
similar form occur in Ventana Cave in the Chiricahua-Amagosa II level
(Haury, 1950) as a minor type, and become more common in the San Pedro
materials.

Below we shall compare the LoDaisKa materials of this complex to three
archaeological manifestations, since cultural ties seem to be closest
with these. These are: Ventana Cave, Danger Cave, and sites of the
Uncompahgre Complex, especially the Taylor Site. Reference will be made
to other areas for specific items.

The similarities between type D projectile points and class W31 at
Danger Cave have already been noted. Other similar forms include Class
E forms and W25, 26. Class J may or may not be identified with W18
and W19; since large corner-notched forms are widespread they may not
have enough distinctive features to be of value in site correlation.
They are also present at Deadman Cave. There are five points (Class G)
very similar to W38 (distribution Levels DIII-V at Danger Cave). If W8
and W10 are connected with McKean lanceolate and Duncan forms this is
a good correlation point with the overlapping Complex C at LoDaisKa.
There is a similarity between W16 and Class C, and W22 resembles Class
I forms.

The only important projectile point category of Danger Cave Levels
DIII-IV which is lacking at LoDaisKa is the series W28, 29, 30,
corner-notched forms with deep basal notches.

In other tool types there is an amazing similarity between the
triangular knives of Type I rather characteristic of Complex D at
LoDaisKa and Jennings’ W48 and especially W52. Since one of those at
LoDaisKa is obsidian, it is conceivable that it was traded from Utah
or the surrounding area. At both Danger Cave and LoDaisKa the relative
scarcity of end scrapers is noticeable. Other shared traits include
flake knives, straight drills, a few gravers, the possible foreshaft
from LoDaisKa, splinter awls and “headed” awls (it is interesting to
note that DIV types were less well made than LoDaisKa or DIII types).
One-hand manos and slab milling stones are found at both localities.
However, the peculiar four-plane type does not occur at Danger Cave.
Abrading stones, present at Danger Cave, are not found in Complex D. It
is of interest to note that both sites contained worked mica, ochre and
paint pigments. Nothing is known concerning basketry at LoDaisKa.

There are numerous similarities between the projectile points of
Ventana Cave and those of LoDaisKa. Type H resembles Haury’s expanding
stemmed, round tanged, convex based form. These are distributed
vertically throughout the levels of both Ventana and LoDaisKa, but
are almost entirely absent at Danger Cave. Points of Class C very
closely resemble Haury’s expanding stemmed sharp tanged convex based
or straight based types. These are the second most numerous type as
low as level VI at Ventana. There are some points with oblique tangs
that may be related to Class I or J. However, the best marker is Class
C2. The first point figured in the group is identical with points of
the class loosely termed Pinto Basin. Both this and the second two
can be duplicated in Ventana Cave, or at the San Jose Site (Bryan and
Toulouse, 1943). Nearer to LoDaisKa, Renaud (1942, 1946) has found
similar points in the Upper Rio Grande.

In both LoDaisKa Complex D and Ventana Levels II-III there are
triangular, convex-edged blades, side and discoidal scrapers. End
scrapers, especially snub-nosed forms are comparatively rare at both
sites. There are drills and/or perforators, including what we have
termed gravers, choppers, and utilized flakes. Hematite appears
together with quartz crystals. Awls are found: both headed and splinter
forms are represented. At both sites the former are the most numerous
type during the interval under discussion. At LoDaisKa there was no
category of “sawed” awls as at Ventana. Rib scrapers or knives are
also an interesting feature. There are in addition, tubular beads of
bird and mammal bone, and antler flakers. One additional and notable
similarity is to be found in handstones. These are all of the one
hand variety. Due to a peculiarity of usage, a median line developed
creating four grinding planes. This was probably caused in rocking the
mano when pushing it forward and then back. Occasionally a specimen is
noted where the user had rotated it 90° when reversing it, creating
median lines on opposite faces perpendicular to each other. As Haury
(1950) pointed out, this phenomenon is a special feature of the Cochise
Culture. It occurs at Ventana Cave and in the LoDaisKa Site. Both flat
slab milling stones and those with slight basins are found.

A third comparison can be made with the nearby Uncompahgre Complex
(Wormington and Lister, 1956). Similarities to Danger Cave, sites
of the Middle Horizon of the Plains and to the Cochise Culture are
reflected in the Uncompahgre Complex, as summarized by the authors.
Certain forms of projectile points, especially the type called
Tabeguache by Hurst, are found in the Taylor Site in levels 4, 8, and
10. Another similar form is the round based, round barbed type (Class
II), also found in Ventana Cave. There are certain small points from
these levels, possibly arrowheads, which bear resemblance to projectile
points of levels 1-3 at the Taylor Site, and forms of Level 2 at Hells
Midden.

Generally asymmetrical large ovoid bifaces or knives are common in the
Uncompahgre Complex, as they are here. The stemmed drills, straight
drills, gravers, and perforators of the general class that we have
called awls, are common in both the Uncompahgre and Complex D. There
are other similarities in serrated scrapers, and the rarity of end
scrapers. A triangular notched pendant found at LoDaisKa is probably
analogous to certain flat pieces of soft stone that were used as
ornaments on the Plateau. The four-planed manos noted above are also
found here. An interesting artifact, the Uncompahgre scraper, was first
described by Wormington and Lister in their report. Such pieces also
occur at LoDaisKa. Whether they occur elsewhere is not known, since
it is possible they were present in other areas but have not been
recognized. At the Taylor Site there were storage pits as at LoDaisKa.
One notable discrepancy is the lack of awls with heads at sites of the
Uncompahgre Complex.

Before closing this discussion, we should take note of a possible
broader relationship of Complex D, that is within the continent-wide
framework of an Archaic horizon. While we have limited specific
correlation to Desert cultures, other similarities do exist in total
tool assemblage and specific point types with a number of Eastern
Archaic sites, such as Modoc Rock Shelter (Fowler, 1959). Jennings
(1957) has admirably summarized the relations of manifestations of the
Desert cultures with sites of the Eastern Archaic, and further inquiry
should be made in this direction. Perhaps when Archaic sites between
LoDaisKa and the Mississippi are discovered, a gradual blending of
Eastern Archaic-Desert Culture will be noted. A recent publication
for Oklahoma by R. Bell (1958) gives hope in this regard. Since corn
was present at Bat Cave (Dick, 1952), a site with certain Chiricahua
Cochise affinities, it is not unreasonable to assume corn diffused to
LoDaisKa from New Mexico or Arizona.


Cultural Reconstruction

There can be little doubt that the people of Complex D led a life
similar to that described by Jennings for the Desert Cultures. The
term “Desert” is a little misleading, since the Morrison Biome is not
in any sense of the word a desert. However, the vegetation is of the
Sonoran type, a type with great variation characterized by fairly low
rainfall, scrubby bushes and few trees. The proximity of the mountain
forest biome supporting deer and other large animals, probably led the
people to greater dependence on these at the expense of small game.
This hypothesis is supported by the faunal charts. The multitude of
grinding stones, and the presence of edible floral remains attest to
the continued importance of gathering. Another factor is present,
for floral remains and the pollen record indicate the presence of
maize in early times at LoDaisKa. At another site in southwestern
New Mexico, Bat Cave (Dick, n.d.) was recorded one of the earliest
occurrences of maize in North America. At Bat Cave preservation was
better than at LoDaisKa and a more complete record was found. There
is a clear resemblance between certain projectile points of Bat Cave
(e.g. Datil points) and Chiricahua and Ventana forms, and those of
LoDaisKa mentioned above. Perhaps maize was grown by the people of
Ventana Cave also. It remains to be seen, however, how much difference
the cultivation of small amounts of corn made in social and economic
life. We are inclined to agree with Willey and Phillips (1958), who
suggest that it was indeed little. In their hunting and gathering
activities these people must have lived a life very similar to that
of the Ute, outlined above. For theoretical considerations, the light
shed on prehistoric life by these primitive cultures of the historic
period cannot be overemphasized. The characters are different, but all
the evidence suggests that the play was much the same with only minor
variations.

Cists from Complex D suggest that seeds and perhaps corn were stored.
Fire areas are sometimes large and deep. Perhaps these were traditional
cooking areas. The many rocks scattered in the pits suggest that
stone boiling or baking was practiced, and flat slabs may have been
used for cooking cakes. Food was ground on basin or flat metates with
one-hand manos. Lowie (1924) cites ethnological evidence for the use
of different kinds of grinding stones for different foods in the Great
Basin cultures. Perhaps a similar custom gave rise to the peculiar
four-plane and ordinary type manos in equal proportions at LoDaisKa.
Hunting methods included the use of the atlatl, or spear-thrower, and
possibly, though no evidence is at hand, snares. Perhaps the use of
bolas is recorded by the clay ball described above. Long bone awls
suggest that basketry was important.

In technology the people had rather well formed projectile points. The
flaking technique employed was probably largely percussion supplemented
by pressure. In general, tools were smaller than those from other sites
that exhibit typological parallels. This could have been partly due
to ecologic conditions or perhaps to a scarcity of stone. Wide use
of rough quartz and metamorphic rock suggest that the latter factor
was operative. Obsidian was obtained through trade or visits to other
areas. For sources of obsidian, one must look either to the vulcanism
of northern Wyoming, Southwestern Colorado, New Mexico or Utah. Peoples
occupying other sites of this time period also appear to have engaged
in trade (see Jennings, 1957; Haury, 1950).

Bone was widely used for scraping, cutting and piercing. The exact
method of cutting bone is not known; but there are gravers and utilized
flakes that could have been used.

Ornaments suggest that interest in self adornment was not lacking.
Hematite and ochre indicate that there was some use of paints and
pigments. A piece of chlorite was found that, if ground and mixed with
grease, could have made a spectacular kind of paint. Worked mica again
may have had ornamental or ceremonial uses.

In the magico-religious field, one can probably infer some of the
religious practices of the Basin hunters and gatherers, from those of
the recent Ute. An interesting feature is the occurrence of a rather
large, well formed, smokey colored quartz crystal. Perhaps as Haury
suggested (1950), such crystals were picked up for beauty, but another
possibility is that they were a part of a shaman’s paraphernalia.
Certain California and Louisiana Archaic sites contain many of these,
and they are assumed to have had some sort of magico-religious
function. It would be surprising not to find at least a part time
shaman in such a culture, although regalia such as sucking tubes are
lacking.

Conjectures concerning social organization can be briefly set forth.
It is probable that the people had a more or less bilateral form of
kinship. As Murdock (1949) and others have noted, where economic
division of labor is nearly even, a more or less bilateral organization
tends to develop, with at most only mild matri-or patrilineality. From
ethnologic parallels for Basin peoples this seems plausible. But use
of ethnological evidence for single traits at this chronological level
is extra-hazardous. What effect the little agriculture practised had
is a moot question. As we have pointed out concerning the people of
Complex A, small plots of corn would have required at least semi-annual
gatherings, and would have temporarily placed the society on a
relatively stable footing. Possibly the proceeds of a harvest were
used for a gala feast or ceremony. However, the presence of cache pits
suggests that something at least was stored.

Two oblong pieces of bone which appear to have been gaming pieces
suggest that gambling existed as a form of recreation. Certainly,
as Steward (1940) has noted, gaming was a constant feature of Basin
cultures.


Other Remains

Just within sands and gravels attributed by Hunt to Late or
Post-Wisconsin outwash, one fragmentary point and a few flakes were
found. Some charcoal, ash and burned bone occurred at the same level,
extending in a lens about 2 inches lower. The point appears to the
authors to be the basal section of what might be called morphologically
a Plainview point (Krieger, in Sellards, Evans and Meade, 1947).
Flaking was parallel. Another parallel-flaked point of a similar type
was found higher up in the fill, and was undoubtedly a re-used piece
(see Fig. 25). Both points are of quartzite, and both have ground
edges. Five of the associated flakes were of a flinty material, 2 of
grainy quartzite.

These artifacts probably represent a culture of the early Lithic Stage
in the area, and are perhaps the earliest evidence of its occupation.
The fill was so sparse, however, that no further evidence could be
obtained.


DISCUSSION


Traditions at LoDaisKa

Willey and Phillips (1958) have stated that traditions are culture
elements extending over long periods of time and often transgressing
various culture boundaries present in an area. Traditions are not
horizon-markers but may serve to unify a given series of occupations in
a locality (e.g. painted pottery is a tradition in the Southwest.)

At LoDaisKa there are few such distinctive elements that transgress
cultural periods other than rather common functional tools such as
scrapers, but these few may be worth noting. One of these concerns a
special type of handstone with four working planes as described above.
These are present from complex A through D. Another tradition concerns
the use of local stone. In general finer flinty types were used for
knives, gravers and some types of scrapers, while grainy quartzite was
most often used for projectile points. Distance from sources probably
influenced the use of flinty types. The nearest quarry area appears
to be about fifteen miles away; beds of quartzite are found somewhat
closer. It is probable that access to both supplies led the people to
use flinty type where a good cutting edge was important, but grainy
varieties for tipping weapons. The grainy structure of quartzite makes
it break less cleanly on the edges but renders it less likely to snap
on sudden impact.

Another tradition lies in the use of small points. Many of the
projectile point forms may be identical in general characteristics with
points from other areas which are apparently culturally connected, but
they are consistently a little smaller. Perhaps such a phenomenon was a
by-product of the scarcity of material. In this connection one should
note that in all the cultures common native rock quartz was almost
invariably employed for large chopping tools. Another point of interest
is the almost total absence of cores. Raw material when found was
usually in the form of large flat flakes. The initial roughing out must
have taken place at the source.

Another tradition is the use of mica for “ornaments” extending from
Complex B through D. A tradition for the area was the cultivation from
early times of a certain amount of corn, as revealed by pollen analysis
and a few specimens of seeds or cobs. However, the type of corn used
was not the same throughout. Three major varieties were present.

There are two explanations for these local traditions: either a
tradition was handed down from one cultural group to another through
long periods of time, or the peculiar ecological position of the
Morrison biome dictated such a course. Probably the answer lies in
the combination of these; certainly for stone use the environment was
an important factor, but for the handstone type, the environmental
explanation does not seem entirely adequate.


The Site in a Larger Context

Placed in a larger context, the sequence at LoDaisKa seems to reflect
the interaction of geographical, cultural and environmental factors.
Their relation poses a series of interesting questions.

The region is located geographically on the fringe between two
well-known culture areas, the Great Basin and the Plains. At the same
time, it is environmentally distinct from either, combining some
characteristics of each, while preserving its own sub-montane biome.
These factors determine the essentially marginal character of the area.
For the same reasons, it should be especially sensitive to the forces
of cultural dynamics and to changes in environment.

The sequence at the LoDaisKa Site reflects this situation. The shifting
orientation of the cultures represented alternates between the Plains
and Basin. This shifting may be an essentially cultural phenomenon,
possibly reflecting events in the nuclear culture areas. Alternatively,
there may be evidence of climatic fluctuation at the site, and
environmental change could have been an important factor.

It remains a question whether this was, at least briefly, a contact
area for Plains and Basin cultures. From the available material it
is not possible to determine whether groups of divergent affiliation
ever inhabited the area synchronously. The considerable overlapping of
the culture units seems to point in this direction; but, as indicated
above, this phenomenon may be partially due to the telescoping of the
stratigraphy. This plus certain traditional continuums provide possible
evidence of the influence of these groups on each other.

Further research may provide answers for some of these questions.
Accurate dating by Carbon 14 will of course be invaluable in setting
the LoDaisKa sequence in proper relation to known Recent developments
in the West. Continued paleobotanical and geological study will help
clarify the chronological and environmental situation. Investigation of
single component sites in the area should provide a concrete regional
sequence and supply more data on the kind of cultural phenomena
represented here.

This suggests a few of the problems to be solved and indicates the
great amount of research which remains to be done.




BIBLIOGRAPHY


    ANDERSON, E.
    1948 Racial Identity of the Corn from Castle Park.
        _In_ Burgh and Scoggin,
         the Archaeology of Castle Park Dinosaur National Monument.
         Univ. of Colorado Series in Anthropology, No. 2.
         Boulder.
    1954 Personal communication in Wormington.
         A Reappraisal of the Fremont Culture.
         Denver Museum of Natural History Proceedings, No. 1.
         Denver.

    ANTEVS, E.
    1955 Geologic-climatic Dating in the West.
         American Antiquity, Vol. 20, No. 4, Part 1, pp. 3, 17, 35.
         Salt Lake City.

    BARBER, E. A.
    1876 Language and Utensils of the Utes.
         Bulletin, U. S. Geologic and Geographic Survey of
         the Territories. Vol. 11, No. 3. Washington.

    BARGHOORN, E. S., M. K. WOLFE, and K. H. CLISBY
    1954 Fossil Maize from the Valley of Mexico.
         Bot. Mus. Leaflet Harvard Univ. 16, pp. 229-264. Cambridge.

    BEALS, R.
    1935 Ethnology of the Rocky Mountain National Park,
         the Ute and Arapaho. National Park Service,
         Berkeley.

    BELL, R. E.
    1958 Guide to the Identification of Certain
         American Indian Projectile Points.
         Oklahoma Anthropological Society, Special Bulletin No. 1.
         Oklahoma City.

    BLISS, WESLEY
    1950a Birdshead Cave, a Stratified Site in Wind River Basin,
          Wyoming. American Antiquity, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 187-96.
          Menasha.
    1950b Early and Late Lithic Horizons in the Plains
          Anthropological Papers.
          University of Utah, No. 11, Salt Lake City.

    BREW, J. O.
    1946 Archaeology of Alkalai Ridge, Southwestern Utah.
         Peabody Museum Papers, Vol. XXI. Cambridge.

    BROECKER, W. S. and J. L. KULP
    1956 The Radio Carbon Method of Age Determination.
         American Antiquity, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 1-11.
         Salt Lake City.

    BRYAN, K., and J. TOULOUSE
    1943 The San Jose Non-Ceramic Culture and its Relation
         to a Puebloan Culture in New Mexico.
         American Antiquity, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 269-80.
         Menasha.

    BURGH, R. and C. SCOGGIN
    1948 Archaeology of Castle Park, Dinosaur National Monument,
         University of Colorado Series in Anthropology, No. 2.
         Boulder.

    CARTER, G.
    1945 Plant Geography and Culture History in the American Southwest,
         Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, No. 5.
         New York.

    CARY, MERRIT
    1911 Biological Survey of Colorado. Biological Survey Bureau,
         North American Fauna.
         Washington.

    CHAMBERLAIN, R. V.
    1911 The Ethnobotany of the Gosiute Indians.
         American Anthropologist. Memoir 2, Part 5.
         Menasha.

    CHAMPE, J.
    1946 Ash Hollow Cave, A Study of Stratigraphic Sequence
         in the Central Plains.
         University of Nebraska Studies, No. 1.
         Lincoln.

    CLARK, J. D. C.
    1952 Star Carr, A Mesolithic Site.
         Cambridge University Press.
         Cambridge.

    1957 Archaeology and Society, Harvard University Press.
         Cambridge.

    COON, C. S.
    1950 A Reader in General Anthropology. New York.

    CRESSMAN, L. S.
    1942 Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin.
         Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication No. 538.
         Washington.
    1956 Klamath Prehistory.
         Transactions of the American Philosophical Society,
         New Series, Vol. 46, Part 4.
         Philadelphia.

    DANIELS, H. S.
    1941 The Ute Indians of Southwestern Colorado.
         Durango Public Library Museum.
         Durango.

    DAUGHERTY, R. D.
    1956 Early Man in the Columbia Intermontane Province.
         University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 24.
         Salt Lake City.

    DAVIS, E. M.
    1956 Archaeological Survey of the Big Sandy Reservoir Area,
         Southwestern Wyoming. Notebook No. 2,
         Laboratory of Anthropology,
         University of Nebraska.
         Lincoln.

    DICK, H. W.
    n.d. Archaeology of Bat Cave. Ph.D. Dissertation,
         Harvard University (manuscript). (Cambridge.)

    1952 Evidences of Early Man in Bat Cave and on the
         Plains of San Augustine, New Mexico.
        _In_ Selected Papers of the 29th International
         Congress of Americanists, pp. 158-63.
         Chicago.

    DOUGLAS, F. H. and J. JEANCON
    1930 The Ute Indians. Leaflet No. 10,
         Denver Art Museum.
         Denver.

    DUNBAR, J. B.
    1880 The Pawnee Indians, Their History and Ethnography.
         Magazine of American History, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 241-281.

    FENENGA, F.
    1953 The Weights of Chipped Stone Points:
         A Clue to Their Functions.
         Southwestern Journal of Anthropology,
         Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 309-323.
         Albuquerque.

    FENNEMAN, N. M.
    1931 Physiography of Western United States.
         McGraw-Hill. New York.

    FLINT, R. F.

    1957 Glacial Geology of the Pleistocene Epoch.
         Wiley and Sons. New York.

    FORBES, LITTON
    1882 Les Utes du Colorado.
         Bulletin de La Societé D’ anthropologie (L.C.) de Paris.
         Tome cinquieme, troisieme serié.
         Paris.

    FORBIS, R. G.
    1959 Personal communication.

    FORBIS, R. G., and J. SPERRY
    1952. An Early Man Site in Montana.
          American Antiquity, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 127-33.
          Salt Lake City.

    FOWLER, MELVIN L.
    1959 Modoc Rock Shelter: An Early Archaic Site in Southern Illinois.
         American Antiquity, Vol. XXIV, No. 3, pp. 257-270.

    GALINAT, W. C.
    1958 Maize Genetics Cooperation—News Letter, No. 32
         for March 15, 1958.

    GIFFORD, E. W.
    1940 Apache-Pueblo, Culture Element Distribution IV,
         Anthropological Records. Berkeley.

    GILMORE, M. R.
    1913 The Aboriginal Geography of the Nebraska Country.
         Mississippi Historical Association, Vol. 6, pp. 317-31.
    1919 Uses of Plants by the Indians of the Missouri-River Region.
         33rd Annual Report, Bureau of American Ethnology.
         Washington.

    GRASS, P.
    1904 Grass’s Journal of the Lewis and Clarke Expedition
         (reported from the 1811 edition. J. K. Hosmer, ed.)
          A. C. McClury and Co. Chicago.

    GRIFFIN, J. B.
    1953 Archaeology of the Eastern United States.
         University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

    GRINNELL, G. B.
    1912 Pawnee Hero Stories and Folk Tales. New York.

    GUNNERSON, J.
    1954 Fremont Ceramics. _In_ Papers of the Third
         Great Basin Archaeological Conference.
         Utah University Anthropological Papers, No. 22.
         Salt Lake City.
    1956 Plains-Promontory Relationships.
         American Antiquity, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 69-72.
         Salt Lake City.

    HARRINGTON, H. D.
    1954 Manual of the Plants of Colorado. Sage Books.
         Denver.

    HAURY, E. W.
    1950 The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Ventana Cave, Arizona.
         University of Arizona, University of New Mexico Presses.
         Tucson and Albuquerque.

    HEIZER, H. F.
    1958 Guide to Archaeological Field Methods.
         Third Revised Edition, National Press.
         Palo Alto.

    HEWES, GORDON W.
    1952 California Flicker-Quill Headbands in the Light
         of an Ancient Colorado Cave Specimen.
         American Antiquity, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 147-54.
         Salt Lake City.

    HILL, A. T. and M. F. KIVETT
    1940 Woodland-like Manifestations in Nebraska.
         Nebraska History, Vol. XXI, No. 3, pp. 146-243.

    HUNT, C. B.
    1954 Pleistocene and Recent Deposits in the Denver Area.
         Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin, 996-C.
         Washington.

    1955 Geology of the Taylor Site.
        _In_ Wormington and Lister, 1956, _op. cit._

    HURST, C. T.
    1944 Excavation in Cave II, Tabeguache Canyon,
         Montrose County, Colorado, 1943.
         Southwestern Lore, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 2-14,
         Gunnison.
    1945 Completion of Excavation of Tabeguache Cave No. II.
         Southwestern Lore, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 7-12.
         Gunnison.

    HURST, C. T., and E. ANDERSON
    1949 A Corn Cache from Western Colorado.
         Am. Antiq., Vol. XIV, No. 3, pp. 161-167.

    HYDE, G. E.
    1951 Pawnee Indians. University of Denver Press.
         Denver.

    IRVING, J. T.
    1835 Indian Sketches,
         Taken During an Expedition to the Pawnee Tribes.
         Carey, Lea and Blanchard.
         Philadelphia.

    IRWIN, C., and H. IRWIN
    1957 Archaeology of the Agate Bluff Area.
         Plains Anthropologist, No. 8. Lincoln.
    n.d. Woodland Cultures of the Denver Area.

    JAMES, E.
    1932 The Archaeology of East Texas.
         American Anthropologist, N. S., Vol. 34, pp. 607-687.
         Menasha.

    JAMESON, SYDNEY J. S.
    1958 Archaeological Notes on Stansbury Island.
         University of Utah Press.
         Salt Lake City.

    JENNINGS, J. D.
    1957 Danger Cave.
         Memoirs of the Society for American Antiquity, No. 14.
         Salt Lake City.

    JENNINGS, J. D. and E. NORBECK
    1955 Great Basin Prehistory: A Review.
         American Antiquity, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 1-11.
         Salt Lake City.

    KEHOE, T.
    1955 (Billy Big Springs Site).
        _In_ Museum Notes and News,
         Museum of the Plains Indian.
         Browning.

    KELLEY, J. C.
    1947 The Cultural Affiliations and Chronologic Position
         of the Clear Fork Focus.
         American Antiquity, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 97-109.
         Menasha.

    1959 The Desert Cultures and the Balcones Phase:
         Archaic Manifestations in the Southwest and Texas.
         American Antiquity, Vol. XXIV, No. 3.
         Salt Lake City.

    KELLEY, J. C., T. N. CAMPBELL, and D. J. LEHMER
    1940 The Association of Archaeological Material with
         Geological Deposits in the Big Bend Region of Texas.
         Bulletin Sul Ross Teachers College. Vol. XXI, No. 3.
         Alpine.

    KIDDER, A. V.
    1932 The Artifacts of Pecos. R. S. Peabody Foundation Papers,
         Yale University Press.
         New Haven.

    KIDDER, A. V., and S. J. GUERNSEY
    1931 Archaeological Exploration in Northeastern Arizona.
         Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 65.
         Washington.

    KIVETT, M. F.
    1952a Woodland Sites in Nebraska.
          Nebraska State Historical Society Publications
          in Anthropology, No. 1.
          Lincoln.

    1952b The Woodruff Ossuary,
          a Prehistoric Burial Site in Phillips County, Kansas.
          River Basin Survey Papers, No. 3
          Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Bulletin 154.
          Washington.

    KLUCKHOHN, C. K.
     1939 The Place of Theory in Anthropological Studies.
          Philosophy of Science, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 328-344.

    KRIEGER, A. D.
    1944 The Typological Concept. American Antiquity,
         Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 271-88.
         Menasha.

    KROEBER, A. L.
    1910 Notes on the Ute Language.
         American Anthropologist, N. S., Vol. X. pp. 74-87.
         Lancaster.

    1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America.
         University of California Publications
         in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 38.
         Berkeley.

    1953 (ed.) Anthropology Today: an Encyclopedic Inventory.

    LAUGHLIN, W. S. and GORDON H. MARSH
    1954 The Lamellar Flake Manufacturing Site on Anangula Island,
         in the Aleutians.
         American Antiquity, Vol. XX, No. 1, pp. 27-39.
         Salt Lake City.

    LESSER, A.
    1933 The Pawnee Ghost Dance. Hand Game.
         Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology,
         No. XVI, pp. 1-337.
         New York.

    LINTON, RALPH
    1922a The Thunder Ceremony of the Pawnee.
          Field Museum Papers, Leaflet No. 5.
          Chicago.
    1922b The Sacrifice of the Morning Star by the Skidh Pawnee.
          Field Museum Papers, Leaflet No. 6.
          Chicago.

    LISTER, R. H.
    1951 Excavations at Hells Midden, Dinosaur National Monument.
         University of Colorado Studies, Series in Anthropology, No. 3.
         Boulder.

    1953. The Stemmed Indented Base Point, a Possible Horizon Marker.
          American Antiquity, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 264-5.
          Salt Lake City.

    LOUD, L. L. and M. R. HARRINGTON
    1929  Lovelock Cave.
          University of California Publications in American
          Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 25.
          Berkeley.

    LOWIE, R. H.
    1924 Notes on Shoshonean Ethnography.
         Anthropological Papers of the American Museum
         of Natural History. Vol. XX, Part II.
         New York.

    MacWHITE, EOIN
    1956 On the Interpretation of Archaeological Evidence
         in Historical and Sociologist Terms.
         American Anthropologist, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 2-26.
         Menasha.

    MALOUF, CARLING
    1940 Prehistoric Exchange in the Northern Periphery
         of the Southwest.
         American Antiquity, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 115-122.
         Salt Lake City.

    MANGELSDORF, P. C. and R. G. REEVES
    1939 The origin of Indian Corn and its relatives.
         Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 574.

    MANGELSDORF, P. C. and C. E. SMITH, JR.
    1949 New Archaeological Evidence on Evolution in Maize.
         Bot. Mus. Leaflet. Harvard University 13: 213 247.
         Cambridge.

    MANGELSDORF, P. C. and R. H. LISTER
    1956 Archaeological Evidence on the Evolution of Maize
         in Northwestern Mexico.
         Bot. Mus. Leaflet, Harvard University 17: 151 178.
         Cambridge.

    MANGELSDORF, P. C.
    1959 Personal Communication.

    MARTIN, P. J. B., E. BLOEHM, HUGH C. CUTLER, R. GRANGE, JR.
    1952 Mogollon Cultural Continuity and Change:
         The Stratigraphic Analysis of Tularosa and Cordova Caves.
         Fieldiana: Anthropology, Vol. 40.
         Chicago Natural History Museum.
         Chicago.

    MASON, J. A.
    1940 Myths of the Uintah Utes.
         Journal of American Folklore, Vol. XXIII, No. LXXXIX.

    MORRIS, E. and R. BURGH
    1954 Basketmaker II Sites Near Durango, Colorado.
         Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 604.
         Washington.

    MORSS, NOEL
    1931 The Ancient Culture of the Fremont River in Utah.
         Peabody Museum Papers, Vol. 12, No. 3.
         Cambridge.

    MULLOY, W.
    1952 The Northern Plains.
        _In_ Archaeology of the Eastern United States.
         Edited by J. B. Griffin, pp. 124-380.
         Chicago.

    1954a The McKean Site in Northeastern Wyoming.
         Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 10,
         No. 4, pp. 432-460.
         Albuquerque.

    1954b Archaeological Investigations in the Shoshone Basin,
          University of Wyoming Publications, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 1-70.
          Laramie.

    MURDOCK, G. P.
    1949 Social Structure. Macmillin, New York.

    NICKERSON, N. H.
    1953 Variation in Corn Cob Morphology Among Certain
         Archaeological and Ethnological Races of Maize.
         Ann. Missouri Bot. Garden, No. 40, pp. 79-111.
         St. Louis.

    1954 Personal Communication in Wormington,
         A Reappraisal of the Fremont Culture.
         Denver Museum of Natural History Proceedings, No. 1.
         Denver.

    OPLER, M. K.
    1939 Southern Ute Pottery Types.
         The Master Key, Vol. XIII, No. 1, pp. 161-63.
         Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

    1941 The Southern Utes of Colorado. In Linton, R. (ed.),
         Acculturation in Seven American Indian Tribes, pp. 119-203.
         New York.

    PALMER, E. G.
    1866-1877 The Utah Utes, ed. by R. Heizer.
              Utah University Anthropological Papers, No. 17.
              Salt Lake City.

    PEARCE, J. E.
    1932 The Present Status of Texas Archeology.
         Bull. of the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society,
         Vol. 4, pp. 44-54.
         Austin.

    POWELL, J. W.
    1875 Exploration of the Colorado River.
         Smithsonian Institution,
         Washington.

    RENAUD, E. B.
    1931 Archaeological Survey of Eastern Colorado.
         University of Denver.
         Denver.
    1932 Archaeological Survey of Eastern Colorado, Second Report.
         University of Denver.
         Denver.
    1942 Reconnaissance in the Upper Rio Grande Valley,
         Colorado and Northern New Mexico.
         University of Denver Archaeological Series, No. 3.
         Denver.
    1946 Archaeology of the Upper Rio Grande Basin in
         Southern Colorado and Northern New Mexico.
         University of Denver, Archaeological Series, No. 5.
         Denver.

    ROCKWELL, WILSON
    1956 The Utes—A Forgotten People. Sage Books.
        Denver.

    SAPIR, E.
    1931 Southern Paiute. American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
         Boston.

    SAYLES, E. B. and E. ANTEVS
    1941 The Cochise Culture. Medallion Papers, No. 29,
         Gila Pueblo, Globe.

    SCHROEDER, A. H.
    1953 Statement on the Early History and Archaeology of
         the Gunnison River Basin.
         Southwestern Lore, Vol. XIX. No. 3, pp. 3-11.
         Boulder.

    SELLARDS, E. H., GLEN L. EVANS and GRAYSON MEADE
    1947 Fossil Bison and Associated Artifacts from
         Plainview, Texas, with Description of Artifacts by
         Alex D. Krieger.
         Bulletin Geological Society of America, Vol. 58, pp. 927-954.

    SHAPIRO, MEYER
    1954 Styles. _In_ Kroeber, 1953, _op. cit._

    SMITH, E. R.
    1952 Archaeology of Deadman Cave; A Revision.
         University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 10.
         Salt Lake City.

    STEWARD, J. H.
    1937 Ancient Caves of the Great Salt Lake Region.
         Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 116.
         Washington.
    1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Socio-political Groups.
         Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 120.
         Washington.
    1940 Native Cultures of the Intermontane (Great Basin)
         Area. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections,
         Vol. 100, pp. 445-503.
         Washington.

    STEWART, O. C.
    1942 Ute—Southern Paiute, Culture Element Distribution, VI
         Anthropological Records.
         Berkeley.

    1957 Shoshonean Indians. The Encyclopedia Americana, pp. 754-55.
         New York.

    STRONG, W. D.
    1935 An Introduction to Nebraska Archaeology,
         Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 93, No. 10.
         Washington.

    SUHM, D. A., A. D. KRIEGER and E. B. JELKS
    1954 An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archaeology.
         Bulletin Texas Archaeological Society, Vol. 25.
         Austin.

    TAYLOR, D. C.
    1957 Two Fremont Sites and Their Position in
         Southwestern Prehistory.
         Utah University Anthropological Papers, No. 29,
         Salt Lake City.

    TAYLOR, W. W.
    1943 A Study of Archaeology.
         American Anthropological Association Memoir No. 69.
         Menasha.

    TRAIN, P., J. R. HENRICKS, W. A. ARCHER
    1941 Medicinal Uses of Plants. Bureau of Plant Industry,
         U. S. Department of Agriculture.
         Washington.

    UNDERHILL, RUTH M.
    1953 Red Man’s America. University of Chicago Press.
         Chicago. 1958 Personal Communication.

    VESTAL, P. A.
    1940 Notes on a Collection of Plants from the Hopi
         Indian Region of Arizona.
         Botanical Leaflets, Harvard University, Vol. 8, No. 8.
         Cambridge.

    VESTAL, P. A.
    1952 Ethnobotany of the Ramah Navajo.
         Peabody Museum Papers, Vol. 40, No. 4.
         Cambridge.

    WARREN, E. R.
    1942 Mammals of Colorado.
         Kansas University Publications.

    WEDEL, W. R.
    1934 Contributions to the Archaeology of the
         Upper Republican Valley, Nebraska.
         Nebraska Historical Magazine, Vol. XV, pp. 132-290.
         Lincoln.

    1938 The Direct-Historical Approach in Pawnee Archaeology.
         Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 97, No. 3,
         Washington.

    1941 Environment and Native Subsistence Ecology
         in the Central Great Plains.
         Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 101, No. 3.
         Washington.

    WEDEL, W. R. and M. F. KIVETT
    1956 Additional Data on the Woodruff Ossuary, Kansas.
         American Antiquity. Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 414-416.
         Salt Lake City.

    WELLHAUSEN, E. S., L. M. ROBERTS and E. HERNANDEZ X.
         in collaboration with P. C. MANGELSDORF.
    1952 Races of Maize in Mexico.
         The Bussey Institution of Harvard University.
         Cambridge.

    WHEELER, R. P.
    1952. A Note on the “McKean” Lanceolate Point.
          Plains Archaeological Conference News Letter,
          Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 45-50.
          Lincoln.

    1957 Duncan and Hanna Points.
         Plains Anthropologist, No. 1, pp. 7-14.
         Lincoln.

    WHITING, A. F.
    1939 Ethnobotany of the Hopi.
         Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin No. 15.
         Flagstaff.

    WILLEY G. R. and PHILLIP PHILLIPS
    1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology.
         University of Chicago Press.
         Chicago.

    WORMINGTON, H. M.
    1955 A Reappraisal of the Fremont Culture.
         Proceedings, No. 1, Denver Museum of Natural History.
         Denver.
    1957 Ancient Man in North America. Fourth Revised Edition.
         Popular Series, No. 4,
         Denver Museum of Natural History.
         Denver.

    WORMINGTON, H. M. and R. H. LISTER
    1956 Archaeological Investigations on the Uncompahgre
         Plateau in West Central Colorado.
         Proceedings No. 2, Denver Museum of Natural History.
         Denver.

    ZINGG, H. M.
    1939 The Ute Indians in Historical Relation to
         Proto-Azteco-Tanoan Culture.
         University of Denver Contributions to Ethnography, No. 2.
         Denver.