Utah Statewide Archaeological Society Newsletter, Volume 3, Number 3, September 1957

'.

UTAH ARCHEOLOGY

I-

A Newsletter Vol. 3 J No. 3

September 1957 Contents ·

EditorOs Notes

Q

0

Q

0

0

Q

0

0

Q

o

0

Q

Archeology and the Scientific Method •

•

•

0

•

0

0

0

0

0

000

0

2

Fay-Cooper Cole 3

0

Upper 'Colorado River Basin Archeological Salvage Project' Summer 1957 Jesse Do Jennings 7 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

•

0

•

0'0

__________________P_e_t_r_o~g~l~~~ rom near Fruita »

__________________

~_ a_ h

Utah Archeology is distributed quarterly to members of the Utah Statewide Archeological Society. All correspondence should be directed to the Editor~ James Ho Gunnerson» Department of Anthropology University of Utah» Salt Lake City 120 Utah

Editor ~ Notes I

Field Activities~ The primary field activity'of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Utah has been · its participation in the Upper Colorado River Basin Archeological S&lvage Project~ A summary of this work is presented in the joint article in th~s News= letter by Jesse D. Jennings and your editor. The University of .

Utah sponsored two other archeological projects which your editor carried out. A six week survey in northern New Mexico» having as its prime purpose an attempt to locate early historic Apache sites» was completed on June 1» 1957.

Limited excavation at Snake Rockj) a Fremont site near Emery IX Utah» was resumed for about two weeks during · Augtll~t.

Two other institutions carried out archeological work in Utah this summer. One» the Museum of Northern Arizona~ has been active in the Upper Colorado Salv;age Project in. the area south of the San Juan River and east of the Colorado River. It has also been conducting a survey by boat cf Glen Canyon proper. The University Qf California» Los Angeles» conducted its fourth consecutive summer archeological field schcol at a large site at the north edge of Paragonah» Utah.

Conferences~

Three members of the Utah Statewide Archeological Society» Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd Pierson and your " editor»' attended the Southwestern Archeological Conference (Pecos Conference) held at Globe» Arizona. One very profitable session was devoted to the roles of amateur archeologists and local archeological societies.

Dr. Jesse D. Jennings :represented the University Df Utah at the fourth Great Basin Archeological "Conference,!) held this summer at SanFrancisco.

This coming summe~l! the Pecos Conference will be held in Albuquerque» New Mexico,!) and the Great Basin Conference will be held in Reno» Nevada. It is hoped that more members of the USAS will be able to at"tend these meetings.

I

~e Sogiety~

At present» the membership of our organization is just under 100 and new members are still joining. The problem. of formalizing the society is still unsettled. I should very much like to hear from members who would be interested in attending a state organizational meeting and to find out your ideas concerning a meeting time and any other ideas concerning the organization which you might have.

This Issue~ The feature article in this issue of the Newsletter is the first half of I!Archeology and the Scientific Method" by Dr. Fay=Cooper Cole» retired head of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicag0.

The second half of this article will appear :tn the next issue of the Newsletter. The article is reprinted from .!!!!iversity of Utah Anthropological Paper~ No. 26. The other article on the Colorado Project is by Jesse D. Jennings 9 director of the Project.

.. "".1

3

ARCHEOLOGY AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD Fay,.,Cooper C£de I feel somewhat apologetic to talk to this group on my announced topic p "Archeology and the Scienti~ic Method. n Many-of you have devoted · your lives to archeology and some have written te-xts which treat at least in part the subject Qf method. Yet perhaps it is' worth while for us» from time to tome p to take stock of the articles of our f'aith. It is easy to become so engrossed with 'our particular problem that we 10se ' sight of our ultimate 'objectives. So I am going back to a few fundamentals and make some dogmatic statements p a consideration of which may allow us a clearer approach to our problem.

First» the definition of archeology and its place in the aca= demlc hierarchy. A few years ago representatives of the three leading educational divisions~ the National Research Council» the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies 9 were discussing the place of various discip1ines p in order to see which one Df the councils should give support for fellowships an~ research grants» Finally they came to archeology Was it history? If SOp it belonged first to the humanities p with a smaller . ~laim from social science Was it human development?

Was it human ecology? If sOp it was clearly a part of the biological sciences found in the NatiQnal Research Counci1o If~ on the other hand» it was the study of the grQwth and nature of cu1ture 9 it had its place in the social sciences You all know the results. It was clear:tl1at archeology had claims to all three councils~=or,!) a,.S one member said~ "It had ips feet in all three troughsu==with the result that it had little support from, .any. Even the oldest of the learned societies p the ,American Philosophical SocietY9 has found it convenient to separate it from the rest of anthropowogy and place it with the geological and bio= logi~al sciences Is this a weakness» lOr dDes it mean that archeology is basic to all studies that relate to man? We start lOur studies in close asso= ciatiDn with the geDlDgist» paleontolog\ist,j) and cDmparative anatomist.

We seek all obtainable data concerning manus early physical devel~ opmento But inevitably this leads us to a consideration Df his relation tD his envirQnment. SQon we find that the animal we are studying is deve1Dping a culture. Here is something new. Man is a user of tools p he develops weapons» he becomes PQssessed of fireo A study Df his campsitesj) of the debris around ancientfires p tells Df mental development beYDnd that cf other forms. Then as we trace him through later geological levels we find evidences of cultural progress~ Df dDmestication of plants and animals» Df rhe formatiQn Df villages p Qf 'social cDntrQl. ThisJ) then$> is the e;thnography of extinct groups It is lOne aspect of human histDry. 0

0

0

0

0

4

Let me quote from a volume prepared by Thorne Deuel and myself We ' said, and - I think it -is still true ~- - r'The avowed a.im of archeology is to make the past live again~;, .It shows us the changes which have taken place in physical types.? whether due to environment» invasion» or mixing Qf races. It tells of d:f,.seases '1hich afflicted our predecessors; it l furnishes vital sta= t!stics • • • It likewise tells us of the growth1of cultures. It deals with the eff~cts of isolation and of cultural contactshrought abQut by trade., war and intermarriage. By means of stratigraphy '-and other methods. • • it furnishes - us time perspective by which '-we can judge our own and other cultures • • • The archeolcgy of lOne sta.te or region will not o cf course.9 furnish all tais story. It is only as we have the record from the whole continent tmat we will b~ able to trace fully the develcpment of native Am,erican 'civili= zationJ) but intensive studies of small areas will ultimately r~veal that story" (CQle and Deuel.9 1937 9 1=4). ~ome years agIO.

2pservationJi p"Eoblem p and Theory On the ba~is of what has been said., let us make a few flat state= ments~

1. Archeology is more than a ccnsideration of material objects and bare chronology. It deals with evo'lving human soc1;ety Archeo= logy is an historical discipline p which deals first of all with op= served fa<;:t-s. This first step is not science==neit;her is the aDser~ , vation of the shape of a skull or the measurement of a long bone.

But it ~s a nec~ssary step when we seek the relationship,between these facts.') and 'when' we a,ttempt to tie these observations 'to chronology.

When we make comparative studies we begin to give order to the ¥ata.

Now we may be in a position to interpret what we have found» and for the first time we can intelligently set up theories which can be tested. Here we take 'nate of a fundamental in al,~ scientific re= porting. :Our theories and all supporting data must be so stated and documented that they can be checked at any later t:;ime. It appears» thenj) that in addition to being an hisitorical discipline~ archeology is also a scientifically ordered branch of knowledgeo 2. A sense of problem becomes necessary once sufficient com= para-tive data is available to test its but ins solution shQuld not be t .o the exclusion of other data For exa~pleD ' a s ;udent lOf Illinois archeology may have had a particular interest in Hopewell~= but if he had paid attention only ; to this cultural manifestation (as ·many early investigators did) he would have missed the Black Sand=Central Basin sequence which led up to Hcpewell and likewise wculd have passed ' by Weaver==which appears to throw light on its decline.

3. Theory is useful if it helps to set up a problem to be tested p but it is fatal if the investigator attempts to prove ito In science you do not attempt to prove anything You gather all the facts==both those which seem to support and those which may disprove 0

0

0

5

your theory. You analyze and compare and draw conclusions from observed facts. Two examples of special pleading- ... to prove a theory ==come quickly to mind. The first~ which has had wide acclaim amongnonscientists p is a volume by Velikovsky-called Worlds in Collision. Here every shred of material which serves the authorOs purpose is brought into use to prove a thesis. It -makes good reading and is convincing to the noncritical p but it has been so repudiated by science that the original publishers have seen fit to turn its rights over to a merchandising house which has no scientific standing to maintain. The second~ ~ closer to our field== is American Indians in the Pacific and its more popular accompanying volu;e~ KQn Tiki. Here again we have special pleading. The author has combed the litera.ture and has extracted all materials which sup= port his claims. He may be rightJ) but no scientist will take --his work seriously until it is weighed against the total evidence p much of - which appears to be negative. In American archeology we have witnessed similar attempts. The investigators who first sought to prove the existence of early man IOn this continent stressed so many questionable finds that the whole subject fell intQ dis= repute. We may smile at the uncompromising attitude Qf Hrdlicka in barring any immigrants until comparatively recent times. But he served a mostus'e:ful purpose in exposing frauds and nQnscientific claims. Even today we find special pleaders who draw on materials from related fields to interpret archeological data to prove the existence of glacial or interglacial man in America. This may be a fact. If s0.9 careful and intensive excavation and the weighing of all the evidence will establish his entry. But the special pleader does a disservice to archeo l ogy.

4. In scientific procedure there is a vast difference between reporting and research» between taxonomy and scientific experi= ment. A cancer institute may investigate and record the incidence of the malady .9 but this is only useful reporting.

When occurrence is clear 9 causes may be sought and experiment s set up looking to a cure. So in archeolQgy» the survey 9 excavation 3 and the ordering of materials are scientific steps. All are necessary and need to be gOQd» for no results are better than the data on which they rest. This means that we must stress method. Today I shall not discuss this point. A few years agIO this was a crying need » but now method is emphasized by every important -department of anthro= pology as well as by summer field schools. So here we need Dnly mention by name some fundamental fie l d methods p such as the survey~ to set up problems » mapping » preliminary sampling 9 various types of excavation 3 and finally»but of equal importance» exa~t recording Despite the availability of such material I do wish to touch upon one point» and that is ta~onomyo 0

6

In the -Southwest» Gladwin proposed a scheme -which proved most useful" in ordering materials and showing rela.tionships. - '- East -of the Rockies the McKern p or Midwest» taxonomic system brought order out of confusion and set the stage for scientific theory at;ld testing.

Critics have stressed the fact that the la.tter scheme takes no acciQ)'lJn1: .of time p but in dOling so they have missed the essential basis of any system -of taxonomy; Taxonomy is classification p and it put~ together those things which are alike regardless of time or£?pate:o Once the identity or near likeness· of items or com= . plexes . is established the stage ' is set for scientific que\S._tioning ' and ' experimenta.tion.

There could be no science of genetics without caxono~~ There can be nQ scientific handling of archeologica.l materials!) whether to establish relationships or chronologY9 without classification 9 call it by whatever name youchoose I There is of course a danger h~re. As one reads some archeo= logi6al reports he has the feeling that the:wr;t.tersO objectives have been to place their data into the proper compartments==a.spect p phase Or pattern. This is necessary but is only a step in the final tnterpretation of the data. We must keep in mind that class= ificaticm or taxonomy is only a bOl101. The Midwest taxonomic scheme seeks to set up a standardized syster:h of classification which recognizes styles and recurring complexes of traits. This dOles not add to' the facts but it does arrange them in an orderly fashion which makes them ~sable. So far as I -am aware» th~r~was riot a single case "of rec~rded stratigr~phy in the Mississ:i.ppi~ Valley pribr to 1932. Yet by the use of the ttaxonomic methQd five levels were demonstrated in one seaSOln. The test of any tool is the answer to. q

the-: qu~stion~

Is--it u~eful?

i- S. This brings US i to another point» the difference between knowledge and 'Ulnderstanding. We may have a. full record of the $at~rials found in an ~rcheological unit p of the arrangement Qf the settlement 9 of methodsiof burial; ' we may even know a great deal about the food supply ~nd similar items. A11 this'we may know.

This is knowledgeo But when we compare one 'unit with another over a wide area» ' we come to a realization of how people have adapted themselves to the envi~onment. We learn of contacts and borrowings, We See what has been accepted and integrated irtto the culture. Thus we View processes leading to cultural change. This is understanding.

Hopewell or'Folsom» Danger Cave or Anasazi 9 are but items in our ultimate task==the revelation of human cultural development on this corttinEmt 0

7

UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN ARCHEOLOGICAL SALVAGE PROJEC,T ~ SUMMER 1957 Jes'se D. Jennings The University of Utah received a contract from ,the National Park Service to conduct salv'age archeology at' sites threatened with destruction lOr damage by the ccnstruction of the Glen Canyon Dam» the resulting lakeJ)snd activities connected with the project in general. Work has proceeded IOn three different levelso The initial survey a.ttempted to locate all archeological sites in the first segment of the threatened area o A second party carried lOut limited excava.tion to test sites which were thought by the survey party to be most significant 0 And the third activity was the excavation Qf sites selected on the basis of the test excavations 0 SURVEY~ The survey operated as a mobile four man team from June 22 until September 50 Work was confined to the right bank drainages and environs from immediately above the Glen Canyon damsite to the Escalante River J but did not include the main canyon 0 Search was first made»" intensively 9 in the zone below full pODl levelo Subsequently» and less intensivelY9 search moved into promising areas above full poolo These streams; moving upstream» are Wahweep p Warm~ Cottonwood» Gunsight p Navajo (locally Padre)>> " Kane» Last Chance» Rock 9 Cottonwood and Llewellyn creeks (or - -gul-e~€-s) ~ -the E-sea-la-n.re Rive-rwith its right bank tributary gulahes 9 Indian» Clear» Davis 9 Soda p Willow p and Coyote 0 Several short and unnamed gulches between Rock Creek and Cottonwopd Gulch were already surveyed f~om the canyon side or are to be ignoredo As of August 319 1957 9 the surVey search has revealed 109 sites in this entire areaJ) about 80 beirlg b'e low the full POlol elevation 0 A &iteji of c ourse"3" i&--- Sr:i:mp.ly a lo~ation where evidence of human use " or occupancy can be found 0 Gr~at variation in the extent of the visible remains is therefore to be expectedo So far as is now known p the siDes will fall within the Christian eta» nearly all being of Anasazi affiliationo The range is estimated to run from Basketmaker II times througq Pueblo 110 At present few Pueblo III ceramic specimens can be identifiedo ' " , Many of the sites are in spectacular locations and have strong romantic appeal p but their value as scientific documents is un~ fo\t"tu.nately slighto They are» except for the 5 sampled (42Kal72~ 42Ka174» 42Ka173» 42Ka241» and 42Ka-23S-) thin and skimpy No large settlements or extensive occupancy can be inferred 9 nor can long use be reasonably assumedo Most lack diagnostic surface arti~ facts or architectural deta~l 0 The impression received is tha't 0

8,

the canyon and gulch sites represent single season or ~ingle family forays into the river from better loca.tions in the highlands and stream headwaterso On the other hand~ every gulch has a few sites in ito As might be s upPQsed» the Anasazi here 9 as elsewhere~ were not oriented toward the streams or the limited resources of these deep canyons p It is true that most of the the structures observed were the small c;l~t~ or the above 'ground granary (both associated with agriculture) but these are not "associated with " discoverable settlements Several sites p discovered with bin\Olculars or from le~ges » are today inaccessible;~ " these are noted but not always accol1lnted for in the survey totalo Sites are essentially"lacking in the large Wa.hweep» Warm and Last Chance drainages; because ~ it is believed p of the so~l9which is we"a thered Morrison forma"tion not su.itable: for agriculture; and the rarity of "potable water , in'the strea.ms o Springs are also rare The over 100 sites dis~ covered fall into 3 categories~ 0

0

1)

Open dunes and sand terraces==both non=ceramic and £eramic collectionso

2)

Cliff overhangs or rock shelters==ylelding shallow middensJ occasional structures (dwelling and storage) and storage cistso

3)

pictograph

I

panels=~alone

and associated with other siteso

The above statements are der ived from field summary reports and represent the present thoughts of the field "supervisors. Revised inte rpretations will perhaps foLlow a more lei'surely examination of the notes and collections~ Intensive search for sites in this vast a9d ~angerous desert hy jeep» pack train» and on foot was done systematically by Dro ListerOs crew~ Edson Alvey» Wilford Wis"erilan 9 Richard' Ko . Qraham,\l Charles F Hayes» IlL The thorough work of this party i n some of America ° s ro~ghest terrai n» in da ytime heats often exceedi ng 110 0 F . » without logistic support except of their' own devising ,? deserv~s special mention 0

j)

0

EXCAVA'r'ION~

[

Sample excavation was

initHlt(~d

on Juiy 22» 1957 Barry Go Quinn» Ray Groussmanp James Nielson p Orson Spencer Whitney» Kent Morgan» and Alan Ma thesono This unit sampled 5 sites designated by Professor Lister as requiring tests to deterrnirte whether mOIre in= tensive excavation was desirable The results of these tests with approprIate recommendations will be the subject of a separate report sometime early :in 19580,

by Dowqey Do Raibourq and his research assista~ts~

0

9

Raibou.rnjl in lesser de~re.e.9 was also dependetit. upon his oWn resources; the nature of his assignment.9 --however)) made for much less rigorous problems in logi;sticso ' Even s0.9 for the work in Davis G~lch (whe~e two sites required extensive testing) tools» food and gear» all reduced to a minimum were'transported by pack train over five miles of alternate ~tretches of naked rock and sand dunes impassable by jeepo Food was pa~ked in at weekly intervals.

James · Ho . Gu.nnerson took over the excavation untt as of September IS. Excavation activity during the month of September was devoted to . the Alvey (42Ka172) site~ an ov~rhang locati~:mp where an extensive midden deposit has been worked out. Essentially all of an area 120 feet long with an .average width of about ls ' feet 'had been excava.t ed at the cQmpletion of work at the' site ~ The excavation has a maximum depth of l~ feet below the surface and had an average depth of about 8 feet.

Three or possibly four o. occupations appear to, be represented at the Alvey site The uppermost cul~ural level a,rid' t he one which yielded the most artifacts appears to be 1a1:-.'e Pueblo II or early Pueblo III in age. This' late mate'r ial also extended up into the loose blow sand w1:lich covered the sLte The next deepest occupation was thicker and had ful~as much vegetal trash as the upper level,!) but artifacts were less numerou.s and no pottery of late types was notedo A· tentative Pueblo II assignment is sugge:iSted for this levelo Artifacts are even ra.rer in the third most recent level but the only human bones» four in a11p were recovered from it. Alsop the £.i11 of this level was for the most part ql1u.v~a1 sand with a few concentrations of' vegetal trasho The lowest ~torage cistwas associated with this levelo Others had been 'found a~sociated with the uppe'r 1evel~ The lowest levels are non=ceramic and contain very few artifacts» but can probably be assigned to the Desert Culture.

The fill was alluvial sand with specks of charcoal and occasiQnal lenses Qf charcoalo In the lowest levels» r~cks · fallen from the' roof are more numerous~ although perhaps somewhat. smaller -than those in the upper levels The deepest cut (14 fee,t) h~d pen~trated about two feet of nearly solid rock fall with no cultural material present although specks of charcoal appeared occasionallyo TQe excavation was backfilled enough to elimina.te danger to stoqko It is expected that excavation work will be possible :until November 1. .

0

0

0

0

0

0

.1

.'

Utah Archeology Department of Anthropology University of Utah Salt Lake CitY9 Utah

Non-Profit Orgo