university press of colorado hunter-gatherer archaeology of the colorado high country aug 2001

The University Press of Colorado is a cooperative publishing enterprise supported, in part, by Adams State College, Colorado State University, Fort Lewis College, Mesa State lege, Metrop

H UNTER -G ATHERER A RCHAEOLOGY

UNIVERSITY PRESS OF COLORADO

Copyright © 2001 by the University Press of Colorado

International Standard Book Number 0-87081-612-8

Published by the University Press of Colorado

5589 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 206C

Boulder, Colorado 80303

All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

The University Press of Colorado is a cooperative publishing enterprise supported, in part,

by Adams State College, Colorado State University, Fort Lewis College, Mesa State lege, Metropolitan State College of Denver, University of Colorado, University of North- ern Colorado, University of Southern Colorado, and Western State College of Colorado The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials ANSI Z39.48-1992

Col-Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Stiger, Mark.

Hunter-gatherer archaeology of the Colorado high country / by Mark Stiger.

p cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-87081-612-8 (cloth : alk paper)

1 Indians of North America—Colorado—Antiquities 2 Indians of North America— Colorado—Gunnison River Watershed—Antiquities 3 Gunnison River Watershed (Colo.)— Antiquities 4 Colorado—Antiquities I Title.

E78.C6 S75 2001

978.8'17—dc21

2001000484 Designed and typeset by Daniel Pratt

10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

To my colleagues in mountain archaeology

C ONTENTS

Buckles’s Ute Prehistory Project on the Uncompahgre Plateau 3

Game Drives of Rocky Mountain National Park (Benedict 1996) 7

Uranium Mill Tailings Removal Act (UMTRA) Project 11

Summary of Gunnison Basin Archaeological Research 112: CURRENT PERSPECTIVES IN COLORADO HIGH-COUNTRY ARCHAEOLOGY 13

The Concept of Social Relationships in Regional Archaeology 19The Definition of Culture as a Mental Phenomenon 20

in the Archaeological Record

(Guthrie et al 1984)

3: THE UPPER GUNNISON BASIN 33

4: PREHISTORIC USE OF FAUNA IN THE UPPER GUNNISON BASIN 47

as Evidenced by Pelvis and Scapula Elements

Contents

i x

5: FLORAL EXPLOITATION IN THE UPPER GUNNISON BASIN 59

6: INTERPRETATION OF ARTIFACTS 63

Spatial Maintenance and Technological Organization 67

Summary of Burial Assemblages as Organizational Indicators 68

Archaeological Patterning of Bifaces at Tenderfoot 71

Lithic Artifacts and Spatial Structure at Tenderfoot 80

7: INTERPRETATION OF FEATURES 101

Classification of Features in the Upper Gunnison Basin 102

Contents

Sequence of Boiling Pits and Fire-Cracked-Rock Features 1148: ABOUT SURFACE SITES 117

Shown by Repetitive Collections

Finer Spatial Scales of Analysis for the Surface Collection 125

x i

and Their Value to Archaeological Research

Appendices

A: Tenderfoot Feature Descriptions by Erik Bjornstad 175

C: Identified Sources of Archaeological Obsidian 223Found in Colorado

D: Faunal Remains Found in the Upper Gunnison Basin 229E: Floral Remains Found in the Upper Gunnison Basin 235

by Provenience

F: Burial Assemblages from Archaic and Basketmaker II Contexts 241Contents

and Archaeological Records

K: Descriptions of Features at Abiquiu and Casa de Nada 281

Contents

1.1 The locations of sites discussed Sites are identified by

num-bers (1) Dinosaur group; (2) Alva and Taylor Sites; (3)

Hurst’s sites; (4) Moore and Casebeir Sites; (5) Buckles’s

Uncompahgre sites; (6) Harris Site; (7) Sorrel Deer; (8)

Sisyphus Shelter; (9) Kewclaw; (10) Yarmony; (11) Vail Pass;

(12) Benedict’s Front Range sites; (13) Mt Bump; (14) Casa

de Nada; (15) the Upper Gunnison Basin

3.1 Map of the Upper Gunnison Basin

3.2 Regional environmental change as shown by several lines of

evidence

3.3 The large horizontal block excavation at Tenderfoot

Sage-brush grows in the unexcavated areas of the site

3.4 Map of features in block Features are described and

illus-trated in Appendix A

4.1 Map of highly fragmented bone at Tenderfoot Contour

interval is 5 pieces

4.2 Map of indeterminate-mammal bone at Tenderfoot

Con-tour interval is 10 pieces

4.3 Map of large-mammal bone, not including teeth or tooth

fragments, at Tenderfoot Contour interval is 1 piece

4.4 Map of large-mammal tooth fragments at Tenderfoot

Con-tour interval is 10 pieces

4.5 Map of medium-sized-mammal bone at Tenderfoot

Con-tour interval is 1 piece

4.6 Map of identifiable large-mammal bone at the Tenderfoot

Site dsp = deer, sheep, and pronghorn-sized animal; ovis =

2

34383942515253545556

Ovis canadensis; odoc = Odocoileus hemionus Numbers are

counts of large-mammal long-bone fragments

4.7 Map of rabbit bone at the Tenderfoot Site R = one rabbit

bone fragment, either jackrabbit or cottontail

4.8 Map of rare species at the Tenderfoot Site

6.1 Length versus width of Tenderfoot bifaces

6.2 WOVERT and length of Tenderfoot bifaces

6.3 Linear regression of biface base fragments, length versus

thickness

6.4 Length versus thickness of Tenderfoot bifaces and preserved

wooden-handle notch depth

6.5 Map of features and radiocarbon ages at the Tenderfoot

Site All ages are B.P based on a half-life of 5,570

6.6 Distribution of all lithic debitage in the excavation block

Contour interval is 25 pieces

6.7 Distribution of tiny (< 0.05 g) artifacts Contour interval is

6.11 Distribution of chert artifacts Contour interval is 5 pieces

6.12 Distribution of obsidian artifacts Contour interval is 1

6.18 Distribution of projectile points

6.19 Distribution of flake tools

6.20 Distribution of unifaces

6.21 Distribution of hammerstones and abraders Connecting

lines indicate a refit artifact

6.22 Distribution of manos Connecting lines indicate a refit

x v

6.24 Distribution of cores

7.1 Temporal distribution of feature types in the Upper

Gunnison Basin

7.2 A big-deep fire-cracked-rock feature All rocks but those on

the rim have been removed

7.3 A small-shallow fire-cracked-rock feature Note the Brunton

compass for scale

7.4 A rock-lined firepit

7.5 An unlined firepit

7.6 A paired boiling pit

7.7 A cribbed-log house during excavation Rock slabs at

cen-ter of stain are the remains of the central firepit Large daub

fragments with impressions were found around the

perim-eter of the structure

7.8 Diameters of big-deep fire-cracked-rock features

8.1 Surface collections at the Tenderfoot Site

8.2 Artifacts recovered from the surface collections in the

exca-vation block Left to right: Surface Collection 1, Surface

Collection 2, and Surface Collection 3

8.3 Surface to subsurface artifact distribution comparisons in

the excavation block Contour interval is 25 artifacts

8.4 Isopleth map of surface collection counts per 10 meters

square

9.1 Map of features at Site LA25358

9.2 Map of analytical areas at Site LA25358

9.3 Map of features at Site LA47940

9.4 Map of features at Casa de Nada (Site 5MT2731)

9.5 Map of the stone tool distributions at Site 5GN205

9.6 Map of the stone tool distributions at Elk Creek Village,

Block C

9.7 Map of debitage regions at Site LA25358

9.8 Map of cores at Site LA25358

9.9 Map of unifaces at Site LA25358

9.10 Map of bifaces at Site LA25358

9.11 Map of tool fragments at Site LA25358

9.12 Map of projectile points at Site LA25358

9.13 Map of ground stone at Site LA25358

9.14 Map of hammerstones/choppers at Site LA25358

9.15 Map of debitage regions at Site LA47940

9.16 Map of debitage regions at Casa de Nada (Site 5MT2731)

9.17 Map of projectile points at Casa de Nada (Site 5MT2731)

9.18 Map of cores and hammerstones at Casa de Nada (Site

5MT2731)

9.19 Map of bifaces at Casa de Nada (Site 5MT2731)

9.20 Map of tool fragments at Casa de Nada (Site 5MT2731)

Figures

99108108109110111112113

115118121122124133134135136138139142142143144144145145146147148148149150150

9.21 Map of unifaces at Casa de Nada (Site 5MT2731)

9.22 Map of the stone tool distributions at Site 5GN207

9.23 Map of the stone tool distributions at Mt Bump Camp

(Site 5LK232)

10.1 Numbers of obsidian pieces found in Colorado for which

source analysis has been run

10.2 Numbers of obsidian pieces found in Colorado that do

not come from New Mexico

10.3 Temporal distribution of prehistoric houses in southern

Wyoming, Colorado, and northern New Mexico Data

from Larson (1998) and Stiger (1986)

A.11 Feature 12 Half-excavated

A.12 Feature 13 Photo board is incorrect

189189190190191191192192193193194194195195196196197197198198199199200200201201202202203203204204205205

A.35 Feature 50

A.36 Feature 51

A.37 Feature 53 Photo board is incorrect

A.38 Features 53 and 55

B.1 Distribution of nonquartzite lithic raw material in the

Upper Gunnison Basin

H.1 Complete, worn bifaces Left to right: 1003N/1013E,

1003N/1004E, 996N/1012E, 1006N/1000E

H.2 Complete bifaces Left to right: 1006N/1007E, 1004N/

1009E, 997N/1013E, 995N/1000E

H.3 Biface tips Clockwise from upper left: 992N/1005E, 999N/

1000E, 1000N/1004, 1005N/1000E, 1007N/1008E,

1006N/1000E, 1004N/1001E

H.4 Biface tips Clockwise from upper left: 1000N/1006E,

1002N/1012E, 1007N/1005E, 1008N/1008E, 1002N/

1012E, 1000N/1007E, 1001N/1004E

H.5 Biface tips Left to right: 1000N/1002E, 1006N/1006E.

H.6 Biface fragments Clockwise from upper left: 995N/999E,

1006N/1000E, 1001N/1000E, 993N/1003E, 999N/

1010E, 994N/999E, 995N/999E, 1007N/1000E

H.7 Biface fragments Clockwise from upper left: 994N/1006E,

994N/1005E, 998N/1007E, 1009N/1013E, 1003N/

1006E

H.8 Biface fragments Clockwise from upper left: 994N/1007E,

1001N/1002E, 1004N/1011E, 1004N/1004E, 865N/

1064E, 1008N/1010E, 1001N/1004E

H.9 Biface fragments Clockwise from upper left: 1005N/1011E,

992N/1000E, 1000N/1014E, 992N/1000E, 997N/

1003E, 1003N/1010E

H.10 Biface fragments Clockwise from upper left: 1009N/999E,

1010N/1006E, 1005N/1009E, 1004N/1006E, 1003N/

1011E, 994N/1008E, 1006N/1008E

H.11 Biface fragments Clockwise from upper left: 1005N/1003E

(refits to artifact from 1002N/1006E), 995N/1014E,

Figures

206206207207208208209209210210211211212213213217251252252253

253254254255255256256

994N/1002E, 1008N/1001E, 1007N/1004E, 1002N/

1006E (refits to artifact from 1005N/1003E)

H.12 Refit biface Clockwise from upper left: 1000N/1012E,

1004N/1001E, 1044N/1014E

H.13 Refit bifaces Clockwise from upper left: 1001N/1004E,

993N/1004E, 995N/1004E, 1002N/1006E

H.14 Refit bifaces Left to right: 1000N/1004E, 1007N/1005E,

1004N/1000E, 999N/1007E, 1002N/1006E

H.15 Refit bifaces Middle artifact base was stolen from

labora-tory after analysis Clockwise from upper left: 1003N/1000E,

1001N/1003E, 1001N/1005E, 1002N/1002E, 1004N/

1000E (missing), 1004N/1002E

H.16 Projectile-point fragment 1009N/1008E

H.17 Projectile points Top left to right: 1002N/1007E, 1004N/

1000E Middle left to right: 1002N/1007E, 991N/1007E,

997N/1001E, 997N/1010E, 998N/1011E, 995N/1010E,

991N/1002E Bottom left to right: 1006N/1000E, 1005N/

1005E, 998N/1009E, 993N/1010E, 992N/1007E,

1009N/1008E

H.18 Projectile-point fragments Top left to right: 997N/1003E,

996N/999E Middle left to right: 1000N/1000E, 994N/

1002E, 998N/1001E, 1007N/1013E, 998N/1004E,

1000N/1001E, 1002N/1007E Bottom left to right: 1002N/

1003E, 998N/1007E, 995N/1001E, 998N/1002E,

1001N/1007E, 1008N/1009E, 996N/1002E, 1005N/

1001E, 998N/1002E

H.19 Flake tools Clockwise from upper left: 1007N/1013E, 999N/

1006E, 1006N/999E, 999N/1010E, 1003N/1005E,

995N/1007E, 993N/1011E, 996N/1000E

H.20 Unifacial tools Clockwise from upper left: 1003N/1003E,

996N/1012E, 1008N/1008E, 1006N/1004E, 996N/

1003E, 999N/1007E, 1002N/1009E

H.21 Large flake tools Clockwise from upper left: 996N/1003E,

996N/1013E, 992N/1007E, 995N/1009E, 1003N/

1004E, 1003N/1002E, 1000N/1008E

H.22 Flake tools Clockwise from upper left: 1009N/1005E, 865N/

1064E, 997N/1006E, 1005N/1004E, 996N/1001E,

1004N/1013E, 998N/1004E, 999N/1006E, 1003N/

1008E, 1005N/1001E, 995N/1008E

H.23 Unifacial tools Left to right: 996N/1012E, 999N/1006E,

996N/1012E, 991N/1004E

H.24 Small flake tools Left to right: 1004N/1012E, 992N/

1000E

H.25 Two bifaces and a uniface made from nonlocal material

Left to right: 998N/1007E, 1004N/999E, 1000N/1013E.

Figures

257257258258

259259

260

260261261262

262263263

Figures

H.26 Roughly bifacial tools Clockwise from upper left: 1000N/

1000E, 998N/1007E, 1007N/999E, 997N/1002E,

994N/1006E, 1002N/1013E, 992N/999E, 1009N/

999E, 997N/1004E, 994N/1000E, 1007N/1006E

H.27 Flake tools Left to right: 1000N/1012E, 994N/1005E,

1002N/1007E

H.28 Bone awl or needle tip 1002N/1003E

H.29 Stemmed projectile points Left to right: 991N/1002E,

992N/1007E, 993N/1010E

H.30 Paleoindian points Clockwise from top: 1006N/1012E,

986N/1013E, 985N/1015E, 998N/1009E

H.31 Unifaces of nonlocal material Clockwise from upper left:

1002N/1009E, 1008N/1008E, 997N/999E, 989N/

1010E, 1000N/1013E

H.32 Manos Top left: 1007N/1005E Bottom left: 1003N/1002E.

Right: 1003N/1004E.

H.33 Corner-notched points Clockwise from upper left: 1009N/

1008E, 1005N/1005E, 1006N/1000E, 1007N/1005E,

1010N/999E

H.34 Choppers Left to right: 869N/1052E, 1000N/1000E.

H.35 Refit bifaces of local silicified conglomerate Top left to right

(tips): 1003N/1000E, 1001N/1005E, 989N/1001E,

1001N/1004E Bottom left to right (bases): 1004N/1002E,

1002N/1002E, 986N/1003E, 1008N/1005E

H.36 Abrader 1001N/1004E

J.1 Thermocouple measurements for firepit experiments

264

264265265266267267268

268269

269278

T ABLES

4.1 Animals identified in prehistoric archaeological deposits in

the Upper Gunnison Basin

5.1 Plants identified in archaeological deposits in the Upper

Gunnison Basin Charred material only

6.1 Archaic and Anasazi assemblage differences

7.1 Feature typology for the Upper Gunnison Basin

7.2 Radiocarbon-dated features from the Upper Gunnison

Basin

8.1 Comparison of mean values among surface collections across

the entire site

8.2 Chi-square value of differences among collections across

the entire site

8.3 Comparison of repeated surface collections across the entire

site Tool-debitage ratios for high-frequency raw material

8.4 Attributes relatively similar among surface collections within

individual clusters

8.5 Comparison of tool-debitage ratio by repeated collection

within clusters

8.6 Chi-square values of differences among repeated collections

within Clusters 1–4 by material type

9.1 Radiocarbon dates from Sites LA25358, LA47490, and

5MT2731 (Casa de Nada) Data from Stiger (1986:268)

10.1 The Yarmony model of site types

10.2 Radiocarbon dates on corn from Uncompahgre Plateau

sites—dates corrected for isotopic fractionation

10.3 Dendrochronological dates from Tabeguache Cave Dates

486076103104–107119123123

125s

126126136168172173

xxii Tablesfrom unpublished research by John Gooding, notes on file

at the C T Hurst Museum

C.1 Sources for obsidian artifacts in Colorado

D.1 Faunal remains Found in the Upper Gunnison Basin

E.1 Floral remains and proveniences identified from sites in the

Upper Gunnison Basin

F.1 List of burial assemblages from Archaic and Basketmaker

II contexts

J.1 Results of flotation separation of experimental firepit

contents

223–227230–233235–239241–244279

and/or plains bison drives More detailed examination of the latter case tions reveals many features that are not likely to be analogous, much less homolo-gous, with the high-altitude features described from the region He suggests alter-native ways of looking at the periodicity in the construction of such features: asclues to the state of the systems and the peoples investing in such constructions

descrip-I should mention that while Mark’s work is not specifically presented as atreatment of analytical approaches, he nevertheless demonstrates the value ofseeking patterning at very different scales and of using very different frames ofreference against which to array his data

He has primarily used geographic, environmental, temporal, and contextualframes of reference, with a clear understanding that what might be conditioningchanges in the internal organization of residential structures could be very differ-ent from what might be conditioning temporal periodicities in the construction

of his role as a contributor to the long-term accumulation of data and tions in our field Regrettably, many current archaeologists see the archaeologicalrecord as a source of materials to be organized in support of their “trendy”interpretations; therefore the issue of subsequent use in analysis by future genera-tions of researchers is always appreciated Mark is clearly a responsible, forward-thinking archaeologist

observa-Throughout the book, Mark is continuously aware of the possible tions between features and tasks, and, in turn, tasks and tactics If one is to studythe archaeological record for purposes of understanding the past that was, in-depth linkages must be forged among observations, implications to action, andthe issue of what conditions such actions; these linkages must be continuouslyadvanced and modified in the difficult task of theory building It is growth in thelatter activity and the integration of theory building into the normal activities ofarchaeologists that will advance the field of archaeology and gradually transformour humanistic discipline, which demands interpretation in human terms, into ascience, which seeks explanations for patterning demonstrable in our data asgenerated from the archaeological record

articula-—LEWIS R BINFORD

DALLAS, TEXAS

Foreword

This book is about lithic-scatter archaeology in the Rocky Mountains Lithicscatters in the West are ubiquitous, found during almost every archaeologicalsurvey These sites are also usually a low priority in mitigation or research projectswhen sites in rockshelters and prehistoric agricultural villages compete for atten-tion Such priority is often a result of the analytical units provided by the houses

in a village or the stratification of excavation in rockshelters; recovered materialscan be ordered according to these units Many archaeologists approachunstratified lithic scatters as if there are no analytical units other than “the site.”

I describe several scales of lithic-scatter analysis, from regional to intrasite.Much of what I discuss is methodological; however, I do thrash out some culturaland environmental history of the region Significant culture change is demon-strated in the temporal patterns of feature construction That floral and faunalexploitation changed through time is evident Examination of several lithic scat-ters excavated outside the region shows considerable variability in artifacts andsimilarity in the spatial arrangement of features and artifacts Research now inprogress further examines assemblages of stone tools as well as use-wear isolated

by the methods advocated in this book

The data described in these pages came from several excavations I directed overmany years The field crews at Western State College, Dolores ArchaeologicalProgram, and the Corps of Engineers Abiquiu Archaeological Project all deserve

my thanks for hard labor well done Lab work was accomplished by many people,and I specially thank David Lazorchak, Ja`son Eckman, and Erik Bjornstad fortheir diligence

Several people provided opportunities for me to pursue, and I edge my debt to David A Breternitz, Allen E Kane, Bruce A Jones, and John D.Schelberg

acknowl-Many have given me much to think about These colleagues have argued with

me, discussed with me, and helped me understand and puzzle over mountainarchaeology I list them here in alphabetical order:

James Benedict Bruce Jones

William Buckles Bonnie Pitblado

Lewis R Binford, David A Breternitz, and Bruce A Jones read draft sions and made valuable criticisms Lora Van Renselaar, my editor (and wife),translated the rough draft from what I wrote into what I wanted to write, andthen turned that into a presentable manuscript The prodigious efforts of BonnieSmith, copy editor, Steve Arney, proofreader, and managing editor Laura Furney

ver-of the University Press ver-of Colorado have made us all look good, and are deeplyappreciated, as are their cooperative attitudes

At Western State College, President Harry Petersen and Vice President ofAcademic Affairs Jay Helman, and Allen Stork, chair of the Department ofNatural and Environmental Sciences, contributed significantly to this book byproviding Western State College resources to the Tenderfoot project Matchingfunds and facilities helped the project flourish and, thus, contributed to our newAnthropology Program emphasizing mountain archaeology Roberta Harper,Finance and Administration, helped keep the project in balance PatrickMuckleroy, with Savage Library, obtained hundreds of obscure references andinterlibrary loans for me Pam French, administrative assistant with the Depart-ment of Natural and Environmental Sciences, contributed in too many ways toenumerate

In the Gunnison community I’ve enjoyed much support and I thank RikkiSantarelli and William Nesbitt for helping get the Tenderfoot project started

My research has been financially supported over the years by the City ofGunnison’s City Council Challenge and Continuing Grants Programs Gunnisonhas been a special place for thousands of years; our City Council has helpedpeople to understand this

I have received several Colorado Gaming Fund Grants through the rado Historical Society Additionally, Estella Cole and Joanne M Sanfilippo,historic preservation specialists with the Colorado Historical Society GamingFund Program have solved problems and given advice

Colo-The Western State College Foundation has supported the purchase of fieldequipment and analyses This support, as well as financial assistance from alumniand friends, has enriched Western State’s students’ education

The Colorado county outline maps I used to show obsidian distributionsare courtesy of the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection, University of Texas,Austin

Acknowledgments

Archaeologists working in the Colorado mountains tend to be an odd lot Someare here by choice; some have been forced here by circumstances beyond theircontrol Some see the mountains as a land of opportunity drawing in prehistoricpioneers Others see the mountains as a periphery of the more important ancientactivities that occurred in the Southwest, the Plains, the Great Basin, or else-where These attitudes are often reflected in their archaeological interpretationand research

The vast majority of archaeological work done in the area is traditional Thisresearch relies on the processes of migration, diffusion, and independent inven-tion for explanation of artifact similarities and differences across time and space

As a product of traditional theoretical approaches, the field methods of ologists have not advanced

archae-Assumptions about the archaeological record that were first made in themid-1900s have not been reevaluated For instance, archaeologists have alwayspreferred cave sites to open sites It is believed that cave sites yield more perishablematerials than do open sites, and that such materials round out the reconstruc-tion of past lifeways; the stratification sometimes found in caves lends itself tostudies of cultural history Until recently, rarely were open lithic-scatter sites exca-vated, and even then, the excavations usually were limited in areal extent Limitedhorizontal excavations limit the value of research on these sites Open lithic scat-ters are usually the product of multiple occupations Horizontally extensive exca-vations are necessary in order to understand the formation of most of these sites.Also, archaeologists have doggedly sought “time marker” artifacts and ethnicidentifiers (both usually projectile points) to reconstruct the relationships ofprehistoric occupations in time and space These approaches to research oftencharacterize the work of today’s archaeologists

In this book, I will describe research conducted on open lithic scatters in themountains of Colorado, concentrating on the Tenderfoot Site near Gunnison.The Tenderfoot Site is the scene of several years of slow-paced research exploringthe archaeological record I will also compare the material recovered from theTenderfoot Site to that from other excavations in the Upper Gunnison Basin,western Colorado, and the Southwest I will try to present a very different, non-traditional perspective to prehistoric mountain adaptation

I begin by examining major archaeological field reports of work in the tains and in western Colorado Several trends are evident First is a recent changefrom a focus on rockshelter sites to open sites Second is an increasing use ofradiocarbon dating Third is the continuation of concern with ethnic or socialidentity, although there is a notable increase in attention to reconstruction ofsettlement pattern and in the attempt to develop criteria for recognizing sitefunction, gender, and ceremonialism in the archaeological record

moun-Although many reports of research, especially those in the gray literature ofCultural Resource Management (CRM), are not included, I do include a sum-mary of the CRM work done in the Upper Gunnison Basin The reader mayassume that similar work has been conducted across the larger region

I will then examine research problems that archaeologists have defined asimportant for the region These problems and the way we answer them defineour theoretical orientations Here I critique two recent approaches to Coloradoarchaeology Much of this critique is taken from Stiger (1993); I include it herefor a wider audience

Finally, throughout the body of this book I describe our research at theTenderfoot Site I will place this research into a regional context

Introduction

HISTORY OF RESEARCHThis section describes several of the larger, better-reported archaeological projects

in Colorado’s high country (Figure 1.1) This description will give the reader asense of which kinds of sites archaeologists have thought to be most useful forresearch I also briefly describe the research approaches and conclusions drawn

by the investigators

I then describe work done in the Upper Gunnison Basin Included areseveral smaller projects Across the high country, innumerable small CRM (Cul-tural Resources Management) projects have been conducted; I describe onlythose done in the Upper Gunnison Basin

JENNINGS’S 1968 SUMMARY

Jennings (1968) summarizes what was known about the Archaic stage inwestern Colorado He describes what he considered the eleven most importantArchaic sites, nine of which were rockshelter sites that had been excavated byvarious researchers in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s These eleven sites are located

in two small clusters—one cluster near Dinosaur National Monument in western Colorado and one cluster on the Uncompahgre Plateau, near Delta,Montrose, and Grand Junction

north-In the Dinosaur cluster are Hells Midden, Thorne Cave, Dripping RocksCave, and Lowell Spring At the time of Jennings’s writing, the only radiocarbon-dated site was Thorne Cave, barely across the state line in Utah Two samples gaveages of 4230±240 B.P and 4170±250 B.P (Jennings 1968:17) Thorne Cave de-posits were redeposited alluvial materials, and interpretations other than socialrelationships with the Desert culture and the High Plains cultures are minimal(Day 1964) Dripping Rocks Cave and Lowell Spring, an open site, (Jennings andWade 1970) are undated sites

1

2 Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology of the Colorado High Country

Hells Midden (Lister 1951) is the best-reported site in the Dinosaur cluster

A deeply stratified rockshelter and adjacent open area site, it was excavated overtwo summer field seasons The site was undated, and about twenty-eight squaremeters were excavated Large amounts of material were recovered Five hundredforty-seven artifacts were reported recovered from both years’ excavations, as well

as 7,165 pieces of debitage saved from only one year’s excavation (Lister 1951:27).Interpretations by Lister (1951:45–48) briefly compare the recovered artifacts

to similar material from California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Texas

In the Uncompahgre Plateau cluster of sites are the Alva, Taylor, Moore,and Casebier Sites reported by Wormington and Lister (1956) and the TabeguacheCave II, Cottonwood, and Dolores Cave Sites reported by Hurst (1943, 1944,

vari-Fig 1.1 The locations of sites discussed Sites are identified by numbers (1) Dinosaur group; (2) Alva and Taylor Sites; (3) Hurst’s sites; (4) Moore and Casebier Sites; (5) Buckles’s Uncompahgre sites; (6) Harris Site; (7) Sorrel Deer; (8) Sisyphus Shelter; (9) Kewclaw; (10) Yarmony; (11) Vail Pass; (12) Benedict’s Front Range sites; (13) Mt Bump; (14) Casa de Nada; (15) the Upper Gunnison Basin.

The Archaeology of Colorado’s High Country 3Plateau They suggest the Uncompahgre people were derived originally from aGreat Basin source, but that through time “the separation of groups, by distanceand geographic barriers, which favored independent development, environmen-tal factors, and influences from other areas” (Wormington and Lister 1956:92)created the local Uncompahgre complex Thus, this western Colorado Archaiccomplex had homologous similarities with the Great Basin, Wyoming, andBasketmaker cultures (Wormington and Lister 1956:91).

The Tabeguache Cave sites were excavated in the 1940s by Hurst of WesternState College Large quantities of cultural material were removed during excava-tions of stratified deposits Hurst was attempting to flesh out a sequence ofcultures in the area based mainly on projectile point morphology He was con-centrating on linking the earlier hunter-gatherer peoples with the succeeding agri-cultural people Hurst’s cave sites were undated until recently These recent radio-carbon assessments are reported in a later chapter

Jennings (1968) gives his summary interpretation of these two clusters ofarchaeological material in culture-historical terms The western Colorado Ar-chaic is considered to be a regional variant of the Desert culture This Desertculture may have been contemporaneous with the Paleoindian culture, evidence

of which was found in the region, as was an Old Cordilleran Cascade point

“There are at least two major traditions present in the area, that of the HighPlains big-game hunters of the Llano, Lindenmeier, and Plano cultures as well asthat of the Intermontane Tradition as represented by the Old Cordilleran andthe regional variant of the Desert Culture, the Uncompahgre Complex Thesituation then is one of an ideal laboratory for the study of early man” (Jennings1968:20)

BUCKLES’S UTE PREHISTORY PROJECT ON THE UNCOMPAHGRE PLATEAU

Buckles (1971) reports the results of three years of research in theUncompahgre Plateau area of western Colorado Field seasons stretched from

1961 to 1963; thirty-nine sites were investigated, with some subsurface testing.Most sites investigated were rockshelters because sequence building was a goal forthe project “The extent to which each site was excavated depended upon severalfactors The ideal was a site with good stratigraphy and material culture in largeamounts” (Buckles 1971:40) Two radiocarbon samples were originally processedfrom these excavations, and a sequence was developed from the many assem-blages recovered Later, an additional five radiocarbon samples were processed(Buckles, personal communication 1997) All the dates came from threerockshelters and ranged from 7140 B.P to 1280 B.P Today, some researchers use

a simplified version of Buckles’s chronology in which only projectile points areconsidered

Unfortunately, researchers ignore many of Buckles’s important tions from his work on the Plateau, such as his questioning of traditional methods

contribu-of inference, especially inference about social and cultural continuities Bucklesdraws important conclusions regarding what could be learned and what methodsand assumptions needed to be reevaluated Few other archaeologists have

4 Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology of the Colorado High Countryregarded these conclusions, and they have proceeded to interpret the archaeo-logical record using the methods of the earlier researchers Even fewer have workedtoward the development of new methods of inference This is still the greatestchallenge to the region’s archaeologists.

VAIL PASS CAMP

Vail Pass Camp was excavated to mitigate the effects of highway construction

on a prehistoric and historic camp location in the high mountains, twenty-sevenkilometers from the Continental Divide This site is important because it was one

of the first open lithic-scatter sites on which hundreds (453) of square meterswere excavated (Gooding 1981) Unfortunately, the area of excavations was not

a single large block but was composed of one irregular block about ten by twentymeters and several adjacent trenches Tools recovered numbered 988, and debitage,20,606 (Gooding 1981:19) Seventy-two features were found Thirty-three ra-diocarbon dates were obtained ranging from 7320 B.P to 190 B.P (Gooding1981:12) with most (all but six) dating to the last 3,000 years

Gooding’s (1981:100) conclusions about the Vail Pass Camp are that thesite was used by small hunting and gathering parties sporadically through time.Most likely these parties came from the north and east during some periods andfrom the south and west during other periods Gooding (1981:99) suggests thatbased on tools the site inhabitants had “cultural affiliations with the NorthwestPlains, the Central Plains, the Great Basin, and perhaps with the Southwest.”Gooding (1981:96–97) believes regional archaeologists have not developedtheory for the following reasons: most sites in the area are shallow (nonstratified)and open, with poor preservation (especially of datable charcoal); most ar-chaeological work in the region is atheoretical; most of the archaeological record

is derived from an unchanging cultural adaptation; and the prehistoric ants were not local but derived from the Plains, Great Basin, and ColoradoPlateau

inhabit-SISYPHUS SHELTER

Sisyphus Shelter is a stratified rockshelter excavated in three 35-sq-m blocks(Gooding and Shields 1985) Thirty-two features were located, including a habi-tation structure, and about 600 pieces of debitage and 403 flaked stone toolswere found Seventeen radiocarbon samples dated the layers from 4400 B.P tomodern

Interpretations of the site include a brief discussion of archaeological theory(Gooding and Shields 1985:13–17) Here the authors make the point that intheir opinion, one cannot do processual interpretation until the facts of culturehistory are known This caveat made, Gooding and Shields (1985:129) describethe remains from the site as indicative of unchanging space use, economic pur-suits, and lithic technology Furthermore, “close scrutiny of projectile point types,which should be the hallmark of cultural identity for these occupations,” did notyield easy identifications because of a wide diversity of styles found at the site(Gooding and Shields 1985:133)

The Archaeology of Colorado’s High Country 5

HARRIS SITE

Tucker (1989) reports the results of research at the Harris Site, a rockshelternear Montrose Although only a few square meters were tested, the artifact countswere extremely high; 6,700 artifacts were collected The site was stratified, andthree radiocarbon dates were reported, from 3510 B.P to 2730 B.P Tucker’sinterpretations, although based on limited evidence, describe the chronology ofthe site and activities at the site

SORREL DEER

Baker (1991) describes small-scale testing at two open lithic-scatter sites, one agame drive and the other a camp site One 2-x-5-m block, two 3-x-4-m blocks, andseveral scattered small test pits were dug Nineteen artifacts were recovered fromthe game drive site and 182 flaked stone artifacts from the camp Five radiocarbondates were processed from the campsite; all yielded ages of less than 2,000 years.Baker (1991:213) echoes the sentiment of Gooding and Shields (1985:13–17) when he states, “On the basis of the limited data available to date from GrandMesa, it would seem to be most unwise to attempt processual explanations at thistime For a time yet we may need to be content with our roles in developing theregional cultural history.” Although he cautions against deriving meaning fromthe archaeological record, he does suggest processes of cultural development(migration, diffusion, and independent invention) in the area based on similari-ties between the area’s stone tools and those found in New Mexico assemblages(Baker 1991:212) He concurs with an accepted hypothesis of a long, single-ethnic presence (Baker 1991:8, inaccurately attributed by Baker to Buckles 1971)

YARMONY PIT HOUSE SITE

The Yarmony Site is an open site located near the Colorado River, close toState Bridge in western Colorado Metcalf and Black (1991) describe the workdone at the site A block excavation of 66 sq m was executed over what theauthors describe as a single pithouse A nearby pithouse was also tested Numer-ous floor features were found in the house; unfortunately, areas outside thestructures were only minimally tested

The site was rich in artifacts Over 4,000 pieces of debitage, 331 flaked stonetools, 140 ground stone tools, and 28 pieces of worked bone and antler wererecovered

Most of the interpretation of the site describes the prehistoric lifeway withspecial emphasis on the settlement pattern It is important to note that Metcalfand Black (1991:207–221) argue for winter residence in western Colorado This

is in direct contrast to Gooding’s (1981) idea that the prehistoric occupants ofthe Colorado mountains spent only short periods of time there, mostly staying

on the Plains, in the Great Basin, or on the Colorado Plateau

Metcalf and Black (1991:202–204) argue for projectile point affinities tween Yarmony material and material from the northern Colorado Plateau,rather than material from the northern Plains The description of hafted bifaces(projectile points) are the most detailed material descriptions in the report (Metcalf

be-6 Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology of the Colorado High Countryand Black 1991:89–99) Each type description features an “Age/Affiliation” and

a “Discussion” section These detailed descriptions compare the point styles tothose of material recovered from other sites These comparisons assign the arti-facts a time range, a geographical range, and an ethnic affiliation The YarmonySite is influential in Black’s (1991) theoretical paper on Archaic origins.The most important contribution made by Metcalf and Black (1991) is theattempt to distinguish occupations of differing seasons and types in western Colo-rado The authors reason, for instance, that differing frequencies of debitage, stor-age pits, features, and houses can be used to differentiate among winter residential,summer base, and special-use sites They argue for several operational definitions;this is a relatively new kind of argument in western Colorado archaeology.Some ambiguities can be found in their definitions For instance, a winterresidence is said to be recognizable as such because of the presence of housesshowing complexity and patterning, yielding both high artifact densities and plen-tiful storage facilities (Metcalf and Black 1991:218) Although the definitions of

“complexity,” “patterning,” “high densities,” and “plentiful” are known to theauthors, they are not explicated Furthermore, it is not specified if the time span

of a winter residence was one month, four months, or more or less time Theauthors do not address how one might evaluate this variation or any othervariation found in their hypothetical settlement system Because it is doubtfulthat Archaic settlement was consistent year after year all across the Coloradomountains and through long-term environmental changes, an accurate evalua-tion of this variability in seasonal residence is potentially important to an expla-nation of culture change and stability

BENEDICT’S COLORADO FRONT RANGE MATERIAL

Benedict is a prolific writer on Colorado mountain archaeology His ports are plentiful and timely and serve as a standard toward which all archae-ologists should strive Changes in the structure of his reports perhaps reflectchanges in the direction of Colorado archaeology I briefly describe each majorreport in chronological order

re-MOUNT ALBION COMPLEX (BENEDICT AND OLSON 1978). This report describes the

environmental and social history of the Rocky Mountain National Park region.Excavations at two high-elevation sites are described Although over sixty squaremeters were excavated on the two sites, no one block exceeded 4-x-5 m, with most

of the area consisting of several 1- or 2-m-wide shallow trenches Radiocarbondates from the sites demonstrate occupation from 7650 B.P to 5330 B.P Artifactswere plentiful at the sites Pieces of debitage numbered several thousand, andtools, several hundred Benedict and Olson (1978) hypothesize population move-ments based on projectile-point style similarities and population measured byradiocarbon date frequency

FOURTH OF JULY VALLEY (BENEDICT 1981) This report continues the exploration

of the regional glacial chronology and social continuities Excavations at twohigh-elevation sites are described Forty-one square meters were excavated at the

The Archaeology of Colorado’s High Country 7Fourth of July Site in an irregular pattern with a length of 14 m and widthsranging between 2 m and 6 m Stone artifacts recovered number 1,425, andradiocarbon dates of 5880 B.P and 6045 B.P were obtained.

The Ptarmigan Site in the same valley was also investigated, with an irregularexcavation block of 43 sq m, yielding 1,427 artifacts An averaged radiocarbonage of the occupation is given as 6380 B.P

Interpretations given are of the social origin of the occupants of the site,activities performed at the site, and environmental history of the site

ARAPAHO PASS (BENEDICT 1985A) Two sites, a game-drive system and a camp site,

are described in this report Excavations took place only at the camp site, wherethree areas were tested with blocks of 32 sq m, 24 sq m, and 20 sq m Eightradiocarbon samples gave dates from 8460 B.P to 765 B.P An inferred structurewas found, as well as 2,214 flaked stone artifacts, 5 ground stone artifacts, and

416 potsherds Interpretations are made about the glacial chronology of the areaand about the ethnic affiliation of the prehistoric residents

OLD MAN MOUNTAIN (BENEDICT 1985B) Here, near Estes Park, Benedict

ex-pected to find a camp site, but surface collections did not bear this out So, usingethnographic analogy, Benedict deemed it to be a vision-quest site He then de-vised a set of characteristics of ritual sites to aid in their recognition in the ar-chaeological record These characteristics are as follows: the location does notseem to be a good camp site; the location is in a high place, remote yet accessible,with a good view, and beautiful surroundings; and artifacts brought to the loca-tion and found at the site include potsherds, obsidian flakes, cobbles, burnedbone, projectile points, and well-made stone tools

CONEY CREEK VALLEY (BENEDICT 1990) At the Coney Lake Site, Bendict vated 36 sq m in an irregular block Eight radiocarbon samples placed the occu-pations between 5710 B.P and 1200 B.P The excavation effort recovered 3,042flaked stone artifacts and fifty-eight ground stone artifacts Benedict uses this site

exca-to examine an occupation by the makers of stemmed, indented-base points, thelocal environmental sequence, and the prehistoric settlement system Benedictinterprets the settlement system as including autumn communal game-drive hunts

in the high country, from which large amounts of dried meat were packed towinter base camps in the Front Range foothills

BODE’S DRAW (BENEDICT 1993) Excavation at Bode’s Draw Site yielded 149flaked stone artifacts and 113 ground stone artifacts from a block of 27 sq m.Four radiocarbon samples place the occupations between 2270 B.P and 820 B.P.Benedict’s interpretation defines women’s work areas there The criterion forrecognizing these gender-specific areas is the presence of projectile points anddebitage in some areas, indicating men’s work, with women’s areas indicated bythe presence of scrapers, grinders, and projectile points used for tasks other thanhunting or warfare

GAME DRIVES OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK (BENEDICT 1996) In this report,

Benedict describes two more game-drive systems He also interprets how these sites