' ( ~.: 

~ "" 

~ . 

~~· ' 

. 

Archeological Investigations 

of 

Arches National Park, utah 

by 

Karen Kramer 

Midwest Archeological center 

Technical Report No. 3 

Prepared for the Rocky Mountain Region, National Park service 

united states Department of the Interior 

National Park service 

Midwest Archeological Center 

Lincoln, Nebraska ~99~ 
ABSTRACT 

This report presents the descriptive and analytical results 

of an archeological survey of Arches National Park in southeast 

Utah (Utah Project No. U87-NA-054N). A total of 26 sites and 69 

isolated artifact finds was recorded in the 1,160 acres surveyed 

during August 1987. This report is produced in cooperation with 

the National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, in 

accordance with Supplemental Agreement No. CA-6115-7-8008 and in 

furtherance of Master ·Cooperative Agreement No. CA-6000-4-8020 

between the National Park Service, Midwest Region, and the 

University of Nebraska, Lincoln. 

Arches National Park encompasses a broad range of geological formations and microenvironments. The Park is bounded to the 

north by Salt Valley and Salt Wash and to the south by Courthouse 

Wash. Elevations range from 4,100 ft (1,250 m) to 5,500 ft 

(1,676 m). Vegetation is generally sparse within the Park. The 

archeological resources recorded during this survey included 

lithic scatters, several rock shelters, a pictograph/petroglyph 

panel, and an historic site. The survey data is outlined 

descriptively, and evaluated using descriptive and analytic statistics. 

The purpose of the project was to conduct an intensive 

pedestrian survey in order to locate archeological resources in 

areas which might be adversely affected by future maintenance and 

development in the Park. Also, this report is intended to serve 

Park personnel as a cultural resource management tool. Effective 

management and interpretation of these archeological resources 

can be based, in part, on some of the study results presented in 

this document. 

i 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The initial field work and subsequent report could not have 

been ·carried out without the cooperative effort of many people. 

Dr. Alan Osborn, principal investigator, and Dr. Ralph Hartley, 

liaison for the Park Service, provided logistical support. Execution of the project was aided by their counsel, concern, and 

humor. Special appreciation is extended to Alan Osborn for his 

willingness to discuss the sundry details of this project and his 

assistance in computer and statistical manipulations. 

Arches National Park personnel helped to provide a pleasant 

and fruitful field experience. ) Barbie Flanigan was helpful in 

preparing forms and in insuring that mail and messages were 

delivered. Chas Cartwright is especially thanked ~or his field 

assistance and his obvious concern for the archeological 

resources and their protection. 

Field work· was carried out with crew members Sherr ian 

Edwards and Rusty Greaves~ The latter is thanked for his 

considerable assistance. steve Baumann and Jenny McNeil are 

thanked for their preparation of the data base files. A special 

appreciation is extended to Jesslyn Brown for her diligence and 

reliability during the editing process and for preparing the maps 

for this publication. Alan Osborn, carol Raish, and Judy Pace 

are thanked for their extensive efforts in editing and technical 

preparation of this report. Midwest Center personnel contributed 

their clerical support. Other University and Center personnel 

are thanked for helping this project to run smoothly. 

ii 

i 

j 

j 
) 

I 

j 

I 

j 

I 

I 

! 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Abstract •••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 

Acknowledgments ••• ............................................ ii 

Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •• iii 

List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 

. . . . . . . . . . . . vi 

Introduction. .............. . .I 

. . . . . . •· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

The Project Area ••••••••••••• ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Physiographical Setting •••••••••••••••••••••••• 

Geoloqy •........•.•.... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 3 

. . .... 3 

Structural Geology..... • •••••••••••••• .. 7 

Lithic Raw Materials ••••••••••• ........... . ... 7 

9 

Tidwell Chalcedony ••••• ........... . ... 9 

Brushy Basin Chalcedony •• .... Morrison Quartzite ••••••• ... ll 

Dewey Bridge chert •••• . . . . . . . . . . .... ll 

ll 

Altered Volcanic Ash .... •• . . . . . . . . . . . . Chert ••• . .. 12 

Alllber 

Soil .......... ......... . . . . .. 12 

12 

Climatology .•••.••.....•......•..• ......... . . . . . ............ . . . . . . . 13 

Precipitation. 

Wind ••••••.•.•••••. . . . 13 

. .. . .. Temperature •• .... . . . . ... 14 

15 

Vegetation •••••••••••••••••• 

Fauna .......••.••.. . . . . . . . . •••• fl ...... . . 

. 

. . . . . .... 15 

Previous Archeological Research •• ................ 16 

Interpretation of Lithic Scatters. ..... . . 18 

Local Archeological Investigations ....... 18 

20 

Historic Euro-American Occupation •••••••• . . . . . . ...... 21 

Methodology .•••••.•..••.. -••... . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . Distributional Archeology ••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 

27 

Recording Procedures •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

Isolated occurrences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sites •••••••••• . . 28 

. . . . •• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 29 

The Archeological Record ••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . 

. 33 

Introduction ••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . site Descriptions ••••••••••••.••••••• . . . . . . . ....... 33 

Isolated occurrences •• ............................ 35 66 

Assemblage Observations •••••••••• ...... Introduction ••••••••••• . . . . . . ····~·············· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 

73 

Technological concerns •••••••••••••••••••••• ... ..... . 73 

Lithic Artifacts ••••••• .............. . Oebitage ••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 

78 

iii 
LIST OF FIGURES 

··Page 

1. Arches National Park; overview of southeast Utah........ 2 

2. Arches National Park; geographic features............... 4 

3. Overview of Salt Valley................................. 5 

4. overview of the ridge on the northeast margin 

of Salt Valley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

5. salt wash; the confluence of Salt Wash, cache Valley, Winter Camp, and Salt Valley drainages.................. 6 

6. overview of Winter Camp and cache Valley................ 6 

7. Entrada sandstone cliffs................................ 8 

8. Arches National Park; distribution of raw·material 

bearing strata and site locations ••••••••••••••••••••••• 10 

9. overview of local vegetation •••••••••••••.•••••••••••••• 17 

10. Arches National Park; distribution of archeological sites and isolated occurrences ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 34 

11. 42GR297; pictograph and petroglyph panel .•.•.••.••••••• 38 

12. 42GR539; overv1ew . ............................ · · .. · · · · · 38 

13. 42GR2145; overv1.ew • ••.••••••••••••..••••••.•..••••••••. 41 

14. 42GR2565; site map . ............................. · ... · · . · · 42 

15. 42GR2149; overv1ew . . ................................... . 49 

42GR2152; overv~ew . 49 16. . .................. · .. · . · . · . · · · · · · · · · 

17. 42GR2153; o"e~JLe" . ......•...........•.................. 51 

18. 42GR2158; site map ............••....•..............•... 55 

19. 42GR2159; site map..................................... 57 

20. 42GR515; OVE!~J.e'f •••••••••••• • ••••••••••••••••• • ••• • • •• 59 

21. 42GR544; o"e~JLe" . ......•......•••............•..•.. · • ·• 62 

22. 42GR290: site map........................................ 64 

v 
LIST OF TABLES 

Page 

1. Artifact types for isolated occurrence •••••••••••••••••• 68 

2. Raw material type for isolated chipped stone artifacts •. 70 

3. Attribute data for .the total tool sample. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 74 

4. Lithic raw material type for debitage ••••••••••••••••••• 79 

5. Lithic raw material type foJ; cores •••••••••••••••••••••• 81 

6. Summary of lithic tool frequencies for sites 

in Arches National Park, Utah ••••••••••••••••••••••• 83 

7. Raw material type for bifacial tools •••••••••••••••••••• 84 

a. Lithic raw material type for unifacial tools •••••••••••• 86 

9. Site elevation and area information for Arches 

National Park, Utah ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 88 

10. General site setting information for Arches 

National Park, Utah •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P, 89 

11. Diversity·, Hmax, evenness, and redundancy values 

for lithic scatters ••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••• 93 

12. Results of bivariate regression analyses •••••••••••••••• 94 

13. Variation of artifact assemblage diversity (ranked) 

in relation to dune and ridge settings ••.•.••••••••• 96 

14. Distances between sites and lithic raw material sources. 107 

15. Variation in artifact assemblage diversity and lithic 

raw material type for sites in Arches National 

Park, utah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 

16. Lithic raw material diversity and artifact sample size 

tor sites in Arches National Park, Utah ••••••••••••• 110 

17. Variation in artifact assemblage diversity (ranked) 

in relation to distance to nearest lithic raw 

material source . .............................. -. . . . . . 111 

vi· 
INTRODUCTION . - 

A systematic survey at Arches National Park, several miles 

north of Moab in southeast Utah (Figure I), was initiated to 

document archeological resources in areas where Park facility 

improvements are anticipated. el imitation of cultural resources 

is intended to assist in Park development planning and resource 

management. 

Approximately 1,160 acres were systematically surveyed 

during August of 1987. Included were corridors on either side of 

roads and trails which will' be subjected to maintenance or 

construction impact in the future. 

Surveys have been conducted in the Park since the 1930s 

(Appendix A). Since the 1950s, a number of sites have been 

recorded by Lloyd Pierson and others. Large portions of the 

Park, however, have not been systematically documented. This 

project was designed to locate both documented and undocumented 

archeological sites. Archeological work conducted in the Park to 

date does not constitute a systematically derived sample. 

Speci'ically, cultural resource surveys have not been carried out 

within all environmental zones within Arches National Park. 

This project included two goals. The first was to provide 

National Park Service personnel with an inventory and assessment 

of cultural resources that would be affected by future 

developments within the Park. The second goal involved the 

collection of archeological data that would enable the 

investigators to examine questions regarding prehistoric resource 

procurement in this area of southeastern Utah. Specifically, 

this study focused on the procurement and use of lithic raw 

materials within the Park and its immediate environs. 

This report includes the following: 1) a description of 

environmental variables and their implications for prehistoric 

behavior; 2) a summary of previous archeological work in the 

area; 3) an account of Euro-American exploration and use of the 

area; 4) archeological survey and recording methods; 5) a 

description of archeological remains observed; and, 6) a summary 

of survey results and management recommendations. [This report 

was completed in 1988 and we have chosen not to incorporate 

additional references or literature citations.] 

In addition, a collection of archeological materials that is 

curated at Arches National Park was examined prior to this 

survey. Artifact data previously recorded in existing catalog 

records was copied and later transferred to a computer data base 

(Appendix B). The artifact and observation code is also included 

in Appendix B. 
Arches National Park; overview of southeast utah. 

Figure 1. 

2 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

NATIONAL 

PARK 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

I

I
THE PROJECT AREA 

PQysiographical Setting 

Arches National Park is 6.5 km. (4 miles) north of Moab in an 

area generally characterized by highlands rising above the 

Colc:>rado River. ~his plateau, the co~orado Plateau, is marked by var1.ou~ changes 1.n. topography, draJ.nage systems , and exposed format1.ons. Elevat1ons range from 1,250 m (4,100 ft) to 1 585 m 

(5,200 ft). The Park entrance is at 1,250 m (4,100 ft). ' ) 

The boundary of the Park's,northern portion is Salt Valley 

a southeast-trending drainage system · (Figures 2 and 3) • Th~ 

breadth of the valley is about 4 km. at its widest. Numerous 

runoff channels flow into the Salt Valley drainage from the 

escarpments to the northeast and southwest. Alluvial downcutting has incised the valley floor_in arroyos up to 10m deep. 

Ridge lines that rise to 110 m ( 350 ft) above the drainage floor delimit the valley's perimeter (Figure 4). Rolling 

badlands and . steep sandstone escarpments define these margins. The central valley floor is about 1,372 m (4,500 ft) above mean 

sea level. Wingate sandstone escarpments on the southwest rise 

to about 1,493 m (4,900 ft). To the northeast the terrain rises 

abruptly to 1,585 m (5,200 ft). The ridge is level along the 

crest and slopes northeast in an extensive series of Entrada 

sandstone fin formations which drain into Salt Wash. 

The topographic relief between Salt Valley and these 

escarpments diminishes north of Klondike Bluffs. The valley's 

eastern margin constricts and runs east to the confluence with 

Salt Wash. South of Salt Valley, Salt Wash is an aggregate of 

the Salt Valley, Winter camp, and Cache Valley drainages. The 

area of confluence is a low, flat basin, heavily dissected by meandering intermittent drainages (Figures 5 and 6). Salt Wash 

drains the area north of Salt Valley. Trending to the south, it 

flows into the Colorado River south of the confluence. The Salt 

Wash Syncline defines the drainage course. 

In the 13 km (8 mil~s) between Salt Valley and Courthouse 

Wash the terrain slopes gently southward decreasing in elevation 

from approximately 1,463 m (4,800 ft) to 1,341 m (4,400 ft). The 

primary drainage is Courthouse wash which flows south through Navajo sandstone and descends through a narrow canyon into the 

Colorado River. The southeast margin of the Park is edged by the 

Colorado River. At the southern end of the Park, the Navajo sandstone slickrock drops off precipitously. This escarpment overlooks the Moab Fault, Moab canyon, and the Colorado River 

basin. 

The project area is located in the east central portion of 

the Colorado Plateau. This precinct encompasses a series of 

environmental and landform domains, including several major drainage systems and unusual topographic features formed by a 
Arches National Park: geographic -features. 

Figure 2. 

4 

ARCHES 

NATIONAL 

8 

PARK ... ~,. 
Figure 3. Overview of Salt Valley. 

Figure 4. Overview of the ridge on the northeast 

margin of Salt Valley. 

5 
Figure 5. Salt wash; the confluence of Salt Wash, 

cache Valley, Winter camp, and Salt 

Valley drainages. 

Figure 6. overview of Winter camp and cache Valley. 

6 
i relatively long and active geologic sequence. The survey sampled only a small cross section of this diversity. 

Geologv 

structural Geology 

Arches National Park is situated in the paradox' Basin of 

the central Colorado Plateau in a physiographic province that has 

been defined as the Salt Anticline Section (Stokes 1977). The 

area is of geologic interest because of the complexity of its 

formations and developmental' sequence. Causal factors which 

produced the present landscape are salt dome tectonics and the 

uplifting of the Colorado Plateau. 

Salt and Cache Valleys, flanked by escarpments, are 

representative of the Hermosa member, a subsurface geologic 

structure of the Paradox Formation (see Appendix C). The Hermosa 

Member consists of evaporates deposited in the Paradox Basin some 

300 million years ago when the area was covered by an inland sea. 

This salt base is more plastic and soluble than rock. 

~ifferential dissolution of the salt renders an unstable surface. 

This substructure tended to warp under the overburden of ensuing 

sand, shale and limestone deposits, resulting in an area that is 

characterized by anticlines and synclines (~oelling 1985; Lohman 

1975; Stokes 1977). 

The Basin itself subsequently was faulted, producing the 

presently convoluted surface. his warping process, exemplified 

in Salt Valley, exposed extensive stratigraphic sequences that 

otherwise would have remained below the surface. Warping also 

leads to discontinuities in those sequences seen from one side of 

the valley to the other. The fin and arch formations reflect the 

result of subterranean salt plasticity and dissolution (Doelling 

1985). 

In the Colorado Plateau, upwarping during the Late 

Cretaceous and Early Tertiary shaped the surface further. The 

Moab Vault, a Tertiary development that borders the southern 

portion of the Park, punctuates the long span of visible strata 

on the east margin of the Park. The erosion and downcutting 

which occurred subsequent to the uplift further exposed the 

geologic sequences. Exposed stratigraphy consists of numerous 

formations ranging in age from the Quaternary to the 

Pennsylvanian. A descriptive summary of these strata is provided 

in Gregory (1938), Jobin (1962), and Doelling (1985). 

Much of the southeastern portion of the Park consists of 

Navajo sandstone with intermittent accumulations of Quaternary 

aeolian deposits. This surface is undulating and slopes to the 

southeast. Various Jurassic members of the Entrada or mat ion, 

with more sharply defined topographic features, are exposed in 

the southwest portion of the Park (Figure 7). It is in the 

Entrada orm mat ion that the arches and fins, the Park's 
Figure 7. Entrada sandstone cliffs. 

8 

i . . . 

l~:ic.:.,," ':'" 
characteristic fea~ure~, have formed .. In the northern portion of 

th7 Park, older Tr1a~s1c formations, 1.e., the Kayenta, Wingate, 

ChJ.nle, and Moenkop1, are exposed. Members of the Morrison 

Formation are intermittently dispersed in narrow exposures 

throughout t~e Park. . The surface of Salt Valley ranges from 

recent alluv1~ depos1ts to exposures of Paleozoic deposits. 

These strata 1nclude the Pennsylvanian and Paradox Formations. 

More recent Cretaceous units, Dakota sandstone, Mancos shale, and 

Cedar Mountain sandstone, are visible along the margins of salt 

Valley. 

Lithic Raw Materials 

The local geology of specific archeological interest is 

the surface presence of high quality cryptocrystalline and 

siliceous deposits. Knappable raw materials have a wide 

distribution throughout the Park. All artifactual material 

recorded was produced from locally available sources. several 

clearly distinguishable types of cryptocrystallines and 

quartzites were found in the archeological assemblages. All of 

these raw materials were located within the Park and vary in 

distribution, accessibility, quality, and packaging. Rawmaterial-bearing str.ata are depicted in Figure a. 

Tidwell Chalcedony. Most common in lithic assemblages is a white 

chalcedony. This chalcedony occurs in the Tidwell Member of the 

Morrison Formation. Tidwell is the lowest member of the Morrison 

and is at its interface with the older Entrada Formation. The 

Morrison is a Jurassic reddish shale with interbeds of finegrained yellow sandstone and gray limestone. The "eastern 

exposures exhibit large white siliceous concretionary bodies" 

(Doelling 1985). 

This white chalcedony occurs in island outcrops which are 

more durable than the surrounding shale and sandstone and have a 

high visibility on the landscape. The material is friable and 

the outcrops themselves consist largely of mounds of exfoliating 

natural shatter. The shatter occurs in pieces sizable enough 

that actual quarrying would not have been mandated. Although a 

patina forms on the natural broken surfaces, little actual cortex 

is present. The material's "packaging" would not generate 

extensive amounts of decortication debris, although primary 

reduction may have occurred. 

The Tidwell Member occurs along the northeast and southwest 

margins of the escarpments defining Salt Valley, north of Salt 

Wash and near the confluence of Salt Valley and Salt Wash. The 

chalcedony outcrops are dotted along these exposures. Most 

outcrops that were ground checked had associated cultural 

material. However, due to the large quantity of natural shatter, 

any evaluations of the density of cultural material would require 

extensive sampling. 

9 
Arches National Park; distribution of raw material 

Figure a. bearing strata and site locations. 

10 

A Site Location 

e Glauconite 

~ Dewey Bridge Member 

~ 

Tidwell Member 

f{~f1;ji1R1 Bushy Basin Member 

., :---
Brushy Basin Chalcedony. This chalcedony is a pastel-colored 

chalcedony occuring in cobbles eroding out of the Brushy ·Basin 

Member of the Morrison Formation. The Brushy Basin Member is 

defined as 

mostly variegated slope-forming mudstone with 

thin ledges of conglomerate sandstone, 

conglomerate, nodular weathering limestone 

and gritstone, containing varicolored chert: 

Purplish and lavender hues dominate to the 

north, but bright greens dominate in Cache 

Valley and the southern part of Salt Valley 

anticline [ Doelling 1985: from description 

on map]. 

The Brushy Basin is distributed the length of the base of 

the southwest slope of the escarpment defining Salt Valley, 

approximately along the 1, 463 m ( 4, 800 ft) contour. West of 

Klondike Bluffs, the Brushy Basin exposure is up to a kilometer 

wide in places. The sourc.es ground checked here appear to be 

cobbles eroding from limestone boulders. The lenses in which 

these occur are intermittently exposed. Cultural material was 

associated in some areas. Due to the material's occurrence as 

cobbles, one might expect a greater investment in decortication 

to procure usable material. 

The availability of this material varies from the Tidwell 

because of its dispersed and intermittent distribution. The 

purple, lavender, and amber chalcedonies were present in low 

densities in many assemblages. The greens were not noted. 

sources in Cache Valley were not ground checked. They are less 

available at surface level than other Brushy Basin surface 

strata. 

Morrison Quartzite. This quartzite occurs as large boulders 

eroding out of what was identified as the Salt Wash Member of the 

Morrison Formation. The cobbles are fairly fine-grained and gray 

to black with patina ted surfaces. Some cultural material was 

noted in association. 

Dewey Bridge Chert. A pink "salami" chert is eroding out of the 

Dewey Bridge Member of the Entrada .sandstone. The Dewey Bridge 

is described as a "dark reddish fine-grained silty sandstone, 

with occasional white bands" (Doelling 1985). The formation 

tends to weather in steep, shear cliff faces. 

The Dewey Bridge Member is exposed in the escarpments on 

both sides of Salt Valley. outcrops are intermittent and trend 

north-south from Salt Valley to the Moab Fault (along the main 

Park road corridor north of courthouse wash) and south of cache 

Valley. 

unlike the chalcedonies, the quality of the Dewey Bridge 

cherts varies considerably. In the southern portion of the Park, 

secondary alluvial deposits of small, Dewey Bridge chert gravels 

11 
are eroding out of the outcrops. The chert also occurs in these 

areas in larger nodules which are inferior in quality due to 

crazed interiors, checks, and inclusions. These cobble~ do not 

fracture conchoidally. No sources of good material were located 

in the Entrada Cliff Formations that flank the west side of the 

road north of Courthouse Wash. 

The only good quality sources of knappable materials were 

located in the Dewey Bridge cliffs in .Klondike Bluffs. The 

discontinuous cobbles occurred in a narrow lens above an 

indistinguishable narrow white unit in the Dewey Bridge Member. 

This high quality raw material is inaccessible in the cliff face 

but is eroding onto the slickrock below. Archeological material 

was found in association with this source area. Undoubtedly, 

there are additional sources within the extensive Entrada 

Formation; however, they were not located. Again, the occurrence 

of the chert as cobbles would entail a more extensive 

decortication reduction. 

Altered YolcaniQ A§.h. A green mineral, altered volcanic ash, 

occurs in narrow beds in the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison 

Formation. This material has been referred to as glauconite, a 

silicious crystalline mineral. More . recently it has been 

redefined as a volcanic ash which, when deposited in lacustrine 

contexts, was minerally altered (Dr. David Loope, Department of 

Geology, University of Nebraska, personal communication, 1987). 

It is distinguishable due to its bright green hue. The material 

is variable in its surface character. The higher quality stone 

produces conchoidal fractures when submitted to force. 

The only outcrop exposed in the Park is west of the junction 

of Delicate Arch road and Salt wash. No cultural material was 

immediately associated, but a few artifacts manufactured from the 

material were recorded. Small flakes produced from the material 

could easily be mistaken as a chert. · 

Amber Chert. A single source of high quality banded amber chert 

was located east of Salt Wash on a terrace overlooking Winter 

camp wash. The chert is interbedded immediately below the 

Tidwell chalcedony outcrops, which are directly east and upslope. This chert is undergoing.natural exfoliation. 

Human procurement activities are evident. A scatter of 

interior debitage (Site 42GR2159) is located downslope from the 

small outcrop. No cultural material was associated with the 

immediately adjacent Tidwell chalcedony outcrops. 

In summary, raw materials of varied quality and 

accessibility are available. Raw material_ procurement and its 

technological implications will be discussed later. 

soil 

Surface character varies throughout the Park. Much of the 

survey area consists of highly dissected erosional surfaces with 

12 l 

J 
little ~oil formation evident. Sediments are very fine grained a~d def1.ned as sandy silts. Lag gravels and other pediments v1.sible on the surface vary considerably. Gravels are common in 

the ephemeral run-off channels in the areas adjacent to the road 

These areas often include chert cobbles from the Dewey Bridge and 

Tidwell formations. Extensive slickrock exposures are common in 

portions of the Park. 

Climatology 

Arches National Park occupies a relatively low elevation 

area within southeast Utah. Ei.evations within the Park range 

from about 1,250 m (4,100 ft) at the entrance along Moab Canyon 

up to 1,676 m (5,500 ft) on the ridge northeast of Salt Valley. Montane regions lie to the north, south, and southeast. 

Air masses from the Pacific ocean and the Gulf of Mexico are 

principal sources of moisture and affect local climatic variables 

such as temperature, precipitation, and .wind. The climate in 

southeast Utah is characterized by little consistency or annual 

predictability. Temperature changes are fostered by the 

juxtaposition of these large, transient air masses and local 

diurnal and seasonal oscillations (Davis n.d.; Gregory 1938). · 

Local temperatures, weather, and moisture are predominantly influenced by elevation and cyclonic storms. In addition, 

climate in southeast Utah is conditioned by changes in 

topography. Insolation is fundamentally affected by elevation. 

Climate varies diurnally, seasonally, annually, and 

microgeographically (Gregory 1938: Davis n.d.). 

The general pattern of vegetation distribution reflects 

these climatic variables. While climatic variables may not have 

changed since prehistoric occupations, annual precipitation can 

be highly variable, thus causing variation in local, annual plant productivity. Fluctuations in annual precipitation affects large floral species more than annual and perennial grasses and fruitbearing bushes. Thus, one might expect that plant availability varied from year to year throughout prehistoric occupations, although this variability may not be reflected in climatic data 

(West 1978) • · 

Precipitation 

southeast Utah has rainfall patterns similar to much of the 

southwest. The quality of summer and winter moisture varies. 

summer moisture occurs in short, torrential downpours. Fall and 

winter moisture comes from steadier and ~engthier rains and 

snows. 

From 1931 to 1960, annual precipitation rates for Moab · averaged eight inches per year (Jeppson et al. 1968). From data 

collected between 1958 and 1973 average precipitation rates 

remained the same (Davis n.d.). July through February are the 

13 
_ ........ _.....,.. ....,. -··----..-::·--::: .. ~::,,":"·'·:::=.::;;::.:-. :··:z·:.z:s:: ==·=·-~--.. ~=~:::: ... : .. ·=········=--=--~=-------------------

wet months. The heaviest precipitation occurs in April, August, September' and October. Only the month of october tends to. have 

a mean monthly precipitation over one inch. The least amount of 

precipitation occurs in January and June (Davis n.d.). 

As evident in the last several years in the southwest, mean 

precipitation values are variable and apparently occur in cycles which were not documented until recently. 

The early portion of· the qrowing season, from May to midJune, has very little rainfa~l. and plants rely ·on effective 

qround moisture from the snow melt. Thirty to forty percent of 

the rainfall occurs during the iatter half of the growing season. 

This, however, is also the period of extreme evaporation (Gregory 

1938). 

During the winter months storms originate primarily as 

fronts travelinq east from the Pacific. Precipitation from these 

storms is qenerated by· movement of relatively warm air over 

stationary or more localized air masses. A continual rainy 

season occurs during the winter months because of the dynamic interaction of these air masses (Davi~ n.d.). 

Summer storms are initiated by local conditions. Large- scale interaction between air masses occurs infrequently during 

summer months.. Local unstable air conditions are promoted by diurnal fluctuation in temperature. Solar radiation is at its 

qreatest during summer days, yet nighttime cooling is 

siqnificant. The interaction between warmer and cooler thermal 

layers induces local thunderstorms. Topographic variation and 

related fluctuations in temperature further augment the 

production of localized thunderstorms. spring and fall tend to 

be periods of low precipitation because extralocal air masses and 

diurnal temperature ranges are not as active (Davis n.d.). 

Precipitation tends to be less around Moab than in the high plateau areas immediately to the west. As fronts move into Utah 

they essentially are lifted by the plateaus of the southern 

Wasatch Range. This effects a marked increase in precipitation with increases in elevation. · on the eastern slopes descending air is less moist and precipitation potential decreases {Davis 

n.d.). 

Wi:ttd 

Winds around Moab are generally strongest during April and 

May. The velocity decreases through the summer and slightly increases during September. Generally, the area is characterized 

by light breezes. Winds result primarily from frontal and 

thunderstorm activity. Wind direction is difficult to determine 

due to convolutions in the topoqraphy -':"'mountains and basins-- . that effect them. Chaotic surface wind-patterns ·are normal~ 

,·however, the wind is predominately out of the southwest at higher ;,elevations (several hundred to 1, ooo ft above ground surface 

Davis n.d.]) During the night cool air flows from the higher 

14 
elevations into lower ones. Daytime surface winds result from 

rising cool air interacting with the prevailing upper air flows. 

Temperature 

In this area, temperature ranges depend significantly on 

other climatic variables, i.e., elevation and insolation. Mean 

annual temperature is not an accurate measure of climatic 

variability in . southeast Utah, because areas with similar 

temperature ranges can ·support different climates (Davis n.d.). 

More relevant indices of climate are diurnal temperature ranges 

and average temperatures between daytime maximum and nighttime 

minimum temperature. Temperatures in southeast utah tend to 

exhibit broad diurnal ranges due to high insolation during the 

day and rapid nocturnal cooling. 

Temperature records from 1931 to 1973 for Moab and Arches 

indicate consistent mean monthly warming from February to August and a cooling cycle from September to January. Both maximum and 

minimum monthly temperatures reflect this pattern. July is the 

hottest month and January the coldest. The mean annual diurnal 

range is 28 degrees (F). These daily fluctuations have a 

significant impac~ on biological communities and trophic levels. 

Much of the temperature variance can be explained by 

elevation. In Utah, temperature decreases at an average of 3 

degrees (F) per every 305 m ( 1, 000 ft) increase in elevation 

(Davis n.d.). 

November through February have an average each month of 20 

days with below freezing temperatures. March has an average of 

1? days with below freezing temperatures. April and october may 

have a few days, and from May through September temperatures 

occasionally fall below 32 degrees (F). 

Evaporation rates have a positive lineal correlation with 

temperature. soil moisture is pertinent to vegetative 

productivity in arid climates. Soil insolation, amount of ground 

surface water, wind, and whether vegetation is dormant or growing 

effect evapotranspiration, or water loss. The hottest months 

induce the greatest water evaporation. In Moab, the evaporation . rate exceeds the average precipitation from May to August. 

Because higher elevations have cooler temperatures and greater precipitation, they have lower evaporation rates. In southeast 

Utah, only the montane regions (L~ Sals, Henry, and Abajo Mountains) have evapotranspiration rates less than that of 

precipitation. Humidity and temperature are lineally correlated 

as well. Humidity varies daily, seasonally, and annually. As 

temperatures increase, humidity decreases (Davis n.d.). 

vegetation 

The area surrounding Moab encompasses a range of geographic 

precincts. These include upper montane areas such as the La 

15 
Sals, river basin zones such as the Colorado River 1 major and 

minor drainage systems tributary to the Colorado, semiarid 

plateaus 1 and extensive slickrock exposures and sandstone 

formations. 

Vegetation varies in these environments in conjunction with 

other environmental factors: topography, elevation, insolation, 

soil quality, and moisture retention. Biologic communities 

generally reflect microclimatic variability. Scrub oak 

communities are found in cool, moist canyon bottoms; Douglas firs 

and maples are at high elevptions with cool temperatures; cottonwoods and tamarisks are ,along more significant drainages and perennial streams: sagebrush and · blackbrush parks occur in 

the flat, low-moisture areas. Much of the area specifically within the Park is predominately sparse grass and sagebrush (Figure 9). 

Although vegetation appears scant throughout much of the 

Park due to differential water availability and other climatic 

factors, plant diversity is high. Plant communities in the 

washes include overstories of cottonwoods, tamarisk, willow, 

Russian Olive, and dense understories. In the pinyonjjuniper and 

desert scrub zones, common vegetation is pinyon, juniper, sagebrush, blackbrush, yucca, mormon tea, prickly pear, saltbush, 

Indian rice grass, and various gramas. More complete plant 

species lists for the Moab area can be found in Gregory (1938), 

Hunt (1953), Harrison et al. (1964) and Berry (1975). 

Fauna 

Five habitats based on faunal composition have been 

recognized in Arches National Park. First, there is the low 

flood plain and open valley habitat bordering the shallow washes. 

This zone has clayey soils and supports vegetative communities of 

tamarisk and greasewood. Animal numbers and diversity are 

relatively low in these areas. Mammals found in this habitat 

include black-tailed jack rabbits and kangaroo rats. However, in 

these drainages bird population and diversity are high. These 

include blue heron, killdeer, warblers, townee, bushtit, towhee, 

finches, sparrows, and blackbirds. 

Second, the open sandy flats and slopes above the drainages and areas between rock formations support a number of burrowing 

species. The small-rodent population is high in these areas. 

Third, the pinyonjjuniper uplands support linli ted mammal 

populations. The cottontail rabbit is the most abundant mammal 

in these areas today. The bird species in the pinyonjjuniper highlands are distinctive. These include gnatcatchers, titmice, 

warblers, flycatcher jays, and sparrows. 

Fourth, the rock formations themselves obviously support little floral life. However, several species of rats, mice, and 

chipmunks use these habitats. Raptors also nest and roost in 

16 
Figure 9. Overview of local vegetation. 

17 
these areas. These include the red-tailed hawk along with 

several other species of hawk, prairie falcon, and raven. 

Swifts, wrens, and finches also utilize these rocky areas. 

The fifth habitat is the open sandy desert and shrub flats 

along wash margins which have limited mammal populations. Reptiles which can be found in this habitat include several 

species of lizards and utas (Hayward et al. 1958). 

Previous Archaeological Researc~ 

Interpretation of Lithic Artifa6t Scatters 

A considerable portion of the archeological research 

conducted in the American Southwest has dealt with artifact 

assemblages dominated by lithic tools and debitage. Most 

archeological investigations were primarily concerned with 

chronology and cultural historical affiliation. Since artifact 

scatters frequently lacked stratified deposits, architectural 

features, diagnostic stone tools, ceramic remains, faunal 

remains, or ecofactual materials suitable for radiometric dating, this site class was deemed nonsignificant. Frequently, archeologists assumed that lithic artifact scatters represented prehistoric groups that inhabited the region prior to the 

adoption of ceramics and agriculture. Such "aceramic" sites were 

then assigned to the Archaic occupation( s} throughout the 

American Southwest. 

Cultural resource management studies initiated during the 

late 1960s and early 1970s, however, made it very apparent that 

such "low visibili ty 11 archeological remains represented a 

significant portion of the prehistoric/historic record in North 

America, particularly in the western states. Numerous cultural 

resource surveys and mitigation projects, frequently of large blocks of land, revealed thousands of artifact scatters that had 

generally been overlooked by previous investigators. 

Archeologists have made use of artifact scatters in the 

American Southwest and the Great Basin to develop and to test 

ideas regarding past bunter-gatherer adaptations. For example, lithic scatters have been central to studies of intersite 

variability and settlement patterns for Paleo-Indian and Archaic 

occupations {e.g., Allan et al. 1975; Chapman 1980; Gumerman, ed. 

1971: Judge 1973; Reher 1977). Residential and limited activity site locations were thought to reflect past reliance on mini-max 

strategies for resource procurement. · 

Chapman (1980:53) states, for example, "It is f.requently assumed that Archaic populations situated their residential 

campsites in areas which would maximize access to and minimize 

energetic expenditure in procuring food resources." Furthermore, 

the most suitable site locations are those with access to high 

resource qiversity. Environmental strata have beeri hypothesized 

to be a determinant in locational variability in Archaic 

18 
habitational site density (Reher 1977). High site densities 

co-varied with the greatest vegetative diversity. ·· 

Chapman initiated a series of tests to evaluate this model. 

His study area was chosen because of its documented ecological 

diversity. Chapman's analysis illustrates that "vegetative diversity can not be demonstrated in an:y way as a significant 

determinant of the intensity of Archaic period occupation •• ·" 

(Chapman 1980:97). The results of his work suggest that resource 

distributions and occupational patterns do not co-vary in a 

simple linear relationship. 

Chapman (1980) has taken issue with two models of Archaic 

adaptation in the Southwest. · These two explanatory models 

include: 1) a "food resource diversity" model; and 2) the "base 

camp-limited activity site distinction" model. He posits that 

these interpretations have not peen adequately tested by 

archeologists and should not be accepted as adequate reflections 

of Archaic-period lifeways. · 

The "food resource diversity" model ". . attempts to 

explain Archaic settlement behavior as a logistical feeding 

response which maximizes spatial access to the greatest variety 

of available foodstuffs" (Chapman 1980:2). This model is derived 

from mini-max economic models that were employed during the 1970s 

to account for site locational strategies and food procurement 

patterns (Gumerman 1971; Jochim 1976). 

Using the "base camp - limited activity site distinction," 

Chapman summarizes the convention used to explain intersite 

variance. The underlying assumption in this model is that sites 

have specific functions. Sites exhibit a limited range of types 

that can be classified as either "residential" or "special 

purpose" locations. Chapman (1980:120-121) argues against such a 

notion about the Archaic because it 

employs descriptive statistics derived from a 

population as if they were behavioral 

variables· underlying the nature of that 

population. The analytic procedure thus 

becomes an exercise in circularity through 

which the researcher posits an assumption 

that a po·pulation of sites shoul~ exhibit 

modal variation along some dimension • • • 

arrays his sites against that dimension and 

then interprets ~ modality observed as a 

verification of the assumption. 

The concept of residential and special purpose sites does 

serve to organize site variability. However, such a distinction 

may not be directly discernible given a static archeological 

record. Variances in occupational histories which may render a 

site as "residential" or "special purpose" have been re~evaluated 

recently (Camilli 1983). Recent re-evaluation of Archaic 

adaptations and artifact scatters in the context of 

19 
"di~tr.ibutional archeology•• (e.g., Isaac 1981: ,Binford 1980; 

cam1ll1 1983; Ebert 1986) are relevant to the present study;· The 

implications of distributional archeology for the present study will be discussed later. 

Local Archeological Investigations 

Archeological reconnaissance has occurred in limited 

sections of the Park for over so years (Appendix A). Prior to 

this survey, approximately 100 sites had been recorded within 

Arches National Park. The current survey inventoried an 

addi tiona! 20 sites. The · relatively recent interest is due in 

part to the overriding attentipn given to Anasazi and Fremont 

components in the adjacent cany9n country. The earliest work in 

the area was by Frank Beckwith in 1934 and involved recording a 

pictograph panel near the mouth of courthouse Wash. over a 

decade later, between 1949 and 1952, Alice Hunt conducted a 

survey in the La Sal Mountains and . vicinity. She recorded 350 

sites: eight of these were located within the southern portion of 

Arches National Park. · 

Not until the 1950s was the extensive distribution of lithic 

scatters formally recognized. Lloyd Pierson, from 1956 to 1972, 

standardized the recording procedure$ for 51 sites in the Park. 

Lindsay and Madsen (1973) surV-eyed limited areas in the Park 

prior to improvements. This survey produced no archeological evidence. However, one area, the Delicate Arch Road, may have 

had no resources in the immediate road corridor, but surrounding it is perhaps one of the richest archeological areas in the Park. 

Sites in the vicinity include several rock shelters ( 42GR516, 

42GR517, 42GR518 1 42GR294, 42GR295), petroglyph sites (42GR519, 

42GR542), a quarry site ( 42GR572), and several lithic scatters 

(42GR541, 42GR558, 42GR559). Berry (1975) surveyed the 

northeastern portion of the Park and located 30 new sites and rerecorded six sites previously recorded by Pierson (Anderson 1978; 

Berry 1975). Many of these were lithic scatters. Berry also 

identified the Tidwell outcrops, a commonly utilized lithic 

source in the Park. Pierson (1978a, 197Bb) provides an extensive 

overview of site types, previous work in the area, and a summary 

of the culture history of the area. 

Since 1982 the Midwest Archeological center has conducted 

several projects in response to improvement and maintenance 

projects. Six new sites, all lithic scatters, were identified in 

the Devil's Garden Loop and seven new sites were found along the 

east and west fence boundaries of the Park. In the Park, only 

one site (42GR1533) has been tested for subsurface components. 

Apparently, a greater diversity of sites was identified 

during previous surveys. Th~ 1987 survey documented 24 

temporally and culturally nonspecific lithic scatters. one 

artifact assemblage contained several vessel fragments. A rock 

art panel and a historic site were also recorded. The Anasazi 

component appears to be scant in this area. · Few structural and 

artifactual remains have been located, although Anasazi/Fremont 

20 
rock art has been more extensively identified. While the area at 

large supports evidence from all Pueblo development stages, no 

Basketmaker or Pueblo III components have been identified within 

the boundaries of the Park. Paleo-Indian remains have been 

recorded in the vicinity of the La Sal Mountains, as well, but no 

evidence has come from within Park boundaries. 

The surveys completed by Hunt and Tanner are responsible for 

a large portion of local investigations. They proposed a series 

of Paleo-Indian sequences, e.g. 1 the "Moab, " the "La Sal, " and 

"Uncompahgre" complexes (Hunt and Tanner 1960). These culture 

historical units were based on the presence of diagnostic 

projectile point types in artifact assemblages. The depositional 

surfaces on which these ass~mblages were found were assigned relative dates through geomorphological comparisons of remnant 

dunes. 

The Moab complex is associated with Folsom and certain Pinto 

point types. These sites are located on the divide between the 

Colorado and Green Rivers ·at elevations of about 1, 524 m ( 5, 000 

ft) (Hunt and Tanner 1960)~ 

The La Sal complex is defined by association of assemblages with Gypsum cave and Pinto points. These sites extend from the 

base of the La Sals to about 3,049 m (10,000 ft). Generally, 

water 1 floral, and faunal resources are more plentiful at the 

higher elevations. From a seriation evaluation from ·ventana 

Cave, the La Sal complex is thought to be older than that of the 

·Moab. These complexes are seen to be separate both temporally 

and spatially (Hunt and Tanner 1960). 

The local manifestation of the Uncompahgre complex is 

characterized by flat, or slightly basin-shaped metates, one-hand 

manes, and large to medium sized corner-notched points. Oates of 

1000 B.C. to ·A.D. 500 were extrapolated from radiocarbon dates 

and alluvial depositional contexts (Hunt and Tanner 1960). 

Six sites within the Park are thought to have Numic 

components; these are identified by petroglyph motifs and ceramic 

types. However, "stylistic" variation in artifacts and features 

as a means of identifying Fremont and Numic cultures is still 

debated widely. Hunt (1953) does state that masonry sites are 

not located above 1,829 m (6,000 ft) in the La Sal Mountains. 

Historic Euro-American Occqpation 

The earliest reported European contact in the Moab area in 

the 1540s represents the initial effort of the Spanish to claim 

southern Utah. A group of Spanish scouts, led by Garcia Lopez de 

Cardenas, were adjunct to Coronado's exploration of the southwest 

in search of the seven cities of Cibola. However, the inability 

to locate Cibola discouraged further exploration for another 

century. (For a more complete historical overview of southeast 

21 
Utah see Crampton 1964, Mehls 1986, Miller 1968, and Pierson 

1978a; much of the following is derived from Mehls' compilation). 

Although the Spanish were established along the northern Rio 

Grande by the mid-1600s, interest in southeastern utah was not 

revitalized until the mid-1700s. This expedition was inspired by 

a search for silver mines. Rivera, sent by the governor of New 

Mexico, is thought to have reached the southern bank of the 

Colorado River near present-day Moab. 

Escalante traveled portions of central and western Utah in 

1.776 in search of a trade route from northern New Mexico to 

California. His expedition trav~rsed north to the Green River 

and west from there to western Utah. . However, somewhere near 

Cedar City they turned back 1 deciding that there was no 

propitious route to the Pacific through Utah (Miller 1968). Due 

to the failure to locate a route 1 further exploration or 

settlement of Utah was again not encouraged. However, the maps made during this exploration are among the earliest of Utah. 

The Old Spanish Trail, which passed through modern Moab, was 

the eventual outcome of the effort to establish a trade route to 

California from the northern New Mexico settlements. The more 

direct route to the Pacific coast via Arizona was avoided due to 

inhospitable relations with Native Americans. 

Rivera's expedition is thought to have broken the trail in 

1765. However, it was not extensively used for another so years. Arze and Garcia recorded the first trip along the Old Spanish Trail in 1813. Although no longer in use when the Mormons 

arrived, the ruts are still visible. 

The trail is thought to pass through the very southwest 

corner of Arches National Park. An attempt was made to relocate 

the section in the Park during this survey. While a cut through 

the cliff edge was noted, it could not be verified if this were 

the Spanish Trail or not. Inscriptions reported to be engraved 

on the boulders there were not relocated. However, the 

inscription "Montrose Waugh 1753" is located about 15 miles north 

of Moab on what may have been the same route. 

Southeast Utah was formally apportioned to Spain in 1819 

when the United states signed the Adams-onis Treaty. By the 

1820s, there li!Tas an annual trade caravan of several hundred 

people who traveled west with woolen goods and returned east with 

livestock. The Spanish and Utes also traded along the route. In 

the early 1820s, Mexico sought independence from Spain. After 

the Mexican Revolution, trade was permitted between Hispanic New 

Mexico and the Anglo United states. The increased market for 

beaver and the lenient trade restrictions brought the first flux 

of northern Europeans into southeast Utah. By the 1850s, 

Hispanic interaction in southeast Utah was curtailed when the 

Mormons ended the slave trade in which the Hispanics participated. 

22 
... 

:( 

W.H. Ashley, a co-owner of the Rocky Mountain Fur company 

negotiated the southern portion of the Green River in 1825 during 

a reconnaissance venture. He did not reach the confluence of the 

Colorado River. According to chronicles, Jedediah smith is 

considered to have trapped in the area in 1825. While the 

trapping industry revitalized use of the Old Spanish Trail and · increased the knowledge of this portion of Utah, no Anglo 

settlements were established. The trappers' occupation of the 

area is documented by few archeological remains, however, a 

number of inscriptions·are present. The engraving "Julien 1844" 

was recorded in Arches. The decline of the fur market in the 

1840s ended use of the trail and travel slowed through this 

portion of southeast Utah. 

In 1848, at the end of the Mexican War, the United states 

gained possession of Utah. southeastern Utah, one of the last 

areas in the country to be geographically charted, was finally 

documented during military reconnaissance. The u. s. Army Corps 

of Topographical Engineers, under the direction of John Fremont, 

had explored the area between 1843 and 1845. Again, the object 

of the exploration was an alternative route to the west coast. 

Fremont's cartographer provided the first detailed maps of the 

area. 

During exploration for a transcontinental railroad. route by 

the Corps, the area north of Moab was explored by Capt. John 

Gunnison in the 1850s. The Denver & Rio Grande western was built 

in the early 1880s. It was routed from Grand Junction, Colorado, 

northwest to Salt Lake city, skirting Moab. The nearest station 

stop was Thompson's Spring, 35 miles north. This route 

approximated that which Gunnison had reconimended in 1853. The 

railroad, which provided improved transportation and 

communication potentials, impacted market networks, economic 

redistribution, and settlement accessibility. 

In the early 1870s, John Powell explored the Green River 

drainage. The sketches made during these trips were the first 

maps of the Colorado and Green River systems. Between 1875 and 

1876 the La Sal and Abajo Mountains were charted. 

The first cadastral survey in southeast Utah occurred in the 

1880s. Projects to plat the area were sporadic and contingent on 

resource exploitation interests. The effort was not complete 

until the uranium boom of the 1950s. Currently, most of the 

area's maps are only available in a 15-minute scale. 

Early Mormon settlement began in 1846 with the migration to 

Salt Lake Valley west of the Wasatch Range. Mormon interest 

centered on establishing Salt Lake City. Colonization south of 

Salt Lake did not occur until almost ten years later with the 

establishment of the Elk Mountain Mission near modern Moab. 

However, relations with local Native Americans prohibited the 

formation of a permanent settlement. Intentions to further 

settle southeast Utah were abandoned until the 1870s. 

23 
.. .. .. ,. • I IZBS'PS 

Only after the Utes were relegated to reservations were 

advancements made in permanently settling the area. During the 

1870s, migration to the Moab area was sporadic. In the early 1880s, Moab was a town of about 20. A successful migration of 

Mormon farmers occurred in the 1880s. san Juan, Emery, and Grand 

counties were established between 1880 and 1890. 

The cattle industry promoted the first extensive European settlement of the area by ranchers expanding out of the Texas 

plains. By the 1870s lands to the east and west of Moab were 

overgrazed. By 1893, the envi¥onmental constraints of the area 

were being felt by the cattle ,industry. A ten-year dry spell seriously threatened the local carrying capacity of an area 

dominated by short grasses and relative patchy water 

distribution. Ranchers expanded into pristine lands in southeast 

Utah where the first ranches were small, family-based outfits. 

The ranching industry oscillated between boom and bust 

cycles. By providing a distribution system, the railroad had an 

enormous impact on the success of the western cattle industry. 

The first boom occurred after the Civil War with the opening of 

the west by the railroad. Although the Denver & Rio Grande 

railroad was 20 miles north, it did facilitate access to the 

area. The . mining industry in Colorado supported much of the 

early demand for beef and encouraged substantial growth of the 

industry. 

The 1880s was an era of large cattle holding companies throughout the west. Small family holdings did not re-emerge until the turn of the century. The organization of the stock 

industry continued to fluctuate in response to larger economic 

factors. 

Liberalization of the Homesteading Acts encouraged the last 

wave of homesteading between the 1910s and mid-1920s. Inflated 

produce costs during World war I encouraged family farming in the 

west. This temporary population boom was short-lived, however. 

Many homesteads were abandoned after the war due to the reduction 

in food prices and water limitations. The Dust Bowl and the 

Great Depression also adversely affected the local farming and 

ranching economies. 

Problems . surrounding overgrazing and federal intervention 

were characteristic of twentieth-century ranching developments. 

Range control tactics had varied success. Disputes between sheep and cattle ranchers were prevalent, but did not escalate to the 

violence common elsewhere. 

By the late 1890s, the popularity of sheepherding further 

reduced the continued success of cattle ranching. After 1900, 

cattle were being replaced by sheep to a significant degree. This condition was fueled by wool market prices. The last large cattle company sold out in 1965. Generally, during the 1960s 

economic emphasis changed to mining exploitation and wage labor. 

24 
Although livestock and agriculture comprised the economic 

mainstay, mining and lumbering did augment the local economy in 

the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. While there 

were several precious-metal boom cycles, these population influxes were based mostly upon spurious information and were 

short-lived. 

Placer mining had some marginal success along the Colorado 

River. Hard-rock mining, due to heavy technological and 

financial investments,. was limited because no substantial 

subsurface ore deposits were located. Uranium and potash mining did become a vi tal aspect of the post-World War II economy (Pierson 1978a). . The forested slopes of the La Sals provided the nearest . building material and fuel source for the town of Moab. These 

forests were timbered prior to their coming under conservation 

jurisdiction by the federal government. 

Southeast Utah did not· begin to interest scientists until 

the 1900s. Dr. Byron Cummings of Harvard University directed the 

first archeological field work during the early 1900s. In the 

1930s, the geologic resources came to scholarly attention. A 

systematic survey of Ar.ches was conducted in 1933. The post- World War II energy demands for uranium, oil, and natural gas contributed to significant interest and study of the area. 

Southeast Utah's early history is developmentally dissimilar 

from many of the other areas involved in the general western 

expansion. Its early history was characterized by isolation, 

environmental constraints, a late Indian occupation, and economic 

instability. Permanent settlement occurred considerably later 

than in other areas of the Southwest. 

several geographic and environmental factors precluded early 

development and conditioned settlement when it did occur. 

Unreliable and uneven distribution of water and arable land 

restricted ranching and farming-based economies. The Colorado 

Ri ve:r, which is a major drainage through southern Utah, was 

obviously of considerable value as a water resource, but it also 

hindered travel routes. Fording locations significantly 

conditioned transportation patterns. 

Native Americans were not subservient to early Euro-American 

explorers and settlers and the area was avoided for a long time. 

Because transportation routes skirted the Moab area, it remained 

uncharted until the late 1880s. Southeast Utah was bypassed by major thoroughfares from the transcontinental trails, through the 

railroad, and up to the present-day Interstate 70. This general lack of access limited settlement until the late nineteenth 

century. 

25 

METHODOLOGY 

Distributional Archeology 

The recent development of anthropological theory of huntergatherer behavior, as well as middle-range studies, has required 

that archeolo.gists develop data recovery and analytical methods 

appropriate for regional-level distributions of artifactual 

remains (Ebert 1986). Large-scale areal surveys have begun to 

reveal variable, yet continuous, distribution of artifactual 

remains across the present-day landscape. A number of studies 

have also demonstrated that surface remains could be used in 

order to evaluate an array of archeological and anthropological problems. 

Archeologists have been required to reconsider the utility of the "site concept" itself (Ebert 1986). The development of 

theory regarding hunter-gatherer behavior discussed above, as 

well as ethnoarcheologica1 observations, has required 

reassessment of the site-specific, activity-centered view of past human behavior. Ebert (1986) points out that such an 

archeological assumption had been adopted from an ethnologist's 

perspective. A long-term view of the spatial aspects of human 

behavior and a better appreciation of the mobility of huntergatherers create a much more complex view of the archeological 

record. This view does not readily support the classification of 

archeological remains into discrete sites. 

Ebert (1986:85) provides a description of the archeological 

record that differs considerably from our traditional "site" 

approach: 

• this sort of archaeological record is, instead, 

best seen as a "web of pathways over a piece of 

terrain" [Isaac 1981:131], as the product of mobility 

rather than the focus of specific activity • • • 

over even short time periods, human mobility forms a 

dense web consisting of lines with "nodes 11 at which 

discard is repeated. over longer periods of time the 

nodes tend to blend together in different ways: the 

result is that "· ••. the archaeological record as it 

comes down to us is in no sense a simple 'map' of 

where humans discarded things, much less a map of 

where they used things or where they went" [Isaac 

1981:134]. 

Ultimately, any interpretation of artifact scatters in 

Arches National Park must incorporate these recent developments 

in distributional archeology. The archeological survey in the 

Park did delineate boundaries for lithic artifact scatters: 

however, "site" definition in this case was designed to fulfill 

Park management needs. These boundaries were defined on the 

basis of "in-the-field" judgements regarding artifact densities 

and/or clustering. In some cases, "site" boundaries coincided 
, I 

j 

with discontinuities in artifact distribution created by arroyos, bedrock surfaces, and/or trails and roads. 

Recording prgcedures 

Areas surveyed were prioritized by Park personnel. Evaluation was based on the extensiveness and imminence of 

anticipated development and maintenance in the Park. All areas 

suggested for clearance were surveyed. These included a probable impact swath of so meters and 15 meters wide on either side of 

roads and trails, respectively. 

Specific areas inventoried, by order of priority, were the 

following: (1) the Delicate Arch Road including the area 

surrounding the Delicate Arch Viewpoint parking lot that is 

anticipated for improvement; ( 2 r the interior portion of the 

parking lot loop of the ·Windows Section Road, and the · trail to 

Double Arch; (3) the Devils Garden Campground improvement areas 

(surveyed 1982; Griffin 1985) (4) the heavily trafficked trails 

in the Devils Garden Landscape Arch complex, including the 

Landscape, Partition, Navajo,- Double o, Dark Angel, Pine Tree 

Tunnel, and Wall Arch trails and the Fin Canyon primitive trail, 

as well as the Windows Section trail complex including North 

Window, South Window, and Turret Arch trails; (5) the paved road 

including the Windows Section access road, and the Fiery Furnace 

Viewpoint, Salt Valley overlook, Panorama Point, and La Sal 

Mountains Viewpoint access roads; (6) the less-trafficked trails 

including Park Avenue, the Delicate Arch, Sand Dune,. Broken, 

Skyline, and Tower Arch trails. 

Twenty-six sites and 79 isolated occurrences were located 

within a total survey area of 1,160 acres. Six sites had been 

recorded previously including three rock shelters situated 

outside the clearance areas. These sites were visited to 

redocument prior work and to evaluate any evident vandalism. 

Based on previous inventories of the area, the density of the 

archeological resources was considerably higher than anticipated. The areas surveyed included 24 miles of paved roads, three miles 

of unpaved roads, 14.miles of trails, and abOut 40 acres in block 

areas that had been slated for development or maintenance. 

. Field procedures varied somewhat with the parcel type--road, trail, or block area--being surveyed. A swath 50 meters wide on 

either side of paved and unpaved roads was covered. On the 

Delicate Arch dirt road a three-person crew walked at 15 meters 

intervals on ~ side of the road. The coverage intensity was 

due to anticipated paving of the road which would. result in major ground disturbance. Additional areas around Salt Wash were alsc 

covered as this is where the road is to be rerouted. Areas: 

investigated were marked by survey stakes. 

The main paved road, the Windows Section road, and the pave' 

access roads to turnouts and view points were surveyed in a 50 

meter swath on either side of the road. Intervals between th 

28 
surveyors varied. A two-person and a one-person crew alternated 

every other mile on either side of the road. Thus, transect 

intervals varied from 15 to 25 meters. As much of the area 

consists of small lithic scatters, part of the reason for this 

procedure was to evaluate to what extent site density indices are 

a result of coverage intensity. In other words, would more sites 

be recorded on sides of the road with smaller transect intervals? 

Observed site frequencies do not vary strongly with survey 

crew size or intensity. Five sites were recorded by a single 

crew member surveying a so-meter swath.. Four sites were 

documented by a survey crew of two persons. Isolated 

occurrences, however, tended ta be noticed almost twice as 

frequently (28) when two crew members were covering the same area 

as one (18). These findings suggest that reconnaissance ability 

appears to be related to crew size and to the spatial extent of 

the archeological distribution. 

A clearance swath of 15 meters was maintained while 

surveying trails. On trails·, surveyors walked at seven-meter 

intervals, one on each side of the trail and one on the trail 

itself. 

Isolated Occurrences 

Isolated occurrences were defined as spatially discrete, 

limited-sample manifestations. In most instances they included 

one or two artifacts. When more artifacts were present, a "field 

call" was made. small samples of similar artifact types, all 

debitage for example, were considered isolates. When a greater diversity was represented, these artifact clusters tended to be 

recorded as sites. 

Isolated occurrences were recorded on a standardized form. 

Their cadastral and topographic location, vegetation zone, and an 

artifact variable description were recorded. They were plotted 

on topographic and aerial photo maps. All tools were drawn. 

Site recording was a much lengthier procedure. 

Sites 

When assemblages were encountered, the extent of the scatter 

was determined by reconnaissance of the immediate area. The 

noodling, or wandering, fashion of reconnaissance was avoided 

when possible and a more systematic method was employed. Features, artifact concentrations, and tools were flagged. This 

accommodated mapping and site recording. 

Site perimeters included the furthest span of continuous 

artifact distribution. Frequentlyi this incorporated highly dispersed artifacts, which extended away from the more aggregated assemblage and followed run-off patterns. These peripheral distributions are likely secondary alluvial deposits, not 

cultural ones. Nonetheless, to delimit perimeters using criteria 

other than surface visibility would have been a subjective .mb8 

29 
exercise. Therefore, site area alone is not a useful index of 

occupational intensity or site complexity. 

Once the general perimeter was identified, tasks were 

divided. A map was drawn, an IMACS form completed, photographs taken, features described, and a sample transect inventoried. 

Detailed site sketch maps included,topographic and erosional 

attributes, features, artifact concentrations, and specific artifact locations. These site maps were based on a central 

datum. Larger sites required a series of interrelated datum 

points. Scale and orientation va~ied to accommodate the 8 1/2-

in- x-11-in page format. 

An aluminum site tag with a.temporary number (UNL 1 to 26) 

was tied to a tree or bush as close to the datum as possible. The original Smithsonian trinomial number was reused on sites 

which had been previously recorded. A list of sites located 

during this survey that correlates temporary UNL site numbers 

with permanent trinomial numbers is included in Appendix o. 

six of the 26 sites had been previously recorded. L.M. 

Pierson had identified five of these locations from 1957 to 1959. 

No formal documentation or analysis was derived from his work. 

Berry (1975) had previously documented one site. However, 

site dimensions varied between the two recording efforts. A few 

of the localities Berry inventoried were relocated, but no 

cultural material was found. These specifically surround the 

Tidwell chalcedony outcrops. Problems with determining natural 

and cultural assemblages at these raw material loci are discussed 

in the overview of the project area. Several sites recorded on 

the archeological basemap were not relocated. However, the scale 

and lack of detail on a 15-minute map make pinpointing ground 

locations very difficult. Site descriptions, locational 

information, and site maps were inadequate to verify locations of 

these artifact scatters. 

Features were described on the basis of dimension, content, 

shape, structural components, and associated artifacts. Written 

documentation was accompanied by a detailed map. Features were 

documented at only two sites, one of which was an historic 

locale. 

An IMACS form was completed according to the requirements outlined in the current IMACS manual. Both black-and-white and 

color photographs were taken of the overall site area, features, 

and specific artifacts. All site and isolated occurrence 

locations were plotted on the 15-minute Arches National Park USGS 

quadrangle map and on black-and-white aerial photographs. Since 

7.5-minute maps have been issued for only the central portion of 

the Park, aerial photographs were more useful and consistent in 

plotting ground locations. Their scale.(1:5,208 or 295m to the 

inch) was sufficient to maintain accurate surface 

identifications. 

30 
At the beginning of the project, it was decided that data 

recorded on an IMACS form could not adequately quantify 

variability across the project area and, therefore, little 

analytical use could be made. Consequently, in an attempt to 

systematically collect data that would reflect assemblage variability as well as satisfy managerial and budgetary concerns, 

a simple sampling strategy was implemented at each site. 

A meter-wide transect was randomly placed across the 

scatter. On very low-density distributions, transects were 

situated to collect an adequate sample. Transect sample density 

is not necessarily proportional to the overall site density. 

This transect data facilitated initial assessment of artifact 

assemblage variability. Quantification of assemblage diversity 

based on the Shannon-Weaver statistic circumvents the sample size 

dilemma. (This sample size issue will be dissussed in the 

section on assemblage observations). 

The me.ter-wide swath was divided into two, meter-long units. 

Artifacts in each 1 m x 2 m unit were recorded separately. 

Within transect samples, frequencies of material types for each 

artifact type were observed. Artifact types and terms are 

defined in Appendix E. Material types are discussed in the 

chapter on-Project Area. Other artifacts not within sample units 

were recorded as per allowances on the IMACS form. 

Artifact classes are intended to be descriptive. Functional 

interpretations are not presumed at a macroscopic level of 

observation. Notable may be the paucity of utilization and retouch recorded for artifacts. Recent microwear studies show that 

assessing edge damage is a complex issue. The information 

derived from macroscopic analysis does not reliably reflect use 

and functional patterns. Numerous factors, from spontaneous 

retouch to postdepositional wear, can contribute to what macroscopically may appear as retouch or utilization (Keeley 1974; 

Keeley and Newcomer 1977; Odell 1977; Odell and Odell-Vereecken 

1980; Tringham et al. 1974). 

Determining use versus retouch in the field is in most cases 

virtually impossible. When edge damage was uniform and displayed 

several polythetic characteristics of use or retouch, the 

attribute was recorded (one piece of debi tage was recorded as 

used). No artifacts were collected. 

31 
• 
THE ARCHEOLOGICAL RECORD 

Introduction 

Twenty-six sites and 69 isolated occurrences were recorded 

during the 1987 field season (Figure 10). Eighty percent (23) of 

these sites were lithic scatters. A petroglyph (42GR297), an 

historic site (42GR544}, and a lithic scatter with associated 

ceramics ( 42GR290) were also identified. Six ·sites had been 

previously recorded. All but one of the 69 isolated occurrences 

(an historic horseshoe) were lithics. 

In general, assemblages · are described by ( 1) a high 

frequency of interior debitage: (2) few primary or decortication 

flakes: ( 3) a relatively low proportion of angular debris to 

flakes: ( 4) few cores, projectile points, and unifacial tools: 

and ( 5) the use of local white chalcedony in flake and tool 

manufacture. · 

Most surface assemblages are lithic scatters of unknown age. 

The lack of chronological specificity does not preclude observing 

variability in assemblage and locational data. Across sites, 

assemblages varied in density, size, artifact diversity, and 

material type represented. Formalized tools occurred in 50 

percent of the assemblages. For the most part, tools consisted 

of bifaces and extensively retouched flakes. Little ground stone 

was recorded. Appendix E contains a glossary of lithic terms 

used in this report. 

A large proportion of the material utilized for all artifact 

classes was a local Tidwell white chalcedony. This source is 

distributed intermittently throughout the Park as small, 

clustered outcrops. Lithics also were manufactured from Brushy 

Basin chalcedony, Dewey Bridge chert, quartzites, and a minerally 

altered volcanic ash, all locally available. It is notable that 

very few unidentifiable or extralocal materials were documented. 

However, a few cherts, for which the sources are unknown, were 

recorded. 

This survey covered a limited portion of the local 

geographic variability. Areas inventoried were confined to 

corridors on either· side of roads and trails, which on many 

stretches are impacted both from construction and visitor access. 

The overall density, content, and distribution of the following assemblages is likely representative of a small segment of the 

range of site variability within the area. Fundamental to any 

comprehensive archeological analysis would be a consideration of 

the range of local environmental strata not included here. · 

A descriptive summary of the archeology follows. Site 

descriptions include provenience data, site dimensions, 

depositional context, assemblage content and distribution, 

factors leading to site disturbance, and previous documentation. 

General landform refers to the greater geographic situation: 
Arches National Park; distribution of archeological Figure 10. sites and isolated occurrences. 

fS, 

34 

ARCHES 

NATIONAL 

PARK 

o Site Location 

• Isolated Artifact Location 
specific landform refers to the immediate ground surface on which 

the site is located. 

~ Descriptions 

Site: 42GR297 

Field designation: UNL1 

Location: T24S, R22E, Section 8: SW1/4 of NW1/4 of NW1/4 

Elevation: 4,320 ft 1,.317 m 

Area: 24 sq m 

General landform: Valley 

Specific landform: Cliff face / 

This rock art site is at the base of a low, east-west 

trending ridge 150 m west of Salt Wash (Figure 11). The 

confluence of three major tributaries to Salt Wash is about 600 m 

south. The petroglyph panels are pecked in a heavily patinated, 

south facing rock outcrop. The Entrada sandstone face is about 

15 m high. 

Three panels were documented. The ceritral panel is the 

largest and depicts a series of Big Horn sheep (7), figures on 

horses (5), coyotes (3), and undifferentiated curvilinear forms. 

The panel to the north is a single curvilinear form, 60 em high 

and 25 em wide. It resembles a Fremont anthropomorph. The 

southern panel is a depiction of a figure on a horse and a stick 

figure. The central panel has received some vandalism. Several 

bullet holes were noted, and the surface has been abraded. since 

the site is about 130 m north of the trail to Delicate Arch, it 

is easily accessible. Heavy visitation to the area may promote 

casual collecting. No artifacts were associated. 

Pierson recorded the site in 1957. He reported no vandalism 

at that time. No artifacts were collected, and no mention is 

made of surface remains. 

Site: 42GR2141 

Field designation: UNL2 

Location: T23S, R21E, Section 21: SW1/4 of NW1/4 of NWl/4 

Elevation: 5,120 ft 1,560 m 

Area: 444 sq m 

General landform: Entrada fins 

Specific landform: Ridge saddle 

This dense lithic scatter is on · a level area between two 

east-west trending sandstone fins. Due to the longitudinal 

position of the fins, the area is somewhat protected to the no~ 

and south. The area overlooks the extensive, northeast sloping Entrada fin formation. The site is on the northwest periphery of 

Fin canyon, a mayor drainage in this area. 

35 
The assemblage distribution is discrete, confined, and 

dense. Density is upward of 100 artifacts per meter square .. Debitage is the only artifact class noted. 

This dense lithic scatter is composed predominately of small 

interior flakes and angular debris less 'than two centimeters in 

length. The lack of decortication flakes and cores, combined 

with the preponderance of small, interior flakes, suggests that 

partially reduced li thics. were transported to the locality for 

further reduction. Evidence of heat treatment is common and 

appears to have been initiated on materials that already had been 

partially reduced. 

A homogeneity in material type ? characterizes the assemblage. A local, white/clear chalcedony constitutes more than 99 percent of the lithic sample. Very sparse amounts of gray silicified 

wood, white chert, quartzite, and an. amber/red silicified wood 

were noted. 

The Devils Garden primitive trail is several meters east of 

the site and may have disturbed the original distribution. A 

recent campfire, a tent stake, and metal cans were located in the 

densest portion of the site. Modern disturbance continues to 

impact the site. Diagnostic artifacts may have been collected 

from the site. 

Site: 42GR2142 

Field designation: UNL3 

Location: T23S, R21E, Section 21; NEl/4 of SEl/4 of SWl/4 

Elevation: 5,440 ft 1,658 m 

Area: 3,200 sq m. 

General landform: Entrada fins; Ridge Specific landform: Dune 

This lithic scatter is in a dunal area between two 

southeast-northwest trending sandstone fins. The area is 

situated on the high, northeast sloping plateau east of Salt 

Valley. The immediate area consists of remnant dunes and 

internally drained blowouts. Little of the area is intact. 

The primary assemblage is distributed in a blowout. The 

assemblage is highly dispersed. No artifact concentrations were 

noted. The scatter probably represents an aeolian and alluvial 

redepdsition of material eroding out of the deflated dunes. 

The assemblage consists of debitage. No tools were located. 

Material types and reduction stages were consistent across the 

site. The debitage sample consists of small interior flakes and ,. finishing flakes. A large proportion of· the sample are pressure . flakes suggesting that final tool manufacture, or retooling, was 

an activity focus. 

All debitage, except one quartzite fragment,. was of. white 

chalcedony. Maximum density is 10 artifacts per·meter square. 

, 

36 
Site: 42GR2143 

Field designation: UNL4 

Location: T23S, R21E, Section 21; NW1/4 of NW1/4 of SW1/4 

Elevation: 5,440 ft 1,658 m 

Area: 1,880 sq m 

General landform: Entrada fins; Ridge 

Specific landform: Dune 

A highly dispersed lithic scatter is situated on a wide 

level area among several southeast-northwest trending fins. The 

scatter is distributed on a remnant deflated dune surface. 

Several ephemeral drainaqes bisect the site. The Devils Garden 

trail is on the site's south~rn perimeter. 

-' This dispersed and sparse lithic scatter is a fairly 

redundant assemblage. Small interior and pressure flakes are 

common. Debitage is predominately of white chalcedony and Brushy 

Basin pastel chalcedony. 

The area is highly deflated. The artifact spatial 

distribution likely retains little integrity. The lack of tools 

and larger flakes could be biased by visitor collection. 

Site: 42GR539 

Field designation: UNLS 

Location: T23S, R21E, Section 20; SE1/4 of NE1/4 of NW1/4 

Elevation: 5,360 ft 1,634 m 

Area: 33,000 sq m 

General landform: Ridge edge 

Specific landform: Dune 

This large dispersed lithic scatter is in a broad valley 

that slopes to the northwest. The valley drains this portion of 

the ridge east of Salt Valley. At this point the plateau rises 

abruptly about 200 m above Salt Valley. This valley trends 

northeast and is one drainaqe north of Fin Canyon. The site area 

overlooks Salt Valley to the west and the extensive Entrada fin 

formations to the east. 

The assemblage is widely distributed across a deflated dunal 

slope. The site extends from the bedrock on the ridge edge 

downslope to the northeast (Figure 12). The distribution appears 

to continue onto the first bench below the plateau rim, but it is 

not accessible. This is probably the Dark Angel site. 

The pattern of - artifact distribution is relatively 

undifferentiated across the site. Discrete artifact loci were 

not identified. The northeast portion, which is downslope, has a 

somewhat greater artifact density, which ranged up· to 15 

artifacts per meter square. Slopewash may affect this 

distribution. 

37 
Figure 11. 42GR297: pictograph and petroglyph panel. 

I

Figure 12. 42GR539; overview. 

38 

I 

I 

I 
Assemblage content does not appear to vary across the site. 

All reduction stages were noted, although decortication evidence 

was nominal. Interior and pressure flakes were common. A large 

chert and a white chalcedony flake were unidirectionally 

retouched along one margin. One tested chert cobble was 

recorded. Cores are not common in assemblages documented during 

this project. 

Two projectile points were located in the northwest portion 

of the scatter (Appendix F). One, a small, complete, triangular 

point has a convex base. It was manufactured from a white chert, 

or chalcedony, and has a heavily patinated surface. The other is 

a similar small triangular point: with a straight base and is 

complete. It was manufactured from purple Brushy Basin 

chalcedony. Also, a large, thick, chunky white chert biface .• is 

broken and retains cortex on one surface. Owing to erosion and 

deflation, the scatter probably has . little spatial integrity. 

Subsurface remains are probable. The Dark Angel trail bisects 

the site. Visitor access probably has had an impact on certain 

classes of artifacts which may have been selectively collected. 

Pierson recorded the site in 1959. No artifacts were 

collected. He indicates the presence of "points and chipped 

material. 11 The site is described as a "series of almost 

continuous campsites along south exposure of north wall of the 

valley. Also a series of pecked pictographs on north side and 

one panel of painted on south side" (Site form ·on file at the 

Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska). The rock art 

panels were not relocated. The site that was rerecorded during 

this survey may be the southeast extension of the area Pierson 

documented. 

Site: 42GR2144 

Field designation: UNL6 

Location: T23S, R21E, Section 27; SE1/4 of NW1/4 of SW1/4 

Elevation: 5,120 ft 1,560 m 

Area: 1,200 sq m 

General landform: Valley 

Specific landform: Slope 

This sparse and dispersed lithic scatter is situated on the 

east flank that defines the perimeter of Salt Valley. The locale 

affords an overview of Salt Valley to the north and south. The 

scatter is distributed across a west trending slope. The area is 

dissected by ephemeral alluvial channels. 

Debi tage consists of various reduction stages. Large 

interior flakes dominate the sample. The frequency of smaller_ 

biface flakes is limited. Most debitage is of white chalcedony, 

although some pastel chalcedonies and red cherts were recorded. 

A mul tiplatform core produced from white chalcedony has a 

battered edge. 

39 
Three bifaces and a mano were inventoried. A large, complete, ovoid chert biface is reduced on only one surface 

(Appendix F).. The margins on both surfaces, however,· are 

extensively retouched. A thick, chert biface is broken at the 

tapered end. The edges are polished and step fracturing is 

extensive on both the proximal and distal ends. A white chert 

biface fragment is thin and has a regular cross section and 

shallow edge angle. 

A complete sandstone mano is bifacially ground. It is ovoid 

in plan view and wedge shaped in cross section. One end is 

battered. · 

A high proportion of tools to debi tage and tool diversity characterize this assemblage. A few rare, or extralocal, brown 

and red cherts were noted. Debitage consists of local material 

while the uncommon materials are present as tools. 

Site: 42GR2145 

Field designation: UNL7 

Location: T23S, R21E, Section 34; SWl/4 of NEl/4 of SEl/4 

Elevation: 5,200 ft 1,585 m 

Area: 560 sq m 

General landform: Ridge specific landform: Dune 

This sparse and spatially confined lithic scatter is located 

at the base of the east flank of Salt Valley (Figure 13). 

Entrada sandstone outcrops are located to the east about 300 m. 

The scatter is distributed across a west trending dunal slope. 

Artifact density is low and the assemblage is fairly evenly distributed across the site. Several reduction stages are 

present. Interior flakes predominate. A range of flake sizes is 

represented. Several large flakes (both cortical and interior) 

were noted. smaller biface flakes were not common. 

Material type was consistent throughout the assemblage. Debitage was of white and pastel chalcedonies. Flake type, size 

diversity, and the absence of tools are characteristic of the 

assemblage. 

Site: 42GR565 

Field designation: UNL8 

Location: T24S, R21E, Section 2; Sl/2 of section 

Elevation: 4,720 ft 1,439 m 

Area: 426,800 sq m 

General landform: Valley edge Specific landform: Slope 

This large lithic scatter is distributed over . a series of 

ridges and drainages on the easterp flank of Salt Valley (Figure 14). The Salt Valley Wash itself is about 600 m southwest. The 

road bisects the site. 

40 
Figure 13. 42GR2145; overview. 

41 
14. 42GR2565; site map. 

42 : 

j 

. ·~ 

-

EE3:t::JE3:::i::E&::==::3aE:=:::::5::~ 

\ 

0 100 200 300 

Meters 

/'./ . ) j . 

. _./ r·.../ . ....-

' . ,..- .f 

) 

0. Site Datum 

( -'\Site Boundary 

~Contour Une 

.,--... . t \Ephemeral Drainage 

~~ 

\\ ~ndstone ~ Fins 

42GR565 

( 

) 

o Unhafted Biface 

• Hafted Biface 

o Uniface 

A Hammerstone 

·~Tidwell Chalcedony Outcrop 

• High Density Artifacts 
Entrada sandstone outcrops border the site's eastern margin. 

The western margin slopes into Salt Valley. The site area is 

dissected by run-off channels, which essentially flow south. The 

valley floor is about 100 m below the site's west margin. 

Tidwell chalcedony is exposed in small island outcrops 

throughout this area. During previous recording efforts, these 

were considered the primary reason for the site's location and 

led to its interpretation as a "quarry" (Berry 1975). However, 

the assemblage distribution is highly variable across the site 

and does not necessarily center around these outcrops. 

The proposed 

• 

"quarry" • locations .J and the artifact 

concentrat~ons are at some d~st'ance from each other. The 

location of the artifact concentrations varies from scatters 

immediately associated with the outcrops to those at some 

distance. Much of the material around these eroding outcrops is 

natural shatter. Very little discernible cultural material 

immediately associated with them was · observed. This pattern 

suggests that quarrying was not a dominant focus or that quarried 

materials were subsequently removed. 

The assemblage consists of debitage, bifacial and unifacial 

tools,. and ground stone. The distribution was diffuse with a few_ 

relatively concentrated areas. Between the more concentrated 

loci, the distribution was sparse but consistent. Tools tended 

to be more clustered. 

Debitage is almost exclusively from the immediately 

available Tidwell chalcedony. All reduction stages are present. 

Large interior flakes are prominent. Cores and decortication 

flakes are few, both at the outcrop locations and in scatters 

some distance from them. Larger interior flakes predominate in 

both situations, suggesting that some primary reduction occurred 

at the locus of procurement and larger flakes were transported to 

surrounding areas. Maximum density was 10 artifacts per meter 

square. Some pastel, or Brushy Basin, chalcedonies were also 

present. 

Two unifacial and five bifacial tools were recorded 

(Appendix F). A hafted biface was manufactured from a white 

chalcedony flake. It is corner notched, has rounded shoulders, a 

concave base, and a convex cross section. Four large chalcedony 

bifaces were recorded. All were formalized, with extensive 

facial and marginal retouch, regular and thin cross sections, 

straight edges, and shallow edge angles. They were manufactured 

from a variety of materials including . white Tidwell chalcedony 

and Brushy Basin chalcedony. All were broken. One was recognized as a use break. Two were reworked. 

A small, thin, white chalcedony scraper is circular in plan 

view, has a shallow edge angle, and is marginally retouched along 

one edge. A white chalcedony interior flake is extensively 

retouched along one margin. One ground stone was located. It is 

an unidentified fragment which is three centimeters thick and is 

unifacially ground and pecked. 

43 
---------~,. 

This locale was recorded as a large "quarry" site in 1974.· 

The site perimeters overlap somewhat with the current ·ones. 

However, site dimensions and descriptions vary. Berry (1975: 

Appendix IV) describes the site as "an eroding chalcedony ridge 

used as a quarry site. Detritus found all along ridge and out 

onto Entrada sandstone." 

The outcrops are littered with natural shatter with little 

manmade debitage present. Determination of the relationship 

between the natural and cultural material would require 

extensive sampling. Although material was procured from the 

Tidwell outcrops the asse)D.blage content and distribution 

indicate that primary 1 reduction was not the only activity focus. 

A range of manufacture, maintenance, and discard patterns are 

present suggesting that the locale's use was variable either due 

to reuse or to differential activity patterns. 

Site: 42GR2146 

Field Designation: UNL9 

Location: T24S, R21E, Section 7~ SWl/4 of NW1/4 of SWl/4 

Elevation: 4,480 ft 1 365 m 

Area: 2,000 sq m 1

General landform: Valley 

Specific landform: Terrace 

This sparse lithic scatter is situated on a remnant river 

terrace at the base of a sloping ridge. This low 1 northwest 

trending ridge is at the east end of Salt Valley between two 

major escarpments to the north and south. These escarpments form 

the margin of the area where Salt Valley Wash drains into Salt 

Wash. Salt Valley Wash is about 250 m north and the confluence 

is about 1,300 m to the east. The terrace itself is composed of 

a dunal surface. Much of the surface assemblage is confined to 

the blowouts. 

The distribution is highly dispersed. It consists of 

debi tage and a few tools. Artifacts are more clustered in the 

eastern portion of the site. They are sparse in the western 

portion. 

Debitage for the most part consists of interior flakes and 

some angular debris. No decortication evidence or cores were 

noted. Some smaller biface flakes were recorded. Interior 

flakes produced from white chalcedony predominate in the assemblage. other material types, .a gray chert and a green altered 

volcanic ash, were present but uncommon. 

A white chalcedony projectile point was lanceolate shaped and had an expanding stem (Appendix F). Only the ·very t,.ip is 

missing. An informal scraper was manufactured from a white chalcedony cobble. It is thick, has a steep edge angle, and is retouched along two margins. some larger flakes have been removed. 

The cobble may have been reduced for usable flakes. 

44 
The site is less accessible than some owing to its location 

on a ridge above the road. It has probably been disturbed less 

by visitor collection than other scatters along the road. 

However, assemblage visibility is biased by the distribution of 

dunes and blowouts. 

Site: 42GR2147 

Field designation: UNL10 

Location: T24S, R21E, Section 7;,SW1/4 of SW1/4 of SW1/4 -: 

Elevation: 4,480 ft 1,365 m 

Area: 6,300 sq m 

General landform: Valley 

Specific landform: Ridge .J 

This sparse lithic scatter is at the southeastern margin of 

Salt Valley. The locale is about 500 m south of the Salt Valley 

wash. The confluence of the Salt Valley Wash and Salt Wash is 

about 1,300 m east. · 

The site is on a broad, remnant river terrace. The terrace 

is at the base of a major, east-west trending ridge which rises 

about 76 m above the valley floor. 

The terrace slopes slightly northeast. The road bisects the 

distribution. The area east of the road has a steeper slope and 

is dissected by ephemeral drainages. 

The assemblage consists of debitage, a core, and a number of 

tools. Two lithic concentrations, about five meters in diameter, 

were identified. The distribution in other portions of the site 

is highly dispersed. Maximum density in these clusters is up to 

30 artifacts per meter square. 

White chalcedony interior flakes represented the greatest 

portion of the debi tage sample. No decortication evidence was 

noted. Biface reduction was uncommon. 

A chert flake was extensively retouched unidirectionally 

along one margin. One multiplatform core was produced from white 

chalcedony. -Other material types present were pastel chalcedonies, siltstone, and green volcanic ash. These were not common. 

One unifacial and three bifacial tools were recorded. A 

small, white chalcedony, corner notched point has a concave base 

(Appendix F) • The lateral margins are parallel. The · tip is 

broken ·along a fracture line. This may be a manufacture break. 

A white chalcedony, biface margin fragment has a thin and regular 

cross section, and shallow edge angles. A white chalcedQny, 

rounded biface tip is less formalized. A white chalcedony,· informal scraper is unidirectionally retouched along one margin. 

The tools and the··. core· are manufactured from the same 

materials as the debitage~: · The. incidence of both infol;'Jl\al and 

formal tools is relatively·.high. · --''~-· 

45 
Site: 42GR2148 

Field designation: UNL11 

Location: T24S, R21E, Section 23; SW1/4 of SE1/4 of SW1/4 

Elevation: 4,960 ft 1,512 m 

Area: 2,250 sq m 

General landform: Ridge Specific landform: Ridge 

This site is a sparse lithic scatter on a low ridge on the 

west side of a drainage. The location affords an overview to the 

south and east towards Elephant Butte. A low, intermittent ridge of Entrada sandstone outcrops,is exposed to the west and southwest. A 

The distribution has a low density and is not clustered. 

The debi tage sample consists predominately of white chalcedony interior flakes and angular debris. No biface reduction was 

noted, and only a few decortication flakes were present. The 

material type consistently is white chalcedony. 

One limestone cortical flake was noted. One~ flake was 

extensively retouched along one margin. The edge angle is high, and the piece morphologically resembles an informal scraper. An 

exhausted, white chalcedony, multiplatform core was also found. 

The proportion of tools to debitage is high. Two bifacial 

tools and a unifacial tool were recorded. A rudimentary, white 

chalcedony biface has a thick and irregular cross section. The 

surface quality indicates that it was ineffectually heat altered. 

A rhyolitic cobble was bifacially reduced along one margin, forming a steep edge angle and a sinuous edge. A white chalcedony uniface was unifacially reduced and unidirectionally retouched on 

the opposite face. 

site: 42GR2149 

Field designation: UNL12 

Location: T25S,-R21E, Section 3; NWl/4 of SWl/4 of NEl/4 

Elevation: 4,320 ft 1,317 m 

Area: 3,200 sq m 

General landform: Valley Specific landform: Dune 

. This dispersed and sparse lithic scatter is on a south 

trending dunal slope {Figure 15). The ground surface is variable 

and consists of active dunes, red cryptogamic soils, desert pavement, and Dewey Bridge chert gravels. Bedrock is exposed on the 

eastern margin of the site. An Entrada ridge outcrop is about 

900 m west. 

The distribution is concentrated in the blowouts and on the 

desert pavement. It is otherwise very intermittent. The debi tage sample consists of all reduction stages. White chalcedony flakes from the earlier reduction stages are most. common. some 

decortication is evident. Angular debris and biface flakes are 

present. 

46 
~-------------------

Debitage is predominately white chalcedony. Although there 

are some cultural samples, most of the Dewey Bridge chert on the 

site area is natural shatter. The one tool, however, is produced from an uncommon material. A large, thin biface fragment is a 

possible knife tip. It is of a mottled gray chert and is 

transversely broken. A small (10 em x 8 em x 5 em), quartzite cobble is battered on one end. It was the only cobble noted in 

the area. 

Site: 42GR2150 

Field designation: UNL13 

Location: T25S, R21E, Section 9L,NE1/4 of SW1/4 of NE1/4 

Elevation: 4,240 ft 1,292 ~ ~ 

Area: 3,000 sq m 

General landform: Valley 

Specific landform: Dune 

This dispersed lithic scatter is on a rise overlooking the 

Courthouse Syncline to the south-southeast. The assemblage is 

distributed across a slight, south trending slope on a ba~ above 

an intermittent drainage. The site is about 200 m north of 

Courthouse Wash. Entrada sandstone cliff outcrops are approxi- mately 700 m to the northwest. 

The immediate area is a slight, south trending dunal· slope, 

on which there are equal areas of active dunes and stabilized 

cryptogamic soils. The site is bisected by a water control 

ditch. 

Two artifact concentrations were recognized. surface material is evident only on current erosional surfaces. Debitage is 

predominantly small, thick interior flakes of white chalcedony. 

No decortication evidence or cores were noted. Biface production 

appears to have been a primary activity at this site. Most debitage was produced from white chalcedony, but some mottled cherts 

were present. No tools were noted. 

The site has been impacted by the water control ditch that 

bisects the distribution. Much artifactual material is evident 

in the backdirt from the trench. Ongoing erosion is caused by 

the ditch. 

Site: 42GR2151 

Field designation: UNL14 

Location: T25S, R21E, Section 21; SE1/4 of NW1/4 of NE1/4 

Elevation: 4,560 ft 1,390 m 

Area: 9,000 sq m 

General landform: Ridge Specific landform: swale 

This large lithic scatter is located in a shallow swale 

between two bedrock ridges. The Entrada cliffs are 150 m west. 

The area is dissected by southeast-northwest trending drainages. 

47 
; 

i 

./ 

I 

' I 

I 

l 

I 

j 

I 

The site is within 600 m of the slickrock, where the mesa steeply 

descends into the Colorado River basin. The site is bisected by 

the road. 

Most of the currently visible assemblage is confined to the 

south side of the road. However, a number of isolated occurrences were located north of the road. Their presence may 

indicate that the assemblage originally extended north to the 

cliffs. This area has been buried by talus slope, alluvial fans, 

and recent rock fall·. Numerous ephemeral drainages dissect the 

area as well. 

Three discrete artifact~concentrations were recognized. The 

distribution was otherwise intermittent. The lithic assemblage 

consisted of debi tage. No tools were located. The debi tage 

sample represented all reduction stages. A relatively strong 

emphasis on early stage reduction characterizes the debitage. 

Interior and decortication flakes were most common. Decortication is not prominent in most of these assemblages. Decortication flakes tend to have less than 50 percent dorsal surface 

cortex. Much of the angular debris is cortical as well. Early 

stage reduction appears to have been the primary goal of lithic 

reduction episodes on this site. Except for one piece of gray silicified wood, all debitage is of white chalcedony. A few 

cores of similar material were noted. 

There is an intermittent distribution of unmodified, small 

chalcedony cobbles. The parent material from which these cobbles 

derive is not located in proximity to the site. The local topography and drainage patterns do not suggest that they are necessarily secondary alluvial deposits. Whether they represent 

natural deposits or manuports is unclear. 

Site: 42GR2152 

Field designation: UNL15 

Location: T23S, R21E, Section 34: SEl/4 of NEl/4 of NEl/4 

Elevation: 5,200 ft 1,585 m 

Area: 9,900 sq m 

General landform: Ridge 

Specific landform: Dune 

This site is a dense lithic scatter situated at the western 

margin of an extensive Entrada sandstone fin formation (Figure 

16). The assemblage is distributed across a gentle dunal slope. 

In the southern portion of the site, a fin provides an overhang 

with a southwest exposure. Alluvial channels bisect the site. 

A difference in assemblage density and content is apparent 

across the site. The distribution is densest adjacent to the 

fin. The debitage in this provenience consists of very small 

interior flakes and angular debris. Small pressure flakes are 

common, while larger finishing flakes are not. 

48 

----------------
Figure 15. 42GR2149; overview. 

Figure 16. 42GR2152; overview. 

49 
In other areas of the site the distribution is sparse and 

intermittent. There is also a greater diversity in flake size 

and type. One small, nucleated reduction locus was identified. 

Debi tage was mainly of white chalcedony. Some samples of 

quartzite, amber chert, and silicified wood are present. Material type and flake type did not appear to co-vary. No tools 

were recorded. 

The scatter is confined to the north side of the trail. 

Visitor access and casual collection may have contributed to the 

absence of tools and larger flakes. f 

Site: 42GR2153 

Field designation: _UNL16 

Location: . T23S, R21E, section 34; ~El/4 of NWi/4 of NEl/4 

Elevation:. 5,200 ft 1,585 m 

Area: 5,250 sq m 

General landform: Entrada fins 

specific landform: Dune 

This site is a sparse lithic scatter located at the western 

periphery of an extensive Entrada sandstone fin formation (Figure 

17). The scatter is distributed across dunes and blowouts in an 

open area defined by sandstone fin formations on three sides. 

The area slopes slightly to the west. The trail bisects the 

site. 

The low density scatter is concentrated in the deflated 

blowout areas. The assemblage consists exclusively of white 

chalcedony interior debitaqe. Predominant are the smaller 

interior flakes and pressure flakes. Absent are the larger flakes and decortication flakes. A size bias may be effected by the depositional context. No tools were recorded. 

Postdepositional factors likely have influenced the content 

of the visible assemblage. Visitor access, casual collecting, 

and dunal processes may in part account for the lack of tools and 

larger flakes. · 

Site: 42GR2154 

Field designation: UNL17 

Location: T23S, R21E, Section 34; SWl/4 of SEl/4 of NEl/4 

Elevation: 5,120 ft 1,560 m 

Area: 7,800 sq m. 

General landform: Valley Specific landform: Dune · 

This dispersed and low density lithic scatter is on the 

southeast margin of an open area that slopes north. This valley drains into an extensive Entrada fin formation. 

• . .. The scatter is distributed across the north side of a loW east~west trending rise. This dunal ridge runs parallel to the 

50 
Figure 17. 42GR2153; overview. 

51 
fins to the north. Small sandstone gravels cover the ground surface. The trail bisects the distribution. 

An artifact· concentration, about 10 m in diameter, was 

identified on the site's eastern margin. Artifacts elsewhere 

were highly dispersed. The assemblage consisted of small, white 

chalcedony interior flakes. The only other material was a red 

chert biface flake. No decortication evidence or cores were 

recorded. One large, interior flake was unidirectionally 

utilized along one margin. No tools were located. This site is 

bisected by a hiking trail and is near a campground. One might 

expect that Park visitors may have collected artifacts from this 

site and, thusly, would have ~ltered artifact assemblage 

composition. 

Site: 42GR2155 

Field designation: UNL18 

Location: T23S, R21E, section 35; NW1/4 of SW1/4 of NW1/4 

Elevation: 5,120 ft 1,560 m · 

Area: soo sq m 

General landform: Valley 

Specific landform: Dune 

This low density lithic scatter is on the north margin of an 

open area that slopes northeast with the valley draining into an 

extensive Entrada sandstone fin formation. The site is distributed over a northeast trending dunal ridge overlooking this 

valley. 

Much of the site surface is either deflated to bedrock or is 

covered with small sandstone gravels. The artifact distribution 

is very sparse and occurs mainly in deflated contexts. 

The assemblage is very homogeneous. It consists almost 

entirely of small, white chalcedony interior flakes. No angular debris or primary or biface reduction debi tage was noted. No 

tools were recorded. One sample of green volcanic ash was 

located. 

Assemblage content and distribution are undoubtedly biased 

by slope wash, deflation, and visitor access. Spatial integrity 

has not been maintained. The absence of tools and flake size 

diversity may be conditioned by casual collection. 

Site: 42GR2156 

Field designation: UNL19 

Location: T24S, R21E, Section 23; NW1/4 of NE1/4 of SEl/4 

Elevation: 5,040 ft 1,536 m 

Area: 2,625 sq m 

General landform: Ridge Specific landform: Dune 

This lithic scatter is on a level, remnant dunal area 

adjacent to eroded sandstone outcrops. Much of the surface is 

52 
exposed to bedrock or is almost completely deflated. Only a few 

shallow dunes are present. 

The Balanced Rock trail bisects the site in several places. 

The area has been highly impacted by roads, trails, and visitor 

traffic. It is probable that little of the site remains. 

The lithic sample consists of small interior flakes and 

pressure flakes. There is a high incidence of broken flakes. No 

decortication evidence or angular debris were noted. The 

material type is predominantly white chalcedony. A few samples 

of green volcanic ash also are present. Maximum density is three 

pieces of debitage per meter square. No tools were recorded. 

The lack of tools and larger flakes along with the presence of broken flakes are the likely result of collection by visitors. 

A large portion of the site is probably already impacted. It was 

apparently not recorded when the initial road and trail 

construction took place. Further investigation should be made 

before the site is completely. destroyed. 

Site: 42GR2157 

Field designation: UNL20 

Location: T24S, R21E, Section 24: SW1/4 of SW1/4 of SEl/4 

Elevation: 5,120 ft 1,560 m 

Area: 2,800 sq m 

General landform: Ridge 

Specific landform: Dune 

This low density lithic scatter is between a break in 

outcrops of the Slickrock Member of the Entrada sandstone. The 

site is distributed across a south trending ridge/slope that 

overlooks a deeply incised drainage to the east. The slope is 

heavily dissected. 

Distribution may be obscured by roads in the area. Much of 

the assemblage is found in erosional contexts, suggesting that it 

is a secondary deposit. Present surface spatial integrity is 

negligible. Because the only remnant level area is paved over, 

the intact portion of the site has probably been destroyed. 

. The lithic sample consists predominately of small, white 

chalcedony interior flakes. A few larger interior flakes and 

primary flakes were also present. A green volcanic ash biface 

flake and a piece of angular debris of brown chert were recorded. 

Two bifaces were inventoried. A white chalcedony biface tip 

was relatively formalized. It was thin and had a regular cross 

section with a shallow edge angle. The . other white chalcedony 

biface tip, although thin, had less retouch investment. The 

cross section is irregular, and the piece retained some cortical 

surface. 

The relative diversity of material and flake types is 

notable. The proportion of tools to debitage is high, although 

53 
the area has been extensively impacted by road construction and 

tourist access. Evidently the site was not recorded before the 

initial road construction, and little of it remains intact. It 

should be further investigated before additional destruction 

occurs. 

Site: 42GR2158 

Field designation: UNL2l 

Location: T24S, R21E, sec.tion 25; SE1/4 of NW1/4 of NE1/4 

Elevation: 5,080 ft 1,548 m 

Area: 28,600 sq m 

General landform: Ridge 

Specific landform: Dune 

This large, but sparse, lithic scatter is west of the 

Entrada outcrops and east of a large, flat area of exposed Navajo 

bedrock (Figure 18). The. site is distributed over a north facing slope of an east-west tr~nding ridge. The slope consists of a 

series of dunes and blowouts. These are most developed towards 

the top of the slope. The northern portion of the site overlooks 

a deeply incised drainage. An old two-track road borders the 

southern perimeter of the site. The Windows Section road bisects 

the northern portion of the site. The north margin is delimited 

by a drainage. 

Artifact distribution varies across the site. Four lithic 

concentrations were identified. These were not high density but 

were discrete scatters in an otherwise very intermittent artifact 

distribution. These concentrations tended to be on north facing 

dunes. The artifacts tended to be more clustered in locations 

near the ridge top where dunes are less deflated. 

The debitage sample was only white chalcedony interior 

flakes. size varied and smaller biface flakes were present. No 

decortication evidence or other material types were noted. A 

white chalcedony biface edge fragment was recorded. It was thin 

and had a shallow edge angle. 

The site appears to be actively eroding, especially at the 

slope crest. Site boundaries are delimited by contour breaks, 

roads, and a drainage. This is one of the few sites recorded 

which may offer substantial subsurface deposits. 

Site: 42GR2159 

Field designation: UNL22 

Location: T24S, R22E, Section 5; SEl/4 of SE1/4 of SWl/4 

Elevation: 4,320 ft 1,317 m 

Area: 105 sq m 

General landform: Ridge 

Specific landform: Outcrop 

This lithic scatter is on a west facing ridge/slope. The 

.ridge overlooks Winter camp Wash to the south ·and one of itE 

.:.54 
Figure 18. 42GR2158; site map. 

55 

0 10 20 30 40 

E'""3 t===3 E3 

Meters 

1 Dune Blowout Area 

2 Slope Erosion 

3 Human Disturbance 

4 Slope Erosion/Roadcut 

~ SlteDatum 

f-\Site Boundary 

~Contour Un~ . 

) 

J 

I 

·{ /. 

j ) 

j 

. 

/\ 

,..-"\Ephemeral Drainage/ \ . 

.............. Sample Transect \ / 

o Unhafted Blface 

-High Density 

~Low ~ Density 

v· . ., J / ....... , . . \.,._......./ . --1-----., . \. 

42GR2158 

\ 

\ 

\ 

.-} 

_,· '" \ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

"· I -\\ 

·~.h_ 

\ 

) 

I 

\ 

I 

". I 

/ 

. ........._ I 

.,...._ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
-

south flowing tributaries (Figure 19). The site is about 80 m 

above Winter Camp Wash. 

A series of small island outcrops of Tidwell white 

chalcedony are located on this ridge. Below one of these is ·a 

small, exposed bed of greenish amber chert. From surface 

observation, this chert appears to be interbedded immediately below the Tidwell chalcedony. This is the only outcrop of this 

material seen during ·the survey. The siltstone has been 

extensively quarried. It appears to have been specifically selected for. The white chalcedony outcrop above it has no 

associated cultural debris. ' 

This site consists of a very discrete and nucleated scatter 

of material surrounding the chert outcrop. Debi tage density 

ranges up to 40 artifacts per meter square. The lithic sample 

consists predominately of large interior flakes and angular debris. Flake type is highly redundant. Decortication flakes 

are present but not common.- The outcrop material, however, has 

very little cortical surface. Smaller interior and biface flakes 

are absent. No cores, tools, or other material types are 

present. 

Assemblage content suggests that the material was qUarried and that partially reduced nodules were transported elsewhere. 

The apparent selection of this material is of interest. A large 

amount of natural shatter surrounds the outcrop and obscures the 

density of cultural material. 

Site: 42GR2160 

Field designation: UNL23 

Location: T24S, R22E, section 8; NE1/4 of NW1/4 of NWl/4 

Elevation: 4,320 ft 1,317 m 

Area: 4,350 sq m 

General landform: Valley Specific landform: Terrace 

This site is a dense lithic scatter on a bench overlooking Winter camp Wash. The site's location is equidistant from Salt 

Wash and Winter camp Wash, about 250 m west and east 

respectively. The drainage floor is about 80 m below. The bench 

is an exposed outcrop of the Salt Wash Member of the Morrison 

Formation. Bedrock is exposed over portions of the site. In 

other areas, there is some cryptogamic soil formation. The 

bench, or outcrop, slopes slightly south. The location affords 

an overview of the confluence of Salt Wash and Winter camp wash 

to the south. 

Tidwell chalcedony is exposed in a small island less than 

300 m east along tp.e same bench above Winter camp Wash. The 

islands are primarily exposed along the north trending drainage 

.cuts which flow into Winter camp. 

56 

-
Figure 19. 42GR2159; site map. 

57 

0 5 10 16 

Meters 

--

( ·-\Ephemeral Drainage - ·-

~ 

~Tidwell Chalcedony Outcrop 

~Chert Outcrop 42GR2159 
Three artifact concentrations were identified. They are on 

surfaces where the cryptogamic soils have not formed. Assemblage 

clustering may be an artifact of surface exposure. 

The debi tage sample consists mostly of Tidwell chalcedony 

interior flakes. Some Brushy Basin chalcedonies are also 

present. The closest exposures are in cache Valley, a kilometer 

to the east. Some Morrison quartzites are also present in the 

assemblage. Material diversity is relatively high. Most of 

these materials are locally available. · 

The debitage sample includes all reduction stages as well as 

angular debris. Most common are'interior flakes. Large primary 

flakes were not noted, although 'some smaller flakes had dorsal 

surface cortex. However, no cores were present. This suggests 

that although the white chalcedony is in very immediate 

proximity, nodules were partially reduced elsewhere and 

transported back to the site for further reduction. Biface 

flakes were of the same materials as larger percussion flakes, 

indicating that the materials selected for tool production were 

similar. 

A biface -fragment was of local chalcedony. The reduction 

was formalized; the cross section is thin and regular, and the 

margins have a shallow edge angle. 

Site: 42GR515 

Field designation: UNL24 

Location: T24S, R21E, section 26; NWl/4 of NWl/4 of NW1/4 

Elevation: 4,960 ft 1,512 m 

Area: 600 sq m 

General landform: Ridge 

Specific landform: Rock shelter 

This dense lithic scatter is distributed under a shallow 

south facing overhang and on the surrounding ledge (Figure 20). 

The overhang is situated in a series of north-south trending Entrada outcrops. A level area extends south 20 m from the 

widest part of the overhang. Past this ledge, the terrain drops southward into a badland/rocky topography. The shelter is about 

20 m long with the dripline about five meters from the back wall. 

Provision for shelter is not extensive. To the southeast, the 

valley floor is about 100 m below the site. The location offers 

an overview to the east and south. Ephemeral drainages flow 

southeast from the overhang. Much of the site surface is highly deflated. Cultural material is interspersed with natural Dewey Bridge chert shatter. 

The distribution is densest along the dripline. oensi ty 

ranges up to 50 artifacts per meter square. Artifacts are very 

sparse under the overhang itself. Scattered artifacts were 

located in the dunal areas surrounding the overhang. The 

assemblage consists of debitage, cores, and informal and formal 

tools. This scatter is one of the densest recorded in the 

58 
Figure 20. 42GR515; overview. 

59 
project area. No features were identified, but thermal evidence 

included some charcoal, burned bone, and fire-cracked stones. 

The debi tage sample includes all reduction stages and a 

range of material types.. Most common are interior flakes, but 

decortication and biface reduction evidence are present. Evidence of heat treating is present in that some pieces were 

ineffectually altered and have crazed surfaces. 

Present is debi tage from white and pastel chalcedonies, 

cherts, quartzite, green volcanic ash, and a green amber chert. 

This is the only occurrence of this material, aside from that at 

site 42GR2159 which surrounded ~n outcrop. No noticeable Tidwell 

outcrops are in the area.. However 1 Dewey Bridge cherts are 

eroding out of the bedrock outcrop. 

Several retouched flakes of different material types were 

unidirectionally retouched. One large, white chalcedony flake 

was bidirectionally retouched. 

At least six cores were recorded. Some were exhausted of 

flake potential. All multiplatform cores were of white chalcedony. One exhausted bifacial core was of a Dewey Bridge pink chert. 

Two bifaces and a uniface were inventoried. A Dewey Bridge chert biface midsection was thin and had a regular cross section, 

and shallow edge angles. A small, thin white chalcedony projectile point was basally notched (Appendix F, Specimen A). 

The haft element, the very tip, and one barb were missing. 

A large white chalcedony uniface was unifacially worked, but 

was bidirectionally retouched along two margins. The edges appeared to have been reworked. All tools had a fair amount of 

retouch investment in them. 

Several pieces of bone were recorded. One deer bone was 

identifiable. A burned long bone and two burned flat bone 

fragments were inventoried. 

The assemblage was characterized by a diversity of material 

and artifact types. The tool frequency was relatively high for 

assemblages in the project area. The co-occurrence of larger interior flakes, primary flakes, and cores was of particular 

note. 

The site was previously identified by Pierson in 1958. He 

mentions the exposure of ash in a shallow fill. Artifacts 

include "oval manos, parts of points and blades, knives." He 

also noted an extensive cow dung deposit (site forms are. on file 

at the Midwest Archeological center~ Lincoln, Nebraska) • Some 

bovine disturbance was currently evident. 

60 
Site: 42GR544 

Field designation: UNL25 

Location: T25S, R21E, Section 3; SE1/4 of NW1/4 of SW1/4 · Elevation: 4,240 ft 1,292 m 

Area: 16,000 sq m 

General landform: Valley 

Specific landform: Rock overhang 

This recent historic site is at the east base of an. Entrada 

cliff face (Figure 21) • The cliff wall is about· 76 m · ( 250 ft) 

high and is facing east. A drainage is parallel to the cliff 

face, about 20 m in front of it. This drains into another wash 

about so m to the north. The wash flows east, downslope and away from the cliff face. ' · 

The site is distributed along 160 m of the cliff base. The 

cliff face provides an integral component to the site as a 

natural barrier for an animal containment feature (Feature 1) • 

The historic components include a containment feature, a series 

of fence posts, and historic artifacts. Feature 1 is at the 

northern end of the site in ·a recess in the cliff face. . Feature 

2 is at the southern end of the site and is a collection of logs and planks fastened with wire. 

A series of juniper posts runs north-south the length of the 

site. They appear to circumscribe an area along the cliff face. 

The posts are two to three meters high. Chicken wire is attached 

to one post in front of the recess/containment area. 

Another less defined fence line, consisting of three juniper 

posts, runs perpendicular from the cliff face. The furthest 

fence post is 60 m east of Feature 1. 

Some historic artifacts are distributed downslope east of 

Feature 1. These include a paint can, a large baking soda can, 

and a lard bucket. Construction related materials include nails 

and cut juniper posts. 

several link chains, about 30 em long, with a straight nail 

at one end and a bent nail at the other were located. One was 

found with the straight nail pounded into a two-inch-diameter 

round stake which was driven into the ground. Another was driven 

into a meter-long juniper branch. These may represent hobbling 

devices. 

Cultural affiliation can not be ascertained. The condition 

of the site and the construction of associated materials suggest 

a fairly recent, circa 1920s, use of the locale: 

Pierson documented the site in 1959. He describes it as 

being at the "head of gully.in a cave where water comes over edge of cliff. Cleared platform present in cave with crude mortarless 

wall. Loose wood in site. Shallow fill. Platform about 12 x 

10'. Drill holes about 1/4" to 1/2" diameter." (Site. form on 

file at the Midwest Archeological center, Lincoln, Nebraska). 

61 
Figure 21. 42GR544: overview. 

62 
) 

Feature 1. A probable animal containment area is in a shallow 

recess in the base of an Entrada cliff face. The natural recess 

faces south and is 7 m north-south x 10 m east-west. · The 

overhang provides a shelter about 10 m deep. 

The cliff face forms the western margin of the containment 

area. On the north is a natural sandstone rubble mound about 4 m 

high. The height has been increased by juniper brush piled on 

top of the mound. The south barrier is a small, unmortared wall 

consisting of 18 sandstone block elements. The ground surface in 

the recess is a steep, 12-degree slope. Sheep dung is scattered 

on the enclosure floor. 

Three juniper posts about, five meters apart are aligned 

about 10 m in front of the cliff face. Chicken wire is attached 

to the northernmost post. A pile of juniper brush is between the 

post and the cliff face. Two other log and brush piles are 

located 15 m to the south. 

Several cans were located 15 m east of the containment. The 

construction elements, location, associated artifacts, and dung 

suggest that the locality was utilized for animal containment and 

other husbandry activities. 

Feature 2. This feature is at the southern end of the site. It 

consists of logsjposts and planks piled at the top of the talus 

slope at the base of the cliff face. Two posts are 12 em in 

diameter. These posts and three small, unsplit logs are wired 

together. Other elements are lengthwise split logs. These are 

two to four meters in length. 

At the bottom of the talus slope are several posts wired 

together. The longest post has a nail and a wire tied around the 

base. A meter-long plank is also nailed to the top of it. A 

chain with a small loop in it is nailed to one end of the plank. These materials appear to be either a discard pile or recycling 

stock pile. 

Site: 42GR290 

Field designation: UNL26 

Location: T25S, R21E, Section 9: SWl/4 of NW1/4 of NE1/4 

Elevation: 4,160 ft 1,268 m 

Area: 8,450 sq m 

General landform: Valley Specific landform: Rock overhang 

This pictograph panel with associated artifacts is at the 

base of a cliff about 300 m east of Courthouse wash. The east 

facing cliff face is about. 60 m (200 ft) high and is formed by 

the Entrada sandstone. The site is under a shallow overhang and 

extends to the east· about 65 m (Figure 22). The overhang provides about 10 m of shelter between the cliff wall and the 

dripline. 

63 
i 

' 

, 

:l ::,: 

Figure 22. 42GR290i site map. 

64 

42GR290 

Pictograph 

Panel C 

Pictograph 

Panel A 

0 10 20 

E 3 E 3 

Meters 

80 

-:J 

• c 

J 

/ -/~ . 

·r---· " / """-·--·--·- ~ /1 .T 

I ./ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I -\ Site Boundary 

n Contour Une 

(·-.,Ephemeral Drainage 

.-······ •• PJcove Drip Une 

I ....--t Sample Transect I 

·. I :./ 

l 

0 Unhafted Biface 

c Ceramic 

• Hammerstone 

A Groundstone 

£§="43 cattle Dung 

• High Density 

lli\~~~3 loW Density 
./'',; ~.#,' 

The area to the east of the cliff face allows a good 

overview to the north, south, and east. courthouse Wash· is a 

major, though intermittent, water source. 

The assemblage includes debitage, chipped stone tools, 

ground stone, and ceramics. The scatter is highly diverse and 

sparse. However, the densest distribution is under the overhang 

within the dripline. The lithic content here is notably 

different. It consists of small finishing flakes. The material 

diversity is also high at this location and includes most local 

varieties of knappable materials. 

Charcoal is very sparsely scattered along the southern end 

of the overhang area. To the north end is a solidif~ed charcoal 

midden that is beginning to erode (Feature 1). 

There are several possible prehistoric pictographs and two 

modern contributions on the cliff wall. It is difficult to 

assess if the several faint, white paint pictographs are modern 

or prehistoric. These include a concentric circle, several 

animal forms, and an anthropomorph. When the site was previously 

recorded in 1958, no mention was made of these pictographs. 

Two definitively modern contributions include "FUCK J. 

HARPOLE" and "HOAR HOUZE." Below the latter a female figure is 

depicted in black paint. 

The artifact scatter is very sparse. The distribution is 

densest under the overhang. It extends very intermittently to 

the east. This area is thickly vegetated and is in the 

courthouse Wash flood plain. It is likely that the distribution 

is either very disturbed here or has just begun to erode. 

The debitage sample consists of interior flakes of local 

material. Some bifacial reduction is evident as is interior 

angular debris, although no decortication flakes or cores were 

noted. Material types include Tidwell and Brushy Basin 

chalcedonies, quartzite, Dewey Bridge chert, basalt, and red 

chert. The relative proportion of the few ceramics and tools to 

the debitage is high. 

The Dewey Bridge biface fragment was broken along three 

margins. However, the reduction was not formalized as 

exemplified by the irregular cross section. A flat, less than 15 

em thick, broken quartzite cobble has been battered along one 

remnant margin. Two bifacially ground and pecked block metate 

fragments were manufactured from local sandstone. These may be 

portions of the same ground stone. A third metate margin 

fragment was unifacially pecked and ground. All the ground 

stones were within so em of each other. 

The ceramics, three corrugated sherds, all had a crushed 

rock temper, which consisted mostly of quartzite. The relief was 

intermediate. The plain grayware was thin and polished with 

65 
smoothing striations on the interior and exterior surfaces. The 

temper was an abundant, dark, crushed igneous rock, probably basalt. All were very fragmentary and within 15 m of the cliff 

face. 

Pierson recorded the site in 1957. He collected two 

additional sherds. He refers to it as a campsite under an 

overhang. Mention was made on his site form of abundant cow 

dung. some bovine activity was noted at the north end of the 

overhang. Modern impact has been indicated by vandalism of the 

cliff wall. Thus, it is likely that the assemblage has been 

collected. 

feature 1.. This stained area is ·located in the central portion of the overhang. The stain is exposed between two larqe rocks, 

or roof fall and is at the base of a shelf in the· cliff face. 

Smaller cobbles are eroding to the east. The stained area is 

confined to 90 em north-south x 140 em east-west. The cobbles 

surrounding the stain appear to have ·been heat altered. A few 

white chalcedony interior flakes are present. Charcoal is 

eroding out of the stained area. The presence of subsurface 

carbon samples is likely. 

Isolated Qccurrences 

Isolated occurrences cannot always be assumed to represent activity loci. Postdepositional processes, both cultural and 

natural, affect surface visibility. In a depositional context, 

an isolated artifact may indicate a subsurface deposit, while in 

erosional contexts, they may represent the limits of alluvial 

action. On stable surfaces, individual artifacts may indicate 

the minimal units of landscape use. Their location and 

visibility result from active participation in cultural and 

natural processes. 

:Isolates are often not examined in the same detail as 

artifact clusters. Small sample size and a lack of understanding concerning how isolates are integrated into the overall pattern of cultural landscape use preclude consideration beyond descriptive summary. . Commonly, isolate occurrences are 

envisioned as delimiting the pathway between one "site" and 

another. 

:Isolates tend to occur in erosional contexts and probably 

repres.ent secondary deposits. Often isolates are located in 

proximity to known assemblage localities, specifically in run-off 

paths downslope from them. This distribution likely indicates 

not a cultural catchment, but an alluvial one. 

Observational . constraints may 'produce an inadequate representation of isolated artifact distributions. The role of 

the areas between sites as part of the overall land-use system 

:may therefore be overlooked or minimized. Furthermore, varying intensities of archeological survey provide different estimates 

66 
ll 

J 

; 

of site frequencies and complexities. For example, the 

Seedskadee Project, in an effort to quantify the role of the 

archeologists' bias, found certain thresholds in observational 

skills. Artifacts tended to be recorded in clustered situations 

much more frequently than isolated ones ( 68 percent to 16 

percent) • Artifact type, color, and time of day were other 

variables affecting observational resolution. However, clustered 

versus isolated distributions had the most significant affect on 

visibility (Wandsnider and Ebert 1986). 

Sixty-nine isolated occurrences were recorded. All but one 

of these were lithics (Table 1 and Appendix G). One horseshoe 

was located on a ridge crest. Artifact types and technologies employed did not vary appreciably between artifacts located in 

assemblage contexts and those in isolated ones. 

By definition, an isolated occurrence has a limited sample size. However, in some cases several artifacts may be considered 

an isolated occurrence. Seventy percent of the isolated 

occurrences consisted of o~e artifact. Two artifacts occurred in 

16 percent of the isolated. recordings. Other multiple artifact 

isolates consisted of three to 12 artifacts. 

Of the 69 isolated observations, 84 percent were debitage. Of the total frequency of isolates, 91 percent were debitage. The proportion of debitage from the transect data was slightly higher, 98 percent of all artifacts. Decortication flakes 

contributed more than twice as much to the proportion of artifact 

types in isolated occurrences as in assemblage contexts. 

Interior flake proportions of debitage were similar between 

isolated and assemblage contexts. Biface flakes were slightly 

more common, while angular debris were considerably less common 

in isolated occurrences. 

Tools occurred equally as single and as multiple artifact 

isolates. Tools were with debi tage in four percent of the 

isolated occurrences. Single tools were recorded in another four 

percent of the isolates. Although few tools were recorded in 

either the transect or isolated samples, unifaces and bifaces 

occurred more commonly in isolated contexts. Five percent of the 

isolated occurrences were bifaces, while less than one percent 

were inventoried in transect samples. Unifaces tended to occur 

more frequently in assemblage contexts than isolated ones. 

Three cores occurred as isolated artifacts. Two cores were 

of white chalcedony and one of quartzite. This was the only quartzite core located . during this survey. White chalcedony 

cores .were most common in assemblage contexts. 

The material types from which ie:;olated occurrences -were 

produced reflect similar patterns as artifacts recorded in sites 

(Table 2). All isolates were of locally available material. Two 

67 

. __ ...... 
(see Appendix H Artifact types for isolated occurrences Table 1. 

for artifact codes). 

SPECNO DECORT INTER 

1 

2 

BIFFLK 

1 

ANGDEB CORE 

1 

BIF UNI GS HISTART 

ART- TOTAL 

TYPE 

DEB 1 

CORE 1 

DEB 6 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 

6 

4 

1 

8 

1 

2 

1 

4 

1 

r 

... 1 

·-

DEB 5 

DEB/TOOL 2 

DEB 12 

DEB 1 

DEB 1 

DEB 2 

DEB 1 

DEB 1 

11 1 DEB 1 

12 

13 

1 

1 

DEB 1 

DEB 1 

14 1 DEB 3 

15 3· DEB 1 

16 

17 

1 

2 DEB 2 

DEB 1 

18 

19 

1 1 CORE 1 

DEB 1 

20 

21 

1 

2 DEB 2 

DEB 1 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

1 

1 

2 

2 1 

1 

1 

1 

DEB 1 

DEB/TOOL 3 

TOOL 1 

DEB 2 

CORE 1 

HIST 1 

28 

29 2 DEB 2 

DEB 1 

30 

31 

32 1 

1 

2 

2 

DEB 2 

DEB 3 

DEB 1 

33 

34 

35 

1 

1 

1 

'!"" DEB 1 

DEB 1 

DEB 1 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

DEB 1 

DEB l 

DEB 2 

DEB 4 

TOOL 1 

DEB 1 

68 
Table 1. Continued. 

SPECNO DECORT INTER BIFFLK ANGDEB CORE BIF UN! GS HI- ART- TOTAL 

START TYPE 

43 1 1 DEB 2 

44 3 5 DEB 8 

45 1 DEB 1 

46 1 DEB 1 

47 1 DEB 1 

48 1 DEB 1 

49 3 DEB 3 

50 1 TOOL 1 

51 1 DEB 1 

52 1 DEB 1 

53 1 DEB 1 

54 1 DEB 1 

55 1 - DEB 1 

56 1 DEB 1 

57 1 DEB 1 

58 3 2 DEB 5 

59 1 DEB 1 

60 2 DEB 2 

61 1 DEB 1 

62 1 DEB 1 

63 1 DEB 1 

64 1 DEB 1 

65 1 DEB 1 

66 1 1 DEB/TOOL 2 

67 1 DEB 1 

68 1 DEB 1 

69 1 DEB 1 

---------------

TOTAL 14 ------

72 ------ 23 -------- '3 ------- 3 ------ 5 ----- 1 ---0 

------- 1 ------------ 122 

*** Total *** 244 

69 
I I 

t ---,~ ' 

I I! 

l! 

I! 

Table 2. Raw material type for isolated chipped stone artifacts •. 

Lithic Raw Material Type 

Chipped Stone ---------------------------------------- Category we OCH RC VA BB DB QTZ UNK TOTAL 

IJ % 

Decortication 

flake 13 1 14 (11) 

Interior 

flake 66 2 2 . 1 1 1 73 (60) 

Biface flake 18 3 1 22 (18) 

Angular 3 3 (2) 

debris 

Core 2 1 3 (2) 

Biface 2 1 l 2 6 (5) 

Uniface 1 1 (1) 

-------------------------------- Total 105(86) 6(5) 1 (1) ---- 4(3) ----- 1 (1) ----- 1 (1) ----- 2(2) ----- 2(2) --------- 122 (100) 

Material Types: 

WC = Tidwell chalcedony 

OCH • Other chert 

RC • Red chert 

VA • Green volcanic ash 

BB • Brushy Basin chalcedony 

DB • Dewey Bridge chert 

QTZ • Quartzite 

UNK • Unknown 

70 
;, 

i~ 

artifact material types were unidentifiable, however. · The 

proportion of white chalcedony is similar in the isolated and 

assemblage samples. Brushy Basin chalcedonies are less well 

represented in the isolated sample, while the volcanic ash has a 

higher representation. No red/amber chert was located in 

isolated finds. These variances may be biased in part by color 

and visibility. Artifacts which do not contrast with the ground 

surface are more likely to be noticeable ·in assemblage contexts 

than isolated ones. 

Although common in assemblage contexts, angular debris is 

negligible in the isolated sample. However, three pieces of 

angular debris were recorded.'. This may indicate that the byproducts of specific reduction stages or technologies are more 

likely to be confined to assemblage situations. In these 

contexts, greater quanti ties of material are produced (or are 

visible) during reduction episodes. The absence of angular 

debris as isolates may, in part, be an observational bias. 

Confidence in distinguishing between natural and cultural shatter 

diminishes when angular debris is not located in association with 

an artifact assemblage. 

71 

ASSEMBLAGE OBSERVATIONS 

Introduction 

The following analysis of artifact assemblage variability consists of two components. First, artifact assemblages from all 

sites will be summarized in descriptive statistical form. Assemblage data is derived from sample transects and from tool descriptions. The transects represent a sample of site assemblage diversity. The tool inventory includes all tools observed at 

each site. This data is presented in Table 3 and Appendix H. 

Appendix E is the definitions of artifact types and descriptive 

terms. In addition is a discussion of lithic technology, site 

location, and raw material distributions. 

Second, artifact assemblage variation will be estimated 

based on data from the sample transects discussed above. Artifact assemblage diversity will be estimated using the ShannonWeaver information statistic• The information statistic provides 

a simultaneous measure of artifact class richness and -propor- tional distribution across these classes. This measure of 

artifact assemblage diversity enables us to monitor archeological variability in a very general way and to examine its relationship 

to other variables including site size, environmental setting, and raw material availability. · 

Technological concerns 

Technology as a subcomponent of human adaptive systems includes raw material selection, manufacture, use, and discard of 

implements. Technology can be seen as the mechanical articulation between humans and their environment (White 1949). Technology actually refers to human behavior that involves tool use and 

which is designed to obtain essential energy, nutrients, matter, 

and information for survival (and reproduction). Technology is 

reflected in the archeological record in the form of tools used 

for extraction and processing, as well as by-products related to 

t.ool manufacture/use/discard and resource processing. 

Since technology is closely interconnected to resource extraction and processil')g, archeologists can expect to observe a 

number of correlations between tools and debris and environmental 

factors. In turn, since technology facilitates adaptive responses to environmental problems, we would expect lithic artifact assemblages and distributions to vary with the organiza- tional properties of land-use. 

Frequently, artifacts are interpreted as functional indices 

of a system's needs. Traditional morphological classifications 

reflected specific, and ofte.n, singular, functional uses. More 

recently, both archeological and ethnographic data have demonstrated that function and morphology do not co-vary in simple and 

regular relationships. Therefore, an expanded interpretation of 
Table 3. Attribute data for the total tool sample. 

SITE BIF UNI CORE GS OTHER MATL COMP PLAN USE COR- SUR TEMP COM42GR0539 1 0 0 0 

TYPE WEAR 

0 1 1 0 0 

TEX TREAT SITENO MENTS 

2 0 UNL 5 

42GR0539 1 0 0 0 .o 3 1 0 0 2 0 UNL 5 

42GR0539 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 UNL 5 .··. 

42GR0539 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 2 0 UNL 5 

42GR0539 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 0 0 2 0 UNL 5 

42GR0539 0 1 0 0 0 1 }0 0 3 2 0 UNL 5 

42GR2144 2 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 2 0 UNL 6 

42GR2144 2 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 2 0 UNL 6 

42GR2144 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 UNL 6 

42GR2144 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 2 3 UNL 6 

42GR2144 0 0 0 1 0 10 1 0 2 2 3 UNL 6 

42GR0565 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 OUNL8. 

42GR0565 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 UNL 8 

42GR0565 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 UNL 8 

42GR0565 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 UNL 8 

42GR0565 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 UNL 8 

42GR0565 0 0 0 3 0 10 2 0 1 2- 2 UNL 8 

42GR0565 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 UNL 8 

42GR0565 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 UNL.8 

42GR2146 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 UNL 9 

42GR2146 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 2 0 UNL 9 

42GR2147 1 0 0 0 0 1 ' 2 0 0 0 0 UNL10 

42GR2147 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 UNLlO 

42GR2147 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 UNLlO 

42GR2147 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 UNL10 

42GR2147 0 2 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 2 0 UNLlO 

42GR2147 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 UNL10 

42GR2148 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 UNLll 

42GR2148 0 0 0 0 1 8 1 0 4 1 0 UNL11 Matl 

type 

S•Rhyolite 

42GR2148 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 UNLll 

42GR2148 0 1 0 0 .o 1 1 0 3 2 0 UNLll 

42GR2148 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 UNLll 

42GR2149 2 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 2 0 UNL12 

42GR2149 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 1 3 UNL12 

42GR2151 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 UNL14 

42GR2151 

42GR2154 

0 

0 

0 

4. 3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

·o 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

3 

1 

2 

0 UNL14 

0 UNL17 

42GR2157 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 UNL20 

42GR2157 

42GR2158 

42GR2160 

42GR0515 

42GR0515' 

42GR0515 

42GR0515 

2 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

·0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 UNL20 

0 UNL21· 

0 UNL23 

O.·UNL24 

·0 UNL24 

O,UNL24 

0 .'UNL24 

74 
·~..;, 

:t: 

Table 3. Continued. 

SITE BIF UN! CORE GS OTHER MATL COMP PLAN USE COR- SUR TEMP COMTYPE WEAR TEX TREAT SITENO MENTS 

42GR0515 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 UNL24 

42GR0515 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 UNL24 

42GR0515 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 UNL24. 

42GR0515 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 UNL24 

42GR0515 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 UNL24 

42GR0515 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 UNL24 

42GR0515 2 0 0 0 0 2 ' 2 0 0 2 0 UNL24 

42GR0515 1 0 0 0 0 1 .I 2 0 0 2 0 UNL24 

42GR0515 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 2 0 UNL24 

42GR0290 0 0 0 2 0 10 2 0 2 0 2 UNL26 

42GR0290 0 0 0 2 0 10 2 0 2 0 2 UNL26 

42GR0290 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 0 1 0 1 UNL26 

42GR0290 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 UNL26 

42GR0290 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 1 3 UNL26 

------------- *** Total*** ---------------------------------------------------------------- 42 33 18 10 5 165 73 0 49 74 19 

75 
technology and its role in culture is necessary in order to expand our view of technology. How technology and its organization 

vary· to accommodate various adaptations and environmental constraints has been a focus of recent archeological research. 

Human mobility conditions technologically mediated responses 

to certain environmental problems. Torrence (1983) suggests that 

transport costs in mobile hunter-gatherer societies restrict the 

size and complexity of the technological aids. Tools will tend 

to be multipurpose and less task-specific as a direct function of 

group mobility. Multiuse tools should then vary directly with 

degree of human mobility. Transport costs limit the indefinite 

development of functionally spe9ific technologies (Torrence 

1983). 

Technology and mobility are closely, but not simply, interrelated. Although there is a general inverse relationship between hunter-gatherer mobility and tool (implement and 

facility) diversity, we can expect to observe considerable variation within specific hunter-qatherer societies on a seasonal 

andjor long-term basis. Variable patterns of land-use and site 

history can be expected to create a complex material record of 

past technological systems. Portions of this technological 

system remain fixed on the landscape as human groups and more 

mobile components of the system are transported from place to 

place. For example, Binford (1979) points out that less portable technological aids (e.g., site furniture including metates, storage vessels, or large cores) are left at fixed points or 

locations, whereas more portable items (e.g., personal gear including knives, axes, or projectiles) are transported over great distances. In addition, more expedient responses to given technological problems may be carried out using situational gear. Residential moves and logistical forays will require a technolog- ical diversity that will vary along different dimensions (Shott 

1986). 

Geographical patterns of archeological site distribution can 

provide correlative evidence for the technological aspects of 

past strategies of aboriginal land-use. The position of forager residential sites on the landscape is expected to correlate 

closely with the location of high bulk critical resources such as 

plant/animal foods, fuel, and/or water. Constraints imposed by the quality, quantity, and/or accessibility of such critical 

resources can be circumvented via residential moves. The 

probability for site reuse is low. These residential sites for 

foragers would exhibit interassemblage variability primarily as a 

function of seasonal variations in resource availability. Intersite and/or interassemblage variability for foraging groups would 

be marked given seasonal variation in critical resource availability. Artifactual assemblages would exhibit greater redundancy - if seasonality were slight or if they represented similar seasons 

of use or occupation. There should be few, if any, specialized activity sites present in forager land-use systems. 

76 
As Binford has pointed out, logistically organized huntergatherers produce a more complex archeological "landscape." Residential sites tend to be highly visible archeologically given the dependence on bulk storage, attendant storage facilities, 

domestic structures, midden accumulations, and so forth. Like 

foragers, collectors also generate locations or places at which 

resources are procured andjor processed. In addition, storage- dependent hunter-gatherers also produce field camps for extraresidential site occupation, stations for resource monitoring, and caches for storing tools and food. 

Given these generalizations regarding hunter-gatherer landuse, what might archeologists,expect regarding differential 

strategies for lithic resource procurement? Foragers are expect- ed to procure lithic raw materials for stone tool production in 

the context of residential mobility associated with food-getting strategies. Given forager mobil! ty constraints and low bulk 

processing responses, we would expect relatively low inputs of 

lithic debris into the archeological record at any one time. 

Absolute lithic assemblage size can be expected to vary as a 

function of the frequency of reoccupation or use of a given location. Raw material sources including surface and subsurface 

deposits would be visited by residential groups. Lithic resources would be tested, procured, and modified in relatively- limited quantities in the context of associated occupational activities, e.g., food, fuel, and water procurement1 food proces- sing and consumption: shelter construction: and tool maintenance. 

On the other hand, collectors are expected to obtain lithic 

materials in the context of logistically-organized activities. 

Binford ( 1979: 270) states that for, ". • • systems organized logistically • • • raw materials or tools are rarely obtained 

through direct procurement strategies ••• ·" Kelly (1983:298) 

states, "There is more to logistical mobility • • • than the 

direct acquisition of resources • • • • Many stationary nonfood 

resources, such as material for stone tools, can be collected 

during successful or unsuccessful logistical forays." Lithic 

procurement for collectors is not expected, then, to occur in 

association with residential activities. Binford (1979) argues that lithic raw material procurement would most probably be 

embedded within multipurpose logistical trips. 

Finally, archf!ologists must be cognizant of the fact that 

"an assemblage (is) something in the process of being generated" ·(Ammerman and Feldman 1974:610). Assemblage variability results 

from the complex interaction of factors governing tool 

manufacture, use, maintenance, caching, and discard. An 

"assemblage" of artifactual and ecofactual remains can be the 

result of a number of these behavioral factors that are 

ultimately conditioned by economic organization at a regional level. Additionally, the distributional, morphological, and 

compositional aspects of these static items and "assemblages" are 

then modified by natural processes such as erosion, deposition, thermal fracture, chemical alteration, or bioturbation. As a 

77 
til 

l.~i:.· l . 

. . 

r· 

result, artifacts that occur together, regardless if time is held 

constant, can not be assumed to have been used together. 

Lithi9 Artifacts 

Prehistoric artifacts are present on 24 (92 percent) of the 

sites recorded. Sites without associated artifacts are a 

pictograph/petroglyph panel ( 42GR297) and an historic site 

( 42GR544). All assemblages are lithic scatters except at one 

rock overhang where a few corrugated grayware sherds were 

recorded. Fifty-eight percent of the lithic scatters contain 

chipped and/or ground stone t9ols. However, projectile points 

were recorded on five sites. . Few of these artifacts should be 

considered ·as reliable temporal indicators. Some diagnostic artifacts are deposited at different times during· a site's use 

history. Others are probably deposited in the same cultural 

context as the assemblages with which they are spatially associated. 

Four sites are in rock shelters. These overhangs are 

shallow and provide limited sheltered area. Eighty-five percent ( 22) of the scatters are located in open areas. Of these, 3 8 

percent are on dunal surfaces and 27 percent in ridge/drainage locations, eight percent on gentle sandy slopes, and eight 

percent in direct proximity to raw material outcrops. Except for 

one historic artifact, all isolated occurrences are lithics, most 

of which is debitage. 

Debitage 

~e transect data provided a debitage sample consisting of 

67 percent interior flakes, 14 percent biface flakes, 13 percent angular debris, and six percent decortication flakes (Table 4). 

However 1 :the proportion of cortical flakes may not be as 

instructive as flake size and dorsal surface scars in determining primary reduction intensity. Potential decortication flake 

frequencies are relative to the cortical surface area of the 

lithic. resource utilized. If a resource is procured from an 

outcrop with little cortical surface per volume, then the lack of 

primary flakes may be explained by the low proportion of cortex 

to interior workable material. Conversely, cobble resources have 

a high cortical surface area per interior volume. Locally, materials are available as both cobbles and outcrops. Decortication flakes produced from cobble resources have a 50 

percent greater occurrence than in the overall proportional distribution of debitage material types. Decortication flakes 

occurred on 46 percent of lithic scatters. Decortication flakes 

were of one •aterial type in all assemblages except two. Sites 

that were directly associated with material sources (42GR565, 

42GR2159) did not exhibit greater proportions of decortication 

flakes. Neither did these sites deviate above the mean of 

decortication frequencies. Tidwell outcrops have large quantities of natural shatter. Procurement would not necessarily 

78 
Table 4. Lithic raw material type for debitage. 

Raw Debitage Category 

Material --------------------------------------------- Type Decortication Interior Biface Angular Total 

flakes flakes flakes debris II % 

we 44 487 110 101 742(86) 

DB 1 2 3 1 7 (1) 

BB 5 30 5 5 45 (5) 

QTZ 10 1 11 (1) 

OCR 12 3 15 (2) 

sw 9 . 1 2 12 (1) 

VA 1 1 2(. 2) 

OTR 1 1 (. 1) 

ACR 30 2 32 (4) 

ss 0 (0) 

----------------------------------

Total 50(6) 581(67) 

----------

123 (14) 

------------

113 (13) 

----------- 867 (100) 

Lithic raw material types: 

WC• Tidwell white chalcedony 

DB• Dewey Bridge chert 

BB• Brushy Basin chalcedony 

QTZ• quartzite 

OCR• other chert 

SW• silicified wood 

VA• altered volcanic ash 

OTR• other 

ACR• green/amber chert 

SS• sandstone 

79 
entail quarrying and decortication preparation of flakes and 

cores at source loci. 

Biface flakes are of the same materials as other debitage. Material types reflect similar proportional representation of 

local material types as other debi tage. Biface flakes are of a 

greater variety of material types than decortication flakes. 

However 1 no exotic materials were recognized. Maintenance or 

production of tools from materials transported into the area does 

not appear to have occurred at these loci. The high frequency of 

biface flakes at site 42GR2l56 may be the ultimate result of 

visitor impactJ larger items have likely been systematically collected from the surface. 

Angular debris is assumed to be the product of 

technological inadequacies or ineffectual flaking of poor quality material. Angular debris represents 13 percent of the debitage sample and was present at 86 percent of the lithic scatters 

although overall material quality can 1 be held constant across the 

project area. Variation in angular debris frequencies may 

represent differences in technological responses to raw material 

abundance and accessibility. The greatest portion of angular debris is of Tidwell chalcedony, the most prevalent material in , the study area. It also exhibits uniform quality throughout this 

area. Since it is abundant, reduction by shattering, rather than 

systematic or conservative flake removal, may have been employed. 

we might expect that this reduction strategy would be more 

prevalent at procurement loci. In highly mobile adaptations, expedient core reduction resulting in high quanti ties of waste 

material tends to occur where material is abundant {Parry and 

Kelly 1987). 

However, none of the five sites with high proportions of 

angular debris are located within 1, ooo m of Tidwell outcrops. Only Tidwell chalcedony shatter occurs in four of these 

assemblages. The fifth assemblage contains several material 

types and occurs at a rock shelter. This site and another rock 

shelter account for all the angular debris not produced from 

Tidwell chalcedony. In general, angular debris is more likely to 

be of Tidwell chalcedony than are other flake types. Few other 

local materials are present as shatter. · 

cores 

The core sample from all sites consisted of 11 specimens. Core morphology exhibited little variability (Table 5). Eightytwo percent (9) of the cores had multiple platforms, one core had 

a single platform, and one was a tested cobble. No bifacial 

cores were inventoried. No exhausted cores were noted. 

Multidirectional reduction of lithic raw material requires less technical or anticipated investment than other reduction 

strategies. Therefore, bifacial · cores reflect a aore planned reduction sequence. They provide a flake source and a core that 

80 
Table 5. Lithic raw material type for cores. 

Lithic Ray Material Type 

-------------------------------------------- Core Type we BB DB'. OCR QTZ Total 

II % 

Multiplatform 9 9(60) 

Single platform 1 2(13) 

[1] 

Bifacial 1 1 (7) 

Tested cobble 1 3(20) 

[1] [1] 

Total 12(80) 0 1(7) 1(7) 1 (7) 15 (100) 

Material types: WC = Tidwell white chalcedony; BB = Brushy Basin 

chalcedony; DW = Dewey Bridge chert; OCR • Other chert/chalcedony; 

QTZ "" Quartzite 

All cores included from site assemblages and isolated 

occurrences. Numbers [II] in brackets are isolated occurrences. 

81 
can be further utilized as a formal biface. Multiplatform cores 

do not have this dual potential. In these· assemblages exhausted, 

multiplatform cores are commonly battered and perhaps had a 

composite use as hammerstones. Formal tools are not easily manufactured from multiplatform cores. 

Bifacial cores are useful in mobile strategies because of 

their composite nature. Taylor (1986:144) suggests that they 

". • • may be a product . of delayed reduction strategies as 

opposed to immediate ones • • • we can view bifaces as a special kind of personal gear designed to be responsive to situations as 

they arise in highly mobile context, ••• ·" Binford (1979), in 

his work with the Nunamiut, mentions a similar artifact as mobile 

personal gear that was used as a core and/or tool. 

7he presence of multiplatform cores in these assemblages is 

not necessarily indicative of an expedient lithic technology. A 

lack of bifacial cores is curious in assemblages in which bifaces 

are the only tool type occurring with any frequency. Given the 

frequency of bifaces, one might expect a higher proportion of 

bifacial cores. However, bifacial cores may be scarce due to raw 

material availability. The articulation between lithic and 

resource procurement may account for the preponderance of multiplatform cores in this situation. Also, transportation costs or 

material efficiency may be less of a restrictive cost in certain 

systems than expected. Thus, a cost/benefit perspective may not 

pertain to certain resource distribution contexts, specifically those with high availability and accessibility. All cores in 

this sample were of local, white Tidwell chalcedony, which falls 

into the latter description. This material is abundant and is 

available in island outcrops distributed throughout this area 

(Figure 8). 

The relatively low ratio of cores to debitage may suggest that partially reduced materials were transported. Eleven cores 

were distributed over six sites (Table 6). One locality accounts 

for much of this overall frequency. Almost 50 percent (5) of the 

cores were located in one rock shelter site. This scatter also 

had a wider range of material types present. All other 

assemblages with cores had low material diversity and a tendency for high artifact diversity values. All assemblages with cores 

include other tool types, average or above average decortication 

£lake proportions, and low biface flake proportions. 

'l'ools 

Forty chipped stone tools were distributed across 14 sites 

(Tables 3 and 5). Tools, when present, tended to occur in 

numbers. Of the chipped stone tools, 60 percent are bifacial and 

40 percent unifacial. Two hammerstones and a bifacial cobble 

were also recorded. 

Bifacial tools included 23 percent hafted bifaces and 77 

percent unhafted bifaces (Table 7). Six bifaces, one of which 

was a small, broken, hafted projectile point, were recorded as 

82 
Table 6. Summary of lithic tool frequencies for sites in Arches 

National Park, Utah. 

Tool Type 

Site -------------------------------------- (42GR-) Biface Uniface Core Ground Other Total 

stone II 

-------------------------------------------

539 3 2 1 --------------------- 6 

2144 3 1 1 5 

565 5 2 ' - 1 8 

2146 1 1 2 

2147 3 2 1 6 

2148 1 2 1 1* 5 

2149 1 1** 2 

2151 _2 2 

2154 1 1 

2157 2 2 

2158 1 1 

2160 1 1 

515 2 6 6 14 

290 1 3 1** 5 

Total 25(40) 15(27) 12(20) 5(8) 3(5) 60 

* bifacial cobble 

** hammerstone 

83 
·Table 7. Raw material type for bifacial tools. 

Lithic Raw Material Type 

'Biface Type ------------------------------------- we BB DB OCH ACH VA UNK Total 

II % 

Hafted biface 5 1 7 (24) 

[1] 

Unhafted biface 9 J 4 2 3 [1] [2] 22 (76) 

[1] 

----~------------------------------~-------------------------- Total 16(55) 5(17) 2(7) 3(10) 0 1(3) 2(7) 29(100) 

isolated occurrences. Bifaces of less common material types were 

more common as isolated occurances than in site contexts. 

Unhafted bifaces tended to be broken ( 82 percent), while 

projectiles were complete (71 percent). 

TWo projectile points were missing the extreme distal 

portion or tip. One projectile point lacked the proximal portion, or stem, and had been reworked along one of the lateral 

.margins. All recorded projectile points were associated with 

lithic assemblages that contained bifacial and unifacial tools. 

Incomplete bifaces tended to be broken at the tip; but, proximal portions, or hafting elements, were present. 

Discarded, complete projectiles may occur due to manufacture 

failures, loss/discard, or transport via prey animals. In the 

latter case, complete points in broken shafts are discarded 

duri·ng processing at butchering loci (Bamforth 1983}. Bifaces 

broken at the use end are likely to be discarded at use loci. 

Transporting broken bifaces for reworking ·or retooling may not 

occur when raw material is readily available. Retouch investment 

on both the unhafted and hafted bifaces suggests that these were 

not rejected manufacture failures. All assemblages with complete projectile points included broken bifaces. This association may 

suggest that gearing up, retooling, or maintenance of projectile points did not occur. at these sites, but ·that bifaces and 

projectiles were discarded in. the context of processing. More 

extensive wear analysis is necessar~ to substantiate these 

patterns. 

·Seventy-one percent of the projectile points were of Tidwell 

chalcedony. Marginal and facial retouch investments vary. Two 

small points without haft elements resemble cottonwood Triangular 

84 

( 

E 

s 

r 

a 

'l' 

T 

0' 

p. 

p: 

w: 

d. 

c( 

p: 
d 

e 

e 

points (Appendix F; specimens E and F). These have a temporal 

span from late prehistoric to protohistoric (circa A.D. 1300 to 

1630). The typology of a small, corner notched triangular point with steep angle margins is unknown (Appendix F, Specimen C). A 

corner notched Elko-Eared point is broken at the very tip {Appendix F, Specimen D). The long temporal span during which 

these were produced does not render them sensitive temporal indicators. Two more amorphous side notched points are complete (Appendix F, Specimens Band G). 

Unifacial tools included scrapers (18 percent), extensively retouched flakes (24 percent), retouched flakes (47 percent), a 

utilized flake, and a uniface (Table 8). Unifacial tools tend to 

exhibit less retouch investment. than the bifacial tools. They 

are more evenly distributed acrdss sites than bifaces. One rock 

shelter site (42GR515) exhibits· a disproportional frequency of 

unifaces and a high incidence of cores. Unifacial tools 

primarily were retouched flakes with little facial retouch; 

however, these tools are complete in all cases. They . do not 

appear to have been discarded prior to breakage during use or 

manufacture. Unifacial tools occurred on all sites except one 

which contained other bifacial tools. 

Unifacial and bifacial tools were of locally obtained 

materials (Tables 7 and 8). No tools were produced from exotic 

materials. some proportional --variation is exhibited between 

materials utilized for tools and debi tage materials. Bifacial 

tools are of greater proportions of Brushy Basin chalcedony and 

lesser proportions of Tidwell chalcedony. Other less common 

material types (e.g., volcanic ash, Dewey Bridge chert, red/amber 

chert, and other cherts) tend to be slightly more prevalent in 

bifacial tool than in debitage samples. Proportions of unifacial 

tool material types approximate those for debitage material 

types. 

Ground stone 

The ground stone sample consisted of five artifacts 

distributed across three sites (Table 6). One mano, three 

metates, and an unidentified ground stone fragment were recorded. 

Sites upon which ground stone artifacts are present include a 

small, open lithic scatter (42GR2144), a very extensive lithic 

scatter associated with several Tidwell outcrops (42GR56S), and a 

rock sbel ter ( 42GR290) • These sites exhibit a relatively high artifact diversity with substantial tool and debitage samples. 

These three sites are located on ridge, or overlook, situations. 

Two are on the northeast bench of Salt Valley. The rock shelter 

overlooks·the Courthouse Wash drainage system. Three metates are 

present on this site. The drainage location augments productive plant communities. . This might be one of few areas in the Park 

where plant growth is predictable. ··These factors may effect the 

disproportional representation of ground stone. Metates in this 

context aay be interpreted as site furniture that remained in 

place for anticipated activities. 

85 
Table 8. Lithic raw material type for unifacial tools. 

Unifacial Lithic Raw Material Type 

tool type ~------------------------------------- we BB DB OeH AeH Total 

II % 

Scraper 3 3 (18) 

Extensively 3 1 4 (24) 

retouched flake 

Retouched flake 5 2 1 8 (47) 

Utilized flake 1 1 (6) 

Uniface [1] 1 (6) 

Total 13(76) 1(6) 0 2(12) 1(6) 17 (100) 

Material types: we • Tidwell white chalcedony; BB • Brushy Basin 

chalcedony; DB • Dewey Bridge chert; OCH • other chert/chalcedony; 

ACH • amber chert; VA • green volcanic ash. 

All chipped stone tools included from artifact scatter and 

isolated occurrences. Numbers (#) in brackets are from isolated 

occurrences. 
All ground stone was of sandstone, which is available 

throughout the Park. The mano and two of the metates were 

bifacially ground. One metate and the unidentifiable ground 

stone were unifacially worked. 

Ceramics 

Four grayware ceramic fragments were recorded from one 

assemblage (42GR290). The site is situated adjacent to a rock 

overhang just north of Courthouse Wash. All sherds were within 

15 m of the cliff face. The three corrugated sherds had crushed 

rock temper that was predominately quartzite. The indentations 

were intermediate in relief/ One plain grayware was thin and 

polished. Smoothing striations were present on the interior and 

exterior surfaces. The temper was abundant: a crushed, dark 

igneous rock, probably basalt. All sherds were very fragmentary 

and unidentifiable on any criteria except temper. 

summary 2f Locational ~ 

certain situational parameters for site locations are 

summarized in Tables 9 and 10. All sites were located between 

1,250 m (4,100 ft) and 1,658 m (5,440 ft): the natural range of 

elevations within the Park. Sites in this sample occur equally 

at higher and lower elevations. Site size and elevation did not 

appear to be correlated. The largest sites, dimensions greater 

than 10,000 sq m, tended to be as equally located at lower 

elevations as they were at higher ones. Small sites, dimensions 

less than 1, 000 sq m, exhibited no locational patterning. The 

largest sample sizes are at higher elevations, but smaller 

assemblages are likely to be at these elevations as well. 

Neither did sample size have a regular pattern in relation to 

elevation. · 

Sites tend to be distributed equally between valley floors 

and highlands. Forty-six percent of all sites were in dunal 

contexts. The postdepositional processes in dunes have been an 

issue in recent work. The effects of aeolian sand substrate on 

archeological assemblage "composition" will be discussed later. 

Finally, site size and sample size do not increase in a regular 

relationship. 

~itbic Assemblage Diversity 

Various comparative statistics have been developed by ecologists and geographers to describe and explain properties of 

spatial distribution._ Methods used to identify and quantify this 

variability seek to recognize patterning, or redundancies, among 

data sets. One measure of variability is diversity. Diversity 

studies in communication prompted expansion of information 

theory, which "provides a means of analyzing closed number sets 

compare two or more distributions" (Johnston and Semple 1983:1). 

87 
Table 9. Site elevation and area information for Arches National 

Park, Utah. 

Site 

{42GR-) 

Elevation 

(Feet/Meters) 

Area 

(sq m) 

Area Rank* 

297 

2141 

2142 

2143 

539 

2144 

2145 

565 

2146 

2147 

2148 

2149 

2150 

2151 

2152 

2153 

2154 

2155 

2156 

2157 

2158 

2159 

2160 

515 

544 

290 

4320'/1317m 

5120' /1560m 

5440'/1658m 

5440'/1658m 

5360'/1634m 

5120'/1560m 

5200'/1585m 

.4720' /1439m 

4480'/1365m 

4480'/1365m 

4960'/1512m 

4320' /l317m 

4240'/1292m 

4560'/1390m 

5200'/lSSSm 

5200'/1585m 

5120'/1560m 

5120'/1560m 

5040'/1536m 

5120'/1560m 

5080'/1548m 

4320'/1317m 

4320'/1317m 

4960'/1512m 

4240'/1292m 

4160'/126sm 

,-24 

l,t44 

3,200 

1,880 

33,000 

1,200 

560 

426,800 

2,000 

6,300 

2,250 

3,200 

3,000 

9,000 

9,900 

5,250 

7,800 

800 

2,625 

2,800 

28,600 

105 

4,350 

600 

16,000 

8,450 

1 

1 

2 

2 

4 

2 

1 

4 

2 

3 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1 

2 

2 

4 

1 

2 

1 

4 

3 

* Area Ranked 

1• less than 1000 m2 

2• more than 1000 m2 and les

3• more than 5000 m2 and les

4• more than 10,000 m2 

s than 5000 m2 

s than 10,000 m2 

88 
Table 10. General site setting information for Arches National 

Park, Utah. 

Site General Landform Specific Landform 

(42GR-) Ridge Valley/Canyon Dune Overhang Ridge* Outcrop Slope 

. , + 297 + 

2141 + + 

2142 + + 

2143 + + 

539 + + 

2144 + + 

2145 + + 

565 + + 

2146 + + 

2147 + + 

2148 + 

2149 + + 

2150 + + 

2151 + + 

2152 + + 

2153 + + 

2154 + + 

2155 + + 

2156 + + 

2157 + + 

2158 + + 

2159 + + 

2160 + + 

515 + + 

544 + + 

290 + + 

*Ridge landform includes terraces.or benches. 

89 -
........ __________ ~ 

The information index of diversity, as discussed by Shannon 

and Weaver (1949), 

is a· measure of population heterogeneity or 

dual-concept diversity in which the number of 

observational categories (diversity) and their 

proportional representations (evenness) are 

monitored simultaneously • • • (the) statistic 

has been utilized by ecologists to 

simultaneously monitor community ;collection 

diversity and information content • • • 

Information content, assemblage diversity, and 

uncertainly are, in turn,. closely linked to 

the concepts of entropy and the organization of physfcal and living systems [Osborn et al. 

1987:52-53]. 

Information theory and statistics, as they are applicable to 

geographic analyses, have been. outlined by R.W. Thomas (1981). 

Information theory and the Shannon-weaver index are discussed in 

ecological terms by Margalef (1958, 1963, 1968), Pielou (1966a, 

1966b, 1975), and Peet (1974). 

Information statistics have been used archeologically to 

monitor diversity among assemblages (Hruby 1986; Osborn et al. 

1987). The Shannon-weaver index is useful in summarizing archeological assemblage diversity by enabling investigators to: 

1) • • • monitor lithic assemblage richness 

i.e., number of artifact categories: 2) to 

express evenness among artifact categories; 3) 

to exhibit limited sensitivity to sample size 

variation; and, 4) to monitor assemblage diversity independent of the specific observation categories used [Osborn et al. 

1987:52]. 

Variability as measured by the diversity index allows 

patterning to be observed at the level of the assemblage, rather 

than the artifact. Diversity values derived from archeological data are commonly a measure of richness--the number of artifact 

classes represented--which does not reflect proportional abundance. Diversity as richn·ess is measured by the presence or 

absence. of various artifact classes. 

Jones et al. (1983), D.H. Thomas (1983), and Kelly (1985) found that diversity among assemblages could be almost 

exclusively explained by sample size. The issue of sample size 

as it biases diversity-has recently been reviewed and evaluated. 

In these studies diversity is measured by·richness which does not . reflect proportional abundance. Artifact assemblage diversity, when quantified using the Shannon-Weaver information statistic, 

is not related to sample size in at least two survey areas in 

southeastern Utah. Data from these samples do not conform to the 

tenet that diversity is a linear function of sample size (Osborn 

et al. 1987). 

90 

l 

j 

l 

\ 

1 

f. 

i 

( 
I 

I 

n 

e 

n 

The Shannon-Weaver statistic is useful in this capacity 

because it does not reflect sample size ( Pielou 1966a). . The 

information statistic accounts for diversity because it "is a 

measure of population heterogeneity or dual-concept diversity in 

which the number of observational categories ( diversity) and 

their proportional representations (evenness) are monitored 

simultaneously" (Osborn et al. 1987:52). 

The following analysis makes use of four indices including 

the Shannon-weaver information statistic, maximum information, 

evenness, and redundancy. Diversity is calculated as follows: 

H'= -I Pi log2 Pi or 

H'= I Pi log2 1/Pi 

(where H' is equal to the information content per individual: p· is the proportion of the ith 

category, or th~ sum of frequency values of all 

categories) 

This equation is computed for each assemblage. A zero value 

indicates that no diversity is present, or that all artifacts are 

present_in a single artifact class. The information content, or 

diversity statistic, will be high if a high number of artifact 

classes are represented and the frequencies are equally 

apportioned among them. The diversity values for the 24-site 

sample, then, is a relative expression of the variance among 

artifact class frequency observations. 

Hmax represents the maximum information value possible for 

each sample. This is an expected value of maximum diversity per 

assemblage. It is calculated as f~llows: 

Hmax = log2 N 

(where N is the number of artifact classes 

represented in each assemblage sample: Hmax 

is computed for each sample) 

The distribution of the frequency among these classes is 

stated by a measure of evenness.· Evenness is expressed by the 

following formula: 

J' = H/log2s or 

J' = HfHmax 

(where J' is equal to evenness; s is the number 

of artifact classes, or the richness expressed by each sample; H is the Shannon information index; 

Hmax is the maximum information value). :~~-

.)~ 

•~':....- According to the Shannon-Weaver index, evenness and richness ~·· " ... will increase as diversity approaches Hmax· k; 

1:c• 

91. 
Redundancy is evaluated by the following expression: 

R = 1 - H/Hmax or 

R = 1 - H/log S 2 

Redundancy in a sample increases as the information index, 

H, diverges from Hmax (Osborn et al. 1987). 

Transect sample data (Appendix H) were used in calculating the information index. Diversity, evenness, maximum information 

value, and redundancy were calculated for all lithic scatters. 

These results are summarized in Table 11. 

The relationship between sample size and site ·size relative 

to assemblage diversity was examined using regression analyses 

(Table 12). Nom,inal variables were analyzed using cross 

tabulations and Chi Square statistics. The diversity values were 

divided into three categories (i.e., low, medium, and high) based 

on the range of values and their distribution. 

Diversity and Sample Size .. 

Linear regression analyses of diversity indices and sample size for each assemblage demonstrated no correlation. Less than 

one percent of the variance in diversity, as measured by the 2 information statistic, is accounted for by sample size ( r = 

0.0015). Scatter plots reveal that most sites cluster within a 

median diversity range and around small sample sizes. outliers 

appear to exhibit no patterns in terms of assemblage and 

locational attributes. Site 42GR2159 exhibits no diversity and a 

mean range sample size. The site has a limited distribution 

downslope from a chert outcrop and contains primarily quarrying 

by-products. Site 42GR2158 has a very small sample size and no 

diversity. The assemblage is highly dispersed across a dunal 

ridge. Sample size and diversity may be an artifact of a highly scattered and sparse distribution. 

Assemblages with large samples are closely distributed 

around the regression plane. The site with the greatest diversity value has a very . small sample size. The lack of 

relationship between diversity and sample size has been evident 

in several data sets from southern Utah. These include both 

lithic assemblages similar to the Arches materials as well as 

more complex artifact assemblages. As a test for this data, 

diversity. as evaluated by richness was also examined. Bivariate 

regression analyses of the Arches samples based on "richness" 

also exhibited little correlation with sample size, site area, 

and material type -(Table 12). It remains unclear whether 

assemblage variability is, in some cases, a function of sample size (Conkey 1980; Elston and Juell 1987; Jones et al. 1983; D.H. 

Thomas 1983, 1984). Given the present study results, it would be 

.useful to re-evaluate the conclusions reached by these 

investigators using the information statistic. 

92 . 
Table 11. Diversity, Hmax, evenness, and redundancy values 

for lithic scatters. 

I ~ Site Diversity . Hmax Evenness Redundancy 

(42GR-) (H') 

297* --.1 

2141 0.820441 1.585,140 0.517583 0.482417 

2142 1.072201 1. 585140 0.676408 0.323592 

2143 0.773315 1.585140 0.487853 0.512147 

539 1.386172 2.585252 0.536184 0.463816 

2144 1. 553683 2.322188 0.669060 0.330940 

2145 1. 352181 2.000224 0.676015 0.323985 

565 1.229165 i.000224 0.614514 0.385486 

2146 0.922031 i.585140 0.581672 0.418328 

2147 1.072222 2.000224 0.536051 0.463949 

2148 2.405908 2.585252 0.930628 0.069372 

2149 1.156909 1.585140 0.729847 0.270153 

2150 1.382592 1.585140 0.872221 0.127779 

2151 1.599169 2.000224 0.799495 0.200505 

2152 1.234348 1.585140 0.778700 0.221300 

2153 1.422634 1. 585140 0.897482 0.102518 

2154 1.014211 1.585140 0.639824 0.360176 

2155 1.140243 1.585140 0.719333 0.280667 

2156 1.366468 1.585140 0.862049 0.137951 

2157 1.717109 2.322188 0.739436 0.260564 

2158 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 

2159 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 

2160 0.910922 2.000224 0.455410 0.544590 

515 1.332269 2.322188 0.573713 0.426287 

544** 

290 1. 773336 2.000224 0.886569 0.113431 

* Rock art panel at which no lithics were recorded. 

** Historic site. 

A diversity (H') value of 0.000000 indicates that only one 

artifact class was present in the sample. 

tg '· 

.·· 1n 

'. 

re 

~s 

~s 

re 

!d 

le 

an 

he 

= 

a 

~rs 

nd 

.a 

.on 

.ng 

no 

181 

lly 

:ed 

!St 

of 

ent 

oth 

as 

ta, 

ate 

:ss" 

·ea, 

her 

lple 

I.H. 

l be 

.ese 

93 
D 

s 

Table 12. Results of bivariate regression analyses. 

r. 

Variables r* R** p*** 

Diversity and 0.3212 0.1032 0.1259 

Distance to Tidwell 

Diversity and 0.3680 0.1352 0.0769 

Distance to Brushy Basin 

Diversity and -0.3728 0.1390 0.0728 

Distance to Dewey Bridge 

Diversity and -0.0389 0.0015 0.8570 

Sample Size 

Diversity and -0.0020 0.0000 1.0000 

Site Area 

Sample Size a~d 0.0551 0.0030 1.0000 

Site Area 

Sample Size and 0.3422 0.1171 0.1289 

Site Area**** 

Diversity and 0.1099 0.0121 0.6091 

Material Types 

Material Types 0.4115 0.1693 0.0457 

and Sample Size 

Richness and 0.0902 0.0081 0.6751 

Sample Size 

Richness and 0.1398 0.0195 1.0000 

Site Area 

Richness and 0.0929 0.0086 0.6660 

Material Type 

The first variable listed in each case is the dependent variable 

r* • correlation coefficient 

2 

R** • determination coefficient or r 

p*** • Level of significance based on a one-tailed test 

**** • Site area minus the three largest sites 

s 

h; 

a( 

Si 

e: 

Si 

T1 

p: 

o: 

Tl 

al 

4: 

a 

d: 

s: 

D. 

m• 

d1 

s' 

W< 

b: 

CJ:! 

il 

ft 

af 

dl 

Pl 

C( 

w 

Ol 

b: 

lc 

dl 

at 

S\ 

e> 

fl 

7! 

hE 

al 

cc 

s: 

lllc 

94 
Diversity and Site Size 

Sample size is often assumed to increase as a function of 

site area. Larger sites are often described as residential 

rather than logistical loci and indicate a greater complexity of 

site use1 greater numbers of inhabitants, and longer occupational histories (Schiffer 1975). while the latter problems can not be 

addressed with temporally and spatially undifferentiated surface 

samples, site area and sample size can be examined. 

'!'he regression analysis of site area and sample size 

exhibits no correlation (r • 0.0551). Less than one ~rcent of 

sample size variation is accounted for by site area (r • .0030). 

The regression analyses of artifact diversity and site area 

produced a correlation coefficfent of -0.0020' this explains none 

of the variation between assemblage diversity and site area. 

This correlation coefficient increases only slightly when the 

aberrant site areas are eliminated. from the regression. Sites 

42GR539, 42GR565, and 42GR2158 are large, dispersed scatters with 

a range of assemblage diversity values. When smaller, less 

dispersed sites are included, th~ 

= 

12 percent variance in sample size is explained by site area (r 0.1171). 

Diversity and Landform 

Postdeposi tiona! processes resulting in artifact movement 

may bias surface assemblage contents (Wood and Johnson 1978). In 

dunal environments, artifact settling processes affect a size 

sorting in surface assemblages (Gifford 1978: Noeyersons 1978; 

wandsnider 1987). Artifacts in sandy matrices are more affected 

by vertical displacement whereas artifacts in loamy soils exhibit 

greater horizontal movement (Gifford et al. 1985). Experiments in dunal environments suggest that larger flakes settle at a 

faster rate than smaller flakes. Thus, gravity, rather than 

aeolian action, appears to be the more important causal agent in 

dune site formational processes. Larger flakes tend to be more 

prevalent in the lower substrate. However, a great deal of 

continual mixing occurs in the upper few centimeters of an 

unstable surface. If larger objects are being systematically obscured from surface assemblages, artifact diversity may be 

biased. Low diversity values may be explained by the lack of 

larger debitage. 

Fifty percent of the lithic scatters were distributed in 

dunal contexts (Table 13). However, the highest artifact 

·assemblage diversity values are more prevalent on nondunal 

surfaces. Extreme high and low diversity values may in part be 

explained by the presence of small debris. Assemblages with high frequencies of small interior and biface flakes are in dunes in · 75 percent of sites. The inverse is . true for assemblages that 

have low, small debitage fr~encies; 6.3 percent of such scatters 

are in nondunal situations. The diversity in dunal depositional 

contexts does not reflect the absence of smaller artifacts. Four 

sites are on a dunal slope in a broad valley on the northeast 

margin of Salt Valley. Although these sites exhibit different 

95 
-------------------

Table 13. Variation of artifact assemblage diversity (ranked) 

in relation to dune and ridge settings. 

Site Artifact Assemblage Diversity 

Setting ------------------------------- Low* Medium* High* 

Total Sites 

per 

Case 

Dunes 

Presence 3 6 3 

Dunes 

Absence 4 3 5 

.-------------------------------~-----------------

Total 7 9 8 

12 

12 

---------------

24 

Ridge 

Presence 6 7 4 

Ridge 

Absence 1 2 4 

17 

7 

Total 7 9 8 24 

* Diversity rank order derived from absolute valu

Low ., 0-1.01 

Medium • 1.02-1.37 

High = 1. 38-2. 5 

es in Table 11. 

96 

di' 

co; 

fli 

lo< 

lo\ 

va: 

lit 

COl 

aml 

ere 

er< 

gee 

arE 

Th: 

rec 

otl 

pre 

fo1 
I 

l 

I

1

' ' 

l 

1 

1 

I 

diversity values, the proportion of biface flakes remains fairly 

constant, about the mean value for all assemblages (five biface 

flakes per assemblage: or 13 percent of the debitage sample). 

Seventy-one percent of sites were on ridges (Table 13). The 

local topography offers substantial topographic relief including low terrace remnants and ridges several hundred meters above Salt 

Valley. The ridges offer some advantage of overview but are 

limited in area. They frequently emerge as areas with higher concentrations of archeological materials, relative to the more 

ambiguous surrounding landscape. The stable surface of a ridge · crest also tends to conserve the archeological remains from 

erosion and/or deposition. Higher-densities may, then, reflect 

geological processes more than patterns of aboriginal land-use. 

Ridge top locations do not exhibit artifact a~semblages that 

are either characteristically low or high diversity collections. 

This may suggest that these ridge top sites were not used 

redundantly for functionally specific purposes. Sites located in 

other topographic contexts e.g., valley floors and rock shelters 

produced more diverse artifact assemblages. This was the case 

for 50 p~rcent of the sites not located on ridge tops. 

97 

LITHIC PROCUREMENT AND ASSEMBLAGE DIVERSITY 

Lithic raw materials vary in certain properties from other 

resources. Characteristics of these raw materials dictate that 

lithic procurement is likely to differ from other resource 

acquisition strategies. In particular, although material quality in this study area can essentially be held constant, lithic 

resources exhibit different forms of "packaging." Specifically, similar quality chalcedonies are available as outcrops and as 

cobbles. The distribution· and accessibility of these materials 

also vary. The research posed here concerns the effect that 

availability and "packaging" of lithic raw materials might have 

had on procurement strategies. · 

The following chapter consists of two components. First, a 

brief discussion of lithic procurement will summarize the 

development of ideas in archeology regarding raw material 

procurement. 

Second, an examination of the ways in which such differences 

. 

might be reflected in the archeological record is presented using 

the Shannon-Weaver information statistic • 

I

1

l 

i 

, 

i 

Previous Discussion Q! Lithic Procurement 

·.J 

~ Interest in quarries and raw material procurement patterns received little attention in archeology until economic models 

were applied to these problems during the late 1960s and 1970s. 

Lithic procurement then provided an ideal forum for the 

cost/benefit analyses. Early considerations of quarries centered 

on extensive extractive areas such as Spanish Diggings in 

Wyoming, the Alibates quarries in Texas, and the obsidian 

quarries in northern New Mexico. These works were largely 

descriptive (Arnold 1983). Organizational or technological 

aspects of procurement have not been an integral part of 

discussions until more recently. 

Around the turn of the century, Holmes proposed that 

quarries were loci of an extractive industry that functioned 

solely to produce cores, blanks, or blades. These were 

transported elsewhere for further reduction and use. Holmes's 

view of direct access procurement and his view of quarries as 

functionally limited and specific site types pervaded the only literature on lithic procurement. Holmes's view was criticized 

by Bryan (1950:20) as.follows: 

Holmes' assumption that all the quarrying was 

for the production of a.n exportable type of 

flint object ignores the great mass of utilized 

flint fragments found in quarry debris. Further 

it ignores a general principle in industry. Hand tools and light or conveniently carr.ied 

tools are taken to the job. If heavy tools or 
tedious processes are involved, the material to 

be worked is brought to the tool or to the labor 

supply • • • • For economy of effort it is 

necessary to balance the carrying of the raw 

material to the flint or the flint to the raw 

material or to some other working place. 

He posits that the availability of other resources would 

condition the occupational investment at a quarry and, hence, the 

associated artifact assemblages. Bryan's work anticipates the 

later focus on economic and scheduling concerns. 

White's energy-based view· of culture and its evolution 

provided an appropriate analytical framework within which 

archeologists could view the organizational properties of human 

adaptation. Culture could now be seen as a material-based· 

adaptive system; all components or subsystems are interrelated. 

As a result, all aspects of human behavior could be expected to 

exhibit material correlates that could be monitored by archeologists. such a view was based on the principles of energy flow and thermodynamics (White 1949, 1959). This aspect of 

White's culture theory would later allow anthropologists and 

archeologists to link their research to ecological energetics and 

to begin to explain human behavior in much broader biological 

terms. 

The Southwest Anthropological Research Group (SARG) formalized the economic maximization model in archeological studies of resource procurement and site location (Gumerman 1971, 

~972). These works succinctly stated both the problems and 

assumptions regarding resource distribution and acquisition. These patterns are assumed to be reflected archeologically in the 

differential distribution of sites across the landscape. Variability in site types and site distribution are interpreted 

as settlement patterns. 

Human behavior has been examined from an economic 

perspective involving the minimization of effort. Efficiency models were derived from postulates developed in geography {Chisholm 1962; Garner 1967; Haggett 1972; Hamilton 1967), while 

locational models emphasized the significance of geographic distance between various resource areas or "patches." Chisholm 

(1962:11) stated, in this regard, that "many observable 

variations of phenomena in space are attributable to relative 

l.ocations rather than intrinsic qualities of individual places." Locational models were found to be effective in providing a means 

to approach archeological distributions as representing the 

material correlates of past economic behavior. 

The underlying asswnption is that extract! ve sites were 

located near critical resources in order to minimize acquisition 

costs. Such critical resources could then be ranked with respect 

to subject! ve or quantitative measures such as . distance, areal 

extent, abundance, caloric value, and so forth. Therefore, the 

more critical the resource was to past societies, the more site 

100 

loca 

1971 

acqt 

relcpat1 

conf 

numl 

uti: 

d~ 

Ol 

a: 

s· 

c 

8 

a 

c 

~ 

c 

t 

" 
uld 

the 

the 

ion 

Lich 

nnan 

lSed 

~ed. 

1 to 

by 

erqy 

: of 

and 

and 

rical 

ARG) 

rical 

L971, 

and 

;ion. 

n the 

pape. 

feted 

I 

homic 

~iency 

/raphy 

I while 

phic 

sholm 

able 

ative 

ces." 

means 

q the 

were 

ition. 

spect 

areal 

e, the 

e site 

location was determined by the resource's distribution (Gumerman 

1971, 1972: Jochim 1976)~ 

Cost/benefit analyses pervade current studies of resource 

acquisition. These investiqations frequently arque that causal 

relationships account for correlations between settlement 

patterns and resource distributions. · Jochim ( 1976), in a 

consideration of "economic seasons, 11 sugqests that there are a 

number of different factors that affect resource procurement and 

utilization. Jochim (1976:16) states, for example, 

The primary function of economic activities is 

the provision of the necessary sustenance for 

the population. This, is a bioloqical fact, 

not a cultural value, although the structuring of the provision is 'governed by many other 

culturally defined objectives. 

Lithic raw material procurement has been viewed from 

several different perspectives. . Traditionally, archeologists have assumed that lithic raw materials were frequently obtained 

directly from source areas by task-specific groups. 

For example, Jochim (1976:44) states, 

It was arguea • • • that resource use 

decisions tend to be relatively independent and tend to structure the spatial and demographic arrangements of a population of 

hunter-gatherers. The view taken here is that 

the procurement schedule assumes a sequence of 

configurations, each with a different combination and emphasis of resources • • • 

Binford (1979} challenged this strict interpretation of 

direct procurement among logistically orqanized hunter-gatherers 

or collectors. In these instances, lithic procurement, as well 

as additional resource acquisition, was conducted as an "embedded 

strategy." 

Gould and saggers (1985) substantiate that procurement in 

Central Australia generally occurs in the context of other 

activities. They arque that Binford views food resource 

acquisition apart from ·that related to other critical resources. 

Gould ( 1980) has arqued that the differential mechanical 

qualities of raw materials also form an important factor that 

conditions resource acquisition strategies. 

Renfrew (1969, 1975) posits a relationship between raw 

material availability and material densities within assemblaqes. .This idea has been terme_d the lithic acquisition "fall-off" 

model. Renfrew suggests that material abundance varies with . distance :from source areas. In other words, particular lithic · raw materials should be less prevalent the further they are from 

their source. However, the availability and accessibility of raw 

101 
···-······-----------------

material, the qeographic landscape, and resource constraints are 

·anticipated to affect fall-off rates. In addftion 

organizational properties of procurement activities will affect 1 

any strict adherence to economizing behavior in terms of simple distance measures such as geographical space (Binford 1980; 

Chapman 1977~ Reher 1977). 

others propose that when multiple raw material loci are 

exploited, procurement strategies should be reflected in intraassemblage material ratios and distances to resources. 

Assemblage content should then denote a minimization of 

transportation costs. (Transportation cost is based on the 

assumption that core reduction occurs at the raw material source 

in order to minimize the material bulk.) Reduction sequences are 

expected to vary with distance to resource. The amount of 

debitage produced per tool and flake size should decrease as 

distance to source increases (Findlow and Bolognese 1984). 

Variations in the . relationships between distance to raw 

material source(s) and specific sites, as well as waste-to-tool 

ratios, represent a directional trend toward more optimal 

procurement patterns ( Findlow and Bolognese 1984) • In such a 

model raw material selection is seen to vary primarily with 

respect to the reduction of-transportation costs. Transportation 

cost is the only variable employed in testing the effect of raw 

material variation in artifact assemblages. OVer time, less 

lithic waste is produced as procurement and reduction become more 

efficient. However, seasonal and long-term shifts in foodqettinq activities, raw material quality, and site (re)use are 

also related to raw material choices. 

Based on Central Austral ian quarry data 1 Gould and Saggers 

( 1985) were able to recognize two different types of quarries (Gould et al. 1971). Reduction strategies appeared to co-vary with the energy investment required to access the material. 

Readily accessible, exposed outcrops were quarried with block-onblock percussion which produced a high ratio of debi tage to 

usable aaterial. Buried outcrops, requiring digging to extract 

the material, were not readily accessible. Direct percussion was 

used also in quarrying and the ratio of debi tage to usable 

material was substantially lower. 

on the basis Of Australian data, O'Connell (1977) posits that stone tool variability co-varies with distance to lithic and 

biotic resources and is not an indication of seasonality. Differences in material accessibility were demonstrated to be 

reflected·in the ratios of tool material types present on sites. 

Sites near quartzite sources, for example, were characterized by disproportionate ratios of quartzite to chert tools. Thus, 

certain tool classes conformed closely to the "fall-off" model of 

procureaent. On the other hand, the mechanical properties of 

certain raw materials appeared to override resource proximity· fte implications ·of these Australian studies is that tool content 

is not a sensitive indicator of seasonal occupation. 

102 

has 

strc 

expe 

in 

acti 

tool 

sur~ 

acti 

perc 

stu< 

HamJ. 

and 

SUr] 

Grall 

by 1 

matE 

usee 

tha1 

matf 

mail 

of 

exo• 

obs. 

the: 

ass 

con 

mai 

dom 

et 

wes· 

eas 

sue 

COil' 

mai 

qua 

con 

red 

pre 

sur 

dis 

sec 

Mo% 

exc 

pre 

em1 

eft 

tee 

ext 
tre 

,n, 

act 

;>le 

W; 

l!lre 

ra-

!S. 

of 

the 

rce 

are 

of 

as 

raw 

;ool 

mal 

h a 

tith 

:.ion 

raw 

Less 

Dore 

)Odare 

;rers 

ries 

~ary 

ial. 

ron1 to 

fract 

I was 

able 

I 

- es. 

d by 

nus, 

~1 of 

s of 

dty. 

rtent. 

The presence of exotic and nonexotic materials at quarries 

has been employed to make predictions concerning residential 

strategies. Little variation in tool raw material type is 

expected for sedentary populations using quarries. Procurement 

in a sedentary adaptation is a ·direct access, logistical 

activity. However, highly mobile groups that carry their entire 

tool kit with them are not expected to transport material 

surpluses. Procurement would be embedded in other resource 

activities (Gramly 1980). 

Gramly ( 1984) observed variation in the frequencies and 

percentages of tools manufactured from nonlocal sources in a 

study of rhyolite quarries in the White Mountains of New 

Hampshire. Ranges in the extent to which rhyolite was quarried 

and changes over time are cont-ingent. on the ability to manage 

surpluses, accessibility, and seasonal resource schedules. 

Gramly (1984) contends that population movements can be monitored 

by the distribution of curated tools manufactured from extralocal 

materials present at quarry loci. The variability in extensively 

used exotic material tools discarded at the quarries suggests 

that tool kits were literallY cleaned out at the point where new 

material becomes available. Discarded tools tend to be highly 

maintained, resharpened, expended, and small in size. The degree 

of mobility is reflected in the relative number of tools of 

exotic material (Gramly,1980). 

In the High Plains of east central New Mexico, Jemez 

obsidian and Alibates chert were rare in assemblages, but when 

they were present they always co-occurred as retouch flakes. The 

assemblages in which they were present tended to exhibit 

considerable evidence for bifacial reduction. such tool 

maintenance or final manufacture appeared to have been the 

dominant activity at these locations (Acklen et al. 1987: Kramer 

et al. 1986). The Jemez obsidian source is located 200 miles 

west of these sites, while the Alibates quarry is about 100 miles 

east of them. Evidence of maintenance of tools manufactured from 

such distant resources suggests a highly mobile system and a 

complex pattern of lithic procurement, manufacture, and 

maintenance. While retooling of tool kits may occur at some 

quarries (Gramly 1980), other exotic materials are extensively 

conserved. 

Quarries may produce assemblages which represent different 

reduction strategies (Torrence 1986). While all stages of core 

production are evident on Aegean obsidian quarries and 

surrounding. sites, flake size and type tend to decrease with 

distance from the point of procurement. Different reduction 

sequences appear to reflect different procurement strategies. .. More systematic core production was inferred to be intended for 

exchange, while less skillfully reduced material was the byproduct of direct consumption (Torrence 1986). Torrence 

emphasizes that the degree to which quarrying behavior is 

efficient is a measure of input, expressed by time, labor, and 

·.technology, and not necessarily the absolute quantity of material 

extracted. 

103 
104 

g 

~ ~~ .,. 

c 

Time budgeting has been suggested to be a salient factor in 

conditioning technological variability. Scheduling of resource 

procurement,. tool manufacture, and maintenance are affected by time stress. Torrence (1983:13) states that when the 

•maximization in the efficient use of time is to be expected because of its adaptive consequences, then one outcome that could 

be predicted is the scheduling of the procurement, production and 

discard of tools." Cost minimization is not necessarily a 

function of absolute time, but it may be anticipated when several 

activities must occur simultaneously. Time budgeting will vary in accordance with season and activity (Jochim 1976; Torrence 

1983). Technologies may be flexiple in response to different 

anticipated budgeting constraint,. variability in reduction 

strategies represented across the project area may reflect 

responses to different scheduling needs with respect to food 

resource availability and lithic procurement. · 

The energy expended in resource procurement is seen to vary with the nature and distribution of the specific material source 

(Jochim 1976; Torrence 1983). From an ecological perspective, 

resource procurement strategies can be partitioned into search 

costs and handling cost (pursuit, capture, processing). Lithic 

raw materials are fixed and predictable resources. Search costs 

fOr raW materialS 1 therefore 1 are lOW OnCe their lOCation iS 

known. search costs would increase, however, if the raw material 

was distributed as scattered, isolated cobbles. "Pursuit" costs 

would be greater if the lithic material had to be obtained from 

subsurface deposits. 

Lithic Procurement within ~ Proiect ~ 

Local sources occur both as island outcrops (Tidwell 

chalcedony) and as intermittent cobbles (Dewey Bridge chert and 

Brushy Basin chalcedony) eroding from exposed strata. The 

outcrop sources are patchy but highly reliable in quality and. 

quantity. Cobble resources are intermittently distributed and 

variable in quality. · 

Not all materials suit all tasks. Fracture mechanics 

operate differently in different material types. certain 

properties, or material types, will be selected to best 

accommodate certain activities (Chapman 1977; Dibble and 

Whittaker 1981; Goodman 1944; Speth 1972). Thus, resource 

proximity, or ease of access, is not the only variable acting in 

material selection. 

Edge durability and maintenance are primarily a function of 

the structural compos! tion of the lithic raw material. Fine~ 

grained, cryptocrystalline stone is preferable to coarser grained materials for certain tasks which require frequent edge resharpening. compositional and mechanical properties of various 

raw materials may, in fact, crosscut standard material categories used by archeologists. Similar tasks might, then, be carried out 

with tools manufactured from different standard types of lithiC 

matf 

and 

SUPI 

self 

dis' 

outc 

LOCl 

aCCE 

litt. 

as l 

exa11 

that 

morE 

litt. 

se811 

I.i:tt 

thar 

cha: 

whic 

log: 

arct 

exhj 

of l 

diVE 

reg• 

red1 

wou: 

diVE 

rele 

resc 

ex at 

and 

sam] 

re91 

werE 

SitE 

low, 

vall 
material, e.g., chalcedonies versus obsidian. Similar debitage and tool material type proportions for the common materials 

support this inference. If specific sources were being locally selected for bifacial tool manufacture, we would expect disproportionate biface-to-debitage-material-type ratios. 

Similar quality chalcedonies occur at Arches both as 

outcrops and cobbles. These source types are spatially discrete. 

Local raw material selection appears to be correlated to 

accessibility rather than to quality. One might expect that 

lithic procurement was embedded within other subsistence pursuits 

as a function of raw material location and accessibility. For 

example, procurement of the Tidwell chalcedony might differ from 

that of other chalcedonies since it ./is widely available and not 

more limited in distribution. Differential accessibility of 

lithic raw material might be monitored in terms of outcrops or 

seams, as opposed to cobble or gravel deposits. 

Litbic Procurement ~ Diversity 

Local lithic sources occur as discrete locations, rather 

than as continuously exposed gravel beds. Specifically, Tidwell 

chalcedony is distributed in topographically fixed locations 

which are highly visj.ble. If these lithic sources were· 

logistically exploited, one would expect that associated 

archeological sites would have been reused and that they would 

exhibit more redundant, homogeneous assemblages. 

The information statistic is employed to measure the range of artifact assemblage variability for all observed sites. The 

diversity index is used to test implications of previous work 

regarding aboriginal land-use systems. If a consistent and 

redundant pattern of task-specific procurement occurred, one 

would then anticipate that assemblages would exhibit low 

diversity\high redundancy values. This study will examine the 

relationships between the content of assemblages and distance to 

resources. 

Artifact assemblage diversity values are ·utilized in an 

examination of the relationship(s) between content variability and locational variables. The relationship between distance, 

sample size, and assemblage d~ versi ty was examined using re<,p:"ession analysis. Artifact diversity and raw material quality 

were analyzed using cross tabulations and Chi Square statistics. 

Site assemblage diversity was ranked into three categories i.e., 

low, medium, and high, based on the multimodal distribution of 

values (Tables 11, 12, and 13). · 

Distances between source locations and sites were derived 

from areal photographs and 4eologic strata maps (Doelling 1985). Distance was measured on a horizontal plane and · has not been 

adjusted for topographic variatiQn. The relationship between 

aaterial sources and scatter locations are depicted in Figure 8. 

105 
Specific nonadjusted distances to sources are summarized in Table 

14. 

Material ~ And Artifact Diversity 

Fifty percent of the observed lithic scatters had only one 

material type present, white chalcedony (Appendix H). Less than 

four material types are present in 75 percent of the assemblages. 

Debitage, and most often· interior flakes, account for the 

presence of additional material types. The outcrop of the Dewey Bridge Member contains variable quality chert and is located 

within 1, 000 m of 85 percent of all lithic scatters. Fifty 

percent of lithic scatters are within 2,000 m of the Tidwell 

chalcedony outcrops while only two scatters are less than 1,000 m 

away. Scatters are not directly associated with the outcrop of 

the Brushy Basin Member and tend to be established at some 

distance from this source. 

The diversity of artifact types and the number of material 

types present in each assemblage show little direct relationship (Table 15). Material diversity does not tend to increase as 

artifact diversity increases. This supports the notion that 

material types are not being specifically selected for their 

mechanical qualities. If specific materials were being utilized~ 

for certain tool classes, we would expect that as the number of 

artifact classes present increases, the number of material. types 

present would also increase. 

The greatest range of artifact diversity is in assemblages with low material type diversity. Artifact diversity appears to 

vary independently of raw material type(s). The greatest number 

of material types oc.cur in assemblages which exhibit intermediate 

ranges of artifact diversity. The high diversity of material 

types is not justified by the presence of tools or biface flakes 

but by interior flakes. This suggests that complete tools from 

nonlocal materials were not manufactured, maintained, or 

discarded in these localities. The assemblage with the greatest artifact diversity contains only one raw material type. 

The assemblages with the greatest number of material types 

present are associated with rock shelters. Diversity tends to be 

high in these instances as well. This suggests that assemblage and material type diversity vary directly in this case for this 

particular site type. Rock shelters represent point locations in 

an otherwise undifferentiated landscape. This pattern may be 

explained in terms of multiple, yet functionally distinct, uses 

of these sheltered locations. 

on the other band, low diversity in assemblage and material 

type may result from repeated, task-specific use of a given location. This pattern miqht be expected at point resource 

locations like springs or at quarries. Therefore, a small, very spatially limited chert procurement locus (42GR2159) exhibited no 

diversity in artifact or material type. No diversity in one 

106 
Table 14. Distances between sites and lithic raw material 

sources. 

Site 

(42GR-) 

Minimal Distance 

Tidwell ... Brushy. 

Basin 

to Lithic Raw Material Sources* 

Dewey Altered Other** 

Bridge Volcanic 

297*** 

2141 

2142 

2143 

539 

2144 

2145 

565 

2146 

2147 

2148 

2149 

2150 

2151 

2152 

2153 

2154 

2155 

2156 

2157 

2158 

2159 

2160 

515 

544**** 

290 

1800 

2300 

2100 

2300 

2000 

1800 

0 

1300 

1500 

5500 

3000 

3000 

1700 

1200 

1400 

1700 

1500 

4500 

4800 

5300 

0 

300 

4700 

2600 

4500 

5200 

5100 

4800 

3500 

2200 

400 

600 

1000 

~000 

8400 

9400 

11,400 

3300 

3300 

2700 

3000 

4300 

4300 

4800 

500 

400 

5200 

8800 

50 

0 

50 

100 

0 

200 

500 

1800 

1500 

150 

100 

50 

50 

700 

400 

400 

400 

0 

100 

200 

1300 

1600 

0 

300 

11,300 

10,700 

10,800 

11,500 

7800 

6300 

4400 

1700 

1800 

- 6400 

9500 

11,800 

14,800 

6600 

6900 

6600 

6500 

5500 

5000 

5100 

800 

500 

6600 

12,000 

0 

300 

* 

** 

*** 

**** 

Minimal distance from cent.er of site to lithic raw material 

source (meters). 

Other lithic raw material is high .quality red/amber chert 

that occurs below the Tidwell chalcedony. 

Rock art panel that had no associated lithic artifacts. 

Historic site. 

107 
Table 15 •. Variation in artifact assemblage diversity and lithic 

raw material type for sites in Arches National Park, 

Utah. 

Number of 

Lithic Raw 

Materials 

Artifact Assemblage Diversity 

------------------------------- Low* Medium* High* 

Total Sites 

per Case 

II % 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

---------------- Total 

3 

2 

2 -

-------------- 7 

4 

1 

1 

2 

1 

----------

9 

5 

2 

1 

----------- 8 

12 (50) 

5 (21) 

1 (4) 

4 (17) 

1 (4) 

0 (0) 

1 (4) 

-------------- 24 (100) 

* Diversity rank order derived from absolute values in Table 11. 

Diversity statistic ranking:. Low • 0-1.01; Medium • 1.02-1.37; 

High • 1.38-2.5 

108 

other 

spars' 

Mater: 

ambig• 

sizes 

Howev· 

mater 

those 

value 

varia 

size 

corre 

Art if 

consi 

The : 

dista 

ways. 

varic 

Squar 

(Tabl 

perce 

dista 

is lc 

for c 

low. 

relat 

( 42G; 

subs' 

An ott 

immec 

of a type~ 

Basir 

sitef 

numbt 

qrea 

diveJ 

the 

ClOSt 

arti: 

qrea· 

dist: 

we m 
other assemblage ( 42GR2158) is partially explained by a very 

sparse and dispersed distribution. 

Material Diversity gog Sample ~ 

Sample size and material diversity illustrate a similar 

ambiguous relationship. Assemblages with the smallest sample sizes exhibit little or no material diversity (Table 16). 

However, larger samples do not necessarily manifest a greater 

material diversity. The greatest range of material types are in 

those assemblages which have middle range artifact frequency values. Regression analyses indicate that 16 percent of the 

variance in material type across sites can be explained by sample 

size (Table 12). This is the most significant statistical 

correlation between material sources and other variables. 

Artifact Diversity And Distance tQ Lithic Sources 

Distance to and diversity ·of raw material sources were 

considered in both continuous and discrete variable analyses. 

The relationship between artifact assemblage diversity and 

distance to the nearest raw material source was examined in two 

ways. First, both assemblage diversity values and distances to 

various raw material sources were ranked and tabulated. A Chi 

Square test revealed that these variables were not associated 

(Table 17) . Regression analyses revealed that less than 14 

percent of the variance in artifact assemblage was explained by distance to nearest raw material source (Table 12}. Site 42GR159 

is located close to a raw material source; it exhibits evidence 

for associated quarrying activities and assemblage diversity is 

low. 

The assemblages less. than 1,000 m from Tidwell outcrops have 

relatively low artifact diversity values. One of these sites 

(42GR565) has a large and complex distribution, which in 

subsurface investigation may yield a greater variability. 

Another site is a quarry in association with the chert deposits 

immediately below the Tidwell Member. The artifact variability 

of a third assemblage (42GR2160) is explained by flake, not tool, 

types. In addition, this location is in proximity to Brushy 

Basin chalcedonies, which may · explain the material diversity. 

Sites 1,000 m to 3,000 m from Tidwell sources are the greatest in 

number and have the greatest range of diversity. Sites at 

greater distances from lithic sources tended to have higher diversity ranges. 

No scatters in this sample are immediately associated with 

the exposed Brushy Basin_chalcedony. However, scatters in 

closest proximity to the Tidwell chalcedonies tend to exhibit low 

artifact diversity and those at extreme distances tend to have 

greater artifact diversity. Due to the very dispersed cobble 

distribution within the strata of the Brushy Basin chalcedonies, 

we might expect that site locations would tend to be more random. 

109 
Table 16. Lithic raw material diversity and artifact sample size 

for sites in Arches National Park, Utah. 

Artifact Number of Lithic Raw Materials 

Sample --------------------~------------------------ Size* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total 

II % 

1 2 1 3(13) 

2 4 1 ,l 1 7(29) 

3 3 1 4(17) 

4 1 1 2 (8) 

5 1 1 (4) 

6 1 1 2 (8) 

7 1 1 (4) 

8 1 1 2 (8) 

9 2 2 (8) 

---------------------------------------------------------------- Total 12(50) 5(21) 1(4) 4(17) 1(4) 0 1(4) 24(100) 

* Artifact Sample size: 

1• 1-10 

2= 11-20 6• 51-60 

3• 21-30 7• 61-70 

4• 31-40 8• 71-80 

S• 41-50 9= more than 81 

110 
Total 0 4 1 2 4 5 4 4 

Distance to Dewey Bridge 

-------------------------------------

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Low 4 3 

Medium 3 5 1 

High 1 7 

Total 4 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 

*Artifact assemblage diversity (H') ranked; see Table 15. 

**Distance ranks: 1•0; 2•1-999; 3•1000-1999; 4•2000-2900; 

5•3000-3900; 6=4000-4900; 7•5000-5900; 8•,6000 meters. 

111 

24 

7 

9 

8 

24 
Table 17. continued. 

Distance measured by air dimensions 

Diversity rank values Distance Rank Values (in meters) 

Low • 0-1.01 1 • 0 4 • 2000-2900 7 • 5000-5900 

Medium • 1.02-1.37 2 • 1-999 5 • 3000-3900 8 • greater than 

High • 1.38-2.5 3 • 1000-1999, .. 6 .. 4000-4900 6000 

112 

Sitt 

oth 

qua: 

may 

pal 

out 

loc 

Dew 

wit 

sea 

ten 

thE 

Re~ 

det 

hi~ 

pre 

lH 

Bri 

Pr 

ad 

ar 

ac 

li 

it 

lo 

di 

re 

as 

bE 

dj 

ac 

s: 

a1 

d;. 

Ct 

i: 

A: 

d. 

T: 

p· 

m 

a 

k 

( 
. 

' 

j 

sites near Brushy Basin sources are more likely to be related to 

other resources. Tidwell chalcedony is accessible in ·large quantities in highly predictable localities, thus, site locations 

may be specific, or mapped on to· this resource. However, 

palimpsest scatters are more likely associated with the Tidwell 

outcrops than the Brushy Basin because they are a point resource 

location •. 

All assemblages in this sample are located within 2,000 m of 

Dewey Bridge exposures. Eighty-three percent of these sites are 

within 1, 000 m. Artifact diversity tends to be higher in 

scatters closer to these strata, while those at greater distances 

tend to have a lower diversity. Middle range distances exhibit 

the greatest number of sites and/variability in diversity. Regression analyses of absolute distance and diversity demonstrate similar results. Dewey Bridge chert however is 

highly variable in quality. Frequently, these cobbles do not 

produce conchoidal fractures. Therefore, site location most 

likely is not conditioned by lithic procurement of the Dewey Bridge but by other environmental considerations. 

Directions f2r further Research 

Lithic procurement has been the primary focus of this study. Previous archeological work in Arches National Park has addressed 

additional aspects of prehistoric quarrying activities. However, 

archeological evidence also suggests that a range of prehistoric activities was conducted within the study area in addition to 

lithic procurement. While lithic procurement certainly occurred, 

it does not appear to have been a primary determinant in site 

location. Under such conditions, it is expected that assemblage diversity would vary with quarrying loci; specifically, that 

repetitive, singular activity episodes would create redundant 

assemblages. At this level of inquiry, no pattern was observed 

between artifact diversity, distance to resources, and material 

diversity. 

Artifact assemblage diversity reflects not only the range of 

activities carried out at specific locations but also patterns of 

site use. Site history can be quite complex; present-day artifact scatters may have been utilized for similar or quite different purposes over long periods of time. These complex composites have also been modified by various natural processes including erosion, deposition, trampling, and soil creep. Artifact assemblage diversity, raw material diversity, and 

distance to raw material sources exhibit complex relationships. This fact suggests that sites observed in this study were 

produced via complex use/reuse histories. 

Very few tools of extralocal material, or evidence of their 

maintenance, were recorded. This suggests that these procurement 

areas did not function as retooling loci upon which expended tool 

kits were discarded and subsequently replaced by local materials 

(Gramly 1984). The lack of extralocal material suggests that the 

113 
subsistence network was highly confined, or that these sites 

represent logistical, short-term use. Although mobile huntergatherers might be expected to utilize a greater range of lithic 

materials, only local sources are evidenced. 

This dearth of extralocal materials might be explained in 

two ways. First, aboriginal land-use patterns were small scale 

and required the use of resources found within small home ranges. 

This is unlikely since the home range sizes for historic huntergatherers in arid lands (like the Southern Paiute) were 

relatively large. Second, and most likely, aboriginal activities 

conducted in this area did not require significant maintenance of 

chipped stone tools transported over great distances. 

Assemblage diversity is not explained by distance to lithic 

resources. Diversity is likely conditioned by extractive 

strategies which focused on other resources. Lithic artifacts 

represent only a portion of the tool kit used by aboriginal 

peoples. Primary use of this area may have involved extractive 

tasks such as plant procurement and processing that produced no 

chipped stone. 

Dispersal patterns of Tidwell and Brushy Basin chalcedonies 

outside the-project area woul.d lend some insight into how these 

scatters might correlate with the greater landscape. The scale 

of home ranges must be appreciated in considering resource 

procurement strategies. Distance and resource distribution 

arbitrate logistical/residential mobility. The project area is 

situated within a day's walk of a broad range of environmental 

strata. Quantifying other e.cological parameters would be useful 

in looking at how assemblage distributions and content may vary 

with environmental strata. 

du 

p:r 

19 

tb 

He 

pi 

as 

No 

de 

ar 

sp 

we 

an 

As 

qu 

ar 

so 

ou 

A:r 

so 

nc 

te 

th 

us 

th 

114 

pr 

va 

fo 

im 

ac 

vi 

ar 

be 

un 

Th 

ar 

mo 

ro 

wi 

in· 

ob 

Ho 
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

Twenty-six sites and 69 isolated occurrences were recorded 

during the 1987 field .season. Six of these sites had been 

previously inventoried by Lloyd Pierson and Michael Berry (Berry 

1975). The site information collected by Pierson is on file at 

the Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln, 

Nebraska. The 1987 inventory included 24 lithic scatters, a 

pictograph/petroglyph panel, and one historic site. One 

assemblage from within a rock overhang included several sherds. 

No other ceramics were recorded. All isolated occurrences were 

debi tage or chipped stone tools, except for one historic metal 

artifact. Assemblages varied cons~derably in terms of density, spatial organization, distribution,. and artifact content. Sites 

were located throughout the range of elevations within the Park 

and in various depositional contexts. 

The lithic assemblages are not temporally specific. 

Assemblages generally contain few tools but exhibit variable 

quantities and kinds of debitage. Very few diagnostic artifacts 

are present, although all artifacts were produced from local 

sources. Similar quality cherts and chalcedonies, available as 

outcrops and cobbles, are distributed throughout the area. 

Artifact material types reflect the relative accessibility of the 

sources. However, selection for specific quality materials is 

not reflected in assemblage content. Certain materials do not 

tend to be overrepresented by specific artifact classes. 

Prior research emphasized that raw material availability and 

the paucity of other local resources determined prehistoric landuse patterns. The current analyses, however, did not support this inference. Repetitive, task-specific area-use would tend to 

produce redundant assemblage contents. Therefore, assemblage variability does not appear to reflect aboriginal activities 

focused primarily on lithic procurement. 

Sites located during this survey are likely to have been 

impacted during road and trail construction. Increased 

accessibility to these areas in recent years has facilitated 

visitor access and increased the potential for unauthorized 

artifact collection. The general paucity of formalized tools may be attributable in part to these collections. Impact from 

unauthorized collectors is largely unknown or not quantifiable. The Park was once known for its abundance of prehistoric 

artifacts (Berry 1975). survey procedures were designed to 

monitor resources in the event of minor maintenance activities to 

roads and· trails. If .major improvements are planned, such as 

widening or paving, these areas will require further 

investigation. The Delicate Arch road was surveyed with the 

objective that it will be paved. 

Almost 40 percent of all sites were on dunal surfaces. 

However, postdepositional factors cause a natural size sorting of 
artifact assemblages deposited in these contexts. This may jus- tify the high proportion of small interior flakes in these assemblages. Most of these dunal sites probably contain subsurface 

deposits. 

Present impacts due to road or trail location affect 16 of 

the 26 sites. The main paved road bisects five sites (42GR565, 

42GR2147, 42GR2148, 42GR2l51 1 42GR2l57). A remnant two-track 

bisects site 42GR2158. Foot trails bisect four sites {42GR539, 

42GR2153, 42GR2154, 42GR2156). Seven additional sites are imaediately adjacent to these trails. A flood control feature was 

excavated through site 42GR2150. The extent of damage to these 

sites from construction is unkno~. The three sites in rock 

shelters ( 42GR515, 42GR544 42GR290) are visible from the road 

and are susceptible to unauthorized 1 artifact collecting. 

Cut banks, formed by road construction, create erosional 

surfaces. Slope wash, caused by these features, continues to 

impact sites. In addition, visitor access will adversely affect 

sites bisected by the trails.· The absence of tools and larger debitage may reflect such impacts resulting from casual collecting by Park visitors. These sites should be protected by rerouting trails to avoid further impact to surface assemblages. 

site 42GR539 is bisected by three roads: the main road, the 

Salt Valley overlook road, and the road into Fiery Furnace. Although this site is vast, large portions of it have already been 

destroyed. Site 42GR2157 is bisected by the Windows Section road 

and the turnout overlooking the Garden of Eden. The remaining artifact assemblage has little integrity; the surface scatter 

appears to be a secondary deposit from slope wash. Site 42GR2156 

is especially susceptible to visitor disturbance. The trail to 

Balanced Rock circumscribes this site. Visitor impact is a daily threat. It is likely that little of the assemblage is intact. 

This site should be tested for subsurface deposits. 

The archeological record in Arches Nation'al Park is a valuable resource that possesses considerable scientific research 

potential. Sparse vegetation and active erosional processes 

insure that much of the archeological record is visible on the 

surface. 

l:n addition, geologic ·areas of resource materials used by aboriginal peoples occur within the park boundaries. such lithic 

raw material source areas might be developed as points of 

interest for visitors. Research involving spatial and distributional analysis of resources and lithic assemblages is 

encouraged. 

116 

Acl 

Am~ 

Al 

Ar 

B< 

B 

B 
REFERENCES CITED 

Acklen, John, Karen Kramer, Terry DelBene, Christopher Lintz, 

Amy Earls, Fred Nials, and Nick Trierweiler 

1987 Class II Survey And Testing Qf Cultural Resources at the 

Melrose ~ Force Range, curry And Roosevelt counties, ~ 

MeXico. Mariah Associates, Albuquerque. Submitted to u.s. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District~ New Mexico, 

contract no. DALW47-86-P-002. 

Allen, William, Alan Osborn, William Chasko, and David stuart 

1975 An Archeological Survey: Rqad Construction Rights-ofWay Block II-Navajo Irrigation Project~ In Archeological 

Reports, Cultural Resource Management Projects, Working 

Draft Series No. 1, edited by F.J. Broilo and D.E. stuart, 

pp. 91-143. Office of Contract Archeology, University of 

New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Ammerman, A. J. , and M. w. Feldman· 

1974 on the Making of an Assemblage of Stone Tools. 

American Antiguity 39:610-616. 

Anderson, Adrienne 

1978 Archeological Resources of canyonlands, Capitol Reef, 

and Arches National Parks and Natural Bridges National 

Monument, Southeastern Utah. Manuscript on file, National 

Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln. 

Arnold, Jean 

1983 Chumish Economic Specialization: An Analysis Q! thg Quarries Ana Bladelet ProductiOn Villages Qt tng Channel 

Islands, California. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of 

Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara. 

Bamforth, Douglas B. 

1983 The Chipped Stone Evidence for Prehistoric Land Use 

Patterns on the San Antonio Terrace, Vandenberg Air Force 

Base. Office of Public Archaeology, Social Process Research 

Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara. 

Berry, Michael s. 

1975 An Archeological Survey of the Northeastern Portion of 

Arches National Park. Manuscript on file, Midwest 

Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln. 

Binford, Lewis R. 

1979 organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated 

Technologies. JoUrnal 2f Antbtqpological Research 

35(3):255-273. 

1980 Willow Smoke and Doqs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer · Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. 

AMerican Antigyity 45:4-20. 

117 
Bryan, Kirk 

1950 Flint Quarries--The Sourcgs Q! Tools ~ gt ~ ~ 

fime, ~ FActories Qf thA AmericAn Xndian. Papers of the 

Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 27(3), 

Harvard University, Cambridge. 

Camilli, Eileen L. 

1983 ~ occupational History And LithiC Assemblage Structure: An Example txgm Southeastern ~. Ph.D. 

dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New 

Mexico, Albuquerque. 

J ' 

Chapman, Richard carl 

1977 Analysis of the Lithic Assemblages. In Settlement And 

Subsistence Along ~ Lower Chaco River, edited by Charles 

Reher, pp. 371-452. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 

1980 ~ Archaic Period in ~ American SQythwest: Facts And 

Eantasy. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Chisholm, Michael 

1962 Ryral Settlement And ~ ~ An Essay in Location. 

Science Editions, John Wiley Sons, Inc., New York. 

Conkey, Margaret W. 

1980 The Identification of Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer 

Aggregation Sites: The Case of Altamira. Current Anthropology 

21:609-630. 

Crampton, Gregory c. 

1964 standing yP Country. ~ QAnyon Lands 2! utah ~ 

Arizona. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake city, and 

Alfred A. Knaple, New York. 

Davis, Dennis 

n.d. Begional ResourCe$ Basic xnventory. ClimatQlogy fQr 

Arches NationAl Park, Canyonlands National PArk, Capitol ~ 

National Park, Natural Bridges National Monument, 1llUi 

Surrounding Begicn. National Park Service, Denver service 

center, Denver. 

Dibble, Harold L., and John c. Whittaker 

1981 .Hew Experimentational Evidence on the Relation Between 

Percussion Flaking and Flake Variation. Journal 2f 

Archaeological Science 8:283-296. 

Doelling, Hellmet H. 

1985 Geology .Qf .Arches lfational fu:k. Hap 74, Utah Geological and Mineral survey, Utah Department of Natural Resources, 

Salt Lake city. 

Ebert, 

198t 

ru 

Al 

Al 

Elstol 

198' 

R· 

Findl 

198 

j 

l 

l 

Giff 

lS 

Gif 

Joh 

1 

Goc 

j 

GO' 

Gc 

G< 

118 
Ebert, James Ian 

1986 Distributional Archaeology: Nonsite Discovery. 

Recording ang Analytical Methods ~ Application in ~ Surface 

Archaeological Record. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of 

Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Elston, Robert G., and Kenneth Juell 

1987 Archaeological Investigations .At Panaca summit. Cultural 

Resource Series No. 10. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada. 

Findlow, F.J., and M. Bolognese 

1984 Economic Aspects of Prehistoric Quarry Use: A Case study in the American Southwest. In Prehistoric Quarries ang Litbic 

froduction, edited by Jonathon E. Er,icson and Barbara A. 

Purdy, pp. 77-82. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Garner, B. J. 

1967 Models of Urban Geography and Settlement Location. In 

ModelS in Geography, edited by R.J. Chorley and P. Haggett, 

pp. 303-360. Methuen, London. 

Gifford, Diane P. 

1978 Ethnoarchaeological Observations of Natural Processes 

Affecting cultural Materials. -In Explorations in 

Jthnoarchaeology, edited by Richard A. Gould, pp. 72-101. 

School of American Research, University of New Mexico, 

Albuquerque. 

Gifford, Gonzalez, D.P., David B. Damrosch, Debra R. Damrosch, 

John Pryor, and Robert L. Thuman 

1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure: An Experiment in 

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal. American Antiquity 

50:803-818. 

Goodman, Mary Ellen 

1944 The Physical Properties of Stone Tool Materials. 

American Antiguity 9:415-433. 

Gould, Richard A. 

1980 Living Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge. 

Gould, R. A., D. Koster, and A. H. Sontz 

1971 The Lithic Assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of 

Australia. American Antigyity 36:149-69. 

Gould, R. A., and Sherry Baggers 1985 Lithic Procurement in Central Australia: A Closer Look 

at Binford's Idea of Embeddedness in Archeology. American 

Aotigyity 50:117-136. 

119 
Gramly, R. M. 

1980 Raw Material Source Areas and "Curated" Tools 

Assemblages. American Antiquity 45:823-833. 

1984 Mount Jasper: A Direct-access Lithic source Area in the 

White Mountains of New Hampshire. In Prehistoric gyarries 

§D4 Lithic Production, edited by Jonathon Ericson and Barbara 

Purdy, pp. 11-22. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Gregory, Herbert E. 

1938 The san Juan country. United states Geological Suryey, frofessional Paper ~. .I 

Griffin, Dennis P. 

1985 Archaeological Inventory in the Devil's Garden and 

Headquarters Areas of Arches National Park. Manuscript on file, 

National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln. · 

Gumerman, George J., ed. 

1971 ~ Distribytion 2f Prehistoric Population Aggregates~ 

Prescott College Anthropological Reports, No. 1, 

Prescott, Arizona. 

1972 Proceedings gf ~ SeqQnd Annual Heeting 21 ~ 

Soutbwestern AnthropolQgiqal Research Group. Prescott 

College Anthropological Reports No. 3. Prescott, Arizona. 

Haggett, A. 

1972 Lqqational Analysis in Human Geography. Edward 

Arnold, London. 

Hamilton, F.E. 

1967 Models of Industrial Location. In HQdels 2f GeQgraphy, edited by R.J. Chorley and P. Haggett. Methuen, London. 

Harrison, Bertrand F., Stanley L. Welsh, and Glen Moore 

1964 Plants of Arches National Monument. Brigham Young University science Bulletin, Biological series vol. 5(1). 

Brigham Young University Press, Provo. 

Hayward, c. Lynn, D. Elden Beck, and Wilmer w. Tanner 

1958 Zoology of the Upper Colorado River Basin. 1. The 

Biotic Communities. Brigham young University Science 

Bulletin, Biological Series, vol. 1(3). Brigham Young University Press, Provo. 

Hruby, 'l'homas H. 

1986 Analysis of Reductive Technology Data from the Middle 

canyon Area. In Dolores Arcbaeological Progrom: Anasozi 

Communities At Dolores: Middle CgnyQn ~, Volume a, compiled by Allen E. Kane and Christine K. Robinson, pp. 

1123-1147. Bureau of Reclamation Engineering and Research· 

center, Denver, Colorado. 

120 

Hunt, 1 

1953 

Un: 

of 

Hunt, ; 

1960 

26 

Isaac, 

1981 

Ea 

ir 

N. 

Cc 

Jeppsc 

and J. 

196! 

C< 

L· 

Jobin 

196 

E 

:t; 

[ 

John: 

19: 

Jone 

19 
Hunt, Alice P. 

1953 ArChaeological Suryey 2f ~LA~ Mountain Area. utan. 

University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 14. University 

of Utah, Salt Lake city. 

Hunt, Alice P., and Dallas Tanner 

1960 Early Man Sites near Moab, Utah. American Antiguity 

26:110-112. 

Isaac, G.L. 

1981 Stone Age Visiting Cards: Approaches to the Study of 

Early Land Use Patterns. In Pattern Qf ~ Past: Studies 

in Honor Q! David Clarke, edited by I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and 

N. Hammond, pp •. 131-156. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge. 

Jeppson, R.W., G.L. Ashcroft, A.L. Huber, G.V. Skogerboe, 

and J.M. Bagley 1968 Hydrolic Atlas Qf utAh· Utah State University in 

Cooperation with Utah Department of Natural Resources, Salt 

Lake City. 

Jobin, D.A. 

1962 Relation Qf Transmissive Character Q! the Sedimentary Rocks Qf thg Colorado Plateau tQ ~ Distribution 2f 

uranium Deposits. Geological Survey Bulletin 1124. 

United states Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Jochim, Michael A. 

1976 Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence And settlement. A 

Predictive Model. Academic Press, New York. 

Johnston, R.J., and R.K. Semple 1983 Classification Using Information Statistics. Concepts And Technigues in Modern Geography, 37:1-43. 

Jones, G.T., O.K. Grayson, and c. Beck 

1983 Artifact Class Richness and sample size in Archaeological 

Surface Assemblages. In LYlY Lineal Punctuated: Essays in 

Honor Qf George Irying Ouimby, edited by R.C. Dynell and 

D.R. Grayson, pp. 55-73. Museum of Anthropology, University 

of Michigan Anthropological Papers 72. 

Judge, W. James 

1973 Paleoindian Occupation gf ~ Central BiQ Grande valley in lim! Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 

Keeley, Lawrence H. 

1974 Technique and Methodology in Microwear Studies. A 

Critical Review •. World Archaeology 5:323-336. 

Keeley, L.H., and M.H~ Newcomer 

1977 Hicrowear Analysis of Experimental Flint Tools: A Test 

Case. Journal Qf Archaeological Science 4:29-62. 

121 
Kelly, Robert L. 

1983 Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies. Journal gt 

Anthropological Research 39:277-306. · 

1985 Hunter-Gatherer Mobility ~ Sedentism: A Great Basin 

Study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of 

Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 

Kramer, Karen, L., Amy c. Earls, stephen Lent, Jon Frizell, Mary Stiner, John c. Acklen,. and Stephen Kuhn 

.1986 Report Qf A Class II Suryey And Testing 2f Cultural Besou~ces At Conchas Lake. ~ Mexico. Mariah Associates, 

Albuquerque. Submitted to ~he u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District, New Mexico. 

Lindsay, Lamar w., and Rex E. Madsen 

1973 Report of Archeological surveys of the Pipe Springs National Monument Water Supply System Project, Kaibab Indian 

Reservation, Mohave County, Arizona; Zion National Park Sewer 

Extension Project, Washington County, Utah; Arches National 

Park Road and Sewage Disposal Area Projects, Grand Canyon, Utah; and Canyonlands National Park Road Projects, Needles 

and Grandview Point areas, San Juan county, Utah. Manuscript o

file, National Park Service, Midwest Argheological Center, 

Lincoln. 

Lohman, s. w. 

1975 Geology of Arches National Park. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin, 1393. 

Margalef, R. 

1958 Information Theory in Ecology. General Systems 3:36-71. 

1963 On certain Unifying Principles in Ecology. American 

Naturalist 97:357-374. 

1968 Perspectives in Ecological Theory. University of 

Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Mehls, Stephen F. 

1986 Canyonlands NatiOnal }>ark, Arches National Park • .iilru1 

National MOnument Historic Resource Study. Western 

Historical Studies, Inc., Lafayette, Colorado. Submitted to 

National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Office. 

contract PX-1200-5-A070. 

Hiller, David E., compiler 1968 ~ History Atlas, 2nd ed. Smith Printing Service, Salt 'Lake City. 

Hoeyersons, J. 

1978 ~he Behavior of Stones and·stone Implements Buried in 

Consolidated and creeping Kalahari Sands. Earth surface 

Process And Landform 3:115-128. 

n 

122 
O'Connell, James 

1977 Aspects of Variation in Central Australian Lithic 

Assemblages. In Stone Tools Aa Cultural Markers, edited by R.V.S. Wright, pp. 269-281. Australian Institute of 

Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. 

Odell, George Hamley 1977 Micro-wear in Perspective: A Sympathetic Response to 

Lawrence H. Kelley. World Archaeology 7:226-240. 

Odell, George Hamley, and Frieda Odell-Vereecken 

1980 verifying the Reliability of Lithic Use-Wear Assessments 

by "Blind Tests": The Lower-Pow~r Approach. Journal 2f. 

Field Archaeology 7:87-120. 

Osborn, Alan, susan Vetter, and Ralph Hartley 1987 Archaeological Investigations at the North District 

campground (42WN1651) A Lithic Procurement Location in 

capitol Reef National Park, utah. Manuscript on file, 

National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln. 

Parry, William J., and Robert c. Kelly 1987 Expedient core Technology and Sedentism. In ~ 

organization .Qf. ~:Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and 

carol A. Morrow, pp. 285-304. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 

Peet, R. K. 

1974 The Measurement of Species Diversity. Annual Beview Qf 

Ecology And systematics 5:285-307. 

Pielou, E.C. 

1966a The Measure of Diversity in Different type of Biological Collections. JQurnal .Qf. Theoretic BiolQgy 13:131-144. 

1966b Shannon's Formula as a Measurement of Scientific 

Diversity and its Use and Misuse. American Naturalist . 100:463-465. 

1975 Ecological Diversity. John Wiley and Sons, Publishers, 

New York. 

Pierson, Lloyd, H. . 1978a A Claee X Cultural Beeour9e Inventory Af tng ~ 

Covered ~ ~ Canyonlands Grazing Environmental Statement, 

Southeastern utAh· Submitted to Bureau of Land Management, Utah, Contract No. YA-512-CT7-259. 

1978b Existing aite DAtA Beport ~ A Close X CUltural 

Besource Inventory 2f ~ ~ covered ~ ~ conyonlands Qrazing Envirgnmentol Statement, Southeastern, utftb. K.K. 

Perri CUltural Resource specialists, Moab, Utah. Submitted 

to Bureau of Land Management, Utah, Contract No. YA-512-CT7-259. 

on 

123 
Reher, Charles A. 

1977 Settlement and Subsistence Along the Lower Chaco River. . In Settlement And Subsistence Along ~ Lower Chaco Rive&, 

edited by C.A. Reher, pp. 7-112. University of New Mexico Pres

Albuquerque. 

Renfrew, Colin 

1969 Trade and Culture Process in European Prehistory. 

eurrent Anthropology 10:151-169. 

1975 Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions of Integration and communication. In AnCient Civilization And Trade, 

edited by J.A. Sabloff and c.c. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 3-59. 

University of Hew Mexico Pre$s, Albuquerque. 

Schiffer, Michael B. 

1975 The Effect of Occupation on Site Content. In ~ Cacb~ 

Biver Arcbaeological Project; An Experiment in Contract 

Archaeology, assembled by Michael B. Schiffer and John H. House

pp. 265-269. Arkansas Archaeological .Survey, Research Series 8

Fayetteville. · 

Shannon, C.E., and w. Weaver 

1949 ~ MathematicAl rheory Qf CommunicAtion. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 

Shott, H. 

1986 Technological Organization and settlement Mobility: An 

Ethnographic Examination. Journol 2f AJ)thropologicol Research 42:15-52. 

Speth, John o. 

1972 Mechanical Basis of Percussion Flaking. AmericAn 

AntiquitY 37:34-60. 

Stokes, William L. 

1977 Subdivisions of the Major Physiographic Provinces in 

Utah, utAh Geology, 4(1):1-18. 

Taylor, Richard L. 

1986 ArcboeologicAl survey ~ ReconnAissance witbin ~ ~ 

.I.e.ax: Flood Pool, Horry .S.... Trumon .Du 1Ul.d Reserv;oir. 

Commonwealth Associates. Submitted to u. s. Army corps of 

Engineers, Kansas City District, Contract No. DACW 41-79-C0101.. 

Thomas, David Hurst 

1983 ~ ArChaeology 2f HOnitor valley z. Gatecliff Shelter. 

Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural 

History, 59(1), New York City. 

1984 Diversity of Hunter-Gatherer CUltural Geography. Rev 

version of paper presented at the Forty-ninth Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Portland, oregon • 

s 

, 

. 

124 

Tl 

T• 
Thomas, R. w. 

1981 Information Statistics in Geography. concepts ang Technigues in Modern Geography 31:1-42. 

Torrence, Robin . 1983 Time Budgeting and Hunter-Gatherer Technology. In 

Hunter-Gatherer Economy in frehistory, edited by G. Bailey, 

pp. 11-22. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

1986 Production And Exchange Qf stone Tools. Prehistoric 

Obsidian in thg Aegean. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Tringham, Ruth, Glenn Cooper, George Odell, Barbara Vaytek, and 

Anne Whitman 

1974 Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New 

Approach to Lithic Analysis. Journal Qf Field Archaeology 1:171-195. 

wandsnider, LuAnn 

1987 Paradigms and the Role of Experimentation in Studing Archaeological Formation Processes. In Natural Formation 

Processes ~ ~ Archaeological Record, edited by Michael 

Petraglia and David Nash, pp. 150-185. British Archaeological 

Reports, International Series 352. 

Wandsnider, LuAnn, and James I. Ebert 

1986 Accuracy in Archaeological Surface survey in the 

Seedskadee Project Area. Southwestern Wyoming. In ~ 

Seedskadee Project, Remote Sensing in Non-site Archaeology, edited by Dwight L. Drager and Arthur K. Ireland, pp. 211-226. 

United States Department of the Interior, southwest Cultural 

Resources Center Division of Cultural Research, Branch of 

Remote sensing, Albuquerque. 

West, James G. . 1978 Recent Palynology Qf th§ Cedar ~ ~, utah· Ph.D. 

dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of 

California, Davis. 

White, Leslie 

1949 ~ Science Qf Culture, Grove Press, New York. 

1959 ~ Evolution Qf Culture, McGraw-Hill, New York. 

Wood, w. Raymond, and Donald Johnson 

1978 A survey of Disturbance Processes in Archaeological Site 

Formation. In Advances in ArChaeological Metbod And Theory, vol. 

1, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 315-381. Academic Press, 

New York. 

125 

APPENDIX A 

An outline of Previous Work Accomplished 

within the Park 

127 

~ Investigator Location 21 ~ Accomplished 

1934 Frank Beckwith Description of large rock art panel near 

the mouth of courthouse wash ( 42GR605) 

now listed on the National Register (Beckwith 1934:177-178). 

1949- Alice Hunt Archeological reconnaissance in La Sal 

1952 Mountain area of · southeastern Utah. 

Eight sit~s were recorded at the 

southern end of the park (Hunt 1953). 

1956- Lloyd Pierson Recorded 51 archeological sites; the 

1972 majority of these sites are located in 

the southern half of the park (Anderson 

1978). 

1973 La Mar Lindsay Survey of Delicate Arch road project and 

Rex E. Madsen Monument headquarters sewage disposal 

area (Lindsay and Madsen 1973:15). No 

sites found. 

1974 Mike Berry Survey of eastern central portion of the 

park. Thirty sites were recorded (Berry 1975). 

1982 Ralph Hartley Systematic archeological survey of area 

Robert Nickel surrounding Devil's Garden campground 

and trail head area and archeological 

reconnaissance in Arches headquarters 

area. Seven new sites and the remains 

of a site previously recorded by Pierson 

were recorded (Calabrese 1982; Griffin 

1985). 

1983 Ralph Hartley Survey of fence line along portions of 

Susan Vetter the east and west boundaries of the 

park. Seven sites and six isolated 

artifacts were recorded (Calabrese 

1984). 
REFERENCES CITED 

Anderson, Adrienne 

1978 Archeological resources of Canyonlands, Capitol Reef and 

Arches National Parks and Natural Bridges National 

Monument, southeastern Utah. Manuscript on file, Midwest 

Archeological Center, National Park service, Lincoln. 

Beckwith, Frank 

1934 · A Group of Petroglyphs near Moab, Utah. El Palacio 

23(44):177-178. 

Berry, Michael s. 

1975 An Archeological survey of the N.ortheastern Portion of 

Arches National Park. Manuscript on file, Midwest 

Archeological center, National Park service, Lincoln. 

Calabrese, F.A. 

1982 Archeological field work, Arches National Park. 

Memorandum to the Associate Regional Director of Planning and Resource Preservation, Rocky Mountain Region dated 

August 25, 1982. on file, Midwest Archeological center, 

National Park Service, Lincoln. 

1984 Archeological field work in Canyonlands National Park 

and Arches National Park. Memorandum to the Chief, 

Division of Cultural Resources, Rocky Mountain Region dated 

January 27, 1984. on file, Midwest Archeological Center, 

National Park Service, Lincoln. 

Davis, William E. 

1989 Evaluative Testing at 42GR2047: A Prehistoric 

Rockshelter and Petroglyph Panel in Arches National Park, 

Grand county, Utah. Manuscript on file, National Park 

service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln. 

Griffin, Dennis P. 

1985 Archaeological Inventory in the Devil's Garden and 

Headquarters Areas of Arches National Park. Manuscript on 

file, Midwest Archeological center, National Park Service, 

Lincoln. 

Hunt, Alice P. 

1953 Archaeological survey of the La Sal Mountain Area, 

Utah. lJlliversitl!: .Qf. llab. Antbrcmological papers, No. 14. 

Kithcell,·Kate 

1986 Installation of Air Quality Station. Rocky Mountain 

Region ArcheologicalProject Report, dated August 19, 

1986. Transmitted under memo from·. Associate Regional· Director, Planning and Resource Preservation, Rocky Mountain Region, dated october 15, 1986. on file, Midwest 

Archeological center, National Park service, Lincoln. 

t 

l 

~ 

· 

129 
1987 survey of Proposed Re-location of Devil's Garden Loop Trail. Rocky Mountain Region Archeological Project 

Report, dated May 20, 1987. On file, National Park 

service, Midwest Archeological center, Lincoln. 

Lindsay, Lamar w. and Rex E. Madsen 

1973 Report of Archeological surveys of the Pipe Springs National Monument Water Supply System Project, Kaibab 

Indian Reservation, Mohave county, Arizona; Zion National 

Park Sewer Extension Project, Washington county, Utah: 

Arches National Park Road and Sewage Disposal Area 

Projects, Grand canyon, Utah; . and Canyonlands National 

Park Road Projects, Needles and:Grandview Point areas, San 

Juan county, Utah. Manuscript on file, Midwest 

Archeological Center, National Park service, Lincoln. 

130 

ACCESS 

CATALC 

ARTTYE 

ARTFO; 

LENT 

WIDT 

TH.IC 

LOCI 
I 

APPENDIX B 

Data Base Files from Previously Collected Data 

Arches Museum Collections Codes 

FIELDS CODES 

ACCESS-Accession number 

CATALOG-Catalog number 

ARTTYPE-Artifact type ·c=chipped stone 

G=ground stone 

P=ceramic 

B=bone 

w=woven material, fiber 

H=historic . O=other 

ARTFORM-Artifact form . PP=projectile point 

KN=knife 

SC=scraper 

AX=ax 

CO=core 

BI=biface 

UN=uniface 

MF=modified flake 

UF=utilized flake 

DB=debitage 

MA=mano 

SH=sherd 

ME=metal 

GL=glass 

PH=photograph 

PM=printed material 

(newspapers, postcards, 

mining claims, etc.) 

OT=other 

LENTHHT-Length/Height (in centimeters; photographs in inches) 

WIDTHDIA-Width/Diameter (in centimeters: photographs in inches) 

THICK-Thickness (in centimeters) 

CURLOCAL-current location AMS=Arches Museum storage ODA=On display at Arches 

MBM=Loaned to Moab Museum 

NOR=Not recorded 

UNK=Unknown 

LOCALE-Locality Area or nearest landmark 

where artifact was found· 

l 

131 
Appendbc B 

Arches llat lo111l Part Collections 

Willi Oil 

llo. 

Cltalot 

llo. 

lttlfaet 

type 

Artifact 

Pori 

Le119th/ 

lltiCJht 

leal 

lldtll/ 

ot .. eter 

(CII 

'ftlldIIUI 

(C:I) 

CUttent 

Location 

Locality leurts 

1 11-SJA D Of 1.00 0.00 0.00 &IIJ PIILO COLLICTIOIS OIL'f ClT.It5l OISCIUIIO 

1 45l G lfl 8.00 I.OD 0.00 AMS ~18 OUlD-24S 211, SIC. 1' 1110 ~1 .PAIT rJr PIILO COI.LICTIOIS I! L.PIDSOII, 1951-l,st 

2 1-ut 0 Of o.oo o.oo 0.00 lf8lf JroT R!COIIDID ARTIPlCTS llfl) IIISTORICAL ITIJIS 

l 435 c " ,,51 2.78 o.u 001 GllliiO lift POIIf Ollllllil QUlRT%, PIJI CRJPPIIIG, 0000 COIDtnOI 

4 m c pp J.ll 1.27 0.)1 001 II!AR STUIOI 255.5 011 ROUTI 11, lllftllfCIIOlD IH I ft OIIRT 

5 m 0 Of 2U7 lS.24 o.oo ooa CORD MIWI, IIG 11101111 DISTRICT URlliiiiTI ORI IIIIPLI-ftiiiGUtll, ILJCII 

' ' 

m 

m 

D 

c 

Of 

.. 12.70 

13.97 

IS.2t 

U2 

o.oo 

0.00 

IJIIl 

001 

IIORRISOI rOR"'TIOII, DALTOII liLts, GltAIIO CO., 0!111 

DltlL'S GlRD!R-lRCHIS lllTIOIIlL ~ 

FOSSIL DIIIOSlUI 110111, SKILL JOlin', SPICIIS 1111111011 

PJIII/IIIITI/BIIIil Cllll'f, PITIIIlTID 01 Dill SIDI 

1 440 II Ill l4.U O.OD 0.00 001 Clft .. SICOIID 1101 CliiTOI OP COIIRTIIOIISI lUI GIOLOGIST'S Plat, .tROll RID, IOOD IIIIIDLI 

441 c pp 5.81 4.29 1.11 liiS liT loti 1111001·111 Jlt, SIC.J5, IUGI 211, T. 23S 10TT011 IIALP, IHJTI STORI 

m c pp l.U t.n 0.41 AM5 UP SALT IASII FROII TUINIIO'I Cllfll·l. OP TUINIIO'I SfC, IHITI STOIII 

m 

... 

U5 

.. , 

m 

c 

c 

0 

c 

e 

pp 

pp 

07 

sc 

, 

5.11 

5.01 

1.0 

l.lt 

7.12 

5.01 

1.91 2." 

5.)~ 

5.01 

1.11 

0.12 

0.41 

t.ll 

1.21 

&liS 

&MS 

lKI 

IIIIa 

AilS 

S!C. 12 ' ll, 1/f CORII!R 111·111 1/f 32 ' Jl 

Sl 1/f OP Ill 114 OP SIC. 5, RUGI 221, '1'0111!11. 24S 

COURmtJSI fOfiiiS SIC., 11111110 IWOI Pill, PARI Aft 

TIIOIIPSOII QUAD-IIIITII CAIIP ClllfOI 01 B!IICII )0 n UP 

COIIRTIIOUSI llSII·IIST or Ul DGI 

1110111 STORI 

PIIIIISII 

IIC'fliiCUtU STOll, IIOitll II llLf, PlftiR 

OUL SHlPID, IIIITI lift 110'111 U1) GRill CIIIIT 

IIITI STOll 

m 

.., 

450 

c 

0 

c 

ttl 

Ill 

Ill 

13.34 

n.o1 

li.IC 

l.n 

s. 72 .... J.ll 

5.01 

).11 

IllS 

AMS 

AMS 

500 ros. Ill or TURIIIOI Clllll 011 TOP Dr IIDGI 

RIGIIT SIDI or IIOOT1I Or PAM Aftlllll 

IIIAR SOI1Tll IOUIIOlRY llllAR ftsiTOR C!IITIII 

Ill ft. STOlfi 

RID SlllbSTOIII 

RID SAIIDSTOIII 

10 

11 

u 

n 

m 

m 

455"471 

479·11C 

117-141 

.. , .... ..,_,., 

!: 

!: 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

AI 

ll 

Of 

OT 

OT 

07 

OT 

11.42 

15.24 

0.00 

0.00 

o.oo 

0.00 

0.00 

1.00 

0.00 

o.oo 

o.oo 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

o.oo 

0.00 

D.OO 

lKS 

'"' 

OOl '"' 

001 

OOA 

OOA 

UP COUaTIIOIISI-1/2 TO )/f MI. UPSTRillll ROll IIIDGI 

UP COURTIIOIISI·I/2 TO )/f Ill. UPSTRIAII ROll II lOCI 

OOIIOIS UlfJ:NOIIHIILD COLLICTIOI 

R!C!IJ!O PROM IRICHlM TOUWG UIIIIIISITT, 19,3·19'4 

RIC!IftO FROM IRICIIlK tOUIIC UIIYIRSITY 

I!C!IftD FRO!! PRfflT! OOIIORS 

UIIKNOIII 

II!ODISR, LIIIGTII II lPPIOJJIIlTI 

ILACI I !.IIICTII II lPPROli"'TI 

IOCIS, MIIIDat.l 1111) POSSILI-GIO!.OGf lam.oc&r. ?) 

PLAIITS-CURRIJT LOClTIOII UICIITAIII 

IIIIDS·CURRIIT LOCITIOI UICIIT1111 

IIAIIIIAI. cotLICTIOII-CI/IRIIT LOClTIOI UIICIRTlll 

RIPTILIS-CURII!IT LOCATIOII UICIRTlll 

u 901 0 Of 0.00 0.00 1.00 OOA Ullli:IIOfll llllft·IILLIID CAJTII DAU-CUR. LOClTtOI UICIITUI 

15 

1' 

901 

,., 

0 

0 

OT 

Of 

o.oo 

0.00 

0.00 

e.oo 

0.00 

e.oo 

001 

001 

UIIJHOIII 

lJIII{IfOIII 

MIOGIT PAOlO Um.D-CURIIIIT LOCITIOIIUIICilTllll 

COPIID·CURRIIT LOClTIOII UIICDT.UII 

n no 0 07 0.00 e.oo O.DD OOl I!CIIYIJ) PIIOII PRIUft OOIIORS PLlTIIUO MIIIIIOI·CURRM !.OClTIOII UICIITllll 

11 m 0 (1f uo 0.00 O.DO OOl RECilfED PIIOII PRiflft OOIIORS Sl'ICII.!O DlCI·CURRDT LOClTIO!I IJIIC!t!Tllll 

~ 

w 

....., 
L. ·~'*"l..'t_tft,;-fl"~"· '• 

lrc:hra llallond Par• CoiJtc:llons lc:o•llnuecll 

lcc:nllOI 

lo. 

tltll .. 

lo. 

artlf1c:t 

Type 

Artlllct 

ror1 

l.eiiC)tll/ 

lltl911t 

lldtll/ 

Dla~ter 

TllldIIC!SS 

Current 

Loc:dlon 

Loc:•JJtr le .. rts 

Ia I Ia I ICI) 

19 m G Ill u.so 9.50 4.00 &liS aRC SITI 4l 110 SliiDSTOII 

21 m G Ill' l:UO 6.10 3.70 AM! COURTHOUSI IASII, SOUTW or P&R. IIJDGI GR&Y-IROIII, 10! A SUDS'I'OII 

21 m G Ill 9.00 4.70 ).)0 AilS IILLOI SPRIIGS, 2 Ill. WORTH or rouR-IHat. Dllft ID RID SAIIDSTOIII, 1101111, II&LP or IWIO I1TIIn' 

22 

n 

24 

25 

m 

"' m 

,.. 

c Of 

• II 

Of 

ll.U 

7.62 

o.oo 

0.00 

4.45 

11.41 

0.00 

0.00 

0.41 

o.oo 

0.00 

0.00 

AilS 

&KS 

AMS 

&KS 

IAGLI PARI 

lOT IICOIIDID 

Ill 1/4, SIC. 20, T25S, 1211 la&SI or PmoctrPRS 

liAR DIYJL'S CIJDIII 

SPUR, CRU PUIID PLin 

2 llllrE Pt/ICTIJJIS Ill TOP, SOLDQID 1101.1 II IIOmlfl 

CRIIII STOlfi 

SliiDSTOIII OIJICT, CO'IIIID II Til LICIIDS, 2 PI laS 

25 

27 

m 

,. 

Gl. 

Of 

0.00 

1.19 

0.00 

11.4) 

0.00 

0.00 

AMS 

AilS 

rotMO At DUMP Ill PITRIPIID DUDS lilA 

1/1 Ill. II. OF SLICIROCI IT. TOIAID COUITHOUSI I&SII 

SMALL CUSS IOTTLI, lllRIID ILYIICI 

OBLOIIC STOWI, 110TT. CRIY, GLJIID, CIOOfiD, FOSSIL? 

21 m Of o.oo 0.00 0.00 &KS POUND lt IOLFI Cllll DURJIIC RISTORlTJOII CHIIIIIIIC PIOII fOLPI Cllli-FAIIRIC PliCU PROM UIOI 

2' 

JO 

m 

m 

Ill 

Ill 

u.n 

0.00 

0.00 

o.oo 

o.oo 

0.00 

&liS 

AilS 

rouND At fOLFI CAlli OUIIIC IISTOIAtiOI 

POUND DURIIIC IOLPI C&IIN RISTOR&TIOI, UIDII 111001 

PILl 

IIORBISHOI 

Jl m Ill 0.00 0.00 0.00 AilS PIILD lliLS, IOLT, CAITRIDGI, llSHII, IIUft'OI, IIUDLI FT. 

J2 ns Ill 0.00 o.oo 0.00 AilS PIILD SPOOlS, U•llltL, IIUOLIS, STat. PIICI, 11011 SCIIlPS 

u m Pll 0.00 o.oo o.oa AilS PJILO lllfSPlPII PRAGS, DlTID OCT.UD7, JllSTIIIAD IIPUBLIC 

Jt m Ill o.oo o.oo 0.00 AilS PRISI 11m CAIYOI SPOOJI 

JS 921 GL 0.00 0.01 11.00 AilS IOLPI Clllll lOOT CILLAI GLASS, Sll PRACIIIITJ. 

K 

, 

m 

no 

Of 

GL 

,..,2 

D.OO 

4.57 

0.00 

2.0) 

1.00 

IIIII 

AilS 

litCHIS, CIIIPPIJG CROUID, PIILD 

POUWD AT VOLVI CAlli DUIIIG IISTOI&TIOI 

IOUIIDID SliDSTOIII,2 CIOOftl, POSIIItiiiiOIIUPII 

1111 IO!TLI, IILIIYID TO II CliQ 1900 

Jl 

, 

fO . 

m 

U2 

m 

c 

c 

0 

pp 

pp 

ot 

2.54 

2.0, 

0.00 

1.01 

1.U 

1.00 

1.00 

1.27 

0.00 

OD& 

AilS 

lMS 

110T IICORDIO 

1/4 Ill. IIORTH or Y.C., nor Pill UIJUI. 

POUIID IW DILIC&TI aJICH 

IIIITI, COIIPLITI 

110 CHin 

PITRIPIID DIIIOS&III 111*11 l Or 2 

40 12U 0 Of 0.00 1.00 0.00 lMS POUIID IIIli DILIC&TI ARCH PITRIPIIO OliiOSlllR 110111, 2 OF 2 PlJCU 

41 m c pp l.02 1.91 o.oo lMS POUIID II PIIRY PllllllCI YILLOI Cllli.CIDOIIY 

u ns 0 Of 11.41 t.n 0.00 AHS IPI'IOI. 100 ros. JIORTH or SITI U II ClJIPCIOUID CORJ COl, l4 lOIS or lllllLS 

u m I Ill o.eo 1.00 0.00 lMS PIILD COLLICTIOII TOilCCO Cll 1/ IIJIIIC CLAI", C&T.t1214 

u 

.. 

45 

u 

41 

1214 

UJ 

m 

m 

120' 

II 

c 

• • II 

pp '" 

Of 

Of 

Ill 

0.00 

],)) 

0.00 

4.75 

e.oo 

0.00 

2.16 

45.72 

1.21 

0.00 

0.00 

o.oo 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

AilS 

lNS 

lMS 

lMS 

lMS 

FJILD COLLICTIOJ 

D&Rit UCEL 

FIILD COLLICTIOI 

42CR531/IIC-42 

ILIPHlJT IIITTI 

IIJIIJJG CLAJ", liD lot 12, 5/)/41, P.l I. S!UIIIlf 

DUll IROn CIIIIT 1 TIP IROID orr 

IIIII HOOP 

POSSJILI SAIIDAL ftAG.-011. 11011, ] lOIS or lll911G 

til CAl IICISTII COIIT&IJII liTH LID 

41 

., 

1207-12 

1210 

otl 

0 Of '"o.oo 

0.00 

1.00 

0.00 

o.oo 

0.00 

AilS 

lMS 

ILIPRAIT IIITTI 

DOJlTID It HliPIIS PURr lllP DIPlttiiiiT 

l PAPII IIITRJIS POUIID IIISIDI CAT.Il205 

UCHIS COLOR IIROCIIURI, PIIST COP! Orr PIISS 

-

w 

w 
Arches Rational Piltk Collections (continued) 

&ecusloa 

••• 

50 

Clt1l09 

llo. 

1211·12 

&rtlf1ct 

fJpe 

l2 

lrtl f1ct 

Port 

GL 

tenqth/ 

lie ,,,.t 

I ttl 

0.00 

lldth/ 

Dl1~et•r 

leal 

Thlr\· 

nus 

leal 

Cllrrent 

Location 

Locality Relltls 

o.oo o.oo "" DOifATIO It TO!IIfffl lfATIOIIAL PARI GLASS UIITIIIII SLIOIS, 2, IIIIOOIS SIC 

51 

52 

1215·12 

1211 

11 OT 

lit 

0.00 

.... o.oo 

o.oo 

o.oo 

0.00 

IMS 

UIS 

no JUIIPIR BUTTI 

FIILO COLLICTIOI 

PmtiFIID DIIOSllll 10111, 3 PIICIS 

maL SHIIP IILL UD lftlCIIIO Ul'l'llll SftaP 

5) Jm IlL o.oo t.oo o.oo UIS FIILO COLL!CTIOI IOT'n.l, 101LIT AITICLI COifliJD, 2• 10 

54 tm n 0.00 o.oo 0.00 UIS FIILO COLLICffOI TOBACCO CAlf, Ill IALfllt IALIIGII, OllllfGI/ItiCK/IIIIf 

55 1221 n o.oo t.DO 0.01 &Ill IIIOitll IRCH Pll Pll 

55 

51 

nu-n 

me 

n Pll 

PI 

7.50 

4.50 

5.50 

4.50 

a.oo 

a.oo 

11011 

JOII 

Pll IYA ft 001101 

PR JVl Tl 0011011 

OILICift IRCII, IIAOI 1901 IT P.l, lfutl'f·IIIC, JIIC, 

IOOU C0L01t nJIT or lmiiR 11101, 110 DAft IICOIIO, 

51 122s n ].50 ].50 0.00 11011 Pll I UTI 0011011 COLOI I'IIIT·IO DAft IIICOIOIO 

51 1221 "PII 3.50 uo O.DD 11011 PR I VITI DOIIOII 1/1 I"'RIIITIO •stlSOIS CRII!IICS•, 110 Dlft lltOID. 

51 

" 

1227 

1221 

n 

PI 

2.00 

4.50 

' 2~00 

4.50 

o.oo 

o.oo 

11011 

IIIII 

PR IYA Tl 0011011 

PRJVATI 001101 

IOLPI IUICII OIDICATIOI, 110 DAft IICOIOID 

1/1 OF LTOil IOLPI, IIISCKJBID •GRAIIO!Il 101.rr 

" 1229 PH 4.50 4.50 0.00 1101 PlffATI 0011011 COPT OF CAT. 11221 

50 1230 Pll 4.00 4.00 o.oo rrott PR JVlTI DOIIOR OF PRIMITift PltiiTIIIC or IOLPI RliiCII IT I. RISOI 

" u 

1231 

12]2 

Pll 

PH 

2.00 

4.25 

2.00 

].25 

0.00 

0.00 

lOR 

11011 

PRIYATI DOIIOR 

PRIVATI DONOR 

COPt OF COLOR ~RIIT, CAT.Il2l0 

POSTCARD OP 11011 toiiiTIIOOSI, 1910, 110 POftlllll 

52 

n 

l2J] 

1214 

Pll 

,. 

o.oo 

).50 

0.00 

].50 

0.00 

0.00 

IIOR 

~ 

PRI9ATI OOIIOR 

PR 1Y ATI DONOR 

8 TIII SITTII•, IIADI IT P.M. STAIILIT, 1901, IR, '1'011 

Ill COLOR, or F!ROL SfliiLIJ, 110 OITI RICORDIO 

u ms .PII ).25 5.25 0.00 11011 PRIUTI 0011011 IIIIOft TOll!, ISTIID IUSOI AS I CHILO, 110 DATI IIC. 

5S l2l5·12 ll PR 5.25 5.25 0.00 1101 P1U flTI 0011011 IRI.TOIII-1.1 P.STlllt.lt At IOLPIIAIICII·2 ILUI IIIC, 

" nn Pll 7.10 5.00 0.00 IIOR PRIUTI 0011011 IROIII TOIII 01 CAIIDIOUO, Till STliiLIT PUII!.t, UOI 

n mo PH 7.00 ~.00 0.00 11011 HJflTI DONOR URI lS ClT. t12J9, IIT11 IJICIIPTIOW •J .C. STIIILIT• 

" " " 70 

1241 

1242·12 

ll4f 

1245 

II 

U I 

If 

II 

Pll 

Pll 

Pll 

PR 

).~0 

5.00 

7.00 

0.00 

s.oo 

),00 

5.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1101 

101 

1101 

IIOR 

PllnATI 0011011 

PIIIV ATI 0011011 

PRIJITI DOIIOR 

PR IYlTI DOIIOR 

P.C.·IIIIII.TOII-1.1 P.STAILIT t IOLPI CAIJI·Il/10/0' 

1/1 COPIIS OP ClT.I1241 

1/1 COPY OP CIT.Il241 

IRITOIIE·CARDIOlRO IACKID·I.I P.STULIT f lOIII CAl 

7l 1m II PR 0.00 0.00 0.00 IIOR H l fA Tl DOIIOR BLUI IIICATIVI or CAT.Il245·11SCIIPTICIS 01 lACK 

72 

72 

1l 

14 

1f 

1241 

1241 

1249 

1250·12 

1252 

II 

II 

II 

51 II 

II 

PI 

PH 

PR 

Pll. 

Pll 

5.50 

1.00 

10.00 

10.00 

4.50 

).50 

5.00 

1.00 

1.00 

).00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

11011 

11011 

11011 

IIOR 

11011 

PR IYl T1 0011011 

PIIIVATI DOIIOR 

PRIVATI DOIIOR 

PIU fl T1 DOll OR 

PIIIV&TI DOIIOR 

1/1 COPT or CIT .11245-IIIST .IIISCIIPTJOIS Cl lACK 

1/1 COPT OF CAT.I1245·111ST. IIISCIIPTIOIIS Cl lACK 

IIIIOIIITOIII, CARDBOARD or JOIII ftstlt IOI.PI, 110 Dlft 

TIO 11/1 COPIIS OF OT.I1249·0111 I/ IIISCIIPTIOI 

1/1 COPt or CAt.l124,·111sTOIIC IIISCIIPTtOI 011 llCI 

.... 

w 

s:-

·.~~;<~·J!:~ti..:.:··''l···· 
•.• Mii.LJLII. ... . . -'"'~'"" 

Archei Rational Part Collections (contlnuedl 

lcctiBIOft 

110. 

'75 

75 

15 

17 

'71 

19 

10 

II 

n 

13 

u 

14 

15 

11 "

.. ., 

., 

'0 

n 

n 

, 

,, 

'4 

95 

n " 

,. 

100 " 

101 

102 

112 

tltalot 

liD. 

125) 

1254-12 

1256 

1257-12 

mo 

1m 

nn 

12U 

mt 

1265 

1266 

1261 

1261 

12U 

1270 

1271 

12'72 

12'73-12 

1m 

1271 

12'71 

1m 

1211-12 

nn 

Ull 

1214 

1215 

12" 

1211 

1211 

1m 

mo 

un 

artifact 

Type 

55 

59 

75 

11 

artifact 

Por• 

PI 

PR 

Pll 

Pll 

OT 

'" PI 

PI 

PI 

PR 

PI 

PI 

PI 

•• PR 

PH 

PR 

Ill '" 

PI 

PH 

PH 

PH 

lfl 

PN 

Pll 

PN 

Pll 

Pll 

Pll 

Pll 

PR 

Pll 

Len9tb/ 

Relqbt 

Cal 

lldtll/ 

Dla.eter 

Cal 

Tllldnus 

Cal 

Current 

Loc.tlon 

Locality Re11rls 

0.00 

5.00 

10.00 

o.oo 

10.16 

5.00 

0.00 

4.00 

5.00 

4.25 

).50 

4.00 

4.00 

5.00 

0.00 

0.00 

12.70 '·" 

'·" 6.25 

0.00 

0.00 

'7.00 

1U5 

0.00 

o.oo 

0.00 

o.oo 

0.00 

o.oo 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

o.oo 

uo 

1.00 

0.00 

12.70 

).50 

0.00 

4.00 

4.00 

2.50 

3.50 

4.08 

4.00 

4.00 

o.oo 

0.00 

15.24 

21.32 

l.ll 

5.50 

0.00 

1.00 

5.00 

9.40 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

o.oo 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

o.oo 

0.00 

0.00 

o.oo 

o.oo 

0.00 

0.00 

o.oo 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1.21 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

us 

o.oo 

0.00 

o.oo 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1IOR 

1101 

11011 

1101 

11011 

1101 

II OR 

ROR 

IIOR 

ROR 

11011 

11011 

11011 

1101 

11011 

11011 

11011 

11011 

1011 

11011 

11011 

11011 

11011 

11011 

11011 

11011 

11011 

11011 

lOR 

11011 

11011 

11011 

11011 

PIIYATI 0011011 

Pill Vl Tl 0011011 

PRIYATI 001101 

PRIVATI OOIIOR 

DOIIlTID liT IIATIOIIAL PlRit SIRfiCI 

PRIVATI DONOR 

PRIVATI 001101 

PRIVATI DOIIOR 

PRifATI OOIIOR 

P111VlTI 0011011 

PRIVATI 0011011 

PR IVITI 0011011 

Pill nn 0011011 

PllfiTI 001101 

PRiflTI DOIIOR 

Pll IVlTI 0011011 

PIIIYATI DOIIOR 

PRIVlTI DONOR 

PRfflTI 0011011 

PllfATI DOIIOR 

PRIUTI 0011011 

URitNOR 

UNUOIII 

POUND IRILI lllliiiC 

POUIID Ill PlRI PILlS 

PIIVITI 0011011 

PR ffATI DOIIOR 

PRIVATI 0011011 

PR fflTI DOIIOR 

PRIVATI DOIIOR 

Pill YITI 0011011 

PRIVATI DOIIOR 

PRIYITI 0011011 

ILUI RIClTIR, 1.1 r .STULl! lT Clllll 

TIO Ill COPIIS or CAT.I1253-IISCIIPTIORS 011 llCI 

1/1 or "OLD Clllll" lT IOI.PI IAIICII, RO OIIIGIIIlL RIC 

TIIWI! Ill PIIIIITS or CAT.I1255 

POST CARD-COLOR-SOLD Ill f.C. 1970'1-IIST. LIGIIID 

P.C., IIIOIIITOIII or P.,I.,P.ITULI!, 12/10/07, 1«111 

COLOII, OP ISTRIR 111011 lRD OLDIST ROUSI llf 1«111 

COLOR-or I.RJSOII, r .STlRLI! lifO IIPI·IIfSCRIPTIOII 

Ill, or IDiaRD AIIDRII STllfLI!, DOC. IJSCRIPTIOif 

1!1, or JOIIII II.SLI! IOLPI JtOtll Ill 1'1'111, OHIO, 1913 

Ill, or JORII IISLI! IOI.PI 110111 llf 1'1'111, 01110, 1'13 

COLOI, or JOIIII I, IOLPI'I 'rOIIISTOIII Ill ITIIl, DRIO 

1111-or ISTIIIR 111011, I/ IIORH IT IOLPI.IllfCI, U56 

Ill, or rLORl lRD 111111 STULIT, DOC. llfSCRIPTIOII 

LITTIII, UIIDATID, PROII 1. IISOif '10 I. IILSOif 

Tlllml-or JOIIII, LYDII IOI.PI UD ftO CRILDUI 

IIIII.OPI TO LITTD PROII T.P. IOLPI '10 1.1. IOI.PI 

l-PACI LITTII, DATID 2/27/32, Sll ClT.I1272 

RATCRSIPI-SILfiR 1/ IRISS liDS-HOLDS 2 URUSID HIT. 

CAIIDJIOlRD llCI, PliO IOLPI Olf 1101151 IT IOCR, UOI 

PIILD RIP. POR rooT ftliL, DILIClTI aRCH, 4/U/U 

lRT.-n58 D!SDT lllGlUIII-2RD CLIRIIIfG, LUD. IRCR 

1 8/1, nOll DISIRT lllGUIIII liTICLI, SD ClT.Ilm 

COl BILL !liNUS CLlPfi!R, 1/ LDTIIIR STRAP 011 TOP 

LITTIII 011 CARDIIOARD PHOTO nAMI llCI nOll I. IISOII 

TJmP!, or PIID & IR. IOLPI , ID 011 IIOTI 

P.C., lDOIIISSID TO UIICLI IILL nOll mot, 110 POSTII 

P.C., TO TIUIIAII IOLPI PROII mot, POST?IIRI 11/1914 

P.C., RRS.L. IOLPI, nOll ISTRD & mot, POSTIIARU 

POST CARD, TO TRUIIllf nOll PIROL, 110 POSTIIAU 

Ill, YOLIIA, Olf Lin, lifO II!R SJSTII UTIIIRIIII 

OBIT Ill !tOll TilliS- JlfD. POR ISTIIIR RISOif, 11/14/77 

PUR!IIAL PIIOGRlR POR !STIIIR 1115011, 11/14/77 

.... 

..., 

~ 
lrchu N1tlon•l P~rl Collections lcontlnatdJ 

kceiiiOI 

••• 

111 

Cltllot 

llo. 

lrtlfiCt 

Type 

lrtlfact 

ror1 

Lell4)th/ 

llelqllt 

lt1l 

IIlith/ 

Dl11eter 

(til 

Thld· 

ness 

let I 

Carrent 

LOCitlon 

liiS 

Lotalltr 

PU YATI DOll OR 

leurh 

II ot 0.00 0.00 0:00 YMIOUS lm!S, RIIIC IIILD POl lflLUlflOII 

104 

104 

104 

1292 

1m 

1294 

II 

• II 

'" '" '" 

0.00 

o.oo 

O.CIO 

I.DO 

D.OO 

o.oo 

D.DO 

0.00 

o.oo 

1101 

11011 

11011 

PRIYlTI DOIIOR 

PRIVATE DOIIOR 

PII9ATI 001101 

IIlLI, TISUIIIIIT, IILOIIGID !0 niD IOLPI 

tiTIIIIC tiCIIT IIISIOI Clf.ll2'2 

1M COLLIM IIJSIIIISS CARD, IOLPI'I llmt)lfl, I'I'C. 

lOS ms II '" 0.00 0.00 o.oo IIOR PRiflT! 001101 POSt CARD, 111101111'0111, POSfiiARKID U/10/01 1 IIOAI 

105 

101 

101 12" nn 

c 

p 

I 

ot 

SR 

ot 

0.00 

2.54 

10.15 

1.00 

5.01 

12.70 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

llfS 

IllS 

AilS 

POUIIO Ill IASR I!RIRD f.C. If IISITOR 

D!t.ICltl ARCH ARIA, Ill CUI lliOfl &IICII 

OELICATI ARCH lRrA, Ill ClVI AllOR IRCII 

5 PIICIS or IIOOIPIID Cllllf, II!LD POll lf&J.Ul!IOII 

GRAY, DlliiOifii-SIIlPID, IIIPilmD SQUUI DISIGI 

llSI!If rue., POSS. ntl POITIOII CW 1120 COIITlllll 

101 1291 0 ot 0.00 0.00 0.00 ROll ARCRIS II·PILI IROCIIURI, IOLPI RAIICII ISA. S/11/11 

m PllfiiiiiC 0 ot 0.00 1.00 0.00 1101 OlURTIIOOSir 11511 SACI or SIIIRDS, LITIIICS, S1IILL OUlii!IIT n&CMIIT 

111 PIIDIIIG 0 ot 1.00 0.00 0.00 II OR I .c., DILICATI IRCII, IIALIRCID ROCI!, nm. flCC LITIIICS l!ID TIO ARROI roRISRAm 

111 PIIIDIIIC 0 ot o.oo o.oo 0.00 1101 llllllfOft, I!C!Tflll nm. Sl RIGTOIIAL orFICI (IICCI SRlPT SIIOOTIIIlt IIID 81SIIf n.aCIIIIIt 

m mHJ 011 "' 0.00 o.oo o.oo lliS POUWO IR ARCHIS FILlS LITTIR nm. I. IISOR Rl. lOin IAIICII, UOH"I 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

n 

.., 

n 

n 

,40 

, .. ,42 

,., 

, .. 

945 ,45 

,., 

,.. 

c 

G 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

pp 

Ill 

II 

II 

ur 

Dl 

II 

" pp 

. 2.54 

15.24 

5.21 

5.)) 

).17 

U4 

S.l4 

I.U 

1.0 

1.43 

1 • ., 

l.lD 

2.19 

2.92 

U7 

z.n 

l.U 

J.ot 

0.00 

u• 

0.00 

D.OD 

D.OD 

O.OD 

D.OD 

o.oo 

O.OD 

AilS 

&liS 

AilS 

AilS 

IKS 

AMS 

Alii 

lliS 

lKS 

42GR51l 

42GII~'O 

42GR560 

42GR5'D 

42G11560 

UGR~£0 

42GR~6D 

42GI!57S 

42CR575 

LICHT RID CIIIRT, I IIRI 110111 orr 

TIO PICITS, Rot S&RDSTOIII 

IIIFACIAL TOOL rRACH!IfT, RlTI ClllLCI!lORY 

IIPACI&J. TOOL nAGIIIIIT, IRITI GRAIIULIR STORI 

IRIT! ClllLCIDORT 

UIIIIODIPriD FLAil, liD CIIALCIDOIIT 

ltrlCill. fOOL naCIIU1, IIIITI CIIIRt 

DISIRt SIDI·ROTCIIID, IRITI CRIRT, tiP 8101111 orr 

IIES!H StDI·ROTCHID, OISIDUR, TIP 11110111 OPP 

n 

., 

949 

m 

c 

c 

Dl 

"' 

5.01 

).29 

2.7, 

2.13 

0.00 

0.00 

AKS 

&liS 

42GI~7S 

42GR575 

UIIIIOOIPI 10 PLAICI, IRI T! CHIRT 

DAIK ·111011 CIIIIT 

n m c Dll 0.11 2.54 0.00 AilS UGR575 IJIIIIOOIFIID PLAII:I, Gllft ll!IDID Clllll'r 

n 

n 

n 

n 

n 

m 

95) 

m 

'55 ,5, 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

Dl 

Dl 

Dl 

"' 111' 

2.54 

4.45 

1.91 

2.54 

).11 

1.21 

•••• 1.91 

.... 

1.54 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

AilS 

IllS 

AilS 

AilS 

All$ 

42GR~75 

42GR515 

42GR572 

42GI512 

42GR572 

UlfiiODlPI!D FLAil, TILLOI CHIRT 

UIIMOOiriiO PLAU, IRITI CRIRf 

IJIIIIODIPIID FLAil, 111011 CR!RT 

CRI!Ir CIIIRf 

t!LLOI Cllli.CIDOIIY 

n '51 c 01 2.54 1.91 0.00 AilS 42G115l2 UtniODIPtiD run, 1111011 CIIIRf 

41 951 c Dl 4.45 1.54 0.00 AilS 42GR512 """ODIPIID FLAK!, IIROII CRIRT 

-

w 

0\ 

b•l.t. 1 .. _.,,·"'""""""'~'""···· 
l· 

Arches Rational Part Collections lcontlnuedl 

&c:cesslon OllllOCJ Artifact art Ifact Le119th/ lldth/ Thlct- Cllrrent Locality leurls 

lo. llo. Type Pora lie 19ht Dlaaeter ness Location 

leal leal lc•J 

n m c ur ].11 3.11 0.00 UIS 42GR572 ntft ClllltT 

n "' c Dl 3.11 3.11 o.oo UIS 42CRS72 UIIIIODIPIID nan, IRITI CIIIIT 

n m c ur 3.11 2.1' 0.00 aMS 42GR572 RID ClllLCIOOirT 

n 952 c II c.n 4.45 0.00 aMS 42CRS72 II PAC IlL TDOL PRACII!IIT, IRITI ClllLCIDOiff . 

41 "3 c Dl 3.54 2.2Z 0.00 AilS 42GIIS72 UIIIIOOIFIID nan, 8110111 CIIIIIT 

47 

., m "' c 

c 

UP 

UP 

J.U 

4.45 

4.13 

4.45 

0.00 

0.00 

ailS 

aMS 

42CRS72 

42CRS12 

ntft CIIALCIDOIIY 

8110111 IIOTTLID CIIIRT 

47 '" 0 OT ,,OJ Ul 0.00 lMS 42CR572 ROIIIIDIO STR!III COIILI, IIITTIRID lT 0111 Ill!) 

47 "' c UP '·" U7 o.oo &liS 42CRS66 RID CIIALCIDOIIY 

n '" c C'O '-Sl 7.U o.oo IllS 42CRS66 UTI Ltt!O COR I PRACIIII! 1 liD ClllLCIDOIIY 

41 

n 

n 

'" !70 

,. 

c 

c 

c 

UP 

Dl 

II 

,.35 

'·" 4.11 

4.n 

4.45 

us 

o.oo 

o.oo 

o.oo 

liiS 

liiS 

aMS 

42CRS" 

42CR5" 

42CR5" 

liD CIIALCIDOIIY 

IJIIIIODIPI!O nan, •0111 CIIDT 

IIPlCIAL TOOL PRACIIDT ," llltOII Cllli.CIDOIIY 

47 912 c UP 5.13 2.22 0.01 w 42CRS66 YELLOI CIIALCIDOIIY 

Cf 

47 

m 

974 

c 

c "' UP 

5.71 

5.40 

4.45 

J.ll 

0.00 

o.oo 

llfS 

1111 42CR5" 

42CR5" 

RID ClllLCIDOIIY 

ntn Clllf.CIDOIIt 

n 

47 

C1 

n " 

47 

n 

9l5 

,, 

9l7 

,, 

'n 

,.. 

,.. 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

ur 

UP 

Dl 

01 

ur 

Dl 

Dl 

4.45 

4.45 

2.54 

2.54 

3.11 

2.15 

3.11 

J.ll 

).11 

.... 

2.54 

1.91 

1.91 

2.54 

o.oo 

o.oo 

1.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1.00 

AilS 

liiS 

liiS 

llfS 

llfl 

aMS 

IllS 

42GR5" 

42CR5" 

42GIISU 

mam 

42GRS66 

42CRS" 

42GRS66 

OITI CIIALCIDOIIT 

RID CIIILCIOOifT 

UIIIIOOIPI~ n111, 11011 CIIDT 

IJIIliODIPIID nan, RID CIIDT 

!ILLOI CIIALCIOOII'f 

IJIIliODIPIID nan, IRITI CIIIIT 

lll'lfOI)rrJID PUIII, Rift CIIILCIDOIJ 

47 912 c Dl 3.11 2.22 1.00 aMS 42GRS66 UIIIIOOI PliO SIIATTIR, DARII BRDIR C1llltT 

cr tiJ c "' f.f5 2.1' 1.00 w nGRm 1110111 ClllLCIOOIIY 

47 914 c Dl 2.0' O.H o.oo w 42CRS" IJifiiODJPIID PLAII, 110ft CIIIIT 

n 

47 

n 

915 

,., 

,.., 

c 

c 

c 

Ill 

UP 

ur 

3.4, 

3.11 

),49 

2.54 

1., 

2.22 

o.oo 

0.00 

o.oo 

aMS 

w 

llfS 

42CRS66 

42CRS" 

42CRS" 

IIPACIIL '1'001. PRlGIIIIT 1 PIIIPtl C1llltT 

DARII IROII CWIIT 

GRl! CIIIRT 

Cf "' c 01 J.U 2.54 o.oo w 42CRS77 IITILIIID Slllml, •0111 CIIDT 

n 

47 

n 

,,. '" 

,. 

c 

c 

c 

ur 

Dl 

Ill 

2.54 

2.22 

us 

2.54 

2.54 

4.n 

o.oo 

0.00 

o.oo 

aMI 

aMS 

aMS 

42CR5" 

42CRS67 

42CIS67 

Dlll :RID C1llltT 

UIIIIODIPIID PLllll, 1110111 c:tiiLCIDOII! 

liP. IORIIID PLAir, Rift CIIAL., LIIICTII UIICIITlll 

-

w 

..... 
Arches ll.tlonal Pu• Collection• lconllnuedl 

lCCtlllOI 

llo. 

Clt1109 

lo. 

lrtlfict 

'"" 

artifact 

ror• 

l.eft9th/ 

lie lqht 

lldtll/ 

Dl11eter 

ftld· 

ness 

current 

Location 

Locality letarkl 

let I let I let I 

41 

41 

n 

.,, 

, 

.,. 

c 

c 

c 

II 

Dl 

Dll 

Ul 

5.01 

6.35 

4.45 

l.ll 

5.01 

o.oo 

o.oo 

0.00 

axs 

axs 

AKS 

42C15U 

42CR561 

42CR5U 

IIPICI&LLT IORIO PUll, IIIIft ClllLCIDOIT 

UIIIIODIPIID PLAII, IRift ClllLCIDOIIT 

UIIIIOIIIPIID PLAIII, 110111 CIIIR1' 

47 ,5 c Dl 5.12 4.45 0.00 AKS 42CRm UIIIIOOIPIID PLAIII, .. 0111 ClllLCIDOIIT 

n "' c UP Ul Ul o.oo INS 42CIISU RIO CIIILCIDOIIT 

n 

n ,. '" c 

c 

UP 

Dll 

6.15 

5.41 

).49 

2.16 

O.DD 

o.oo 

INS 

INS 

4ZCR5U 

42CR561 

RID CIIILCIDOIIT 

UIIIIODIPIID n.&ll, liD ClllLCIDOIIT 

n '" c Dl ).)I 3.11 O.DD I"S 42CR5U UIIIIODIPIID PLII!I, llllft CIIIR1' 

47 1000 c Dll us 2.16 0.00 UIS 42C15U UIIIIOOIPIID n.&lll, llllft CIIALCIDOIIT 

47 1001 c ur ].11 2.15 O.OD a"s 42CR5U GRID CII!RT 

n 1102 c UP 4.n ].49 0.00 IJIS 42C15U GRilli CIIIR1' 

n lOU c Dl ,,)5 1.n o.oo IJIS 42CR5U UIIIIODIPI!D PLAKI, llllft CIIILCIDOII 

n 1104 c UP 4.45 1.91 1.00 IJIS 42CRSU RID CIIDT 

n 

., 

1005 

100, 

c 

c 

UP 

UP 

).11 

t.U. 

2.54 

2.54 

0.00 

1.00 

a"s 

INS 

42CR5U 

42CR5U 

IRift CIIILCIDIIIT 

Clllll CIIIRT 

47 

n 

1007 

1101 

c 

c 

Dl 

Dl 

).49 

2.15 

J.U 

2.54 

o.oo 

0.00 

a"s 

IKS 

4ZCR5U 

42CR5U 

UIIIIODIPIID PLUI, nD liD llllft IIOftLID CIIILCIIIOIIT 

UIIIIODIFIIO PLIIII, CIIID CIIIRT 

n 

., 

n 

10" 

II II 

IOU 

c 

c 

c 

Dl "' 

Dl 

2.22 

4.45 

,,., 

z.n 

J.ll 

1.91 

0.00 

0.00 

o.oo 

IJIS 

IllS 

IHS 

42CII561 

42C115U 

42CI567 

Clll!ll CIIIR1' 

UIIIIODIPIID ft.UI, Cltlll CIIIRT 

UIIIIODIPIID PLAIII, Cllll CIIIRt 

n 1012 c UP J.ll 2.22 0.00 INS 42GR5U RIO CRALCIDOIIY 

n IOU c "' J.ll 1.91 0.00 lltS 42CR561 IRI ft CIIILCIDOIIT 

n 1014 c UP J.ll 2.22 o.oo axs 42CR5U Cltllll CIIIR1' 

47 

., 

n 

1015 

1015 

1011 

c 

c 

c 

"' "' "' 

2.54 

u.n 

,_,. 

1.5, 

5.01 

'·" 

0.00 

o.oo 

0.00 

IllS 

IKS 

IKI 

42CR561 

4ZGR551 

42CR557 

IRift CJI!RT 

IIIIIPOWK&r.f.t IOKID, IIIIft CIIIRT 

IRift CIIIRT 

47 1011 c "' ,,0) 4.45 0.00 IKS 42GR557 llllft COARSI-CitliiiiD CIIILCIDOIIT 

47 1019 c UP ,,]5 ).11 o.oo IKS 42CI557 R!D Cllli.CIDOIIT 

47 1020 c "' ).11 J.ll 0.00 UIS 42CII557 • IRift CRILCIDOIIT 

n 

n 

47 

n 

1021 

1022 

IOU 

1024 

c 

c 

c 

c 

Dll 

Ill 

II 

UP 

].49 

9.21 

UJ 

UJ 

5.01 

5.72 

7.52 

J.ll 

o.oo 

0.00 

0.00 

o.oo 

lKS 

UIS 

IKS 

IKS 

42GR557 

42GR5'5 

42CR565 

42GR565 

UIIIIODIFIIO PLIIII, RID CRlt.CIDOIIT 

IIFICIALLT IOIIIIID n.a111, RID CIIIR1' 

IIPICULLT IORIIID PLAIII, IRITI CR!RT 

RIO CII!RT 

....

""' OD
Arches lfatlonal Park Collections (contlnuedl 

keen I• Dtalot 

lo. lo. 

artifact 

Type 

Artifact 

Fori 

Length/ 

llel911t 

lldth/ 

Olueter 

Thielness current 

Location 

Locality leurls 

n ms 

41 10%5 

c 

c 

(CII (cal (CI) 

Dl 

ur 

,,]5 

,,)5 

4." 

4.1J 

o.oo 

o.oo 

AilS 

AHS 

42GR5'5 

42GR~65 

UIIIIOOIFIIO n.an, IRift CIIDT 

IHITI CIIIRT 

n 1021 c ur U9 ].11 0.00 l"S 42GR~65 IHtft Cli!IIT 

n 1021 c ur 5.01 2.U 0.00 aHS 42GR~65 RID CllatCIOOIIT 

n 1029 c 01 l.U l.st 0.00 AHS f2GR55S UNitOOtriiO SRaTTII, IR1ft CIIIIT 

n 1030 c ur 4.45 ).49 0.00 &liS 42GR555 110 CIIIIT 

n lUI 

., 1032 

., 10)] 

., lOJt 

c 

c 

c 

c 

ur 

01 

ur 

Dl 

5.40 

4.45 

).49 

),4, 

).11 

).11 

2.15 

1.91 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

&liS 

AHS 

a"s 

lHS 

42GR565 

42GR5U 

42GR565 

nGRm 

RIO CRatciDOIIT 

IJNifOI)JrJID nAil, RID liD IIROQ IIDnLID CIIIRT 

liD CIIIRT 

IJNifOI)fFIID n.&ll, liD CIIIIT 

41 1m c Ill U4 us 0.00 AHS 42GRm SAifDm)lfJ, TfO rACITS, E0GU ILSO CIIOOJD 

41 1035 c ur 4.76 2.54 0.00 &liS nCRm IRtft CllltmKJIJT 

n 1DJ7 c "' ),4, 2.5f 0.00 AilS 42CRm CRaLCIOOIIT 

n ton G Nl 10.15 4.15 0.00 &liS 42CR559 SliOSTOill, TIO rams, IOGIS ILSO GIOUIID 

n 1039 c 01 4.45 4.1) 0.00 AilS 42CR559 Ulii!Oorr·rn n.ar1, nrn CRatCIDOIIT 

41 1040 c 1111 4.45 5.40 o.oo .&liS 42CR559 UIUPICUttt IORIID nAil, RIO Cllat.CIDOIIT 

41 lOU c Dl l.ll 2.22 o.oo AilS 42CR559 UIIIIOOIFIID ft.~l, IRift COlRSI-GRlltiiD CRIIIT 

41 1042 c 01 ),4, ].11 o.oo lHS 42CR559 llNitODIFIID nan, IRtn COUSI-GRIIIIIID CIIIIIT 

n lOU 

.., 1044 

.., 1045 

.., lOU 

c 

c 

c 

c 

01 

01 

01 

II 

2.1' 

3.11 

1.91 

9.5] 

2.54 

1.11 

1.91 

5.40 

o.eo 

O.DD 

0.00 

o.oo 

&liS 

&liS 

AHS 

AilS 

42CR55' 

42CR55' 

42CR55' 

42CR551 

UIIIIODIPIIO nlltl, IHift ClllLCIDOIIT 

UIIIIODIFIIO nan, IRITI CIIERT 

UllltODIPIID nan, IRift CIIIRT 

IJFACIALLY IORKID PLAKI, IHITI ClllltT 

n 1041 

.., 1041 

c 

c "' ur 

Ul 

,,]'j 

J.ll 

). 49 

o.oo 

0.00 

a"s 

AHS 

42CR551 

42CR551 

IHITI CIIIRT 

IHift CIIDT 

n 1049 c "' 4.45 4.11 0.00 AilS 41CR551 IRI Tl CIIIRT 

n 1051 c "' 4.45 2.54 0.00 AHS 42CR~51 IHITI CRALCIOORT 

n lOSl 

.., 1052 

n 105J 

., lOSt 

4l 1055 

.., 105, 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

01 

01 

01 

Dl 

01 

Dl 

J.ll 

]. tl 

,,,, 

3.11 

),4, 

1.91 

2.22 

).49 

Ul 

2.54 

r.n 

2.~4 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

o.oo 

o.oo 

0.00 

AHS 

AilS 

IIIII 

&liS 

a"s 

a"s 

42CR55l 

42CR551 

42GR551 

42CR551 

42GRSS1 

42CR551 

UIIIIOOIPIIO PLlltl, IRtft CRILCIOOIIt 

UIIIIOOrrJIO PLAII, IRITI CIIALCIOOifT 

UIIIIOOIFIID n.an. IRtTI CR!RT 

UIIIIODIFIID rLIII, IRITI CHERT 

Ulll!OOiriiO rLAitl, IRift CRALCIOOIY 

UIIIIOOIFIID nan. IHift CRALC!OOIIT 

..... 

~ 

\D 
Archn llatlonil Puk Colltctlona lcontlnuedl 

lccttllon 

lo. 

Clt1l09 

llo. 

lrtlf•ct 

Type 

lrtlf1ct 

ror• 

Len9th/ 

llelqht 

lldth/ 

Ol .. l!ter 

Tllldness 

Current 

Location 

Locality ltturll 

., 1051 c 01 

(CI) (et) (CI) 

l.H 1.59 0.00 AKS ucam UIIIIOOIPIID FLAil, IHITI CIIALCIDOIIT 

n 

., 

., 

1051 

1059 

l8U 

c 

c 

c 

01 

01 

01 

2.54 

2.54 

2.U 

1.91 

1.91 

Ul 

0.00 

8.00 

8.00 

lKS 

lMS 

IMS 

42CR551 

42CR551 

42GR551 

IJIIIIOOIFIID FLAil, IRITI CRDT 

UIIIIOOIFIID FLAKI, IHITI CH!RT 

UIIIIODIFIID n.an, IRJTI CIIIIT 

n 

.., 

lOU 

lOU 

c 

0 

Dl 

Of 

!.54 

lUI 

1.59 

2.S4 

0.00 

0.00 

&MS 

AMS 

42GR55l 

42CR55l 

IJIIIIODIFIID n.an, 110 CIIIIIT 

CORII COl, 1' ROIS or KIRII&LS, 10ft IIIDS PIIRCID 

41 lOU c co lO.U U2 o.oo &MS 42GR555 UIIIFACIALLf FLAKID PRlGIIDT, IIIITI CliiiiT 

41 

41 

lOU 

m5 

c 

c 

II 

UP 

9.5) 

4.U 

5.12 

J.n 

0.00 

0.00 

IMS 

IMS 

42CR555 

42GR555 

II FACULLT IORIID n.AKI, IRITI CIIIIT 

IIIJTI CIIALCIDOifT 

41 1"' c Dl ).11 ).49 o.oo AMS 42GR555 UIIIIOOIFIID n.an, IRITI CIIIH 

41 lOU c Dl 4.45 2.54 0.00 lKS 42GR555 UIIIIOOIFIID SHATTIR, IIIITI C1IIR1' 

41 IOU c Dl I. 91 J.5t 0.00 &MS 42GR555 IJNIIODIFIID n.Aitl, IHITI CIIALCIDOIT 

n lOU c UP 2.22 2.54 o.oo lMS 42CR555 IHITI CIIALCIDOIIf 

41 1071 c Dl 2.16 1.59 0.00 AMI 42CR555 UIIIIODIFIID SRATTIR, IRlft CRILCIDO!If 

41 

41 

1011 

1072 

c 

c 

UP 

1111 

2." 

4.45 

1.91 

J.n 

o.oo 

0.00 

IMS 

lKS 

42GR555 

42CRSn 

IHITI CHALC!OOifl 

UfffrACULLf IORJ:!O FUll, IIIITI CliiiiT 

41 107) c UP ).49 2.n 1.00 IMS 42GR5H liD CIIIRT 

41 

41 

1074 

107S 

c 

c 

Dl 

II 

l.ll 

z:st 

2.22 

0.95 

0.00 

0.00 

AM$ 

AM$ 

42CR575 

42CR575 

UIIIIOOIFIID n.an, IRITI CIIIIT 

PROJ.PT? KIDSICT., IIIII •. CIIIRT, SIR.IDC!S, 110 WIIS 

41 

41 

107S 

1017 

c 

c Dll "' ],)5 

2.54 

2.22 

2.54 

0.00 

0.00 

lKS 

.,., 

42CR575 

42GR575 

R!O CH!RT 

UIIIIODIFIID n.an, IHITI CIIIRT 

41 1071 c Dl 2.22 2.54 0.00 AKS 42GR516 UIIIIODIFIID FLAIII, BROIII CIIALCIDOIII 

41 1079 c Dl 2.54 1.91 0.00 AKS 42GR576 UIIIIODirJID rLAKI, IHITI CHIRT 

41 1010 c "' 2.16 1.91 0.00 AKS 42CR516 PJIII CHIRT 

f1 lOll c Dl 2.22 2.22 0.00 lKS 42GR576 UIIKOOIFIID n.an, PIIIK CIIIIT 

41 1012 c 01 2.54 1.27 0.00 lKS 42GR516 UIIIIODtriiD n.an, IRITI CRIRT 

41 lOll c UP 2. 22 Ul D.OO AM$ 42CR54' IHJTI CHIRT 

41 IOU c 01 o.oo 1.00 0.00 AM$ 42GR549 7 rLAKIS or CHIRT AIIO CIIALCIDOIII 

41 1015 c "' I. 59 1. 27 0.00 AMS ucasn nrn CHALCIDOift 

41 IOU c pp 6.35 1.4! 0.00 A"S 42GRS54 IIIITI CRALCIDOIIY 1 110 BIRIIS OR IIOTCII!S 

n 1011 c UP 4.45 5.01 0.00 IMS 42CR554 IHITI CHILCIDOIII 

n lOll c 01 4.45 ].II 0.00 UIS 42GR554 UIIKOOtrJID n.an, IRITI CRIRT 

n lott c UP . ).11 l.ll 0.00 lf!S 42GR554 IHJTI ClllLCIDOIIf 

.... 

~ 

0 

-tlls.s u. . -~~·~~·=·-, ·· · 
Arches National Park Collections (contlnQedl 

accession 

Ko. 

catal09 

llo. 

artifact 

Type 

Artifact 

Fora 

Ltn9tll/ 

Relgllt 

(C11) 

lldtb/ 

Olaaeter 

(C11) 

Thick· 

ness 

(CI) 

current 

Location 

Locality Reaarh 

47 mo c DB 3.11 2.22 0.00 AilS 42GRSS4 UKMODIPIED PLA~I, IHIT! CHALCIDOKT 

47 lOU c ur 5.40 3.11 0.00 AilS 42GRSS4 IHIT! CRALCIDOKY 

47 1092 c DB us 2.86 0.00 l!IS 42GRS54 IIIII!ODIPIIO PLAit!, IHIT! COARSI·GRAIII!O CHALCIOOIIY 

47 1093 c "' 3.11 2.54 0.00 AKS 42GRSS4 RED AIIO IHIT! IIOTTLID CHALCIDOKY 

47 1094 c ur 2.16 ).18 0.00 l!IS 42GRSS4 REO CHERT 

47 1095 c DB 2.54 Ul o.oo AilS 42GR554 I/IIKODIFIBD FLA.I, IHITI CHERT 

47 109& c DB 2. 54 1.59 0.00 AKS 42GR554 UNMODIFIED FLAK!, RID AND IRITI HOTTLID CHERT 

47 m1 c ur 2.22 1.59 0.00 AilS 42GR554 IlliTE CHALCIOOIIY 

47 ma c DB 1.59 1.91 0.00 l!IS 4ZGR554 IIIIKODIPIED FLAKB, YILLOI CKALCIDOKY 

47 10, c UP 7.94 6.35 o.oo AilS 42GR5&1 IHIT! CHERT, UNIFACIALLY IORitEO 

47 1100 c ur 1.62 6.03 0.00 AilS 42GR5U IHITI COARSI·GRAIIIBD CKALCIDOKY 

47 

47 

1101 

1102 

c 

c 

UP 

81 

6.)5 

6.6? 

5.40 

&.0) 

0.00 

0.00 

AHS 

AilS 

42GR561 

42GR5U 

IHITB CK!RT 

BIPACIALLY fORKED FLAKE, fHiTI CHERT 

47 1103 c UP 6.35 4.76 o.oo AilS 42GR561 IHITI CHALCEDONY 

47 1104 c ur 6.01· 4.45 o.oo AilS 4ZG11561 IlliTE CHERT 

47 1105 c "' 5.01 4.45 0.00 AilS C2G115Gl RED CHALCIOOIIY 

41 110& c 81 4.45 2.54 0.00 AilS 42GR561 BIFACIALLY IORKID FLAK!, IHIT! CHIRT 

41 1107 c ur 5.40 l.U o.oo AilS 42GR~61 IHITI CHALCIOOIIY 

47 1108 c Bl ,,0] 2.22 0.00 l!IS 42GR561 II !FACIALLY IORUO.. rLlU, IHIT! CH!RT 

47 1109 c Ull 5.08 2.86 0.00 AilS 42CR561 UNIFACIALLJ IORKRD FLAKE, RID CHIRT 

n 

., 

., 

., 

1110 

1111 

1112 

1113 

c 

c 

c 

·C 

ur 

ur 

ur 

pp 

5. 72 

4.45 

2.22 

3.81 

3.11 

1.59 

1.91 

2.54 

o.oo 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

lHS 

AilS 

AHS 

AHS 

42CR~U 

42CR5Gl 

42G11S61 

42GR561 

BROIN CMlLCIDONY 

IHITI CHALCIDONf 

GRIYCHBRT 

IHITI CHERT, BASE BROUN OFF 

41 ll14 c ur 1.45 2. 54 0.00 AHS 42G11561 IHITI CHALCEDONY 

41 1115 c DB 2.54 1.59 o.oo l!IS 42GR5&1 UIIKODIPI!D PLAKE, RED CHERT 

41 

47 

Ill' 

1117 

c 

c 

DB 

DB 

3.18 

0.00 

I. 59 

0.00 

o.oo 

o.oo 

AHS 

AKS 

42CR561 

42GR550 

UIIHODIPIED FLAK!, Y!LLOI CHERT 

24 rtaK!S OF CHr.RT AND CHALCIDONY 

47 

., 

1111 

·u., 

c 

c 

81 

UP 

2.54 

4.45 

l.U 

).81 

o.oo 

0.00 

AilS 

&liS 

42G11550 

42GRS50 

BIFACIALLY IOR~EO PLAKE, IRITI CHERT 

GRIY QUART%IT! 

47 1120 c UP 3.11 ].49 0.00 AilS 42GRS50 GRAY QUARTZITE 

47 1121 c BI 4.45 1.59 0.00 AHS 42GRSSO BJFACIALLJ IORKBD FLlKI, IHITI CHALCIDOIIf 

...... 

~ 

...... 
Arches National Park Collections (continued) 

lr:cesslon 

lo. 

cataloq 

lo. 

lttlfact 

Type 

Artifact 

Fort 

Ltn9th/ 

Hel9ht 

leal 

lldth/ 

Olaaeter 

let! 

Thiel· 

ness 

leal 

Current 

Location 

Locality ·11eaarb 

41 1122 c 08 o.oo 0.00 0.00 111S 42GIIS70 ! FUUS OF CHIRT AIID CIIALCIIIOllf 

47 ll2l c co 9.S3 5.67 0.00 1111 42Git570 UNIFlCIALLY FLAKED CORI, IHITI CH!Rf 

f7 1124 G Ill 6.61 7.30 o.oo us 42GIIS70 UIIDSTOIII, TIO FICITS 

n 

47 

ms 

1126 

a 

I 

OT 

OT 

6.03 

.... 4.76 

2.22 

0.00 

0.00 

liiS 

AMS 

41GRS70 

42GIIS'TO 

SAIIDSTOIII, BLACIDID 01 011 StDI 

UNIDIIITtriiiLI 1.010 lOIII rtllGifiiiT 

47 1127 p SR o.oo o.oo o.oo IMS 42Git570 THRII IIRI!lDS or CORI\UClftD U'rlLI'lt UU 

47 1121 p SR 0.00 o.oo o.oo lMS 42GIIS10 ILACI SMOOTHID uTILITY llltl 

47 

47 

41 

1129 

mo 

1131 

c 

c 

c 

Dl 

ur 

ur 

4.45 

.. " s.oe 

4.0] 

3.11 

1.54 

o.oo 

o.oo 

o.oo 

AilS 

lMS 

IMS 

42G11570 

UG11570 

42GR570 

SKATTBR, WHIT! CH!RT . 

IRJTI CHIRT 

IRITI CHBRT 

41 1132 c DB '·" J.lt 0.00 111S UG11510 lllfiiOOtrliO FL&ll, IRITI CHIRT 

47 113l c DB l.ll 2.16 o.oo UIS 42CRS70 UNIIODIFJIO FUll, BROil CHIRT. 

41 1U4 c Bl ].49 Ul 0.00 ANS 42CRS70 BIFACIALLY IORIP.D FLAil, REO CRIRT 

n 11)5 c "' 3.11 ' 3.11 0.00 lMS 42CR570 IHJTI CIIIIIT 

n 1136 c ur 3.4, 3.18 0.00 us 42Git570 . IHITI CHIRT 

f7 1137 c ur 3.11 .].49 0.00 IllS 42GRS10 BROil CH!Rf 

47 lUI c ur 4.13 2.16 o.oo IMS 42GR570 RED CRIRT 

41 lU9 c ur 2.16 1.91 0.00 IMS 42011570 PIIRPLI CRIRT 

11 1140 c ur ),4, 2.54 o.oo &liS 42GR570 Gllf CHBRT 

41 llU c Ill J.ll 2.1' 0.00 IllS 4201570 IIFJCIALLY IOMED TOOL fiP, ORif CRIR? 

47 

41 

47 

47 

1142 

1143 

1144 

llts 

c 

c 

c 

c 

"' ur 

DB 

DB 

4.16 

2.1' z.u 

2.54 

U6 

2.54 

1.91 

1.59 

0.011 

o.oo 

o.oo 

D.OO 

liiS 

IMS 

AMS 

w 

UCRSS6 nORm 

42CR554 

oORm 

RIO 1110 YILLOI IIOTTLID CHIRf 

IRlTI CRIR? 

IJIIIIOOIFIID FLlltl, IRITI CRALCIDDI! 

IJIIIIOOirJED FLAil, IRJTI CHIRT 

47 

41 

47 

uu 

lU? 

1141 

c· 

c 

c 

Dl 

It 

II 

1.00 

I.U 

1.26 

0.00 

... , 

s.ot 

o.oo 

o.oo 

0.00 

IllS 

liiS 

-'"! 

t2GR556 

420155, 

t2GR556 

IIII!IOOIFIIO rt.AKIS OF CIIIIIT DO CHALCIOOII! 

IIP&CIALtY IORIED rt.UI, IIITI CIIIRT 

BIP&CllLLY IORit!D FLAil, IHJTI CRIRT 

47 un c ' U1 5.12 4.45 0.00 JIIS 42Git55' IHJTI CH!RT 

·n 1150 c ur 4.45 l.lt 0.00 AilS UGR556 IRIT! CH&LCIOOIIT 

41 

41 

47 

1151 

1152 

1153 

c 

c 

c 

ur 

UF 

ur 

4.45 

5.01 

6.15 

3.18 

J.n 

2.22 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

AilS 

IMS .MS 

42GR556 

42GR556 

42GII556 

IRITI CHIRT 

RED CHIRT 

REDCII!IIf 

47 1154 c 81 2.16 2.54 0.00 IMS UGRm BIFlCIALLY IORitED rt.lll, RIO CIIIRT, TOOL !LAlli 

.... 

.r:-

N 
Arches llatlonal Park Collections (continued) 

Accession catalog Artifact Artifact Length/ lldth/ Thlct- Current Locality Reurh 

lfo. llo. Typ! Fora Height Dlaeter ness Location 

(CI) (CI) leal 

47 1155 c ur 4.13 2.16 o.oo AKS UGRS56 IR[TI CHALCIDOIIT 

47 tm c sc 3.49 2.16 0.00 AKS 42GR556 UIIIFACIALLY IORK!O, BaOIR CRALCIDOIIY 

47 1151 c Bl J.49 2.86 0.00 AMS 42GRSS6 BIFACIALLY IORK!D FLAK!, BROIII CHALC!DOJr 

47 1151 c ur 5.12 2.22 0.00 AKS 42GRS56 Pt.IRPLI CHERT 

47 1159 c ur 3.49 3.11 0.00 AKS 42GR556 RIO CRIRT 

4'7 1160 c Bl 6.67 J.ll o.oo DIS 42GR556 BIFACIALLY IORl!D FLlKI, IHITI CRALCIDOII! 

47 1161 c ur 2.54 2.86 0.00 AKS 42CR556 IHITI CRALC!DOIIY 

4'1 tm c Ull 2.54 2.22 o.oo AMS 42GR556 UIIIFACULLY IORKID FLAK!, IHITI CIIALC!OO!It 

4'1 llU c ur 4. 76 ),., 0.00 AKS 42GR556 lliiTI ClllLC!DOIIY 

47 1154 c ur 4.16 ).49 o.oo AMS 42GR551 IHITI CHERT 

n 1165 c DB U7 J.tl 0.00 AKS 42GR551 IITILII!D, RID CHALC!OOIIY 

47 tm c ur 5.08 4.45 0.00 AMS 42GR558 IHITI CHERT 

4'1 1167 c ur uo 3.18 0.00 AKS 42CR551 IHITI CHALCIDOHT 

4'1 me c DB s.oe 5.01 0.00 AHS 42GR551 UN!OOJFJ!D FLAK!, IHITI CR!RT 

4'7 1169 c 01 U7 4.45 0.00 AfiS f2CRS58 SHATTIR, IHITI CHIRT 

47 1170 c DB 6.35 5.01 0.00 AHS 42GR558 UN!OOJFJID FLAKI, BROil CHERT 

47 1171 c co 6.67 5. 72 0.00 AMS 42GR558 RED CHIRT 

4'7 1172 c 01 o.oo O.Oit o.oo AKS 42GR552 12 FLAK!S OF CHIRT AIID CHALC!DOIIY 

47 117l c DB 4.45 2.22 0.00 AMS 42GR552 SHATTIR, llllft CHERT 

4'1 1174 c DB 3.49 3.18 0.00 AKS 42GR552 Ulll!ODJ FJID FLAK!, RID CHERT 

4'1 

4'1 

1175 

1176 

c 

c 

DB 

DB 

4.45 

2.22 

J.U 

J.n 

0.00 

0.00 

ANS 

AMS 

42GR552 

42GR552 

UIIHOOIFIID FLAK!, IRITI CHERT 

UN!ODIFIID FLAK!, IRITI CHERT 

47 1177 c ur 3.18 4.1J 0.00 lMS 42GR552 IHITI CHI!RT 

41 1171 c Dl 9.53 4.7' 0.00 AfiS 42GR552 lllnloDIFIID FLAKI, IHITI CHERT 

41 ll79 c DB 6.03 J.ll 0.00 AMS 42GR552 SHATTIR, lliiTI CllftT 

41 

47 

4'1 

t7 

1110 

1181 

1112 

1183 

c 

c 

c 

c 

II 

UF 

UP 

UF 

9.21 

'·" 

5. '·" 72 

5. 72 

5.08 

5.0) 

4.11 

0.00 

0.0() 

0.00 

o.oo 

AKS 

AKS 

AMS 

AMS 

42GR552 

42CR552 

42GR552 

42CR552 

BrrACfALtr IORICID FLAil, JI!ITI CRALCIOOIIY 

IHITI CHIRT 

Jill T1 CH!RT 

IORII:!D 1 B!.AO: CII!RT 

47 1114 c UF 6.0) 4.45 0.00 AKS 42GR552 JI!ITI CRERT 

41 1185 c UF 5. 72 ), 49 0.00 AMS 42GRS52 IHITI CHIRT 

47 1116 c BJ 5. Oft f.ll 0.00 lMS 42GRSS2 RTFACIALLJ IORKID FLAK!, IHIT! CH!RT 

,_. 

~ 

VJ 
Arches Matlonal Park Collections (continued) 

lc:cesslOD 

llo. 

catalog 

llo. 

lrtlfact 

type 

lrtlfact 

ror• 

LeiiC)th/ 

HelCJht 

(cal 

lldtll/ 

Olaaeter 

(cal 

Til letnus 

(cal 

carrent 

Location 

Locality Reaarts 

47 

47 

1117 

1111 

c 

c "' "' 

]. 49 

6.)5 

2.22 

4.13 

o.oo 

o.oo 

AHS 

AHS 

42GRSS2 

42GRS52 

IKtTB CKKRT 

IRITB CHERT 

n 

f7 

11" 

mo 

c 

c 

ur 

ur 

6.]5 

1.62 

4.13 

4.45 

o.oo 

0.00 

lHS 

AMS 

42GRSS2 

42CRS52 

llltTB CKKRT 

fill TB CKKRT 

C7 1191 c ur 4.45 3.11 0.00 AHS 42GRS52 IRITB CKKRT 

47 mz c Dl 4.16 2.22 o.oo &HS 42GR552 IORKID, fiiiTB CRALCIDOIIt 

47 

47 

119J 

1U4 

c 

c 

01 

UP '·" 5.01 

4.45 

3.39 

0.00 

0.00 

lHS 

AKS 

42GRSS2 

42GR552 

UIIIIODIFIID FLAKE, IHfTI CRKR1' 

IRITI CR!RT 

47 llt5 c ur 5.01 3.11 o.oo AilS 42GR552 IRITI CHALC!OOKT 

47 

47 

ms 

m1 

c 

c 

ur 

ur 

3.81 

J.ll 

).18 

3.11 

0.00 

0.00 

AHS 

AHS 

42CRS52 

42GR5S2 

1111'1'1 CRBRT 

IHITI CRBRT 

47 me c ur 3.11 2.22 0.00 AilS 42CR552 IRITI CRBRT 

47 

47 

mt 

1200 

c 

c 

II 

ur 

4.13 

3.81 

2.54 

J.U 

0.00 

o.oo 

lHS 

AHS 

42GRSS2 

42CR552 

BIFACIALLf fORKED rLAJCI, IRITI CIIDT 

R!D CHBRf 

47 

47 

n 

n 

1201 

1202 

1203 

1204 

c 

c 

G 

c 

pp 

Bl 

Of 

II 

2." 

20.00 

0.00 

5.40 

1.91 

5.01 

s. 7Z 

4.45 

o.oo 

o.oo 

0.00 

0.00 

AHS 

&HS 

AilS 

AilS 

42011552 

42GR552 

42GR552 

• 42GRS52 

IIIITI CRBRf, POIIIf IROitiM OPF 

BIPACIALLY IORKIO rtlKI, IHITI CR&LCIDORY 

SAKDSTO«I, KIARLY SPHERICAL II~ 3 GROUND FAC!TS 

IIFACIALLr IORKID rtAKI, IHITI CHIRT 

17 1205 c Of o.oo 0.00 0.00 &HS CIIIIRAL SUR PAC! COLLI!Cfl 011 ASSORTED ARTIFACTS, PRORIIIDC! UIIKIIOIR 

..... 

~ 

~ 

APPENDIX C. 

An Outline of Geologic Strata 




APPENDIX D 

SITE NUMBER 

CONVERSION LIST 

UNL21 42GR 2158 

UNL1 42GR 297 

UNL2 42GR 2141 UNL22 42GR 2159 

UNL23 42GR 2160 UNL3 42GR 2142 

UNL24 42GR 515 

UNL4 42GR 2143 

U.NL25 42GR 544 UNL5 42GR 539 

UNL6 42GR 2144 UNL26 42GR 290 

UNL7 42GR 2145 

UNL8 42GR 565 

UNL9 42GR 2146 

UNL10 42GR 2147 

UNL11 42GR 2148 

UNL12 42GR 2149 

UNL13 42GR 2150 

UNL14 42GR 2151 

UNL15 42GR 2152 

UNL16 42GR 2153 

UNL17 42GR 2154 

UNL18 42GR 2155 

UNL19 42GR 2156 

UNL20 42GR 2157 

Note: UNL numbers were temporary site designations used in identifying 

sites in the field. These numbers appear on tags at field sites. 

The smithsonian trinomial numbers are the numbers used as 

permanent standarized reference designations •. 

149 

APPENDIX E 

Glossary of Technical Terms 

ANGULAR DEBRIS: Debitage that exhibits no definable ventral 

surface, conchoidal fractures or other flake morphology. Also 

referred to as shatter. 

BI-DIRECTIONAL: Edge retouch on two opposing margins of an 

artifact. Differs from bifacial retouch which extends onto the 

faces of the artifact. 

BIFACE: A biface represents the product from any stage in the 

bifacial reduction strategy of producing flakes and manufacturing 

formalized tools. Bifaces are characterized by a single working 

edge around the perimeter of the tool. Marginal retouch extends 

at least one-third of the way onto the two opposing faces. 

Polymorphic biface types characterize different stages within the 

biface manufacturing continu~m. Early biface production is 

represented by bifacial cores and late reduction by projectile 

points or other bifacial tools. 

BIFACIAL: Modification on two opposing faces. When referring 

to retouch, at least one-third of two opposing surfaces are 

facially modified. 

BIFACIAL COBBLE: A cobble that has flakes removed from opposing 

faces along the same margin. The worked margin forms a cutting 

or chopping edge. The term is intended to replace 'chopper' 

which implies a specific function that can not be implied from 

macroscopic analysis. 

BIFACIAL CORE: A core that is reduced in a systematic fashion to 

produce a relatively flat, two-sided core. Reduction is regular, 

not random. These cores are considered to be compsite since they 

are able to produce flakes and serve as bifacial tools. They are 

sometimes referred to as thick bifaces. 

BIFACE FLAKE: Thinning flakes exhibit an overall morphology 

indicating that they were removed from a bifacially flaked 

artifact during manufacture or resharpening. Polythetic 

attributes include retouched and multifaceted platforms, parallel 

dorsal surface scars, a convex flake curvature, and thinness. 

CORES: Regular cores are debi tage that exhibit negative scars 

originating from one or more platforms. They are of sufficient 

size to produce additional usable flakes. Exhausted cores retain 

no further flaking potential. They tend to have shorter scar 

lengths, which can be distinguished from retouching by a greater 

edge irregularity. Exhausted cores represent the maximum use of 

raw materials. 

DECORTIFICATION FLAKE: A flake with dorsal surface cortex. 

These are produced during primary reduction phases. 

151 
DRILL: Drills exhibit bifacial retouch andjor extensive marginal 

retouch. The retouching produces a stable projection for rotary 

stress. When wear patterns are present, rotary wear (scarring or 

edge abrasion on the shaft perpendicular to the shank axis) can 

be identified. The tip may exhibit either crushing or rounding. 

EXTENSIVELY RETOUCHED FLAKE: Similar in edge morphology to a 

uniface or scraper, however the retouch does not extend onto the 

faces, i.e., retouch is confined to the margins. Use is similar 

to more formalized unifaces and scrapers. Tool not to be confused 

with a retouched flake, which exhibits only several retouch 

scars. 

FLAKE: A flake is a piece of debitage that exhibits definable 

ventral and dorsal surfaces. The ventral surface is that which 

was last attached to the larger rock from which it was removed. 

FORMALIZED: A term used to describe tools that have a fair 

amount of investment in terms of reduction labor. A uniface is 

formalized, while a retouched flake, which may perhaps serve a 

similar function, is not. 

GRAVER: Gravers are also projections; however, unlike drills, 

they do not require a long shaft. Gravers have a marginally 

retouched projection, which may exhibit step fractures on the 

tip. Presumably, their utility was as incising or piercing 

artifacts. 

HAMMERSTONES: Hammers tones are artifacts which display either 

ring crack clusters or extensive battering along ridges or 

natural projections. They are frequently cobbles that have been 

pounded or battered on opposing ends. 

INTERIOR FLAKE: A flake removed from a core that is generally 

thicker than a biface flake and has cortical, single faceted or 

multifaceted platforms. They usually lack the convex curvature 

typical of flakes removed from bifaces. Any flake that does not 

have dorsal surface cortex or biface flake qualities. 

MANO: A grinding stone. that is hand held and used in conjunction 

with another grinding stone. Manos may have convex or planoid 

working faces. The surfaces may be unifacially or bifacially 

ground. 

METATE: The grinding platform across which a mano is worked. 

They may have a concave worn surface. Metate · worked surfaces 

vary with the extent and type of use. 

MULTIPLATFORM CORE: A core with more than one striking platform 

from which flakes are removed. Generally flakes are removed from 

any usable platform or surface, resulting in a random reduction 

technique that produces flakes of varied lengths, and angular or 

blocky cores. 

152 

PC 

tl 

m< 

p; 

t: 

Ul 

h. 

T 

s 

R 

t 

r 

t 

( 

1 
POLISHING STONES: Pebbles, usually less than 10 em in length, 

that have smoothed surfaces from a rubbing or light grinding 

motion. 

PROJECTILE POINT: Projectile points are generally produced 

through bifacial core or flake reduction. They have thin, 

uniform cross sections, regular edges, no cortex, and prepared 

haft elements. They exhibit edge alteration or retouch scars. 

Their overall morphology is characterized by a point and two 

similar lateral sides that facilitate piercing and cutting. 

RETOUCHED COBBLE: A tool manufa.ctured from small, thin cobbles 

that are usually less than 10 em in length. A margin(s) has been 

retouched but the surfaces have not been modified. Edge use may 

be similar to that of a uniface or biface. 

SCRAPER: Scrapers are unifacial flake tools with relatively 

steep marginal retouch. The edge angle may vary in steepness. 

Scrapers are recorded as side, end, or side and end types 

depending upon location(s) of.modified margins. Scrapers may be 

manufactured from a flake and retain some flake morphology 

(platform, bulb). 

SINGLE PLATFORM CORE: A core that has a single striking surface 

which serves as the platform for flake removal. Flake removal 

generally results in a core that is conical in shape. Flakes 

removed from single platform cores are similar in length, 

suggesting a systematic technique of core reduction. 

TESTED COBBLE: A cobble which retains cortex over most of the 

surface and has a minimal amount of flake removal. The flake 

scars are large, few in number (less than three), and usually are 

restricted to one area. There is no indication of shaping. These 

specimens represent initial modification. 

UN I FACE: A uniface is a formal tool with facial retouch that 

extends over one-third or more of one surface of the artifact. 

UNIFACIAL: One face; when referring to retouch it indicates that 

at least one-third of one surface is facially modified. 

UNIFACIAL COBBLE: similar to a bifacial cobble except that 

flakes have been removed only from one surface. 

UNIDIRECTIONAL: Unidirectional refers to edge or marginal 

retouch on one surface. It is not to be confused with unifacial 

retouch which extends onto the face. 

153 
/ 

,· .. : 
APPENDIX F 

Artifact Illustrations 

Projectile points. 

155 

A 

c 

E 

F 

A. 42GR515 

B. 42GR2146 

c. 1.0. 66 

3 Inches -= ~ E3 I 

7 em 

B 

0 

G 

D. 42GR2147 

E. 42GR539 

F. 42GR539 

G. 42GR565 
Bifacial tools. 

~56 

A. 1.0. 5 

B. 42GR2144 

A 

D 

3 Inches 

I E-3· E3 

7 c m 

C. 42GR565 

D. 42GR2144 

B 

c 

E 

E. 42GR565 
APPENDIX G 

Isolated occurrences 

Descriptions Artifact Location Area/ Type No. cadastral Length Location biface, flake sedge white chert 

T24S R21E, 1 flat 

NE 1/4 1/4 of SW 

of SW 1/4 of 

section 7 tested core ridge cobble, T24S R22E, saddle 2 quartzite NW 1/4 1/4 of SE 

of NE l/4 of 

section 8 6 interior, flake slick chalcedony, 

3 T23S R21E, rock secondary dep. NW l/4 1/4 of SW slope from UNL 2? 

of NW l/4 of 

section 21 decort., flake draina9e clear/White 

4 T23S R21E, chalcedony NE 1/4 1/4 of SE 

of SW 1/4 of 4 interior, section 21 clear/white 

chalcedony 

biface tool drainage 

5 T23S R21E, 

NE 1/4 1/4 of SE 

of SW 1/4 of interior, flake section 21 chalcedony 

8 interior, flake 2 drainage 10 m white 

6 T23S R21E, chalcedony NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 

of SW 1/4 of 3 biface, section 21 white 

chalcedony 

biface, tool red chert 

biface, flake fin. rim white T23S R21E, 7 chalcedony SW l/4 of SW 1/4 

of NW 1/4 of 

section 21 interior, drainage flake white 

8 T23S R21E, chalcedonY 1/4 sw 1/4 of NW 

of NE 1/4 of 

section 20 

157 
No Cadastral Area/ Location Artifact Descriptions 

Location Length Type 

9 T23S R21E, 10 m drainage flake 2 interior, 

SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 white 

of SW 1/4 of chalcedony 

Section 27 

10 T23S R21E, drainage flake interior, 

NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 white 

of SW 1/4 of chalcedony 

section 27 

11 T23S R21E, drainage flake decort., 

SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 white 

of NW 1/4 of chalcedony 

section 34 

12 T23S R21E, drainage flake decort., 

NW 1/4 of sw 1/4 cream chert 

of NE 1/4 of 

Section 34 

13 T23S R21E, drainage flake interior, 

NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 white 

of SE 1/4 of chalcedony Section 34 

14 T23S R21E, drainage flake interior, 

SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 white 

of SE 1/4 of chalcedony 

Section 34 

2 15 T23S R21E, 4 m dune/ flake 3 interior, 

SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 drainage white 

of SE 1/4 of chalcedony Section 34 

16 T24S R21E, drainage flake interior, 

NW 1/4 of sw 1/4 white 

of NE 1/4 of chalcedony 

section 2 

17 T24S R21E, 1 m top of flake 2 interior, 

NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 road cut white 

of SE 1/4 of chalcedony Section 2 

18 T24S R21E, top of flake decort., 

NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 road cut white 

of SE 1/4 of chalcedony Section 2 

158 
Descriptions Area/ Location Artifact 

NO Cadastral Type Length Location 

ridge core tested 

19 T24S R21E, cobble/ 

NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 nodule, 

of NW 1/4 of white 

section 11 chalcedony 

drainage flake decort., 

20 T24S R21E, white 

SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 chalcedony 

of NE 1/4 of 

section 11 

flake 2 interior, 25 m terrace 

21 T24S R21E, white 

SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 chalcedony 

of NE 1/4 of 

section 12 

2 em terrace flake decort., 

22 T24S R21E, tan/clear 

NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 chalcedony, 

of SE 1/4 of broken in two 

Section 12 

slope flake interior, 

23 T24S R21E, white 

NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 chalcedony 

of NW 1/4 of 

section 13 

tool biface, 30 T24S R21E, m ridge green altered 24 

NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 volcanic ash 

of sw 1/4 of 

section 13 

flake interior, 

quartzite 

interior, 

white 

chalcedony 

ridge tool uniface, 

25 T24S R21E, white 

NW 1/4 of sw 1/4 chalcedony 

of sw 1/4 of 

section 13 

1m slope flake interior, 

26 T24S R21E, white 

SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 chalcedony 

of SW 1/4 of 

section 13 interior, 

green altered 

volcanic ash 

159 
Location No. Cadastral Area/ Artifact Descriptions 

Location Length Type 

27 T24S R21E, slope core unidirectional, sw 1/4 of sw 1/4 white of sw 1/4 of chalcedony Section 13 

28 T24S R21E, -- ridge historic horseshoe 

SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 top 

of NE 1/4 of 

Section 23 

10 m ridge flake 2 interior, 29 T24S R21E, white SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 chalcedony of NE 1/4 of 

Section 23 

30 T24S R21E, ·ridge flake interior, 

white SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 chalcedony of NE 1/4 of 

Section 23 

31 T24S R21E, 10 m -slope flake 2 interior, 

white SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 chalcedony of sw 1/4 of 

Section 23 

32 T24S R21E, 15 m slope flake 2 interior, 

white SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 chalcedony of SW 1/4 of 

Section 23 decort., 

white 

chalcedony 

drainage flake decort., 33 T24S R21E, white NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 chalcedony of NW 1/4 of 

section 26 

34 T24S R21E, ridge flake interior, 

white SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 chalcedony of NW 1/4 of 

Section 26 

35 T24S R21E, near flake interior, 

SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 drainage/ white 

c.halcedony of NW 1/4 of ridge(?) 

Section 26 

36 T24S R21E, slope flake interior, 

NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 white 

chalcedony of NW 1/4 of 

section 26 

160 

·-l 
Descriptions Location Artifact 

cadastral Area/ No. Type Location Length 

flake interior, slope 37 T24S R21E, white 

NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 chalcedony 

of SE 1/4 of 

section 27 

flake interior, slope 38 T24S R21E, white 

NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 chalcedony 

of SE 1/4 of 

section 27 

flake 2 biface, ~rainage 

39 T24S R21E, white 

NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 chalcedony 

of SE 1/4 of 

section 27 

flake 2 biface, 25 m2 dune. 

40 T23S R21E, white 

NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 chalcedony 

of NE 1/4 of 

section 34 interior, 

white 

chalcedony 

angular 

debris, 

white 

chalcedony 

tool biface dune 

41 T23S R21E, 

SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 

of SE 1/4 of 

section 27 

biface, drainage flake 

42 T23S R21E, green altered 

SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 volcanic ash 

of SE 1/4 of 

section 27 

biface,. 50 em dune edge flake 

43 T24S R21E, white 

NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 chalcedony 

of NW 1/4 of 

section 13 interior, 

white 

chalcedony 

3 interior, 23_m drainage flake 

44 T23S R21E, white 

NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 chalcedony 

of NW 1/4 of 

\ section 27 5 biface, dune \ white 

chalcedony 

161 
No. Cadastral Area; Location Artifact DescriJ?tions 

Location Length Type 

45 T23S R20E, drainage flake biface, 

NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 pink chert 

of NW 1/4 of 

Section 26 

46 T24S R21E, dune flake angular 

SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 debris, 

of SE 1/4 of white 

Section '34 chalcedony 

47 T25S R21E, drainage ' flake interior, 

NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 white 

of NE 1/4 of chalcedony Section 16 

48 T25S R21E, dune flake biface, 

sw 1/4 of sw 1/4 white 

of NE 1/4 of chalcedony Section 3 

49 T25S R21E, 15 m dune flake biface, 

SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 banded 

of sw 1/4 of opaque white 

Section 3 chalcedony 

biface, 

white 

chalcedony 

biface, 

white 

chalcedony 

50 T25S R21E, near tool biface frag. , NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 drainage white 

of NW 1/4 of chalcedony Section 10 

51 T25S R21E, top of flake interior, 

NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 road cut white 

of SW 1/4 of chalcedony Section 15 

52 T25S R21E, drainage flake interior, 

NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 pink chert, 

of sw 1/4 of "Dewey Section 15 Bridge" 

53 T25S R21E, road cut flake interior, 

NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 white 

of SW 1/4 of chalcedony Section .15 

162 
Artifact Descriptions Area/ Location No. Cadastral 

Location Length Type 

54 T25S R21E,. dune flake decort., 

white SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 chalcedony of SW 1/4 of 

Section 15 

drainage flake interior, 55 T25S R21E, white chert, SW 1/4 of sw 1/4 blade of sw 1/4 of 

Section 15 

angular dune flake 56 T25S R21E, debris, SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 white of SE 1/4 of chalcedony section 16 

dune flake biface, 57 T25S R21E, white NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 chalcedony of NE 1/4 of 

section 21 

interior, 58 T25S RilE, m road cut flake 2 25 white SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 chalcedony of NE 1/4 of 

Section 21 3 decort., 

white 

chalcedony 

talus flake decort., 59 T25S R21E, 

SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 slope white 

chalcedony of NE 1/4 of 

Section 21 

flake 2 interior, 15 60 T25S R21E, m road cut white SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 chalcedony of NE 1/4 of 

section 21 

drainage flake interior, 61 T25S R21E, white NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 chalcedony of NW 1/4 of 

section 21 

drainage flake interior, 62 T25S R21E, white NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 chalcedony of NW 1/4 of 

section 21 

63 T25S R21E, talus flake decort., 

SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 slope white 

chalcedony of NE 1/4 of 

section 20 

163 
No. Cadastral Area/ Location Artifact Descri~tions 

Location Length Type 

64 T24S R21E, dune flake interior, 

NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 Brush Basin 

of SE 1/4 of chalcedony 

Section 23 

65 T24S R21E, bedrock flake interior, 

NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 dark brown; 

of sw 1/4 of black chert, 

Section 24 edge 

retouched? 

66 T24S R21E, 1 m drainage flake interior, 

NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 white 

of NE 1/4 of chalcedony 

section 25 

tool hafted 

biface, 

white 

chalcedony 

67 T24S R22E, bedrock/ flake interior, 

SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 slick rock(?) white 

of SE 1/4 of chalcedony 

Section 5 

68 T24S R21E, drainage flake interior, 

NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 green 

of SW 1/4 of altered 

Section 30 volcanic ash 

69 T24S R21E, dune flake interior, 

sw 1/4 of sw 1/4 white 

of SE 1/4 of chalcedony 

Section 24 

164 
. - f 

,. 

APPENDIX H 

Data Base Files and Codes for Files from 1987 Survey. 

Fields Codes 

Bif=Bifacial Tools l=hafted bifaces 

2=unhafted bifaces 

Uni=Unifacial Tools !=extensively retouched flake 

2=retouched flake 

J=scraper 

4=utilized flake 

core !=multidirectional platform 

2=unidirectional platform 

J=tested cobble 

4=bifacial core 

Gs=Groundstone l=mano 

2=metate 

J=unidentifiable 

other l=bifacial cobble 

2=hammerstone 

Mattype=Material Type l=Tidwell white chalcedony 

2=Dewey Bridge chert 

J=Brushy Basin chalcedony 

4=quartzite 

5=other chert/chalcedony 

6=silicified wood 

7=green altered volcanic ash 

8=other 

9=redjamber chert 

lO=sandstone 

Comp=Completeness !=complete 

2=incomplete 

Plan=Planview O=not applicable 

!=rectangular/loaf shaped 

2=ovoid 

J=otherjunidentifiable 

Usewear l=unifacial 

2=bifacial 

J=unidirectional retouch 

4=bidirectional retouch 

cortex O=unknown 

l=present 

2=absent 

165 
surtreat=Surface Treatment O=not applicable 

l=qround 

2=pecked 

3=battered 

Notes: 

1) Groundstone, other/unidentifiable indicated artifact is broken 

and use can not be determined. , 

2) Planview refers to surface shape of grounds tones; not 

applicable (O) is us~d for all other tools. 

3) Usewear for '1' and '2' refer to surface use of qroundstone: '3'and '4' refer to retouch in tools. '0' is used when bifacial 

tools are bidirectionally retouched and unifacial tools 

unidirectionally retouched. However, it does (for example) occur 

when a uniface, for example, is retouched bidirectionally. This 

category is used for those instances. 

4) surface treatment refers to any composite use a tool may have 

incurred, a battered core, for example. 

5) Technical terms are defined in Appendix c. 

6) Material types are described in Project Area chapter. 

166 
Codes for DBase transect sample artifact file 

Rawmaterlt= Raw material type 

Decort= Decortication flake 

Inter= Interior flake 

Bfl= Biface flake 

Angulardeb= Angular debris 

Retoughflk= Retouched flake 

Haftbfpp= Hafted biface · Unhaftbif= Unhafted biface 

Uniface= Uniface 

Extretlk= Extensively retouched flake 

Modcobble= Modified cobble J 

FRC= Fire cracked rock 

Core= Core 

Metate= Metate 

Tqauntdeb= Total quantity of debitage (decort, inter, bfl and 

angulardeb) 

Pdecort= Percentage of debitage is decortication flakes 

Pinter= Percentage of debitage is interior flakes 

Pbfl= Percentage of debitage is biface flakes 

Pangltdeb= Percentage of debitage is angular debris 

Id= Temporary University of Nebraska number 

Raw material types 

1= Tidwell white chalcedony 2= Dewey Bridge chert 

3= Brushy Basin chalcedony 

4= quartzite 

5= other chert/chalcedony 

6= silicified wood 

7= green altered volcanic ash 

8= other 

9= red/amber chert 

10= sandstone 

167 
~IJIII>hlh. ll 

--------------------------------------------~--------------------------------------·---------------------------------------·------------

Sitt fAll detort inttr- bfl .angulAr retouch hafted unholfted Unl- eatre- 11011- fire core .. tate tquolnt pde- p1nter pbfl 1 11ter· ior debris flale btfue biface face m cobble cracked deb cort 

pAngIt deb 

ID I cOMents 

----------

2SR0297 

i.al ro• ~ 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I) (I (I 0 I) (I 0 o.oo 0.00 (l,(N) 

--------

0.00 

---------------------------

IJNl 1 rock art pine 11 no tnnsect 

42GR2141 I o· 83 10 8 0 0 () 0 () 0 I) 0 0 101 o.oo 0.82 0.10 0.08 ..... l2 

42SA2141 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00 1.(10 0.00 0.00 IJNl2 

42GR2141 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00 l.(ll) 1).00 0.00 ..... l2 

42GA2141 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 t) 0 0 0 0 2 0.00 I. (N) 0.1)() o.oo UNl2 

42GR2142 I 0 7 23 2 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 32 0.00 0.72 '"'~ ~2 0.06 IJNl3 

42GR2143 1 0 II I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 I) 0 0 13 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.08 UNl 4 

42GR2143 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00 1.00 o.oo 0.00 ..... l 4 

42GR0539 I I 46 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 I I 0 0 67 0.01 0.69 1).25 0.04 UNL :1 

.C2GR0539 3 0 3 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1).00 0.75 0.25 0.00 UNl:l 

42GR2144 I 0 I:! 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 17 0,00 O.BB 0.12 0.00 UN~ 6 •ultiplAtforl cor• 

42GR2144 3 3 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0,75 0.25 o.oo o.oo ..... l 6 

42GR2145 l 2 9 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 12 0.17 0.7:1 0.00 0.08 UNl 7 1ul tiplatfor• cor•, 301 cortex 

426110565 I 3 27 I 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0.08 0.75 0.03 0.14 UNI.B 

.C2GIIO:I65 3 I 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0.16 0.50 o.oo 0.33 UNLB 

.C2GR2146 /) () l I 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o. It 0.8'3 o.oo 0.00 IJNl~ 

.C2GR2146 7 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /) () 0 I o.oo o.oo 1.00 0.00 UNl 9 green chert Also observ~ 

42GR2147 I 0 61 5 I.C 0 0 I 0 0 0 () 0 0 80 o.oo 0.76 0.06 0.18 UNt.IO 

42GR2148 1),20 1 I 3 0 l 0 /) I I I 0 0 0 0 5 0.61) 0.00 0.20 UNLit 201 cortex cover on bifate 

42GR2149 l 2 10 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 0 16 0.13 0.62 0.00 0.25 ..... ll2 

42GR2149 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.00 1.00 0.00 o.oo UNL12 

42GR2149 I) 5 0 I 0 0 0 I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 I o.oo 1.00 0.00 - - o.oo ..... ll2 

42GR2150 I 0 13 8 3 0 0 o· 0 0 0 () 0 0 24 0.00 o.s.c 0.33 0.13 IJNI.13 I int ther• alt. I int w/cortx 

42GR2151 I 29 17 I 13 0 /) 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 60 0.48 0.28 0.02 0.22 UNll4 

.C2GR21:12 I 0 58 17 13 0 () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BB 0.00 0.66 0.19 0.15 UNI.I5 

42GR2152 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 o.oo 1.00 /),1)0 o.oo ..... ll5 

42GR2152 /),2') 5 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0.00 0.71 o.oo UNLI5 nw ut•riAl • brovn chert 

42GR2152 6 0 7 I 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0.00 0.70 0.10 0.20 ..... ll:l 

42GR2153 I 0 13 s s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0.00 0.56 0.22 0.22 UNl16 

42GR2154 I 0 12 3 l 0 0 0 0 /) 0 0 0 0 16 0.00 0.75 0.19 0.06 ltll17 

426R21:1:1 I 0 9 3 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0.00 0.69 0.23 0.00 ..... us 

42GR2156 I 0 6 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 /) II 0.00 0.54 0.27 0.18 ..... ll~ 

42GR21:1:1 4 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00. IJilll~ 

42GR21:1:1 s 0 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.00 0.67 0.33 o.oo ..... ll9 

42GR2155 7 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 I) 0 0 0 I 0.00 0.(1() 1.00 0.00 ltll19 raw •ateri.al • volc.anic nh 

42GR21:17 l I 9 I 4 0 0 I 0 0 0 t) 0 0 15 0.06 0.6/) 0.06 0.27 ..... l20 

.C2GR2158 I 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.00 0.00 o.oo 1.00 UNL21 

42GR2159 9 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /) 0 0 30 0.00 1.00 0.00 o.oo ._..L22 

426R2160 . 0 I 0 33 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0.00 0.85 0.05 0.10 IJNl23 

42GR2160 3 I 5 1 1 0 /) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0.12 0.63 0.12 0.12 ..... l23 

42GR2160 .. 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 o.oo 1.00 0.00 0.00 lJNt.23 

42GR2160 5 0 I 0 0 o· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0.00 1.00 0.00 o.oo ._..L23 

426110515 I :1 30 I 8 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0.11 0.68 0.02 0.18 IJNI.24 

42GII051:1 2 I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0,5() 0.50 0.00 o.oo UNL24 

426110515 3 0 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.14 ._..L24 

426110515 4 0 t 0 0 0 0 0 I) 0 0 0 0 0 I 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 IJNL24 

---

..... 

0\ 

00 
Appendix H lcontlnuedl 

Site Ul decort Inter- bfl anqular retouch hafted unllafted unl face ext ret 1odlfled lire cou .etate tquant prl~<~ry 

---·-·-

plnter pbfl panqular ID I toaaents 

aater· lor debris flake blface/ bl face flate cobble cracked flates decort debris 

lal proL p rock flake 

42GI0515 ' 0 D 0 2 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 UNL24 

42CR0544 

UG10290 

42GI0290 

0 

1 

2 

0 0 0 

7 I • a 1 l 

0 0 

3 0 

1 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 0 

0 18 

0 5 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.)9 0.44 

0.20 0.60 

0.00 

0.11 

0.20 

UNL2S historic site, no tunsect 

UNL26 

UNL26 

f2GIOUO 3 D 1 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.00 0.25 0.75 0.00 UNL26 

42GI0290 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00 1.00 o.oo 0.00 UNL26 

ucamo 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 UNL26 

42GI0290 

42GIOUO 

I 

10 

0 1 0 

0 0 • 

0 0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 1 

) 0 

0.00 

0.00 

1.00 0.00 

0.00 o.oo 

0.00 

o.oo 

UNL26 ravaater1=basa1t v/cortex 

UNL26 
REPORT CERTIFICATION 

I certify that "Archeological Investigations of Arches National 

Park, Utah", by Karen Kramer 

has been reviewed against the criteria contained in 43 CFR Part7 (a)( 1) and upon 

recommendation of the Regional A,rcheologist has been classified as 

available 

Date 

Classification Key Words: 

.. Ayailablc"··Malcing the report available to the public meets the criteria of 43 

CFR 7.18(a)(1) • 

.. Available (deletions)"··Malcinj the report available with selected informa· 

tion on site locations and/or site characteristics deleted meets the criteria 

of 43 CFR 7.18 (a)(l). A list of pages, maps, paragraphs, etc. that must be deleted 

for each report in this category is attached . 

.. Not Ayailablc"··MaJcing the report availabJe does not meet the criteria or 43 

CFR (a)( I). .