Utah Statewide Archaeological Society Newsletter, Volume 4, Number 2, June 1958

U'fAH $T ATE HISTORICAL S'OC11!l)'

(

e,OJ EAST SOUTH ~~LT lAK~

TE~lPLE

CHY, UI4ti

UrAH ARCHEOLOGY , A Newsletter

Vol. 4. No.2

June 1958

Editor's Notes ,

2

Pottery inl\rcheological Interpretation ,

3

A Puebloid . . Site in Utah Valley .

• 7

.

"

Utah'Archeology is distributed quarterly to all members of the Utah Statewide Archeological Society, All corresponence should be directed to the Editor: James U. Gunnerson,. Department of Anthropology, University of Utah,. Salt Lake City 12. Utah

2

Editor's Notes

Cover: The figure which appears in apprOlximately actual color on the COlver of this issue 1s from an extensive pictograph panel located in Barrier (Horse$hoe) Canyon, a western tributary of the Green River about 40 'miles south of Green River, Utah, The stylized human figure is about life size, as are many of the other elaborate figures in the panel, one of the most· spectacular in Utah, Th1s prehistoric art work is probably 700 to 1000 years old and is probably assignable to the Fremont culture, Copies of · these pictographs were made in oil paint bycW. P. A. artists and are now in the Museum of Anth1"oplogy at the University of Utah, This Issue: .

The article by your editor is a companion article to the one in'tlie last issue on plant and anjmal materials in archeolQgical interpretation, . The other article, A Pu~bloid Site in Utah Valley, is by-Carl H~gh JOInes, a student inarcheolQgy at Brigham YQung 'UniverSity. The cOlver illustration and the drawings Of pottery bowls are by Judith .GOIOIdrich, an anthropolOlgY 'student at the Univer~ity of Utah.

Field Activities: Two archeOllogical parties from the University of Utah have. already gone to the field, ThOlmas.W. Mathews started a survey of the northern tributaries of) and the north side of the San Juan River on April 24. On May 31, Dr. JesseD. Jennings took an advance party to Boulder, Utah where a joint University of Colorado..,.Uriiversityof Utah archeological party will excavate. a site OIn the north edge of tQwn. Between June 18 and July 18, Dr. RQbert Lister of the University Qf Colorado will conduct an archeological summer field schQOII at this site. This summer, the Upper ~ Colorado River Archeologioal Project of the University of Utah will have five archeological parties in the Glen- Canyon area.

Utah ·State Park: Syst~m: . . There has recently been established a Utah· State Park-System with Chet Olson as Directo:r: Many of the state parks will be focused on important archeological siteS .and areas.

Along With the formation of a State Park sY$tem, there has also been establi~hed a State Antiquities law which makes it illegal to collect, damage or destroy archeological material on state-owned.land as well as ·on federal land. To enfOlrce these lawsaIid preserve this SCientifically valuable material, many people who spend 'much 'of their time out in the back country have been deputized to arrest anyone caught molesting archeological sites.

Conferences: I should like to call your attention to two archeological conferences which. you will be welcome to attend this summer. The ,Great Basin-ArcheOilogical Conference will be held August 26 and 27 at the University iQ)f Nevada at RenOl, Nevada. The Pecos Conference for Southwestern -Archeology will be held August 15, 16, and 17 at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

3

POTTERY IN ARCIJEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION James H. Gunnerson

r

Pottery is exceedingly useful to archeologists in their reconstruction of cult ure history, and at sites of people for 'whom pottery was , an 'important part of their material cUlture. broken pottery -Is often very common. The pottery vessels were easily broken and often replaced, and the ;'~sherds"or fragments accumulated at a site; fired pottery is nearly indestructible; and the fragments are of little or no value to anyone except the archeologist. Hence, the sherds' remain where they were originally discarded, unless moved by natural agencies and 'even smallsherds 'can be identified and are almost as useful to an archeologist as are complete vessels.

Pottery can be made in many different ways with a resulting multipliCity of recognizable types. When a potter wishes to make a vessel, her environment usually offers her a choice of materials. In most areas there would be a choice of usable clays and an even greater choice of tempering materials. Some of the common tempering materials, which are added to the clay to help prevent cracking upon drying, are': sand, crushed rock (many kinds), crushed shell, crushed pottery, or plant material. The amount of tempering material relative to the amount of clay is still another variable. Pottery can also differ in the method of manufacture and in the shape and size of the finished vessel. Once the vessel is made, it can be left rough or it can be smoothed or polished. Decoration can be applied by cutting or impressing designs into the moist clay before firing, or designs can be engxaved-after , firing~ Deaigns.can be. painted-oa with any of m.any paint s available to the potter. In addition, the number 'of possible designs is unlimited.

But it has been found that the potters of any group or tribe will select only a few of the many possible variations and will make pottery in much the same way. Many groups make several types of pottery, but one group will seldom make much of its pottery in exactly the 'srup.e way as an(j>ther group. T'hus, it is usually possible to dtstfngutshthe'sltes-of" one group from those of another by means of t he pottery found~ It has further peen found that the pottery of a: group will change with time. Even though the changes are usually slqw, they are often obvious enough that an approximate date can be assigned to a site on the basis of the pottery found, once enough is known of the pottery or the locality.

Contact or interaction between groups can often be inferred from ceramic evidence. ' At times there have been styles popular ' acros~ a rather large area but usually with distinctive local variations. ,Also, there frequently is evidence of trade in pottery from one group to another.

Archeologists have established what are called pottery types. All of the pottery of a single type is essentially the same and distinguishable from pottery of other types. Thus the pottery of a single type would have a limited number of the variables inentioned above and the type described in terms <;>f the material from which it was made, the method of mamrl'acture, the shape of vessels, the nature and pattern of the decoration, etc. In addition to these physical descriptions. the pottery type is described in terms of area of distribution, date of manufacture and cultural associations, These last three traits of the pottery type must

4 come, of course, from other lines of evidence. The area of distribution can be determiliedby extensive archeological surveys( The date of manufacture of a pottery type must beobta.i nedby 'one 'of the sev.eral methods of establishing the age of archeological sites where the type is comll1-on. In the': Southwest, the most useful dating device for archeological sites with pottery has.been the well known method utilizing tree rings.

Mter the same pottery type haa been found in abundance at several sites of the same age, it is .safe to ascribe that date to the pOttery type. The finding ;of a type of pottery at many sites which have been dated wui establish mere precisely not only the dateef manufacture but also the duration of the peried duringwhich such pottery was made.

Once the age ef a particular type has -been established, it is then possible to ascribe - that age to still-other sites where this type is present. This method is known as cross dating by meaJlS of pottery types.

The cultural affiliation of a pottery type is -established as soen as it is found in sufficient abundance at a site of a known cultural affiliation to assure the archeologist that the pottery was made at the site rather than beIng traded to the peeple who lived at the ·site.

SOime of the variations in pottery can be seen in pettery of the Pueblo tradition in Utah.

A general description ef the manufacture of Pueblo pottery can be given which will apply with afew miner exceptions to all pottery of the Pueblo traditien found in the ·state.

Modern Pueblo- ware IS manufactured by a coiling technique in which the walls are built up from a strand of wet clay wound around and arounp: with each layer pressed firmly to the layer below. Thinning is then dene bY'scraping with a piece of gourd or a potsherd.

The pottery is tempered wlthsa.n d, crushed rock or crushed sherds. Firing:is most commonly in a reducing atmosphere in which the ves~JEHs to be fired are covered with fuel to prevent oxygen, from getting to the pottery while it is hot. This results in gray wares; whereas, firing in an oxic1izing atmosphere usually results in red wares. Vessel shapes were, in the past, most commonly jars, bowls, ladles and mugs. Decoration. when present, was .usually en the inside of bowls and the outside of jars and mugs.

Typical decorations consisted of geometric designs painted in black paint on the natural gray of the vessel or 'on a white background formed by covering the vessel with a thin layer or ;I~slip" of fine white clay.

The earliest pottery in Utah is .found in the southeast corner, . at sites of the Modified Basketmaker period which started between- about A. D. 400 and 500 and lasted until about A. D. 700. The pottery 'is a crude' gray'ware .and, for the mGst part,. consists ." .

I of globular jars ·andbowls. The ' surface was rough to Slightly Smooth but was never polished. Bowls were decorated with. simple designs pamted with hlackpaint . . A few specimens of polished red pottery, . apparently traded from further SQuth~ have been found at sites of thi~ period.

1ft Eloutheastern Utah the following,

or Developmental Pu~blo period, lasted until about . A. D. 1100 and had far superior pottery. At the beglmiingQf tb,e period, the top few CQil~ the neck of the ,cQoking vessels were left unobllterated on the outside in a style known . as neck banding. In the course of the Develepmental Pueblo period, more and sometimes all of the coil marks were left, either plain. or evenly pinched, to form what is called corrugated pottery. During the latter part ef the Developmental Pueblo period SQme of the corrugated pottery was further decorated by uSing combinations of plain and indented

on

¡.

Figo 10 Anasazi pottery.bowls shQwing representative painted designs for Modified Basketmaker Developmental. Pueblo and Classic Pueblo (top to bottom) ,\I

0

6

{pinched) corrugatiQn, cQmbinatiQnsof appliqued fillets of clay and cOIrrugatiQn, or incision Olver cQrrugatiQn. The painted PQttery alsOI changed. Painting was much mOIre carefully executed and, Qn SQme vessels, a thin slip Qf clay was· applied tQ the' surface ' OIf the gray pottery tQ fQrm a white backgrOlund fQr the black paint. Painted PQttery was sOImetimes polished with -a very ' smQoth stOlne to add Ito the firiis.hed appearance of the ware. In Qne area Qf SQutheastern Ut~,different m:ethQds, especially in firing, were develQped to prQduce red-Qn-Qrange painted-potter y. ! In addition to bett er technical cOlntrol and mOIre carefui wQrkmanship in the DevelQpmental PueblQ period, there was · alsQ greater variety in decQratiQn. Several IQcal pottery types develQped and can be recOlgnized.

During the next, QrClassic PueblQ periQd, which lasted in SQuthern Utah until abQut 1275 A. D. , PQttery was even better made and reachJd the high point in.its develQpment. · The cOlQking PQttery cQntinued to be cQrrugated, but the ·moreelabOlrately decOlrated cQrrugated types were nQ IQnger made. The maximum size of painted pottery increased, the designs became more intricate andext~nsive , and regional variations became more commQn, Elsewhere in Utah can be fQund a reflectiQb. Qf the ' DevelQpmental Pueblo pOlttery as fQund 'in the fOlur corners area. In all parts Qf the state which eQuId have been farmed in what was prQbably a mOIre favQrable climate during'the tenth to thirteenth centuries; can be found PueblQ or PueblQ-llke sites. Atthese sites is tQ be found pottery Qf the general PueblQ traditiQn but with local distinctive variatiQns. Small amounts Qf pottery brought in frQm the Pueblo area prQper are sQmetimes alsQ fQund ..

In central Utah, plain smQQth cQQking PQttery greatly predQminated Olver the corrugated

wares. Locally made black-Qn-gray and black-Qn-w;hite painted PQttery, although distinguishable, fQllQWS the general traditiQns Qf painted pottery further SQuth. . DecQratiQn by incision and punctatiQn, which is rare in the PueblQ regien, is much mOIre commen in Central Utah. In general, then, the PQttery Qf these two sections Qf Utah is distingUishable both en the basis Qf technQIQgical characteristics. and decQrative characterlstics.

Elsewhere in Utah especially in the :northern part Qf the state, there iste be fQund pOlttery Qf types nQt in the Pueblo tradition. It differs frQm the Pueblo pOlttery in bQth technique OIf manufacture and in decoratiOln. Twe types. are probably assignable tOl mOIre recent · Shoshoneanand Athabascan grQups.

7

APUEBLOIDS.lT.E IN. UTA:a VALL~Y ',' ',' ; .:. '

• -

• \

'*.

. ..

f

"

•

Foreword: As part of the training program of the Department of Archeol~gy , Qf Brigham Young University ~ a c ass in field ar'c1;leolOlgy is offered. ' 'rhis class was taught the fall. ~ua1"ter ,o f 1956 by Dr ~ -ROlSS T, Christe.risEm ,t o a group of ,is ,st!ld~nts : To fulfill the r equirements i0r thiS class " each: student. pkrticipated in an excavation in Utah Valley, helped catalogue the materials excav'a ted" . ~d pr~par.ed a repor t on. a,particular phase of the recovered materIal. The present paper is based largely upon the reports prepared by the students. . , . " ..

•

I

J

'

-

,

Helpful critidsm has been offered by Dr. ¥. Wells Jakeman, department ,chairman.

The property owner 9 "G~ M~ion Hincl9-ey.: 3.p.ci'his spn ,Thomas~HinckJ.eY were mor e than. kind to uB inallowing 'us 'to exc'avate in,,theirfields and ,intheir Gooperation in. other ways. . . . ' ., . '. ' . . '.'

The following is a

pr~liminary field . , .

report and description .

."

.

of,specim~na. .. ,"

Site Lecation and E·x-cava.tl~n: ," ,'" : On September 27, 1956, the clas~ ' st~rted the ex,c·a vatio.n ,~t ~ ~Ound site designated as UH 11. This mound is on the' property of,G,. Marion Hinckley~ near' sites where JuHan H., Steward (1936) aiid.Albert B. Reagan (i935a, 1,9~5b) excavat,e d during the 1930 GB; and ju.st a little to the southwest'of site UH 1, excavated by this department in 1946 ~ 7 (Christensen 1947). The site is loq~ted two and one-haf£ miles west of Provo, Utah, and one ..;hatf mile 'sGuth oj West DriVe?n the,Airport ~Qad,

The first thing thE;) class did on the site was to lay ou.t a test trench, 18 inches Wide, which ran for 50 feet in a general east:-west direcU0D;. ,This trench was dqg to a depth of three feetj at which point sterile soU was reached. This point wa.B used as the datum leve1. " , Using the' south edge of this ttenGh as the ~ast -west base line, ~(lJthel': base line was laid out at right angles to it. Using t1~ese two hase~ lines, the site was l~id out in fiV6 =foot sQ.uares~ , ' . . .

Each- square waS excavated in six-inch levels., an.d th!3, art,t ract,s :were P'!1t trito paper sacks labeled as to square and leveL ' Mter the 't est trenc.li was finished, thE;' next step was to dig several test pits: squares 13, 5R4, 13R4, and 20R4. ' During the third week, 17R6 and 17R9 were opened as test pits. In these two pits were fO}IDd .the greatest signs of o'c cupation that had been encountered-thus far. • The next we~k we oommenced to open other squares next to' these (17R6' 'and 17R9). As plans now stand, ~he1;'e will be another xcavaticm at this site in the autumn of 1959, when this class will again be held.

I

'

~.

I '

,

,

,

8

Objects of Stone: : About 500 ' stone objects were 'recovered from UH 11. , Approximately three-fifths of these were simply fractured fragments and might have been used as boiling stones.

F-ifty-nine were unbroken and water-worn, varying in' Size from small' pebbles to rocks six inches in diameter. It should be noted that the 'site is located in an area that Is practically free of' stone.

We recovered 85 pieces of flinty stone in the form of chips, flakes, and cores~ Four projectile points were found. One, from a deep level, is a stemmed point t~ee and three -fourths inches long and resembles points from Gypswn Cave. The others were triangular-side-notched points about five-eighths of an inch lo~g. Six fragments of knives were found; three of these are 'about one and three-fourths inches wide With ' square or rounded ends. One boot-shaped 'scr aper (?), one large end-scraper, two ' thumb ....nail scrapers and one slightly winged drill were also recovered from the' site.

From 17RB, level three, came a flat piece of brown-maroon slate which-showed signs of having ,b een polished. It may have been used .as a pendant or gaming piece. Five stones with red och~r on them, a piece of ground slate that may have been a knife, and two sandstone shaft-straighteners were found.

Four mano fragments and nine metate fragments wer~ recovered. One fragment represents the Utah type of metate, four fragments had raised'edges, three were flat, and one was too small to identify. AU-the manos have a rectangular cross- section.

The largest mano fragment is three and one-fotirthtnches wide, two and one-half inches thick, and 'six', inches long. Tliis appears to be about half the original length.

The other heaVY 'stone artifacts recovered were one anvil and three hammer 'stones.

The types of stone found at the 'site are: chert, flint, obsidian, jasperoids, quartzites, travertine, red'ocher, slate, rhyolite, latite, andvitrophyre.

Faunal Remains: : We' are indebted to Mr. James ,W. Bee for the species identification of the .faunal remains recovered from UH 11. The various species of animals identified and the number of specimens identified are: muskrat, 38; beaver. 5; jack rabbit, 3; botta. pocket gopher, 2; nuttall cottontail, 1; yellow -bellied marmot, 1; coyote, 1; badger, 1; striped skUnk, 1; mountain ¡sheep" 16; mule deer, 5; bison, (Bison bison bison/Linnaeus/;) 5; mallard duck, 16; Canada goose, 9; American merganser, 5; pintail duck, 2; lesser scaup, 2; greater scaup, ~; and the avocet~ 1.

I

Fragments of bone too small to be identified as to species are as follows: 159 large mammal and 50 bird and rodent.

Dr. Reeve M. Baily of the University of Michigan identified our fish samples as Utah . Chub, Gila atraria (Giard), 7. This was¡.based on' several jaw bones, Several mollusk were found; 10 clam and 39 snail.

The presence of bison is .especially interesting because their remains are not commonly fO'lUld in this par t of Utah. Other evidence of bison has, however been found in the area.

Stephen Johnson Beely (1946) reports bison bones being found in a camp site located

','

•

f

«;0

~O ,

/1 II 17

I

/10

•

o

'/5

/'115

0

IJ...

.

,

£)

1/

ID

'1 ~

1 7

~

...

-...J ~ (f,)

.'

03

" S

~

;:::> 0

V') I

,'I

~ ~

0

2-

0

MAP OF EXCAVATED AREA of UR 11 LEGEND

o

I

.3

POST MOLD

Scale 1":: 10'

R.l1

10 Ware

Number

Great Salt Lake Gray

Sevier Gray

Snake Valley Gray Snake Valley Corrugated Snake Valley Black-on-Gray I

.

%

. F orm

Decoration

1154

75.~

287

18.7

58

3.8

large jars

none

4

0.3

narrow necks.

stick punch.

10 '

0,6

.deep bowls.

,linear designs in

r'doughnut 11 design large jars. wide moUths, flattish in ap.plictue stick and concave and finger-nail . bottom$, long na:r.- punch, -exterior -row' necks with - designs in red, pendhandles . ant triangles.

,.

Small vessel' (mug~ _ finger;..nail punch . large vessels, banded neck , -linear flaring 'mouths. de signs in red on e",terior,

bla~k.

Knolls Gray

6

O.~

Turner Gray';;Variety Two

9

'0.6

. Totals

1528

?

bOWls.

none ~terior: ltp.ear designs in black"Onwhite to gray' slip exterior: fugitive red.

99.8

Table 1, Analysis of pottery from site UH II,

,

.

t

"

r

11 •

; -

t

north of the Provo River: James Bee '(1947) in his master"s thesis ,sg.ows a photograph of a bison skull removed from the-sands north of the Provo' ~iver . ', Seton (1927 p. 647) gives the range of bison in this area as being between 1500 and 1850 'A.D .. ; and Escalante said that bison were not too far away to the north -northwest (Alter, 1943).

Artifacts of bone include: 10 awls, 5 gani,i ng pieces,. 2 scaper s, ,I f,l aker, and 1 whistle .

The awls are from the long .bones of mamm3J.s. The gaming pJece.s .are made of split r ib halves, the type usua.llyfound'in this 'a rea. 1'4e whist~e' was made from the leg bone of a bird. ' .

. '

Plant 'Remains : I. . . . .

From the Tree-Ring Laboratory at the University of Arizona was received identification of Douglas-fir and a fast growing type, ' such as cottonwood from samples that have bee,n sent them for tree-ringdating~ Oth~r floral reD;lains ar e grasses or canes likely used in making mats, and vines or saplings' usen to ~ind the 4'ame wor~ of the house together .

Ther e is an indication ~hat corn was used ,~>n tb;i.s sit e : a lumpqf baked clay was 'found on which there was an impression <?f what appeMs 't~ hev~ ?een,an ear of corn used as a roller stamp. ' House Remains: Other than a few scattered post molds , the main cOnsiruct~~n on the site was a parallelogram mass of burned an~ baked clay (see map). " Mo~t 9f ~is niass ,appeared to, have no form ; that 'is, it gave the appearan'c e :of bavln{fallen from some'wher e. ,On the individual pieces of cl ay, the imprints of the fingers of the people who put the damp clay on the logs or fr ame work 'can be found, along 'with the impressiol1S of the individual timbers of .the framewor k.

In' some cases, we can find places where two poles have be~n ,tied t9gether with small saplings or vine~. From our'excavation it is apparent that the building, was of wattle and daub construction, but we were imable to determine the 'shape or' extent of the house . "

'

..

Ceramics: • Classification of pottery types for the purposes 9f de~criptiQn and comparison is of primary importance to the archeologist in his reconBtru~ion of~he material culture of the past.

A considerable quantity of pottery was found at this Site.

After dividing ,the pottery from UH 11 into their re's pe'c tive types and checking these types with James H. Gunnerson, of the University of Utah; we found that there are seven types of pottery present in the ex;istingmaterials from this site. These types are: • Great · Salt Lake Gray,. Sevier ,Gray, SilakeValley Gray,. Snake Valley Corrugated, Snake Valley Black-on -Gray, Knolls Gray, and Turner Gray-VarietyTwo, Black-on-White (Rudy, 1953; Gunnerson 1956). (See table I). · 1\,11 pottery types seem to come from all levels in apprOXimately equal proportions. There fore, I have not deemed it necessary to consider the types of levels. Most of the sherds came fr om levels two, three-and four, with the greater proportion coming from level three.

The heaviest concentration of sherds was immediately over the burial, where the sherds lay one on top of the other. From this cache we were. able to restore t he outline of a wide flaring mouthed jar of Great Salt Lake Gray ware.

12

Other ceramics-recovered froIp: the site include three possible spindle whorls which were reworked sherds roughly perforated in the center. Th~re was also recovered, . an unusual female figurine. It terminated at the waist with the breasts full and wellformed.

Burial: Near the end of the excavation period a burial was found in squares 18R7 and 17R7 . . We have not completed: our 'study'of this burial; however, it is possible to say that the,r e were no grave offerings found with the burial and that it was not an intrusive buriaL That is, the burial was plac~d in the ground before the house was built, as house remains were found over the top and immediately to the north of the burial.

The ' skull is brachycephalic andurtdeformed.

ConcluSions: Judgingfrom the material remains, it appears that the ancient inhabitants of the area near the mouth of the Provo River were Puebloid in culture. Cultures found in central and northern Utah that show ties with the Basket Maker-Pueblo or Anasazi culture of the Four Corners Area are considered to represent the northern .advance from that center, and are -spoken of as Puebldid. The area' occupied by such cultures is often called the Northern Periphery.

By studying the pottery types that show Similarity with'those of the classical Pueblo area which have been dated by the tree-ring method, it is possible to ascribe a time range of. approximately-800 to 1300 A. D. as the period when the Puebloid peoples lived 'm this area.

If the presence of Turner Gray-Variety Two, Black on White, indicates that this site was occupied at the' same time as the Turner Look ,site, we can date the occupation here at about the eleventh century A.D. (cf. Wormington, 1955, p. 75).

In looking at the remains of this people, we can' say a few things about their way of

life. As there are no large comm1.mity houses or ,other structures or arrangement of structures to suggest any rigid class system or other .form of government like strong chieftainship$, it can be aSsumed 'that the government rested baSically in the family with perhaps a loose band organization. The economy seems to be farming, supplemented by hunting, fishing, and gathering.

13 l3ibliography

Alter » J . Cecil (ed) 1943"Falher-- Escalante f s .Journal, 1776-77.

11

Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. XI.

Bee, -James-W. 1947 Mammals of Ut:;ili·Cmmty. Master's the fJ'ii3" Department of Zoology and _Ertto.:mology, Brlgham Young University.

Beeley, - Stephen Johnson 1946 -The Archaeology of a Utah Lake_Site. Master's thesis, . Department of . Sociology and Anthropology, UnIversity of Utah.

Christensen» Ross, T. 1947 - A Prelimiriary Report 'of Archaeological Investigations near Utah Lake, Utah, 1946. Master's thesis, Department of Archaeology, Brigham Young UniVersity.

Gunnerson, James H. 1956 "Fremont Ceramics" in Papers of the Third Great Ba$in Archeological Conference, University of Utah·Anthropological Papers No. 26, pp. 54..,62.

Reagan,- Albert B. 1935a "Archaeological Report of FieUfWork Dorrein Utah in 1934 and 1935. " Proceedings. Utah Academy of Science, vol. XIT. 1935b "Some Notes on an -Ancieht Culture of the Provo-Salt Lake Region." Northwest Science, vol lX, No.2.

Rudy, JackR. 1953 ,IIArchaeological Survey of Western Utah." University of Utah Anthropological Papers. No. 12.

Seton, Ernest T. 1927 Lives.of Game Animals . vol ITI. . Doubleday, Page and Company, Garde.n CitYt New York.

Steward, Julian H. 1933 "Archaeological Problems of the Northern Periphery of the-· Southwest. " Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin, No.5.

1936 "Pueblo Material Culture' of' Western Utah.'1 University of New Mexico Bulletin. Anthropology Series, vol. 1, no. 3. (pp. 6-16).

Wormington, H.lV!.

1955~tA Reappraisal of the Fremont Culture, with a~ SUmmary of the Archaeology of tlie Northern periphery. ~~ _Denver 'Museum of Natural History, Proceedings No. I. .

)

.

I:

I' Utah Archeology Department of Anthropology University of Utah Salt Lake City 12 ~ Utah

Non-Profit Org.

"