Utah Statewide Archaeological Society Newsletters, Volume 17, Number 1, March 1971

"

A

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::~-:~:-:~::::::=:MA~R:C:H~71~9;~ VOLUME 17

NO. 1

SHIBLD PBTROGLYPH nea.r

FRUITA t

UTAH

UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY is published quarterly by the u·tah statewide Arcl1 '··.eolog1ca,1 society. correspondence concerning activities suo I~' be directed to the President. Manuscripts and news items o~ articles should be sent to the Bditor~ Memberships should be seat to the Secretary.

utah statewide Archeological society officers president: pres-Elect: secretary: Editor:

Dean CAldwell 4283 Benion Rd. Granger, utah 84119 Harris B. salisbury 1061 Kensington ut S. L. C. ute Rose Groves 767 Galena Dr. sandy, Utah 84070 Norma Dalton 829 N. 100 w. Sunset, Utah 84015

Advisor: Dr. Jesse D. Jennings Univ. of utah S.L. C. ute publication: Members of the salt Lake-Davis Co. Chapter.

. Paper prepared for presentation" Fremont Symposimn. 'Society for American Archaeology Meetings Mexico City. D. F .• April 30-lV:ay2. 1970

THE EASTERN UINTA FREMONT By David A. Breternitz Unive'rsi ty of Colorado INTRODUCTION The archaeology of the Uinta Basin Fremont has undergone at least three stages of investigation.

The earliest reporting, in

the 1930 1 s, was primarily a notation of sites, coupled with statements about the distinctive rock artof the region (Beckwith 1935; Brown 1937; Reagan 1931a, 1931b, 1931c, 1933, 1934 (and others), scott 1932).

During the 1940's and 1950's the first systematic

surveys and excavations were conducted (Baldwin 1947; Baldwin, Scoggin, and Setzler 1942;Burgh 1948, 1950; Burgh and Scoggin 1948; Dick. 1949, 1950, MS; Gunnerson 1957; Lister 1951; MaCLeod 1959; schulman 1950; Scoggin 1941; stir1and 1947; wenger 1956; wormington 1955).

Finally, survey and excavation in the 1960's has increased (1)

our knowledge through systematic Collection of a great amount of new

d~ta,as

well as attempts at broader comparisons and synthes'es

(Aikens '1966; Ambler 1966a, 1966b, 1969; Anderson 1967; Breternitz 1965, 1970; nay 1964, 1965; Day and Dibble 1963; Husted and Mallory 1967; Leach 1966, 1967; Marwitt 1968; sheets 1969; Shields 1967, 1968) • As indicated abovw, the investigations of the past decade have been initiated primarily by the University of utah, plUS a body of data generated by the University of Colorado.

The latter

institution has compiled an archaeological base map for Dinesaur National Monument (Breternitz 1965) and, subsequen tly, conducted excavations at 24 archaeological locations within the Monument, or immediately adjacent.

Unfortunately, the results of the majority of

these excavations are not yet available, with two exceptions (Leach 1966; Sheets 1969).

Consequently, much of the data and ideas

which follow are taken from this body of unpublished material, which will henceforth be referred to as

Bre~~rnitz

(1970).

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO ARGIAEOLOGlCAL I[\fVESTIGATIONS IN ' DINOSAUR NATIONAL

i~NUMENT

The 24 sites investigated by the University of colorado occur in six localities which are, from west to east, referred to as: Qua~ry " (1 site );' Cub creek (11 sites); Jones Hole (5 sites); Harding Hole, (1 si te); yampa Bench (3 sites); and, Deerledge park (3sites).

Some

of th ese si tes are not directly pe rt inen t to the "Fremont Pro b1emn currently under discussion, or they are multiple component sites.

Table 1 lists the sites by locality and their archaem1ogica1 affiliations are noted.

The term "house refers to a gemera1ly (2) "

circular,

"shal~o~

dwelling which normally has a circular firehearth

and. "is diagnostic of the cub Creek phase (to be defined below). '!S\trface structure" refers to a rock-outlined, small, generally rectangular storage(?) or dwelling unit tdIich is possibly contemporaneous with the cub Creek phase houses.

'.

(3)

TABLE 1.

Inventory of Dinosaur tvational Monument Excavations, 1964./.65

LOCALITY

SI TE NAME & Nm'IBER

TYPE OF SITE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTENT

Quarry

sweltor Shelter 42UN40

Rockshelter

1) Fremont rock art pamel.

2) pre - F .r e mo u i.I

0 (; (;

u-

pa tions, dating back to cat 6000 BC Cub creelc 'Nagon Run l)vost-Fremont sur f ace 42l]M49 hearths. open village -.

2)4 cub creek Phase hOUSE si te Cub Crleeki Wholeplace V1llage open village l)Post-Fremont surtace hearths.

42U!\T57 site 2)5 cub creek phase hOUSE plus' 1 possible cub creek Qhase s~~~ cture c ub Creek Boundary V111age Open village l)post-Fremont sur f ace hearths. (Leach 1966) 42UN63 site ~)8 cub creek phase house plus 1 possible Cub Creek Qhase structure. uDCreeK Ar-rowh ead po in t open Dwellin;1 )3 living fl ores on Campsite bedrock, plus I burial. site 42UN66 possibly Club Creek pha ~e C-llb Cree!c ' Cub Creelc Village open dwell ing 1)1 i l l-defined structure 42UN69 Po s s i bl Y F r e mo n t • site (Cub cree k Fremo~layhouse open dwelling 1)1 structur e. poss ibl y 42UN83 site Fremont but no ceramic ~. cub Creelc Sheep Shelter l)North- f acing storage Rockshelter 42UN87 shelter, possible premon t but no ceramics.

Cub Creelc Burnt House Village open village 1)3 poss1bl e cub CreeK 42UNl18 phase houses. si te 2)2 surface structures and 1 ha1f-house/halfsurface structure.

U I 3)Ucremation (?) cut> creelt The Dam Site open dwelling! 1)1 unusual house, 42UNl19 sites Probablv Eremont.

'Cti1)-cr e e K The pord S1te Open awel11ng 1 )1 surface structur~.

42UN120 site Cli15 creelc MaC Leod site lopen village 1)3 cub Creek phase hous FP- 42UN12l surface structures, jSite ! 2)3 possible contemporaneous wi th the cub creek Phase ! houses.

.

I J

-

--

I

!

!

I I

t

(4)

Some of site destroyed by highway construction prior to archaeological investiga tion.

. : >

levels.

3i12 Pre-Premont occupation l evels, extending back

through "Archaic" McKean, pinto, to scottsbluff. 5.85 meters of occupation deposits.

TWO adjaCent 11)ute-Shoshonean occuJones Ho ~ e Ely caves (Sheets 1969) rockshelters pa tion.

42UN4 2)Fremont occupation.

3)Desert Archaic.

4)Stemmed, indented base projectile point horizon Unstratified, but good pa r ishable material a rtifact inventor~.

Jones Ho l e 42UN9 11)poss1ble Fremont and/or small roc kshelter ute/Shoshonean camping spot, lacking ceramics.

Jones Ho l e 42UNl3 LaI:ge 1) S1ngle"Fre mont Jt p1ctogr aph rockshelter 2)sparce mate r ial cultur e; poss i bly stoI:age shelter. _.

Hard1ng serv1ceberry 1)4 occupat10n ~eve~s, al.~ Rock:she~ter kole 5MF81 Shelter pre-Fremont. yampa open Bench 5MFl32 chipping site l)scottsbluff and McKean projectile points. yampa The seeps Camps1te open camps1te l)camp util1zation Above Bench 5MF138 spring; possibly Fremont, but no ceramics. yampa Baker Cabin spring open campsi tâ‚Ź l)Eroded s1te at spring Bench site with great artifact 5MF190 mixture; no ceramics.

D~ erlodge D1sapPointment l)Mano-metate in situ ??? park Circles within ring of-Cleared 5MFl96 vegetation cultural affiliation unknown.

Deerlodge Deerlodge Midden open campsi tE l)ute/Shoshonean occpark 5MF202 upation near surface.

2)Buried Pre-Fremont occuQation level, ---ueet'Toage Lowe.ll. spr1ng S1tie open camps1 tiE: ~)camps1te occupa~10n attributed to Fremont. park 5MF224 2)series of pre-Fremont occupations; affiliatcims both with NW plains and Uncompahgre plateau.

~

-

(5) ¡

THE CUB CREEK PHASE

Definition The cub creek Phase, the Fr emont occupation defined on the basis of excavations in the cub Creek locality (Breternitz 1970),

~s

summarized as follows: Trai ts of the cub creek phase Site situation:

All known sites are on sandy slopes or terraces

above the creek flood plain.

There are no definite indications that

more than about five habitation units were occupied simultaneously.

Domestic architecture:

This description is based on seven Type I

houseS (see Leach 1966: 91-92) from three sites: 10 Type II houses from four sites; and two combination Type I-II houses from two sites.

Architectural units which do not adhere to this definition are discussed at length in Breternitz (1970).

Shape •

.Ro'ughly circular.

Diameter of TYpe I houses, 4.0 t05.7 m.;

average about 5.25 to 5 e 5 m. Diameters of Type II houses, 3.85 to 7.5 m.; average about 6.5 to 7.0 m.

One house has a raised trante-

chamber. it Entrance.

Only one house has a definite entrance, which is a

mort ramp. walls.

Where evidence is available they are jacal.

The edge

of the floor area and base of the walls is indicated by a slight rise of native soil where the house floor is excavated into the hill slope.

all are shallow.

Floors. packed sand.

Hearths.

Flat to slightly concave or saucer-shaped and made of Adobe flooring is foond in only one house.

Unlined basins in Type I houses and adobe-rimmed 1n

type II houses, generally.

May be more than one hearth per house.

(6)

Ashpits adjacent to the hearth ate common in Type II houses. pits.

Generally, basin and flat-bottmed pits in Type I houses

and bell-shaped and straight-sided pits in Type IIhouses. nine pits within floor area.

Roofing.

~ype

Up to

pits also occur outside habitations.

I . houses generally have encircling peripheral

postholes at floor margins.

Type II houses have three to seven (four

is standard?) central posts 'around the' adobe-rimmed hearth and secondary wall posts around the floor Communal architecture: ceramics:

margins~

None known.

Every sherd recovered in definite cub creek phase

association, approximately 1260, 'is Turner Gray:

Cisco Variety.

One and two handled jars are the only shapes known.

There is no

decorated or intrusive pottery in association, nor are any of the sherds appliqued, pUnctated, or otherwise surface Ground stone:

Manes:

uniface and biface, unshaped and shaped,

plus wedge-shaped.

Metates:

Polishing , pebbles.

Shaft smoothers.

Flaked stone,

manipulated~

through usually with a few basin-shaped

projectile points:

Stone balls. unnotched, tonvex base and

diagonal-notched, small, convex base types most common. (bifacially chigped knives/scrapers). shouldered

knives)~

Hammerstones.

"premont blades" (large,

Worked flake scrapers.

Choppers.

Drills.

Net sinkers.

Cores.

Ornaments and miscellaneous: and stone gaming pieces.

Blades

Bone and stone pendants.

Bone

Belemnites and other fossil objects,

altered and unaltered.

Disposal of the dead:

sporadic evidence of both inhumation

and cremation.

(7)

."

Discussion

The diagnostic features of the cub creek Phase, as defihed, are:

Shallow, circu.lar

Tur~e~

Gray:

hous.e~

of . Type I, Type TI,and combinations.

Cisco Bariety pottery.

Net Sinkers.

Projectile points which are small,

diagonal~notched

and unnotched points with convex bases. preforms for the former.

:~TQ~ <

.

,

with convex bases

latter are probably ..

pendants and gaming pieces of bone and stone. stone balls (occur throughtout the Fremont area). flJiremon t blades".

Although stone balls, net sinkers, and "Fremont blades Tl are not numerous artifacts they dO , make the assembledge of artifacts distinct.

Fremont blades are cited by Ambler (1966a: . Fig. 64a)

fl,S

a distinctive ,

trait of the Uinta Fremont.

No treatment of the rock art in th cub Creek locality is attemped.

A separate study of the rock art of Dinoseur National

Monument is presently being many of the rock art

panel~

made~

and althQugh it is assumed that

are of Fremont origin, it ,is premature

to list them as a diagnostic of the ,cub creek phase.

Indeed, these

depictions are generally not found at Fre,mont dwelling sites nor do the rock art panels usually show definite evidence of having served also as hahita,tion locations by Fremont peoples.

Breternitz (1970) defines the Cub creek Phase rather rigidly, but there is no reason why the phase definition cannot be

alter~d

to include new data, such as Ambler (1966a, 1966b) and Shie,lds (1967).

In addition, Breternitz (1970) discusses several additional (8)

architectural features which may represent a range of variation or fUnction and which may also belong to the Cub Creek Phase.

The sites assigned th the cub Creek Phase in Breternitz (1970) occupy a known area which is not much larger than two square miles. this present known distribution of the cub Creek Phase certainly does not represent its actual areal limits.

However, there are

arguments both for and against considering the original definition of the cub Creek Phase as encomassing a "locality", in Willey and Phillips (1958) terms, or thinking of this distribution as being on the level of a "district," in Lehmer and C@ldwell (1966) terms.

In Dinosaur National Monument there are five village sites with 21 houses assigned to the cub Creek Phase, six sites with eight additional possible cub Creek Phase houses, three sites with seven possibly contemporary surface structures (a total of 36 habitation units), and nine other sites that have Fremont manifestations but lack habitations. ~nits

Shields (1967) discusses 27 Fremont architectural

from five sites.

Ambler's (1966a, 1966b) Fremont occupation

of caldwell Village consists of 22 habitations which also bear similarities to the cub Creek Phase.

Elsewhere (Breternitz 1970), I have hedged on the relationship of rectangular surface structures to the circular cub Creek Phase houses.

I think there is now sufficient evidence adailable to

consider these two arcnitectural forms contempraneous.

However,

the "hOUses" still are numeically dominate and the surface structures may, or may not, be primarily storage units.

Shields (1970) assigns the Cub Creek Phase to the Initial Uinta Fremont Phase, which he dates as A.D. 600-750. ( 9)

On archaeological

evidence, qot radio-carbon dated, the c:;ub Creek: Phase is thought to fall within the A.D. 1000-1150 time

pe~iod,

with .the possibility

that the actual dates .are 50 years longer at either end.

I still cannot accept the idea that "Fremont" began in the Uinta Basin about A.D. 600.

Ambler's (1966a) ideas about diffusion

of ideas/traits from the Virgin region still satisify by limited scope of knowledge (provimcialism?).

(10)

"

DELUGE SHELTER The last gasps of the Fremont in the Dinosaur National Monument region are best known from Deluge Shelter (Leach 1967), which has two distinct Fremont occupation levels.

occupation Level 3 is the

Upper Fremont and occupation Level 4 is the Lower Fremont.

Diagnostic

traits from these two occupations, for comparison with the diagnostic traits of the cuD Creek Phase, are: Traits

occupation Level 3 Upper Fremont

Turner Gray: Cisco Variety

x

Small, side-notched projectile points (Desert Side-notched)

x

occupation Level 4 Lower Fremont x (more abundnat than in Upper Fremont)

small, corner-notched projectile points (Rose Spring Corner-notched)

x

"Fremont knives (Blades)

x

x

Net weights

x

x

stone balls

x

x

Trough metates . and ohlong manes (manos uniface and biface)

x

x

stone pendants

x(l also of bone) x

Polishing stones

x

stone pipes

x x

Variety of "minerals"

x

x

Bone gaming pieces and¡bone beads

x

x

Bone pin

x

Bone tubes

x

crinoid stem beads

x

cremation

x

(11)

DATING

..

" ." '.

Radiocarbon Dating Each of the Fremont occupation levels at Deluge Shelter produced a radicarbon date (Leach 1967). has a date of A.D. 735 a date of A.D. 920 old.

*

~

ha~

The Lower Level Fremont

85 (GX0895) and the Upper Level Fremont has

85 (GX0895). Isubmit that these dates are too

Both are charcoal dates obtained from features (firepits/

hearths) within the cultural levels.

The small bits of charcoal

are residue fEom contained fire areas and I believe that the peoples .t:esponsible for these fires used. dead and dry

wood~

support for

this hypothesis is drawn from information obtained in the Navajo Reservoir District.

Eddy (1966: Table 5) gives five radiocarbon

dates from early ceramic occupations; in all five instances the radiocarbon dates are older than the Well-dated ceramic units in ass9ciation.

The time period of discrepancy ranges from approximately

150 years to about 850 years.

Dean (1969: 190) notes certain

dendrochronological evidence which predates actual occupations of sites by 100 to 150 years.

Deanrs discussion has implications for

the radicarbon dates being considered here.

Intuition, comparative analysis, and the fickleness of radiocarbon dates support the idea that the two Fremont levels in Deluge Shelter are actually 200 to 300 years more recent than the absolute dates which have been determined.

Shields (1968: Fig. 4) lists the radiocarbon dates for the Green ~iver

drainage, which includes the Uinta Basin, and Marwitt and Fry

(1970) include all the available radiocarbon dates currently

available for the Utah portion of the Uinta Basin.

(12)

It is perhaps

pertinent to cite two additional dates from the southern Blue Mountain locality.

Griffin (1957): personal commumication) states that corn

cobs from granary site Colo. A:10:l (wenger 1956: 34-40) date A.D. 1550 ':150 (M-285), and corn

,~obS

1956:47-49) date A.D. 1130 *

aoo

from cave site Colo. A:10:7 (wenger (M-286).

I cite these dates rather

incidentially because they are relatively unknown and seemingly support my ideas about ¡.the dates of the Uinta Fremont.

However t

Shields (1970) gives some valid reasons for disregarding these two dates, in support of his idea that Uinta Basin Fremont is older than interpreted herein.

If there

we~e

no radiocarbon dates available for the Uinta

Basin Premont sites (or if we simply ignore these dates), we would undoubtedly go along with the correlation of the Fremont culture, for the geographic entity under consideration; with pueblo II times in the Four . Corners region.

However, there are now two camps: those

who consider the uinta Fremont is early, beginning aboutA.D. 600, and those of us who believe that it postdates A.D. 1000.

The former

advocates (apostles or disciples?) hasten to disregard several dates ranging from the 1300's to the l600 l s and opt for the early series of dates.

If this selectivity ,is possible in interpretation, it

should be possible to also opt for the later dates, in this case basically associated with archaeological and dendrochronological data, not radiocarbon dates (see Ambler 1969).

In other words, I think the existant radiocarbon dates for the Uinta Basin Fremon have done more harm than good and have led us to ignore the archaeological evidence.

Several factors are undoubtedlu

involved, including: some dates are from contained fire areas (hearths) (13)

using dead wood; there is some great divergency within .single sites -' on dates wliich are usually written off; and, a factor relating to the last point, the effect of dates from open sites in relation to the N Nevada Nuclear Test site is unknown.

other Dating Euidence I prefer to begin the Fremont in the western portion of the Dinosaur region (the eastern Uinta Basin) at. about A.D. 1000, give or take not more than 50 years.

other than two sherds of ' Turner Gray:

Emery Variety from one of tlie cub Creek. phase villages, there are' NO trade sherds, from ariy of the excavations conducted bet:ween 1964 and 1967 at 22 sites in Dinosaur National Monument.

in addition, the

Dinosaur survey (Breternitz 1965) and the examination of l~cal amateur collections have failed to reveal any sherds which might .be attributed to any time period earlier than pueblo II of¡the , Anasazi.

The ' few sh

sherds ot trade pottexy examined . from collections made in the eastern portion of the Monumeqt are all of the ge~eral MCElmo/Mesa Verde Black-on~w~ite

also have a few

type.

Ambler

tr~d~

(1966~:

Table 1, 38) and

wenger(1956~103)

sherds from Ariasazi area ; and they all date from ¡

the late pueblo II and Early pueblo III time 'pericid. ,

,

survey and amateur

col~ections

Momument have produced three

sherd~

from the ' eastern portion of the of eastern

cord-marked sherds known to have been made

deti~ation , .

~fter

These are

A.D. 1000 iri

th~

western plains area.

There are some other evidences of cohtact by uinta

Ba~in

Fremont

peoples with other' areas, but at pres,e mt these do not assist in the dating problem.

There are artifacts made of tiger chert (flint)

(14)

from the Uinta Mountains, and occasionally, small artifacts and chips of obsidian which probably originated in the yellowstone National park region or from southwestern Utah.

I wQuld end the Fremont occupation of the Dinosaur region at A.D. 1150, or lZ60 at the latest.

FINAL STATEMENT The Fremont Culture of the Eastern Uinta Basin (Dinosaur National Monument) is best known from the cub Creek phase.

This Fremont

manifestation is an overlay of distinctive traits on the previous hunters-and-gatherers residing in the region, specifically small village sites, the manufacture and use of pottery, and corn growing.

However,

these Fremont never gave up a rather large dependence on hunting, as might be expected in a marginal agricultural region.

Leach (1966) considers BOundary village to be "mature Fremont."

In light ,of Amb1er 1 s (1966a) ideas about Fremont diffusion from the Virgin region (with which I basically agree) perhaps it would be better to consider the Eastern Uinta Basin Fremont as uEnd-of-the-line Fremont."

Concerning the decendants of the Fremont, the fact that both the Fremont and the later utes made conical-bottomed ceramics is interesting, but we aren't, for instance, calling ute pottery Athapasean (see schroeder 1955) Annand 1967; Op1er 1939).

(15)

REFERENCES CITED Aikens, C. Melvin 1966 Fremon-promontory-P1ains Relationships. University of utah Anthro polo g ical pap e rs, NO. 82. sa~t LaKe Clty.

Ambler, ' J. Richar.d . . . ' 1966a Caldwell Vi llage and Fremont prehlstory. Doc~oral d~ssertat10n Unlverslty of Colorado, Bould er. (puBTi shed on microfilm

by University Microfilms, Ann ArBor).

1966a caldwell Village. University of utah Anthropological papers, NO. 84. Salt Lake Clty.

-- ---1969 1\ rvli" I · ~'

>It.

1967

The T,emporal span of the Fremont.

34, iO. 4, pp. 107~l17. Boulder

Southwestern Lore, Vol.

Duane C. I;on e Balls of the Fremont culture: An In terpreta tion.

SOU~!.HrJ ~t;erf! J.,.ore, Vol. 32, No.4, pp. 79-€H. Boulder.

S

Annand, Richard E. 1967 A Description and Analysis of Surface Collected pottery from the Coll bran Reg io n, colorado. Southwestern Lore, Vol. 33, NO. ' 2, pp. 47-60. Boulder.

-]aldwin, Gordon C. 1947 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the yampa and Green Rivers. The Kiva , Vol. 12, No.3, pp.31-36. Tucson.

J ~ldwin,

1942 ~ eckwi th,

1935

G. C., C. R. Scoggin, and C. Setzler Y~mpa~. Green River Archae~_10Bica1 Reconnaissance ~ MS, on tlle at D1nosaur Nationa Monumen t Heaaquarters. D1nosaur.

Frank Ancient Indian petrog1yphs of utah.

NO. 6-7-8, pp. 33-40. santa Fe •

El palacio, vol. 38,

.reternitz,' David A. 1965 Archaeological Surv e y in Dinosaur National Monument, COl.orado-tJ tah, TV03-=T904. Report su bm1 tted to Na t10nal park serVice, Midwe st Reglon, omaha. _eterni tz, David A. (Asse mbler and Editor) 1970 Archaeolo gi cal Inv estigations in Dinosaur National Mon ume nt, Colo~ado~Utah , 1964- l96j .

Un iver~ j ty of Colorado stUdies , ser~ ~ 1- ntl11: o :p Jlo ~y , :,10 -rT.. In pres s ,rown, F. Martin 1937 The prehistoric Ruins of Castle park.

Vol. 3, No.2, PP. 22-28. Gunnison.

(16)

Southwestern Lore,

Burgh, Robert F. 1948 University of colorado Museum-Dinosaur National Monument Exped1t10n,-r948. MS , on f1Ie at Un1vers1ty d colorado Muse um. Boulcrer: 1950 AFremont Basketmaker House in Dinosaur Natina1 Monument.

Tree-Ring Bulletin, vol. 16, No.3, pp. 19-20. Tucson.

Burgh, Robert F. amd Charles R. Scoggin 1948 The Archaeology of Castle park, Dinosaur Natiiona1 Monument.

University of colorado studies, Series in Anthropology, NO. 2. Bouloer. .

Day, Kent C. 1964 Thorne careL Northeastern utah: Archaeology. American Antiquity, vol. 29, No.1, pp. 50-59. Salt Lak e Clty.

1965 Archaeological survey of the Uintah Basin, Northeastern Utha. spec1al report prepareainconnect1on wlth MSF Grant cs-75".5"2':" Department of Anthropology, Utliversity of utah. Salt Lake City Day, Keut C. and David S. Dibble 1963 Archaeologtcal Survey of the Flaming Gorge Reservoir Area, Wyoming-Utah. University of Utah Anthropolo gical papers, NO. 65, Upper colorado ser1es, i\J'O . 9. salt Lake C1ty.

Dean, Jeffrey S. 1969 Chronologmca1 Analysis of Tsegi Phase Sites in Northeastern Arizona. Papers 2f the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, No.3. Tucson.

Dick, Herbert W. 1949 Report on Arc1-' e-o.ological Research in the yampa and Green River cany~¡ Dlnosaur Nat1 0nal Monuffiâ&#x201A;ŹUt , 1949-.--MS , on file at D1nosaur Natl.onal Monument Headquarters.----oInosaur.

1950 Report of Archaeological Research in the yampa and Green River CanyonS; D1nosaur Nab.onal Monumont and Adjacent Areas, 1950.

MS, on fIle at Univers1 ty of co 10rad"OMuseum.

Boulder. - - MS The Archaeology of Marigold's Cave, castle Park, Dinosaur Natl0nal Monument. Unpub11shea-ffianuscE1pt ou-Tile at Un1versity of colorado Museum . Boulder.

Eddy, Frank W. 1966 prehistery in the Navajo Reservoir District, Northwestern New Mexico. Museum of New Mexico , Papers in Anthropology, NO. 15. santa Fe. -- --Griffin, James B. 1957 personal communication.

16 November 1957.

Letter to Gilbert R. Wenger,

Gunnerson, James H. 1957 An Archaeological Survey of the Fremont Area. IDniversity of .utah Anthropological papers, No 28. salt Lake City

(17)

Husted, Wilfred M. and Oscar L. Mallory 1967 The Fremont Culture: Its Darivation and Ultimate Fate. plains Anthropo l ogi st, Vol. 12, NO. 36, pp. 222-232. Lincoln.

Leach, Larry L. 1966 The Archaeology of Boundary village. UniVPTsity of ut ah An throopo 10e~Lca.t Papers , No. 83, M"isce Ltanetlus coTIecteCf papers , NO i~sal~--ra ke city.

1967 Ar chaeological Investigations of Deluge Shelter, Dinosaur National Monument. Clearinghouse for Federal scientific and Tech nical Informa t~on , pub.l1ca t10n FBI'7b~b O. springt1eid, V1rg1111a .

Lehmer, Donald J. and Warren W. Caldwell 1966 Horizon and Tradition in the Northern Plains. American Antiquity, Vol 31, No.4 pp. 511-516. salt Lake C1ty.

Lister, Robert H. 1951 Ex.cava tions at Hells Midden, Dinosaur National i\]"onumen t.

University of Colorado studies, series in Anthropology, NO . 3. Bo uTOer MacLeod, R. Bruce 1959 supplement~l Report td"Ro bert b. stiriand's Reconnaissence 1n the Jones Ho le Area . lllIS , on f 11e at D1nos aur Nat1ona.l Monumont He adquar ters: Dinosaur.

Marwi tt, JOhn P. 1968 Fremont Cultur.e Time Depth. paper presented to Great Basin }\.J:cfiaeolog1cal. Conterence. pocatello.

Marwitt, John P. and Gaxy F. Fry 1970 Radiocarbon Dates: Utah. paper submitted to plains Anthropologist. In press. opler, Marvin K. 1939 Southern Ute pottery.

161-163. Los Angeles

The Mast erleey, Vol. 13, NO. pp.

Reagan, Albert P. 1931a Some Notes on the Ancient Earth Lodge peoples of the Willard stage of puebb culture in the Uintah Basin, Utah. E1 Palacio Vo~ â&#x20AC;˘. 30, pI' â&#x20AC;˘. 235-241. santa Fe. 1931b Add1 t10n~1 Archaeological Notes on Ash1ay and Dry Forle canY0 ns 111 Northeastern Utah.. E! palacio, Vol. 31 pp.

122-131. santa Fe. ' 1931c Early House. Builders of the Brush CreeL( Region in Northeastern uta~. Amer1can Anthropologist, Vol. 33, pp. 660-661. Menasha .

1933 Anc~et?-tTy Inhabited. caves of Vernal (Utah) Distril:"ti, \.vl.th Addl. t1ona1 Tran~act10ns of i\Totes on Nine Mile Canyon, Northeas t Utah. Tran~actl.ons of the DKansas Academy of Science Vol 36 pp. 41-70. Topeka. -- ----'. t

(18)

Reagan, Albert p.

1934 Additional Archaeological Notes· on the Uinted Basin in Northeastern Utah. Transactions of the Kansas Acadomy of Science, Vol. 37, pp. 39-5.4. TopeRa:-Schroeder, Albert H. 1955 pottery from the collbran, Colorado, Area. In TtA Reappraisal of the Fremont culture," by H. M. wormington, pp. 133-135. proceedings o~ the Denver Museum of Natural History, No.1.

Denver.

Schulman, Edmund 1950 A Dated Beam from Dinosaur National Monument.

Bulletin, Vol. 16, NO, 3 pp. 18-19. Tucson.

Tree-Ring

Scoggin? ~harles R. 1941 Report of Reconnaissance in Dinosaur National Monument, season T9"4"l- • .- --MS ;6i1T1 -e al; Dl.n-osaur [~a-t"10naI Monument Headqua..t'ters . Dinosaur. scott, Donald 1932 Report on peabody Museum Activities in Northeastern Utah in 1931. American Anthropolo gist , Vol. 34, pp. 505-506. Menasha.

Sheets, payson D. 1969 The Archaeology of the Ely caves, Dinosaur National Monument.

Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information. pub11cat10n sprin gl1eld, Virg1n1a.

Shields, wayne F. 1967 1966 Excavati0ns: uinta Basin. University of utah Anthropo10gic ~ 1 papers, NO. 89, Miscellaneous CoITec.ted papers, No 15. Salt Lake City.

1968 prehistoric Cultural Resources of the Upper colorado River Basin. In uThe Historic and prehistoric cultural Resources of the tJ'PPer Colorado River Region,Tt pp. 1-93. University of Utah, Department of Anthropology, Contract 14-10-7 : "9"3"1-=r6:' salt Lalte ·City. , 1970 The Uinta Branch.of the Fremont Culture. paper prepared for the 35th AnnuiT Meet1ng, Soc1ety for American Archaeology, Mexico City, 30 April-l-2 May, 1970. stirland, Robert D. 1947 Report on Reconnaissance in Dinosaur Nat ional Monument, ~nesHOTe Area" MS, on IT1e at Dinosaur National Monumont Headquaxters~nosaur and University of Colorado Museum.

Boulder.

(19)

wenger, Gilber R. 1956 An Archaeological Survey of southern Blue Mountain and Douglas cree~ 1n Nor ~~~srern Co 10 l'adO:---Mas tel' 's tnesis, Un1versi ty of Denver â&#x20AC;˘.

Willey, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips 1958 Methed and Theory in American Archaeology.

Ch1cago pres s : c hicago .

University of

Wormington, H. M. 1955 A Reappraisal of the Fremont cui ture. proceedings of the Denver IVluseum of Natural History, Mo. l----riCn""er.

--

(20)

UTAH ARCHEOL8GY - A Newsletter 823 North 100 ';Pest Sunset, Utah 84Cl5

A NON - PROFIT ORGANIZATION

Forwardiag and Return ?ostage Guara{lteed