ceramics from the firehole basin site and firehole phase in ......and pottery, cover an area more...

29

Jessica L. Middleton, et al. Firehole Phase Ceramics

Plains Anthropologist, Vol. 52, No. 201, pp.29-41, 2007

Ceramics from the Firehole Basin Site and Firehole Phase in the Wyoming Basin

Jessica L. Middleton, Patrick M. Lubinski, and Michael D. MetcalfThe Firehole Basin site (48SW1217), excavated in 1976 and 1977, is the type site for the Firehole

phase proposed by Metcalf for the Wyoming Basin of central and western Wyoming. Given the dearthof excavated sites for the period from 700-300 B.P., and dated ceramics in Wyoming Basin in gen-eral, the Firehole Basin assemblage is an important indicator of material culture in this time pe-riod, but the artifacts have never been analyzed or reported in detail. Most researchers have char-acterized the Firehole Basin ceramics as Intermountain ware, but the ceramics have few affinitieswith this type, and this label should not be applied. Likewise, the Firehole Basin ceramics do not fitthe definition of Boars Tusk Gray ware, a proposed southwest Wyoming type. The closest stylisticand technological affinities may be with Uncompahgre Brown ware or the recently proposed WaltmanBrown ware.

Keywords: ceramics, Firehole phase, Uncompahgre ware, Wyoming

Jessica L. Middleton, Archeology Office, Yosemite National Park, PO Box 700, El Portal, CA 95318,[email protected]

Patrick M. Lubinski, Department of Anthropology, Central Washington University, 400 E. University Way, Ellensburg, WA98926-7544, [email protected]

Michael D. Metcalf, Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, P.O. Box 899, Eagle, CO 81631, [email protected]

In 1983, Metcalf proposed the Firehole phasein his initial chronology for the Wyoming Basinof central and western Wyoming (Metcalf 1987;Zier et al. 1983). This phase was named for theFirehole Basin site (48SW1217), one of the fewexcavated sites at the time that dated between 1000and 300 B.P. in the Wyoming Basin. The site wasthought perhaps to be representative of the termi-nal prehistoric period. Despite the obvious rela-tionship of the site to the proposed phase, the ar-tifacts have never been analyzed or described indetail, allowing there to be different notions ofthe nature of the assemblage, particularly the ce-ramic assemblage. Given the continuing dearth ofexcavated sites in this time range and dated ce-ramics in Wyoming in general, the Firehole Basinassemblage remains an important indicator ofmaterial culture in this time period. In this paper,we provide a report of the original site investiga-

tion and its ceramic assemblage.

THE FIREHOLE BASIN SITEAND PHASE

The Firehole Basin site is located within theWyoming Basin, a physiographic province con-sisting of a series of intermountain basins in theMiddle Rocky Mountains (see Figure 1). TheWyoming Basin is at the periphery of two majorculture areas (Great Plains and Great Basin), andcorresponding archaeological research traditions.Prehistoric and historic cultural developments inthis area traditionally have been interpreted as re-sulting from “influences” or actual migration intothe region by groups from the Plains and GreatBasin “core” areas (e.g., Frison 1973; Sharrock1966; Shimkin 1986). Metcalf’s (1987) WyomingBasin chronology was proposed, in part, to stimu-late thinking of the region in terms of local devel-

30

PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 52, NO. 201, 2007

opments, instead of diffusion or movements fromthe Plains or Basin.

The Firehole phase, originally defined to ex-tend from 1000 to 300 B.P. (Metcalf 1987), isthe terminal prehistoric period of the WyomingBasin chronology. Its onset was defined to corre-spond with a pronounced decline in site density,accompanied perhaps by a decline in frequenciesof Rose Spring and small corner-notched arrowpoint styles and an increase in frequencies of tri-notched points and Intermountain ware ceramicscompared to the preceding Uinta phase. The tim-ing of these changes and onset of the Firehole

phase was later adjusted to 700 B.P. by Metcalf(McKibbin et al. 1989).

The Firehole Basin site is about 10 milessouthwest of Rock Springs, Wyoming near Flam-ing Gorge Reservoir in Sweetwater County. It liesat about 6,800 foot elevation, on a low ridge be-tween the Green River and Little Bitter Creek. Theridge is mantled with aeolian sand, and coveredwith sparse sagebrush and juniper. Surface arti-facts, including chipped and ground stone, bone,and pottery, cover an area more than 100 by 50 min size.

The site was discovered by the late George

Figure 1. Location of sites referred to in this paper, and the Wyoming Basin study area (indicated with dashed line). Wyoming Basinboundaries from Hunt (1967:Figure 1.1). Base map from United States Geological Survey 1:250,000 digital elevation model, one degreeseries.

31


Babel and brought to professional attention by Mr.Babel and the late Joe Bozovich, both membersof the Wyoming Archaeological Society. It wasoriginally recorded in 1976 as Firehole Basin #11by a crew from Western Wyoming College whilethey were completing a nearby coal sampling sur-vey (Metcalf 1977). Test excavations were con-ducted in the fall of 1976 and fall of 1977 by theSweetwater Chapter of the Wyoming Archaeologi-cal Society and the Western Wyoming CollegeArchaeological Field School. Mike Metcalf di-rected the fieldwork, and an initial discussion ofthe site was provided by Metcalf and Treat (1979).After completion of the 1977 fieldseason, no further work was under-taken until 1999. The 1999 inves-tigation consisted only of a surfaceinspection and collection of oneprojectile point and two ceramicsherds from the surface.

In total, about 34 test unitswere excavated to a maximumdepth of 5 to 50 cm. All excavatedsediments were quarter inchscreened. The excavated portion ofthe site consisted primarily of abone midden exposed at the sur-face and shallowly buried in aeoliansands. Artifacts recovered from theexcavations included a large num-ber of bone fragments, plus ceram-ics, projectile points, hafted knives,chipped stone debitage, groundstone, bone awls, and bone andshell beads. Although there wereseveral charcoal stains and pos-sible posts, no definitive indicatorsof structures or firepits werefound.

The 1976 and 1977 excava-tions focused on two main loci, onecentered on a concentration of sur-face bone (Area 1), and one cen-tered on a concentration of surfaceceramics (Area 2). Excavation ofsixteen 2-x-2 m units in Area 1(Figure 2) yielded over 2,900 bonefragments, plus several charcoalstains, a possible postmold,

chipped stone, ground stone, and ceramics. Fiveadditional units excavated in Area 2, downslopeand southeast of Area 1, yielded over 900 addi-tional fragments of bone, plus charcoal stains,lithics and ceramics. A final nine units were exca-vated elsewhere. Unfortunately, details of exca-vations other than Area 1 are lacking, as maps andmost notes have apparently been lost.

Two radiocarbon dates have been obtained.One was based on a charcoal sample from the bonemidden in Area 1, while the other was based on acharcoal sample from the main ceramic concen-tration in Area 2. The bone midden sample re-

Figure 2. Plan of excavations in Area 1.

32


turned a date of 625 ± 50 B.P. (UGa-2049), andthe ceramic concentration sample returned an es-timate of 645 ± 135 B.P. (UGa-2048). UsingCALIB 3.0.2 (Stuiver and Reimer 1993) and thecalibration data provided by Stuiver and Becker(1993), these dates correspond with one-sigmacalibrated age ranges of cal A.D. 1290–1410 andcal A.D. 1260–1430, respectively. The two datesoverlap at the one sigma range. The average ofthese radiocarbon ages using the procedure out-lined by Long and Rippeteau (1974) is 628 ± 49B.P.

Diagnostic artifacts, including projectilepoints and ceramics, were recovered from the ex-cavations in 1976–1977 and also from the sur-face in 1999. Projectile points are mostly arrowpoints, including four un-notched or triangular,two side-notched, and two tri-notched forms fromthe excavations, plus a single Rose Spring pointfrom the surface. Ceramics will be described laterin this paper, and analysis and reporting of the non-ceramic artifacts is underway.

The recovered fauna is dominated by prong-horn (Antilocapra americana), with a minimumof 433 specimens and 26 individual animals spe-cifically identified as pronghorn, and an additional5,397 specimens in the size range of pronghorn.Other identified specimens include four jackrab-bit (Lepus sp.) bones, three pocket gopher(Thomomys sp.) mandibles, one cottontail rabbit(Sylvilagus sp.) humerus fragment, and one prob-ably intrusive sage grouse (Centrocercusurophasianus) humerus fragment. An initial dis-cussion of the fauna has been provided (Lubinski2000; Lubinski and Metcalf 1996), and a fullerdiscussion is in preparation.

CERAMIC ANALYSIS METHODSThe ceramics analyzed were all of the mate-

rial in curation as of 2003 derived from the 1976and 1977 excavations (178 sherds) and 1999 sur-face collection (2 sherds), a total of 180 sherds.Unfortunately, although nearly all were labeledwith an individual catalog number, detailed prove-nience information has apparently been lost.

All sherds in the assemblage were noted as totheir portion (rim or body), and analyzed as to theirrim form, lip form, maximum thickness, temper,surface treatment, paste color, and decoration. All

of these attributes were chosen for comparisonto other described ceramics in the region. Allsherds were examined for curvature that mightindicate the presence of a neck. Rim sherds wereidentified by the presence of a lip, with all otherfragments noted as body sherds. Rim form wasdetermined by aligning the rim with the lip on aneven surface, and identifying its profile, rangingfrom straight to outflaring. Lip form was describedas rounded, flat, and/or folded over. Maximumthickness was recorded in millimeters with digi-tal calipers, and was taken at the thickest portionof each sherd.

Temper was examined under low power mag-nification (

33


suring approximately 90 by 40 mm. The thicknessof the sherds ranges from 3.6 to 11.2 mm. Mostof the sherds in the assemblage (167) are bodysherds, 12 are rim sherds, and one is a possiblerim sherd. None are basal fragments, so base formis unknown in all cases. Only two sherds indicateneck form, which is constricted in those frag-ments. There are no appendages nor is there anyevidence for the attachment of appendages, suchas clay plugs, found on any of the rim sherds. Themethod of manufacture of these sherds could notbe determined; there areno remains of coils evi-dent. This could point topaddle and anvil ormolded manufacture, al-though there are no de-finitive marks for eitherof these manufacturingmethods.

The size of the tem-per inclusions variesfrom less than 0.5 to 2mm. Particles of micawere found in 34 per-cent of the sherds (62/180), and were assumedto be part of the paste.None of the sherds havecalcite in the temper orpaste, based on a sampleof 20 sherds, 10 of eachvariety (below), that re-acted very weakly or notat all when tested withdilute hydrochloric acid.Eleven sherds haveblackened residue onthe interior surface, pos-sibly left over from usein cooking. The assem-blage exhibits variationwhich led to the defini-tion of two varieties,finger-impressed gray(Variety 1) and smoothbrown (Variety 2).

Variety 1 includesfinger-impressed gray

sherds, represented by 149 body sherds, 10 rimsherds, and one possible rim sherd. The exteriorof these sherds varies from light to dark gray, andis rough in texture with many temper inclusionsshowing at the surface. Nearly all of the body andrim sherds with an exterior surface (n=135/141,96 percent), exhibit finger impressed surfacemanipulations, often in a parallel, diagonal pattern(see Figure 3). In many cases distinct fingertipimpressions (dermatoglyphs) are evident. Of thesix remaining sherds with an exterior surface, three

Figure 3. Selected rim sherds. The upper six sherds are of the gray variety, with all but L-9101exhibiting finger impressions. The lower two sherds are of the brown variety. On rim profiles,shaded areas indicate appliqué and white areas indicate perforations. See Table 1 for details.

34


are smoothed-over impressed and three aresmooth. Nineteen other sherds have an unknownsurface treatment due to either lack of an exteriorsurface, or small size preventing treatment iden-tification. Maximum thickness is relatively uni-form on each sherd and ranges from 3.6 to 11.2mm. Two body sherds (L-9002, L-9003) exhibit auniconical repair hole between them, and one ad-ditional body sherd (unlabelled) exhibits abiconical repair hole.

The Variety 1 rim sherds (Table 1) exhibitstraight to slightly outflaring profiles and fingerimpressions extending to the rim. The lips on eightsherds are generally rounded, but on two, the liphas been folded over and flattened on top. Threerim sherds have an irregular appliqué applied overthe lip top (resulting in an uneven lip surface), withone or two punctates punched through it. Thepunctates are 1.5–1.8 mm in diameter, and theappliqués lack finger impressions. One rim sherdhas seven fine vertical lines (probably fingernailimpressions) on the exterior lip. Based on the 10rims and two neck fragments, the vessel form is

likely a jar with low sloping shoulders, slightlyoutflaring rims, and constricted necks.

Variety 2 includes smooth, brown sherds, rep-resented by 18 body sherds and two rim sherds(Table 1). The exterior surfaces of three bodysherds have been burnished or polished, and theremaining surfaces have been smoothed. On onebody sherd (FB11-12), there appears to be a fugi-tive red wash. There is no decoration on any ofthese sherds. On the one rim sherd large enoughto identify form (SW1217-831, collected fromthe surface in 1999), the rim form is outflaring inprofile, with a rounded lip and no decoration.Maximum thickness is relatively uniform on eachsherd and ranges from 4.5 to 8.1 mm. Two dis-tinct vessels may be present in the Variety 2 as-semblage, based on the fact that the two rim sherdsare of a slightly different shape and size, and thetexture of one is much more friable.

REGIONAL CERAMIC TYPESThe ceramics at Firehole Basin do not fit

neatly into any typologies previously defined for

Table 1. Summary of Rimsherds from the Firehole Basin Site.

Catalog # Rim Profile Lip Form Decoration/Surface TreatmentGray Variety (n=10):L-9013 & Outflaring Extra clay added over top & 1.8 Oblique, parallel finger impressionsL-91481 mm diam. punctate through it,

remainder unknown (fractured)L-9021 Outflaring Flat on top, edge folded over Oblique, parallel finger impressions

exteriorL-9048 Straight to Flat on top, edge folded over Oblique, parallel finger impressions

Outflaring exteriorL-9067 Outflaring Rounded UnknownL-9079 Straight Rounded, extra clay added over top Oblique, parallel finger impressions

& 2 punctates through it (1.5 mm diam.)L-9086 Unknown Rounded, extra clay added over top Oblique, parallel finger impressions2

& 1.5 mm diam. punctate through itL-9095 Outflaring Rounded UnknownL-9101 Straight Rounded, lip top flat 7 vertical lines on lip exterior

(fingernail impressions?), treatmentbelow unknown

SW1217-214 Unknown Rounded, top flat UnknownBrown variety (n=2):SW1217-831 Outflaring Rounded SmoothNo number Unknown Rounded, flat top Smooth1 These two sherds conjoin and were glued together sometime before our analysis2 This sherd also exhibits fine parallel, diagonal incised lines on the lip, but these are interpreted as excavationdamage.

35


nearby areas. Nonetheless, the ceramics at this sitehave some attributes that can be compared withregional types or styles from the same period, in-cluding established wares such as Fremont grayutility wares (Madsen 1977), Uncompahgre Brownware (Buckles 1971), and Intermountain ware(Mulloy 1958:84–85). Other contemporary ce-ramic types or classifications in the region includea proposed Waltman Brown ware (Martin 2000),and two proposed wares (Black Buttes Gray andBoars Tusk Gray) for southwest Wyoming(Creasman et al. 1990). To facilitate comparisonsand put the Firehole Basin materials into regionalcontext, we summarize these in Table 2 and dis-cuss them below.

Fremont ceramics are rare, but present insmall numbers (1–122 sherds) in at least 22 south-west Wyoming sites according to Smith(1992:Table 1). Of these sites, the nine with ra-diocarbon dates range from 1650 to 610 B.P.(Smith 1992:Table 1). In the core areas of the Fre-mont in Utah, ceramics date from about 1550 to600 B.P., but in peripheral areas, dates may ex-tend to 350 B.P. (Gunnerson 1969; Reed andMetcalf 1999:118,146). Generally, Fremont ce-ramics are identified by temper, paste color, andmethod of manufacture (Aikens 1966; Gunnerson1969; Madsen 1977), although Dean’s (1992) sta-tistical analysis of gray utility wares suggests thatthese attributes are not sufficient to define or iden-tify these wares in the Great Salt Lake region. Themost likely variety of Fremont pottery in south-ern Wyoming is Uinta Gray, which is the domi-nant type to the south in the Uinta Mountains andUinta Basin (Johnson and Loosle 2002:55;Madsen 1986:207; Madsen 1977). This type isdefined to include plain gray jars or pitchers withloop handles, or rarely bowls, tempered with cal-cite or limestone (Madsen 1986:207; Madsen1977; Truesdale and Hill 1999). In northeasternUtah, it is often thought that any plain gray ce-ramic “with calcium carbonate temper is by defi-nition Uinta Gray” (Johnson and Loosle 2002:55)although the diagnostic nature of this attribute hasbeen called into question (Johnson and Loosle2002:277).

Intermountain ware, sometimes calledShoshone ware, has been extensively reported in

southwest Wyoming (Frison 1971; McNees 1992;Smith 1992; Thompson 1991). Sites with Inter-mountain ware may date from 750–200 B.P., basedon the early date at the Myers-Hindman site inMontana (Lahren 1976:176) and the late date atthe Nidiwh site in Wyoming (Chomko 1986,1992). Intermountain ware is described as gener-ally gray pottery with straight walls, flattened orbulbous/thickened lips, greatest vessel diameterat the lip, flat and often flanged bases, and witheither a truncated cone form, or a “flower pot”form (Coale 1963:1; Mulloy 1958:202). Deco-ration is unknown, and surface treatments consistof roughly scraped or brushed exteriors (Coale1963:2–3; Mulloy 1958:84). Vessels are coarsely($2.5 mm) tempered with grit, sand, or crushedrock (Coale 1963:1–2; Mulloy 1958:84; Reed andMetcalf 1999:152). Intermountain ware is typi-cally considered characteristic of Numic peoples,particularly the Shoshone (Frison 1991:116;Larson and Kornfeld 1994:203; Mulloy1958:199).

Uncompahgre Brown ware has been reportedin north-central Colorado and eastern Utah (Buck-les 1971; Reed and Metcalf 1999). This ware hasbeen dated in Colorado and eastern Utah after 850B.P. (Reed and Metcalf 1999:155). The ware isdefined as a brown pottery, principally composedof wide mouth jars with flaring rims, slightly con-stricted necks, low shoulders, and conical orrounded bases (Buckles 1971:517). Color in thisware ranges from dark to light brown, yellowish-brown to olive gray, and sometimes reddish; tem-per is variable and of local material; manufactureis coiling and scraping; and surface treatment isfingertip impressed or plain (Buckles 1971:506–527; Reed and Metcalf 1999:155). The fingerimpressed type consists of impressions made bythe finger tips or fingernails covering the entireexterior of the vessel in parallel, aligned rows,sometimes in a diagonal manner (Buckles1971:522). The plain variety has been smoothedover the entire vessel after construction, occasion-ally leaving striations from scraping or wiping thesurface (Buckles 1971:520). UncompahgreBrown ware is typically considered characteris-tic of Numic peoples, particularly Utes (Buckles1971; Reed 1994).

36

PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 52, NO. 201, 2007Ta

ble

2. S

umm

ary

of C

onte

mpo

rary

Cer

amic

War

es D

efin

ed in

the

Reg

ion

War

eA

ge (

RC

YB

P)Pr

inci

pal L

ocat

ion

Colo

r Ve

ssel

For

mSu

rfac

e Tr

eatm

ent

Tem

per

Est

ablis

hed

War

es:

Uin

ta G

ray

1650

–610

north

east

UT

gray

jars

, pitc

hers

and

bow

lspl

ainca

lcite

or

(Fre

mon

t)lim

esto

ne

Inte

rmou

ntai

n75

0–20

0W

Y, M

T, C

Ogr

ayja

rs w

ith th

icke

ned

lips,

roug

hly

scra

ped

coar

se g

rit o

r st

raig

ht w

alls

, fla

t bas

esor

bru

shed

sand

and

a “flo

wer

port”

or

trunc

ated

cone

form

Unc

ompa

ghre

af

ter 8

50no

rth-c

entra

lbr

own

to

jars

with

flar

ing

rims,

finge

rtip

impr

esse

d or

va

riabl

eBr

own

CO

, eas

tern

UT

gray

cons

trict

ed n

ecks

,sm

ooth

ed (p

lain

)po

inte

d or

roun

ded

base

Prop

osed

War

es:

Bla

ck B

utte

s Gra

y 13

00–6

50so

uthw

est

gray

jars

with

or w

ithou

t sm

ooth

to ro

ugh,

grit

(e.g

.,(F

rem

ont-l

ike)

WY

shou

lder

s, po

inte

d so

met

imes

with

fing

ertip

calc

ite)

or ro

unde

d ba

ses

impr

essio

nsor

sand

Boa

r’s T

usk

Gra

y65

0–so

uthw

est

varia

ble

jars

with

glo

bula

r,no

ticea

ble s

crap

ing,

coar

se g

rit o

r (In

term

ount

ain-

like)

cont

act

WY

“flo

wer

pot”

or

brus

hing

, and

/or p

addl

esa

ndtru

ncat

ed co

ne fo

rms

and

anvi

l mar

ks

Wal

tman

Bro

wn

640–

520

cent

ral

brow

nja

rs w

ith st

raig

ht to

slig

htly

finge

rnai

l im

pres

sed

orgr

it (w

ith(U

ncom

pagh

re-li

ke)

WY

outc

urvi

ng ri

ms

plain

mic

aceo

uspa

ste)

37


Creasman et al. (1990) have proposed two ce-ramic traditions for southwest Wyoming, an earlytradition (1300–650 RCYBP) with pottery simi-lar to Fremont styles, and a late tradition (650 tocontact) which they note as including Intermoun-tain ware styles and technology. Their proposaldefines three ceramic wares: Black Buttes Grayfrom the early tradition, plus Boars Tusk Gray andSkull Point Gray from the late tradition. Either ofthe first two may be contemporary with theFirehole Basin ceramics dating 780–575 B.P.(range of one-sigma dates). Black Buttes Gray isgray in color, tempered with sand or crushed rock,and composed of shouldered to globular vesselswith rounded or pointed bases. Vessel walls areuniform and 5–8 mm in thickness. Surfaces aresmooth to rough with fingernail impressions re-ported at some sites. Boars Tusk Gray ware is de-fined as being highly variable in color, with heavycoarse tempering of sand or grit, rough surfaceswith noticeable brushing, scraping, or paddle/an-vil marks, and uneven vessel wall thickness. Ves-sel forms range from a globular truncated conestyle similar to the Intermountain tradition “flowerpot” and a straight walled variety, both with flatflanged bases.

Martin (2000) has defined a provisional waretermed Waltman Brown for ceramics found at theCarter site (48NA1425) in central Wyoming. Thisware is defined to include thin, micaceous ceram-ics in central Wyoming that have grit temper,highly finished interiors, finger-nail impressed (inhorizontal to slightly oblique rows) and plain sur-face treatments, no decoration, straight to slightlyoutcurving rims, rounded or flattened lips, and awide-mouth jar form (Martin 2000:321). All ofthe sherds are finely micaceous, include grit tem-per 0.3–4.0 mm in size, and some of them exhibitremnants of coils from manufacturing (Martin2000:311). This ware is similar to UncompahgreBrown ware from Colorado, but Martin(2000:320–321) provided a new name to avoidthe implication of cultural affiliation with Ute orPaiute peoples, as is typically assumed forUncompahgre Brown ware in that state.

The Firehole Basin ceramics share some simi-larities with all of the regional wares, but do notexactly match any of them. In terms of the well-

established wares, they are most similar toUncompahgre Brown and most unlike Uinta Grayand Intermountain wares. Firehole Basin andUncompahgre Brown share smooth or finger im-pressed surface treatments, outflaring to straightrim profiles, constricted necks, and in a few sherds,a brown color. With Uinta Gray, the Firehole Ba-sin assemblage shares the dominant sherd color,and in a few sherds, a plain finish, but differs in alack of shared finger impressions, distinct calcitetemper, handles, and pitcher or bowl forms. TheFirehole Basin ceramics bear almost no resem-blance to Intermountain ware, lacking the vesselshape, flattened lips, thickened lips, coarse tem-per, and exterior surface treatment, although theexterior surface color and tempering material aresimilar. Contrary to Martin (2000:317) andChomko (1992), the Firehole Basin ceramics aremost definitely not Intermountain ware.

In terms of their affinity to the provisional,proposed wares, the Firehole Basin ceramics aremost similar to Waltman Brown, intermediate toBlack Buttes Gray, and least similar to Boars TuskGray wares. Both Firehole Basin and WaltmanBrown exhibit finger-impressed and plain surfacetreatments, straight to outcurving rims, roundedor flattened lips, and some micaceous paste.These two vary slightly in that the Firehole Basinceramics exhibit finger impressions oriented morevertically, and some exterior burnishing lackingin the Waltman Brown ceramics at the Carter site.The Firehole Basin ceramics were placed into theBoars Tusk Gray ware by Creasman and others(1990), but we argue that this is inappropriategiven the lack of noticeable brushing, paddle andanvil marks, and uneven walls said to be distinc-tive of Boars Tusk Gray. Instead, their Black ButtesGray ware may be a better match, based on finger-impressed surface treatment, outflaring rims, andfiner temper.

OTHER WYOMING BASINCERAMIC SITES

Few ceramic assemblages in the WyomingBasin are directly comparable to Firehole Basin,mostly because few are associated with similarradiocarbon ages during the Firehole phase (700–300 B.P.). If we consider a slightly broader timerange of Late Prehistoric sites, those with mean

38


radiocarbon dates 800–200 B.P., there are 10 ce-ramic-bearing sites (see Table 3). These sites in-dicate extreme variability in the ceramic assem-blages in the Wyoming Basin. Some of the ce-ramics in this time period fit easily within estab-lished typologies. For example, specimens fromEden-Farson (Frison 1971), Harrower “B” (Th-ompson 1991), and Skull Point (McGuire 1977)provide good matches with classic definitions ofIntermountain ware. Others are more ambiguous,such as the purported affinities of Archery and48SW97 ceramics with Fremont types (Hakiel etal. 1984, 1987; Smith 1992), without sufficientspecific information to allow for evaluation of theFremont affiliation. The single Wyoming Basinsite from Colorado (5MF1915) yielded classicUncompahgre Brown ware. Several Wyoming as-semblages have affinities with Uncompahgre orWaltman Brown wares, especially in the rows offingernail impressions and sandy temper, particu-larly Carter (Martin 2000), 48SW97 (McNees1992), and Firehole Basin.

Similarities of some Wyoming ceramics toUncompahgre ware are compelling (Loendorf2002; Martin 2000), but whether this means a Utepresence in Wyoming is certainly debatable. In thispaper, we do not intend to address this question,but rather suggest that the distribution of ceram-ics may not be very helpful in this regard. The ideathat an Uncompahgre pot represents a Ute personand an Intermountain pot represents a Shoshoneperson is undoubtedly a vast oversimplificationof a much more complicated dynamic. Further-more, we hold with others the position that ce-ramic types, like all artifact types in archaeology,are defined on formal, spatial, and temporal at-tributes that do not necessarily correspond withethnicity, certainly not in any one-to-one relation-ship (Larson and Kornfeld 1994). In fact, somerecent studies of Great Basin ceramics imply thatat least some of the variation previously attrib-uted to ethnicity may instead be due to differencesin investment in ceramic manufacture as a resultof mobility (Bright and Ugan 1999; Simms et al.1997). At this nascent point in the study of Wyo-ming ceramics, we prefer to begin with evaluatingtechnological and stylistic similarities rather thanplacing pottery into a given type simply because

of its spatial location compared to ethnographicdistributions.

In the Wyoming Basin during the generalFirehole phase time period, there appear to bethree broad ceramic “traditions”: Fremont, Inter-mountain, and Uncompahgre or Waltman. Whatmight this mean? One possibility is that this di-versity reflects the transitional nature of the timeperiod, for example encompassing late Fremontmanifestations and early Intermountain wares, and/or it reflects a diversity of ceramic technologicalinvestment as a result of mobility. It could alsoreflect a true cultural diversity and the movementof peoples into and out of the Wyoming Basin (seeLarson and Kornfeld [1994] for a further discus-sion of this issue).

Unfortunately, there are two additional, sim-pler explanations for the apparent diversity of ce-ramics during this time period. One is that it sim-ply reflects poor dating control. That is, a numberof the ceramics are only loosely associated withradiocarbon dates, and the association may be inerror. For example, in some cases ceramics wereobtained from the surface and their connectionwith underlying dated deposits is uncertain. Addi-tionally, some radiocarbon dates may be based onheartwood, and thus provide ceramic ages perhapshundreds of years too old. Direct dating of ce-ramics using thermoluminescence (e.g., Benedict1989; Feathers and Rhode 1998; Rhode 1994)would resolve some of these problems.

Another possibility is that the apparent diver-sity reflects misidentifications and/or vague de-scriptions. For example, the ceramics at the Ar-chery site were assigned to Fremont types, but notdescribed in sufficient detail to allow other re-searchers to evaluate that interpretation. Gener-ally speaking, if we are going to understand thenature of Wyoming Basin ceramics, there need tobe much more detailed ceramic descriptions thanhave sometimes been offered in the past.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThanks are due to the Wyoming Archaeological Society and

all of the original excavators of the site, including Joe Bozovich,George Babel, Therese Babel, Debbie Crouch, Cathy Carey,Fletcher G. Carter, William E. Davis, C.J. Flores, Debra Foldi,Cheryl A. Hilman, Ross G. Hilman, Margie F. Krza, David J.McGuire, Jack Radosevich, Rebecca E. Rands, Russel L. Tanner,and Jana Vosika. Information on regional ceramics and helpful

39


Table 3. Summary of Wyoming Basin Sites with Ceramics Dating 800-200 B.P.

Site/ Dates # Sherds Description and ReferenceComponent (B.P.)5MF1915 580±50 76 Variation 1: all Uncompaghre Brownware micaceous body

860±50 sherds tempered with quartz, probably from one vessel, 71400±70 with polished exterior, 2 fingernail impressed, color range

pink to black (Kalasz et al. 2000)48CR1113 210±50 360 Vessel A: flat-bottomed, thick walled, pronounced shoulder;(Nidiwh) 230±70 Vessel B: simple stamped, thin walled; both sand and quartz

temper (Chomko 1986, 1992)48LN317 300±50 76 Brushed interior and exterior, many burnished, thickened lip,(Skull Point) (surface sand-tempered, 4-10 mm thick (McGuire 1977; Creasman et

+ excav.) al. 1990)48NA1425 580±60 535 3+ wide-mouthed, rounded jars with straight to outflaring(Carter) rims, plain surface or fingernail impressions in parallel rows,

micaceous paste, sand/grit temper up to 4 mm in size, andtotal thickness 2.8-6.0 mm (Martin 2000)

48SU867 850±70 22 A—sand tempered, exterior fingernail impressed, interior(Harrower) 680±50 smoothed to burnished (Thompson 1991)Component 5 2 B—sand tempered, shouldered vessel, flat rim, smooth

exterior and interior surface, greatest width at lip (Thompson1991)

48SW97 880±80 3 Body sherds, fingernail impressed in parallel rows, with quartz610±60 sand/quartzite temper, 6.0-6.4 mm thick (McNees 1992; Smith

1992)48SW304 230±100 Unknown, at Truncated cone to shouldered flat bottomed jars (some(Eden-Farson) least 11 vessels flanged) with brushed or smoothed surfaces. Lips rounded or

flat, some thickened. Body sherds 3.5-9 mm thick. Tempersand, unpulverized clay, crushed limestone, granite (Frison1971)

48SW1217 645±135 160 Gray with diagonal finger-impressed exterior, some rims with(Firehole 625±50 appliqué and punctuates, some rims with vertical incised linesBasin) at lip, 3.6-11.2 mm thick (this report)

20 Brown with smooth or polished exterior, one with fugitive redwash, no other decoration, outflaring rim, 4.5-8.1 mm thick(this report)

48SW5176 570±50 196 A—gray/brown, wide-mouthed, slightly shouldered jar with(South Baxter 500±50 (excav.) rolled lip, outflaring rim, flat-bottomed, slightly flanged base,Brush Shelter) plain surface, and sand temper, 7.5-11.0 mm thick (Hoefer et

al. 1992)115 B—gray/brown, wide-mouthed jar with round lip, straight

(surface) rim, plain surface, and sand temper, 8-10 mm thick (Hoefer etal. 1992)

3 C—gray/brown, with sand temper, diagonal, partially(surface) smoothed-over fingernail impressions, 8-10 mm thick

(Hoefer et al. 1992)48SW5222 850±70 15 Uinta Grey and/or Emery Gray, with temper of calcite,(Archery) 490±100 dolomite, crushed rock, or sand (Hakiel et al. 1984, 1987)S locality

40


suggestions were made by Stephen Chomko, Lynn Harrell, MattKautzman, Lance McNees, Kelly Pool, and Craig Smith. StacyKautzman, Ben Sainsbury and Victoria Ciccone completedillustrations. Reviewers Mary Lou Larson and Patricia Deanmade helpful comments that materially improved the manuscript.Firehole Basin artifacts were borrowed from the WesternWyoming College Archaeological Repository, and thanks aredue to that facility and the Wyoming Bureau of LandManagement for curation of these important materials.

REFERENCES CITEDAikens, C. Melvin

1966 Fremont-Promontory-Plains Relationships, Includinga Report of Excavations at the Injun Creek and BearRiver Number 1 Sites, Northern Utah. University of UtahAnthropological Papers No. 82, University of Utah Press,Salt Lake City.

Benedict, James B.1989 Age of Punctate Pottery from the Caribou Lake Site:

Comparison of Three Physical Dating Methods.Southwestern Lore 55(2):1–10.

Bright, Jason R., and Andrew Ugan1999 Ceramics and Mobility: Assessing the Role of Foraging

Behavior and Its Implications for Culture History. UtahArchaeology 12:17–29.

Buckles, William G.1971 The Uncompahgre Complex: Historic Ute Archaeology

and Prehistoric Archaeology on the Uncompahgre Plateauin West Central Colorado. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado,Boulder.

Chomko, Stephen A.1986 The Nidiwh Phase: Late Prehistoric Period Systematics

in Wyoming. Paper presented at the 44th PlainsAnthropological Conference, Denver, Colorado.

1992 A Review of Clay Ceramics in Wyoming. Paper presentedat the 50th Plains Anthropological Conference, Lincoln,Nebraska.

Coale, George L.1963 A Study of Shoshonean Pottery. Tebiwa: Journal of the

Idaho State University Museum 6(2):1–11.Creasman, Steven D., Kevin W. Thompson, and Beth Sennett

1990 Prehistoric Pottery of Southwest Wyoming: A PreliminaryAssessment. Paper presented at the 48th PlainsAnthropological Conference, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Dean, Patricia A.1992 Prehistoric Pottery in the Northeastern Great Basin:

Problems in the Classification and ArchaeologicalInterpretation of Undecorated Fremont and ShoshoniWares. Unpublished PhD. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Oregon.

Feathers, James K., and David Rhode1998 Luminescence Dating of Protohistoric Pottery from the

Great Basin. Geoarchaeology 13:287–308.Frison, George C.

1971 Shoshonean Antelope Procurement in the Upper GreenRiver Basin, Wyoming. Plains Anthropologist 16:258–284.

1973 The Wardell Buffalo Trap, 48SU301: CommunalProcurement in the Green River Basin, Wyoming.Anthropological Papers No. 48, Museum of Anthropology,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.1991 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains, 2nd ed.

Academic Press, San Diego.Gunnerson, James H.

1969 The Fremont Culture: A Study in Culture Dynamics onthe Northern Anasazi Frontier. Papers of the PeabodyMuseum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 59, No 2.Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Hakiel, Bridget, Nicholas Hakiel, James C. Mackey, ThomasReust, and Ricky Laurent

1987 The Archery Site (48SW5222): A Uinta Fremont Campsitein Southwestern Wyoming. Southwestern Lore 53(2):1–22.

Hakiel, Nicholas, Bridget Hakiel, Ken Sydenstricker, andKatherine Huppe

1984 Final Report on the Archery Site (48SW5222): A UintaFremont Site in Southwest Wyoming. Journal ofIntermountain Archaeology 3:77–94.

Hoefer, Ted III, Steven D. Creasman, Dirk Murcray, and JosephBozovich

1992 The South Baxter Brush Shelter Site: An EarlyShoshonean Occupation in Southwest Wyoming. TheWyoming Archaeologist 36:47–69.

Hunt, Charles B.1967 Physiography of the United States. W. H. Freeman, San

Francisco.Johnson, Clay, and Byron Loosle

2002 Prehistoric Uinta Mountain Occupations. HeritageReport 2-02. Ashley National Forest, Vernal, Utah.

Kalasz, Stephen M., Kae McDonald, Michael D. Metcalf, MarcyH. Rockman, and W. Lane Shields

2000 Colorado Interstate Gas Company Uinta Basin Lateral:Final Report of Excavations, Moffat and Rio BlancoCounties, Colorado, and Sweetwater County, Wyoming,Volume 8: 5MF1915. Metcalf Archaeological Consultants.Submitted to Colorado Interstate Gas Company, ColoradoSprings. Copies available from Metcalf ArchaeologicalConsultants, Eagle, Colorado.

Lahren, Larry A.1976 The Myers-Hindman Site: An Exploratory Study of

Human Occupation Patterns in the Upper YellowstoneValley from 7000 B.C. to A.D. 1200. AnthropologicalResearches International, Livingston, Montana.

Larson, Mary Lou, and Marcel Kornfeld1994 Betwixt and Between the Basin and the Plains: The Limits

of Numic Expansion. In Across the West: HumanPopulation Movement and Expansion of the Numa, editedby David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 200–210.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Long, Austin, and Bruce Rippeteau1974 Testing Contemporaneity and Averaging Radiocarbon

Dates. American Antiquity 39(2):205–215.Loendorf, Lawrence L.

2002 Castle Gardens Ceramic Vessel. The WyomingArchaeologist 46:73–82.

Lubinski, Patrick M.2000 Prehistoric Pronghorn Hunting in Southwest Wyoming.

Plains Anthropologist 45(174):109–118.Lubinski, Patrick M., and Michael D. Metcalf

1996 A New Look at the Firehole Basin Site, A Pronghorn

41


Butchery Location in Southwestern Wyoming. Paperpresented at the 54th Annual Plains AnthropologicalConference, Iowa City.

Madsen, David B.1986 Prehistoric Ceramics. In Great Basin, edited by Warren

L. D’Azevedo, pp. 206–215. Handbook of North AmericanIndians, Vol. 12, William C. Sturtevant, general editor,Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

Madsen, Rex E.1977 Prehistoric Ceramics of the Fremont. Museum of

Northern Arizona, Ceramic Series No. 6, Flagstaff.Martin, William

2000 The Carter Site in Northwestern Plains Prehistory. PlainsAnthropologist 45(173):305–322.

McGuire, David J.1977 Skull Point: A Preliminary Report of 48LN317. The

Wyoming Archaeologist 20(3):4–33.McKibbin, Anne, Ronald J. Rood, and Michael D. Metcalf

1989 Archaeological Excavations at Six Sites in the LeuciteHills, Sweetwater County, Wyoming. MetcalfArchaeological Consultants. Submitted to Bureau of LandManagement, Rock Springs District. Manuscript on file atMetcalf Archaeological Consultants, Eagle, Colorado.

McNees, Lance1992 Miscellaneous Material Culture. In Data Recovery

Investigations at the Black Butte and Leucite Hills MinePermit Areas, Sweetwater County, Wyoming, Vol. IV, byLance McNees, Thomas Reust, Rick Weathermon, CraigSmith, Richard Anduze, Bruce McClelland, Karl Kibler, FredOglesby, and Cynthia Webb, pp. 25-1–25-59. MariahAssociates. Submitted to Black Butte Coal Company, Pointof Rocks, Wyoming.

Metcalf, Michael D.1977 An Archaeological Sampling Survey of the Sweetwater-

Kemmerer and Hanna-Atlantic Rim Coal ES Areas.Western Wyoming College Occasional Papers No. 10.Rock Springs.

1987 Contributions to the Prehistoric Chronology of theWyoming Basin. In Perspectives on ArchaeologicalResources Management in the “Great Plains”, edited byAlan J. Osborn and Robert C. Hassler, pp. 233–261. I & OPublishing, Omaha, Nebraska.

Metcalf, Michael D., and Patricia A. Treat1979 Continuity in Late Prehistoric Period Pronghorn

Procurement in Southwestern Wyoming. Paper presentedat the 44th Annual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Vancouver, B.C.

Mulloy, William T.1958 A Preliminary Historical Outline for the Northwestern

Plains. University of Wyoming Publications 22(1):1–235.Reed, Alan D.

1994 The Numic Occupation of Western Colorado and EasternUtah During the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods.In Across the West: Human Population Movement andExpansion of the Numa, edited by David B. Madsen andDavid Rhode, pp. 188–199. University of Utah Press, SaltLake City.

Reed, Alan D., and Michael D. Metcalf1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern

Colorado River Basin. Colorado Council of ProfessionalArchaeologists, Denver.

Rhode, David1994 Direct Dating of Brown Ware Ceramics Using

Thermoluminescence and Its Relation to the Numic Spread.In Across the West: Human Population Movement andExpansion of the Numa, edited by D. B. Madsen and D.Rhode, pp. 124–130. University of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity.

Rice, Prudence M.1987 Pottery Analysis, A Sourcebook. The University of

Chicago Press, Chicago.Sharrock, Floyd W.

1966 Prehistoric Occupation Patterns in Southwest Wyomingand Cultural Relationships with the Great Basin andPlains Culture Areas. Anthropological Papers No. 77.Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt LakeCity.

Shimkin, Demetri B.1986 Eastern Shoshone. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L.

d’Azevedo, pp. 308–335. Handbook of North AmericanIndians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor,Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Simms, Steven R., Jason R. Bright, and Andrew Ugan1997 Plain-Ware Ceramics and Residential Mobility: A Case

Study from the Great Basin. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 24:779–792.

Smith, Craig S.1992 The Fremont: A View from Southwest Wyoming. Utah

Archaeology 5(1):55–77.Stuiver, Minze, and Bernd Becker

1993 High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the RadiocarbonTime Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC. Radiocarbon 35(1):35–66.

Stuiver, Minze, and Paula J. Reimer1993 Extended 14C Data Base and Revised CALIB 3.0 14C Age

Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 35(1):215–230.Thompson, Kevin W.

1991 Archaeological Data Recovery at the Harrower Site(48SU867), LaBarge Natural Gas Project, Volume 2:Prehistoric Mitigation. Cultural Resource ManagementReport No. 24. Archaeological Services Western WyomingCommunity College, Rock Springs.

Truesdale, James A., and David V. Hill1999 A Reevaluation of the Fremont Uinta Gray Pottery From

Dinosaur National Monument, Utah/Colorado.Southwestern Lore 65(4):22–33.

Zier, Christian J., Denise P. Fallon, Michael D. Metcalf, and KurtP. Schweigert

1983 Cultural Resource Technical Report for the Riley RidgeEnvironmental Impact Statement. Bureau of LandManagement, Division of Environmental Impact StatementServices, Denver.

42


Call for NominationsPlains Anthropological Society Board of Directors

Pursuant to Article V of the by-laws of the Plains Anthropological Society, this call for nominationsto the Board of Directors by the general membership is issued. At least two members of the PlainsAnthropological Society who are in good standing must endorse each general membership nominee.Members nominated by the general membership will join the slate of candidates proposed by thenominating committee to stand for election. Nominations must be received by the nominatingcommittee no later than July 15, 2007 to be considered. Nominations must be accompanied by awritten commitment (in the form of either a letter or an email message) from the candidate to serveif elected, and a description of nominee qualifications and interests, not to exceed half a page inlength. The nomination documents should be submitted by email attachment to the NominatingCommittee care of its chair:Dr. Steven HolenDept. of AnthropologyDenver Museum of Nature & Science2001 Colorado Blvd.Denver, CO 80205USAEmail: [email protected]

Mission StatementThe Plains Anthropological Society promotes the study of the peoples and cultures of the NorthAmerican Great Plains. The Society supports the growth of knowledge concerning the physical,cultural, archaeological, and linguistic variation and evolution of Plains societies. The organizationdisseminates research results through publication of the Plains Anthropologist, a quarterly, peer-reviewed academic journal and memoir series, and through the exchange of information and ideas atits annual conference. The Society actively encourages and recognizes excellence in scholarship,service to the anthropological community, and the maintenance of research collections.

[The Plains Anthropological Society is incorporated as a nonprofit organization and recognized astax exempt under IRS Code, Section 501(c)(3).]

ceramics from the firehole basin site and firehole phase in ......and pottery, cover an area more...

Documents