The Utah Archaeology Site Form Manual

January 2015

[Draft]

1

Table of Contents

[to be populated] Introduction Utah Archaeology Site Forms Part A (Administrative Data) Part B (Prehistoric Component) Part C (Historic Component) Part D (Rock Art/Inscriptions) Maps and Photographs References Appendix A: Utah Archaeology Site Forms A - D Appendix B: Prehistoric Artifacts – Projectile Points Appendix C: Prehistoric Artifacts – Ceramics Appendix D: Historic Artifacts – Cans Appendix E: Historic Artifacts – Glass Appendix F: Historic Artifacts – Ceramics List of Figures

2

Introduction This manual contains guidance for recording archaeological sites using the Utah Archaeology Site Form; and is meant to replace the Intermountain Antiquities Computer System (IMACS) previously used throughout the state. While the adoption of IMACS in 1981 led to a standardized recording instrument (IMACS 1992; Schroedl 2008), it failed to evolve over the years despite major changes in technology (e.g. global positioning systems, geographic information systems, satellite imagery, wireless connectivity), management practice, and archaeological method and theory. These problems are evidenced by the fact that in the last decade Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, and California have all either discontinued its use or independently altered its format. To create a system more compatible with 21st century technology and land management practices, the Utah Archaeology Site Form was created. It is anticipated that the new recording instrument will reduce unnecessary expenditures of time and resources, while providing more accurate data to assist government agencies in their management of cultural resources. This project was undertaken in consultation with state and federal agencies, the private sector, and the academic community. Those familiar with IMACS will recognize in the Utah Archaeology Site Forms many key categories and an overall layout that is very similar. This was done in a conscious effort to retain some consistency in form and in recognition that critical site data does not change regardless of the recording system. A key difference between the two systems is a focus on details. In general, IMACS encouraged recording very specific, detailed environmental and artifact attribute data. This manual and the associated forms encourage recorders to focus on information necessary to help determine NRHP eligibility and site boundaries. Gathering enough information to give a basic characterization of the site, and place it in its temporal and cultural context, is the primary focus. The forms are open ended, however, so that recorders are able to include additional detailed information as needed. Comments and suggestions to improve the site forms, associated manual, or recording system in general should be directed to the Antiquities Section of the Utah Division of State History.

3

UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY SITE FORM PART A (Administrative Data) Part A of the Utah Archaeology Site Form contains administrative data, such as site number, location, land ownership, site description, National Register of Historic Places eligibility determination, etc. The individual entries and categories used in Part A are described below. 1. Smithsonian Trinomial: The Smithsonian Trinomial number for the site assigned by the Antiquities Section of the Utah Division of State History. The Smithsonian Trinomial system consists of three parts: state, county, site. Utah is coded as 42, county abbreviations are listed below, and each new site is assigned a sequential number in its respective county. For example, site 42GA5863 is the 5,863rd site to be recorded in Garfield County, Utah. County Abbreviations BE: Beaver JB: Juab TO: Tooele BO: Box Elder KA: Kane UN: Uintah CA: Cache MD: Millard UT: Utah CB: Carbon MO: Morgan WA: Wasatch DA: Daggett PI: Piute WS: Washington DV: Davis RI: Rich WN: Wayne DC: Duchesne SL: Salt Lake WB: Weber EM: Emery SA: San Juan GA: Garfield SP: Sanpete GR: Grand SV: Sevier IN: Iron SM: Summit 2. Temporary Site No.: Use this entry if a temporary site number is assigned in the field. 3. Site Name: This entry is not to include a Smithsonian Trinomial, but instead refers to the popular name (if any) used to describe the site. 4. Recorded Date: The date the site was recorded or revisited (month/day/year). 5. County: The county the site is located in. 6. Project Name: The name of the project that is spurring the recording of the site. 7. State Project Number: Enter the project number assigned by the Antiquities Section of the Utah Division of State History. This number is composed of five parts: state, year, organization, sequentially assigned number, and land ownership. State Project Numbers always begin with a ‘U’ designating that the project number was assigned by the Antiquities Section in Utah. Second is the last two digits of the calendar year the project was assigned. Third is the Utah Archaeology Site Form code for the organization requesting the project number (same as the ‘Survey Organization Code’ in IMACS 1992) (see below for a listing of the organization codes). Fourth is a sequential number assigned to the individual project, and fifth is a single lower-case letter designating land jurisdiction/ownership (see below for land jurisdiction/ownership codes).

4

Example: State Project Number U-13-UA-0195bfp occurred in Utah (U), was assigned in 2013 (13) to the University of Utah (UA), was the 195th project (195) assigned by the Antiquities Section in 2013 and took place on land managed or owned by the BLM (b), Forest Service (f), and a private interest (p). Additionally, projects that involve data recovery or excavation are denoted by an ‘e’ following the landownership as in the following example: U-13-UA-0195bfp(e). Land Jurisdiction/Ownership Codes b: Bureau of Land Management (U.S. Department of the Interior) f: Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture) i: Native American tribal lands m: Military (United States Armed Forces) n: National Park Service (U.S. Department of the Interior) p: Private s: State, county, city or other nonfederal jurisdiction w: Other federal agency (e.g. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, etc.)

5

Code Survey Organization 0 Data Administration A1 Alpine Archaeological Consultants A2 Ancient America Foundation A3 Archaeological Consulting Services A4 Antonette Chambers Noble A5 Advance Sciences, Inc. A6 Archaeological Research of Southern

Nevada A7 Adams and Associates A8 Arboles Contract Archaeology A9 Archaeological Research Conservation

Services AA J.P. Albanese AB Anthro Research, Inc. AC American Museum of Natural History AD Archeological Associates AE Archaeological Research Associates AF AERC Archaeological Environmental

Research Corp. AG Archeological Rescue AH Archaeological Services AI Arizona State Museum AJ Arizona State Park AK Archaeological Research Consultants AL Ancient Enterprises, Inc. AM Archeo Consultants AN Archeological Consultants AO Archaeological Energy AP Argonne National Laboratory AQ Archaeological Consultants AR Archaeological Research Services AS Abajo Archaeology AT AR Consultants AU Antiquus AV Agency of Conservation Archaeology AW American Archaeological Consultants AX Applied Archaeology Consultants AY AIA - An Independent Archaeologist AZ Anonymous BA Basin Research BB Boise State University BC BYU - Office of Public Archaeology -

Brigham Young University BD Bristlecone, Inc. BE BOR - Bureau of Reclamation BF Burgess and Associates BG Burney and Associates BH Buffalo Bill Historical Center BI Bureau of Indian Affairs BJ James Brechtel BK Basin & Range Consultants BL Bureau of Land Management BM B.R. Butter, Assoc. BN Bighorn Basin Consulting BO B.C. Services

BP Biosystems BQ Burns and McDonnell BR Basin and Range Research BS Baseline BT Bennett Management Services BU Alan R. Bowles BW BioWest BX ACR Consultants, Inc. BY Claudia F. Berry BZ Albion Environmental C1 CPAA - Colorado Plateau Archaeological

Alliance C2 Uinta Research CA University of California, Berkeley CB University of California, Davis CC University of California, Los Angeles CD Centuries Research CE Chambers Consultants and Planners CF Colorado State University CG State of Colorado CH CASA - Complete Archaeological Services

Assoc. CI Cultural Resource Consultants CJ University of Colorado CK California State College CL Chambers Group, Inc. CM University of Northern Colorado CN Centennial Archaeology CO Central Washington Archaeological Survey CP Cultural Resources Management CQ Fred Chapman CR J.R. Crouch CS Crow Canyon Center for Southwestern

Archaeology CT CEU - College of Eastern Utah CU Cultural Resource Group CV D. and J. Chance and Associates CW CH2M Hill CX University of California, Riverside CY Current Archaeological Research CZ California State University - Dominguez

Hills DA DRI - Desert Research Institute DB Division of Conservation Archaeology DC University of Denver DD Department of Environmental Quality DE David Darlington DF Desert West DG Dakota Research Services DH Dames and Moore DI Mary Dohnalek DJ D. L Zurga and Associates DK William C. Davis DL Daggett and Chenault Inc. DN Don Keller DR Dusty Resources

6

DT Intermountain Archaeology DU Dugway Proving Ground DW Desert West, Carlsbad DY Applied Earth DZ Desert West Research EA Eastern New Mexico University EB Eastern Washington University EC Environmental Consultants ED ESCA Tech EE Harry Reid Center - Environmental Studies

Research Center EF Ethnoscience EG Environmental Studies Group EH Ecosystems Resources, Inc. EI Environmental Solutions Inc. EJ Ebasco Environmental EK Ecosystems Management, Inc. EL Everett Bassett EM EDAW, Inc. EN Environet, Inc. EO EPG - Environmental Planning Group EP Earth Touch EQ Environmental Resources Management ER ERO Resources ES EnviroSystems Management, Inc. ET Smith Environmental Inc. EU The Environmental Company, Inc. EV AMEC Earth & Environmental EX Entrix Inc. EY E2M- Engineering-Environmental

Management Inc. EZ EM-Assist FA Frontier Archaeology FB Fugro Northwest FC Flat Irons FD Fort Lewis FE 4 Corners Archaeology FF Far Western Anthropological Research

Group FG Fossil Butte National Monument FH Foothil Engineering Consultants FI Affinis Environmental Services FJ John N. Fritz FK Frontier Historical Consultants FL Aaron Fergusson FO Four Corners School FR DMG Four Corners Research, Inc. FS Forest Service FU Espey Huston and Associates FW Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge FZ Forest Service Certified Paraprofessional GA Gordon and Kranzush GB GRI - Grand River Institute GC Grand River Consultants GD Gilbert/Commonwealth GE J. and M. Greer Archaeological Consultants

GF Goodson and Associates GG GCM Services GH Great Basin National Park GI Great Basin Archaeology, Reno GK Geoarch Sciences, Inc. GL GreatHouse Environmental GM Geo-Marine, Inc. GN PEPG - Pentacore Engineering GO GeoOpt Resources, Reno GR Aros Archaeology GS Greystone GU Great Basin Institute HA Harvard University HB High Plains HC Heritage Museum HD Historical Research Associates, Inc. HE Richard R. Harrison HF Marvin Hoyt HG Huerfano Consultants, Inc. HH Heritage Research Center HI Hageman Fossilbeds National Monument HJ High Country Archaeology HK HDR Engineering HL Hill AFB HM Kathy Huppe HN Harding ESE HO Bighorn Archaeological Consultants HQ HRA, Inc. HR HDR Clenes, Santa Barbara HS Historic Sites Research HT Winston Hurst HU Human Systems Research IA Idaho Archaeological Consultants IB Idaho State Highway Department IC Idaho State Historical Society ID Idaho State University IE University of Idaho IF Intermountain Research IG Intersearch IH Independent Archaeological Consultant II independent archaeologist IJ Intermontane Archaeological Association IK Idaho Museum of Natural History IL Intermountain Resources IM Independ. Archaeological Consultant IN Idaho Power Company IP Paleo-West Archaeology IQ Intermountain Archaeology, Inc. IR Infotec Research, Inc. IS Archaeological Services Inc., Reno IW Interior West Consulting JB JBR JC Superior Consultants JF Frank W. Johnson JM JUB JS Jones and Stokes

7

KA K.K. Pelli KB Kantner-Smith KC Peter Kiewit Sons KD Kainer-Rodriquez Associates KE Kail Consulting Ltd. KF R. Kautz and Associates, Inc. KG Knight and Leavitt Associates, Inc. KH Kleinfelder, Inc. KI Kinlani Archaeology, Ltd. KK Kinlani Archaeological Ltd., Flagstaff KL KEA Environmental KR K. Renee Barlow KS ARCADIS LA La Plata Archaeological Consultants LB Laramie Cultural Research LC Llano Consultants LD Lincoln Land Community College LE Land Resources Technology LF Auberg Cultural Resource Consultant

Services LG LSA Assoc. Inc., CA LH Lithic Technologies LI LSD - Logan Simpson Design Inc. LJ Solano Archaeological Services LK Salt Lake Community College LL Lithic Plus LM Lone Mountain LN Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints LO Lobdell and Associates LP Alta Pleno Archaeology LQ Amanda J. Landon, Independent

Archaeological Consultant LS Littlesnake Archaeological Consultants, WY LT Latady and Associates LU Institute for Archaeological Ceramic

Research LV ArchaeoLogic U.S.A. LW Western Land Services, Inc. LY Toyapi Archaeology Consulting MA Metcalf-Zier Archaeology, Inc. MB MESA MC Mike Moen and Associates MD Montgomery Engineers ME TRC Mariah MF Minerals Research Center MG Douglas McKay MH Montana State University MI University of Montana MJ Office of Surface Mining MK University of Missouri ML Susan J. Miller MM Metcalf Archaeological Consultants MN Middlefork Archaeology MO Moore Anthropological Research MP Peter B. Mires, NV

MQ MOAC - Montgomery Archaeological Consultants

MR Mari's Archaeological Resource Services MS Kae McDonald MT Marron Associates, Inc. MU Muukui-Ci Cultural & Environmental

Services, Inc. MV Mountain States Archaeology MW Museum of Western Colorado MX Doug McFadden MY Mahogany Bench MZ Miller Brooks Environmental Inc. N1 Archaeological Invest. NW Inc. N2 Nevada Land & Resources NA NPS - National Park Service NB Nevada Archaeological Survey NC University of Nevada, Las Vegas ND University of Nevada, Reno NE Nevada State Museum NF New Mexico State University NG New World Research NH Nickens and Associates NI Museum of Northern Arizona NJ Northland Anthropological Research NK Navajo Nation Cultural Resources NL Nevada Department of Transportation NM Native Cultural Resources Services NN University of Northern Colorado NO Northern Arizona University NP A.K. Nielson and Associates NQ Native Cultural Resource Services NR Northwest Archaeological Association, Inc. NS National Specialty Society NT University of Nebraska NU UNDAR-West NV North Platte Archaeological Services NW Niwot Archaeological Consultants NX Western Division, Naval Air Station, Fallen, NV NY North Wind Environmental NZ Nakonechny Archaeological, Pullman, WA OA Oil Well Elev. and Loc. OB Overland Archaeology, Inc. OC Powers Engineers OE Ogden Environmental & Energy Services,

Boise PA Powers Elevation PB Professional Analysts PC private contractor or engineering co. PD P-III Associates PE Pioneer Archaeological Consultants PF private individual PG Pronghorn Anthropological Association PH Paleo-Environmental PI P/S Scientific PJ Peak and Associates

8

PK Plano Archaeological Consultants PL Powder River Consultants PM Barry Price PN Patrick Engineering PO Petrographics PP University of Pittsburg PQ Paragon Contractors PR Plateau Resources PS J. Pochteca Archaeology PT Applied Paleoscience, Richmond PU Pacific Legacy Incorporated PV Parr Environmental PW PBS & J (Austin TX) 512 327-6840 PX Past Peoples Consulting, LLC PZ Parsons Brinckerhoff RA Mary P. Rossillon RB Rocky Mountain Archaeological

Consultants RC Charles Reher RD Rosenberg Historical Consultants RE University of Redlands RF Resource Concepts, Inc. RG Research Archaeology RH R.K. Vierra and Associates, Inc. RI Rainbow Country RJ Rare Earth Studies, Albuquerque RK RMC Consultants, Inc. RL Cultural Resouce Analysts, Inc. RM Cultural Site Research and Management RO Compass Rose Archaeological, Inc. RP Arrowspace, Idaho Falls RR Red Rock RS Rainshadow Resources, Inc. RT Renewable Technologies RW American Indian Rockwriting RZ Researcher - Unaffiliated SA San Juan Archaeological Research Center SB Science Applications SC Senco-Phenix SD Smithsonian Institution SE SUSC - Southern Utah University SF Snake River Archaeology and History SG San Jose State College SH NRCS - Natural Resources Conservation

Service - Soil Conservation Service SI Soils System Inc. SJ Sagebrush Archaeological Consultants SK Swanson and Associates SL San Juan College Cultural Resource

Program SM Somona State University SN J.F. Sato SO Noel Logan, SEC Inc. SP Southern Illinois University SQ William Self and Associates SR Statistical Research

SS Science Application Int. Corp. ST SWCA SU Southern Methodist University SV Salmon Archaeological Services SW William T. Statham SX S.L. Lahren, Jr. SY Summit Envirosolutions SZ Southwest Archaeological Consultants TA Tennessee Valley Authority TB Larson Tibesar TC Pat Treat TD Tetra Tech TE Tooele Army Depot TF Terra Alta Archaeology TH Cochetopa Archaeological Consultants, Ted

Hoeler TI Terre-Cultural Resources TN Transcon Infrastructure, Inc. TR Trigon Engineering Inc. TU University of Texas, Arlington UA University of Utah - Archaeological Center UB UTARC - Utah Archaeological Research

Corporation UC UDSH-Antiquities UD Utah State Parks UE United States Geological Survey UF U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers UG USR-Berger UH Utah Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. UI U.R.S. Corp. UJ Utah State University UK U.S. Fish and Wildlife UL Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining UM SITLA- Utah School and Institutional Trust

Lands UN Utah Geological Survey UO Sullivan Consultants UP Uncompahgre Archaeological Consultants UQ DWR - Utah Division of Wildlife Resources UR Utah Rock Art Research Assoc. US Utah Statewide Archaeological Society UT UDOT - Utah Department of Transportation UV Utah National Guard UW U.S. West Research UY BUYS and Associates, Inc. UZ University of Arizona W1 Les Wykle W2 FE Warren AFB W3 White Sands W6 Western Archaeological Services W7 WAPA WA University of Washington WB Washington State University WC Weber State University WD Westec Services, Inc. WE Western Cultural Resource Management

9

WF Western Historical Studies WG Woodward-Clyde WH University of Wyoming WI Wyoming Office State Archaeologist WJ Worldwide Surveys WK Western Wyoming College WL Western Research WM Western Archaeological Consultants WN Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants WO Water and Power Resources WP Wyoming Archaeological Society WQ Wyoming Recreation Commission WR Western Heritage Conservation WS Western Interpretive Services WT W G Consultants WU White Mesa Institute-CEU WV Western Prehistoric Research WW Western Public History Assoc. WX Western Public Historical Consortium WY White Pines Public Museum WZ Desert West Research YN Canyon Environmental YV Buena Vista Archaeological Consultants ZA George Zeimens ZB Plateau Mining ZC Aztec Archaeological Consultants ZE Zeier & Associates, LLC ZF ASM Affiliates ZG Ecology & Environment, Inc. ZI Archaeological Investigations NW ZT Aztlan Archaeology, Inc. ZU Arizona State University ZZ Other Org, non-IMACS

10

8. Land Ownership: Enter all land owners associated with the site.

9. Primary Map Reference: Enter the name, date, and series of the USGS map for the area where the site is located (example: Jenny Canyon, Utah; 1991; 7.5 minute). If the site boundary crosses multiple maps, list only the primary one. For example, if 70% of a site is on Map A and 30% is on Map B, only Map A need be entered. 10. Primary Township, Range, Section: Enter the township, range, and section for the site location. If the site boundary crosses multiple divisions, enter only the primary location. For example, if 70% of a site is in Section 4 and 30% is in Section 5, only Section 4 need be entered. 11. Meridian: Choose the appropriate principal meridian to which the site is associated. The majority Utah is associated with the Salt Lake Meridian; however, a small portion of the state is covered by the Uintah Meridian (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Map of principal meridians and base lines governing the United States Public Land Surveys (from Bureau of Land Management 2013). 12. UTMs: Using the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid system, enter the Zone, easting, and northing coordinates for the site location. The vast majority of Utah is in Zone 12, although the extreme western portion of the state is in Zone 11. The easting and northing coordinates will optimally reference a datum placed on site. Alternatively, the coordinates may refer to the approximate center of a property. Check the box for the North American Datum (NAD) being used to calculate the UTM coordinates. While most USGS 7.5 minute maps exclusively depict NAD 27, the more modern NAD 83 ensures better consistency across regions, is in use by most land surveying

11

organizations, and can easily be selected on GPS units. Therefore, unless there are exceptional circumstances (which must be explained in the Additional Part A Comments section), UTM coordinates should always be recorded using NAD 83. Additionally, when revisiting or updating sites recorded prior to ca. 2000, UTM’s should always be checked to ensure that NAD 83 coordinates are represented. 13. Site Dimensions: Record the dimensions of the site in meters and calculate the area. If the site is approximately an oval shape the area can be estimated by multiplying one-half the length by one-half the width times 3.1416 (IMACS 1992). Whenever possible, however, the area of a site should be calculated using GIS or other high precision tools. 14. Recorded By: The individual responsible for recording the site in the field. This is the individual on the ground, actively directing the recording of the site; usually a crew chief or senior crew member. 15. Recording Organization: Name of the organization that recorded the site. 16. Site Type: Record the site type using the options listed below. A single site may fit into multiple categories and should be recorded as such. For sites that are primarily associated with Native Americans, but date to the contact period, check the appropriate boxes describing the site type under the Historic category, then check the ‘Other’ box and write in ‘Ethnographic’. Prehistoric: Sites associated with Native American groups prior to ca. 1850. -Lithic Scatter: A site that contains only chipped stone debitage or tools. -Artifact Scatter: A site that contains a mixed assemblage of artifact types or materials (e.g. chipped stone, ground stone, ceramics, bone, perishables, shell, etc.), or a site that contains a single type of artifact other than chipped stone debitage or tools (e.g. ground stone scatter, ceramics scatter, etc.). -Rock Art/Inscription: A site that contains petroglyphs, pictographs, or other types of prehistoric inscriptions. -Lithic Source/Quarry: A site that was primarily used as a lithic source or quarry; often indicated by large amounts of raw and tested lithic materials, a lithic assemblage characterized by a high percentage of cortex, and/or a large percentage of primary reduction flakes. -Architectural Feature(s): A site that contains features that are considered ‘buildings’ or ‘built’ features. This generally includes pit or surface structures, granaries or other storage structures, wikiups, ramadas, towers, walls, etc. As all archaeological remains are in a process of decay, it is incumbent upon the recorded to interpret features found and determine whether they believe the feature should be recorded as architecture or not. Although a large rubble mound could easily be recorded as a non-architectural feature, it may be clear to the recording archaeologist that the remains are those of a collapsed masonry structure and should therefore be recorded as an architectural feature. Similarly, dark staining in a large depression may be indicative of a pit house and not simply a depression. Recorders are encouraged to use their best judgment when

12

assessing whether a feature is architectural or not, and it should be expected that differences of opinion between professionally trained individuals may occur. -Non-Architectural Feature(s): A site that contains features that are not considered ‘buildings’ or ‘built.’ This generally includes things such as artifact concentrations, non-diagnostic depressions, middens, non-diagnostic mounds, fire-cracked rock concentrations, roasting pits, soil stains, etc. -Rock Shelter/Cave: A site that contains artifacts or features within a rock shelter, alcove, or cave. -Other: Any site whose primary characteristics fall outside of the types listed above. If selected, a one- to four-word description should be included. Historic: Sites dating after ca. 1850. -Artifact Scatter/Dump: A site that contains artifacts but no features. -Linear: A site that is primarily characterized by some type of linear feature. Examples include roads, trails, railroads, ditches and canals, transmission lines, etc. Use of the linear site guidance developed by the Utah Professional Archaeological Council (UPAC 2008) is recommended when recording sites of this type. -Rock Art/Inscription: A site that contains historic inscriptions, arborglyphs, or any other similar image or illustration in either the natural or built environment. -Architectural Feature(s): A site that contains features that are considered ‘buildings’ or ‘built’ features. This generally includes bridges, buildings, dugouts, foundations, mine shafts, tent platforms, etc. As with prehistoric features, all archaeological remains are in a process of decay and it is incumbent upon the archaeologist to interpret features found (see above). -Non-Architectural Feature(s): A site that contains features that are not considered ‘buildings’. This generally includes agricultural fields, artifact concentrations, cairns, non-diagnostic depressions or mounds, fences, hearths/campfires, middens, tailings, etc. -Other: Any site whose primary characteristics fall outside of the types listed above. If selected, a one- to four-word description should be included. 17. Site Interpretation: An interpretation of how the site was used, occupied, or functioned. There are no specific categories listed for this entry, instead, the recorder is encouraged to give a brief interpretation based on the site’s assemblage and context. Site interpretation should be considered a ‘best guess’ based on field observations; as such, the interpretation is by no means definitive. Differences of opinion between professionally trained individuals will occur. The following examples should NOT been seen as set categories to be chosen from, but are simply examples of the type of response that may be used. Interpretation of prehistoric sites could include such descriptions as: long term residence, seasonal residence, logistical camp,

13

logistical hunting camp, plant processing camp, hunting blind, granary storage, complex camp, lithic reduction location, rock art site, tool stone procurement, etc. For historic sites, recorders may also include historic themes in their interpretations (as some of the following examples demonstrate). Examples may include: mining complex, railroad grade (transportation), single episode dump, sheep herders camp, corral and loading facilities, dugout possibly used for storage, telegraph line (communication), cabin (habitation), earthen canal (irrigation), two-track road (transportation), etc. 18. NRHP Status: Choose the category that describes the recorders recommendation of the sites eligibility for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Unless noted in an addendum (see addendum discussion below), the recorders recommendation will also represent the responsible governmental agency’s official NRHP determination. NRHP recommendation/determinations should be based on the property’s significance under Criteria A, B, C, and/or D; as well as if the property retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance. Check the appropriate box or boxes for all criteria that apply (‘Listed’ should be selected only for historic properties that have been officially listed on the NRHP). In making a determination, qualified individuals should take into account the criteria for evaluation and considerations as described in National Register Bulletin #15:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

B. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; or

C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories:

14

a. A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or

b. A building or structure removed from its original location but which is primarily significant for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or

c. A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building associated with his or her productive life; or

d. A cemetery that derives its primary importance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or

e. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or

f. A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or

g. A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. [National Park Service 2002:2]

Should the responsible governmental agency disagree with a recorders recommendation, or have a need to change a recommendation after the site form has been submitted to the appropriate authorities, it is incumbent upon the agency to submit a short addendum to the record stating why the determination differs and offering associated NRHP justification. 19. NRHP Justification: Justify the recommendation for or against NRHP significance by explaining how the property does or does not meet the requirements for Criteria A, B, C and/or D. Remember that the significance of a property must be evaluated within a historic context (NPS 2002:3,7-11). In addition, be sure to address if the property does or does not retain integrity, including which aspects (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association) are most important to its NRHP eligibility. Consider the following when determining whether a property retains integrity (see also NPS 2002:44-49):

Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. The evaluation of integrity is sometimes a subjective judgment, but it must always be grounded in an understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.

Historic properties either retain integrity (this is, convey their significance) or they do not. Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity.

15

To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is significant. [NPS 2002:44]

In referring to the seven aspects of integrity, King (2004:114) states, “One can go into great detail about what this means, but the bottom line is that the place can’t be so screwed up that it no longer contains or exhibits whatever made it significant in the first place.” Consider the following examples (both of which should NOT be thought of as templates, but only as possibilities for how justification may be discussed). Example 1: A lithic scatter now situated in a farmer’s field that had previously been recommend as eligible to the NRHP due to its ability to yield information important in prehistory. -While at one point the site may have been considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D, it has since been heavily disturbed by vandalism and looting and has been plowed multiple times. These activities have destroyed the natural stratigraphy as well as the spatial relationships between artifacts, features, and sediments. The site was originally described as a surface scatter, and there is no additional evidence of buried features. In addition, well known artifact collection by local property owners has significantly changed the composition of the assemblage by removing all formal tools. These factors have reduced the aspect of association to a degree that the site no longer retains integrity and is therefore not eligible for inclusion to the NRHP. Example 2: A historic aqueduct that allowed for the development and growth of the town of Marysvale and was therefore associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local history and also embodied the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. -The site is recommended as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criteria A and C. The aqueduct provided the main source of water to Marysvale in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, without which the town could not have become established. The aqueduct, therefore, contributed to both the settlement of Marysvale and the area in general and is important in local and region history (Criterion A). The iron hoop-bound, wood-stave construction of the feature embodies distinctive characteristics of type, period, and method of construction (Criterion C) and is the only remaining example of this style of construction in the town. Although portions of the water line have deteriorated over time (leaving some sections entirely destroyed), it was abandoned at the end of its use life and has not been altered by modern improvements. The property retains the key aspects of location, design, materials, workmanship, and association and therefore retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance.”

16

20. Site Description: Describe the site in detail. Information about the site may include its basic size and shape; whether it is prehistoric, historic, or multicomponent (if multicomponent, describe the basic size and shape of each component and how/if they overlap); cultural/ethnic affiliation and dating; natural environment; ground visibility; a description of the artifact assemblage, diagnostic artifacts, material types, or features; spatial relationships on site; site interpretation; description of previous work (NRHP eligibility recommendations, collection, testing, excavation, or the location of any curated materials), natural or culture agents that may be negatively impacting the site, etc. A site description need not contain all of the information listed above just as it need not be restricted to only the information listed above. The recorder should attempt to strike a balance between necessary detail and brevity. When describing impacting agents, minor impacts need not be noted. For example, although many sites are open to grazing by domestic animals, their mere presence does not de facto indicate the site is being negatively impacted. Similarly, all sites undergo natural erosion or aggradation, but unless these processes are excessively damaging a site they do not need to be called out. Common impacting agents may include vandalism, looting, recreational use, vehicles, agricultural or industrial development, erosion, animals, fire and associated effects, etc. Consider the following examples of site descriptions (both of which should NOT be thought of as templates). Example 1: -The site is a medium-sized lithic scatter measuring roughly 80 m N/S by 50 m E/W and is composed of approximately 400 pieces of chipped stone debitage, two early stage bifaces, and two Elko Corner-notched projectile points. Located on a broad, flat terrace between Simpson Spring and South Creek, the site is in the Pinyon-Juniper zone and ground visibility is generally good as there is only a small amount of understory. Debitage is distributed evenly over the site, with no concentrations. Obsidian is the only material type present, with the exception of one of the projectile points (made of a tan colored chert). The lack of features and the limited nature of the assemblage suggest the site was used as a short-term logistical camp (possibly for hunting) and may have been occupied for only a couple of days. Example 2: -Site 42GA2012 is a Fremont residential site and associated artifact scatter on a small north/south trending ridge near the southern slopes of Boulder Mountain. The site conforms to the contours of the ridge and measures ~30 m x 15 m. The soil is relatively rocky (mostly residual) and has a maximum depth of 10 cm (ascertained by trowel scrape). Primary vegetation on site is pinyon pine, but of note is the complete lack of sagebrush (which is oddly found in abundance surrounding the site). The remains of two rectangular surface structures (Features 1 and 2) are in the northern portion of the site, and a dark soil stain (Feature 3) is near the center. Artifacts are concentrated near the center and southern portions of the site and include approximately 200 lithic flakes (mostly Boulder Jasper), 300 Emery Gray ceramic sherds, four non-diagnostic ground stone fragments, three metate fragments, one mano, and one side scraper. Based on the features and the artifact assemblage it is likely that the site functioned as a seasonal residence for Fremont populations sometime between A.D. 500 to 1100.

17

42GA2012 was previously recorded in May 1987 by YAR Inc. and was recommended as eligible for inclusion to the NRHP under Criterion D. Four months later, YAR Inc. returned to the site and excavated three 1-x-1 m test units in the center of the site (see attached map), and curated the resulting artifacts (27 pieces of debitage, 18 ceramic sherds, and 1 metate fragment) and a brief site report (Mendez et al. 1988) at the Edge of the Cedars State Park Museum in Blanding. 21. Location and Access: If access to the site is straightforward or easily determined using standard means (e.g. electronic or print maps, GIS, Google Earth, etc.), a written description is not required. However, if access to the site is unusual, difficult, or restricted; describe how to access the site using local landforms, cultural features, and thorough directions. The use of exact mileage, mile-posts, compass directions (e.g. ‘turn north’ instead of ‘turn right’), and specifics are useful (e.g. gate is locked; road is extremely rocky and 4-wheel drive is required; proceed on foot on bearing of 34º following the old stream bed; etc.). 22. Additional Part A Comments: Include any additional comments that may be relevant to the site. .

18

PART B (Prehistoric Component) Smithsonian Trinomial: Enter the Smithsonian Trinomial number for the site (assigned by the Antiquities Section). Temporary Site No.: Use this entry if a temporary site number is assigned in the field. 1. Cultural/Temporal Affiliations: Enter the cultural/temporal affiliations of the site using the categories below. Multiple entries are allowed. For example, a site that contains Emery Gray ceramics, Desert Side-notched projectile points, and Intermountain Brown Ware may be recorded as Fremont and Late Prehistoric. -Unknown Prehistoric -Paleoarchaic/PaleoIndian -Archaic -Early Archaic -Middle Archaic -Late Archaic -Fremont -Basketmaker -Anasazi -Anasazi (Pueblo I) -Anasazi (Pueblo II) -Anasazi (Pueblo III) -Promontory -Late Prehistoric 2. Non-Architectural Features: Type: Enter the type of non-architectural feature using the categories below. Be sure to indicate features on site maps. -Artifact Concentration -Bedrock Mortar/Grinding Slick/Grooved Rock -Burial -Cairn -Collector’s Pile -Depression -Earthen Mound -Firecracked Rock Concentration/Burned Stone -Hearth/Firepit

19

-Midden -Pit -Rock Alignment -Rock Art/Inscription -Rock Concentration -Rubble Mound -Stained Soil -Other:________________________ Description: Enter a description of the feature. Features that are given unique designations or numbers should have those designations included in the description and keyed on site maps. 3. Architectural Features: Type: Enter the type of architectural feature using the categories below. Be sure to indicate features on site maps. -Cist -Granary -Pitstructure -Surface structure (single-room) -Surface structure (multi-room) -Tower -Wall -Wickiup/Ramada -Other:________________________ Description: Enter a description of the feature. Features that are given unique designations or numbers should have those designations included in the description and keyed on site maps. 4. Feature Comments: Additional comments relevant to the prehistoric features. 5. Lithics: Debitage – Estimated Quantity: Enter the estimated amount of chipped stone debitage present. Avoid using a range of amounts (i.e. 400-600), and instead use an average (i.e. 500). Unless specifically noted in the comments, this number will be an estimate only. Abundance: For each lithic material type enter its relative abundance using the following categories: Dominant (D), Common (C), or Rare (R). Multiple material types may be classified as common or rare, but only one should be classified as dominant. Material Type: Enter the material types represented in the lithic assemblage (e.g. obsidian, chert, quartzite, basalt, sandstone, etc.). 6. Tools: Quantity: Enter the quantity of the type of lithic tool described in the following entry.

20

Type: Enter the type of lithic tool using the categories below. See Appendix B for illustrations of the general shape of projectile point types frequently found in Utah. -Biface -Burin/Graver -Core -Chopper -Drill -Hammerstone -_________________Proj Point (insert type of projectile point using categories below) -Scraper -Uniface -Utilized Flake -Other:________________________ Projectile Points: Use generic categories (e.g. Large Fluted, Large Corner-notched, Small Side-notched, Small Triangular) when the artifact cannot be further typed. See Appendix B for illustrations of the general shape of projectile point types frequently found in Utah. Dart/Spear Points Fluted

-Clovis -Folsom -Large Fluted

Stemmed

-Western Stemmed (includes Lake Mojave, Silver Lake, Parman, Cougar Mt., etc.) -Large Stemmed

Lanceolate -Humboldt Concave Base

-McKean Lanceolate -Large Lanceolate

Contracting Stem -Gatecliff Contracting-stem (Gypsum)

-Large Contracting-stem Bifurcate-Stemmed -Pinto Series

-Gatecliff Split-stem -Large Bifurcate-Stemmed

Corner-Notched -Elko Corner-notched -Elko Eared

21

-Large Corner-notched Side-Notched -Elko Side-notched -Northern Side-notched -Sudden Side-notched

-Rocker Side-notched -Hawken Side-notched -San Rafael Side-notched

-Large Side-Notched -Other Large Point (describe type or characteristics in the ‘Description’ entry) Arrow Points Corner-notched

-Eastgate Expanding-stem -Rose Spring Corner-notched -Small Corner-notched

Side-notched -Bear River Side-notched -Uinta Side-notched -Nawthis Side-notched -Desert Side-notched -Small Side-notched

Triangular -Parowan Basal-notched -Bull Creek -Cottonwood Triangular -Small Triangular

-Other Small Point (describe type or characteristics in the ‘Description’ entry) Description: As needed, give a basic description of the lithic tool. Be aware, however, that many artifacts do not need to be recorded in detail, and in most cases things like individual measurements are not necessary. Simple descriptions such as those in the example below will often suffice. Additional information for projectile points or unique items may be warranted, and could include measurements or a more specific artifact name than what is allowed in the type category. For example, although ‘Great Basin Stemmed’ may be the lithic tool ‘Type’, the recorder may more specifically describe the point as Cougar Mountain in the ‘Description.’ Artifacts that are given unique designations or numbers should have those designations included in the description and keyed on site maps. Example: Tools Quantity Type Description

22

_1_ Great Basin Stemmed_ Base and midsection of a Cougar Mountain proj point (see drawing and photo). Made of obsidian, it measures 6.1 cm length, by 3.8 cm width, by 1.5 cm thick. _1_ Parowan Basal-notched Obsidian proj point measuring 2.4cm length, by 1.9 cm width, by .4 cm thick____ _5_ ______Biface________ Four early-stage bifaces (2 obsidian, 2 white chert), one late-stage biface (obsidian) _6_ ____Utilized Flake____ 3 white chert, 1 quartzite, 2 obsidian_____________________________________ _1_ _______drill_________ Chert drill with tip broke off___________________________________________ 7. Lithic Comments: Additional comments relevant to the lithic assemblage. 8. Ceramics: Ceramic documentation focuses on recording the level of data that can be confidently assigned in the field. Prehistoric ceramics are recorded using a two-tiered system. At the initial level sherds are identified into generic ware categories, and then if the pottery is complete enough and the analyst is experienced enough, a second level of analysis allows the pottery to be identified by traditional types. In practice, most pottery will likely only be identified to the first level of analysis, although type documentation is encouraged when it can be done confidently. See Appendix C for a more in-depth discussion of how to classify ceramic wares and types frequently found in the state. Estimated Quantity: Enter the estimated amount of ceramic sherds present. Avoid using a range of amounts (i.e. 400-600), and instead use an average (i.e. 500). Unless specifically noted in the comments, this number will be an estimate only. Quantity: Enter an estimated quantity of the type of ceramic sherd present. Category: Enter the kind of ceramic present using the categories for initial level of classification below. See Appendix C for detailed descriptions of each category. Gray Ware -Gray ware

-Gray ware (early neckbanded) -Gray ware (neckbanded) -Gray ware (clapboard neckbanded) -Gray ware (exuberant corrugated) -Gray ware (corrugated)

White Ware

-White ware -White ware (early-intermediate) -White ware (late) -White ware (Lino style) -White ware (Kana’a style) -White ware (Red Mesa style) -White ware (Black Mesa style) -White ware (Dogoszhi style) -White ware (Sosi style) -White ware (Puerco style)

23

-White ware (Late Mesa Verde style) -White ware (Late Kayenta style)

Red/Orange Ware -Red/Orange ware

-Red/Orange ware (with red paint) -Red/Orange ware (with black paint) -Red/Orange ware (polychrome without white paint)

-Red/Orange ware (polychrome with white paint) Brown Ware -Brown ware -Brown ware (early) -Brown ware (Promontory) -Brown ware (fingernail impressed) -Unknown -Other:________________________ Type: If conditions allow and the analyst is confident about the classification, enter the ceramic type (see Appendix C for additional information). Note that this entry will not be completed for many ceramic assemblages and may be left blank. Example: Ceramics- Estimated Quantity:___270_______ Quantity Category Type2 ___200_ _______White ware ____________________ ______________________________________ ___50__ _______Gray ware (corrugated)___________ ______________________________________ ___3___ _______Gray ware (corrugated)___________ _______Snake Valley Corrugated___________ ___13__ _______Red/Orange ware (with red paint)___ ______________________________________ 9. Ceramic Comments: Additional comments relevant to the ceramic assemblage. 10. Ground stone: Estimated Quantity: Enter the estimated amount of ground stone present. Avoid using a range of amounts (i.e. 10-20), and instead use an average (i.e. 15). Unless specifically noted in the comments, this number will be an estimate only. Quantity: Record the quantity of ground stone artifacts for each entry. Description: Record a basic description of the ground stone artifact. Artifacts that are given unique designations or numbers should have those designations included in the description and keyed in site maps. Example: Ground stone – Estimated Quantity: ____3____ Quantity Description

24

___2___ Complete one-handed sandstone manos (M1 and M2).___________________________________ ___1___ Basalt slab metate fragment (M3).___________________________________________________ 11. Ground Stone Comments: Additional comments relevant to the ground stone assemblage. 12. Additional Artifacts/Debris: Note any additional artifacts or debris present using the categories below. Building materials may include shaped stones, jacal, wattle-and-daub, wood, etc. Material that is not culturally associated to the component being recorded should not be noted here, but should be mentioned in the site description. For example, modern cow bone on the surface of a prehistoric site, or charcoal left from a recent wildfire, would not necessitate recordation in this entry. -Basketry/Textile -Bone -Burned stone/FCR -Building Materials -Charcoal -Maize -Shell -Other:________________________ 13. Additional Artifacts/Debris Description: Describe the additional artifacts and debris present. 14. Additional Part B Comments: Include any additional comments that may be relevant to the prehistoric component of the site.

25

PART C (Historic Component) All artifacts and features in Part C should be recorded using the standard system of measurement (e.g. inches, feet, gallons, etc.). Smithsonian Trinomial: Enter the Smithsonian Trinomial number for the site (assigned by the Antiquities Section). See Part A for county abbreviations and additional information. Temporary Site No.: Enter the temporary site number from Part A. 1. Primary dates of site use/occupation: ___________ to ___________: Estimate the primary date of use or occupation of the site based on all available evidence. Recorders should not simply use the absolute earliest and latest artifacts for dating, but should use all available evidence to estimate the most likely period of use. For example, if a site contained 200 artifacts, ten of which date from 1860-1890, 170 of which date from 1890-1920, and ten of which date from 1960-1980, the primary dates of use or occupation would be 1890 to 1920. 2. Primary period of significance: ___________ to ___________: If a site is recommended as eligible to the NRHP, estimate the temporal period represented that is most important in determining NRHP eligibility. 3. Non-Architectural Features: Type: Enter the type of non-architectural feature using the categories below. Be sure to indicate features on site maps. -Agricultural Field -Artifact Concentration -Burial -Cairn -Cistern -Collector’s Pile -Corral -Depression -Earthen Mound -Fence -Head Frame -Headgate -Hearth/Campfire -Midden -Mine Shaft/Adit/Prospect Hole -Pit -Rock Alignment -Rock Concentration -Rock Art/Inscription -Railroad Grade/Bed -Stained Soil -Tailings

26

-Trail/Road -Utility Pole(s) -Well -Other:________________________ Description: Enter a description of the feature. Features that are given unique designations or numbers should have those designations included in the description and keyed on site maps. 4. Architectural Features: Type: Enter the type of architectural feature using the categories below. Be sure to indicate features on site maps. Generally speaking, ‘industrial’ suggests a focus on manufacturing of goods, while ‘commercial’ suggests selling of goods and services. -Bridge -Building -Building (agricultural) -Building (commercial) -Building (industrial) -Building (residential) -Cabin -Dugout -Foundation -Outhouse -Mine Shaft/Adit -Tent Platform -Other:________________________ Description: Enter a description of the feature. Features that are given unique designations or numbers should have those designations included in the description and keyed on site maps. 5. Feature Comments: Additional comments relevant to the prehistoric features. 6. Cans: See Appendix D for can descriptions and illustrations. Estimated Quantity: Enter the estimated amount of cans present. Avoid using a range of amounts (i.e. 20-40), and instead use an average (i.e. 30). Unless specifically noted in the comments, this number will be an estimate only. Quantity: Enter the quantity of the type of can present. Type: Enter the type of can present using the categories below. -Hole-in-cap -Hole-in-top -Sanitary -Undetermined -Other:________________________

27

Description: Give a concise description of the artifacts present (e.g. can form or function, size, marking, etc.). In-depth description and measurements should be reserved for unique or exceptional artifacts. Example: Cans Quantity Type Description (form or function, size, markings, etc.)

__7__ __Sanitary________ _Large, multiple serving sized (~12 inch diameter)_________________________ __4__ __Hole-in-top _____ _Two stamped with ‘PUNCH HERE’, single serving size___________________ __1__ __Tobacco Tin_____ _Prince Albert______________________________________________________ __8__ __Cone-top beer ___ _____________ ____________________________________________________ 7. Can Comments: Additional comments relevant to the can assemblage. 8. Glass Bottles: See Appendix E for glass descriptions and illustrations. Estimated Quantity: Enter the estimated amount of glass bottles present. Avoid using a range of amounts (i.e. 20-40), and instead use an average (i.e. 30). Unless specifically noted in the comments, this number will be an estimate only. ~ENV (estimated number of vessels): Enter the estimated number of bottles present for each entry. This number is not a count of individual glass shards, but is the recorders estimate of the original number of bottles needed to account for all fragmentary specimens. Assemblage characteristics that can help in estimating this number include the number and size of individual bottle fragments, glass color, bottle form, and manufacture method. Keep in mind that ENV is meant to be only a rough approximation. Manufacture: Enter the type of manufacturing method using the categories below. -Hand Finished -Machine Made -Undetermined -Other:________________________ Description: Give a concise description of the artifacts present (e.g. bottle forms or functions, sizes, markings, glass color, etc.). In-depth description and measurements should be reserved for unique or exceptional artifacts. Examples: Glass Bottles- Estimated Quantity:____2_____ ~ENV Manufacture Description

__2__ ___Machine made__ Around 50 Fragments from two brown beer bottles._________________________ Glass Bottles- Estimated Quantity:____32____ ~ENV Manufacture Description

__20_ ___Machine made__ Fragments from ~20 bottles (brown, green, and clear colored).________________ ___2_ ___Hand finished___ Both amethyst colored._______________________________________________

28

__10_ ___Undetermined___ Brown-colored glass dominates, but a few fragments of milk glass also present.__ 9. Glass Bottle Comments: Additional comments relevant to the bottle assemblage. 10. Ceramics: See Appendix F for can descriptions and illustrations. Estimated Quantity: Enter the estimated quantity of ceramic vessels represented. Avoid using a range of amounts (i.e. 10-20), and instead use an average (i.e. 15). ~ENV (estimated number of vessels): Enter the estimated number of ceramic vessels represented. This number is not a count of individual ceramic sherds, but is the recorders estimate of the original number of ceramic vessels needed to account for all fragmentary specimens. Assemblage characteristics that can help in estimating this number include the number and size of individual sherds, vessel form, manufacture method, surface treatments and decoration, and body characteristics (e.g. color and temper). Keep in mind that ENV is meant to be only a rough approximation. Ware: Enter the type of ceramic by using the categories below. See Appendix F for ceramic descriptions and illustrations. -Earthenware -White earthenware -Colored earthenware -Stoneware -Porcelain -Undetermined -Other:________________________ Description: Give a concise description of the artifacts present (e.g. vessel form or function, surface treatment and decoration, color, maker’s marks, counts, etc.). Attach photos or drawings as appropriate (especially of maker’s marks). In-depth description and measurements should be reserved for unique or exceptional artifacts. Examples: Ceramics- Estimated Quantity:____4_____ ~ENV Ware Description

__4__ _White earthenware__ At least 4 pieces of tableware (2 plates and 2 bowls) are represented. One of the_ plates is decorated with a red-colored transfer print (ca. 1800-1900).___________ Ceramics- Estimated Quantity:___55___ ~ENV Ware Description

_40__ _White earthenware__ At least 300 sherds appear to be tableware. Estimate 20 plates, 5 cups, 5 bowls, and 10 serving platters. Roughly half of these have a flow blue floral decoration (transfer print).____________________________________________________ __3__ ___Stoneware______ Three large crocks decorated with a green salt glaze; two of which have the____ Searcy and Co. maker’s mark on the base (dating ca. 1873-1890).____________ _________________________________________________________________

29

_10__ ___Porcelain________ Lots of very small porcelain sherds coming from 10 or so hollowware vessels.__

Only two fragments show any decoration (red and blue-colored decal)________ (ca.1900-present).__________________________________________________

11. Ceramic Comments: Additional comments relevant to the ceramic assemblage. 12. Additional Artifacts/Debris Present: Note any additional artifacts or debris present using the categories below. Material that is not culturally associated to the component being recorded should not be noted here, but should be mentioned in the site description. For example, modern cow bone on the surface of a prehistoric site, or charcoal left from a recent wildfire, would not necessitate recordation in this entry. -Ammunition -Bone -Building Materials -Buttons -Car/Car Parts -Ceramics (non-tableware) -Glass (non-bottle) -Nails (cut) -Nails (wire) -Plastic -Stove Parts -Toys -Other:________________________ 13. Additional Artifacts/Debris Description: Describe the additional artifacts and debris present. 14. Additional Part C Comments: Include any additional comments that may be relevant to the historic component of the site.

30

PART D (Rock Art/Inscriptions) Rock art and inscriptions include petroglyphs, pictographs, arborglyphs, or any other type of inscription, image, or illustration in either the natural or built environment. When encountered, a description of the rock art/inscription should be included in the site description (Part A), as well as noted in the appropriate component form (Part B and/or C). Smithsonian Trinomial: Enter the Smithsonian Trinomial number for the site (assigned by the Antiquities Section). See Part A for county abbreviations and additional information. Temporary Site No.: Enter the temporary site number from Part A. 1. Panel Number: Each panel at the site should be assigned a panel number to be used in all descriptions. 2. Temporal Affiliation(s): Record the temporal affiliation of elements on the panel using the categories below (multiple entries may be used). -Prehistoric -Historic -Unknown For rock art/inscriptions that are primarily associated with Native Americans, but date to the contact period, mark the ‘Historic’ category, but be sure to note the ethnographic nature of the site in the description, as well as in Part A (described early in this manual - Part A, #16). 3. Manufacture Technique: Record the technique(s) used to manufacture elements on the panel using the categories below. Keep in mind that both petroglyphs and pictographs connote elements associated with stone. -Petroglyph (carved, pecked, abraded, etc.) -Pictograph (painted or applied) -Other:________________________ 4. Panel is situated on: Record what the panel is situated on using the categories below. -Bedrock -Boulder -Cave or rockshelter interior -Cliff face -Structure -Other:________________________ 5. Location: Describe the basic location of the panel, with an emphasis on information that would help someone relocate it in the field.

31

6. Description: Describe the panel and individual elements. Information may include the medium the art or inscriptions are inscribed on as well as the basic size, shape, orientation and angle of the panel. Be sure to include a description of individual elements; including their measurements, manufacturing technique, colors used, any superpositioning of elements, repatination, and composition. Be sure to include a map showing where the panel is situated on site. 7. Vandalism Present: Record whether any vandalism to the panel is present. If affirmative, be sure to describe in the ‘Impacting Agents’ section below. 8. Impacting Agents: Describe any natural or cultural agents that are directly impacting the rock art/inscription. If vandalism is present, give an estimate of how long ago it may have occurred. 9. Sketch of Panel Number: As appropriate include a sketch of the rock art present on site. Be sure to include a scale and orientation for the drawing. Particularly complex or intricate panels may need multiple sketches to capture their entirety; add as necessary. Be sure to include at least one photograph of each rock art panel on site.

32

MAPS AND PHOTOGRAPHS Since individual state and federal agencies have differing specifications for mapping and photographic documentation of sites, recorders are encouraged to contact the responsible agency to determine their requirements. However, the general practices outlined below often apply. (Note that the maps used in Figures 2 and 3 should NOT be thought of as templates, but are examples only). Site documentation should always include a map (based on USGS 7.5 minute series) that clearly depicts the site location (Figure 2). Sketch maps of all but the simplest sites are also expected, and should show major landforms, features, important artifacts, modern disturbances, etc. (Figure 3). Each site should also be documented with a minimum of two overview photographs. Overviews should give a sense of the general setting and location of the site and how it relates to the surrounding environment (Figure 4). Additional photographs of features, artifacts, or other aspects of the site are often appropriate, and are particularly important when describing temporally diagnostic artifacts (especially those the recorder is unable to confidently identify). Photographs of objects should include a scale and be composed against a background from which the artifact will stand out. Check digital images to ensure they are well framed and in focus (Figure 5). All photographs should be labeled and include the site number, direction facing (as appropriate), and a brief description.

33

Figure 2: Example of site location map.

34

Figure 3: Example of site sketch map.

35

Figure 4: Examples of site overview photographs: a) less effective site overview; b) more effective site overview.

36

Figure 5: Examples of artifact photographs: a) unacceptable; b) acceptable.

.

37

REFERENCES Bureau of Land Management

2013 Principal Meridians and Base Lines Map. Electronic document, http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/cadastralsurvey/meridians.1.html, accessed July 18, 2013. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

IMACS

1992 Intermountain Antiquities Computer System User’s Guide. University of Utah, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service.

King, Thomas F. 2004 Cultural Resource Laws and Practice. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California. National Park Service

2002 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulleting #15. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/, accessed August 29, 2012.

Schroedl, Alan R.

2008 A Personal Perspective on the IMACS Site Form and the Next Generation of a Utah Site Database. Utah Archaeology 21(1):89-105.

UPAC (Utah Professional Archaeological Council)

2008 Linear Sites. Guidance for Identifying and Recording under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Electronic document, http://www.upaconline.org/files/UPACLinearGuidance2008.pdf, accessed July 22, 2013. Utah Professional Archaeological Council.

38

APPENDIX A: Utah Archaeology Site Forms

39

APPENDIX B: Prehistoric Artifacts – Projectile Points

40

Figure B1. General shape of early, large points: (a) Clovis; (b) Folsom; (c) Cougar Mountain; (d) Haskett, (e) Windust; (f) Parman; (g) Lind Coulee; (h) Lake Mohave; (i) Silver Lake. (c-f various Western Stemmed points, adapted from Beck and Jones 2010:Fig. 12).

41

Figure B2. General shape of large projectile points (adapted from Holmer 1978:Fig. 5; IMACS 1992:440.1): (a) Elko Corner-notched; (b) Elko Eared; (c) Elko Side-notched; (d) Northern Side-notched; (e) Hawken Side-notched; (f) Rocker Side-notched; (g) Sudden Side-notched; (h) San Rafael Side-notched; (i) Gatecliff Contracting-stem (Gypsum); (j) Pinto; (k) Gatecliff Split-stem; (l) McKean Lanceolate; (m) Humboldt Concave-base.

42

Figure B3. General shape of small projectile points (adapted from IMACS 1992:440.2): (a) Rose Spring Corner-notched; (b) Eastgate Expanding Stem; (c) Bear River Side-notched; (d) Uinta Side-notched; (e) Nawthis Side-notched; (f) Desert Side-notched; (g) Parowan Basal-notched; (h) Bull Creek; (i) Cottonwood Triangular.

43

Additional Reading Bettinger, Robert L., and Jelmer Eerkens

1999 Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-and-Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64(2):231-242.

Bettinger, Robert L., James F. O'Connell, and David H. Thomas

1991 Projectile Points as Time Markers in the Great Basin. American Anthropologist 93:166-172.

Goebel, Ted and Joshua L. Keene

2014 Are Great Basin Stemmed Points as Old as Clovis in the Intermountain West? A Review of the Geochronological Evidence. In Archaeology in the Great Basin and Southwest, edited by Nancy J. Parezo and Joel C. Janetski, pp. 35-60. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Hildebrandt, William R., and Jerome H. King

2012 Distinguishing between Darts and Arrows in the Archaeological Record: Implications for Technological Change in the American West. American Antiquity 77(4):789-799.

Holmer, Richard N.

1986 Common Projectile Points of the Intermountain West. In Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, edited by Carol J. Condie and Don D. Fowler, pp. 91-116. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 110. Salt Lake City.

2009 Field Guide: Projectile Points of Eastern Idaho. Idaho Museum of Natural History, Idaho State University, Pocatello.

Jones, George T., and Charlotte Beck

2014 Moving into the Mid-Holocene: The Paleoarchaic/Archaic Transition in the Intermountain West. In Archaeology in the Great Basin and Southwest, edited by Nancy J. Parezo and Joel C. Janetski, pp. 61-84. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Justice, Noel D.

2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Indiana University, Bloomington.

Smith, Geoffrey M., Pat Barker, Eugene M. Hattori, Anan Raymond, and Ted Goebel

2013 Points in Time: Direct Radiocarbon Dates on Great Basin Projectile Points. American Antiquity 78(3):580-594.

Thomas, David H.

1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):7-43.

44

2013 Great Basin Projectile Point Typology: Still Relevant? Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 33(2):133-152.

REFERENCES Beck, Charlotte and George T. Jones

2010 Clovis and Western Stemmed: Population Migration and the Meeting of Two Technologies in the Intermountain West. American Antiquity 75(1):81-116.

Holmer, Richard N.

1978 A Mathematical Typology for Archaic Projectile Points of the Eastern Great Basin. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

IMACS

1992 Intermountain Antiquities Computer System User’s Guide. University of Utah, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service.

45

APPENDIX C: Prehistoric Artifacts - Ceramics

46

PREHISTORIC CERAMICS The Utah Archaeology Site Form documentation system acknowledges that even the most competent ceramic analysts frequently cannot assign ceramic sherds to a specific type in the field, primarily for two reasons. First, the kind of temper cannot always be identified without a microscope and therefore sherds cannot be accurately assigned to a ware category. Second, sherds often lack enough diagnostic features (e.g. painted designs or rim forms) to be assigned to a specific type even if the ware can be identified. Instead, this system focuses on recording the level of ceramic data that can be confidently assigned in the field. It allows more accurate and reliable data to be generated by crews with variable experience in identifying Anasazi, Fremont, and Late Prehistoric ceramics. It focuses primarily on the chronologically important features of individual sherds, as well as the site assemblage as a whole. The idea is to push sherd identification as far as appropriate, but no further. It is not intended that the more generic categories serve as substitutes for more thoughtful consideration of the ceramics; instead, they serve in situations where no additional information can reasonably be found in a particular site’s assemblage. This system is built on the idea that more general – but reliable – data is preferable to specific – but potentially unreliable – information about ceramics. For these reasons, ceramics should be recorded using a two-tiered system. At the initial level, sherds are identified into generic ware categories (named Gray, White, Red/Orange, and Brown, although color is not the only criteria for distinguishing them), and further subdivided as appropriate into categories based on surface finish or style of decoration. A second level of analysis allows the pottery to be identified by traditional type in cases where the pottery is complete enough and the analyst is experienced enough to make these identifications. It is expected that type names will be used judiciously and with justification by the site recorders. In practice, ceramics recorded in the field will frequently be identified only to the first level of analysis, with estimated quantities of (for example) plain gray or corrugated gray ware, undifferentiated white ware, etc. Exact quantities should be provided for the minority of sherds specifically identifiable to type, and it will often be appropriate to provide clear, focused, adequately-scaled photographs of (especially) the larger and more-potentially diagnostic, painted sherds, whether specifically identified to type or not. Initial Level [Categories still being refined, but overall number will likely be reduced] Gray Ware (rarely approaches true gray, may be smudged black or misfired to brown, pink, yellow or orange) -Gray ware

-Gray ware (early neckbanded) -Gray ware (neckbanded) -Gray ware (clapboard neckbanded) -Gray ware (exuberant corrugated) -Gray ware (corrugated)

47

White Ware (all gray or white painted pottery or pottery prepared to receive paint; may be smudged black or misfired to pink, brown, yellow, orange; paint may misfire to brown, gray, red, or even a greenish-gray)

-White ware -White ware (early-intermediate) -White ware (late) -White ware (Lino style) -White ware (Kana’a style) -White ware (Red Mesa style) -White ware (Black Mesa style) -White ware (Dogoszhi style) -White ware (Sosi style) -White ware (Puerco style) -White ware (Late Mesa Verde style) -White ware (Late Kayenta style)

Red/Orange Ware (not to include accidentally oxidized gray ware or white ware) -Red/Orange ware

-Red/Orange ware (with red paint) -Red/Orange ware (with black paint) -Red/Orange ware (polychrome without white paint)

-Red/Orange ware (polychrome with white paint) Brown Ware -Brown ware -Brown ware (early) -Brown ware (Promontory) -Brown ware (fingernail impressed) -[Short descriptions and photographs/drawings of categories will be included in final manual]- Type (to be used only when the combination of analyst and sherd allow the type to be determined with reasonable certainty) -[Categories for Type will be included in final manual]-

48

APPENDIX D: Historic Artifacts - Cans

49

HISTORIC CANS This guide is intended to provide sufficient information to allow for consistent descriptions of historic cans. Good artifact descriptions are essential for making chronological and functional interpretations, as well as evaluating the significance of sites. For additional information on historic cans see the Jim Rock Historic Can Collection (Rock 2015), Berge 1980; Busch 1981; Horn 2005; IMACS 1992:471; Martells 1976; Maxwell 1993; and Rock 1984, 1988. There are numerous sizes, types, and shapes of cans (Figures D1 - D3). Several changes in can manufacture technology occurred during the late 1800s and early 1900s making cans good temporal markers. Manufacture method is the most important attribute of the can to document, although can markings (if present) can also help determine a date range. The can’s shape, type of opening (e.g., cut-around, ice pick, knife cut, etc.), type of seams (if discernible), and type of top/lid may also be useful to document. These secondary traits indicate what type of food or product the can contained. The three basic types of cans found in Utah include hole-in-cap, hole-in-top, and sanitary cans. Can Type Hole-in-cap (Figure D1) Prior to 1820, cans were manufactured by cutting and hand soldering the sides, bottom, and top of the can together. The can was filled through a hole in the lid; a cap was then soldered into the lid after filling and the can was heated (this pre-1820s method is commonly referred to as the hole-and-cap method). Because of internal pressure, cans often swelled and burst during production or afterwards due to food spoilage. In 1820, the problem of can swelling/bursting was solved by adding a small vent hole into the middle of the cap. The addition of a vent hole was termed the hole-in-cap method and allowed containers to be filled, heated, and then vented to drive out excess air and moisture through the hole. The vent hole was closed with a small drop of solder after venting. The hole-in-cap method was common from 1820 until the early 1900s (c. 1904 - c.1914). The vent hole is also often informally termed a “match-stick” filler hole and cans with the vent hole are often referred to as “match-stick filler” cans. The soldered cap ranged from roughly ½ inch to 2 inches in diameter, with a 2 inch diameter being very common. Hole-in-cap cans have a diagnostic circle of lead solder around the cap with a lead solder dot in the middle. Prior to the early 1880s, hole-in-cap side seams were soldered by hand and the hand-soldered seams are thick, crude, irregular, and may stand as much as 1/8 in. high in relief. Machine-soldered side seams are common after 1883 and seams produced by machine are more uniform and generally thinner. Can ends were machine-soldered beginning in the 1870s. Later hole-in-cap cans have been found with crimped side seams. Variants of the type also included caps with two vent holes. Hole-in-top (Figure D1) Carnation introduced the hole-in-top can about 1900. The hole-in-top can did away with the soldered cap and used only a small hole in the middle of the lid for venting. The hole-in-top can

50

lid has stamped ends and a small vent hole in one end that was sealed with a drop of solder after being heated. Hole-in-top cans generally resemble hole-in-cap cans but lack the filler hole, cap, and circular ring of lead solder (though hole-in-top can lids are often stamped with circular ridges that, at first glance, resemble circular filler holes). Hole-in-top cans are commonly called “match-stick filler,” “solder-dot,” or “vent hole” cans. Hole-in-top cans were used predominantly for evaporated or condensed milk—with some milk producers using the method into the modern era (1990s). Sanitary (Figure D1) The Sanitary, or open-top can, was initially developed in Europe, where can ends were attached to the body by hand crimping the two edges together. A rubber gasket was placed between the edges to create an airtight seam. In 1896, in the United States, Charles Ams patented a seal of rubber and gum to replace the gasket. In 1888, Max Ams made a manufacturing breakthrough with the invention of the double seam method for side seaming cans. This new locking seam held the can sides together better than the earlier plumb and/or lap seams, and can failure due to internal pressure was greatly reduced. In 1897, Charles Ams and Julius Brenzinger improved their can manufacturing technique by crimping both the top and bottom of the can to the sides, thereby forming a sealed double seam and eliminating the need for solder. The new can became known as the “solder-less can.” After these manufacturing inventions and improvements, the Sanitary can, marketed as the “sanitary enamel lined can,” was first introduced in 1904 by the Sanitary Can Co. of Fairport, New York. By 1911, the Sanitary can was the most common can type and, by 1914, it had completely replaced hole-in-cap cans. Dating Cans Can technologies overlap, but in general, hole-in-cap cans at a site indicate a pre-1914 date. A hole-in-cap can with hand-soldered side seams pre-dates 1880. Hole-in-cap cans with machine-soldered side seams were manufactured between 1880 and the early 1900s. A combination of several can types can provide an excellent means of dating a site. For example, an assemblage that includes only hole-in-cap cans likely dates prior to 1904. A combination of hole-in-cap and hole-in-top cans, but no Sanitary cans likely dates between 1900 and 1094. A combination of all three types of cans would date between 1900 and 1914. An assemblage containing only hole-in-cap and Sanitary cans would likely date after 1900. Date ranges can be refined by researching embossed marks (if present) and taking into account other diagnostic artifacts at the site. Things to remember Of particular interest for archaeologists, the terms hole-in-cap and hole-in-top (as well as the pre-1820s hole-and-cap) are often used interchangeably in the literature. As a result—and because the terms are very similar—significant confusion and inconsistency abound in the archaeological literature. Similarly, the terms match-stick filler, solder-dot, and vent hole are used interchangeably to refer to cans with a vent hole. However, because both hole-in-cap and hole-in-top cans have vent holes, the use of these terms is imprecise and causes confusion. The terms

51

matchstick-filler, solder dot, and vent hole should therefore be avoided—as they only refer to a can with a vent hole. The most consistent source of can terminology, and apparently the terminology that most closely conforms to that used by the can industry itself, is found in James Rock’s works (especially Rock 1984). Rock uses hole-and-cap to refer to the 1810 to 1820 method of manufacture with a cap but no vent hole, hole-in-cap to refer to post-1820 cans with caps and vent holes, and hole-in-top to refer to cans with only a vent hole. Following Rock’s terminology, few, if any, hole-and-cap cans should be found in Utah due to large scale settlement occurring only after 1847. The late 1800s and early 1900s were a period of trial and error in can manufacturing. A small number of hybrid “Franken-cans” were produced during this period, including lead-soldered cans with crimped ends (similar to sanitary cans), lead-covered vent holes (similar to hole-in-top cans), and cans with two vent holes.

52

Other Items of Note Can Company Information

• Max Ams (of Ams Machine Co.) developed a double side seam and gasket for cylindrical cans in 1888. These developments eventually led to the Sanitary can.

• Sprinkler top (powder/spice) cans introduced in 1890. • Ams Machine Company begins small-scale manufacturing of the locked, double-seamed

can in 1894. • Hecking Can Co. began operations in 1901. Their logo was an H inside a circle. • The Sanitary Can Co. (cans marked “SANITARY) was founded in 1904. The Continental

Can Co. (C.C.Co) was also founded in the same year. • The American Can Co. absorbed the other original manufactures of Sanitary cans in

1908. Evaporated/Condensed Milk Cans

• Gail Borden granted first patent for canning condensed milk in 1856 and began canning milk in hole-in-cap cans that same year. These cans were distinctively marked with the “Eagle Brand” name around the perimeter of the can end and had an unusual filler hole.

• Evaporated milk was first canned in the U.S. in 1885; milk was removed by punching two holes on opposite sides of the lid or top.

• “Borden” embossed on evaporated milk cans began in 1900; “New York” was embossed prior/until 1900.

Tobacco Tins

• The flat-top, hinged-lid tobacco can was introduced in 1892. • The Prince Albert upright flat tobacco tin was introduced circa 1906/1907 by the R. J.

Reynolds Tobacco Company. • Beginning in 1901, Tuxedo Tobacco was sold in upright, kidney-profile pocket cans with

a striker on the bottom. • The flat-sided, hinged-lid tobacco can came into use in 1910. Wire hinges were also

added to the lid around 1910. • Complex, multi-piece tobacco can lids were introduced in 1948.

Baking Powder

• Calumet Baking Powder Company was founded in 1889 and their early embossing included “CALUMET BAKERS BAKING POWDER MADE IN THE USA”.

• KC Baking Powder was first marketed in July 1890, but not patented until November 20, 1911. The year of manufacture can be determined by adding the number of years stated on the can lid to 1890 (Ward et al. 1977:240).

Meat Tins

• Large-scale meat canning began in Chicago in 1872. • The tapered meat tin was developed in 1875. • In 1895, the tapered meat tin was improved by adding a scored key-wind strip to the large

end of the can.

53

• The American Can Company (AC Co.) formed in 1901. By 1910 they were using “CANCO” as their logo, which was often stamped on the can or bucket bases and lids.

• Canned ham introduced in 1926. Can Openings

• Key-wind openings introduced in 1866, though the method did not gain widespread use. • The key-opened collar-can for coffee was introduced in 1917. • Geared rotary can openers were introduced in 1925. • Church-key openers were introduced in 1935. • First beverage can pull tab introduced in 1962.

Fish Cans

• Sardines were first canned in North America beginning in 1871. Before 1880 sardine cans were a three-piece body; between 1880 and 1918 sardine cans were a one-piece body; sardine cans have had a depressed lid since 1884; and sardine cans have been double seamed since 1918.

• Tuna canning began in California in 1909. Miscellaneous Can Information

• Kerosene canned beginning in 1865. • The log cabin-shaped can was patented in 1897. • Embossing on cans becomes more common during the late 1800s and early 1900s. • Hills Brothers vacuum packed the first coffee in pound—or “squat”—cans in 1903. • The modern paint can came into use in 1906. • Canned citrus juice was first shipped from Florida in 1921. • Canned dog food was available beginning in 1922. • All-metal quart motor oil cans were introduced in 1933. • Cone-top beer cans with crown-cap finishes were introduced in 1935. • Large hole-in-cap food cans were provided by the U.S Government to the Civilian

Conservation Corps (and possibly military) during the 1930s (hole-in-cap cans were out of production by 1940 and were completely gone by WWII).

• The first aerosol can was marketed in 1945. • A soft aluminum top was added to flat-top beer cans beginning in the 1950s. • All-aluminum cans were produced by 1957.

54

REFERENCES Berge, Dale, L.

1980 Simpson Springs Station: Historical Archaeology in western Utah. 1974-1975. Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Series Publication Number 6. Utah State Office.

Busch, Jane

1981 An Introduction to the Tin Can. Historical Archaeology 15(1):95-104. Horn, Jonathon C.

2005 Historic Artifact Handbook. Electronic document, http://www.alpinearchaeology.com/cms/reports/, accessed January 1, 2013. Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc.

IMACS

1992 Intermountain Antiquities Computer System User’s Guide. University of Utah, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service.

Martells, Jack 1976 The Beer Can Collector’s Bible. Ballantine Books, New York. Maxwell, B. S. 1993 Beer Cans: A Guide for the Archaeologist. Historical Archaeology 27(1):95-113. Rock, James T.

1984 Cans in the Countryside. Historical Archaeology 18(2):99–111. 1988 Tin Canisters: Their Identification. Published privately by the author. 2015 Jim Rock Historic Can Collection. Electronic document,

http://digital.hanlib.sou.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/p16085coll5, accessed January 15, 2015. Hannon Library Digital Collections, Southern Oregon University.

Ward, Albert E., Emily K. Abbink, and John R. Stein

1977 Ethnohistorical and Chronological Basis of the Navajo Material Culture. In Settlement and Subsistence Along the Lower Chaco River: the CGP Survey, edited by Charles A. Reher. The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

55

Figure D1. Can types (adapted from Rock 1984)

56

Figure D2. Probable contents based on can shape (adapted from Rock 1984, 1987, and various sources).

57

Figure D3. Tin can openings (IMACS 1992:471-7).

58

APPENDIX E: Historic Artifacts - Glass

59

GLASS Glass manufacture has a long, complicated history that includes numerous technological inventions, refinements, and dead-ends. Within the historical archaeological record, bottles often dominate the glass assemblage because they were an early and widely used container for foods, beverages, and medicines that allowed for the transportation and temporary storage of the contents. Although bottles, jars, and window glass are considered the most common glass artifacts found at historic sites, other common glass artifacts include lamp chimneys, lantern globes, lamp reservoirs, light bulbs, mirrors, drinking glasses, door knobs, serving bowls, dishes, ornamental glassware, marbles, and vehicle parts, such as windshield fragments, tail and headlamp lenses, mirrors, and reflectors. Summaries of the history of glass manufacture technology, maker’s marks, and other facets of glass technology are readily available and the reader is encouraged to consult these documents for further research. Many of these documents were written by amateurs and collectors, so that the quality, consistency, and terminologies used in these documents vary widely. Bill Lindsey’s (2010) ‘Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website’ (http://www.sha.org/bottle/) hosted by the Society for Historical Archaeology is particularly useful and is used as one of the primary sources for this section. The goal of this guide is to focus the discussion of glass artifacts to allow for the correct identification of key glass-manufacture techniques and characteristics for dating purposes and to assist preparation of consistent artifact descriptions. Several innovations in glass manufacture—especially bottle manufacture—happened during the late 1800s and early 1900s making glass containers good temporal markers. Manufacture method is a very important attribute to document. Maker’s marks (if present) can provide relatively narrow manufacture ranges and are especially useful in determining a date range for a site. Review of additional sources (such as Toulouse 1971) is usually needed to identify glass maker’s marks. Several glass colors can also be used as temporal markers. Additional attributes (such as form, decoration, closure type, etc.) are useful for determining date ranges and a bottle’s function or contents. Most bottles are made up of six basic elements: finish, neck, shoulder, body, heel, and base (Figure E1). Familiarity of these will assist in properly describing bottle fragments that might be found. Manufacturing Methods Several technological changes occurred in the glass manufacture industry between the mid-1800s and early 1920s. Prior to the mid-1800s, glass-making was relatively static and followed many of the same general processes that had been in use for centuries. This discussion of glass manufacture will focus on glass manufacture techniques during the period of greatest innovation (mid-1800s to early 1900s) and manufacture practices relevant to the archaeological record of Utah (beginning ca. 1847). Hand Finished In general, glass vessels manufactured between 1847 and 1904 were mouth blown, usually into a mold, and finished by hand. During manufacture, vessels were blown free-hand or in a mold by gathering a glob of molten glass on a blowpipe and blowing air through the blowpipe to create a

60

hollow vessel whose form was shaped by an assistant or a mold; the neck portion of the resulting bottle was then cut from the blowpipe and a finish added. Some bottles blown free hand or in a turn mold had their base end attached to a pontil rod to facilitate handling. When the pontil was removed, a ragged, raised circular bead of glass on the base (referred to as a pontil scar) was often left (Figure E2). In some cases, such as on champagne bottles, the bottle bases were pushed upward into the bottle with the pontil, resulting in a cup-shaped base (kick-up) before being removed. After 1865 the snap case (essentially metal tongs on a rod) largely replaced the use of pontils, and because it did not leave marks, the use of the snap case allowed lettering or decoration to be molded into bottle bases (Kendrick 1966:29). Mold types varied from one-piece dip molds—which could be as simple as a bucket—to molds having up to nine interlocking sections. Most glass bottles found in 1800s-era Utah were manufactured using a two- piece (or more) cup or post bottom mold (Figure E3). Though less common, bottles from other types of molds might also be present in Utah, including turn-molds, rickets molds, bottom hinge molds, and three-part leaf molds. The various mold types leave characteristic seams. Mold-manufactured glass typically (though not always) has raised seams that extend from the bottle’s heel and/or base, up the body, and terminate in the neck area of the bottle. The quantity and location of these seams vary depending on the type of mold used during the manufacture process (Figure E4). Numerous different methods were used to finish bottles, including grinding the lip or mouth smooth, re-heating and fire polishing, and shearing the bottle neck. The most common method of finishing a bottle from the mid-1800s to early 1900s was to apply additional glass to the neck and form the shape of the finish with a “lipping” or “finishing” tool. The lipping tool could also be used to shape the finish without applying additional glass. Several terms exist for finishes made with a tool, but for simplicity, we refer to the application of additional glass followed by tooling as applied and tooling without the addition of glass as tooled (see the SHA’s bottle website for a detailed discussion of “applied” versus “tooled” finishes) (Figure E5). In both cases, the simplest term to be used is “hand finishing.” Applied finishes were common between 1840 and 1885 and most tooled finishes typically date from ca. 1885 to the 1920s. Some tooled finishes, as described here, can date back to the 1870s, such as on druggist bottles. All hand finishing of bottles ceased by 1920 when automatic bottling machines completely replaced mouth blown production. Applied and tooled finishes are usually identified by a lack of vertical seams. The lipping tool, which incorporated the desired shape of the finish, was inserted into the neck opening and rotated while the glass was still molten. The rotation of the lipping tool resulted in obliteration of the mold seam on the neck, sometimes twisting the seam below in the direction of rotation, and often left horizontal striations as part of the bottle finish. Where additional glass was added as part of an applied finish, sometimes irregular remnants of glass project below the area affected by the lipping tool. Applied finishes are frequently also characterized by finishes of cruder appearance that are irregular, differentially thick, “globby,” or lopsided (when viewed straight-on).

61

Machine Made Glass manufacture, like most craft-based manufacturing industries, underwent mechanization beginning in the late 1800s. The semi-automatic bottling machine was introduced in the 1890s and the revolutionary Owens automatic bottle machine—the first fully automatic bottle-making machine—was introduced in 1904. The main difference between fully- and semi-automatic machines was the degree of mechanization, not the appearance of the container. Semi-automatic machines gradually replaced workers at various steps in the production process, but always had a worker feeding it molten glass, whereas a fully automatic machine supplied itself with molten glass from a vat. The only visible difference between bottles made by semi- and fully automatic machines is the presence of an Owen’s suction scar on the latter. Both machines could produce similar vessels, with similar evidence of manufacture and the same general look and “feel” (see http://www.sha.org/bottle/glassmaking.htm#B for a detailed discussion of semi-automatic and fully automatic bottle making machines). For simplicity, the Utah Archaeology Site Form uses the term machine-made for semi- and fully-automatic machines. An automatic bottle machine (or the worker, if the machine is semi-automatic) feeds molten glass into the machine, which was then blown into a mold that forms the whole vessel. Machine-made bottles are produced through a complex, multi-step process that forms the whole vessel by machine. The manufacture process leaves seams around the base, up the sides to the finish, horizontally around and just under the mouth, and around the bore (Figure E6). Early machine-made vessels often also have vertical “ghost” seams on the body—which is a seam that is thin, weak, wanders, and disappears— bowing out from and nearly parallel to the main seam (Figure E6). A ghost seam is left by parison mold halves. Bottles produced in an Owen’s automatic bottling machine between 1904 and about 1969, but primarily on earlier bottles, will often have an Owen’s suction scar (aka ‘Owens ring’) on their base. This scar is a shallow wrinkle or irregular circular mark on the base of the bottle that will often have ‘feathery’ edges (Figure E7). The scar might be off center, irregularly shaped, or wander onto the heel of the bottle. The Owens scar is caused when molten glass sucked into the mold is cut off by the glass feeder mechanism (Kendrick 1966:81). A small (less than 1 inch), round indention—called a valve mark—may appear on the base of wide-mouth vessels (i.e., milk bottles, canning jars, etc.) (Figure E7). This mark is from the valve that pushes a vessel out of the mold to be transferred to a blow mold for completion. Valve marks date from the early 1900s until the mid-1950s (Bill Lindsey, personal communication 2013). Other than the presence of an Owen’s suction scar or a valve mark, the two types of machine-produced glass (semi-automatic or-fully automatic) can look the same and have the same “feel.” The Hartford-Empire Company introduced the “gob feeder” machine in 1917 (James 1956:21-23; Kendrick 1966:83). The gob feeder provided a way to form a measured amount of molten glass from which a bottle could be blown. In this process, a gob of glass was drawn from the

62

tank and then cut off by shears. Bottles that have been manufactured using a gob feeder will have a “V”-shaped mark in the center of the base with straight lines radiating out from the “V” at right angles. Glass made with a gob feeder dates from 1917 to sometime in the mid-1900s. Gob feeder-produced bottles, at least in Utah, seem to be relatively rare. Most semi-automatic machines were in production from the 1890s to about 1926. The use of fully automatic machines dates from 1904 to present. Mouth-blown bottles and hand finishing lasted until 1920, gradually diminishing beginning in the middle 1890s. The Owen’s automatic bottling machine was introduced in 1904 and it and other competing automatic bottling machines quickly gained control of American bottle production. In 1925, the Individual Suction Machine (ISM) was invented, and by 1947 only 30 percent of bottles were produced in Owens machines. By 1969, use of the Owens machine had largely been supplanted by more modern equipment. Color Amethyst (aka “sun colored amethyst” [SCA]): Around the 1880s, manufactures began adding manganese to glass batches as a decolorizing agent to produce clear glass. With time and exposure to sunlight, however, the manganese turns the clear glass amethyst/purple in color. The use of manganese was common from the late 19th century until WWI (1917), when the supply of manganese was cut off by the war. However, as many glass manufacturers had existing stores of manganese that were used until gone, a safer date range for sun-colored amethyst glass is 1880 to 1925 (Newman 1970; Rosenberg and Kvietok 1981:28). Amber: Selenium was used as a replacement for manganese to produce clear glass after the start of WWI (when the supply of manganese was cut-off). When exposed to sunlight, glass with selenium turns “the color of ripened wheat” or honey colored (Kendrick, 1966:59-61). The wheat or honey color produced by selenium is much lighter than a true brown and should not be confused with such. Amber glass dates from approximately 1914 to 1930 (Rosenberg and Kvietok 1981:28). Milk Glass: White colored glass. Common in medicines, cosmetic, toiletry, canning lid liners, some food and specialty items. Dates ca. 1890 to 1960. Milk glass is often mistakenly identified as ceramic. Aqua: Common in beer and soda water, but also used in many other categories. Dates ca. 1800 to ca. 1910. Green: General use, common in soda and wine vessels. Dates ca. 1860 to present. Dark Amber or Brown: General use, common in beer and whiskey. Dates ca. 1860 to present. Blue or Cobalt: Specialty color, mostly used in medicines and cosmetics. Dates ca. 1890 to 1960; although sometimes used today. Clear Glass: General use ca. 1875 to present.

63

Despite some utility in application, modern bottles in nearly all of the colors used in historic bottle production are currently being manufactured. Therefore, when considering color, caution should be used and temporal classification should not be made based solely on color. Purple and yellow-tinted glass are relatively reliable colors for dating glass because these colors are the result of mineral additives that react to exposure to sunlight and are not currently being reproduced). Purple (aka amethyst or “sun-colored amethyst” [SCA]): Use of manganese as a clearing agent in glass began about 1876 and became very common by 1885. Although the vessels started out clear in color, exposure to the sun resulted in a purple tint, varying in intensity depending on the amount of manganese used. The use of manganese as a decolorant declined with the adoption of the automatic and semi-automatic bottling machines, as selenium was found to work better as a decolorant with the use of bottle machines. In addition, World War I caused a disruption in the importation of manganese from foreign sources, accelerating its decline. By 1920, all but manufacturers of specialty bottles had ceased using manganese (Lockhart 2006). The switch by soft drink bottle manufacturers seems to have been more rapid, between 1912 and 1914 (Lockhart 2005). Yellow Tinted (aka light amber): Yellow-tinted glass is the result of selenium used as a clearing agent to produce clear glass. With the increased popularity of the automatic bottling machine, use of manganese as a clearing agent began to wane. Selenium became the more preferred ingredient, and its adoption, beginning about 1910, was stimulated when importation of manganese from overseas markets decreased because of World War I (Lockhart and Whitten 2006). In some cases, selenium imparted a yellowish tint to the glass when exposed to the sun and has been described by some as “the color of ripened wheat” or honey (Kendrick 1966:59-61). Yellow-tinted glass may appear as early as the 1910s, is most common during the 1920s, and may continue into the early 1930s (Rosenberg and Kvietok 1981:28; Gillio et al. 1980). The change in color from a clear to a yellowish hue is much lighter than a true amber or brown and should not be confused with such. Milkglass: Opaque, white-colored glass. Common in medicines, cosmetic, toiletry, canning lid liners, and some food and specialty items. Dates ca. 1890 to 1960. Milkglass is often mistakenly identified as ceramic. Aqua: Common in beer, soda water, medicine, and household bottles but also used in many other categories. Dates ca. 1800 to ca. 1910. Green/Olive green: General use, common in soda and wine vessels. Dates ca. 1860 to present. Amber or Brown: General use; common in beer, whiskey, and medicine bottles. Dates ca. 1860 to present. Cobalt Blue: Specialty color, mostly used in medicines and cosmetics. Dates ca. 1890 to 1960; although sometimes used today. Clear Glass: General use ca. 1875 to present.

64

Other Items of Note

• Nursing bottle patented in 1841.

• Mason jar patented in 1858; the home canning craze spanned the late 1800s to early 1920s (but continues today with lessened intensity).

• Cod stopper (an internal glass ball stopper located in the bottles neck that rolls back when inverted to drink, and forward to close when the bottle is vertical) is patented in 1860.

• Embossing began on American-made bottles by 1810 and was a common attribute by the late 1840s. Embossing provides information about contents, manufacturers, distributors, slogans, and messages; the practice of embossing product names on bottle bodies nearly died out with the advent of automatic bottle machines, as paper labels were used almost extensively on bottles made by machines (Kendrick 1966:71). Maker’s marks on bottle bases proliferated, though.

• Bitters/patent medicine craze 1860 to ca. 1915. Patent medicine bottles were usually aqua, clear,

or light green in color, but other colors, such as amber and cobalt blue, were also used. Patent medicine bottles, almost without exception, continued to use cork closures after the advent of automatic bottling machines. Many patent medicine bottles often had recessed panels for paper label and were often embossed.

• Hutchinson stoppers date from 1879 to 1915. The Hutchinson stopper is an internal rubber gasket with a wire loop that protrudes from bottle top. To open the closure, the iron wire loop was struck, breaking the seal by driving the stopper into the bottle and creating a popping sound. Thus, the term “soda pop.”

• Lightning stoppers were common from 1882 to 1920. They consist of a wire bail that forms a lever that clamps a lid or rubber-lined stopper over or in the finish. Common on canning jars and beer bottles.

• Milk bottles were introduced in 1884, but were slow to be accepted. They were only completely accepted after WWI but were in decline by the 1950s due to the introduction of paper milk cartons.

• Crown cap closure was patented in 1892 and was commonplace by about 1912.

• Turn- or paste-molded glass is blown into a mold in which the inside surface has been coated with a paste that absorbs water. The interior surface of the mold is wetted before use. While the bottle is being blown, it is rotated with the blowpipe inside the mold, riding on the paste and steam created by the water. This process erases all mold seam marks. Usually found in nicer, high-quality darkly colored wine, champagne, brandies, or other liquor bottles. Also used in lamp chimneys, light bulbs, and tumblers. Bottles made in turn molds are circular in horizontal cross section. No embossing or seams will be present and some bottles should exhibit a high gloss or polish, not the texture common to

65

other mold-blown bottles. Faint horizontal lines encircle the exterior surface from contact with the grit paste. The bottle will likely have a kick-up or push-up on its base. In the U.S., this technique was used from ca. 1870 to ca. 1920.

• Continuous thread closures were standardized in 1924 (Lief 1965:26-29). Molded plastic screw caps began to be manufactured in quantity in 1927. Initially, they were used on high-priced toiletries and cosmetics and were black, dark red, or brown in color. New plastics enabled a wide variety of colors to be manufactured in a few years, as well as a wider variety of applications. With improvements in molding equipment, plastic screw caps could be produced at prices competitive with metal caps (Lief 1965:30). Bakelite was the first of the plastics to be used for screw caps; they were introduced in 1927.

• Applied Color Label (ACL), which are baked-on enamel color designs or labels, is common on soda and milk bottles from 1934 to the present.

66

Glass and Bottle Chronology: (from Berge 1980; Buckles 1978; Lorrain 1968; Rock 1981) 1850s-late 1870s: Mold-made bottles (applied finishes, few maker’s marks or lettered

panels). 1857: “Snap” case (eliminates use of “pontils”). 1858: The Mason fruit/canning jar. Late 1870s - 1903: Mold-made bottles (applied and tooled finishes, maker’s marks and lettered

panels). 1860s: Kerosene lamps appear. 1861: First lead glass medicine bottles. First “French squares” (tall, four-sided bottles). 1860-1915: Bitters bottle period (patent medicine) craze. 1879: Edison's first light bulb - hand blown. ca. 1884: First milk bottles; (In full use after World War I). ca. 1891: Safety glass imbedded w/ wire mesh. 1894: Bottled Coca-Cola. 1900: Metal screw-type closures. 1912: Crown cap (became universal for carbonated beverages -patented 1892).

Particle cork liners in crown caps. 1920: First radio tubes.

Transition to crown caps for beverages complete. 1920 -1930: Era of commercial closures (cork stoppers replaced). 1920 -1933: Prohibition (alcoholic beverage bottles negligible). 1922 to 1926: Introduction of the plastic closures (Bakelite). 1924: 8 oz. and 10 oz. bottles for soft drinks. 1926: Baby food era (by 1939 largely in glass). 1933 -1964: "Federal Law Prohibits the Sale or Reuse of this Bottle" embossed on

liquor bottles. 1934: First 12 oz. soft drink bottles. 1938: Non-returnable beer bottles. 1940: "No Deposit -No Return" embossed on soda pop bottles. 1948: Larger-capacity soft drink bottles. 1953: Synthetic sweeteners. 1954 to 1958: First plastic coated bottles for aerosols. 1959 to 1961: First rigid polyethylene containers. 1963: Low-calorie soft drinks.

67

Additional Reading Deiss, Ronald William

1981 The Development and Application of a Chronology for American Glass. Published privately by author.

Ferraro, Pat and Bob Ferraro

1964 The Past in Glass. Western Printing and Publishing Company, Lovelock, Nevada. 1966 A Bottle Collector’s Book. Western Printing and Publishing Company, Lovelock,

Nevada. Fike, Richard E.

1965 Handbook for the Bottle-ologist. Richard E. Fike, Ogden, Utah. 1966 Guide to Old Bottles, Contents and Prices. Richard E. Fike, Ogden, Utah. 1987 The Bottle Book: A Comprehensive Guide to Historic, Embossed Medicine Bottles. Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City, UT.

Giarde, Jeffrey L.

1989 Glass Milk Bottles: Their Makers and Marks. Bryn Mar: The Time Traveler Press. IMACS

1998 Intermountain Antiquities Computer System User’s Guide. University of Utah, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service.

Jones, Olive and Catherine Sullivan, with contributions by George Miller, E. Ann Smith, Jane E. Harris, and Kevin Lunn

1985 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary: For the Description of Containers, Tableware, Flat Glass, and Closures. Studies in Archaeology, Architecture, and History, National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada.

Miller, George L. and Anthony Pacey

1985 Impact of Mechanization in the Glass Industry: The Dominion Glass Company of Montreal, a Case Study. Historical Archaeology 19(1)38–50.

Miller George L. and Catherine Sullivan

1984 Machine-Made Glass Containers and the End of Production for Mouth-Blown Bottles. Historical Archaeology 18(2):83–95.

Munsey, Cecil

1970 The Illustrated Guide to Collecting Bottles. Hawthorn Books, Inc, New York. Toulouse, Julian Harrison

1967 When Did Hand Bottle Blowing Stop? Western Collector, Aug. 1967 41–45. 1969 A Primer on Mold Seams: Part I. Western Collector, Nov. 1969 526–535. 1969 A Primer on Mold Seams: Part II. Western Collector, December 1969 578–587.

68

1971 Bottle Makers and their Marks. Thomas Nelson, Inc., New York. 1977 Fruit Jars: A Collectors Manual with Prices. Everybody’s Press: PA.

Wilson, Rex 1968 Bottles on the Western Frontier. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

69

REFERENCES Berge, Dale, L.

1980 Simpson Springs Station: Historical Archaeology in western Utah. 1974-1975. Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Series Publication Number 6. Utah State Office.

Buckles, William G.

1978 Anthropological Investigations near the crest of the Continent. 1975-1978, Vol. II, Chapters 7-11. Ms. On file Department of Anthropology, University of Southern Colorado, Pueblo, Colorado.

Gillio, David, Francis Levine, and Douglas Scott

1980 Some Common Artifacts Found at Historical Sites. Cultural Resources Report No. 31. USDA Forest Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

James, Daniel J.

1956 The Evolution of the Glass Container Industry. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Kendrick, Grace

1966 The Antique Bottle Collector. Western Printing and Publishing Company, Sparks, Nevada.

Lief, Alfred

1965 A Close-Up of Closures: History and Progress. Glass Manufacturers Institute, New York.

Lindsey, Bill.

2010 Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website. Electronic document, http://www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm, accessed May 1, 2013.

Lockhart, Bill

2005 A Tale of Two Machines and a Revolution in Soft Drink Bottling. Bottles and Extras 17(2):2-8.

2006 The Color Purple: Dating Solarized Amethyst Container Glass. Historical Archaeology 40(2):45-56.

Lockhart, Bill, and David Whitten 2006 The Dating Game. Bottles and Extras 17(1):2-10. Lorrain, Dessamae

1968 An Archaeologist’s Guide to Nineteenth Century American Glass. Historical Archaeology 2:35-44.

Newman, T. Stell

70

1970 “A Dating Key for Post-Eighteenth Century Bottles”, Historical Archaeology, Society for Historical Archaeology, Bethlehem. (See Olive Jenes review in Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter Vol. 4, No. 3, October 1971.)

Rock, James T.

1981 Glass Bottles: Basic Identification. Klamath National Forest, Region 5, U.S.D.A. Rosenberg, Robert G. and D. Peter Kvietok.

1981 A Guide to Historic Artifacts. Privately published by authors. Toulouse, Julian Harrison

1971 Bottle Makers and their Marks. Thomas Nelson, Inc., New York.

71

Figure E1. Illustration showing the characteristics of a typical bottle (adapted from Lindsey 2010).

72

Figure E2. Examples of pontil scars on bottles bases (adapted from Lindsey 2010).

73

Figure E3. Examples of various types of bottle mold seams (redrawn from IMACS 1992:472.3).

74

Figure E4. Examples of seams on various mold-manufactures bottles (adapted from Lindsey 2010).

75

Figure E5. Examples of various types of bottle finishes: (a-c) applied finish; (d) tooled finish; (e) comparison of tooled vs. applied finish (adapted from Lindsey 2010).

76

Figure E6. Illustration showing the major diagnostic characteristics of a typical machine-made bottle (adapted from Lindsey 2010).

77

Figure E7. Example of (a) Owen’s cutoff or suction scar; (b) valve mark (adapted from Lindsey 2010).

78

APPENDIX F: Historic Artifacts - Ceramics

79

HISTORICAL CERAMICS This section provides general information on historical ceramics to aid in identification and documentation in the field and to provide a starting point for any necessary further research. It focuses on the types of ceramics most likely to be found on archaeological sites in the western United States, particularly those most common during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Identifying the type of ware, decoration, and vessel form is helpful in determining the nature of the habitation, use of the site, status or social structure, economic scaling, and consumption patterns. All of these various factors aid in evaluating site significance. Historical ceramics have a wide temporal and geographic distribution in archaeological sites, and care must be taken when using them to estimate dates of site use. Temporal information from ceramics types or decoration can be applied only generally and should be used in conjunction with other cross dating methods and analyzed according to the context within which they are found. Maker’s marks can further refine a site’s chronology; but provide only general occupation dates as ceramics are often created and used for long periods of time. For additional information on historic ceramics see Majewski and O’Brien 1987; IMACS 1992:473; Stelle 2001; and Florida Museum of Natural History 2013. Classification of Ceramics Ceramics are described and classified according to the following attributes: paste, glaze, and decoration. The following will be helpful in artifact descriptions on site forms. Paste is the material used to form the vessel. It is composed primarily of a clay matrix and comes in a variety of colors. Texture and porosity can range from soft and crumbly to hard and nearly glass-like. Grains can range from very fine to coarse. Paste characteristics are generally what determine the type of ware and are the first step in classifying ceramics.

Glaze is a silica based coating that covers the exterior of most vessels. It allows a vessel to hold liquids and can also serve as decoration or increase the strength or durability. It is generally clear but can also be colored, and can range from glossy and vitreous to opaque and matte. Sometimes agents were added to the glaze before firing to alter the final appearance, either giving the glaze a slight colored cast or adding a degree of opacity or luster. (Note that “slip” is different than glaze. A slip is a diluted clay liquid applied to the outside of the vessel, but does not produce a vitreous finish or increase impermeability.)

Decoration is the embellishment or motif applied to the ceramic surface and can be done in a variety of techniques, including painting, transfer print, decal, colored slip or glaze, or molded-relief. Decoration can be placed either under or over the glaze. All such forms of decoration were used for long periods of time and are still in use today, although transfer print and decal do provide some general temporally diagnostic information. Transfer printing is one of the most prevalent decoration techniques for decorated tablewares during the 19th century and is a good temporal indicator (general dates: 1812 to 1900). Developed by English potters during the 18th century, transfer printed wares began to dominate the American market after the War of 1812 and remained incredibly popular until the late 1800s (although still in use today). Transfer printing involves using an engraved copper plate to print a

80

design onto tissue paper, then placing the tissue paper onto a ceramic vessel, thereby transferring the design to the vessel. The vessel is then glazed and fired. The transferring of the pattern results in a stippled or dotted appearance and the edges of the transfer pattern are often visible (as disruptions in the pattern or offset sections). What is most characteristic of transfer printing are single color designs of scenes depicting landscapes, domestic and rural life, and historical events. Oriental, floral, and animal motifs are also common. Blue was the most widely used color, as it was the easiest to print; with brown, red, green, and mulberry common after the 1830s. Two color printing dates to post-1830s. Popular patterns include Willow, Blue and White, and Asiatic Pheasants; though thousands exist. Flow blue is a variation of Blue and White in which the blue is deliberately blurred during firing (Figure F1). Decal decoration was invented during the late 1800s, but didn’t reach popular use until the early 1900s and is rarely found before that time (general dates: 1900 to present). This process involved creating a pattern or image on paper which was transferred to the ceramic vessel. It allowed for consistent and more detailed designs in greater range of colors (Figure F1). Images are more precise than transfer printing and do not have the stippled appearance. Decals are enameled images, often placed over the glaze, not stickers applied to the vessel. Floral and geometric motifs are common. Painted designs can be free-form, abstract, realistic, or geometric and done with a variety of methods including brush, sponge, splatter, mottle, or banded (Figure F2). These can be done in single or polychrome colors. Painting was the most widespread form of decoration before transfer printing was developed in the mid-1700s, though it has remained in use through today.

Another common decoration technique is molded-relief which is seen as edge designs or applied motifs (Figure F2). It is used throughout the historical period and continues to be used today. Edge designs include shaped rims (scallop or shell) and impressed border designs (basket weave, dot, scroll/swirl, rope, or floral). Motifs featuring leaves, flowers, grains, animals, or abstract patterns can also be applied to handles or sides of larger vessels, such as pitchers, tureens, or bowls. Molded-relief was often used in combination with other techniques, such as transfer printing or painting. Feather Edge (sometimes called Shell Edge) was a popular pattern featuring an impressed feather border design painted over with blue (most common, other colors exist as well). In artifact descriptions, it is important to also include the vessel form and function, if known—tableware (dishes, bowls, serving pieces), crockery (jars, storage vessels), bottles, chamber pots, spittoons, decorative pieces, etc. This is often most easily discernible from edge or rim sherds, bases, and handle fragments. Note, however, that rim sherds for plates, bowls, and platters can look very similar, depending on the thickness, degree of curvature, and style of a particular ware. Context and association are also helpful to document. Types of Ceramics Historical ceramic typologies are often based on ceramic types found in the eastern United States, particularly during the Colonial Period, which are rarely found in the western United States. This guide attempts to simplify classification by describing the main types of ceramics found in the West and, more specifically, in Utah.

81

Note that ceramic manufacturers often invented new “types” to distinguish themselves from competitors or to appeal to a particular segment of the market. This is most obvious during the 19th century when mass-produced tablewares began to take a stronghold in America (of note are American potters in East Liverpool, Ohio) and when manufacturers were experimenting with different types of white tablewares. These are more reflective of brand names or marketing strategies rather than separate categories of ceramic types (for example, ironstone, a variation of white-bodied earthenware, is known by dozens of different brand names). This is most evident in the various names used in maker’s marks. Ceramics fall into three main categories: earthenware, stoneware, and porcelain. These are the most commonly accepted and most widely used categories and will be the ones used here for site documentation. Additional sub-classification may be possible by a knowledgeable ceramicist or through additional research. Temporally, all of the ceramic categories were present in Utah during the historic period. Earthenware Earthenware ceramics are fired at relatively low temperatures and are more porous than either stoneware or porcelain. Earthenware is often broken into two general categories: white earthenware (sometimes referred to as whiteware) and colored earthenware. White earthenware is a broad category featuring paste that is generally white in color, porous in an unglazed state and features fine- to medium-grained pastes, thin to medium thicknesses, clear glazes, and a variety of decorations. It is the most common type found in the West because it was easily manufactured, widely available, and commonly used for tablewares by households, military settlements, and mining and railroad camps. White earthenware found in Utah generally dates from the early 1800s and was used into the 20th Century. White earthenware consists of refined factory-produced tablewares (plates, bowls, mugs and cups, serving pieces, etc). Paste can vary in color from white or cream to pale grey or pale buff in color, and is fine to medium textured. Glazes are clear and highly vitreous with a glassy appearance. Vessels tend to have fairly thin walls but are not translucent. White earthenwares were available both plain and highly decorated. Decorated white earthenwares include painted, transfer, decal, and molded-relief techniques in a variety of patterns, colors, and combinations. More refined decorations often indicate more expensive pieces and can suggest family household use. Transfer printing in landscape, domestic, or historical scenes was very common on white earthenware, mostly in blue but brown, green, red, and polychrome are found as well (Figure F3). English potters often imitated Chinese designs with either painted motifs or transfer printed scenes. Molded-relief on edges, handles, and rims are also common, featuring leaves, flowers, grains, animals, or abstract designs such as swirls, dots, and bands. Nineteenth-century white earthenwares were produced primarily by English potters until American potters began to dominate the market during the mid to latter part of the century. Johnson Brothers, Staffordshire, Spode, Wedgewood, and Doulton are well-known English

82

potters producing white earthenwares. American potters include Homer Laughlin, Knowles, and Trenton. White earthenwares can be subdivided further (i.e., pearlware, creamware, etc.), although this is difficult without comparative type collections and manuals, and these types are more common in the east than in the west. Classification is further complicated by the variety of white earthenwares available during the 19th century and the number of manufacturers producing them. For the purposes of site documentation, classifying these types of white paste ceramics in a general white earthenware category is sufficient. Of note, however, is hotelware, often called ironstone in the literature. Hotelware is a distinct variation of white earthenware that is semi-vitreous, features heavy, thick walls, and was used for sturdy durable tablewares, both domestic and commercial (Figure F4). Hotelware was intended for service and was widely used at mining and labor camps, military installations, restaurants, and railroads. It generally has a more utilitarian, basic style than other white tablewares. Paste is white, highly vitrified, and fine textured. It may appear bright white or have a slight blue or grey cast. Glaze is clear and very glossy, often thicker than other white-bodied earthenwares. Decoration was most often molded-relief (leaves, vines, grains, floral), and octagonal or angular-shaped pieces were common. Plain undecorated wares were also common. Transfer printed and decal designs were also used. Early examples (1800-1850) tend to be less refined and coarser than late 19th century and early 20th century examples. Vessel forms include large serving pieces, pitchers, tureens, and wash basins, in addition to typical tablewares. Hotelware was first produced in England in the early 1800s and was patented as “ironstone” by Charles Mason in England in 1813. By the 1850s it was widely produced in America by potters in Trenton, New Jersey, and remained popular into the 20th century. It dominated the middle-class market during the latter part of the 19th century. Hotelware is also known as hotel china, ironstone, stone china, semi-porcelain, granite ware, white granite, new stone, opaque china, and opaque porcelain. Manufacturers often created their own names for their particular version of hotelware. Maker’s marks are common, often featuring the British Royal Arms, lions, unicorns, crowns, and shields. Colored earthenwares include all other earthenwares not categorized as white earthenware (Figure F5). Colored earthenwares are porous in an unglazed state and feature fine- to medium-grained pastes, thin to medium thicknesses, clear glazes, and a variety of decorations. Colored earthenwares are less common than white earthenwares in the West. Paste can be yellow, red, tan, buff, grey, and brown in color. Glazes can be clear or colored, either matching or contrasting the color of the paste. Decoration is occasional, often molded-relief or banded designs. These types of earthenwares are generally less refined and coarser than white earthenware, and were often utilitarian in function. Typical vessel forms include larger serving pieces (platters, pitchers), mugs, crocks, molds, and wash basins. Colored earthenwares were also used for tablewares, although this was less common in the West post-1850. Common types in this category are redware, brownware, yellowware, and Rockingham ware, mostly from English potters. These are much more common in the eastern United States but

83

may occasionally be found in the West (general dates: late 1700s to 1900). Redwares (light red to reddish brown paste) from American potters are slightly more common, especially those from local potters in the Great Basin and western Southwest (general dates: post-1850). Utah contained a strong local pottery production industry in the 1850s-1920s, with local LDS Potters operating out of dozens of communities in the Great Basin (Scarlet et al. 2007). These earthenwares are usually yellow or redware pastes, and served utilitarian and storage functions, and share common morphological traits that appear Danish in style. Stoneware Stoneware is fired at a high temperature resulting in a very hard, extremely strong, nonporous vitrified vessel. It is frequently used for utilitarian vessels such as storage crocks, jugs, jars, bottles, spittoons, chamber pots, or sewer/water pipes (Figure F6). Paste and glaze are often tan, buff, grey, or brown in color and may contrast with each other. Glazes are often opaque and somewhat matte in appearance (as opposed to glossy glazes on earthenware and porcelain). Salt glaze (created by throwing salt into the kiln when firing) is common and gives the surface a dimpled appearance, similar to an orange rind. Decoration is limited and vessels can have painted (including sponge, spatter, and mottling techniques) or banded designs. Chinese or Japanese archaeological sites in the American West contain dozens of varieties of imported stoneware that served utilitarian and storage function. Most Overseas Chinese stoneware possesses a dark brown glaze and comes in a variety of forms (Wegars 1993). Porcelain Porcelain is the most refined of the ceramic types and was used as fancier tableware, tea sets, and decorative pieces (Figure F7). It is generally thin and translucent, although it can be thick and heavy (mostly bathroom fixtures and toilet wares). Paste can be soft or hard and is white, ivory, pale grey or pale buff in color. Hard-paste porcelain is extremely hard, highly vitreous, translucent, and often appears almost glass-like. Comparatively, soft-paste porcelain is somewhat more porous with a fine-grained texture. Glaze is clear and vitreous. Decoration is very common with painted, transfer, and decal being the most common. Porcelain can be of Asian (Chinese being the most common) or European (English being the most common) origin. Chinese porcelain tends to be harder, hand painted, and may include rice bowls and opium pipes. English porcelain often features transfer-print designs and is most often tea sets or novelty decorative items. Although Chinese settlements were common in the West, the presence of Chinese ceramics does not automatically indicate Chinese habitation. Chinese porcelain was widely available in the American market and many English potters based some white earthenware designs on Chinese motifs to mimic Chinese porcelain. Similarly, Japanese porcelains became very popular decorative items in American households between about 1900 and 1920, so should not be considered indicative of a Japanese presence. Maker’s Marks Maker’s marks are often found on the bases of earthenware and porcelain or impressed or stenciled on the sides of stoneware vessels, especially mass-produced wares. Marks provide useful diagnostic information regarding the name, date, and sometimes place of manufacture. Each is unique to specific manufacturers, were often changed as companies expanded or entered

84

new markets, and sometimes modified depending on factory location or pattern. Some manufacturers used a detailed coding system to indicated date and place of manufacture. English ceramics produced after 1842 often feature diamond-shaped registry marks that provide detailed information regarding manufacturing dates. Marks can be printed, stamped, impressed, or handwritten or drawn. Manufacturers may include terms such as china, semi-porcelain, or granite ware, which are usually more of a marketing term than an indication of the type of ware. Several manuals are available to assist in identifying maker’s marks. A few excellent examples are Kovel’s New Dictionary of Marks (Kovel and Kovel 1986), Encyclopedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks (Godden 1991), and the Encyclopedia of U.S. Marks on Pottery, Porcelain, and Clay (Lehner 1988).

85

REFERENCES Florida Museum of Natural History

2013 Digital Type Collections. Electronic document, http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/histarch/gallery_types/, accessed May 28, 2013. Historical Archaeology at the Florida Museum of Natural History.

Godden, Geoffrey

1991 Encyclopedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks. Random House. London. IMACS

1992 Intermountain Antiquities Computer System User’s Guide. University of Utah, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service.

Kovel, Ralph and Terry Kovel

1986 Kovel’s New Dictionary of Marks. Crown Publishers, New York, New York. Lehner, Lois

1988 Encyclopedia of U.S. Marks on Pottery, Porcelain, and Clay. Collectors Books, Schroeder Publishing. Paducah, Kentucky.

Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O’Brien

1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth Century English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11:97-209.

Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory

2011 Diagnostic Artifacts in Maryland. Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory, Jefferson Patterson Park & Museum, State Museum of Archaeology.

http://www.jefpat.org/diagnostic/index.htm Scarlett, Timothy J., Robert J. Speakman, and Michael D. Glascock

2007 Pottery in the Mormon Economy: An Historical, Archaeological, and Archaeometric Study. Historical Archaeology 41(4):72-97.

Stelle, Lenville J.

2001 An Archaeological Guide to Historic Artifacts of the Upper Sangamon Basin. Electronic document, http://virtual.parkland.edu/lstelle1/len/archguide/documents/arcguide.htm, accessed May 28, 2013. Center for Social Research, Parkland College.

Wegars, Priscilla

1993 Hidden Heritage: Historical Archaeology of the Overseas Chinese. Baywood Publishing Company, Inc. Amityville, New York.

86

Figure F1. Examples of white earthenware decorated with: a) flow blue; b) decal (courtesy of the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory 2011).

Figure F2. Examples of white earthenware decorated with: a) painted design; b) molded-relief (courtesy of the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory 2011).

87

Figure F3. Examples of white earthenware decorated with transfer printing (courtesy of the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory 2011).

88

Figure F4. Examples of hotelware (courtesy of the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory 2011).

Figure F5. Examples of colored earthenware (courtesy of the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory 2011).

89

Figure F6. Examples of stoneware (courtesy of the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory 2011).

Figure F7. Examples of porcelain (courtesy of the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory 2011).

90