DRC-2009-006464 - 0901a0688014f6cc

DENISO
MINES
November 25, 2009
J>h
t^.^6.-.^'oq-a)liHi^il
i^^r^fe;
i^ if ed
%.
2009
ion(^.
Dmlton MIM (USA) Corpi
105017th StfMl Sute 950
Otnvtr, CO 802S5
USA
Ttl: 303 «2S-779a
Fn: 303 38»4125
ivwiv.dtnl«o(unliiM.cotn
VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Mr. Dane L. Finerfrock
Director
Division of Radiation Control
Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West
P.O Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Re: Researcli Design for Archaeological Recovery on Ten Sites, White Mesa Mill Cell 4B Tailings Area
Dear Mr. Finerfrock:
Enclosed you will find one (1) CD, and two (2) hard copies, of the Research Design for Archaeological
Recovery on Ten Sites, Cell 4B Tailings Area, White Mesa Mill. I would appreciate you forwarding one of the
copies to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office ("SHPO") as soon as possible. The other hard copy and
the CD are for your files. The Report was prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corp. by Abajo Archaeology, in
support of the Cell 48 tailings license amendment request. This is the final report required to fully implement
the archaeological recovery program within the Cell 4B tailings area.
The archaeologists have committed to working through December and January to complete the field work and
the SHPO is aware that the Research Design will soon be available for their review.
If you have any immediate questions please feel free to contact me at 303 389-4160.
Yours very truly,
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
Harold R. Roberts
Executive Vice President, US Operations
cc: Ron F. Hochstein
Dave C. Frydenlund
Steven D. Landau
A RESEARCH DESIGN FORARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY
ON TEN SITES IN THE WIDTE MESA MILL CELL 4B PROJECT AREA,
SAN JUAN COUNTY,UTAH
Jonathan D.Till
November 2009
ABAJO ARCHlEOLOGY
A Research Design for Archaeological Data Recovery on Ten Sites in the
White Mesa Mill Cell 4B Project Area,San Juan County,Utah
Prepared For:
Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office
5100 State Office Building
PO Box 14114-1107
And
Utah State Historic Preservation Office
300 Rio Grandc
Salt Lake City,Utah 84101-1182
Prepared Under Contract With:
Denison Mines (USA)Corporation
6425 South Highway 191
Blanding,Utah 84511
Prepared By:
Jonathan D.Till
Submitted By:
William E.Davis,Principal Investigator
Abajo Archaeology
Bluff,Utah
November,2009
Abstract
This document serves two purposes:to provide a report ofarchaeological test excavations
on ten sites in the Ce1l4B project area ofDenison Mines (USA)Corporation's White Mesa Mill,
and to present a research design for archaeological data recovery at these same sites.The ten
sites,which are found in the Mill's Cell 4B project area,are as follows:42Sa6393,42Sa6397,
42Sa6757,42Sa8014,42Sa28128,42Sa28129, 42Sa28130,42Sa28131,42Sa28133,and
42Sa28 134.All of the sites contain significant archaeological deposits.Therefore,all sites are
eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)(36 CFR 60.4).Nine
of the sites date to the prehistoric period,while 42Sa28131 is an historic site that apparently
dates to the A.D.1940s.
Table ofContents
Abstract i
Table ofContents ii
List ofFigures iii
List ofTables iv
Chapter 1:Introduction and Environmental Context..1
Scope ofWork 1
Environmental Context 2
Location 3
Geology 3
Climate 6
Flora and Fauna 6
Chapter 2:Cultural-Historical Overview 8
PaleoIndian Period 8
Archaic Period 10
Basketmaker II Period 12
Basketrnaker III Period 12
Pueblo I Period 13
Pueblo II Period 14
Pueblo III Period 15
Protohistoric Period 16
Historic Period 17
Chapter 3:Previous Work in the Ce1l4B Project Area 18
Down at the Mill:A Very BriefHistory ofArchaeological Investigations Conducted on
the White Mesa Mill Property 18
Archaeological Survey ofthe Ce1l4B Project Area 22
Archaeological Testing Methods in the Cell 4B Project Area 22
Archaeological Testing Results in the Ce1l4B Project Area 25
42Sa6393 27
42Sa6397 40
42Sa6757 50
42Sa8014 54
42Sa28128 61
42Sa28129 61
42Sa28130 67
42Sa28131 69
42Sa28132 72
42Sa28134 76
Chapter 4:Research Design 79
Theoretical Underpinnings 79
Research Domains 79
Environment 79
Chronology 83
Subsistence 83
Settlement.84
Social Structure 85
Technology 86
Methodological Madness 86
Provenience System 86
Field Methods 88
Laboratory Methods 91
Reporting and Curation 94
Public Outreach 94
Chapter 5:The Players and the Program 95
Abajo Archaeology and Staff 95
Proposed Schedule 97
References.., ,99
List of Figures
1.Project Location Map,Denison Mines White Mesa Mill,
San Juan County,Utah .4
2.Denison Mines White Mesa Mill CeIl4B Project Map showing the location
ofarchaeological sites 5
3.Provenience Hierarchy 23
4.Site 42Sa6393,Testing Results 28
5.Site 42Sa6393,NST I Test Unit,West Wall Profile 31
6.Site 42Sa6393,NST 2,Test Unit Profiles 33
7.Site 42Sa6393,ARB 2 Profile 34
8.Site 42Sa6393,Backhoe Trench 1,Profile and Planview .36
9.Site 42Sa6393,Backhoe Trench 2,Discovery Feature 9,South Wall Profile 39
10.Site 42Sa6397,Testing Results .41
II.Site 42Sa6397,ARB 2 and ARB 3 Profiles .44
12.Site 42Sa6397,ARB Units 4,5,and 6 Plallviews .45
13.Site 42Sa6397,ARB 4,5,and 6 Profiles .46
14.Site 42Sa6397,ARB 7,West Wall Profile .48
15.Site 42Sa6397,ARB 8,Planview and East Wall Profile .49
16.Site 42Sa6757,Post-Excavation Map 51
17.Site 42Sa6757,Testing Results 52
18.Site 42Sa8014,Post-Excavation Map 55
19.Site 42Sa8014,Testing Results 56
20.Site 42Sa28128,Testing Results 58
21.Site 42Sa28128,Test Unit Profiles 60
22.Site 42Sa28129,Testing Results 62
23.Site 42Sa28129,ARB Test Units 2 and 3,Planview and Profile 64
24.Site 42Sa28129,ARB 4 Planview and Profile 66
25.Site 42Sa28130,Testing Results 68
26.Site 42Sa28130,ARB 2,Profile 70
27.Site 42Sa2813I,Testing Results 71
28.Site 42Sa2813I ,ARB 2,Profile 73
29.Site 42Sa28132,Testing Results 75
30.Site 42Sa28134,Testing Results 77
31.Site 42Sa28134,ARB 2,Profile ,78
List of Tables
1.Sites by Component and Function,White Mesa Mill Ce1l4B Survey 2
2.Archaeological Chronology ofthe Four Corners Region,by Year and
Pecos Classification Periods 9
3.Excavated Site Data,White Mesa Mill 19
4.Site Components by Count and Percentage,White Mesa Mill 20
5.Site Components by Possible Function,White Mesa Mill 21
6.Study Unit Types 23
7.Discovery Feature Counts by Site,White Mesa Mill Ce1l4B Project 26
8.Pit Structure Counts by Site,White Mesa Mill Ce1l4B Project..26
9.Site 42Sa6393,Discovery Features 29
10.Site 42Sa6393,Test Unit Location,Size and Orientation 30
II.Site 42Sa6397,Discovery Features .42
12.Site 42Sa6397,Test Unit Location,Size and Orientation .43
13.Site 42Sa6757,Discovery Features 53
14.Site 42Sa8014,Discovery Features 57
15.Site 42Sa28128,Discovery Features 59
16.Site 42Sa28128,Test Unit Location,Size and Orientation 59
17.Site 42Sa28129,Discovery Features 63
18.Site 42Sa28 129,Test Unit Location,Size and Orientation 65
19.Site 42Sa28130,Discovery Features 67
20.Site 42Sa28132,Discovery Features 74
21.Research ProblemslHypotheses Developed for Excavation Projects near
the White Mesa Mill 80
22.Horizontal and Vertical Subdivisions 87
23.Proposed Work Schedule and Cost Estimate 98
Chapter 1:Introduction and Locational Context
Denison Mines (USA)Corp.proposes to construct Tailings Cell 4B on their White Mesa
Mill facility.The proposed cell has long been planned,but not constructed.The proposed cell
would be excavated,lined,and used in the permanent storage of uranium ore tailings from the
mill facility.It is understood that these construction activities could pose adverse effects to any
historic properties in the project area.
This document serves two purposes:to provide a report ofarchaeological test excavations
on ten sites in the Ce1l4B project area ofDenison Mines (USA)Corporation's White Mesa Mill,
and to present a research design for archaeological data recovery at these same sites.Abajo
Archaeology produced this document at the request of Mr.Harold Roberts,Executive vice
President,and Mr.David Turk,Radiation Safety Officer,both of Denison Mines (USA)Corp.
This manuscript is being prepared for the client,Denison Mines (USA),and the Division of
Radiation Control,Department ofEnvironmental Quality,State of Utah.The archaeological test
excavations were conducted under an excavation permit issued on September 23,2009,by the
Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office.
Scope of Work
Abajo Archaeology has conducted a cultural resource inventory (archaeological survey)
of the area proposed for the construction and development of Cell 4B (Till 2009a).A total of 14
sites were located in the surveyed area as a result of the cultural resource inventory.Table I
describes the sites as we understood them based on their surface manifestations at the time ofthe
survey.In order to understand the nature and extent of the subsurface deposits at each of these
sites,Mr.Harold Roberts,Executive Vice President,and Mr.David Turk,Radiation Safety
Officer,both of Denison Mines (USA)Corp,requested that Abajo Archaeology develop and
conduct a testing program for the ten sites in the proposed project area (please note that this area
is different than,but included within,the area surveyed).These sites are:42Sa6393,42Sa6397,
42Sa6757,42Sa8014,42Sa28128,42Sa28129,42Sa28130,42Sa28131,42Sa28132,and
42Sa28134.
The testing program was conducted for the client,Denison Mines (USA)Corp.This
monograph documents these testing results,and includes a research design for data recovery at
the ten tested sites.This document is being tendered to Denison Mines (USA)Corp.for
submittal to Mr.Dane Finerfrock,Division of Radiation Control,Department of Environmental
Quality,State of Utah.This report and research design is also being submitted to Ms.Lori
Hunsaker (Deputy Preservation Officer,State Historic Preservation Office)and Mr.Kelly Beck
(Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office)for review.
Specifically,this document accomplishes the following:(l)reports on the nature and
extent ofcultural features found within each of the ten sites;(2)provides a general methodology
for data recovery in the project area;(3)provides a site-specific set of proposals for data
recovery on each ofthe affected sites.
Table 1.SitesbyComponent and Function,White Mesa Mill Cell4B Survey
Site Number Components Suggested Function Comments
42Sa63g1 Pueblo II habitation May have two pit structures.
428a6392 Pueblo II seasonal habitation 8mall adobe feature mal'.be indicated.
428a6393 Pueblo II habitation Based on artifact scatters,two orthree households may be indicated.
.._..
428a6397 Basketmaker III unknown Small adobe feature maybe indicated.Giventhe artifact scatter,it seems likely that domesticfeatures are
possible Pueblo II unknown present.
Basketmaker III unknown Known features include a burial,a hearth,and a lens ofburned adobe.
.'
428a6431 Pueblo II habitation A midden with a diverse assemblage ofmaterials is present that suggests the presence of a habitation.
I Previously excavated by Abajo Archaeology (Davis 1985).Portions ofthe midden are'still intact.8mall428a6757BasketmakerIIIhabitationsubsurfacefeaturesm~y still be present._",___
428a8014 Pueblo I seasonal habitation Previously excavated by ~bajoArchaeology (Davis 1985).8mall subsurface features may still be present.
428a28128 Pueblo II andlor Pueblo III limited activity IThe remains of ephemeral structures or small subsurface features may be presen~.
428a28129 Basketmaker III andlor Pue.blo J limited activity The remains ofephemeral structures or small subsurface features may be present.IPueblo II limited activity
428a28130 Pueblo Ii limited acflvity IThe remains ofephemeral'sfructures orsmall subsurface features may be preseri-C---~--
42Sa28131 Unknown historic
...
IThe remains ofepheme:rai structures or small subsurface features may be presen.f~~~=~---camp
428a28132 possible Basketmaker 111---limited activity The remains of ephemeral structures or small subsurface features may be.preserlt____._..-
428a28133 Unknown Aboriginal limited activity !The remains ofephemeral structures orsmall subsurface features maybe pres~,~____"_..-
428a28134 Unknown Aboriainal limited activity iThe remains ofeDhemeral structures or small subsurface features may be oresent.
tv
3
Environmental Context
This section provides the environmental context for the Cell 4B project area.This
considers the legal location of the project,it's geological setting,climate, and the biological
communities found within the immediate area.
Project Area Location
The Cell 4B project area is situated on the crest and gently sloped flanks of two finger
ridges on the north end ofWhite Mesa (Figure I).The mesa's western and eastern margins drop
precipitously into Cottonwood and Recapture canyons,respectively.The project area has an
approximate rhomboid shape that covers an area of about 55.7 acres (22.5 hectares)in Sections
32 and 33 ofTownship 37 SOUtll,Range 22 East (Figure 2).
Geological Setting
The White Mesa Mill occupies the top,and gently sloped eastern face,of a low but
prominent ridge near the divide of White Mesa.Situated in the Blanding Basin Section of
southeastern Utah,the surrounding landscape is characterized by a multitude ofmesas and buttes
flanked by canyon drainages (Stokes 1986:235-6).The area's primary water courses flow from
north to south,draining the Abajo Mountains to the north and run to the San Juan River to the
south.White Mesa is flanked by two of these north-to-south drainages:Cottonwood Wash to the
west and Recapture Wash to the east.Westwater Canyon,a significant tributary to Cottonwood
Wash,is also to the west ofthe project area.
The caprock of White Mesa is mostly composed of Cretaceous Period rock,including
interbedded sandstones and shales associated with the Dakota and the underlying Burro Canyon
formations.In places,remnants of the later Cretaceous Mancos Shale may be found overlying
the harder caprock.In areas,White Mesa harbors remnant outwash deposits of alluvial cobbles
and pebbles,materials that derive from ancient fluvial stream beds.These lag deposits consist
primarily of the igneous rock from the Abajo Mountains,but include varieties of chert,
chalcedony,and quartzites as well.The slopes of White Mesa consist of relatively soft,vari-
colored shales associated with the Morrison Formation.
White Mesa's flanking canyons provide seasonal water as the result of snow melt in the
mountains and higher elevations.In times of rain,the drainage bottoms run,too,and
occasionally flash with tumultuous rage.The more dependable sources of water occur as seeps
and springs.These are often found below the rim of the mesa,where the permeable sandstone
caprock comes into contact with impermeable shales.In several better examples of this
phenomenon,large Pueblo III period aggregated communities have been built around these water
sources.
-_~Mesa top sediments in and around the mill property are dominated by a reddish-brown,
very fine aeolian sand and silt.Davis and others (2003 :6)note that this loam ranges considerably
in depth from a few centimeters to several meters;the mantle of sediment in the project area is
generally represented by the deeper end of that scale.Poorly developed B horizons,and
o 5 10I 'j ',\.',.','••',.'.',.',t.'rl.'
05101520
15 20 25 miles llY,
.'j 1 j!.It i '•:.,,f,..I I
25 30 35 40 km
06/30/09
Figure 1.Project Location Map,Denison Mines White Mesa Mill,San Juan County,Utah.
5
(
\
I(
-,I
I,,
-'
I 'l ,.,f"";';:~~-\.I i
J
,
d'
,.'-}
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 3000 600ll 1000 fEET
ECe H ,I
1 ••0 I M1MJME7ER
FA -FA -EH
SCALE 1:24000E""'==,;~==="",::=Jt==:,:====::===~Q:==='Ei,=,,====~===========,=,,=~lMI!.E
Figure 2.Denison Mines White Mesa Mill Cell 4B Project Map showing the location of
Archaeological Sites.
moderately developed caliche-rich soil horizons,have formed in the White Mesa sediments
wherever depth and stability have allowed.Agenbroad (1985:175-183)argues for a correlation
between "caliche highs"and the location of pithouses,suggesting that the caliche substrate
provided desirable construction characteristics for pit structures.
Climate
Precipitation and temperature combine to provide a marginal,but possible,agricultural
environment.The rainfall regime may be described as generally "bimodal"(Cordell 1997:36-
41),which describes a pattern of precipitation that includes summer rains and winter snow.
Southeastern Utah falls near the edge of a line separating bimodal and summer dominant
precipitation patterns,underscoring the unpredictable nature ofrainfall in the Mesa Verde region.
Armual precipitation varies from 8 to 16 inches,with an average of about 12 inches for nearby
Blanding.White Mesa straddles an interesting pale between the relatively rain-rich uplands and
the water-poor lower elevations.Local lore has it that the southern stretches of White Mesa
supported dryland fanning efforts in the early 1920s,so much so that water literally ran off the
southern end of White Mesa by way of irrigation ditches in one year (Winston .Hurst,personal
communication with Jonathan Till,2009).Shirttail Comer,which lies immediately north of the
project area,seems to mark the boundary between continuously cultivated dryland fanns to the
north,and occasional but mostly fallow dryland efforts to the south (Davis and others 2003:6).
Temperatures are such that they provide for an average frost-free period of 153 days in
Blanding.There is considerable variability in this frost-free period,however,emphasizing the
hazards of depending on a 120-day corn-growing season.The average temperature in July is 23
degrees Celsius (74 degrees Fahrenheit);the average temperature in January is 10 degrees
Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit).
Biological Community
The various landscapes of White Mesa include a variety ofenvironments that range from
the ecotone between ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper woodland,found in the northern reaches
of White Mesa,to the desert steppe on its southern margins.Pinyon-juniper and big sagebrush
communities tend to dominate the intennediate elevations of White Mesa,which includes the
White Mesa Mill property.
The faunal community is described in some detail by Dames and Moore (1978:Appendix
D),which is summarized by Casjens (1980:Table 2-3).The only big game species observed
during the course of Abajo's survey and testing projects have been mule deer.An abundance of
desert cottontail and black-tailed jackrabbit have also been noted.The nearby canyons of Big
Westwater and Cottonwood Wash provide riparian habitat,environs rich for a variety of wildlife.
The landscape of the White Mesa Mill property has been radically altered in historic
times.These alterations have come about as the result ofhistoric ranching and fanning practices
as well as the development of the White Mesa Mill.The surface of the project area has been
chained and railed,plowed,and seeded.Davis (1985 :9)notes that much of this disturbance took
place in the 1920s and 1930s.As a consequence ofthese activities,the project area's vegetation
7
probably does not reflect the plant life that would occur there naturally.Currently,the local
ecology is characterized by grasslands with mostly immature sagebrush,snakeweed,and prickly
pear.Annual plants common to the project area's terrain include cheatgrass,mustard,and
heron's bill.Occasional instances ofjuniper and Mormon tea hint at the area's original ecology.
At the west rim of the mesa,juniper and big sage are common.It seems likely that the mesa's
interior represented an ecotone between the sagebrush and pinyon-juniper ecozones.
Chapter 2:Cultural-Historical Overview
Several current,textbook syntheses of prehistory in the North American Southwest are
widely available,and serve to put the proposed project into a temporally deep and spatially broad
context (e.g.Cordell 1997;Kantner 2004;Lekson 2009).Perhaps of more immediate interest are
several overviews that consider southeastern Utah and the encompassing Mesa Verde region
(Hurst 1992;Lipe and others 1999;Noble 2006;Rohn 1989).All ofthese documents should be
consulted for information regarding the broad patterns of cultural development in the region
surrounding the project area.
The following overview summarizes the cultural history of the project area in terms of
established "periods"that very generally based upon the changing subsistence economies and
material culture of ancestral Pueblo society (Table 2).Pre-agricultural societies are sununarized
by the PaleoIndian and Archaic periods.Ancient agricultural Puebloan societies are described in
terms ofthe Pecos Classification (Kidder 1927;Lipe and others 1999).
Paleolndian Period
The PaleoIndian period,as it is expressed in the North American Southwest,is generally
summarized in terms of the Llano,Folsom,and Plano complexes which seem to vary in date
according to region (Schroedl 1991).In this particular case,Black and Metcalf (1986)are
referenced to provide dates for the PaleoIndian Period in the project area.The Llano complex
(ca.12000 -11000 Before Present or "B.P.")is characterized by the presence of Clovis points,
presumably used to dispatch megafauna such as the mammoth.The Folsom complex (ca.11000-
10000 B.P.)describes a culture that utilized the Folsom point and is particularly associated with
Bison antiquus,an ancient form of bison.The Plano complex (ca.10500 -7500 B.P.)does not
generally occur on the Colorado Plateau with any great frequency although points from this
complex have been reported (Black and Metcalf 1986;Tipps 1988).
The generally accepted dates for the onset of the PaleoIndian period in western North
America begin around 9500 B.C.The earliest date for PaleoIndian occupation in Utah,yielded
by the lowest cultural levels of Danger Cave in northwest Utah,bottoms out around 9450 B.C.
(Schroedl 1991).At the Lehner Mammoth site in southern Arizona,hearths in a PaleoIndian
mammoth kill site context have likewise been carbon-dated to somewhere between 9000 and
10,000 B.C.(Haury and others 1959).
The Paleo1ndian lifeway has been generally described as being centered around the
hunting of Pleistocene megafauna (Jeunings 1973;Martin 1990),hence the occurrence of large-
sized points.However,it is important to keep in mind that subsistence data for these sites is
lacking with the exception of kill sites distant to the project area and the inferred functions of
paleo-tool assemblages.Kill sites certainly indicate that large game animals played a role in
paleo-subsistence economies.As Schroedl (1991 :6)noted,the question is probably not whether
they were big-game hunters that excluded gathering activities,but the degree to which game
hunting played a role in the paleo-subsistence economy.
Table 2.Archaeological Chronology ofthe Four Corners Region,by Year and Pecos Classification Periods'
Dates -Periods -Distinctive Characteristics "-
AD 1300 to 1600 i Pueblo IV Large plaza-ori~nte~.pueblos in Rio Grande a~d Weste~n Pueblo areas;low kiva to room ratio;kachina cult widespread;corrugated
.replaced by plain utility types;Blw pottery declines relative glaze ware types.
AD 1150 t 1300 P bl III Also known as the "great pueblo"period;large pueblos;high kiva to room ratios;cliff dwellings;towers;triwalls;corrugated gray and
a ue 0 elaborate B/w pottery,pius red or orange pottery in some areas;abandonment ofthe Four Corners region by 1300.I------~--+----".Also associated with the "Chaco phenomenon,"which refers to an apparent general settlement pattern consisting of a community
AD 900 150 I P bl JI center and dispersed households or "unit pueblos."A community center will include some configuration a great house,great kiva,
to 1 I ue 0 bermed middens,and roads;unit pueblos are composed of a kiva and a surface masonry roomblock;corrugated gray ware
,Ibecomes the predominant cooking pottery.
I---A-D-7-5-0-t-9-0-0--i·P bl I Large villages in some areas;habitatio"nos'Lc:"'o-n-s"-isC-t-of~a-""p-r-:o"'toC-kc-iv-a~""'(i-.e-.-p'7ith'-o-u-s-ec-)-p,..lu-s-s-u...,rfc-ac-e--ro-o-----,mblock ofjacal or simple masonry;
o L--ue 0 greatkivas;cooking pottery is dominated by neckbanded gray ware;initial development and use of red ware pottery.
1---------Habitation is formal plthouse with surface storage pits,cists,or rooms;dispersed settlement with occasional small villages;
AD 500 to 750 !Basketmaker III loccasional great kivas;development offirst true cooking pottery,which is "plain gray";bow and arrow.generally replaces the atlatl;
,beans added to cultigens.
I---------+---Habitation is shallow pithouse plus storage pits or cists;dispersed settlement with small low density villages in some areas;pottery,
AD 50 to 500 i Basketmaker II (late)ifpresent,is a self-tempered "mud ware";atlatl and dart;corn and squash by no beans;upland dry-farming in addition to fioodplain
I----------L--farming._---c--~-,----..."-,,c-c---..-,-j
1500 BC AD 50 'B k k II (I)Long-term seasonal use of caves for camping,storage,and burial;camp and limited activity sites in open;no pottery;atlatl and dart;
to !as etma er ear y Icorn and squash;cultivation may be pri~arily floodplain or run-off based._"~'~_
6500 BC to 1500 BC,Archaic ISubsistence based on wild foods;high residential mobility;iow population density;shelters and open sites;altatl and dart.
-_ C I _...I I d"Subsistence based on wild foods,but with a focus on large game animals,many of which are"now extinct;high residential mobility;
pre 6500 B -'-----_"':'eo n Ian ,low population density;distinctive spear andlor dart points;no apparent ground stone technologL_..._
'Adapted from Lipe (1994)
""
10
The artifacts most diagnostic of the PaleoIndian period are projectile points.These are
generally assumed to have been hafted onto spears or perhaps dart shafts.Archaeologists
recognize two basic point categories for the PaleoIndian period:fluted points and
stemmed/shouldered points (Schroedl 1991 :2-5).Clovis points and Folsom points represent the
fluted types,and are perhaps the most well-known and recognized.Other artifact types that
distinguish PaleoIndian assemblages include distinctive end and side scrapers.
Several interesting PaleoIndian components occur relatively near the project area.These
include the Lime Ridge Clovis site (Davis 1986,1989),a rock art site along the banks ofthe San
Juan River,and a multicomponent lithic scatter located only several miles south of the project
area (Westfall and others 2003).Two isolated fluted points have been reported in the area.A
Clovis point fragment was recently discovered in Comb Wash (Westfall 2009:26-7),and a
Folsom projectile point fragment was discovered while recording a multicomponent site on the
southern edge of White Mesa just several miles south of the project area (Westfall 1995:64).
Also of note is the documentation of a PaleoIndian point fragment found immediately south of
White Mesa on the upper end of Big Bench (Moore and Owens 2003:260).
Archaic Period
Typically,the term "Archaic"refers to a human population organized in small groups
with a high degree ofresidential mobility to best employ a hunter-gatherer subsistence strategy.
In the case ofthis report,"Archaic"is used to describe the time period in which this lifestyle was
the prevalent modus operandi of the prehistoric populations that occupied the Four Corners
region from roughly 6000 B.C.-A.D.\.Several reviews of the long-lasting Archaic period have
been generated for the Mesa Verde region and adjacent landscapes (e.g.Berry and Berry 1986;
Geib 1996;Jennings 1978;Lipe and Pitblado 1999;Matson 1991).
Archaic tool assemblages begin to appear even as Plano point technology is still being
utilized,especially on the High Plains.However,generally speaking,the Archaic period is
differentiated from the PaleoIndian in its tool assemblage and presumed subsistence strategies.
Instead of the lanceolate points of the PaleoIndian period,Archaic peoples possessed smaller,
notched points that were hafted to darts and propelled by an atl-at\.That plants play an important
dietary role in the Archaic lifeway is evident through the introduction of ground stone
implements.
The change in subsistence strategy is grounded in a basic environmental change from a
cooler and moister climatic regime to the modern xeric landscapes of the North American
Southwest.This arid environment required a subsistence strategy that emphasized a knowledge
ofthe spatial and seasonal availability offood resources.
Several classification schemes for the Archaic period have been developed,focusing
mainly on particular broad areas in the region of the North American Southwest.Of particular
use for the project area are those classifications proposed by Schroedl (1976)for the nOlihern
Colorado Plateau and by Irwin-Williams (1979)for the Four Corners area.Irwin-Williams
(1979)believes that the Archaic populations of the Four Corners could be subsumed under the
"Oshara Tradition."The Oshara Tradition is sequentially organized into five phases:
11
Jay Phase 5500 -4800 B.C.
Bajada Phase 4800 -3300 B.C.
San Jose Phase 3300 -1800 B.C.
Armijo Phase 1800 -800 B.C.
En Medio Phase 800 B.C.-400 A.D.
Hurst (1992:37)succinctly summarizes the characteristics ofeach ofthese phases.
Irwin-Williams suggested that the Jay Phase represents the occupation of the Four
Comers area by Archaic peoples from the San Dieguito complex to the west,
following the eastward retreat of the big game hunting PaleoIndian cultures in the
face of Holocene climatic changes.Jay and Bajada phase sites were thought to
reflect occupation by nomadic hunting and gathering microbands who repeatedly
reoccupied certain favorable localities in a "relatively unstructured continuing
annual round."The San Jose phase saw significant population increase during an
interval of increased effective precipitation and ameliorated restrictions on local
resource bases (Irwin-Williams 1979:38).The Armijo phase witnessed the
introduction of Mexican cultigens including maize into the economy,resulting in
the production of seasonal food surpluses and population aggregations into
macroband encampments.The En Medio phase is equivalent to the Basketmaker II
culture as defined in the San Juan drainage,and marks the emergence of a fully
horticultural Anasazi culture,probably in response to population pressure and
resultant shrinkage offoraging territories.
It is probably no wonder that little extensive work has been done with Archaic sites in lhe
general vicinity of the project area.The nondiagnostic remains of Archaic period camps,often
manifested as lithic debris scatters or hearth remains,are probably frequently documented as
"unknown aboriginal"(IMACS 1990).Historically,archaeologists may have overlooked the
lackluster Archaic sites,passing them by for the more interesting Puebloan sites.In addition,
Archaic sites are susceptible to burial,erosion,or reuse by subsequent populations.However,
recent survey data have contributed more to our knowledge of the Archaic population in the
project area's vicinity (e.g.Honeycutt and Fetterman 1985;Whitten and others 1986;Bond and
others 1992;Montgomery 1994).One general pattern that emerges is the tendency for Archaic
period sites to occur on canyon rim or canyonhead locations (Whitten and others 1986;
Montgomery 1994).Davis and others (2003:Table 2)report that only four Archaic components
have been documented on the mill property.
Recent data recovery or excavation phase work has also considerably contributed to our
knowledge oftIlis time period.Greater detail is available regarding lithic procurement sites and
their possible Archaic affiliations (Montgomery 1994;Westfall and otllers 2003).A rock
shelter/cave located just west of Comb Wash,Old Man Cave,with an Early Archaic component
(equivalent to the Jay phase)has been partially excavated (Davidson and others 1994).One
habitation site of interest,perhaps bridging the gap between the Archaic and the preceding
Basketmaker period,has been excavated near the project area and is discussed further below
(Westfall and others 2004).
12
Basketmaker II Period
The end dates for the Archaic period,and the beginning date for the early Basketmaker
period,are often blurred in spite of the seemingly concrete numbers assigned to them.Until
recently,this number has been the firm A.D.I.The earliest Basketmaker manifestation,labeled
Basketmaker II,is generally defined as a preceramic agricultural population that preceded the
Puebloan tradition.Cultigens,and maize in particular,were passed from prehistoric Mexican
populations into the North American Southwest.CUlTently the earliest evidence for maize on the
Colorado Plateau comes from Three Fir Shelter on Arizona's Black Mesa and dates to 3900 B.P.
(Smiley 1993).Agriculture as a subsistence strategy does not seem firmly established on the
Plateau until 1500 -1000 B.C.(Matson 1991;Lipe 1993).
Excellent overviews and discussions exist for the Basketmaker II period (Matson 1991;
Hurst 1992,2004;Lipe 1999).Basketmaker II rock shelter sites,perhaps the site type that most
frequently captures our imaginations for this period,are well described by Kidder and Gurnsey
(in Hurst 1992:42)and others (Lindsay et al.1968;Hurst 1993).Rock art that appears to date to
this period is also extensively discussed (Schaafsma 1980;Manning 1992;Cole 1993;Pachak
1994).
Like the ephemeral nature of tlle Archaic period habitation sites,Basketmaker II
habitation sites are often prone to natural obscuration,obliteration,or reoccupation.In spite of
iliis,data recovery via excavation has occurred at nearby sites with Basketmaker II components
(Davis 1984;Richins and Talbot 1989;Westfall 2003).As with the Archaic period,documented
Basketmaker II components are rare on the mill property (n=3)(Davis and others 2003:Table 2).
Basketmaker III Period
The termination ofilie Basketmaker II and ilie commencement of Basketmaker III occurs
around A.D.500.Reed (2000)has recently produced an edited volume that examines the
Basketmaker III period in ilie Four Corners region,and Hurst (2004)has produced the most
exhaustive summary of Basketmaker III data in southeastern Utah.
Hurst (1992:47)defines the Basketmaker III as
iliat interval of Anasazi culture history during which the Anasazi of the Four
Corners area were (1)producing a pottery assemblage dominated by Lino style
gray ware and lacking both San Juan Red Ware and banded or corrugated gray
ware;and 2)inhabiting substantial,semi-subterranean pithouses with associated
noncontiguous,circular/ovoid storage cists.
Associated with ilie Basketmaker III household is the establishment ofthe "Prudden unit"
settlement pattern (Prudden 1914,1918;Roberts 1939).This long-lasting architectural footprint
consists ofthe pithouse or kiva bracketed to the south by a formal midden area,and to the north
by above-ground storage features (which consist of cists in the Basketmaker III period and
13
pueblo structures in the following Pueblo periods).Elsewhere Lipe has referred to this persistent
architectural pattern as the "San Juan pattern"(Lipe 2006:293).
In addition,the Basketmaker III acquired the bow and arrow and the cultigen,beans.It is
probably no coincidence that beans and the introduction of the first,well-made cooking pottery
co-occur.In contrast to the Basketmaker II,this later manifestation of the Basketmaker Anasazi
is abundant in the Four Corners region and is discussed in many sources that describe work near
the project area (e.g.Neily 1982;Davis 1985;Hurst 1992,2004).
The Basketmaker III settlements seem to range in size from single pit houses to larger
communities of 10+pithouses with satellite storage structures.These larger communities also
have a large pithouse/community room per settlement that could have been incipient great kivas.
Such sites occur near the project area in Recapture Wash at Villa Gavilan (Jacklin 1985)and
near Bluff,Utah (Neily 1982).Still,the primary settlement pattern for Basketmaker III society is
one that is "extensive"(households scattered over a broad area of landscape)in contrast to
"intensive"(households that are clustered or aggregated into a very small area).An intensive
landscape use strategy only becomes apparent with the Pueblo I period.
Pueblo I Period
The Pueblo period has been extensively covered in many overviews for the American
Southwest and the smaller Mesa Verde region (Allison and others in press;Cordell 1997;
Kantner 2004;Lipe and others 1999;Hurst 1992;Nickens 1982;Rohn 1989).Only some general
characteristics will be mentioned here in conjullction with specific site examples and past
archaeological projects that occur in the immediate vicinity ofWhite Mesa.
The Pueblo I Period approximately spans the years from A.D.750 to A.D.900 in the
Mesa Verde region.Like the Basketmaker III settlements,Pueblo I communities often consisted
of one to a dozen pithouse structures with associated satellite rooms.The storage cists of the
Prudden unit are replaced by above-ground jacal structures,and pithouse architecture changes
rather dramatically as well.Although farther afield,the Duckfoot Site,excavated by Crow
Canyon just five miles west of nearby Cortez,Colorado,offers some good insight into the
structure of a small Pueblo I settlement or "hamlet"(Lightfoot 1994;Lightfoot and Etzkorn
1993).
However,while Pueblo I communities are frequently small,and not aggregated,the onset
of what has been defined as the Pueblo I period is coincident with the region's first aggregated
communities,most notably "Site 13"on Alkali Ridge,which is just east of White Mesa (Brew
1946).This community was probably established by the A.D.760s,and is coincident with the
introduction of a very different pottery ware,San Juan Red Ware (Allison 2008;Allison and
others in press).Early Pueblo I communities apparently increase in number into the first decade
of the ninth century,but significantly wane in frequency throughout southeastern Utah during the
middle portion ofthat century.
By the late A.D.800s,Pueblo I populations in southeastern Utah are again on the rise,
particularly in elevations above 6000 feet as well as to locations beside large,major drainages
14
such as Montezuma Creek,Recapture Wash,and Cottonwood Wash.Two late Pueblo I
communities flank White Mesa:Climax Village is due west ofthe Mill property in Cottonwood
Wash,and Parker Village is nearly equidistant to the east in Recapture Wash.While no Pueblo I
period components are immediately apparent in the Cell 4B project area,Pueblo I period sites
have been excavated on the Mill property and in the nearby vicinity (e.g.Davis 1985;Talbot and
others 1982;Bussey n.d.in Hurst 1992:55).
Pueblo II Period
The Pueblo II period,which runs approximately from A.D.900 to A.D.1150,is
characterized by the so-called "Chaco phenomenon"(Irwin-Willianls 1972).This social
phenomenon had its apparent center in Chaco Canyon of northwestern New Mexico,but became
manifest across much of the northern Southwest.Community centers associated with the Chaco
phenomenon exhibited great variability in detail,but also regularity in architectural footprint.
These centers,often referred to as "great house"sites,generally include a great house,a great
Idva,one or more "roads"that approach the site,and large site-encircling earthen berms.Hurst
and Till (2009)describe how this "great house pattern"manifests itself in the project area.Most
pueblo communities associated with these centers,particularly those in southeastern Utall,
appear to consist of dispersed households or clusters ofhouseholds (Cameron 2009;Jalbert and
Cameron 2000;Mahoney 2000).
While still abiding by the Prudden unit pattern,household architecture was prone to
change during the Pueblo II period.For example,jacal structures of the preceding period are
replaced by above-ground masonry buildings and the pithouse structures assume the architectural
elements that define "kivas."The attributes that appear to be generally unique to kivas are
pilasters,which are indicative ofa different roofing technique,a southern recess,and a ventilator
system that usually articulates with the southern recess.
During the earlier years of the Pueblo II period,there appears to be high climatic
variability but a general increase in precipitation.The climate then appears to stabilize in the
latter part of the period and the relatively high amount of effective moisture is maintained.
Although these climatic variables seem to encourage a Pueblo II expansion into the higher
elevations up to just below 7000 feet,those areas around the Dolores and La Plata rivers are
abandoned (Hurst 1992;Rohn 1989).Indeed,there seems to be an overall increase in population
across much ofthe Four Corners region,the area ofthe project not excluded.In the later portion
of the Pueblo II period,the Cedar Mesa area west of Comb Ridge begins to be repopulated.
There is some debate with regard to the population density and settlement patterns ofthis period.
Some argue that,in spite of an overall population increase,there is a "dispersal"of the
population away from their aggregated villages of the Pueblo I period (Hurst 1992:59).However,
Rohn (1989:I57)believes that there could be an overall increase in the average Pueblo II
community size for the Four Corners area.
It is important to note here the presence of several Pueblo II period "community centers"
within the vicinity of the project area.One of these,which has been variously called Quartzite
Ruin,Black Mesa Ruin,and the Black Mesa Great House,lies due west of the project area on
Black Mesa.This site appears to be the closest known great house site to the project area.In
15
addition to the great house structure itself,the site is situated with a network of prehistoric roads
and associated sites (Hurst and Till 2009).Cottonwood Falls (42Sa5222)is arguably the largest
of the great house sites in southeastern Utah.This site lies to the northwest in Cottonwood
Canyon,and includes the great house,at least one great kiva,and an interesting complex of
prehistoric roads.Finally,to the nOlih,is the Edge of the Cedars Ruin (42Sa700),in Blanding,
Utah.This site includes a great house,a great kiva,and a possible prehistoric road (Hurst 2000).
All three of these sites may have figured prominently in the lives of the Pueblo II period
occupants of sites in the Ce1l4B project area.
Pueblo II period sites have been excavated near the project area (e.g.Baker 1990;Davis
1985;Firor and others 1998;Nielson and others 1985).The substantial Pueblo II ruin at the Edge
ofthe Cedars Museum in Blanding,Utah has been partially excavated.These efforts,however,
were poorly documented (Hurst and others 1995:15).Firor and others (1998)report on a middle
Pueblo II period site with a Mesa Verde-style kiva as well as a pitstructure that is executed in a
style typical of the Pueblo I period.Casjens (1980a)reports similar variability for pitstructures
excavated earlier on the White Mesa Mill property at two sites:42Sa7754 (Three Meter Isle)and
42Sa6437 (Proton Point).
Pueblo III Period
The Pueblo III period dates from approximately A.D.1150 to A.D.1300.This period
could be characterized as the greatest source of current interest and controversy for many
archaeologists.It certainly appears to have been a time of upheaval and/or change for at least
some of the populations with Puebloan affiliations.Hurst (1992:67)summarizes these changes,
observing that
...the Pueblo III period is characterized by localized abandonments and population
shifts;a concomitant decrease in the number and increase in the average size of
habitation sites (due in large part to the shift in large-community settlement
pattern from the great house community pattern to more intensive aggregation
into tightly-clustered complexes of contiguous households);widespread
intensification of the water and soil conservation technologies that appeared
during the previous period;the full flowering of the classic architectural-ceramic
complexes by which the Mesa Verde and Kayenta expression of the Anasazi
culture are best known (Kidder 1965);the extensive territorial expansion of the
Mesa Verdean architectural/ceramic complex;and the widespread occupation of
defensible locations and locations with dependable water sources during the
decades immediately preceding the general abandonment.
Pueblo III community structures are typically above-ground masonry rooms,often
contiguous with other rooms.These are truly "pueblo"structures,which are aggregations of
single rooms into room blocks,some of which are multistory.The pithouses (or kivas)are still
maintained as an important element of Anasazi architecture.An important and interesting
architectural element of the time is the "tower,"which is usually one or two stories in height and
generally circular.
16
The earlier half ofthis period is characterized by the apparent maintenance ofthe Chaco
phenomenon,albeit with differences.Often termed the "post-Chaco"period,it appears that at
least some of the region's great house sites are re-inhabited or at least reconfigured (Cameron
2009).However,by the mid-1200s,the great house phenomenon appears to be replaced by the
"Great Pueblo"way oflife (sensu Kantner 2004:159-181).
Scholars note an overall decrease in the number of habitation sites in the Four Corners
region during the Pueblo III period as populations aggregated into larger communities.Of
paJiicular note is the florescence of large pueblo communities in the Montezuma Valley area east
of the project area (e.g.Hurst 1992;Rohn 1989;Lipe and Ortman 2000).These Montezuma
Valley communities are often located on or near canyon rims (Lipe and Varien 1999).
Hurst and others (1995:16)note that although a number of large Pueblo III sites occur
around the edges of White Mesa,none of these has been the subject of extensive scientific
scrutiny.Two relatively large,late Pueblo III period sites are known in the immediate vicinity of
the Cell 4B project aJ'ea (Ruin Spring and Radon Ruin).Both sites are apparent villages in
canyon-head contexts and include towers in their architecture.Abajo Archaeology did a
thorough surface documentation of a Pueblo III site,known as "Moki Island,"just north of
Blanding (Montgomery and Montgomery 1988).Two Pueblo III cliff dwellings on White Mesa's
northwestern margin have been somewhat studied through excavation techniques.Excavations
have taken place at Westwater 5-Kiva Ruin but remain largely unrepOlied.This project
documented a 25-room pueblo that dated to the mid-1200s (Lindsay and Dykman 1978).Less
extensive,but better documented test excavations were undertaken at Big Westwater Ruin,a site
halfthe size of5-Kiva Ruin (Lindsay 1981).Big Westwater Ruin is located just a few kilometers
northwest ofthe White Mesa Mill.
More immediately,Neilson (1980)reports on an excavated site with apparent Pueblo III
period domestic features on the mill property.This site,42Sa6437 (Proton Point),yielded
evidence for pitstructures that were not typical of the Mesa Verde type kiva.One of these
features was recently excavated on the mill property at the late Pueblo III site,42Sa27732 (Till,
in progress).A late Pueblo III period site with a similar Mesa Verde type kiva was excavated by
Alpine Archaeology at 42Sa7660 (Happy Salamander Site),which is very near to the White
Mesa Mill (Greubel 1998).
Protohistoric Period
By the early BOOs the Puebloan depopulation of the Four Corners region was complete.
It seems likely that the local Anasazi population moved southward to join other pueblo groups in
the Rio Grande aJld Little Colorado River drainages.Hurst (1992:72)notes evidence of
occasional prehistoric Hopi,Zuni,and Jemez Pueblo ceremonial visits to the area.This evidence
manifests itself through pottery mtifacts and apparent shrines,and is underscored with verbal
accounts ofthese travels.
The dates for the entry of Athapaskan peoples into the Four Corners region are rather
uncertain.However,Spanish accounts from the early 1700s indicate that Ute and Navajo
("Dine")populations were inhabiting the area around the Sleeping Ute Mountain.
17
Historic Period
Little detail will be given here concerning the historic period of the project area,which
has been documented in other places (Davis and others 2003;Hurst and others 1993;McPherson
1995).Only eight previously documented sites on the mill property have been designated as
historic;ofthese,six sites lack diagnostic attributes to assign cultural affiliation.
Features associated with the Navajo and Ute peoples are steadily recelvmg more
recognition and understanding as archaeologists become more aware oftheir presence.A number
ofNative American historic sites have been recorded in the near vicinity of the project area (e.g.
Hurst 1981;Montgomery 1994;Westfall 1995).Only two sites have been assigned specific
cultural affiliations,one ofwhich is Navajo and the other is Ute.
Although it is apparent that the Spanish had some minimal knowledge of the area,it was
not until the 1850s that Anglo-Americans recorded their first visits to the area (McPherson
1995).The LC Ranch began its cattle operations in Recapture Wash below White Mesa in the
1870s.Settlement of the area began in earnest,however,in 1880 when Mormon settlers first
arrived at the present location of Bluff.Dissatisfied with the their environment,in 1904 a group
of Bluff Mormons headed north to the flats of White Mesa below the Abajo Mountains and
founded the community of Grayson (renamed Blanding).Soon after this date,the town of
Monticello was founded.The economy of these early towns,like many frontier communities,
initially revolved around land-based extractionist industries such as livestock,mining,and
timber.In addition to these industries,recreation is now rapidly becoming an economic mainstay
for the region,due in part to the public's fascination with the prehistoric occupants of the North
American Southwest.
18
Chapter 3:Previous Work in the Cell 4B Project Area
Down at the Mill:A Very Brief History of Archaeological Investigations Conducted on the
White Mesa Mill Property
The White Mesa Mill property has been the subject of varying degrees of scrutiny by
archaeologists in the past 30 years.Several archaeological surveys on the property have
documented scores of sites on the mill property (e.g.Berge 1975;Casjens and Seward 1980;
Fike and Lindsay 1976;Thompson 1977).Many ofthese sites have subsequently been tested and
excavated (Agenbroad and others 1981;Berge 1983;Casjens 1980a;Davis 1985;Lindsay 1978;
Nielson 1979;Sargent 1979;Till,in prep.).Excavated site data on the mill property are reported
in Table 3.The importance of these data is not to be trivialized-this data set constitutes one of
the larger bodies of excavated site data in the Four Comers region,and has the great potential to
inform archaeological research in ways that right-of-way projects cannot.
A relatively recent Class I inventory of this material by Davis and others (2003)
surmnarizes some of the gross survey data generated by these earlier efforts.Their summary
indicates that the highest proportion of components documented on White Mesa date to the
Pueblo II period (32%),followed by Pueblo I period components (24%),Pueblo III period
components (15%),and Basketmal<er III period components (14%)(Davis and others 2003:
Table 2).
We have compiled a site database that considered temporal components and functions
(Till 2009a:15-18).Using this database,Tables 4 and 5 illustrate the frequencies ofcomponents
and how these components cross-tabulate with function.Table 4 generally mirrors the results
obtained by Davis and others (2003),indicating that Pueblo II period sites are the most prevalent,
followed in frequency by Pueblo I,Basketmal<er III,and Pueblo III periods sites.However,it
also suggests that many ofthese sites were in use during important "transitional"times between
the highly generalized Pecos periods.Thus,under scrutiny,many of the sites may derive from
the late Basketmal<er III/early Pueblo I and late Pueblo I1early Pueblo II transitions.
Table 5 may indicate an important trend in settlement strategy as it is correlated with
time.Very tentatively,it appears as though there is a 2:I ratio of habitation sites to limited
activity sites for the Basketmal<er III,Pueblo II,and Pueblo III periods.In contrast,there is a 1:1
ratio of these site types in the Pueblo I period.However,Table 5 shows that the sample size of
pure Pueblo I period sites is fairly small relative to the less-defined "PI to PII"range of sites.A
greater understanding of the chronology of these sites may have significant bearing on
understanding changing settlement patterns through time.These changes may indicate
significantly different strategies for inhabiting and using the mesa's interior,which in turn,may
have significant implications for social structure and strategy as they are correlated with larger
historical trends in Puebloan history.
19
Table 3.Excavated Site Data,White Mesa Mill
Tested
Tested PI Unknown Antiquities Section Casiens 1980
Tested PIl-PIiI Limited Activity Anti uities Section Casiens 1980
Excavation Status Com onent Possible Function CompanY Author (Date)
Antiquities Section Sargent (1979
Plano Agenbroad and others (1981)
Aba"o Archaeoloav Till in orec.
8MIII Habitation
PI Unknown
late Pili Habitation
PII UnknownTested
Excavated
Excavated
Excavated
Site Number Site Name
425a6396
425a6403
425a6757
425a8014
425a9937 Aromatic VillaQe
425a7754 Three Meter Is[e
425a6385 Radon Ridge
425a6437 Proton Point
428a6388 Half-Ufe house
425a6387 Isotope Slope
425a6697 Reactor Ridge
425a6386 J/Psi Point
425a6686 Plasma Point
425a6436 Tailings Terrace
425a6435 Alpha House
425a6404 Barium Bottoms
425a6383
425a6685
425a7753
425a7870
425a8015
425a8017
425a6382
425a6381
425a6698
425a6420
425a6384
425a27732
20
Table 4.Site Components by Count and Percent,White Mesa Mill
Period N %
Archaic 2 0.8
Late Archaic to BMII 2 0.8
BMIII 14 5.8
BMIII to PI 24 10.0
PI 17 7.1
PI to PII 30 12.4
PII 35 14.5
PII to Pili 33 13.7
Pili 11 4.6
BMIII to PII 8 3.3
PI to PIli 8 3.3
BMIII to PIli 5 2.1
Pueblo,not further specified 2 0.8
Unknown Aboriginal 42 17.4
Historic,not further specified 5 2.1
Historic Navajo 1 0.4
Historic Ute 1 0.4
Historic Anglo 1 0.4
TOTAL 241 100.0
21
Table 5.Site Components by Possible Function,White Mesa Mill
c.Q
jji
C TOTALPeriod:0 -0ro:~<DI13.Qc"50'iii «c
~C -0 10 ~00
0 0-ro 10 <D
:0 00 E 2 c ro c 0ro'E i"-"'0ro<D ro =>cIC/)(j :::;(9 a ::>z
N %N %.N %N % N % N % N % N % N %
Archaic 2 100.0 2 100.0
Late Archaic to BMII 2 100.0 2 100.0
BMIII 9 64.3 1 7.1 4 28.6 14 100.0
BMIII to PI 20 83.3 4 18.7 24 100.0
PI 8 47.1 1 5.9 8 47.1 17 100.0
PI to PII 27 90.0 1 3.3 2 6.7 30 100.0
PII 23 65.7 1 2.9 9 25.7 1 2.9 1 2.9 35 100.0
PII to Pili 28 84.8 4 12.1 1 3.0 33 100.0
Pili 7 63.6 4 36.4 11 100.0
BMIII to PII 6 75.0 2 25.0 8 100.0
PI to PIli 7 87.5 1 12.5 8 100.0
BMIII to Pili 4 80.0 1 20.0 5 100.0
Pueblo,not further specified 2 100.0 2 100.0
Unknown Aboriginal 4 9.5 3 7.1 20 47.6 4 9.5 1 2.4 10 23.8 42 100.0
Historic,not further specified 2 40.0 1 20.0 2 40.0 5 100.0
Historic Navajo 1 100.0 1 100.0
Historic Ute 1 100.0 1 100.0
Historic Anglo 1 100.0 1 100.0
TOTAL 143 59.3 3 1.2 9 3.7 65 27.0 6 2.5 2 0.8 11 4.6 2 0.8 241 100.0
22
Archaeological Survey ofthe Cell 4B Project Area
In July,2008,Abajo Archaeology conducted a cultural resource inventory
(archaeological survey)ofthe area proposed for the construction and development ofCell 4B at
the Denison Mines (USA)White Mesa Mill.Archaeologist Mark Bond conducted the survey,
with assistance by Jonathan Till,who conducted follow-up work in the project area in the spring
of2009 (Till2009a).
A total of 14 sites were located or re-Iocated during the project's survey.However,the
sites in the project area proper are ten.These sites are:42Sa6393,42Sa6397, 42Sa6757,
42Sa8014,42Sa28128,42Sa28129,42Sa28130,42Sa28131,42Sa281 32,and 42Sa28134.Figure
2 illustrates these locations relative to the approximate Cell 4B boundary.At the time of this
writing (November,2009)we have not received a project area map showing the exact bounds of
the Cell 4B project area relative to UTM coordinates or legal land status coordinates,so our
Figure 2 is approximate,but based on our observations on the ground ofsurveyed comers.
Archaeological Testing Methods in the Cell 4B Project Area
Abajo Archaeology first generated base-line maps for each site.As each base-line map
was created,the field crew established a 4-meter metric grid on each site.Wooden grid stakes
were placed along one or more cardinal axes within the site.Each base-line map will be used to
guide,control,and report data recovery excavations on the site being investigated.
The 4-meter grid on each site will assist archaeologists in their efforts to provenience
artifacts and ecofacts fTom the site in question.Abajo Archaeology uses a provenience system
derived from the Dolores Archaeological Project (Wilshusen and others 2000)and Crow Canyon
Archaeological Center (200 I).This system is widely used in the Mesa Verde region;by using
this provenience system,we make this body of data comparable with a much larger data set
within the Four Comers region.The system basically assigns a unique number,a "provenience
designation"or "PD,"to a specific horizontal and vertical context on a site.Artifacts that are
found in that context are documented with a particular number for that specific provenience.
Figure 3 illustrates a hierarchical structure for our provenience system.The most
generalized unit of space at a site is,of course,the site number itself.After that,the PD system
recognizes generalized,overarching contexts within the site,called "study units."Table 6
describes the several kinds ofstudy units used in field documentation.
Several techniques,varying in intensity and destructiveness,were used to conduct
subsurface test investigations.The techniques may include auger probes,shovel probes,small
test trenches that usually measure no more than I square meter in area,backhoe trenches,and
even road maintainer scrapes.With a few exceptions,the general order of testing activities on
each site was:I)auger/shovel probes;2)test unit excavation and,when necessary,backhoe
excavation;3)road maintainer scrapes.These activities are described below.
23
Site
(site number)
1
Study Unit
(SUnumber)
1
Specific HorizontallYertical Provenience
(PD number)
Figure 3.Provenience Heirarchy,
White Mesa CeIl4B Project,Abajo Archaeology
Table 6.StudY Unit Tvpes
StudY Unit Tvpe Abbreviation Definition
General GEN Describes a general site context.Often used when
an obiect is disassociated from its oriainal context.
Structure STR Refers to an architectural context,usually a space
bounded by walls,floor,and roof.
Nonstructure NST Refers to a cultural entity,but nonarchitectural.
Such features would include middens and plazas.
ARB
This designation often applies to excavation units
Arbitrary that are exploratory in nature and subjectively,
often strategicallv,placed.
Backhoe Trench BHT Mechanically excavated,usually large,exploratory
units.
Auger Probe AUG Refers to a cvlindrical unit excavated bv an auaer.
Isolated Find ISO Usuallv used durina survev.
Other OTH Defined on a case by case basis.
24
Most sites were tested with auger probes.This excavation technique used an 8-in.auger
bits on a Bobcat tractor,and a 3 1/2-in.hand auger.Auger probes were usually excavated at two-
meter intervals.Field archaeologists occasionally "tightened"the spacing of these auger probes
to better identify the presence or absence of cultural deposits.Data that were recorded for each
auger probe included observations of sediment texture,color,the presence andlor absence of
cultural materials,and the nature ofother inclusions in the sediment.Fill from auger excavations
was screened through Yo-inch mesh.All artifacts retrieved from auger probes were provenienced
according to their individual auger probe (the "AUG"study unit-see Table 6),but no vertical
subdivision will be made in this provenience.These artifacts were collected for cataloging and,
at later dates,analysis and curation.Upon their completion,auger probes were backfilled for
reasons ofsafety.
Hand-excavated test units generally measured no more than I square meter in area.In
those instances where units were situated without knowing if the context being explored was a
cultural entity,those units were designated as arbitrary units,which are their own study units (or
"ARB"-see Table 6).In several instances,apparent midden areas were explored.These known,
nonstructural entities received their own study unit designations.Therefore,test units in the
middens are known only by their southwestern corner coordinates.Test unit excavations were
mostly conducted full-cut,i.e.,with no vertical subdivision.The fill from the test units were
screened through Yo-inch mesh.Like auger and shovel probes,cultural materials were collected
and provenienced with their associated test units.Stratagraphic data were recorded and,in those
instances where cultural stratigraphy was noted,one or more profiles were drawn and
photographed.Profile illustrations are provided in this report.
Tf no features were apparent on the surface,or discovered as the result of testing,a road
maintainer (i.e.road grader)was used to systematically scrape sediments from the surfaces of
sites,or in areas immediately surrounding sites,to remove A Horizon sediments that can obscure
subsurface feature outlines.The depths for road maintainer scrapes were finely adjusted to suit
the context.Archaeologist Mark Bond monitored all of the road maintainer scraping activities.
We were ably assisted by White Mesa Mill's heavy equipment operator,Tyrone Blackhorse,
who did superlative work.Artifacts observed in scraped fill or back-dirt,and not in the context of
an archaeological feature, were retrieved and provenienced with a general,sub-surface PD
(provenience designation)number established for that particular site.
When subsurface features were located,scraping ceased in that location.Artifacts
retrieved in association with the feature were assigned a general PD for that particular feature.
These features were assigned temporary "Discovery Feature"numbers.The plan views of these
features were briefly described in terms of color (but not with a Munsell color chart),size,and
shape.These data are recorded in this report in tabular format.A few features were subjected to
exploration with judgmental,hand-excavated test units to test for integrity and extent.
Abajo Archaeology made extensive and initial use of the road maintainer at two
previously investigated sites,42Sa6757 and 42Sa80l4.With the exception of 42Sa6757 and
42Sa80l4,road maintainers were only used after a site has been investigated with all other
testing techniques outlined above.With the exception of 42Sa6757 and 42Sa8014,a surface
25
collection of all artifacts in those gridded portions of the site to be scraped was be made;these
artifacts were provenienced according to their location within the 4-m grid established on the
sites.
We used a backhoe at 42Sa6393 to re-open backhoe trenches that had been previously
excavated by the Antiquities Section to test the sites.Archaeologist Mark Bond was present to
monitor all bacldl0e excavations,again conducted by Tyrone Blackhorse.One new backhoe
trench was excavated at 42Sa6393 to investigate the ridgeline on the west side of the project
area.The details of these activities are discussed below with the site's testing results.Artifacts
observed in the course of backhoe excavations were collected,but assigned only a general
provenience.For backhoe work,this provenience was according to the particular trench (the
"BHT"study unit-see Table 6).
Archaeological Testing Results in the Cell 4B Project Area
As noted earlier,14 sites were originally located on the White Mesa Mill property for the
Cell 4B Project.As four of these sites (42Sa6391,42Sa6392,42Sa6431,and 42Sa28133)are
outside ofthe Cell 4B bounds,these were removed from consideration for archaeological testing.
However,in an effort to protect these sites during construction activities,Denison Mines has
arranged for Abajo Archaeology staffto erect plastic barrier fence around the sites'perimeters.
Evaluative testing was conducted on 42Sa6393,42Sa6397,42Sa6757,42Sa80l4,
42Sa28128,42Sa28129,42Sa28l30,42Sa2813I,42Sa28132,and 42Sa28l34.The kinds of
testing activities for each site were defined in Abajo Archaeology's testing proposal (Till and
others 2009).The results of the this evaluative testing are reported specifically for each site
below.
Tables 7 and 8 tally the features discovered during the test excavations ofthe sites in the
Cell 4B project area.Table 7 enumerates the total number of subsurface features (n =78)
discovered during the course ofarchaeological testing.Three other known or anticipated features
are present at 42Sa6397 (including an anticipated jacal surface structure and two small pit
features).Most or all of the features found at 42Sa80l4,42Sa28l28 -42Sa28132,and
42Sa28133 are relatively small features (e.g.firepits,"burned areas,"and postholes).
Sites 42Sa6757,42Sa6393,42Sa6397,and 42Sa28l29 yielded evidence of intensive use
and occupation by prehistoric peoples.Table 8 summarizes the pit structures (n=lO)located
during testing.These include eight or nine pithouses.Eight of the nine features are found within
the western half of Cell 4B.This is an important point to raise for the project's scheduling
purposes-initial work will be focused on the eastern half of the Cell 4B project area.
Consequently,we propose to concentrate initial data recovery work in this pOliion of the cell.
The one pit structure at 42Sa28l29,which lies in the eastern half of the cell,will have priority
for investigation.Conveniently,most of the pit structures,features which typically require
considerable time to excavate,are located at sites (42Sa6393 and 42Sa6397)found on the
ridgeline that extends along the western edge ofthe project area.
26
Table 7.Discovery Feature
Counts by Site,White Mesa
Mill Cell 48 Project
Discovery
Site Number Features
(N)
42Sa6393 10
42Sa6397 12
42Sa6757 22
42Sa28128 7
42Sa28129 10
42Sa28130 3
42Sa28131 1
42Sa28132 12
42Sa28134 1
TOTAL 78
Tabie 8.Pit Structure Counts bv Site,White Mesa Cel14B Proiect
Site Pit
Number Structure Comments
Counts
Two (one burned,one unburned)of the
42Sa6757 3 features are probable pithouses;the
fourth is a small pit structure (ca.2 m in
diameter)
42Sa6393 4 All four are probable pithouses (one
burned,three unburned)
42Sa6397 1 Unburned possible pithouse
42Sa28129 1 Small,unburned pit structure (ca.2.5 to 3
m in diameter)
TOTAL 9
27
A single site,42Sa6393,yielded evidence for an extensive,though shallow (ca.10 to 20
cm thick),midden (formal "trash"deposits).This site also has a relatively well preserved
prehistoric ground surface.We anticipate that the site will yield a number of other small pit
features,and perhaps an additional pithouse.
Before proceeding further,we should note that no human remains were located during the
course oftesting activities.
Site 42Sa6393
Site 42Sa6393 was recorded as a scatter of pottery and lithic artifacts that is located just
west of the crest of a finger-ridge on the north end of the project area (Figure 2)(Till 2009a).
Evaluative testing has demonstrated the presence of at least four pithouses,two middens
(Nonstructures I and 2),and indications of a well-preserved prehistoric ground surface (Figure
4).
The site was initially recorded by Thompson (1977),and tested by the Antiquities Section
in spring of 1978 (Lindsay 1978).However,Antiquities Section archaeologists apparently
combined it with 42Sa6391,which is about 100 meters to the west.Further compounding the
problem,the site designation "42Sa6393"was applied to a locus ofcultural materials well to the
south of Thompson's 42Sa6393.Apparently,Thompson's site 42Sa6397 was misidentified as
42Sa6393 (Till2009a:22,34-35).
We believe that tl1ree parallel backhoe trenches were excavated by the Antiquities
Section to test this location for significant subsurface cultural materials (Lindsay 1978;Nielson
1979);however,only two of the trenches were actually reported (Till and others 2009).Nielson
(1979)reported the presence of a pit structure in one of the trenches,but did not indicate which
trench.We re-excavated these trenches to establish the location of this pit structure (discussed
below).
Bond originally recorded two concentrations of artifacts (Artifact Clusters 1 and 2)for
the site.During evaluative testing these concentrations were dete=ined to be probable middens,
and were designated Nonstructures 1 and 2,respectively (Figure 4).Evaluative testing has
demonstrated that both study units are indeed shallow middens.
Evaluative testing activities on the site included controlled surface collections,auger
probes,test unit excavations, backhoe trench excavations,and blading.These activities resulted
in the location of 10 discovery features (Table 9).
Surface Collections
Surface collections focused on a 28-by 32-m block in the Nonstructure 2 area (Figure 4).
These collections were made prior to the passage of heavy machinery in the northeast portion of
28
428a6393
l'a 10 m .180N
100E --
•l80N
144E
•lOON
168E
artifact
scatter
boundary
\
/
\
\
\
\
/
~ARB2/~84N •144E __-
o 0
o 0 0 0
000
o 0 0 a
000
o a 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0 0
000
?0 0 0
,0 a 0
0\0 0 0
Q 0 0 I
-:--1/BHT4.
~
o 0
o
o 0
D3-Jg
o
,,
\100N
100E
,
'---..
•84N...............
100E
/
/,,
I
I
I
I
\
\
\
\
\
/"_0000000000
0000000000
'0000000000
0000000000
J-0-o ...ooaooooo
/',0 0 0 0 a 0
~D10--:~Ooooooo
NST1<...\'o~o 00 a
\''}OOOOO
\ •0,0 0 0 0 0 0
'0 /OOOoaO,/......~_0 a 0 00 00
\
/
000000000000000
o 0 0 0 O:c~0jg0~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~o 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0
collection 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0...0-0-0..0 BHT3~oooo_o..o~ooo~BHgridarea"'-..r=..::...;.,:-:o...:~..:c=;5;?:;::::::;"':;::ll~"
D9U \
D6Q ODs 1°0\
•0 a,
\0
BHTl 0 00\
o 0
o 0
o 0
old survey datum ARB#arbitrary unit
grid stake QZCr trench fill berm
auger probe BHT#backhoe trench
nonstructure (midden)0 possible pithouse
test unit
\
/
o
I
o
\
I
KEY
'"
NST
100N.
80E
Figure 4.Site 42Sa6393,Testing Results
29
Tab[e 9.D[scovery Features,Site 42Sa6393
#Shape Size (m)Descript[on._...
Small cluster of sherds;-a shiipedstone disk,and a probable
.
artiodactyl foot bone.The sherds appearto be from the shoulder and
1 Unknown Unknown neck of a white ware olla.The shaped stone disk may have served as
,a jar lid.Thus,this feature may represent a buried pottery vessel that
has vet to be fullv defined._._...~
2 Amorphous Ca.0.5 in diameter Light gray sediment stain.
3 Unknown Unknown Possible slab-lined pit feature found in 1-by 1-m unit N115/E115.._
This is the west-most feature in BHT 1.[n profile it appears as a pit
4 Unknown Unknown feature with a width of about 90 em.It could be a relatively small pit
feature or pit structure,or it could represent the corner ofa pithouse.
1------....--.-....._-..........._............_........-_..~~
This is an apparent circular feature discovered in the floor of BHT 1.It
5 Circular Ca.0.6 in diameter may be an oddly oriented vent shaft associated with Discovery
Feature 6,a probable oithouse.
This is an apparent pithouse bisected by BHT 1.[t appears to be the
6 Unknown At least 2.5 in diameter southern portion of the structure.While its shape is not definite,it
appears to be sub-rectangular.The room appears to be unburned.
7 Unknown Ca.1.0 in diameter This is an apparent unburned pit feature that was bisected by BHT 1.
The feature mav be a bell-shaoed oit or somethina similar.
This is an apparent unburned pit structure that was bisected by BHT
8 Unknown At least 2.5 in diameter 1.It may be an unburned pithouse.Artifacts were observed
associated with its fill..-..-
9 Unknown At [east 2.6 in diameter This is an apparent pithouse bisected by BHT 2.The room appears to
..be unbLJ,!,~d.__._.......__........____.._..__............__.
This is a burned pit structure found in the NW corner of the site.The
10 Unknown Ca.3.5 in diameter feature is associated with Nonstructure 1,a discrete midden area.
The feature is burned,and mav be a oithouse.
30
this area,and III anticipation of later,more intensive work III Nonstructure 2 during data
recovery.
Relative to other sites in the project area,surface collections recovered a high number of
artifacts.Artifact types include pottery,lithic debitage,and ground stone.An informal
assessment ofthe pottery assemblages from both middens are representative ofmiddle Pueblo II
period occupation (i.e.the middle decades ofthe IIth century).
Auger Probes
Auger probes were excavated by two means,by machine and by hand.A total of 302
auger probes,illustrated in Figure 4,were excavated by these methods.Auger probe excavations
located a probable burned pit structure (Discovery Feature 10)in the northwestern portion of the
site (Figure 4 and Table 9).The feature is located in the eastern margin of a discrete sheet
midden,Nonstructure 1.It seems likely that activities associated with the occupation of DF-I 0
resulted in these midden deposits.
Test Units
Five test units were excavated,the locations and dimensions of which are provided in
Table 10 and Figure 4.In Nonstructure I,Unit NI501E102 demonstrated the presence of a
shallow but significant midden deposit.Documented as Stratum 1 in Figure 5,this cultural
deposit is a loose,light brown (no Munsell)sandy clay loam with large quantities of pottery,
lithic debitage,and ground stone artifacts.Also observed were burned adobe,charcoal,and non-
human bone.This stratum is about 5 cm deep.Stratum 2 is a moderately compact,relatively
homogenous reddish brown (no MUllsell)sandy clay loam with a relatively higher clay content.
While the first 5 cm of this sediment yielded artifacts,no cultural materials were found below
this.Some rodent disturbance was observed in association with Stratum 2.
Table 10.Test Unit Location,Size,and Orientation,
Site 42Sa6393
Study
Unit SW Corner Size Orientation
NST 1 N150/E102 1-by 1-rn north-to-
south
NST2 N115/E115 1-by 1-m north-to-
south
NST2 N120/E104 1-by 1-m north-to-
south
NST2 N119/E120 1-by 1-m north-to-
south
ARB2 N94/E144 0.5-by 2.0-east-to-westm
31
428a6393
NST1
TEST UNIT,N150/E102
WEST WALL PROFILE--o SOcm
Datum
N1S0
E102 &,------------~.level line
t~===:::2:::=:Jr-~MGS
slightly oxidized rock
Figure 5.Site 42sa6393,NST 1,Test Unit,West Wall Profile.
32
Three test units were placed within Nonstructure 2.Two of the units (Unit N115/E115
and NI20/EI04)were emplaced to characterize the depth of the midden deposits.Unit
N115/E115 also yielded evidence of an intact prehistoric ground surface,which warranted the
excavation of Unit NI19/EI20,which attempted to characterize the horizontal extent of this
intact surface.
Unit N115/E115 yielded evidence of a shallow midden and prehistoric ground surface
(Figure 6).Stratum I consists of a very loose,reddish brown (5YR 4/4)sand with relatively high
quantities of cultural materials.This stratum is only 2 to 3 cm thick.Stratum 2 is a loose,dark
reddish brown (2.5YR 3/4)sandy clay loam with high quantities of cultural materials that
include pottery and lithic debitage.Stratum 2 measures 5 to 10 cm thick.Stratum 3 represents the
apparent prehistoric ground surface.This sediment is mottled by flecks of caliche,but is
generally yellowish red (5YR 5/6).The surface is distinguished by the presence of several flat-
lying artifacts and Discovery Feature 3,a possible slab-lined pit feature.In profile,this surface is
only 2 to 3 cm thick.Stratum 4 underlies this surface and consists of an extremely compact,red
(2.5YR 4/6)sediment that is void ofcultural materials.
Unit N120/El 04 indicates only slightly thicker midden deposits in the western portion of
Nonstructure 2 (Figure 6).Stratum I consists of a loose,red (2.5YR 5/6)sandy clay loam with
some artifacts.This stratum is about 5 cm thick.Stratum 2 is a compact,red (2.5YR 5/8),sandy
clay loam with moderate amounts of cultural materials that include pottery and lithic debitage.
Flecks of caliche and small pebbles are also present in the sediment.Stratum 2 is 5 to 10 cm
thick.Stratum 3 is a compact,light red (2.5YR 6/8)sandy clay loam with flecks ofcaliche and a
higher clay content.No cultural materials were recovered from this sediment.
Unit NI19/E120 was excavated to better understand the potential for the prehistoric
ground surface's lateral extent (Figure 6).Stratum 1 consists ofa very loose,yellowish red (5YR
4/6),sandy clay loam with some artifacts and organic duff.This sediment ranges from 3 to 5 cm
thick.Stratum 2 is a moderately compact,yellowish red (5YR 4/6)silt with abundant amounts of
cultural materials.It measures 10 to 15 cm tllick.Stratum 2 has a distinct and flat boundary with
the underlying Stratum 3.Stratum 3 is composed of a very compact,dark red (2.5YR 4/8)
sediment that is void of artifacts;however,a few flecks of charcoal were observed near the
sediments contact with Stratum 2.While no flat-lying artifacts were observed in association with
the contact between Strata 2 and 3,the nature of this contact suggests the possibility that the
prehistoric ground surface could still exist in this location,and that no significant disturbances
have obscured this contact.
Arbitrary Unit 2 is a test unit that was excavated in the southeast corner of the site
(Figure 4 and Table 10).This unit was established to investigate a low density scatter of
sandstone rock and artifacts.Four strata were defined by the unit (Figure 7).Stratum 1 consists
of a very loose,reddish brown (5YR 4/4)sandy clay loam with moderate amounts of organic
detritus.Stratum 2 is a moderately compact,yellowish red (5YR 5/6)sandy clay loam;one
artifact was observed with this stratum.Stratum 3 is a moderately compact,red (2.5YR 4/6)
sandy clay loam;one small flal<e was recovered from Stratum 3.Root and rodent disturbance is
evident in this stratum.Stratum 4 is a very compact,yellowish red (5YR 4/6),silt with no
artifacts or other inclusions..
33
42Sa6393
TEST UNIT PROFILES IN NST 2
_...1M
o 50cm
TEST UNIT N115/E1l5
SOUTH WALL PROFILE
level line _.---------/1
MG~~4 :;=_?3
TEST UNIT N120/El04
SOUTH WALL PROFILE
datum
N1l5
E115
]
datum
/eve/
line rF:::::::::::::2~==:~::=:::::-~:=_;=;~~~~MGS
TEST UNIT N120/E121
NORTH WALL PROFILE
N120E120 .~--------~./evelline
MGS--t:17
Figure 6.Site 42Sa6393,NST 2,Test Unit Profiles.
34
428a6393
ARB 2 PROFILE
o ......
SOcm
NORTH WALL PROFILE
level line _.~.N94.5
E146
Figure 7.Site 42Sa6393,ABR 2,Profile.
35
Backhoe Trenches
Four backhoe trenches (BHT)were excavated,or re-excavated,on the site (Figure 4).As
noted above,we suspect that three of these trenches were dug by Antiquities Section
archaeologists,though we could only find documentation for two of them (Lindsay 1978:71;
Nielson 1979:19-24).All three trenches have an east-to-west orientation,are parallel to each
other,and are found in the approximate center ofthe site.Nielson and Lindsay indicated that the
trenches were nearly the same length (7 to 8 m);since these are at variance with the north-most
trench (BHT 3),which is significantly longer,we believe that BHT I and 2 correspond with the
reported trenches.We are unsure as to which of BHT I and 2 contained the reported pit structure
since both trenches provided evidence of pit structures (described below).BHT 4 is a newly
excavated trench.This is a north-to-south oriented trench that is situated in the southeast portion
ofthe site.Each backhoe trench is discussed below.
BHT I is the southmost of the t1n'ee previously excavated trenches (Figure 4).It is about
22 m in length and reached a maximum depth of about 120 em below modern ground surface;
the trench was extended beyond its original length on either side to look for more features.
Indeed,five subsurface features (Discovery Features 4 through 8)were found in the trench.
These are discussed below,following a description ofthe trench's stratigraphy.
Four strata were basic to BHT I (Figure 8).Missing from this description is the surficial
duff.-tllese sediments had effectively been removed along the margins of BHT I before the
profile could be documented.Since the sediments here are comparable to those in BHT 2,we
start our profile in BHT I with Stratum 2.Stratum 2 consists of a moderately compact,yellowish
red (5YR 4/6)sandy clay loam with occasional caliche inclusions,charcoal,and artifacts.As this
sediment overlies the perimeters of most or all of the features found in BHT I,this stratum is
probably a post-occupational sediment.This sediment appears to vary in thickness from IO to 30
cm,but is typically 20 em thick.The contact between Stratum 2 and the underlying Stratum 3
probably represents the prehistoric ground surface.
Stratum 3 is a very compact,reddish yellow (5YR 6/6)sandy clay loam with greater
amounts of caliche.No artifacts or charcoal were observed in this stratum.Cultural features had
been excavated into this stratum and into the underlying Stratum 4.Stratum 3 seems to range in
thickness from 30 to 50 em.
Stratum 4 is a very compact,pink (5YR 7/4)clayey silt that is dominated by caliche.No
artifacts or charcoal were observed in this stratum.This sediment seems to form between 50 and
70 cm below modern ground surface.
As noted above,five discovery features were located in BHT I.The fill for Discovery
Feature 4 is documented in Figure 8 as Stratum 5.As noted in Table 9,the size ofthis feature is
unknown-it may represent a small,subsurface pit feature that measures about 90 cm in
diameter and may "bottom out"at 25 cm below its surface of origin at the contact between
Stratum 2 and 3.However,the feature as its revealed in the profile may be the corner of a much
42Sa6393
BHT 1,PROFILES AND PLAN VIEW
DISCOVERY FEATURES 4THROUGH 8
o SO em
A'
I
4
DF-4
~
BACKHOETRENCH 1,NORTH WALL PROFILE MGS
MGS _3 ,---~~
•-~--5---·2 3 2 ..3 \3 b 9
A 3 4 6 _---F--:-~
"'............7 4
............-..,
DF-6 DF-7BACKHOETRENCH1,PLAN VIEW DF -S
-4 8 'I ,\{R}617 4 l 8 -.-J 3~old backhoe trench '~____I.~,..,
s s'
N124
E106 Window excavated into
south waH of BHT 1to
expose southern edge
ofold backhoe trench,
Southern edge of
old backhoe trench.
N124
E12S
BACKHOETRENCH,PORTION OF SOUTH WALL PROFILE
B'
MGS 2 2
":CJ\3.'
------',,,
,~
s
A,Al AND a,BI
DF-#...
<Ill>
s
b,
{R\-'
profile locations
discovery feature
indistinct stratum boundary
ash lens
rock
sherd
flake
bone
rodent disturbance
FIGURE 8.Site 42Sa6393,Backhoe Trench 1,Profiles and Planview.
37
larger pit structure.The fill in the feature consists ofa yellowish red (5YR 4/6)sandy clay loam
with flecks ofcaliche and an occasional pocket of ashy soil.
Discovery Feature 5 was apparent in the bottom of BHT I,but was not observed in the
trench's profile (Figure 8).This apparently circular feature was also cut by the original backhoe
trench excavated by the State.The fill,represented by Stratum 10,consists of a yellowish red
(5YR 4/6 or 5/6)silt with flecks and small chunks of caliche.One possible sandstone cobble was
noted in the feature.Discovery Feature 5 may represent a separate,very deep subsurface pit
feature.An alternative interpretation is that the feature could be a vent shaft associated with
nearby Discovery Feature 6.
Discovery Feature 6 was observed in both the north wall profile of BHT I as well as in
the trench's bottom (Figure 8).Table 9 notes that the feature is probably an unburned,deep
pithouse.The subsurface room has essentially vertical walls that are cut into the Stratum 4
sediment.Based upon the profile,the structure's subsurface walls are at least 45 cm high.The
structure's floor is not apparent in the bottom of the trench (see Figure 8 and compare profile
with plan view).However,the room does seem to suddenly constrict,indicating that the trench
may have clipped the very southem edge ofthe pit structure.Although the room constricts,the
plan view suggests a southwest "extension"of the structure,perhaps an antechamber.As noted
above,the inunediately adjacent DF-5 could be associated with the room,perhaps as an oddly
placed vent shaft.
The fill in DF-6 consists oftwo similar strata,Strata 6 and 7.Stratum 6 is a yellowish red
(5YR 5/6),silt with occasional flecks and chunks ofcaliche.Stratum 6 overlies Stratum 7,which
is found on the east side of the feature (Figure 8).The boundary between the two strata is
indistinct.Stratum 7 is essentially the same,though its structure and position tentatively suggest
that this sediment may represent melted roofand/or wall fall debris.
Discovery Feature 7 is also present in BHT l's north wall profile and its bottom (Figure
8).Both the profile and the plan view suggest that this is a pit feature with vertical walls that
were dug into the caliche-rich Stratum 4.The feature appears to be about I m wide.Table 9
indicates that the feature may be a bell-shaped pit;although the walls do not "bell,"their
relatively narrow width suggest that this feature is not associated with a habitation,but perhaps
some other function such as storage.It is interesting to note that the plan view suggests the
possibility that the feature just starts to widen to the south (Figure 8).Stratum 8 describes the
feature's fill.This sediment is a yellowish red (5YR 5/6)silt with chunks of caliche.No artifacts
were observed.Above Stratum 4,the lateral boundary between the feature's fill and Stratum 3 is
indistinct.Similarly,the feature's articulation with Stratum 2 is also unclear,making the
feature's surface oforigin all but certain.
Discovery Feature 8 is east ofD-7,and is observable in BHT I's north and south profiles,
as well as some of the trench's plan view (Figure 8).As noted in Table 9,the feature is an
apparent pit structure,and probably a pithouse.The feature's vertical walls were evidently
excavated into both Strata 3 and 4.The floor of the feature is also apparent,indicating that the
structure had been excavated below the prehistoric ground surface by about 60 cm.The feature's
fill,represented by Stratum 9,consists of a yellowish red (5YR 4/6)silt that contains flecks of
38
charcoal and chunks of caliche.Artifacts and ash-stained soil were noted throughout,but
paliicularly along the bottom of the structure on the feature's west side (Figure 8).The small
"window"of D-8's fill in the south wall profile suggests that this is a remnant of the room's
southwest comer;thus,it appeal's that the south portion of the room was taken out by the
backhoe trench's excavation.Artifacts observed in association with D-8 include pottery,lithic
debitage,and non-human bone.
BHT 2 is located about 7 m nOlih of BHT I.The trench is approximately 7 m long,
approximately the same length as the previously excavated trench,and reached a maximum
depth of 90 cm below modem ground surface.One pit feature,Discovery Feature 9,was
observed in the trench and is discussed further below.
Discovery Feature 9 is an apparent pithouse (Figure 9 and Table 9).The structure is
defined in the south profile of BHT 2,which yielded four strata.Stratum I is a loose,strong
brown (7.5YR 4/6-slightly damp)silty loam.No aliifacts,charcoal,or caliche was observed
with Stratum I.This stratum,which measures 5 to 20 cm thick,represents the surface sediment.
Stratum 2 is a slightly hard,yellowish red (5YR 4/6-slightly damp)silt.Roots are present,and
occasional flecks of caliche were observed.This stratum represents a post-abandonment
sediment that partially filled the depression left by the pithouse.The contact between Stratum 2
and Stratum 4 represents the prehistoric ground surface into which the structure had been
excavated.Stratum 3 represents the fill ofthe structure.This stratum consists of a yellowish red
(5YR 5/6)silt.Occasional flecks of charcoal and caliche,as well as a few artifacts,were noted as
inclusions in this stratum.Some of the sediments may represent superstructural fill.Stratum 4 is
a very hard,yellowish red (5YR 5/6)silt with ribbons of caliche.This sediment represents the B
Horizon.
Discovery Feature 9 was excavated into Stratum 4 to a depth of about 40 cm below
prehistoric ground surface.Based on the profile,the feature appears to be about 2.6 m in
diameter.Since the feature was only exposed in the south face ofthe trench,the very north edge
of the structure was clipped by the trench.If the structure is circular in shape,then its width
could be larger than it appears in the profile.The eastern side of the structure's profile suggests
that the room may have had a low encircling bench.Slumped,caliche-rich sediments on the west
side of the D-9 profile may represent some structural collapse of the bench or perhaps rooffall.
The structure does not appear to have burned.If structural members had been removed,this
might account for the slump or collapse ofthe caliche-rich sediment.
Two other backhoe trenches,BHT 3 and 4,were excavated on the site.Since neither of
these yielded evidence of cultural materials,the profiles ofthese trenches were not drawn.One
of these,BHT 3,we believe had been excavated by the Antiquities Section but went unreported.
The trench was re-excavated,but no cultural stratigraphy was observed in the trench.The trench
is just north of BHT 2 and measures about 22.5 m long.BHT 4 was excavated for this project.It
is a north-to-south oriented trench that measures about 52 m long.We situated this trench along
the crest of the ridgeline to test whether subsurface cultural features had been placed along this
high point.No cultural stratigraphy was observed in BHT 4.Thus,it seems that most ofthe site's
occupation was focused on the gentle slope just west ofthe ridge's crest.
42Sa6393
BHT 2,DISCOVERY FEATURE 9
SOUTH WALL PROFILE
o -SOem
E121 E120 El19 EllS Ell?
I [!...1 I
---.=1----=-------~----w
'"
2
•sherd
4
3
4
pit house basin
Figure 9.Site 42Sa6393,Backhoe Trench 2,Discovery Feature 9,Profile.
40
Blading
The landscape immediately south of the NI00 line,east of the EI48 line,and the
northeastern corner of the site (nOlih of BHT 3)was bladed by a road grader.These activities
resulted in the location of two features,Discovery Features 1 and 2.These features are
summarized in Table 9.Field Director Mark Bond noted that a cluster of Brushy Basin chert
cores (n=7)and associated debitage came to light in the 4-by 4-m grid unit NI08/EI36,
indicating a locus of lithic reduction activity associated with one material type.Other artifacts
were retrieved during blading activities,including pottery,lithic debitage,ground stone,an
historic rifle cartridge,and a tchamahia fragment.
Site 42Sa6397
Site 42Sa6397 lies on the same ridge crest as 42Sa6393 (Figure 2).The site was
originally recorded by Thompson (1977),but was erroneously tested under the site number
42Sa6393 by the Antiquities Section in 1978 (Dykman 1978b).Confusing the issue further,
Nielson (1979:51-52)reports that he revisited 42Sa6397 and determined that testing or further
mapping of the site was not required.We can only speculate that Nielson encountered
42Sa28132,which is indeed a sparse scatter of artifacts.Till (2009:37-40)describes the history
ofsite number conflation in greater detail in the project's recent archaeological survey report.
The Antiquities Section excavated seven backhoe trenches to test the site for significant
stratigraphy or subsurface features.Two ofthe trenches located subsurface cultural features,both
ofwhich were classified as "storage pits"(Dykman 1978b).
The site measures about 60 meters in diameler (Figure 10).The site was re-recorded as a
scatter of pottery,chipped stone debitage,and a number of lithic tools.Two concentrations of
cultural materials were defined and are referred to as AIiifact Clusters 1 and 2 (AC-I and AC-2).
A concentration ofburnedjacal,Feature I,is contained within AC-l.Previous investigations on
the site are apparent by the presence of a steel,3/4 pipe datum.The faint renmants of the seven
backhoe trenches,which were apparently backfilled,are barely visible.A collector pile in AC-2
included plain gray pottery and a neckbanded sherd.Additionally,a collector pile at the site
datum included pottery and lithic artifacts.
The site's pottery assemblage suggests at least two components:a substantial
Basketmaker III component and a relatively minor Pueblo II component.However,the site's
occupation may be more complex.Neckbanded pottery,and the red ware,may signal an
intermediate occupation during the Pueblo I period.
Evaluative testing activities on the site included controlled surface collections,auger
probes,test unit excavations,and blading.These activities resulted in the location of 10
discovery features (Table 11).
41
x D-10 428a6397
200N.
100E
KEY..old sUedatum
grid slake
(>auger probe
OF #discovery feature
=testunil
"previous backhoe trench
\
\
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
74~'D-l1ARB?1 °7
00 ~q.oooo 0'fo-o 00000
/
\
\
~'rtif'"___scatler
\boundary
/
\
\
\
\
\
,,
,ARB 2 ~jacal
I =~concentration,,,,
"...fr _.......
ARB3
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
0000000
000001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 00 0000
O~ffAl'B%0D-12 \o 0 0 0
ARB 5 ~_~:o.ARB"!
0000000
I
'/
/'
~•...ill
/
/
\
I
{
\
100N.
100E
100N
140E
Figure 10.Site 42Sa6397,Testing Results
42
Table 11.Discovery Features,Site 42Sa6397
#Shape Size (m)Description
1 Amorphous Ca.0.45 in diameter Light gray sediment stain.
2 Amorphous Ca.0.25 in diameter Light gray sediment stain.
3 Amorphous Ca.0.6 in diameter Gray sediment stain.
4 Amorphous Ca.0.15 in diameter Light gray sediment stain.
5 Oval Ca.0.55 (N/S)by 0.35 (E/W)Gray sediment stain.Probable firepit.
6 Not recorded Ca.0.2 in diameter Dark gray sediment stain.
Large sediment stain,varying in degrees of gray.A
dark gray sediment stain with charcoal is in the NW
7 Oval Ca.4 (N/S)by 5 (EIW)quadrant of the feature.This sediment stain was
tested with ARB 8,which indicated a firepit or
roastina pit that measures 1 m in diameter.
8 Amorphous Ca.0.45 in diameter Dark gray sediment stain with charcoal.
9 Amorphous Ca.0.4 in diameter Gray sediment stain.
10 Amorphous Ca.0.4 in diameter Light gray sediment stain.
This is the possible pithouse found in ARB 7.Auger
probes suggest that the feature's fioor is about 1 m
11 Unknown Ca.4.5 in diameter below modern ground surface,or 0.8 m below
prehistoric ground surface.The feature is probably
unburned.
This is a possible masonry surface room found in
ARB 4,5,and 6.The feature consists of a scatter of
mostly small,unshaped sandstone blocks.One
12 Unknown Ca.2.0 in diameter edge-scabbled slab,perhaps a "door"slab,was
also documented.No surface of origin was visually
identifiable,though it is probably about 30 cm below
modern around surface.
Surface Collection
Controlled surface collections on the site occurred in 4-by 4-m units between grid lines
NI12 and N148.These surface collections resulted in a variety of artifact types including
pottery,lithic debitage,and ground stone artifacts.The grid unit at N136/E112 included a
collectors pile near the site's old survey datum.
Auger Probes
Auger probes were excavated by two means,by machine and by hand.A total of 101
auger probes,illustrated in Figure 10,were excavated by these methods.Field archaeologist
Gary Duncan recommended supplemental auger probes in the vicinity ofwhat became Discovery
Feature II.
Test Units
Seven test units were excavated,the locations and dimensions of which are provided in
Table 12 and Figure 10.These units were documented as ARB 2 through ARB 8.Their
descriptions follow.
43
Table 12.Test Unit Location,Size,and Orientation,
Site 42Sa6397
Study
Unit SW Corner Size Orientation
ARB2 N116/E129 0.5-by 2.0-east-to-westm
ARB 3 N111/E128 1-by1-m north-to-
south
ARB4 N138/E111 0.5-by 2.0-east-to-westm
ARB5 N138/E109 0.5-by 2.0-east-to-westm
ARB6 N138.5/E111 0.5-by 2.0-north-to-
m south
ARB 7 N118/E108 0.5-by 6.0-north-to-
m south
ARB 8 N178/E114 0.5-by 2.0-north-to-
m south
Arbitrary Units 2 and 3 were situated in a concentration of jacal found in the southeast
comer of the site (Figure 10),which was identified as "Feature I"during the Cell 4B cultural
inventory (Till 2009a:38).Figure II documents the profile of ARB 2.Stratum I is a loose,
reddish yellow (5YR 6/6),sandy clay loanl with small amounts ofsandstone gravel and pebbles.
This surface sediment is only about 5 cm thicle Stratum 2 is a very compact,yellowish red (5YR
4/6),sandy clay loam with a few artifacts and small pieces ofadobe.The east halfofthe unit was
excavated a little fmiher in an attempt to understand the location of the B Horizon and the
prehistoric ground surface,neither ofwhich were located.
Arbitrary Unit 3 did better.This unit's profile documents four strata (Figure II).Stratum
I consists ofa loose,reddish brown (5YR 4/4),sandy clay loam with organic detritus,occasional
artifacts,and small fragments of adobe.This surficial duff is only about 5 cm thick.Stratum 2
consists of compacted,thin laminae of yellowish red (5YR 4/6),aeolian silt.No artifacts were
present,but fragments of adobe were observed throughout.Stratum 2 is about 5 cm thick.Its
contact with the underlying Stratum 3 appears to represent the prehistoric ground surface.
Stratum 3 is a very compact,blocky,red (2.5YR 4/6),sandy clay loam with no cultural
materials.We believe that this sediment represents relatively undisturbed soil on the ridge crest,
a quality shared with the site to the north,42Sa6393.A slight depression in the upper surface of
Stratum 3 appears to have captured some yellowish red (5YR 4/6)sandy clay loam.This small
pocket of sediment,identified as Stratum 4,is capped by an oxidized sandstone rock.It is
possible that this little feature represents a shallow posthole.
A cluster of three test units (ARBs 4,5,and 6)were placed in the approximate center of
the site to investigate an area of relatively high artifact density (Figures 10 and 12).This portion
ofthe site had been described as an "artifact cluster"during the project's cultural inventory (Till
2009a).Ultimately,these units defined Discovery Feature 12,an apparent masomy structure of
unknown configuration (Table II).
Arbitrary Units 4 and 5 yielded a continuous profile (Figure 13).Stratum I is a very
loose,yellowish red (5YR 4/6),aeolian silt with organic detritus.The stratum measures 5 to 10
44
428a6397
ARB 2 and ARB 3 PROFILES
o PM
SOcm
ARB 2,NORTH WALL PROFILE
N116.5 N116.S
E129 E131~.============~==:I::==========~'level linet__ad_O_b_e_e ---,C====sh=e=rd===jl---mgs
ARB 2,EAST WALL PROFILE
N112 Nl11
E129 E129
----------.level line
ro'k~~==I-~mgs
adobe
Figure 11.Site 42Sa6397,ARB 2 and ARB 3 Profiles.
428a6397
ARB UNITS 4,5,AND 6 PLAN VIEWS
Note:Elevations are relative to MGS and N136/E1 00.B'1+12 +121 r'
Ii,.unit datums ----o SOcm
A,A',B,B'profile locations
•sandstone
(',auger probe disturbance._'
edge-scabbled slab ARB6
..,.
In
test window
""w'odow "m"""'"/\"'I .:+7
'+8 ,
I I
:...~£",,:,/'\1,.,,.","',.,,
:....::'':,.8 +9 ARB 4 "1 +8 ,,N138A''ARBS '.__Ell1N138
E109
Figure 12.Site 42Sa6397,ARB Units 4,5,and 6 Planviews.
42Sa6397
PROFILES FOR ARB 4,5,and 6
o -SOcm
•sandstone
R rodent disturbance
AUG auger probe
---indistinct sediment boundary
ARB 6 WEST WALL PROFILE
B B'-
1
•
R 2
I
( I
~
3 "-
"bone awl edge-scabbled slab .j>-
'"
ARB 4 and 5 SOUTH WALL PROFILE
I ARB 4 I ARB 5---------
A'
1,,
2,~-~,
AUG ,
3
2 ,,
~,
A.,
~.'lli!!!\\
,,
I ;
3 "
JiiiiiiIiii;",
~4"
,,
3
,
AUG ,,,,,,,
~
,,,,,
!
Figure 13.Site 42Sa6397,ARB 4,5 and 6 Profiles.
47
em thick.Stratum 2 is composed of a compact,red (2.5YR 4/8),silty loam with artifacts
(including pottery,debitage,and ground stone).This stratum is better identified in the western
portion of this area,and becomes indistinguishable as one moves east,and merges with the
underlying Stratum 3.Stratum 2 appears to be a post-occupational deposit.Stratum 3 is a very
compact,red (2.5YR 4/6),silty loam that appears to be about 25 em thick (particularly as it is
exposed in ARB 5).This stratum is notable for its high frequency of apparent sandstone
masonry,most of which is unshaped.The frequency of both artifacts and rock diminishes with
depth.The profile for ARBs 4 and 5 suggest a basin-shaped distribution of the rock,sloping
downward fi·om east to west.It seems likely that a prehistoric ground surface is contained
somewhere within Stratum 3,perhaps at the lower contact between sandstone and sediment.The
underlying Stratum 4 consists of a very compact,red (2.5YR 5/8),silty loam.No artifacts or
sandstone were observed in Stratum 4.
Arbitrary Unit 6 documents the northern extent of D-12.The fill from this unit differs
considerably from ARBs 4 and 5,particularly in terms of the frequency of sandstone rubble,
which is much lower in ARB 6.Stratum I is essentially the same as in the other two units
(Figure 13).Stratum 2 is a post-occupational deposit that consists of a moderately compact,red
(2.5YR 4/6),silty clay loam with occasional artifacts and charcoal.This stratum is notable for
the presence ofa well-shaped,edge-scabbled sandstone slab.This object may be a door slab for a
storage feature.The object is flat-lying,suggesting that it may rest on a prehistoric ground
surface.The underlying Stratum 3 is a compact,yellowish red (5YR 4/6),silty clay loam with no
cultural inclusions.
Arbitrary Unit 7 documents Discovery Feature I 1,a pit structure in the southern portion
of the site,a feature that is evident at the surface as a very shallow depression (Figure 10).Three
strata were documented by the excavation of this long,hand-dug trench (Figure 14).Stratum 1 is
a loose,brown (no Munsell),silty clay loam with organic detritus.Fine laminations of sediment
in this 5-cm-thick deposit reflects the occasional alluvial deposition of soil in this location.
Stratum 2 is a compact,dark brown (no Munsell),silty clay loam with occasional artifacts and
flecks of charcoal.Auger probes indicate that this homogenous,relatively clean sediment is
about 90 to 100 em thick,and terminates in its contact with Stratum 3.Outside the apparent
pitstructure walls,Stratum 2 is no more than 10 em thick.We did not distinguish this post-
depositional sediment between the structure's interior and exterior;it appears that the contact
between Stratum 2 and 3 is the prehistoric ground surface.Stratum 3 is a very compact,reddish
brown (no Munsell),silt with occasional caliche flecks or veining.While the structure's shape is
not known,it appears to have a width of about 4.5 meters.The pitstructure is unburned.
Arbitrary Unit 8 was excavated to define a portion ofDiscovery Feature 7,which appears
to be a firepit (Table 1I).This feature was located in the northern reaches of the site while
removing the surface sediments with a road grader (Figure 10).Thus,a good portion of the
overlying sediments were removed prior to the unit's excavation.This large sediment stain,
which covers an area measuring 4-by 5-m,may harbor several smaller feature.Figure 15
illustrates the shape and profile of a firepit.As defined here,Stratum I is a light brown (no
Munsell)silt with occasional flecks of charcoal;this stratum is interpreted as the sediment
immediately surrounding the feature.Stratum 2 is a dark brown (7.5YR 3/4)silt with abundant
amounts offine charcoal.Stratum 3 is a yellowish red (5Y 4/6)sediment.Stratum 4 is virtually
428a6397
ARB 7,WEST WALL PROFILE
o -lOOcm
&.datum
R rodentdisturbance
-I'-
'"ected
nds of
Uucture
~MGS
level line
/
\hand auger probemechanical
auger probe
•
R
I
J8 ""
2
I__________I
I I
J
-----
I
----I ------
contactw
stratum 3
N118
El
Figure 14.Site 42Sa6397,ARB 7,West Wall Profile.
49
428a6397
ARBS
PLAN VIEW AND EAST WALL PROFILE - -o SOcm
.--------,A
N178 {!s--------'A'
E1l4
Discovery Feature 7
auger probe
Ii!.datum
A,A I profiie iocation
level line A_.....';~'
/
possible prehistoric
ground surface
charcoal
2
5
Figure 15.Site 42Sa6397,ARB 8,Planview and East Wall Profile.
50
identical to Stratum 2.The adjacent Stratum 5 is a loose material that comprises mostly charcoal.
Archaeologist Gary Duncan noted that charcoal from pinyon,juniper,and sage was
distinguishable.This sediment is essentially black (lOYR 2/1).Stratum 6 is a compact,reddish
brown (no Munsell),silt with occasional flecks of charcoal.We suggest that Stratum 6 represents
a modification to the original pit,that Stratum 4 represents fill associated with clean-out and
redeposition,and that Stratum 5 represents primary hearth fill,perhaps the last use or uses of the
feature.Stratum 3 may represent a natural redeposition event of sediments removed from the
feature's original excavation.This is capped by post-abandonment sediments (Stratum 2)that are
rich with cultural debris.The firepit is about 100 cm in diameter.Since Figure]5 suggests that
surface of origin for the feature may have only just been bladed away,the feature was originally
excavated to a depth ofabout 45 to 50 cm deep.
Blading
The site was bladed north ofthe N]56 grid line.Blading activities stripped approximately
20 to 30 cm of sediment from the surface,and down to the top ofthe B Horizon.These activities
revealed the presence of Discovery Features I through 9 (Table II and Figure 10).The area of
Discovery Feature 7,a portion of which is described above,may harbor a few more firepits or
informal hearths.
Site 42Sa6757
This site is located along a ridge slope near the north end ofthe project boundary (Figure
2).Site 42Sa6757 has previously undergone data recovery efforts (Davis 1985).These
excavations show that 42Sa6757 was a Basketmaker III habitation with at least one pit structure
that may have been a year-round dwelling,and other smaller structures that may have served as
seasonal habitations or food processing facilities (Figure 16).One of the excavated structures,
Feature 2,yielded a non-cutting date ofA.D.627 (Davis 1985:]51).
Excavation of the site documented a total of five features,induding two pit structures,
two very small habitations or field houses,and a hearth (Davis and others 1985:128-164).The
midden is fairly shallOW and does not appear to be more than ]5 cm thick.This cultural deposit
is partially buried under 3 to 5 cm of aeolian sediments.This area was tested by backhoe
trenches,but otherwise not systematically sampled.
This site had been excavated by Abajo Archaeology during a previous data recovery
project (Davis ]985),so evaluative testing activities were kept to a minimum.These activities
included a small set of hand-auger excavations and blading (Figure 17).As a result of these
measures,22 discovery features were located (Table 13).
Auger Probes
A small grid of 14 auger probes was excavated by hand at 42Sa6757 after blading
activities had revealed Discovery Feature 4 (Figure 17).This feature originally appeared as a
relatively large,oval-shaped concentration of dark,ashy sediments with adobe and artifacts.Its
appearance was consistent with a pithouse.While attempting to shovel scrape the freshly bladed
51
42Sa6757 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••
A datum
••..
10 m
I
.......
o8 ....
..
•,;;.•
••••I
I
J
/
//\.../...~.
/
/
I
(
J
I
\,\\....::;;-------
•••••-""".....-..."':.'-.."....••••......_..........-;..•••~:.:~'"""'"""'"""'"""'"""....~..."••..,•••••~~~"J-•••••:::............-----L::~....•.+••F5 ..~_:::::/;/~5"""'-"iii.t-~&~~/~,~,~,~?==:::~·.:.
s ,///..\~.....\."~J •••••I •••
I ••..••..••
-
.-••
sheet
midden
KEY
F#feature
'-Abajo backhoe
••'trench
• •~Antiquities Section
backhoe trench
bladed area Redrawn from
Davis and others
(1985:Figure 7-27)
Figure 16.Site 42Sa6757,Post-Excavation Map.
52
428a6757
unbladed
10m
i
unbladed
oC~
bladed area
,,,,
x5 xF2
4
4000
00000
10 x 12 x1Sx x l1 xl?
X18 16
x 20 x19 x
bladed area
6x
N160.F48xxE100x7x21,,
x9 ,F1,,,,
N18({
E100
bladed area
bladed area
-- --
unbladed
I
\
\
\
1
unbladed ,,,
I
I,
I
\
N12Q
E100
unbladed
midden
area
KEY
N100'
E100
N100
E120
N100
E140
h.old site datum
F#previously excavated feature
x#discovery feature
grid stake
o auger probe
,-,,,, ,,,pit structure
old backhoe trench G.Duncan,10/29/09
Figure 17.Site 42Sa67S7,Testing Results
53
Table 13.Discovery Features,Site 42Sa6757
#Shape Size (m)Description
1 Oval 5 (N/S)by 6 (EIW)Large,dark gray sediment stain with charcoal.Probable pithouse.
About 45 cm deep.
2 Oval 5 (N/S)by 6 (EIW)Large,light gray sediment stain.Probable pithouse.About 40 cm
deep.
3 Round 1.75 in diameter LiQht Qray sediment stain.Possible small pit structure.
4 Oval 0.7 (N/S)by 1.4 (EIW)Dark qray sediment stain.
Concentration of azurite balls.Three were collected but more are
5 Unknown 0.15 (?)in diameter known to be present.These may have been contained within a small
Ipit that has yet to be defined.
6 Unknown Unknown Possible upriqht slab feature of unknown size.
7 Amorphous Ca.0.3 in diameter Small sediment stain.Possible extramural pit.
8 Round Ca.0.17 in diameter Small sediment stain.Possible posthole.
9 Amorphous Ca.0.3 in diameter Small,Qray sediment stain.
10 Round Ca.0.4 in diameter Dark qray sediment stain with charcoal.Possible fireoil.
11 Amorphous Ca.1.0 in diameter Small concentration of oxidized rock and sediment.May be a burned
area.
12 Unknown Unknown Small locus of bone.
13 Round Ca.0.6 in diameter Dark gray sediment stain with charcoal.Probable extramural firepit
'ust southeast of Discoverv 4.
14 Amorphous Ca.0.9 in diameter Small set of brown,linear sediment stains with charcoal.Probably
rodent burrows with cultural fill.
15 Round Ca.0.11 in diameter Small dark qray sediment stain.Possible posthole.
16 Amorphous Ca.0.25 in diameter Dark brown sediment stain with charcoal and a few oxidized rocks.
May be a burned area.
17 Amorphous Ca.30 in diameter Brown sediment stain with several fragments of burned rock.May be
a burned area.
18 Unknown Ca.0.65 in diameter Large,in-situ sandstone rock on area of relatively loose sediments.
Possible pit feature.
19 Round Ca.0.13 in diameter Small,dark arav sediment stain.Possible posthole.
20 Amorphous Ca.0.12 in diameter Small concentration of charcoal.
21 Oval 0.45 (EIW)by 0.50 Dark qray sediment stain with charcoal.Possible firepil.
22 Amorphous Ca.0.3 in diameter Dark Qray sediment stain.Probable burned area.
54
surface to define the feature's edges,it became apparent that the original large sediment stain
may not represent an in-situ cultural feature.We decided that systematically placed auger probes
would help determine the size of the feature.Auger probes indicated that a feature was present,
but that the surrounding cultural sediments were probably backfill materials from a nearby
feature that had been previously excavated by Abajo Archaeology,Feature 4 (Davis 1985:157-
164).
Blading
Blading on the site occurred only north of grid line NI30 (Figure 17).We did not blade
the whole surface of the site at this time so as to preserve intact midden deposits to the south
(this area ofthe site will be systematically sampled during the data recovery phase).Much ofthe
northern portion ofthe site had been previously trenched.However,in an east-to-west swath that
was about 8 m wide,no trenches had been excavated.It was in this area that the road grader
located two large sediment stains,probable pithouses (Discovery Features I and 2).In addition
to these features,blading activities documented 20 other small features.These are described in
Table 13.Of particular interest is Discovery Feature 5,which appears to be a collection of
azurite spheres,or "blue balls."These artifacts have been observed in other Basketmaker III
assemblages,including the nearby Casa Coyote site (42Sa3775)(Hurst 2004;McAndrews
2004:376).This artifact type was also documented on a Basketmaker III site (42Sa26349)during
a survey ofthe nearby Comb Wash Campground (Desroziers 2005).
Site 42Sa8014
Site 42Sa8014 is located near the base of the same ridge slope that 42Sa6757 occupies
(Figure 2).Like 42Sa6757,the site was excavated by Abajo Archaeology (Davis 1985).These
excavations documented a small pit structure and an associated cist (Figure 18).Pottery
assemblages associated with both features suggest that the two were probably contemporaneous.
One absolute date,a C-14 sample from the floor of Feature I,yielded a date of 1455±130 B.P.
Considering the pottery assemblages,this seems far too early to accurately represent the feature's
occupation.Bond (1985:274)recommends that the site dates to the late Pueblo I period.Based
on the pottery assemblage,it seems likely that the site was in use sometime during the late ninth
and/or early tenth century.The site was interpreted as a seasonal habitation that was occupied
during the late Pueblo I period.
Blading
Since the site had been previously excavated,evaluative testing activities were limited to
blading.A road grader was used to systematically remove overlying sediments from the site.
Archaeologist Mark Bond was present to monitor the road grader,an optimal arrangement as
Bond was the supervising archaeologist for the previous excavations at 42Sa80 I4.Blading
activities revealed 10 discovery features.These features are described in Table 14,and their
locations are indicated on Figure 19.
55
42Sa8014
o
8 ••
KEY
-
10 m
I
-,,••••••••••••
....
F1 ••~---.....1 .@<cI••)0'b~_
\..),"---.":F2
.a.....
....'.................:....
•
A datum
F#feature
/.Abajo backhoe trench
•••••Antiquities Section backhoe trench Redrawn from Davis and others
(1985:Figure 7-38)
Figure 18.Site 42Sa8014,Post-Excavation Map.
428a8014
/
/'
/
I N124.
E100
o r',.j -_i ---------KEY
A
#
F#
datum
grid stake
discovery feature
previously excavated feature
-------------
north edge of bladed area ---------.....
x7
...............
;"feature boundary,
'..3....,
"4',,
approximate location
of Fea\tu~_1 _
,,,,, ,
I I ...--......
'\,t ...
'\,t'\F2\,,
'6~,-en
'"
N100 A
E100
':fJ
x2
x5
x8
'---'"
x10
9----
N100
E136
Figure 19.Site 42Sa8014,Testing Results
57
Table 14.Discovery Features,Site 42Sa8014
#Shape Size (m)Description
Light gray sediment stain.May be associated with the
1 amorphous Ca.0.9 in diameter redeposition of cuitural materials in an oid,shallow
drainage.
2 Unknown Unknown Large rock.May be associated with the drainage
noted with 0-1.
3 amorphous Ca.0.5 in diameter Light gray sediment stain.
4 Unknown Ca.1.2 in diameter Concentration of artifacts,particularly Plain Gray
pottery sherds.May be an old collectors pile.
Large rock.May be associated with extramural
5 Unknown Unknown activities associated with the site's previously
excavated Feature 1 (a shallow pit structre),which
was probably immediately north of this rock.
6 amorphous Ca.0.5 in diameter Light gray sediment stain.
7 amorphous Ca.0.2 in diameter Gray sediment stain.
8 amorphous Ca.0.15 in diameter Gray sediment stain.
9 amorphous Ca.2.3 (EfW)by 0.9 (N/S)Gray sediment stain with rodent disturbance.
10 amorphous Ca.0.15 in diameter Gray sediment stain.
Site 42Sa28128
The site is situated on a relatively flat plain a few hundred meters east of a low,sandy
ridge crest (Figure 2),Site 42Sa28128 was recorded as a scatter of lithic and pottery artifacts
(Figure 20)(Till 2009a).The site is one of a cluster of four small sites in the southeast comer of
the project area.
Cultural materials on the site's surface included a scatter of pottery sherds,debitage,and
several ground stone tools.The only temporally diagnostic artifact recorded on the site was a
conugated jar body sherd,which suggested that the site dated after A.D.950.The surface
treatment ofthe white ware sherds is consistent with this assessment.Considering the site's size,
its location,and the focus on ground stone,the site was interpreted as a the locus of specialized
activities such as food processing,
Evaluative testing activities on the site included controlled surface collections,auger
probes,test unit excavations,and blading.These activities resulted in the location of seven
discovery features (Table 15).
Surface Collections
Surface collections were subjective,and occuned only when artifacts were observed.
Only a small number of artifacts were collected by this method;artifact types included pottery,
chipped stone artifacts,and ground stone artifacts.
x6
0000 000 000
0000 000 000
en
00
grid stake
survey datum
t,
auger probe
test unit (ARB #)
auger probe with
artifacts
discovery feature
o
o
•
11
o
KEY
x#
or e#
/
\
N100
E132
\
/
\o
o
/
o
'"o
o
o
/
o
o
o
•
------
/
o
o
o
o
------
./
o
o
o
o
..7
o
o
---
o
•
-----.
o
o
o
----
o
o
o
ARB2
o
o
------
o
o
o
o
./
o
•
o
O
x50 •
ARB3
o •0[}j 0 0 0 0 0
00 00000.
o 110
o
o
'"
o
0/0
\
o
o
o-4
.;
0-3
o
DO 0
ARB4
\
/
\
~I
artifact
scatter
boundary f
\
-1
N100.
E100
N128
E100
428a28128
Figure 20.Site 42Sa28128,Testing Results
59
Table 15.Discovery Features,Site 42Sa28128
#Shape Size (m)Description
1 Amorphous Ca.0.7 in diameter Light gray sediment stain.
2 Round Ca.0.35 in diameter Gray sediment stain with flecks of charcoal.One
flake in fill.
3 Amorphous Ca.0.6 in diameter Light gray sediment stain--immediately east of
Feature 2.
4 Round Ca.0.65 in diameter Dark gray sediment stain with a few pieces of
oxidized sandstone.
5 Round Ca.0.15 in diameter Dark gray sediment stain with charcoal.
6 Unknown Unknown Siab metate with modified red ware sherd.Possible
pit feature.
Gray sediment stain with flecks of charcoal and a
7 Oval Ca.0.25 (N/S)by 0.45 (E/W)few pieces of oxidized sandstone.Perimeter
sediments mav be oxidized.
Auger Probes
A total of 95 auger probes,illustrated in Figure 20,were excavated on the site.A cluster
of auger probes with artifacts and relatively looser sediments prompted the placement of three
test units in the north central portion ofthe site (Figure 20).
Test Units
Three test units were excavated,the locations and dimensions of which are provided in
Table 16.Arbitrary Unit 2 originally started as a 0.5-by 2.0-m unit,but was expanded to include
an adjacent 1.0-by 1.0-m to investigate a sediment anomaly (which was later determined to be
rodent disturbance).The unit actually permitted our first good look at the project area's "valley"
sediments,and so substantially structured our interpretation of the project area's depositional
processes and history (Figure 21).Stratum 1,as illustrated in the unit's 1.0-by 1.0-m extension,
consists of a loose,yellowish red to reddish yellow (5YR 5/6-6/6),sandy clay loam with a high
organic content from modern vegetation.Artifacts are also occasionally present in this stratum,
which is 5 to 10 cm thick.Stratum 2 is a moderately compact,yellowish red (5YR 4/6),sandy
clay loam.Most ofthe artifacts found in this unit came from this stratum,which measures 15 to
20 cm thick.Some rodent disturbance is evident in this stratum.Stratum 2 is interpreted as
disturbed plow zone sediments,and results fi'om the mixture of the site's prehistoric ground
surface and overlying artifact-bearing sediments with the underlying B Horizon soils.The B
Horizon is represented by Stratum 3,which consists ofa very compact,yellowish red (5YR 5/6),
sandy clay loam with occasional flecks of caliche.No artifacts were recovered from this stratum,
and caliche flecks did increase in frequency at 45 cm below modern ground surface.
Table 16.Test Unit Location,Size,and Orientation,Site
42Sa28128
Study Unit SW Corner Size Orientation
ARB2 N116/E116.5 0.5-by 2.0-m north-to-south
ARB3 N118/E113 0.5-by 2.0-m north-to-south
ARB4 N116/E109 0.5-by 2.0-m north-to-south
428a28128
TEST UNIT PROFILES
o .....
SOem
60
ARB 2,NORTH WALL PROFILE
&,.datum
_roek
ASD above site datum
F======c==r--MGS
N117levelline-~.---------------~.El18
(10 em asd)
2
4
3
4
original
0.5 X 2.0 m
test unit
ARB 3,WEST WALL PROFILE
Nl18 1\El13 "',------------------------~.level line
MGS /-J==:::==:::::::::===:::::===::::::::==!::==::::::=\,,"""""""""""""".(12 em ASD)
&.2
3
-f--auger
probe 4.2
ARB 4,WEST WALL PROFILE
LEVEL LINE £------~.N
El
l
O
l
g
8
(1 em ASD)
:t-2 -------MGS
~~~~~6.1 ~~'-------3
Figure 21.Site 42Sa28128,Test Unit Profiles.
61
Arbitrary Unit 3 documented a similar stratigraphic sequence (Figure 2 I).Stratum I is a
loose,yellowish red (5YR 5/6),sandy clay loam witb organic detritus.Occasional artifacts were
noted in this stratum,which was 5 to 7 cm thick.Stratum 2 is a compact,yellowish red (5YR
4/6-5/6),sandy clay loam.Most ofthe unit's artifacts derived from this stratum,which was about
20 cm thick.This stratum is interpreted to represent disturbed plow zone sediments.Stratum 3 is
a compact,yellowish red (5YR 5/6)silt,which probably represents the B Horizon sediments.
One artifact was retrieved from this stratum.
Arbitrary Unit 4 also revealed three stratigraphic units (Figure 21).Stratum I is a loose,
strong brown (5YR 4/6)sandy clay loam with organic detritus.Artifacts were present in this
stratum,which was about 5 cm tbick.Stratum 2 is a moderately compact,yellowish red (5YR
4/6)sandy clay loam with artifacts and a low frequency of organic detritus.This stratum,which
is interpreted as disturbed plow zone sediments,measured about 20 to 30 cm thick.Stratum 3
consists of a compact,yellowish red (5YR 5/6),sandy clay loam witb some veins of caliche.
Stratum 3 is interpreted as the undisturbed B Horizon sediment.
Blading
Blading activities occurred across the entire surface ofthe site.As a result of this work,
seven discovery features were located (Table 15 and Figure 20).Most of these features were
located in tbe northwestern quadrant of the site,that same general portion of the site tbat was the
focus of test unit excavations.The attributes ofthese features are such that most of the seem to
represent firepits.
Site 42Sa28129
The site is situated on a very slight rise in an otherwise flat terrain and is approximately
100 m west of 42Sa28 I28 (Figure 2).The site was recorded as a scatter of lithic and pottery
artifacts (Figure 22)(Till 2009a).Cultural materials documented on the site's surface included
pottery,lithic debitage,and several ground stone tools.The small pottery assemblage suggested
that the site probably dates to tbe Pueblo II period or later.The small artifact assemblage and tbe
site's setting suggest tbat this location harbored a limited activity site.
Evaluative testing activities on the site included controlled surface collections,auger
probes,test unit excavations,and blading.These activities resulted in the location of 10
discovery features (Table 17).
Surface Collections
Controlled surface collections occurred in 4-by 4-m units across the whole site.These
surface collections resulted in a small number ofartifacts and a variety ofartifact types including
pottery,lithic debitage,and ground stone artifacts.
42Sa28129 t,
o 5m
!..~!
Contour interval is 25 em--132N.(---100E ---08 9_--
f:<f 0'0 ~Dl0 ---
D7 o~,'o 0 1 -----o 0 ~<?~9'O ___
o ARB4 _____
xDl ""'--00 0 0 0 ~
~xD6 x09
a ~0 0
,D2 t DS -A~11:ARB2 '"o 0 0U'0
ARB3
o 000000000000 \I ~
\D3 0 0 I
oaado 0
\'D4 0 I
\0 0 /
o
'"scatter boundary 0 /~\----y
~----------------------100N.• • • • •.--.• • • • • • ••100N
100E 160E
KEY 0.a old site datum 0 auger probe test unit x 0#Discovery Feature
grid stake possible old backhoe trench ARB#Arbitrary Unit
Figure 22.Site 42Sa28129,Testing Results
63
Table 17.Discovery Features,Site 42Sa28129
#Shape Size (m)Description
An apparent buried Mancos Corrugated jar.The top of the
jar was clipped by the road grader.The jar's neck orifice
1 Unknown Unknown measures 19 cm in diameter.The jar is probably in a pit,
which probably conforms to the size of the jar,and remains
to be defined.
2 Round Ca.0.5 in diameter Dark gray sediment stain with charcoal.Probable firepit.
3 Unknown Unknown Flat-lying grinding slab fragment.
4 Round Ca.0.25 in diameter Gray sediment stain.
5 Round Ca.0.2 in diameter Light gray sediment stain.May have been clipped by an
old backhoe trench.
6 Round Ca.0.2 in diameter Gray sediment stain.
7 Unknown Unknown Large sandstone slab.May represent an extramural
feature associated with 0-10.
8 Amorphous Ca.0.25 in diameter Light gray sediment stain.May represent an extramural
feature associated with 0-10.
9 Unknown Ca.0.3 in diameter Small cluster of rocks.
10 Round Ca.3.5 in diameter Possible shallow pit structure.Only the southwest corner of
the feature was exposed in ARB 4.
Auger Probes
A total of 29 auger probes,illustrated in Figure 22,were excavated on the site.Results
from several of the auger probes,including the presence of artifacts and sandstone rock,
prompted the placement of two test units,Arbitrary Units 2 and 3,in the approximate center of
the site (Figure 22).Subsequent blading activities revealed a cluster of features in this same area
as well as a relatively high frequency of artifacts.These results further compelled the placement
of Arbitrary Unit 4,a small set of test units that was situated just north of Units 2 and 3 (Figure
22).
Test Units
Three test units were excavated,the locations and dimensions of which are provided in
Table 18.Arbitrary Unit 2 yielded a profile that indicated the presence ofa plow zone,or area of
disturbed sediments (Figure 23).Stratum 1 consists of a very loose,yellowish red (5YR 5/6),
sandy clay loam.This sediment is about 9 cm thicle Some cultural materials were recovered
from this surficial sediment,as well as a moderate frequency ofrecent vegetal materials.Stratum
2 is a moderately compact,yellowish red (5YR 4/6),sandy clay loam.Most of the artifacts
(sherds,lithic debitage,and a piece of ground stone)recovered from this unit came from Stratum
2.This stratum is approximately 10 to 15 cm thick,and appears to represent disturbed cultural
deposits,perhaps a plow zone that basically destroyed a buried prehistoric ground surface and an
associated overlying cultural horizon.Stratum 3 consists of a compact,reddish yellow (5YR
6/6),sandy clay loam with no artifacts.Flecks of caliche appear in the lower reaches of this
sediment.The bottom of Stratum 3,as exposed in this unit,probably represents the top ofthe B
Horizon.Extensive rodent disturbance is also apparent in the unit-these creatures appear to
64
428a28129
ARB 2 and 3 PROFILES
en en
0 SOcm
R=rodent disturbance
ARB 2,FACING WEST
N12l
E127.5 A level line
MGS 1
-2 .-/R
3
\V
ARB 3,FACING WEST
N121 A level line
E12S
MGS 1
2
-
f'\3 .~
R .J
V ~R
'-...J
Figure 23.Site 42Sa28129,ARB 2 and 3 Profiles.
65
have followed the contact between the looser Stratum 2 sediments and the hard,undisturbed
sediment represented by Stratum 3.
Table 18.Test Unit Location,Size,and Orientation,
Site 42Sa28129
Study
Unit SW Corner Size Orientation
ARB 2 N121/E127.5 0.5-by 2.0-north-to-
m south
ARB 3 N121/E125 0.5-by 2.0-north-to-
m south
ARB 4'N127/E120.5 Irregular Variable
'See Figure 24 and text for size and orientation.
Arbitrary Unit 3 is similar in profile (Figure 23).Stratum I consists of a loose,yellowish
red (5YR 5/6),sandy clay loam with modern organic materials and some artifacts.This sediment
is 5 to 10 cm thick.Stratum 2 is a moderately compact,yellowish red (5YR 5/6),sandy clay
loam with small chunks ofcaliche and cultural materials.This stratum is 15 to 20 cm thick,and
appears to represent disturbed plow zone sediments with cultural materials.Stratum 3 is a
compact,yellowish red (5YR 4/6)silt with frequent flecks of caliche.The sediments in this test
unit were heavily disturbed by rodent activity.The chunks of caliche in Stratum 2 may represent
backhoe-deposited sediments from the underlying B or C Horizons (discussed further below).
The excavation of Arbitrary Unit 4 in the north-central portion of the site was inspired by
the location of buried features during blading activities (discussed below).In addition,we noted
a relatively high frequency of artifacts (including pottery,lithic debitage,and ground stone)in
this area as it was bladed.An additional anomaly observed in this location was a "cross"of
caliche-rich sediments (Figure 22).Field Director Mark Bond tendered the likely interpretation
that this feature represents a "backhoe-trench artifact,"perhaps the remnants of backhoe trenches
that had been excavated into the site at an earlier date while looking for cultural features.While
no documentation has been found to strengthen this hypothesis,Bond's suggestion is consistent
with the remnants of other exploratory backhoe trenches excavated by Antiquities Section
archaeologists in the 1970s.For an example of such,refer to the plan map of Site 42Sa8014 in
Davis (1985:Figure 7-38).The implication is that archaeologists had earlier found good reason
to investigate this location for subsurface cultural features.
Arbitrary Unit 4 is actually aT-shaped set of units that was situated to bisect the location
ofDiscovery Feature 7,which consisted ofa flat-lying sandstone slab that had been found during
blading activities (Figures 22 and 24).Additional hand-excavated auger probes indicated a
possible pit structure just to the east of D-7,prompting an extension of Arbitrary Unit 4 to the
east.This extension captured the southwestern "corner"of a subrectangular or round pit
structure,designated Discovery Feature 10 (Figure 24 and Table 17).Based on the curvature
exposed,the feature appears to measure about 3 m in diameter.
Figure 24 illustrates the stratigraphic profiles yielded by the excavation of Arbitrary Unit
4.One must keep in mind that 20 to 30 cm ofthe overlying sediments had been removed prior to
the unit's excavation.Stratum I consists of a compact,yellowish red (5YR 4/6)silt with
66
42Sa28129
ARB 4 PLAN VIEWAND PROFILES
A'.---_--,
r'--0 SOcm
ARB 4 PLAN VIEW
DF-?
B
,,,,,,
shaped sherd '--------------~'\<;x;"N\!WMNQWB',1
o A~U:::.G---O~A~U~G----------~~221
'"""
DF -10
OAUG
Nl27 AE120.s &------'
WEST WALL PROFILE
A ~
level line :'======:::::;:;;;diii==~==:::c====:f---t~2---j~__~_-,f
NORTH WALL PROFILE
profile locations
sandstone
datum
auger probe
discovery feature
level line -B----1=;=~~3;;~~~===~~~~~::=~===:B'1 J~2\~C_2_J ~7
\edgeofDF-10
rodent burrow
or auger probeA,A',B,B'..
&.
AUGO
DF-#
Figure 24.Site 42Sa28129,ARB 4 Planview and Profile.
67
occasional flecks of charcoal,small fragments of white sandstone,and artifacts.This stratum is
interpreted as the remnants of the plow zone sediment.Stratum 2 represents the underlying B
Horizon sediment.It is a very compact,yellowish red (5YR 5/6)silt with flecks of caliche.No
charcoal or artifacts are present in this stratum.
Blading
Blading activities occurred across the entire surface of the site.As a result of this work,
Discovery Features 1 through 9 were located (Table 17 and Figure 22).As noted above,most of
these features were located in the northwestern and north-central portions of the site.Most of
these features are relatively small sediment stains,and may represent small firepits or postholes.
Discovery Feature 1 is notable as it appears to be a buried corrugated jar.Features 5 through 9
probably represent extramural features associated with the larger pit structure,D-l0 (Figure 22).
Site 42Sa28130
The site was recorded as a scatter of pottery and lithic artifacts (Till 2009a).Located on
relatively flat terrain with a slight slope to the southeast,the scatter was confined to an area that
measures approximately 30 m north/south by 60 m east/west (Figure 25).
Site 42Sa28130 is one site in a cluster of four small sites in the southeastern corner ofthe
project area (Figure 2).The very small pottery assemblage on the surface suggested that the site
may date to the Pueblo II period.The site may have been the locus of specialized activities such
as food-processing.
Evaluative testing activities on the site included controlled surface collections,auger
probes,test unit excavations,and blading.These activities resulted in the location of two
discovery features (Table 19).
Table 19.Discovery Features,Site 42Sa28130
#Shape Size (m)Description
1 Unknown Ca.0.5 in diameter A metate,slightly on edge,in what may be small pit.
Possible mealing locus.
2 Amorphous Ca.0.5 in diameter Sediment stain with charcoal.May be an informal
firepit.
3 Unknown Ca.0.25 in diameter Possible corrugated jar.Only the bottom portion of the
vessel (ca.10 em)may still be present.
Surface Collections
Controlled surface collections occurred in 4-by 4-m units across the whole site.These
surface collections resulted in a small number of artifacts,including pottery,lithic debitage,and
.22 casings.
Figure 25.Site 42Sa28130,Testing Results
69
Auger Probes
A total of 69 auger probes,illustrated in Figure 25,were excavated on the site.A series of
auger holes with relatively looser sediments led to the placement of a test unit,Arbitrary Unit 2,
in the southeast quadrant ofthe site (Figure 25).
Test Unit
Only one test unit,Arbitrary Unit 2,was excavated on the site.This unit a revealed a
stratigraphy similar to other sites in the project area "valley"(Figure 26).Stratum I is a loose,
brown (no Munsell)sandy clay loam with a moderate amount oforganic detritus.Stratum 2 is a
loose,reddish brown (no Munsell)sandy clay loam.Stratum 3 is a very compact,"slightly
redder"(no Munsell)silt with veins of caliche.No artifacts were recovered from any of these
sediments,though a sherd had been retrieved from the auger probe in the unit's northwest corner.
Aside from the absence of cultural materials,the stratigraphy observed at this site is consistent
with other sites in the valley.Thus,Stratum 2 represents a mixed sediment of plow zone soils,
and Stratum 3 represents a relatively undisturbed B Horizon sediment.The near lack of cultural
material suggests the relatively "light footprint"ofthe ancient human behavior in this particular
place.
Blading
Blading activities occurred across the entire surface of the site.As a result of this work,
three discovery features were located (Table 19 and Figure 25).One of these,D-3,appears to
represent a buried (but truncated)corrugated vessel.
Site 42Sa28131
The site's topographic location might be described as the bottom of a small valley,or
alluvial bottomland,along the north edge of the project boundary (Figure 2).The site was
recorded as an historic camp with a single feature and a few historic artifacts (Figure 27)(Till
2009a).
Feature I,a campfire,may have been lined with small sandstone slabs and may be as
large as 1.2 m in diameter.The artifact assemblage includes fragments of sanitary-seal tin cans
and a rifle cartridge.The rifle cartridge is a 2 1I8-inch long,British .303 cartridge with a rebated
rim.It has a VPT 42 headstamp,dating its creation in 1942.The cartridge probably came to the
United States soon after the cessation ofWorld War II.
The historic artifacts suggest that the site might date to A.D.1945.The cultural affiliation
of the site is difficult to assess.It could have resulted from Anglo,Ute,or Navajo farmers,
hunters,ranchers,or passers-though.
Evaluative testing activities on the site included judgmental surface collections,auger
probes,test unit excavations,and blading.No new features were located by these means;
however,a test unit emplaced over the apparent historic firepit verified its significance.
70
428a28130
ARB 2,WEST WALL PROFILE
o SOem
2
3
bsd =below site datum
ARB 2,WEST WALL PROFILE
datumN~level lineE12:,9~;;;;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=============;~~~:'''':(16~em BSD)~/\:I I
I :
II~auger
probe 7.7
Figure 26.Site 42Sa28130,ARB 2,Profile.
71
428a28131 r'0 2mojunipertreetruck
i
'\
F E N C E
--¥l IN E
(RECEN T ',
l Y REM 0 --J<:..
V ED)
N116
E100
0
0----~""--:--(hearth),-'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
KEY
survey datum
grid stake
o auger probe
o test unit
,
\
\
\
\
o
\
\
\
N100
E100'
\
\
"'",
\...
Figure 27.Site 42Sa28131,Testing Results
72
Surface Collections
Surface collections were made on a judgmental basis.Only one tin can fragment was
collected outside the test unit.
Auger Probes
A total of 10 auger probes were excavated on the site (Figure 27).None ofthese located
indications ofcultural materials.
Test Unit
This test unit,Arbitrary Unit 2,is a north-south oriented unit that measures 0.5-by 2.0-m.
The unit was placed with the southwest corner at NI13/EI01.6.The unit identified four strata
(Figure 28).Stratum 1 is a very loose,yellowish red (5YR 4/6),silty loam.Organic detritus is a
major component of the stratum,which is IOta 15 em thick.Stratum 2 immediately underlies
Stratum I,and is a very compact,red (2.5YR 4/6)silt with caliche inclusions.This sediment is
interpreted as a shallow manifestation of the B Horizon.Stratum 3 consists of pockets ofcaliche
soils between Strata I and 2,and may represent rodent disturbed sediments;indeed,rodent
disturbance greatly churned the soils throughout the fill ofthe unit.Finally,Stratum 4 consists of
hearth fill sediments that were exposed in the east edge of the unit.These sediments consist
primarily ofash.Also recovered from Stratum 4 was a fragment of a burned tin can.This small
exposure ofthe hearth sediments represent the very western edge ofthe hearth feature itself.
Blading
Excepting the area immediately surrounding the historic hearth feature,the entire surface
ofthe site was bladed.No new features were located as a result ofthis work.
Site 42Sa28132
The site is situated on the slope of a finger-ridge,the crest of which is just to the west
(Figure 2).Site 42Sa28132 was recorded as a small,prehistoric artifact and rock scatter (Till
2009a)(Figure 29).The artifacts include a few items of lithic debitage and several plain gray jar
body sherds.The site may well be associated with the early component (possibly Basketmaker
1II)on nearby 42Sa6397,which lies just north on the crest of the finger-ridge.Having said this,
archaeologist Ma.rk Bond identified several Mesa Verde Black-an-white sherds as the site was
bladed,suggesting that more than one component may be represented at the site.
Evaluative testing activities on the site included controlled surface collections,auger
probes,and blading.These activities resulted in the location of 12 discovery features (Table 20).
428a28131
ARB 2 PROFILE
..----o..
R
2Scm
rock
rodent disturbance
ARB 2,FACING EAST
level line
MGS/
Nl13
E102.1
....,
co
Figure 28.Site 42Sa28131,ARB 2,Profile.
74
Table 20.Discovery Features,Site 42Sa28132
#Shape Size (m)Description
This feature consists of several small amorphous
1 Oval Ca.1.3 (N/S)by 2.75 (EIW)sediment stains contained within an east-to-west
oriented,oval-shaDed area.
2 Unknown Ca.0.5 In diameter Possible corrugated jar or large sherd associated
with charcoal.
Small scatter of sandstone rock,several Plain Gray
3 Oval Ca.1.5 (N/S)by 3.75 (EIW)sherds,and a few fragments ofgroundstone.
Possible surface structure remains.
4 Oval Ca.1.5 (N/S)by 2.25 (EIW)Light gray sediment stain with charcoal.
5 Amorphous Ca.0.6 in diameter Dark gray sediment stain with charcoal.
6 Amorphous Ca.0.5 in diameter Dark gray sediment stain with charcoal.
This feature consists of several small amorphous
7 Oval Ca.1.5 (N/S)by 2.0 (EIW)dark gray sediment stains in an east-to-west
oriented,oval-shaped area.Possible firepit with
associated oostholes.
8 Amorphous Ca.0.1 in diameter Very small dark gray sediment stain.Possible
posthole.
9 Amorphous Ca.0.6 in diameter Dark gray sediment stain with charcoal.
10 Amorphous Ca.0.1 in diameter Very small dark gray sediment stain.Possible
oosthole.
11 Amorphous Ca.0.7 (N/S)by 1.2 (EIW)Dark gray sediment stain with charcoal.
12 Amorphous Ca.0.3 cm in diameter Small,dark gray sediment stain.
Surface Collections
Controlled surface collections occurred in 4-by 4-m units across the whole site.These
surface collections resulted in a small number of artifacts and a variety of artifact types including
pottery,lithic debitage,and ground stone artifacts.One tin can lid was also collected.
Auger Probes
A total of 17 auger probes,illustrated in Figure 29,were excavated on the site.In the near
complete absence of cultural materials in the probes,and the very low count of artifacts on the
surface,no test units were established.Rather,the site was bladed to remove overlying sediments
to the contact with B Horizon sediments.
Blading
Excepting a portion ofthe site's grid stakes,the entire surface ofthe site was bladed.This
work resulted in the definition of Discovery Features I through 12.Figure 29 and Table 20
provide the locations and descriptions ofthese features.Most of the features appear to represent
firepits and postholes.Discovery Feature 3 may represent the location of a small surface-
architecture feature.
428a28132
N136
E100 •
75
G.Duncan,10/29/09
N136
E128
0 -5
E116
-4 KEY
grid stake
0 0 0 0 0 0 auger probe
x#or discovery
Ell #feature
8 0
7
x8
.11
x10
0 (89
o
o
N100
E100'
o
o
• 0
o o
N100
E128
Figure 29.8ite 428a28132,Testing Results
76
Site 42Sa28134
The site occupies the crest of a small finger-ridge that rises just slightly above the grassy
flats of White Mesa (Figure 2).The site was recorded as a small scatter of lithic artifacts (Till
2009a)(Figure 30). The surface assemblage included several pieces of lithic debitage and two
ground stone tools.
Site 42Sa28134 is difficult to assess for its temporal association.However,like the other
three small sites in this comer ofthe proj ect area,this site may represent the remains of a limited
activity site,such as a food-processing feature.
Evaluative testing activities on the site included controlled surface collections,auger
probes,test unit excavations,and blading.These activities resulted in the location of one
discovery feature.
Surface Collections
Controlled surface collections occun'ed in 4-by 4-m units across the whole site.These
surface collections resulted in a small number of artifacts,most ofwhich was lithic debitage.
Auger Probes
A total of 73 auger probes,illustrated in Figure 30,were excavated on the site.Soft
sediments in the northern and central auger probe lines suggested the possibility that underlying,
compact sediments had been disturbed.This general area was examined by the placement of a
single test unit,Arbitrary Unit 2.
Test Units
Arbitrary Unit 2 is a north-to-south oriented test unit that measures 0.5-by 2.0-m with a
southwest comer at N116/E111.Three strata were defined in this unit (Figure 31).Stratum I is a
loose,light brown (no Munsell),sandy clay loam with organic detritus.A few small fragments of
burned sandstone were also noted in Stratum I,which was about 9 cm thick.Stratum 2 is a
moderately compact,reddish brown (no Munsell)sandy clay loam.This stratum is about 20 to
25 cm thick.Stratum 2 is interpreted as disturbed plow zone sediments.The interface between
Stratum 2 and the underlying Stratum 3 is considered the bottom ofthe plow zone.Stratum 3 is a
compact reddish brown (no Munsell)silt with caliche becoming substantially more frequent at
about 80 cm below modem ground surface,indicating the top ofthe B Horizon.
Blading
The entire surface of the site was bladed,resulting in the location of one feature,
Discovery Feature 1.This feature consists of a small,amorphous,gray sediment stain,measuring
about 30 cm in diameter,found in the very north end ofthe site.
42Sa28134
77
N100.
E100 N100
E124KEY
•discovery feature
grid stake
0 auger probe
c::=:J test unit
Figure 30.Site 42Sa28134,Testing Results
ARB 2,WEST WALL PROFILE
78
428a28134
ARB 2 PROFILE-...o SOcm
&datumASDabovesite datum
level line~'~1\~\6~&===::=====;===~=======·r(8!:.6~cm~ASD)~MGS
2
3
)
Figure 31.Site 42Sa28134,ARB 2,Profile.
79
Chapter 4:Research Design
This chapter lists a number of questions that data recovery at the ten sites in the Cell 4B
project area might be able to answer.This chapter organizes these questions under several
research domains:environment,chronology,subsistence,settlement,social organization,and
technology.This chapter also describes how Abajo Archaeology would implement the research
design through field methods,curation,and reporting.
Theoretical Underpinnings
The basic theoretical orientation that underlies the archaeological testing efforts for this
project can be described as scientific.We affiliate our efforts with the over-arching field ofNorth
American anthropology,and follow a processual archaeology approach to our field work,
laboratory research,and reporting (sensu Binford 1962;Cordell 1994).Attributes of this
approach include an expectation of explanation for observed patterns in the archaeological
record,an assumption that archaeological materials represent elements of the prehistoric society
that created these materials,and that these social elements are interrelated and compose the
social whole.Considering the whole as a system,a change in one or more elements results in the
patterned and predictable change in other elements.
Having recognized our scientific orientation,we recognize that many of our results will
also focus on the historical element of Southwestern archaeology."History"is again coming to
the fore of our discipline as witnessed in popular archaeology texts (e.g.Lekson 2008),in
dissertation research (e.g.Glowacki 2006,Ortman in progress),and in recent archaeological
research in southeastern Utah (e.g.Allison and others in press;Hurst 2000;Till 2009b).As Hurst
(2000:78)has noted through the words of others,we must strive to learn what happened before
we can adequately grapple with why things happened.The historical particulars have tremendous
relevance to our nomothetic pursuits.Recent watersheds in our knowledge of ancient Puebloan
history have led to a much greater understanding of what and why certain processes have
occurred in the pre-Hispanic past.But just as importantly,"history"probably resonates with the
lay public,particularly in southeastern Utah,much more strongly than archaeology's scientific
orientation.The contributions of archaeology become more relevant to more people when an
historic perspective plays a strong role in our research.
Research Domains
We have developed a set of six research domains for consideration in this research
design.However,other multiple-site excavation projects on White Mesa have generated research
designs as well.These have helped inform our proposed research design.Therefore,we
summarize the research considerations ofothers here in Table 21.
Environment
The broad issue under this domain is essentially instrumental in that it involves the
construction ofa paleoenvironmental model.This domain has resonance with this project in that
the region's environmental regimes through time directly influenced individual and community
80
Table 21.Research Problems/Hypotheses Developed for Excavation Projects Near the White Mesa Mill
Davis 119851'
1 Subsistence and settlement practices vary through time on White Mesa.
.~-------2 Site function differs across White Mesa.
3 Habitation structures and other features haye functionally distinct areas within them.
4 The archaeoiogical record reflects the socio-behavioral processes through which prehistoric communities
were organized..-5 Evidence for trade and other relations with foreign cultural 9!:.OJllls exists on White Mesa.
6 Although White Mesa pottery is ofthe Mesa Verde ceramic tradition,most of the pottery made on White
Mesa was locallv made.
7 The quality of lithic craftsmanship is governed by the material utilized,not by the technology ofthe knapper.
8 There were paleoenvironmental/climatic shifts during the Anasazi occupation on WhiteMesa.
------------_.._-------..._----_.-•....._------_.•----_._....__.---_._-
._____--kas.iaJ:L&.119.8.0L..._.~----._._---------,-,'._,--.."._------1 Natural climatic conditions changed through time..____.______.___________......__.__._.._...
2 Human habitation affected the natural environment.
3 Althouoh limited,Pre-Basketmaker III occupation occurredinthe White MesElarea.---·---------
4 The relative amounts of cultigens,weedy plants and wild foods varied through time,and correlated with
environmental chanoe and technol09L....,
5 The popUlation curve varied as environment (carrying capacity)varied and as economic technology was
adapted to varying climatic conditions.
Periods of higher population density show either a diversity in site types and settlement patterns as more
6 niches were exploited,or a more specialized adaptation as greater reliance was placed on one resource.
.-_._---_._-_._---_.._---_.._.__._.._--_..-------.._...'
7 Some sites were seasonally or intermitten!ly inha~~._________-----_...
8 Sites were located near important economic resources.
9 Sites of different types were inhabited at the same time.
Much of the activity took place in "use areas"outside of the structures;such activities might include cooking
10 and roasting,eating,food preparation (grinding and butchering),stone tool fabrication and sharpening,and
Ipotterv makino.
11 Dates of pottery styles and architectural styles do not agree exactly with Mesa Verde dates for these styles.
----_._--_.-----._-------._-_._------_.._------.-..--------.-_._-_._-
12 Changes in architecture (room types)and site layoutreflect~anges in c0nlmunity organization.
13 Local quarries or sources supply most necessary materials for tools and pottery..___
14 While the inhabitants were largely self-sufficient,they were part of a much larger trading sphere in which
exotic materials were distributed.
15 The White Mesa inhabitants had trading and possibly other (ideological)relationships with large sites
nearby.
Firor Greubel and Reed l1998t ._----
1 Cultural affiliation and chronology-suggests the possibility offormulating a phase-based system for White
Mesa.
2 Site structure-primarily concerned'with the identification of how different areas were used within a given
site.
3 Site function-determines the primary function of a site,presumably a determination that could be of use at
the wider landscape level.
4 Subsistence-seems to simplv propose to examine the subsistence data gleaned from the site.
5 Settlement patterns-seems primarily concerned with issues of "mobility and scheduling,"and implicitly
tackles the issue of~site typology"~J.ct1..gets back t2."site furl.ctio..n'~~bove._____.__________--;-
6 Social organization-appears to be mostly concerned with "residential organization"or the "composition of
oroups occupvino anv unit of space"(i.e.activitv area,household,community,etc.).
81
Technology-takes an inductive approach (i.e.generate data,then look for informative patterns);also
7 chooses to focus on lithic technology and correlate it with site type and time period.For the latter,Alpine
actually generates a few hypotheses:1)lithic artifact assemblage signatures will vary between field houses
and residences and :<tE3~.assemblag.es.will differ~~lnsJd.EJr:..ablyfro!:Jl.F'uEl~I,?-_..._._~.._....-----
8 Extra-regional relationships-Alpine poses this basic hypothesis:evidence for long-distance trade will tend
to have been with other Anasazi groups,not Fremont.__._..__...--------
9 Seasonality-inductive,instrumental research (i.e.important for settlement/subsistence research domains,
so will look for data in architecture,floral,and faunal data)...
'The research design in Davis (1985:29-33)presented as a "list of research problems."These are reproduced
here,verbatim.These problems are essentially hypotheses,and are presented with expectations if they are true.
-.,--,-_._--_...--_...__......,....
2Casjens (1980:44-64)produced a set of hypotheses that are repeated verbatim above.These statements are
followed by "tests"that outline how the hypotheses should be addressed._____..____________....__
3Firor and others (1998:14-22)list a set of "problem domains,"the headings of which are reproduced here in
italics.The commentary following the heading is my understanding of how the particular problem domain was to
be approached by Alpine's research.For the most part,few hypotheses were actually presented.
82
settlement strategies-the decisions of agriculturalists to settle in,or move beyond,the Four
Comers region.A strong paleoenvironmental model could then be used to provide expectations
for agricultural yield in particular subregions across the northern Southwest.Generally,many
data points are required for any reasonable reconstruction of the area's paleoenvironment.We
suggest that excavation data from sites on the White Mesa mill property may contribute
substantially to the development ofsuch a data set.To that end,we propose to collect what data
we can that might be of use in the development of such a model.In the meantime,we pose
questions that require more modest answers,such as:
•Given chronological data from the Cell 4B sites,and paleoclimate data from
southwestern Colorado (Van West 1994;Varien and others 2007)and from Dean and
others (1985),what were the climatological regimes for the Puebloan sites under
consideration here?
•Do the pit structures at 42Sa6393,42Sa6397,42Sa6757,and 42Sa28129 contain
materials,such as architectural wood,that might improve our understanding of
paleoclimate?
•Are archaebotanical and faunal data present that could describe the vanous
paleoenvironmental regimes represented by the Cell 4B sites?
The kinds of data needed to address these questions include tree-ring data,pollen data,
flotation data,and faunal data.To accommodate these needs,we propose that tree-ring data be
retrieved whenever possible,regardless of the context.For pollen and flotation data,we
recommend the systematic sampling of floor and midden contexts when encountered,and the
sampling of features when warranted,particularly pit features.Faunal bone will be collected
when encountered.
In anticipation of the White Mesa Mill's long-term operation and future mitigation
efforts,we suggest the establishment of a small temperature monitor,the data from which could
be periodically downloaded to track specifically temperature variation.Such efforts are currently
underway in other nearby localities (e.g.Mesa Verde National Park,Crow Canyon
Archaeological Center,McElmo Canyon,and Bluff,Utah).The establishment ofsuch a "weather
station"at the Mill property would be discrete (the devices are the size of a ping-pong ball)and
would come at little or no cost to the Mill.Further,it would contribute to a larger,region-wide
effort to document environmental variability in the region.
Historic data may also be very informative when considering such a research domain.We
suggest that a review of historic settlement on White Mesa,as it relates to environment and
agriculture,could contribute significantly to this research domain.
Yet another kind of question that is pertinent to this domain has to do with the availability
of resources to the occupants of White Mesa.Following the excavation of sites within the Cell
4B project area,we will consider the distribution ofresources such as water,lithic materials,and
clay materials as they relate to this locus ofWhite Mea.
83
Chronology
Of all the research domains considered here,we will probably concentrate on chronology
with the greatest intensity.Absolute dating techniques such as dendrochronology may yield ideal
and precise measures of time.However,relative dating techniques such as pottery assemblage
dating may also provide very useful information.To this end,we suggest that some of our
concerns may be "instrumental"in nature:the improvement of our capacity to use such relative
means as pottery typologies may be one of the goals of research associated with the project.In
addition to "when"a site was occupied,a question under the chronology research domain may
ask "how long"a site was occupied.
Some ofthe sites clearly have no long-term habitation features associated with them (e.g.
42Sa28128,42Sa28130,and 42Sa28134).While tree-ring dates may not be available for these
sites,coarser-grained methods might be.Furthermore,pollen data from certain ofthese features
may permit some insight regarding the particular season ofuse for these places.We propose that
smaller sites such as these might have been associated with the tending of agricultural fields,an
hypothesis that might be tested with pollen data.
The data needs for this research domain include sources for absolute dating methods (e.g.
tree-ring samples,radiocarbon samples from annual plants or armual plant remains,and
archaeomagnetic samples)as well as sources for relative dating methods (the pottery
assemblage,other diagnostic artifacts,and architecture).The length of structure occupation can
be based upon accumulations data (Lightfoot 1994;Varien and Mills 1997).We are fortunate to
have at least one site,42Sa6393,with reasonably intact midden deposits.Testing at this site has
shown these deposits to be fairly discrete as well as relatively shallow.Understanding this,we
propose to excavate both midden areas at this site (Nonstructures I and 2),particularly given that
the removal of these deposits will be cost-effective.
Subsistence
This research domain addresses questions pertinent to the subsistence economies for
households at particular sites within the Ce1l4B area,especially 42Sa6393 and 42Sa6757,places
that seem to have been occupied year-round for multiple years.In addition to direct evidence for
the use of particular plants and animals at these sites,our research would also consider indirect
measures ofsubsistence such as particular lithic tool types,food-processing facilities,and pottery
artifacts.
•Were the occupants of 42Sa6393 and 42Sa6757 engaged in a primarily agricultural
subsistence economy,a mixed subsistence economy,or a predominantly wild foods
subsistence economy?
•What role did the sites play in the subsistence economy of the Pueblo societies associated
with the Basketrnaker III period and the Pueblo II and III periods?Do plant and animal
profiles suggest that individual sites served primarily as habitation,loci of ritual
importance (i.e.feasting),or as special-function loci such as seasonally occupied field
houses?
84
The subsistence domain articulates with the other domains considered in this document.
With regard to environment,we have already pondered the question of whether there were
particular periods through history that might have been better for agriculture on White Mesa.
One of the important problems recognized by past researchers on White Mesa has to do with a
changing subsistence and settlement strategies through time.Is there a correlation between
agricultural practices and environmental regimes?As an example,is a more "extensive"
approach to land use and corn-growing associated with periods of greater environmental
variability (i.e.increase the number of fields across a broader landscape in the hope that one of
the fields will be more productive)?Clearly,this question leads to the research domain of
"settlement."
Settlement
"Settlement"issues may address site-specific questions,local site distribution problems,
and region-wide issues that address large-scale abandonment and resettlement.We suggest that
all scales of such a research domain can be addressed by the Cell 4B project,though not for each
individual site.
At the individual site level,the settlement domain grapples primarily with functional
issues.One ofthe most salient questions apparent from past research on or near the White Mesa
Mill property has to do with the great variability apparent in pit structure architecture during the
Pueblo II period (Casjens 1980;Davis 1985;Firor and others 1998).Specific questions that we
could address include:
•Do the pit structures at 42Sa6393 contain the architectural elements commonly described
for "kivas"or for "pithouses"?
•What primary function(s)did the pit structures serve?Is there a functional difference
between kivas and pithouses?
The documentation and analysis of architectural and artifactual data from the pit
structures will suffice to answer most or all of the above questions.Likewise,these data could
also inform us about the roles that smaller sites played in the larger settlement systems during the
Basketmaker III and Pueblo IIIIII periods.
•Do the smaller sites represent field house loci?Or do these places represent loci ofother
activities such as food processing?
At present,it appears that ridgeline locations may have been the preferred locations for
inhabitations,while the lower alluvial valleys with deeper soils may have been preferred for
agricultural fields.
•Does this hypothesis work in the context of our present project?How does it fare in
consideration of other research that has been conducted on White Mesa?Is this a
settlement pattern that might be applied at a larger regional level?
85
Obviously,the settlement domain broadens to include problems beyond the sites in the
Cell 4B project area.The domain delves into the relationships that site occupants had with others
within the region as well as outside the region.Site abandonment issues become a point of
contact for questions regarding extralocal relationships.
•What abandonment modes are indicated by the contents of the pit structures?Were
architectural elements recycled and artifacts removed for use elsewhere,suggesting that
the occupants moved only a short distance away?Or were the structures burned and their
contents left behind,indicating a long-distance move?
•Ifa long-distance move is indicated,is there evidence for the destination?
Pottery ware data and lithic material type data may assist in the recognition of extralocal
relationships with other parts of the Southwest.Intensive analyses of these materials may help
address these questions.While we do not focus on laboratory processes in this document,it is
important to acknowledge these issues and data needs here.Trace element analyses in both
pottery clays and lithic materials may help resolve sourcing issues for both material types,and
greatly assist in our understanding of the dynamic sets of relationships between different groups
of people within the Mesa Verde region and beyond.As an immediate example,it has been
proposed that the azurite spheres recovered from 42Sa6757 may derive from Lisbon Valley to
the north.Could trace element analysis ofthese items from 42Sa6757 support this hypothesis?
Social Organization
Questions pertinent to social organization overlap considerably with all the above
research domains.For example,the determination of a pithouse's or kiva's function is
fundamental to both settlement and social organization questions.Similarly,evidence of feasting
ritual is also pertinent to the subsistence domain.This domain also operates to cover issues that
are site-specific as well as trends that are regional.
At the site-specific level,a basic question that we have for the habitations at 42Sa6393
and 42Sa6757 has to do with household size.How many people lived in these places?
Architecture and artifact data will help address this question.For 42Sa6393,this underscores the
importance of excavating the middens here in their entirety.Demographic data will also be
supplemented by information from burials.Out of respect to American Indian concerns,we do
not propose destructive or in-depth analyses of human remains.We propose to gather simple
data through in-field analysis such as age,sex,cause of death (if possible),and observations of
pathologies as they are apparent.
Settlement issues,such as site distribution,will also figure in our attempt at some
reconstruction of community organization.This kind of problem exceeds our abilities in the
present project;however,we can consider our final results in light ofwhat excavation and survey
data already exist for White Mesa.Ultimately,perhaps when most of the projected expansion
activities on the White Mesa property are nigh completion,a summative volume on the
archaeology ofWhite Mesa would be appropriate to best tackle this particular problem.
86
The social organization research domain may also address the esoteric concerns of
problems that delve into ideology.Again,architecture and artifact analyses will help address
things ideological.One ofthe questions we have for Basketmaker III period sites has to do with
azurite spheres.Are these objects truly associated with only the Basketmaker III period?With
regard to 42Sa6393,which seems to be solely associated with the early to middle Pueblo II
period,are there trappings ofthe so-called Chaco Phenomenon present?Till (2007)has proposed
a strong correlation with the lithic material,Brushy Basin chert,in Pueblo II period site
assemblages in southwestern Colorado,and Hurst (personal communication with Jonathan Till,
2009)has made the same observation for southeastern Utah.Does the lithic assemblage at
42Sa6393 also reflect this lithic material preference,particularly in comparison with other sites
on the property that are associated with different time periods?
Technology
"Technological"concerns will address detailed examinations and analyses offeatures and
artifacts that heretofore have been understudied or perhaps not studied at all.These problems
will not be addressed simply for the sake that they are there;rather,such studies will only be
proposed if they are pertinent to addressing other domains in the proposed research design.
These studies will be proposed at a later date in a technical proposal/research design specific to
laboratory analyses.However,we feel it appropriate to raise the idea that pottery clay and temper
sourcing analyses could greatly improve our recognition of extralocal pottery types should such
be recovered.Furthermore,such studies would also be invaluable to our understanding of local
pottery types,particularly red ware pottery.We anticipate that very modest samples,about 10
samples for clay sourcing and 10 to 20 for temper sourcing,would achieve our goals for this
project.
Methodological Madness
This section presents the methods and techniques that will be used to excavate and
document archaeological features and their contents.We include here our general excavation
approach,as well as site-specific methods.This section also describes the laboratory methods
used to catalog and analyze the artifact assemblage collections and samples.We also describe
our curation and reporting processes.
Provenience System
Context is everything.Almost,anyway.Understanding this,we propose the
implementation of a robust provenience system that is used widely by other archaeological
organizations throughout the Four Corners region.This system,the "PD/FS"system,developed
from the Dolores Archaeological Project (Ward 1999).In this provenience system,each
identified horizontal and vertical context within a site is assigned a unique "provenience
designation"number (PD).The numbers are assigned sequentially,starting with "2."The
numbers "0"and "1"will be assigned to "general site,unknown"and "general site,modern
ground surface"contexts,respectively.Ideally,these numbers will never have to be used,but
will be maintained should artifacts become separated from their more specific contexts.The
87
testing program for this project commenced the use of the PD system on the Cell 4B sites (Till
2009a);the data recovery project will continue its use.For example,if testing activities
documented 51 PDs at a site,the data recovery project would start with PD 52 at that same site.
After the site itself,which is designated with a Smithsonian site number (e.g.42Sa6391),
our provenience system will distinguish three types of study unit:structure,nonstructure,and
arbitrary (Crow Canyon Archaeological Center 2001;Fuller and others 2002:85-6).A "structure"
study unit generally indicates a formal architectural feature,such as a pithouse or a masonry
roomblock,but may be used to describe less formal features such as ramadas.A "nonstructure"
study unit designation is used to describe nonarchitectural features such as middens and plaza
areas,or nonconstructed extramural prehistoric ground surfaces.An "arbitrary"study unit refers
to a unit that has no apparent cultural associations.
Table 22 refers to the types of horizontal and vertical subdivisions that will be used
during the surface and subsurface investigations ofthe Cell 4B sites.The horizontal subdivisions
include whole study unit (WSU),half,quadrant,grid unit,segment,backhoe trench,probes,and
wall.Study units that are not subdivided horizontally are designated by WSU.Many structures,
however,will be excavated by half or quadrant.In the case of "halves,"the feature being
investigated will be roughly divided into two equal portions,usually along a cardinal axis (north
to south,or east to west).Some structures may be excavated in "quadrants,"with the feature
being divided into four,approximately equal portions,often according to cardinal direction.
"Grid units"refer to square or rectangular units that are oriented to a site's grid.Each grid unit is
identified by the coordinates ofthe unit's southwest comer.The largest grid unit will measure no
more than 4-by 4-m."Segments"are hand-excavated units that will not be on the grid,nor will
they be halves or quadrants of study units.These units are generally not oriented to a cardinal
direction."Backhoe trenches"are machine-excavated units,many of which will have been
previously excavated by the Antiquities Section.The designation "probe"refers to auger and/or
shovel probes.Finally,"wall"will probably see little use,but will be used when documenting
artifacts or samples recovered from a formal,architectural wall.
Table 22.Horizontal and Vertical Subdivisions
Horizontal Subdivisions Vertical Subdivisions
Halves Stratum
Quadrants Level
Test Unit Surface
Whole Study Unit Full Cut
Vertical subdivisions consist of full cut,stratum,level,and surface."Full cut"simply
refers to those cases where no vertical subdivision is used within a unit."Stratum"may designate
natural or cultural strata that are apparent by color,texture,inclusions,and stratigraphic breaks.
In contrast,"level"is an arbitrary vertical subdivision.Levels may be used when a stratum
exceeds 20 cm in depth,thus providing excavators with more vertical control.In this scenario,
levels will be vertical subdivisions of a particular stratum,and will start with "I"at the top of the
stratum. The distinction "surface"refers to cultural surfaces,which will vary in their degree of
formality.Some surfaces have been clearly constructed,while others are evident by virtue of
use-compaction,while others are simply inferred and virtually undetectable except by the
presence offeatures and flat-lying artifacts.
88
"Field Specimen"numbers will be assigned,in the field,to "bulk artifact"categories,
such as pottery sherds or lithic debitage,"samples,"such as pollen samples or tree-ring samples,
and individual artifacts,such as projectile points or manos.These numbers will be assigned
sequentially,starting with "I,"within each PD.Artifact cataloging techniques are further
described in the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center laboratory manual (Ortman and others
2005:Chapter 3).
Field Excavation Methods
Data recovery techniques will involve a variety of intensive excavation measures,each
used according to the context being investigated.In most cases the entirety of a site,at least as
much ofit that remains,will be excavated.
In those cases where well-preserved midden areas are relatively intact,the middens will
be excavated according to 2-by 2-m grids.As these are relatively shallow features,not seeming
to exceed 20 cm in depth.These areas will be excavated full cut unless meaningful stratigraphy
(e.g.different depositional events)is observed.All fill will be screened through Y<-inch mesh,
and the resulting artifact assemblage collected for further analysis.Each midden unit will be
sampled for macrobotanical remains,each sample being 2 liters of fill.These samples will be
processed in-house.The heavy fractions of these samples will be fine-screened for microrefuse.
A sample of the light fraction materials will be analyzed at a later date by a paleobotanical
specialist.
All of the sites in consideration here have relatively small,extramural features (e.g.
hearths,postholes,etc.).These features will first be scraped to define their perimeter.After a
feature's surface of origin has been drawn and photographed,one-half of the feature will be
excavated full cut (without vertical subdivision).When this halfis completed,the profile will be
drawn and photographed.The remaining fill will be excavated,segregating strata if such are
observed in the profile.At least one liter of fill will be collected from a feature for flotation.The
remainder of the fill will be screened through Y<-inch mesh.Upon the feature's complete
excavation a plan view map will be drawn ofthat feature and a final set ofphotographs taken.
At least eight pit structures,and perhaps nine,are known to exist on the Cell 4B property.
All structures will first be trenched,either by hand or machine (see below for specific site
details).Trenches will be excavated on a north to south orientation,unless the structure's
orientation is clearly different (most pithouses and kivas in the Mesa Verde region have a north-
to-south orientation).The specific feature will be have one or more profiles drawn,and the
profile photographed.Once the feature's stratigraphy has been documented,existing overburden
will be removed.Pueblo II period pithouses may be excavated by half.Basketmaker III
pithouses,however,may be excavated in fifths at the discretion ofthe supervising archaeologist.
Also at the discretion of the supervising archaeologist (and in consultation with the project
director),overburden material may removed by hand or machine,and mayor may not be
screened through Y<-inch mesh.At the point that structural collapse deposits are observed (i.e.
wall and/or roof fall),the structure will be excavated by hand according to stratum.Artifacts
found in association with the structure's floor(s)will be point-provenienced.Should roof fall be
89
observed,point location ofartifacts may also occur in this context.Features found in association
with the floor or other interior surfaces will be excavated individually according to the
procedures described above for small pit features.Any burned structural members encountered
will be documented and removed as tree-ring samples should the materials have enough integrity
to warrant sampling.Discretionary pollen and flotation samples will be collected from each
structure,but will at least include samples from each quadrant ofa structure's floor.
Site 42Sa6393
Of the ten sites in the Cell 4B project area, this site will be the most intensively
excavated.This site appears to a represent an early to middle Pueblo II period occupation.At
least four pithouses are anticipated for this site (Discovery Features 6,8,9,and 10).One ofthese
features appears to have burned (Discovery Feature 10).The site also harbors two sheet middens
(Nonstructures I and 2)as well as several known extramural features (Discovery Features 1-3).
At least two of the pit structures (Discovery Features 6 and 9)may require the use of a
backhoe to remove overburden sediments.Hand-excavation techniques may suffice to expose
Discovery Features 8 and 10.In addition to the excavation of the pit structures themselves,the
areas immediately surrounding these features will be excavated to expose the immediate
extramural spaces around these rooms.Otherwise,excavation of the pit structures will observed
the methods discussed above.
The midden areas (Nonstructures I and 2)will also be the subjects of intensive
excavation.These features will be excavated as 4-by 4-m units.Systematic shovel-and-trowel
excavations will accomplish the task of sampling the midden as well as exposing any subsurface
features associated with the prehistoric ground surface.The methods and techniques for
excavating the midden areas have been discussed in the general excavation methods for the
project.
Several other small features (e.g.Discovery Features 1-3)have been documented for the
site.These will be excavated according to the general excavation methods discussed earlier.
Site 42Sa6397
This site appears to be associated with an early Pueblo period occupation.At least one
pithouse is likely on the site (Discovery Feature II);the remains of two possible surface
structures are also present (the jacal concentration in the southeast comer of the site and
Discovery Feature 12).The site also includes eight other small discovery features and two small
pit features in previous Antiquities Section backhoe trenches.
The excavation of Discovery Feature II,a likely pithouse,will require the use of a
backhoe to remove what seems to be a homogenous,relatively clean overburden sediment.The
area immediately surrounding the structure will be excavated in an attempt to discern the
prehistoric ground surface associated with the feature,as well as any extramural features
90
associated with the pithouse.Otherwise,this feature will be excavated according to the general
methods described for excavating pit structures.
The two possible surface structures will be investigated by systematically excavating the
grid units associated with these areas.In the area of the jacal concentration,this might be
relatively easy as the prehistoric ground surface appears to be very shallow.However,the area
around Discovery Feature 12,with its difficult stratigraphy,is more problematic.
Antiquities Section backhoe trenches yielded evidence for two small pit features.These
areas of the trenches will be re-excavated with a backhoe.Once located the features will be
excavated by hand.
Finally,eight other relatively small features have been documented on the site.Discovery
Features I through 10 will be excavated according to the methods outlined earlier.
Site 42Sa6757
This site has been the subject of earlier intensive excavations by Abajo Archaeology
(Davis 1985).Two likely pithouses have been located on the site (Discovery Features I and 2),
as has a small pit structure (Discovery Feature 3).In addition to these features,blading activities
have revealed 19 other smaller features.Finally,we propose to sample a portion of the site's
midden area.
Of the two pithouses,one appears to have burned (Discovery Feature 1);the other is
unburned (Discovery Feature 2).Discovery Feature 3 also appears to have burned.As this
portion of the site has been bladed,no prehistoric ground surface is present for investigation.
Consequently,work will focus on the structures themselves,which will be excavated entirely by
hand.The structures will be excavated according to the general excavation procedures outlined
earlier for pit structures.
The 19 smaller features are mostly concentrated in an area to the southeast of Feature 1,a
pithouse that had been previously excavated by Abajo Archaeology.All 19 features will be
excavated according to the procedures outlined above for small features.
The site's midden area was not investigated in any intensive way in the past.We propose
to sample a few locations in this area to better characterize the material culture from 42Sa6757.
We suggest that a minimum of three 4-by 4-m grid units be excavated to sample this sediment.
These areas will be selected at the discretion of the supervisory archaeologist working on the
site.
Site 42Sa8014
This site had been investigated earlier by Abajo Archaeology (Davis 1985).However,
surface scraping revealed the presence of ten subsurface features (Discovery Features 1 through
10).These relatively small features will be excavated according to the methods outlined earlier
for small features.
91
Site 42Sa28128
Testing activities revealed the presence of seven relatively small subsurface features.
These features will be excavated according to the methods outlined earlier for small features.
Site 42Sa28129
One pit structure and nine other,smaller features were documented during testing
activities.Since the prehistoric ground surface surrounding the pit structure (Discovery Feature
10)has been entirely stripped,data recovery will focus entirely on the interior of the pit
structure.The interior sediments of the feature will be excavated by hand.Otherwise,the feature
will be excavated by way of the procedures described earlier for pit structures.The nine other
smaller features will be also be excavated by the methods outlined earlier for small features.
Site 42Sa28130
Testing activities revealed the presence of three relatively small subsurface features.
These features will be excavated according to the methods outlined earlier for small features.
Site 42Sa28131
Only one feature is known to be present on the site.This feature,an historic hearth,will be
excavated according to the procedures outlined earlier for small features.
Site 42Sa28132
Testing activities revealed the presence of 12 subsurface features.Seven of the features
are relatively small (Discovery Features 2,5,6,8,9,10,and 12).These features will be
excavated according to the methods outlined earlier for small features.Five of the features are
larger,but do not appear to be pit structures.These features (Discovery Features 1,3,4,7,and
11)will be bisected with a small hand-excavated trench,reassessed for its function and size,and
then excavated in a manner appropriate to the feature.
Site 42Sa28134
Testing activities revealed the presence of only one small subsurface feature (Discovery
Feature 1).This features will be excavated according to the methods outlined earlier for small
features.
Laboratory Methods
All artifacts and other specimens recovered from the sites will be brought to the Abajo
Archaeology office in Bluff,Utah,at the end of each working day.As noted above,these items
will be cataloged in the field.Artifacts will be cleaned and processed for analysis.The catalog
will be entered into a relational database (Microsoft Access).The results of these analyses will
92
be entered into separate Access databases.All databases will share as key fields the site number,
the PD number,and the FS number.Artifact analyses are discussed further below.
Lithic Analysis
The analyses ofchipped stone and ground stone artifacts will be conducted by Jonathan
Till and/or Benjamin Bellorado,both of whom are (usually)employed in the research lab of
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center and both of whom are well-experienced with the lithic
artifact types and the lithic material types of the immediate project area as well as the broader
Four Corners region.These analyses will be conducted according to the methods outlined in
Crow Canyon's on-line laboratory manual (Ortman and others 2005).All formal chipped stone
tools and ornaments will be photographed and/or illustrated.We anticipate a relatively large
assemblage from 42Sa6393,and much smaller assemblages from the remainder ofthe sites.
Pottery Analysis
Pottery analysis will be conducted by Mark Bond and/or Benjamin Bellorado.Both are
well-experienced in the analysis of pottery from the region.These analyses will be conducted
according to the methods outlined in Crow Canyon's on-line laboratory manual (Ortman and
others 2005).Complete or nearly complete vessels will be photographed.Based on testing
activities,we anticipate a relatively large assemblage from 42Sa6393,and much smaller
assemblages from the remainder ofthe sites.
Macrobotanical Specimens
As noted earlier,flotation samples will be taken from all appropriate contexts within pit
structures and other architectural features,small extramural features such as hearths,and from
middens.These strata include both architectural and nonarchitectural floor features,roof fill,
floor fill,and other culturally significant strata.In addition to the macrobotanical specimens,
flotation samples may be used to obtain lithic and faunal micro-refuse specimens.These samples
will be processed according to methods outlined in Ortman and others (2005).The processed
samples will then be submitted to Dr.Karen Adams in Tucson,Arizona for analysis.
Pollen Specimens
Sediment samples from which pollen samples can be extracted will be recovered from in
and around architectural and nonarchitectural features.Small features within the larger features
(e.g.hearths,mealing bins)will be sampled by taking samples around the outside ofthe feature
as well as from within it.The floor ofthe pit structures will be sampled in quadrants (i.e.four
samples from the floor).Samples will also be taken from any culturally significant stratum
encountered.The samples will be submitted to either the Laboratory ofPaleoecology at Northern
Arizona University,Flagstaff or PaleoResearch Labs in Golden,Colorado.
93
Faunal Bone Specimens
All faunal remains recovered during data recovery will undergo analysis and will include,
when possible,species identification,side,and skeletal element.Modifications such as burning
and cut marks will also be documented.All bone tools will be photographed and/or illustrated.
Faunal remains will be submitted to Josh Edwards,of Cornerstone Environmental,Flagstaff,
Arizona.Based on initial fieldwork at the site (Davis 2008),we anticipate a very small faunal
bone assemblage.
Radiocarbon Specimens
Ifthe structure is not burned,charcoal specimens observed associated with roof-fall and
floor fill or features will be recovered for radiocarbon dating.Efforts will be made to minimize
the effects of "old wood"dating by selecting annual plant remains (e.g.charred maize),twigs,or
bark.We estimate collecting at least three samples.Samples will be submitted to Beta Analytic,
Inc.,Miami,Florida.
Dendrochronological Specimens
We do not currently anticipate the recovery of relatively intact structural remains from
Feature 2.However,if such specimens are encountered,then samples will be submitted to the
Tree Ring Laboratory in Tucson,Arizona.
Archaeomagnetic Sampling
Archaeomagnetic sampling will be performed by Kay Barnett of Cortez,Colorado.The
samples will then be submitted to the Archaeometric Laboratory at Colorado State University.
There is a good potential for collecting samples from at least several of the pit structures in the
project area.
Human Osteological Remains
Previous research at prehistoric sites on White Mesa have documented a moderate
number of human burials (e.g.Casjens 1980;Davis 1985;Firor and others 1998).In the event
that human remains are encountered,excavators will treat the remains with sensitivity and
respect in the spirit of NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act).If
human burials are encountered,Abajo archaeologists will cease excavation in the vicinity ofthe
remains and contact the San Juan County Sheriff and Medical Examiner,as well as the Division
ofState History.Abajo Archaeology will engage Kay Bamett of Cortez,Colorado to conduct the
excavation and analysis of any new human remains data from the proposed project will also be
submitted to Ms.Barnett.Human remains will be submitted to the Division of State History for
proper treatment and reinterment.
94
Reporting and Curation
Upon completion ofall analyses,a final written report of the data recovery results will be
submitted to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality,Division of Radiation Control,the
compliance agency responsible for issuing and administering the operation license of the
Denison Mines White Mesa Mill.This agency would,in turn,submit the report to the Utah State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).Additionally,a copy of the report will be submitted to the
Edge ofthe Cedars Museum,Blanding,Utah.A CD with copy of the project's database will also
be made available with the report.
In addition to the report,Abajo Archaeology will also submit all artifacts and associated
files from the project to the Edge of the Cedars Museum.All artifacts will be housed in archival
materials,including artifact bags and boxes as stipulated by the Edge ofthe Cedars.Consultation
with Ms.Deborah Westfall,Curator,will ensure that artifacts and other materials will be treated
appropriately for their long-term curation.
Public Outreach
In addition to the reporting process outlined above,we recommend a more public
component to the project.Public outreach is critical to the protection and appreciation of
southeastern Utah's ancient history.Denison Mines (USA)Corp.maintains a vital relationship
with the community of San Juan County,Utah.Their support of any public outreach activities
would be openly and gratefully acknowledged,regardless ofthe forum or media.Naturally,these
presentations would reflect well on Denison Mines (USA)Corp.
We propose several types of public outreach.First,we recommend a small series of
public presentations by the project director and/or field directors.These presentations could
occur on a bi-monthly basis at the Edge of the Cedars Museum in Blanding,Utah.The first
presentation could take place soon after data recovery begins,perhaps sometime after the New
Year.
Second,we suggest that a small but informative report of the project and its results be
made available on-line.This could take place on a web site produced by Abajo Archaeology.
Denison Mines (USA)Corp.would be welcome to review this web-based presentation prior to
its release to ensure the organization's best interests.
Third,we would like to develop a small exhibit at the Edge of the Cedars Museum that
uses artifacts and other materials from the Cell 4B project.The development and presentation of
such an exhibit would,in a sense,"give back"the unwritten record of southeastern Utah to its
present-day community.
Finally,as archaeologists,the staff of Abajo Archaeology would like to use the data
gathered during the Cell 4B project in professional presentations made to the archaeological
community.Venues in which these data will be reported include professional publications and
professional presentations at regional and national meetings.
95
Chapter 5:The Players and the Program
Abajo Archaeology and Staff
Abajo Archaeology is a cultural resource management and consulting company organized
in 1981 to meet the growing need for cultural resource management services in Utah,Arizona,
Colorado,New Mexico and surrounding areas.The company is a general partnership owned and
operated by William E.Davis and Deborah A.Westfall in Bluff, San Juan County,Utah.
Abajo Archaeology has been recognized by both state and federal land management
agencies for its commitment to high standards of performance.Abajo's key archaeologists all
hold Master's degrees in Anthropology and have a combined record that exceeds 80 years of
professional expertise. The archaeologists all retain qualifications that meet or exceed the
Secretary ofthe Interior's Standards and Guidelines.Through a network ofprofessionals in other
disciplines,Abajo Archaeology incorporates studies from botany,geology,geomorphology,
hydrology,paleontology,zoology,and physical and cultural anthropology to produce well-
rounded,in-depth reports and articles that contribute to current issues of anthropological method
and theory.
Abajo Archaeology has demonstrated its professional competence to federal and state
agencies and to private industries.These include the U.S.D.L Bureau of Land Management,
National Park Service,and Bureau of Indian Affairs;the U.S.D.A.Forest Service;the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission;the Navajo Nation;the Utah Department of Transportation,the Utah
Federal Highway Administration;and the respective state land management offices of Utah,
Arizona,Colorado and New Mexico.Our combined expertise and capabilities have pleased
project sponsors with efficient,cost-effective,and timely completion of documentary research,
field investigations,and report preparation pursuant to meeting requirements for legal
compliance in accord with project scheduling.
Abajo Archaeology acts as a central clearinghouse for a group ofcommitted,independent
Consulting Archaeologists who have a combined professional experience exceeding 40 years in
prehistoric and historic cultural resource management and research.Each Consulting
Archaeologist holds a Master's Degree in Anthropology and has experience that exceeds the
Secretary ofthe Interior's Standards and Guidelines (48 Federal Register,Part IV).
Principal Investigator:William E.Davis
William E.Davis received his M.A.in Anthropology from Northern Arizona University
in 1982.Mr.Davis'professional career spans 35 years for archaeological research and cultural
resource management consulting services in Utah,Arizona,New Mexico,Colorado,and
Wyoming.He has authored over 100 technical reports and has published numerous research
reports on High Plains and Southwest archaeology.As Principal Investigator he is responsible
for organizing,implementing,and overseeing all projects.Specific duties include project
administration,proposal and research design preparation,fieldwork (survey and excavation),
analysis and report preparation,and monitoring of compliance procedures.
96
Mr.Davis will serve as Principal Investigator for the 42Sa27732 Data Recovery Project.
He will be responsible for organization,management,and internal control.His duties will
include coordination with the Dension Mines personnel and overall logistics and problem
control.During the analysis/report preparation phase,Mr.Davis will provide input for the
artifact analysis and will review and edit the project report.He will also be available in the field
on an as-needed basis.
Project Director:Jonathan Till
Jonathan D.Till has engaged in archaeological work and research in the northern
Southwest for over 20 years,and in the Mesa Verde region for more than 15 years.Past
employers include the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests,the State of Arizona,the Navajo
Nation Archaeological Department,and Abajo Archaeology.In addition to archaeological survey
and excavation,Till is well-experienced in the material culture of prehistoric Puebloan societies.
For the past six years he has worked at Crow Canyon Archaeological Center's research lab,
managing the analyses of artifacts from numerous sites,teaching analytical techniques to
hundreds of children and adults,and reporting on the results of these analyses.Till holds a B.A.
in Anthropology from Grinnell College (1989),and an M.A.in Anthropology and a Certificate in
Museum Studies from the University of Colorado (2001).He has authored numerous technical
reports,has co-authored several book chapters,and has delivered many professional
presentations.His research interests include the so-called "Chaco phenomenon"of the Four
Comers region.
Field Director:Mark Bond
Mark C.Bond has engaged in archaeological fieldwork in the Four-Comers Southwestern
region for over 30 years.He has participated in southeastern and northeastern Utah
archaeological projects for 20 years of that time primarily as a Field Project Supervisor.During
the 1981 archaeological excavations at the White Mesa Mill he participated as a crew leader and
subsequently directed the analysis of all ceramic artifacts recovered by the project.His report on
this analysis represents the ceramic chapter in the final project report.More recently,Bond
directed the field crews during the Colorado University (Boulder)Summer Archaeological Field
School sessions (1996-2004)at the Bluff Great House Site (42Sa22674)in Bluff,Utah.He has
consulted on numerous archaeological field projects and authored numerous technical reports.
Bond holds a B.A.in Anthropology from New Mexico State University (1974)and an M.A.in
Anthropology from Northern Arizona University (1981).
Assistant Field Director:Benjamin Bellorado
Benjamin Bellorado has over 10 years of experience in archaeology,all of which has
focused on the archaeology of the Four Comers region.Bellorado is has considerable breadth of
experience in survey,excavation,and laboratory analysis.His past employers include SWCA
(Animas-La Plata Project),the Comb Ridge Archaeological Project (Bluff,Utah),San Juan
College (Farmington,New Mexico),the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center's research lab,
Abajo Archaeology,and Fort Lewis College.Bellorado holds a B.A.in Anthropology from Fort
Lewis College,and an M.A.in Anthropology from Northern Arizona University.He has
97
authored technical reports and volume chapters,has delivered many professional presentations,
and was the co-organizer of a symposium at the Society for American Archaeology meeting in
2009.Bellorado's research interests include ancient agricultural practices and rock art of the
Mesa Verde region.
Archaeologists
Eleven field archaeologists will be responsible for completing the day-to-day tasks
involved in the excavation of the site.They will be directly accountable to the field director.
Persons retained for this position will be required to have a B.A.in Anthropology,or comparable
experience in the field of archaeology.
Laboratory Staff
Two part-time laboratory staffwill be employed to process artifacts and samples,as well
as perform data entry tasks.Laboratory Manager,Erica Olsen,will supervise the lab's work and
organize the collection for curation.She will also assist in public outreach activities discussed
earlier in Chapter 4.
Resources
Abajo Archaeology's office facility is situated in Bluff,San Juan County,Utah.The
office,with 1000 square feet of floor space and storage area,is geared mainly toward the
administration of the company,secretarial and bookkeeping functions,and report and proposal
preparation.The office also contains a library of anthropological and archaeological journals,
books,papers and cultural resource management academic reports by various colleagues and
institutions,as well as an extensive map library.The office is equipped with standard laboratory
equipment for performing initial artifact analyses,including cleaning,stabilizing,cataloging,
recording of attribute data,microscopic examination and photography.Final bagging and
ordering of artifacts for museum curation is done in the office,using specialized supplies and
equipment.Lastly,the office is equipped with multiple computers to facilitate rapid production
ofreports,cultural resource inventory forms,and general mathematical functions.
Proposed Schedule
Table 23 outlines the schedule of work for the proposed project.The fieldwork will start
on December 7,2009 and continue until May 29,2010.A total of 110 working days or 22 weeks
is anticipated to complete the fieldwork.The field work will be performed using two six-person
crews and will consist of the project director,field director,assistant field director and nine field
archaeologists.Laboratory artifact processing and data entry tasks will be conducted co-currently
with the fieldwork.As the artifacts are brought into the laboratory from the field,they will be
washed,cleaned and processed into the data base.These tasks will be performed by the
Laboratory Manager and an assistant.We calculate that the overall cost to complete the
fieldwork will be around $425,000.
98
Table 23.Estimated Time Requirements
Person
Field work Days/Hours
Principal Investiaator 22 Days/176 Hours
110 Days/990
Proiect Director Hours
110 Days/990
Field Director Hours
110 Days/990
Assistant Fieid Director Hours
990 Days/7920
Nine Field Archaeoloqists Hours
Laboratory Artifact
Processina
Laboratorv Manaaer 58 Davs/464 Hours
Laboratory Assistant 55 Days/440 Hours
99
References
Agenbroad,Larry D.,Jim 1.Mead,and Lisa W.Nelson (Editors)
1990 Megafauna and Man:Discovery of America's Heartland.The Mammoth Site of Hot
Springs,South Dakota,Inc.and Northern Arizona University,Hot Springs,South
Dakota.
Allison,James R.,Winston B.Hurst,Jonathan D.Till,and Donald C.Irwin
In press Chapter 3:Meanwhile,in the West:Early Pueblo Communities in Southeastern
Utah.In Crucible of Pueblos:The Early Pueblo Period in the Northern
Southwest,edited by Richard H.Wilshusen,Gregson Schachner,and James R.
Allison.Submitted to Costen Institute ofArchaeology at UCLA.
Anderson,Diana Elder
1991 Holocene Alluvial Geochronology and Archaeology of Lower Butler Wash,San Juan
County,Utah.A Thesis for the Degree of Master of Science in Quaternary Studies,
Northern Arizona University,Flagstaff.
Atkins,Victoria M.(Editor)
1993 Anasazi Basketmaker:Papers from the 1990 Wetherill-Grand Gulch Symposium.
Cultural Resource Series No.24.Bureau of Land Management,Utah State Office,Salt
Lake City.
Baker,Shane A.
1990 Rattlesnake Ruin (42Sa18434):A Case ofViolent Death and Perimortem Mutilation in
the Anasazi Culture ofSan Juan County,Utah.A Thesis presented to the Department
ofAnthropology,Brigham Young University.
Benson,Michael P.
1980a Chapter 11,Site 42Sa6385-Radon Ridge.In Archaeological Excavations on White
Mesa,San Juan County,Utah,1979,edited by Laurel A.Casjens,pp.183-238.Division
ofState History,Antiquities Section,Salt Lake City,Utah.
1980b Chapter 10,Site 42Sa7754-Three Meter Isle.In Archaeological Excavations on White
Mesa,San Juan County,Utah,1979,edited by Laurel A.Casjens,pp.165-182.Division
ofState History,Antiquities Section,Salt Lake City,Utah.
Berry,Claudia F.and Michael S.Berry
1986 Chronological and Conceptual Models of the Southwestern Archaic.In Anthropology of
the Desert West:Essays in Honor ofJesse D.Jennings,Carol J.Condie and Don D.
Fowler (Editors).University of Utah Anthropological Papers No.110.Department of
Anthropology,University of Utah,Salt Lake City.
100
Betancourt,Julio 1.and Norma Biggar
1985 Preliminary Assessment of Late Quaternary Vegetation and Climate of Southeastern
Utah Based on Analyses ofPackrat Middens.Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation,Battelle
Memorial Institute,Columbus,Ohio.
Binford,Lewis
1962 Archaeology as Anthropology.American Antiquity 28:217-225.
Black,Kevin D.and Michael D.Metcalf
1986 The Castle Valley Archaeological Project:An Inventory and Predictive Model of
Selected Tracts.Cultural Resource Series No.19.Bureau of Land Management,Utah
State Office,Salt Lake City.
Bond,Mark c.,William E.Davis,Winston B.Hurst,Deborah A.Westfall
1992 Cultural Resource Inventory and Evaluative Testing Along SR-262,Utah-Colorado State
Line to Montezuma Creek,Navajo Nation Lands,San Juan County,Utah.Ms.on file at
Abajo Archaeology,Bluff,Utah.
Cameron,Catherine M.
2009 Chaco and Post-Chaco in the Northern San Juan Region:Excavations at the BluffGreat
House.University ofArizona Press,Tucson.
Casjens,Laurel A.(Editor)
1980 Archaeological Excavations on White Mesa,San Juan County,Utah,1979.Division of
State History,Antiquities Section,Salt Lake City,Utah.
Cole,Sally J.
1993 Basketmaker Rock Art at the Green Mask Site,Southeastern Utah.In Anasazi
Basketmaker:Papers from the 1990 Wetherill-Grand Gulch Symposium.Cultural
Resource Series No.24.Edited by Victoria Atkins.Bureau of Land Management,Utah
State Office,Salt Lal,e City.
Condie,Carol J.and Don D.Fowler (Editors)
1986 Anthropology ofthe Desert West:Essays in Honor ofJesse D.Jennings.University of
Utah Anthropological Papers No.110.Department of Anthropology,University of Utah,
Salt Lake City.
Cordell,Linda
1994 The Nature of Explanation in Archaeology:A Position Statement,in Understanding
Complexity in the Prehistoric Southwest,edited by George J.Gurnerman and Murray
Gell-Mann,pp.149-162.Santa Fe Institute,Santa Fe.
1997 Archaeology ofthe Southwest,Second Edition.Academic Press,San Diego,California.
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center
2001 The Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Field Manual.Available:
http://www.crowcanyon.org/fieldmanual.Date of use:January 16,2009.
101
Davis,William E.
1984 42Sa16011:Excavation ofa Basketmaker Limited Activity Site North ofRecapture Creek,
San Juan County,Utah.Ms.on file at Abajo Archaeology,Bluff,Utah.
1985 Anasazi Subsistence and Settlement on White Mesa,San Juan County,Utah.Ms.on file
at Abajo Archaeology,Bluff,Utah.
2008 Site 42Sa27732:Denison Mines (USA)Corporation White Mesa Mill DeCon Pad Pueblo
III Anasazi Burial and Associated Features,San Juan County,Utah.Ms.on file,Abajo
Archaeology,Bluff,Utah.
de Haan,Petrus A.
1972 An Archaeological Survey of Lower Montezuma Canyon,Southeastern Utah.M.A.
Thesis Presented to the Department of Anthropology and Archaeology,Brigham Young
University,Provo,Utah.
Dean,Jeffrey S.,Robert C.Euler,George J.Gumerman,Fred Plog,Richard H.Hevly,and Thor
N.V.Karlstrom
1985 Human Behavior,Demography,and Paleoenvironment on the Colorado Plateaus.
American Antiquity 50:537-554.
Desrosiers,Tamara
2005 IMACS site form,Site 42Sa26349,dated 11/2/2005.
Dohm,Karen
1981 Basketmaker II Spatial Characteristics on Cedar Mesa,Utah.M.A.Thesis Presented to
the Department ofAnthropology,Washington State University.
Firor,James,Rand A.Greubel,and Alan D.Reed
1998 Archaeological Data Recovery at Four Anasazi Sites on White Mesa Along US Highway
191,San Juan County,Utah.Ms.on file,Utah Department of Transportation,Salt Lake
City,Utah.
Fowler,Andrew P.
1989 An Anasazi Brownware/Redware Ceramic Tradition.Unpublished manuscript.
Geib,Phil R.
1996 Archaic Occupancy of the Glen Canyon Region.In Glen Canyon Revisited,edited by
Phil R.Geib,pp.15-39.University of Utah Press Anthropological Papers,No.119.
University ofUtah,Salt Lake.
Glowacki,Donna
2006 The Social Landscape of Depopulation:The Northern San Juan,AD 1150-1300.
Unpublished PhD dissertation,Department of Anthropology,Arizona State University,
Tempe.
102
Graham,Russell W.
1990 Evolution of New Ecosystems at the End of the Pleistocene.In Megafauna and Man:
Discovery ofAmerica's Heartland,Editors Larry D.Agenbroad,Jim I.Mead,and Lisa
W.Nelson.The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs South Dakota,Inc.and Northern Arizona
University,Hot Springs,South Dakota.
Greubel,Rand A.
1998 Investigations at the Happy Salamander Site (42Sa7660).In Archaeological Data
Recovery at Four Anasazi Sites on White Mesa Along US Highway 191,San Juan
County,Utah,edited by James Firor,Rand A.Greubel,and Alan D.Reed,pp.158-251.
Ms.on file,Utah Department ofTransportation,Salt Lake City,Utah.
Haury,Emil W.
1975 The Stratigraphy and Archaeology ofVentana Cave.Second Printing.The University of
Arizona Press.
Haury,Emil W.,E.B.Sayles,and William W.Wasley
1959 The Lehner Mammoth Site,Southeastern Arizona.In Emil W Haury's Prehistory ofthe
American Southwest.Edited by 1.Jefferson Reid and David E.Doyel.University of
Arizona Press,Tucson,Arizona.
Holmer,Richard N.
1986 Common Projectile Points of the Intermountain West.In Anthropology of the Desert
West:Essays in Honor ofJesse D.Jennings.Edited by Carol J.Condie and Don D.
Fowler.University of Utah Anthropological Papers No.110.Department of
Anthropology,University of Utah,Salt Lake City.
Honeycutt,Linda and Jerry Fetterman
1985 The Alkali Ridge Cultural Resource Survey and Vandalism Study,Southeastern Utah.
Ms.on file,Bureau of Land Management,Monticello.
Hurst,Winston B.
1981 The Blanding Navajos:A Case Study of OjJ-Reservation Navajo Migration and
Settlement.Unpublished M.A.Thesis,Eastern New Mexico University.
1992 Chapter III:Previous Archaeological Research and Regional Prehistory,pp II -74.In
Cultural Resource Inventory and Evaluative Testing along SR-262,Utah -Colorado
State Line to Montezuma Creek,Navajo Nation Lands,San Juan County,Utah by Mark
C.Bond,William E.Davis,Winston B.Hurst,Deborah A.Westfall.Abajo Archaeology,
Bluff,Utah.
2004 Archaeological Data Recovery at Casa Coyote (42Sa3775):A Basketmaker III Pit House
Hamlet on White Mesa,San Juan County,Utah.Ms.on file,Abajo Archaeology,Bluff,
Utah.
103
Hurst,Winston B.and Jonathan D.Till
2009 Chapter 4:Some Observations Regarding the "Chaco Phenomenon"in the Northwestern
San Juan Provinces.In Chaco and Post-Chaco in the Northern San Juan Region:
Excavations at the Bluff Great House,edited by Catherine M.Cameron.University of
Arizona Press,Tucson.
Hurst,Winston B.,Mark C.Bond,and William E.Davis
1995 A Technological Proposal for Archaeological Data Recovery at Sites 42Sa7657,
42Sa7659,42Sa7660,and 42Sa20977,us.191:White Mesa to Shirttail Junction,San
Juan County,Utah.Abajo Archaeology,Bluff,Utah.
IMACS
1990 User's Guide:Instruction and Computer Codes for Use with the lMACS Site Form.
Prepared by the University ofUtah,the Bureau ofLand Management,and the U.S.Forest
Service.Revised Edition.
Irwin-Williams,Cynthia
1972 The Structure of Chacoan Society in the Northern Southwest:Investigations at the
Salmon Site,Eastern New Mexico,1972.Contributions in Anthropology 4(3).Eastern
New Mexico University,Portales.
1979 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology,7000 -2000 B.C.In Southwest,edited by Alfonso Ortiz,
pp.31-42.Handbook ofNorth American Indians 9,Smithsonian Institution,Washington,
D.C.
Jalbert,Joseph Peter and Catherine Cameron
2000 Chacoan and Local Influences in Three Great House Communities in the Northern San
Juan Region.In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape,edited by
John Kantner and Nancy M.Mahoney,pp.79-90.Anthropological Papers 64.University
ofArizona Press,Tucson.
Janetski,Joel C.
1993 The Archaic to Formative Transition North ofthe Anasazi:A Basketmaker Perspective.
In Anasazi Basketmaker:Papers from the 1990 Wetherill-Grand Gulch Symposium,ed.
Victoria M.Atkins.Cultural Resource Series No.24:223-241.Bureau of Land
Management,Utah State Office,Salt Lake City.
Jennings,Jesse
1978 Prehistory of Utah and the Eastern Great Basin.University of Utah Anthropological
Papers No.98.Department ofAnthropology,University ofUtah,Salt Lake City.
Kantner,John
2004 Ancient Puebloan Southwest.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.
Lekson,Stephen H.
1988 Idea ofthe Kiva in Anasazi Archaeology.Kiva 53(3):213-234.
104
2008 A History ofthe Ancient Southwest.School ofAdvanced Research,Santa Fe.
Lightfoot,Ricky R.and Mary C.Etzkorn (Editors)
1993 The Duclifoot Site,Volume 1:Descriptive Archaeology.Occasional Paper,no.3.Crow
Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez,Colorado.
Lightfoot,Ricky R.
1994 The Duclifoot Site,Volume 2:Archaeology of the House and Household.Occasional
Papers,no.4.Crow Canyon Archaeological Center,Cortez,Colorado.
Lindsay,Alexander J.,J.Richard Ambler,Mary Anne Stein,Philip M.Hobler.
1968 Survey and Excavations North and East ofNavajo Mountain,Utah,1959-1962.Museum
ofNorthern Arizona Bulletin No.45.Flagstaff,Arizona.
Lipe,William D.
1993 The Basketmaker II Period in the Four Corners Area.In Anasazi Basketmaker:Papers
from the 1990 Wetherill-Grand Gulch Symposium,ed.Victoria M.Atkins.Cultural
Resource Series No.24:1-1 O.Bureau of Land Management,Utah State Office,Salt Lake
City.
Lipe,William D.and Bonnie L.Pitblado
1999 Paleoindian and Archaic Periods.In Colorado Prehistory:A Context for the Southern
Colorado River Basin,edited by Lipe,William D.,Mark D.Varien,and Richard H.
Wilshusen,pp.95-131.Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists,Denver,
Colorado.
Lipe,William D.and Mark D.Varien
1999 Pueblo II (A.D.900-1150).In Colorado Prehistory:A Contextfor the Southern Colorado
River Basin,edited by Lipe,William D.,Mark D.Varien,and Richard H.Wilshusen,pp.
242-289.Colorado Council ofProfessional Archaeologists,Denver,Colorado.
1999 Pueblo III (A.D.1150-1300).In Colorado Prehistory:A Context for the Southern
Colorado River Basin,edited by Lipe,William D.,Mark D.Varien,and Richard H.
Wilshusen,pp.290-352.Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists,Denver,
Colorado.
Lipe,William D.,Mark D.Varien,and Richard H.Wilshusen (Editors)
1999 Colorado Prehistory:A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin.Colorado
Council ofProfessional Archaeologists,Denver,Colorado.
McAndrews,Kelly
2004 Chapter 13.Other Artifacts.In Archaeological Data Recovery at Casa Coyote
(42Sa3775):A Basketmaker III Pit House Hamlet on White Mesa,San Juan County,
Utah,pp.376-382.Ms.on file,Abajo Archaeology,Bluff,Utah.
105
McLellan,George Edwin
1969 The Origins,Development,and Typology ofAnasazi Kivas and Great Kivas.Unpublished
Ph.D.dissertation,Department ofAnthropology,University ofColorado,Boulder.
McPherson,Robert S.
1995 A History ofSan Juan County:In the Palm ofTime.Utah State Historical Society,Salt
Lake City,Utah.
Mahoney,Nancy M.
2000 Redefining the Scale of Chacoan Communities.In Great House Communities Across the
Chacoan Landscape,edited by John Kantner and Nancy M.Mahoney,pp.19-27.
Anthropological Papers 64.University ofArizona Press,Tucson.
Manning,Steven James
1992 The Lobed-circle Image in the Basketmaker Petroglyphs of Southeastern Utah.Utah
Archaeology 5(1):1-38.
Martin,Paul S.
1990 Who or What Destroyed Our Mammoths?In Megafauna and Man,Larry D.Agenbroad,
Jim 1.Mead,and Lisa W.Nelson,eds.The Mammoth Site ofHot Springs,South Dakota,
Inc.and Northern Arizona University,Hot Springs,South Dakota.
Matson,R.G.
1991 The Origins ofSouthwestern Agriculture.University of Arizona Press,Tucson.
Matson,RG.,W.D.Lipe,W.R Haase
1985 Adaptational Continuities and Occupational Discontinuities:The Cedar Mesa Anasazi.
Submitted February,1985 for publication in Proceedings of the 1983 Anasazi
Symposium edited by James Muller.
Mead,James 1.,Larry D.Agenbroad,Owen K.Davis,and Paul S.Martin
1986 Dung of Mammuthus in the Arid Southwest,North America.Quaternary Research
25:121-127.
Montgomery,Keith R
1994 Cultural Resource Inventory and Evaluation of the Proposed White Mesa Sanitary
Landfill Project Area,San Juan County,Utah.Abajo Archaeology,Bluff,Utah.
Neily,R.B.
1982 Basketmaker Settlement and Subsistence Along the San Juan River:The US 163
Archaeological Report.Utah Division of State History,Antiquities Section,Salt Lake
City.
106
Nielson,Asa S.
1980a Chapter 7,Site 42Sa6437-Proton Point.In Archaeological Excavations on White Mesa,
San Juan County,Utah,1979,edited by Laurel A.Casjens,pp.89-120.Division of State
History,Antiquities Section,Salt Lake City,Utah.
1980b Chapter 19,Ceramics.In Archaeological Excavations on White Mesa,San Juan County,
Utah,1979,edited by Laurel A.Casjens,pp.350-410.Division of State History,
Antiquities Section,Salt Lake City,Utah.
Nielson,Asa S.,Joel C.Janetski,and James D.Wilde (Editors)
1985 Recapture Wash Archaeological Project Report (Final).Brigham Young University
Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No.85-7,Provo,Utah.
Nickens,Paul R.
1982 Contributions to the Prehistory ofSoutheastern Utah.Cultural Resource Series No.19.
Bureau ofLand Management,Utah State Office,Salt Lake City.
Ortman,Scott G.
2000 Artifacts.In The Archaeology of Castle Rock Pueblo:A Thirteenth-Century Village in
Southwestern Colorado,edited by Kristin A.Kuckelman.Available:
http://www.crowcanyon.org/castlerock.Date ofuse:January 16,2009.
Ortman,Scott G.,Erin 1.Baxter,Carole 1.Graham,G.Robin Lyle,Lew W.Matis,Jamie A.
Merewether,R.David Satterwhite,and Jonathan D.Till
2005 The Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Laboratory Manual,Version 1.Available
http://www.crowcanyon.org/laboratorymanual.Date ofuse:January 16,2009.
Ortman,Scott G.,Mark D.Varien,and T.Lee Gripp
2007 Empirical Bayesian Methods for Archaeological Survey Data:An Application from the
Mesa Verde Region.American Antiquity 72(2):241-272.
Pachak,Joe
1994 Early Rock Art on the San Juan River.In Blue Mountain Shadows (13):16-21.San Juan
County Historical Commission,Blanding,Utah.
Prudden,T.Mitchell
1914 The Circular Kivas of Small Ruins in the San Juan Watershed.American Anthropologist
16:33-58.
1918 A Further Study of Prehistoric Small House Ruins in the San Juan Watershed.Memoirs
ofthe American Anthropological Association 5(1).
Richins,Lane D.and Richard K.Talbot
1989 Sandy Ridge:An Aceramic Habitation Site in Southeastern Utah.Utah Archaeology
2(1):77-87.
107
Roberts,Frank H.
1939 The Development of a Unit-Type Dwelling.In So Live the Works ofMan,edited by
Donald D.Brand and Fred E.Harvey,pp.311-323.University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Rohn,Arthur H.
1989 Northern San Juan Prehistory.In Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory,edited by Linda
Cordell and George J.Gumerman.Smithsonian Institution Press.Washington D.C.
Schroedl,Alan R.
1991 Paleo-Indian Occupation in the Eastern Great Basin and Northern Colorado Plateau.Utah
Archaeology 19914(1):1-15.
Schaafsma,Polly
1980 Indian Rock Art ofthe Southwest.School ofAmerican Research.Santa Fe,New Mexico.
Smiley,Frances E.
1993 Early Farmers in the Northern Southwest:A View from Marsh Pass.In Anasazi
Basketmaker:Papers from the 1990 Wetherill-Grand Gulch Symposium,ed.Victoria M.
Atkins.Cultural Resource Series No.24:243-254.Bureau of Land Management,Utah
State Office,Salt Lal<e City.
Smith,Rachel Leah
1998 Kivas ofthe Northern San Juan and the Northern Rio Grande Regions,A.D.1150-1350:
A Comparative Analysis.Unpublished Master's thesis,Department of Anthropology,
Washington State University,Pullman.
Stokes,William Lee
1986 Geology of Utah.Utah Museum of Natural History and Utah Geological and Mineral
Survey.Salt Lal<e City.
Talbot,Richard A.,Allison Bingham and Asa S.Nielson
1982 Archaeological Excavations at 42Sa9937 (Aromatic Village)in San Juan County,Utah.
Brigham Young University Department of Anthropology,Provo,Utah.
Till,Jonathan D.
2007 Letter report submitted to the Cortez Cultural Center for artifact analysis results of the
Hawkins Preserve archaeological site.Ms on file at Crow Canyon Archaeological Center,
Cortez,Colorado.
2009a Cultural Resource Inventory ofthe Proposed Denison Mines (USA)Corporation White
Mesa Mill Cell 4B,San Juan County,Utah.Ms on file,Abajo Archaeology,Bluff,Utah.
2009b The Landscape and Cosmology of the Bluff Great House:The Sculpting of an Ancient
Pueblo Community.Paper presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology,Atlanta,Georgia.
108
Till,Jonathan D.,Mark C.Bond,William E.Davis,and Deborah A Westfall
2009 Technical Proposal for Evaluative Testing at Fourteen Archaeological Sites on the
Proposed Denison Mines (USA)Corporation White Mesa Mill Cell 4-B,San Juan
County,Utah.Ms on file,Abajo Archaeology,Bluff,Utah.
Tipps,Betsy 1.
1988 The Tar Sands Project:An Inventory and Predictive Model for Central and Southern
Utah.Utah State Office,Bureau of Land Management,Cultural Resource Series No.22.
Salt Lake City.
Van West,Carla R.
1994 Modeling Prehistoric Agricultural Productivity in Southwestern Colorado:A GIS
Approach.Reports of Investigations No.67.Department of Anthropology,Washington
State University,Pullman,and Crow Canyon Archaeological Center,Cortez,Colorado.
Varien,Mark D.and Barbara J.Mills
1997 Accumulations Research:Problems and Prospects for Estimating Site Occupation Span.
Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory 4(2):141-19I.
Varien,Mark D.,Scott G.Ortman,Timothy A.Kohler,Donna M.Glowacki,and C.David
Johnson
2007 Historical Ecology in the Mesa Verde Region:Results from the Village Ecodynamics
Project.American Antiquity 72(2):273-299.
Varien,Mark D.,William D.Lipe,Michael A.Adler,Ian M.Thompson,and Bruce A Bradley
1996 Southwestern Colorado and Southeastern Utah Settlement Patterns:AD.1100 to 1300.
In The Prehistoric Pueblo World,A.D.1150-1350,edited by Michael A.Adler,pp.86-
113.The University ofArizona Press,Tucson.
Westfall,Deborah A
1995 Cultural and Paleontological Resource Inventory and Evaluative Testing:Utah
Department ofTransportation Us.191 Improvement Project,Junction US-191/SR-262
to White Mesa Road,San Juan County,Utah.Abajo Archaeology,Bluff,Utah.
2009 Prehistory and History of Southeastern Utah.Chapter 3 in Edge ofthe Cedars State Park
Museum Collections,pp.26-33,edited by Teri 1.Paul.The Donning Company
Publishers,Virginia Beach,VA.
Whitten,Penelope,Timothy Kearns,and Marilyn Swift
1986 A Report on the Archaeological Survey and Testing ofa C02 Pipeline Right-of-way on
Cajon Mesa,San Juan County,Utah and Montezuma County,Colorado.Division of
Conservation Archaeology,Farmington,New Mexico.