Excavations at the LoDaisKa Site
in the
Denver, Colorado, Area

by
H. J. and C. C. Irwin

Supplementary Reports

by

W. C. Galinat, C. B. Hunt, G. E. Lewis,
R. Rodden, D. R. Whitehead

THE DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

Denver, Colorado

Proceedings, No. 8 October 1, 1959

LITHOGRAPHED BY
THE PEERLESS PRINTING COMPANY
DENVER, COLORADO

Figure 1—Area of Study.

Acknowledgments

This report, like most archaeological publications, was made possible only through the contributions and cooperation of many individuals. It is difficult to thank them all adequately.

Our greatest debt is to the editor of this publication, H. M. Wormington. She has provided an incalculable amount of information and assistance. More important, however, we have had the advantage of her knowledge and experience and have profited endlessly from her suggestions and criticisms. Without her guidance and encouragement this report could not have been prepared. We are also greatly indebted to Alfred M. Bailey, Director of the Denver Museum of Natural History, who made it possible for this report to appear in the Proceedings Series.

We are deeply grateful to the individuals who gave their valuable time and efforts to the preparation of the supplementary reports: Donald R. Whitehead, for his pollen studies; Robert J. Rodden, for the chemical and physical analyses of the soils; Edward Lewis, for his report on the identification of the fauna; Charles B. Hunt, for his description of the geology of the area; Walton C. Galinat, for identification and comments on the plant remains; and M. G. Towle, for her supplementary floral studies.

We are deeply indebted to James B. Griffin for his acceptance of carbon samples, which may ultimately provide an accurate chronology for the site. We owe a special debt of thanks to Jesse D. Jennings, Richard G. Forbis, Clyde Kluckhohn, Ruth M. Underhill, Evon Z. Vogt, Gordon R. Willey, and Stephen Williams. They contributed their valuable time and professional knowledge in their comments and criticisms of the paper. Paul C. Mangelsdorf provided helpful suggestions and important information on the maize section.

Others whose reading of the manuscript we have benefited from are J. O. Brew, J. B. Griffin, H. L. Movius Jr., and H. Smith.

J. O. Brew kindly made available to us collections in Peabody Museum, Harvard for study. We are grateful to Arminta Neal for her comments and suggestions on the illustrations. Photographic credits are as follows: Figure 2, T. S. Lovering (U.S.G.S.); Figure 3, F. M. Van Tuyl (U.S.G.S.); Figure 31 left and Figure 60, R. J. Rodden; Figure 76, R. F. Forbis. Within the supplementary reports, Figure 66 was drawn by C. B. Hunt (U.S.G.S.), and Figures 67 and 68 by R. J. Rodden. All other illustrations were prepared by the authors.

We are also grateful to LoDaisKa Bethel and her family. Her enthusiasm, knowledge of the area, and scientific spirit were ultimately responsible for these excavations. To Otto Sanger we are indebted for the initial permission to excavate, for his friendship, and for the innumerable kindnesses which he and his family subsequently extended to us. Last, but by no means least, we wish to thank our mother, Eleanor C. Irwin, who has played a vital part in every stage of this operation, from field assistant and cataloguer, through to the final stages of typing and proofreading.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MAPS

ILLUSTRATIONS

TABLES

Courtesy U.S. Geological Survey

Figure 2—Topography of the Morrison Area, just north of Site (Looking North). Center, Dakota Sandstone (Hogback). Left of center, light colored broken rocks, Fountain Sandstone. Left, Rocky Mountain Foothills.

Investigations At The LoDaisKa Site

Introduction

History of Investigation

The foothills of the Rocky Mountains, although readily accessible, are archaeologically almost unknown. Geographically they lie between two culture areas—the Desert Culture of the Great Basin to the west and the Plains cultures to the east. Environmentally the region preserves a special character unlike either the Basin or the Plains. The area around the town of Morrison, Colorado, some fifteen miles west of Denver, seemed to offer unusual potentialities for archaeological investigation because of the prominent rock formations and the possibilities of overhangs. Very little previous work had been done in the vicinity.

Dr. E. B. Renaud undertook the first archaeological reconnaissance of the area in 1931 and 1932. His survey was brief, but indicated the presence of several sites. However, the Morrison area is not ideal for the location of archaeological remains, principally because its mesophytic environment gives rise to little erosion. Since 1931 the only investigation was carried out by amateurs of the region. The most extensive survey was done by LoDaisKa Bethel, to whom we owe the discovery of the present site. The authors became aware of the importance of the area after a surface survey, and after the excavation of two rockshelters containing the remains of the Plains Woodland Culture (Irwin and Irwin, n.d.). Subsequent contact with Mrs. Bethel led to the excavation of the LoDaisKa Site.

Physiography

The LoDaisKa Site is located beneath an outcrop of Fountain Sandstone, about a mile south of Morrison, on the ranch of Otto Sanger. Physiographically the Morrison area is part of the Southern Rocky Mountain Province. Broad elevated strips of granite, running north and south, are flanked by dipping sedimentary rocks. The latter are generally lower and form foothills. Both once formed continuous anticlinal structures, now deeply eroded (Fenneman, 1931). The granite masses are usually mountainous, but occasionally form vast plateaus such as South Park. Locally they are capped by remnant sedimentaries.

Courtesy U.S. Geological Survey

Figure 3—Morrison Biome, looking west. Central Ridge is the Hogback. Note encroachment of trees along watercourses and at higher elevations.

For over half the mountain frontage of this Province, a very resistant formation, the Dakota Sandstone, creates a “hogback”. A valley of weaker sedimentaries lies between it and the foothills, beginning about two miles to the west. The Fountain Sandstone, locally known as the “Red Rocks” formation, outcrops in this depression.

Mountain streams collecting in the inter-ridge valley form a trellis drainage pattern. Master streams cut through the Dakota Formation creating watergaps. The LoDaisKa Site lies in the shelter of an outcrop of the Fountain Sandstone which rises some 60 feet above the valley. The site lies at an elevation of about 6200 feet.

Climate

Fauna and Flora of the Region

The Morrison area as a floral biome is characterized by its transitional nature, from the plains to the east and the mountains to the west. Harrington (1954) has designated the environment as the Mountain Shrub Subdivision of the Mountain and Plateau Area.

Especially characteristic of the zone are the following plants:

• Quercus Gambelli—scrub oak
• Prunus Virginianus melanocarpa—wild plum
• Crataegus spp. (Probably succulenta)—hawthorn
• Amelanchier spp.—service berry
• Crysothamus Lanceolata—rabbit brush
• Rhus trilobata—poison ivy
• Rosa Woodsi—wood rose

From the Ponderosa Pine-Douglas Fir Subdivision the following characteristic plants overlap:

• Pseudotsuga taxifolia—douglas fir
• Pinus Ponderosa—Ponderosa pine
• Mahonia Berberis aquifoliam—Oregon grape
• Arctosaphylos uva-ursi—kinnikinick
• Rubus occidentalis—blackberry
• Rubus stigosus—raspberry
• Populus tremuloides—quaking aspen

These distinctive plants have invaded from the prairie fringe:

• Stipa cometa—needle grass
• Agropyron smithii—wheat grain
• Boutelorea grasilis—grama grass
• Boutelorea curtipendula—grama grass
• Poa fendleriana—bluegrass
• Sphaeralcea ceccinea—globe mallow
• Helianthus petiolaris—sunflower
• Chrysopsis rillosa—golden aster
• Muhlenbergia montana—muhly
• Yucca glauca—yucca
• understory of sedges and broad-leaf herbs

The nature of the faunal belt characteristic of the Transition Zone is varied. Both boreal and austral mammals are represented. Only six species appear restricted to it, two squirrels of the Sciurus aberti group, three pocket gophers of genus Thomomys and a small brown bat. The following mammals are not restricted to the Transition Zone but are characteristic of it in the eastern foothills:

• Eutamias quadrivitratus—Say chipmunk
• Peromyscus nastus—Estes Park cliffmouse
• Neotoma fallax—Gale wood rat
• Lepus campestris—White-tailed jack rabbit
• Sylvilagus nuttalli pinetis—Rocky Mountain cottontail
• Canis lestis—Mountain coyote
• Lynx uinta—Mountain wildcat
• Mephitis hudsonica—Northern plains skunk

Mammals common to the Transition and Upper Sonoran Zones include:

• Antilocapra americana—Antelope
• Odocoileus virginianus—Macrourus white-tailed deer
• Onychomys brevicaudus—Grasshopper mouse
• Castor canadensis frondator—broad-tailed beaver
• Canis Occidentalis—Grey wolf
• Spilogale tenuis—Rocky Mountain spotted skunk
• Eptesicus fuscus—Brown bat

The following are common to the Transition and Canadian (mountain) Zones:

• Cervus canadensis—Elk
• Callospermophilus lateralis—Say ground squirrel
• Eutamias amvenus operarius—Colorado chipmunk
• Erethiron epixanthum—Yellow haired porcupine
• Eutamias mihumus consobrinus—Least chipmunk
• Microtus nanas—dwarf field mouse
• Microtus pennsylvanicus—Saguache meadow mouse
• Zapus princeps—Rocky Mountain jumping mouse
• Vulpus macrourus—Western fox
• Ursus americanus—Black bear

Common to the Transition, Canadian and Upper Sonoran Zones are:

• Odocoileus hemionus—Mule deer
• Cynomys gunnisoni—Gunnison prairie dog
• Cynomys leucurus—White-tailed prairie dog
• Felis oregonensis hippolestes—Mountain lion
• Lutreola vison energunenos—Mink
• Putorius arizonensis—Mountain weasel
• Taxidea taxus—badger

The above lists were drawn mainly from Meritt Cary’s Biological Survey of Colorado (1911). Though this is the most complete work available, it is somewhat out of date and contains certain species names that have been superseded. An effort was made to check this with more modern works, such as Warren’s Mammals of Colorado (1942), but this was not always possible.

Description of the Site

The rockshelter itself is now a moderately large overhang, measuring some 40 feet in width and 15 feet in depth. As [Fig. 6] indicates, the ceiling slopes upward rapidly and only the inner yard or so is completely protected from rain or drizzle. When first inhabited, the floor of sand and gravel sloped up to the mouth (west), and presumably continued into the flat valley outside. At the time of excavation, however, the surface sloped to the north. This difference appears to have been due to the collapse of a considerable portion of the adjacent cliff face, creating an enormous mound of dirt and sandstone, which washed in from the north during the latest stages of occupation.

The small intermittent stream, Strain Gulch, flows in front of the shelter on a southwest-northeast axis. It has cut down its bed to a gravelly-bouldery layer corresponding to the lowest level at LoDaisKa. The fill between the stream and the site is of a wet limey nature. Excavation was extended in this direction as far as was feasible. Beyond the stream lies a valley about one-half mile wide, bounded on the west by the foothills of the Rocky Mountains.

Method of Excavation ([Fig. 4])

In preparation for excavation, a vertical rod was driven in the southern sector and the datum point established twenty inches above the ground surface at this spot. A second stake was located on a north-south line from the first (using magnetic north) at the opposite end of the shelter. A horizontal line connecting these stakes at the level of the datum point was considered the baseline. The area of the rock shelter to be excavated was then laid out in one yard squares. Letters were assigned to the grid lines running east-west, and numbers to those running north-south. Each square was designated by the grid lines intersecting at its northeast corner. To facilitate exact measurement, a series of stakes was set up along the baseline at intervals of two yards. From locations on the stakes on the same horizontal plane as the datum point, lines were extended to corresponding pitons driven into the rear wall of the overhang. A second series of connecting lines formed a suspended grid of two yard squares.

Figure 4— LoDaisKa Site. Above, prior to excavation (Looking North). Below, preliminary test trench. Note homogeneous character of deposit.

Figure 5— LoDaisKa Site. Above, during excavation (Looking South). Below, just prior to completion, all but one strand of aerial grid removed. (Looking North).

LODAISKA SITE

Figure 6— Vertical section of Overhang

A preliminary test trench one yard wide and four yards long, was dug in squares M6-9 to determine whether complete excavation was warranted. Subsequent yard square test pits were sunk at P 7-8 and K 8. It was hoped that these would indicate the nature of the geologic stratigraphy and at least suggest the range of cultural materials which might be expected. Since excavation seemed warranted, the entire area to be worked was cleared of the surface layer of manure.

As set forth in the description of the site, the recent floor sloped up toward the northwest ([Fig. 8]). Test excavations indicated that the basal layer was approximately horizontal in a north-south direction, but sloped gently up toward the west. There seemed to be no significant correlation between geologic stratigraphy ([see below]) and typology in any except the lowest layer, which had not yet been extensively investigated. Because the evidence was as yet so scanty, it was decided to excavate with reference to both the surface and the datum point. Each square was treated as a separate unit and, except where natural levels were apparent, excavation proceeded in four inch levels measured from the surface at the northeast corner. Each level was also correlated with the datum point.

Both typological provenience and the position of the basal layer indicated that the major portion of the deposit had been laid down horizontally. To test this hypothesis a careful watch was kept for fragmentary specimens, in the hope of finding corresponding pieces from separate locations. The relative positions of these would suggest the nature of the surface on which they were deposited. Ten such fragments found comprised five artifacts: three potsherds, one handstone and one fragmentary grinding slab. Though some occurred as much as twelve yards apart, each pair fell within the same vertical level. From this analysis it appeared that the occupation levels were in fact approximately horizontal.

Stepped excavation seemed advisable in view of the unconsolidated nature of the deposit ([Fig. 5]). Vertical exposures more than two feet high collapsed as soon as the lower portions became thoroughly dry. These conditions made stratigraphic columns or balks impractical in most instances. However, by the use of rip-rapping, it was possible to leave a reference balk one foot wide on the north side of line N 5-11.

All material recovered was sifted through quarter inch mesh screens. Since it was fairly loose and dry, most of the earth was removed with shovels. Trowels, brushes and a flexible baby bottle for blowing were employed when features or artifacts in situ were encountered. The location of the screening dump was determined by test augering of the area between the site and the creek. This dump was separated from the excavation by a catwalk and low earthworks. The latter served the dual purpose of guarding against sliding from the dumps, and keeping out water which often poured over the edge of the overhang in the extremely rainy season of 1957.

LODAISKA SITE

Figure 7— Diagram of area excavated at the LoDaisKa Site.

Figure 8— Surface contours of LoDaisKa Site,
prior to excavation.

Artifacts were sacked and later marked by level and square. Floral remains were similarly treated. Faunal material was rather sparse, and was therefore segregated by twelve inch levels measured from the datum point. All features were recorded and located on the map by means of a transit, and located vertically by measurements from the baseline.

Preliminary Discussion of the Stratigraphy

The method and objectives of this monograph can best be understood in relation to the nature of the stratigraphic situation. Therefore, it appears desirable to present first a basic and unelaborated view of the stratigraphy which will be discussed more fully later. As shown in Figs. [9], [10], [11] and [12], there were four levels of natural stratigraphy. When excavation of the test trench and adjoining pits was finished, it appeared that only the lowest could be correlated with any single culture. However, the others were useful in intra-site correlation. This lowest level (four) was a bed of indefinite depth, composed of gravel and boulders of Late Wisconsin age (Hunt, this report). Above it lay a homogeneous deposit (level three) consisting of sand and silt mixed with cultural debris, from 54 to 63 inches thick. About three-fourths of the way up there was a scatter of rather large rocks and gravel, which appears to represent some kind of maximum inwash or roof-fall into the site. The next natural level (two) is of reddish sand, a maximum of one foot thick, with very sparse cultural materials. This red sand layer is considerably thicker in the southern end of the site than elsewhere, tapering off gradually to the north till it disappears about on line H. The same is true of the top layer (one), a bed of dusty brown fill about four inches thick in the main part of the site, showing a slightly greater intensity of occupation. Together these produce a floor sloping down toward the north. The whole unit finally was overlain by a layer of cow dung.

The authors recognize several occupations or cultural units at the site. The first is confined to the lowest geological layer, and appears to represent remnants of an Early Lithic stage on the Plains. The second has roots in the Great Basin and is confined to the third geological layer. It is represented in its purest form from the beginning of the third natural level to about 72 inches below the baseline. However, some types characteristic of this occupation continue upwards, tapering off slowly and disappearing at about 53 inches below baseline. The third unit represents a Plains oriented culture, beginning at about 72 inches below the baseline and extending to about 53 inches. The fourth occupation is a variant of Plains Woodland Culture extending from about 53-30 inches below baseline. The final occupation begins at about 48 inches and extends to the surface. The authors feel that it represents a variant of the Fremont Culture of Utah and western Colorado.

Legend

PROFILE No. 1
LODAISKA SITE

Figure 9— Profile of Face of J 7-11.

PROFILE No. 2
LODAISKA SITE

Figure 10— Profile of Face of M 6-11.

PROFILE No. 3
LODAISKA SITE

Figure 11— Profile of Face of Q 6/7—9/10.

These divisions are arbitrary and based on typology. There is some degree of overlap. Since the fill is shallow compared to the time range represented, there was undoubtedly a considerable amount of mixing, plus the ever present chance of re-use. Characteristically, as Jennings (1957) found at Danger Cave, the beginning of any cultural type is more apt to be a synchronic affair than its end.

Objectives of the Monograph

The bulk of the present monograph will be devoted to a description of the cultural remains uncovered at the LoDaisKa Site, and delineation of the circumstances of their discovery. However, an accumulation of facts loses much of its significance if no attempt at organization and interpretation is made. “The archaeologist must make some effort to integrate as well as observe his material, or he becomes a technician rather than a scientist.” (Heizer, 1958). It is realized that cultural units must be defined primarily on the basis of typology, because of the general lack of corresponding geological units. In this connection, the present state of flux in Great Basin taxonomy renders the results less absolute than might be desired. For this reason considerable emphasis has been placed on making as much as possible of the raw data available.

BLOCK PROFILE, LODAISKA SITE
EXCLUDING COW DUNG LAYER

Figure 12— Block Diagram showing relation of the strata.

The object of the interpretive study will be twofold: 1) to make a comparative analysis of the typology of the LoDaisKa artifacts in relation to both the Plains and Great Basin Culture areas (see Kroeber, 1939); 2) to make some attempt, on the basis of the archaeological remains and analogies with ethnologically observable data, to provide some insight into the total culture of the inhabitants as it existed at the time of occupancy. Of course, as one progresses further from the empirical evidence, to higher levels of interpretation the reliability of the conclusions decreases proportionately (MacWhite, 1956).

The primary difficulty, as indicated, is the absence of stratigraphically isolated culture units. Because of this a certain amount of overlap is to be expected: a small geologic unit represents a long and apparently uninterrupted occupational continuum. The resultant telescoping would increase the effects of trampling and other disturbance. However, it became increasingly apparent during excavation that, on the basis of typology and overall stratigraphic relationships, at least four complexes should be recognized; a broken point and a few flakes found in the lowest geologic stratum suggest a fifth. Two of these cultures appear to be affiliated with the Great Basin, three with the Plains.

THE LODAISKA SITE
FEATURES

Hearths ([Fig. 13])

Eleven hearths were found; they may be characterized briefly as follows:

Hearth A. Location: south edge square P8-9, top 36 inches below baseline. Simple pit excavated into underlying soil, filled with charcoal and ash, seven inches deep and ten inches in diameter.

Hearth B. Location: center at axis of lines 0 and 8-9, top 56 inches below baseline. Concentration of charcoal and ash, no pit, nine inches thick, eight inches wide and 13 inches long.

Hearth C. Location: square L9, top 48 inches below baseline. Concentration of charcoal and ash: rock-filled. Twelve inches thick, 15 inches wide, 28 inches long.

Hearth D. Location: square J9, top 40 inches below baseline. Concentration of charcoal and ash six inches thick. Almost circular, 12 inches in diameter.

Hearth E. Location: square K9, top 60 inches below baseline. Rock-filled, charcoal and ash mixed in. Six inches thick, almost circular, 12 inches in diameter.

Hearth F. Location: between squares 08-9 and 07-8, top 61 inches below baseline. Charcoal and ash; rock-filled. Nine inches thick, almost circular about 16 inches in diameter.

Hearth G. Location: square N7-8, top 30 inches below baseline. Charcoal and ash interspersed with small rocks. Sixteen inches thick, 27 inches long, 18 inches wide.

Hearth H. Location: square J8, top 40 inches below baseline. Charcoal and ash and rock. Thickness nine inches, length 20 inches, width 15 inches. This hearth was oriented with its length parallel to the rear wall of the shelter, while all other oblong hearths lay with their length at right angles to it.

Figure 13— Features.

Hearth I. Location: square E7, top 49 inches below baseline. Charcoal and ash rock-fill. Ten inches thick, 16 inches long, 12 inches wide.

Hearth J. Location: square L7, top 72 inches below baseline. Charcoal and ash concentration interspersed with rocks somewhat larger than those found in other hearths. Eight inches thick, 15 inches wide, and 28 inches long.

Hearth K. Location: square L7, top 40 inches below baseline. Charcoal and ash with a few rocks. Eight inches thick, 15 inches long and 12 inches wide.

Hearth L. Location: center at axis of Lines 0 and 6-7. Top 42 inches below baseline. Charcoal and ash, rock-filled. About eight inches thick, more or less circular, approximately nine inches in diameter.

In addition to these hearths the whole shelter had minor concentrations of charcoal and ash in every level. Such debris was, in fact, found throughout the soil in varying quantities.

Cists ([Fig. 14])

Three features encountered were termed cists. All were located in the rear of the shelter in the center section. All were flat-bottomed basins dug into the sand underlying the Piney Creek alluvium ([see C. B. Hunt’s report below]). Around the sides of these were set small rocks with more or less flat surfaces. Within Cists A and C were found remains of seeds.

Cist A. Location: square J11, top 102 inches below baseline. Almost circular, inside diameter at top 14 inches, bottom eight inches. Five inches deep. Contents: Dirt covering cache of acorns decomposed except for a thin shell. No ash or charcoal.

Cist B. Location: square L11, top 100 inches below baseline. Circular. Inside diameter at top, 17 inches, at bottom 11 inches. Depth 7 inches. No contents but dirt. This differs from the other two, also, in that it is more basin-shaped with less steep walls.

Cist C. Location: square L11 overlapping into K11, top 90 inches below baseline. Circular. Inside diameter at top 13 inches, at bottom, 8 inches. Depth 6 inches. Contents: Graminae (spp.), Grayia brandegei, Lithospermum boraginaceae ruderale, all in small quantities ([see botanical report below]).

Figure 14— Features. Above, Cist C. Below, Cist A.

TYPOLOGY

Method

One often notices an emphasis on projectile points in archaeological reports, especially in studies of non-ceramic or pre-ceramic cultures. Archaeology as a historical science must integrate all the data with their own context and with events which preceded and followed. In searching for data that provide such chronological and geographical correlation (e.g. horizon styles in the sense of Willey and Phillips), there are certain basic needs. Though any cultural element could be used in correlations of this kind, some are less useful because their forms are governed by function, and others are fundamentally common and form traditions rather than horizon styles (e.g. grinding stones in some parts of the United States). A horizon marker must have some kind of stylistic development which allows variation outside of function. In cultures without pottery, as Willey and Phillips have pointed out (1958), projectile points become the most important artifacts in classification and integration because, 1) the usual economic mode of subsistence of people at this level renders a plentiful supply of such artifacts, and 2) as artistic representations they are sensitive to styles yet remain stable for adequate periods of time.

Projectile points from the LoDaisKa Site are therefore treated differently from certain other artifacts. We have illustrated all of the projectile points from pre-ceramic levels. Where these make up a type all of the artifacts of this type, even though it may extend into ceramic times, are so treated. This has been done for two reasons: 1) A major portion of the material is apparently affiliated with the Great Basin. Great Basin types are extremely variable and difficult to classify. 2) Cultures of that area have been, until recently, little investigated and cultural patterns which are not now recognized may some day be distinguished; the authors hope to create a record which will be useful even when new data come to light. For ceramic periods we forgo such detail for two reasons: 1) Pottery is present as a more sensitive marker. 2) The points found are usually uniform enough to fit into a few internally consistent categories.

We have divided projectile points into 16 categories, 8 major ones. This is primarily for convenience; secondly because some categories probably do represent cultural types; and thirdly because there are morphological ranges which may be described briefly in terms of a basic pattern. We believe with Cressman (1956) that some form existed in the minds of their makers and that a certain amount of variation is consistent within a type. It is worth noting the testimony of certain Ute informants who claimed that each tribe made its own recognizable form of point. ([See below, p. 122].)

PROJECTILE POINTS: CLASSIFICATION

Dart Points

A  Blade wide, leaf-shaped, edge usually convex, stem straight or contracting, leaving pronounced shoulder, no barb, base concave. Largest 1½34? × ¹⁵/₁₆ inches, smallest ⅞ × ⁹/₁₆ inches, ([Fig. 15]).

A1 Blade wide, leaf-shaped, edge convex, stem expanding, shoulder, no barb, concave base. Two specimens, ¾ × ½, 1? × ½ inches, ([Fig. 16]).

A2 Blade triangular, straight edge, lateral barb, stem straight—slightly contracting, base deeply concave. Two specimens, ⅞ × ⅝, 1¼ × ⅞ inches, ([Fig. 16]).

B  Blade leaf-shaped, edges convex, stem contracting but no shoulder, base concave. Largest 1½? × ⅝, smallest 1? × ½ inches, ([Fig. 16]).

C  Blade triangular, edge straight or slightly convex, all serrated, pronouncedly expanding base as wide or wider than blade giving the impression of high corner notches, definite barb rare. Largest 1⅜ × ⅝, smallest ⅞? × ⅝ inches, ([Fig. 17]).

C1  Blade triangular, two specimens straight sides, one shouldered, all deeply serrated, two concave based, one straight. Three specimens, 1½? × ¾, 1¼ × ½, 2? × ¾ inches, ([Fig. 17]).

D  Blade triangular, length three to four times the width, edge sinuous: tapering from barb to center, expanding toward point, then tapering off; stem expanding, narrower than blade, base concave or straight. Largest 2¼? × ⅞, smallest 1½ × ¾ inches, ([Fig. 18]).

E  Blade triangular to leaf-shaped, edges straight or convex, shallow to deep side notches, base concave or convex, expanding or contracting. Largest 1¾? × ¾, smallest ¾ × ½ inches, ([Fig. 19]).

F  Blade triangular to leaf-shaped, straight to curving edges, stem nearly as wide as blade, giving almost the appearance of side-notching, base straight to slightly convex, two specimens serrated. Largest 1⅞ × ¾, smallest 1¼ × ¾ inches, ([Fig. 20]).

G  Blade triangular, edge concave, stem narrow, straight or slightly expanding and rather small, barbs projecting to level of base giving impression of double basal notch, base convex. Largest 1 × 1, smallest ⅞ × ¾ inches, ([Fig. 20]).

H  Blade triangular to leaf-shaped, rounded shoulders, stem narrower than blade, base rounded, serrated. Largest 1½ × ½, smallest ⅞ × ½ inches, ([Figs. 21], [22]).

I  Blade triangular, curving edges, stem narrower than blade, expanding, giving the appearance of corner notching, barbs straight, distinct, base convex. Largest 1½? × 1, smallest ¾ × ⅝ inches, ([Fig. 24]).

J  Blade triangular to leaf-shaped, edges straight or slightly convex, four serrated, base expanding, corner-notched, barb pronounced, base straight or convex. Largest 1¼ × ⅞, smallest 1 × ⅝ inches, ([Fig. 24]).

K  Blade triangular, sides straight or slightly convex, distinct down-curving barbs, base expanding narrower than blade, gives appearance of corner notching, base straight or slightly concave, four serrated. Largest 2 × 1, smallest ⅞ × ⁵/₁₆ inches, ([Fig. 25]).

L  Two specimens of quartzite, both shown in [Fig. 25]. Blade leaf-shaped, indented bases, oblique parallel flaking, edges ground on first specimen in [Fig. 23] about one inch up from base. The second specimen also has ground edges.

Figure 15— Projectile Points,

TYPE A

TYPE A1

TYPE A2

TYPE B

Figure 16— Projectile Points, Types A1 A2 B.

TYPE C1

TYPE C2

Figure 17— Projectile Points, Types C and C1.

Figure 18— Projectile Points, Type D.

Figure 19— Projectile Points, Type E.

TYPE F

TYPE G

Figure 20— Projectile Points, Types F and G.

Figure 21— Projectile Points, Type H.

TYPE H

UNIQUE SPECIMEN

Figure 22— Projectile Points, Type H and Unique Specimen.

Figure 23— Projectile Points, Type L.

TYPE I

Figure 24— Projectile Points, Types I and J.

Figure 25— Projectile Points, Type K.

Arrow Points

aa Blade triangular, corner-notched, length 1¼ times the width, base generally convex, expanding, often just slightly narrower than blade. Largest 1⅛ × ½, smallest ⅝ × ½ inches. Points of this type are generally much lighter and thinner than those above, ([Fig. 26]).

bb Blade triangular, edges either convex or concave, specimen’s length generally twice width, almost all serrated, stems usually straight, generally ½ width or less. Largest 1 × ½, smallest ¾ × ⅝ inches. A variation of this type is less long in relation to width, but has its base located a-centrally. Careful examination reveals no differential of wear on the sides such as would be expected if they were used as knives. ([Fig. 26]).

cc These points are located morphologically between types aa and bb and do not fit into either category. Largest 1¼ × ⅜, smallest ⅝ × ½ inches, ([Fig. 27]).

Other Projectile Points

x  A blunt point, large expanding base, shoulders pronounced, blade semi-ellipse shaped. One point 1 × ⅞ inches, ([Fig. 27]).

xx Four specimens, located stratigraphically in pre-pottery levels. All are flake points, rather small and light, in general fit into category H. Largest 1 × ½, smallest ¾ × ⅝ inches. These may have been children’s toys? ([Fig. 27]).

A “grainy” quartzite was used for 85 percent of the dart points. For the arrow points, the preference was not as marked, for it constituted only 55 percent of the total. The remainder were of crypto-crystalline or “flinty” quartz.

Knives ([Figs. 28-31])

There are four types of knives or bifacially worked cutting implements. All are relatively thin, less than ¼ inch thick, and flaked on both sides, often with broad shallow chipping. The first type consists of small ovoid bifaces. The largest of these measures 2¼ × 1 inch, the smallest ⅞ × ⅝ inches with most being about 1 × ¾ inches. The majority resemble [Fig. 28], being slightly asymmetrical although some are more triangular. They were probably used as small knives, possibly hafted. Since the point is usually off-center, and they are generally thick in relation to their size, they do not appear to be projectile point blanks, though a few of the finest may have been. They are usually of a crypto-crystalline quartz. One is of obsidian. There is a total of 41 pieces.

aa

bb

Figure 26— Projectile Points, Types aa and bb.

bb

xx

cc

Figure 27— Projectile Points, Types bb, xx, cc.

TABLE I

PROJECTILE POINT PROVENIENCE

(Notice Overlap)

There are 25 specimens of the second type. These are characterized by an asymmetrical triangular form, usually with one gently curving side, a second more rounded side, and straight or slightly rounded base ([Fig. 29]). In general they show flat broad flakes at right angles to the edges with short retouch flakes and usage scars all around. The largest is 3¾ inches long, and two inches wide, and is made of obsidian ([Figs. 30], [31]). Another example is 3¾ inches long and 1½ inches wide ([Fig. 31]). The smallest is 1¾ × 1 inch.

Figure 28— Knives, type one (Small ovoid bifaces). Actual size.

Figure 29— Knives. A-F, type two. G-K, type three. Actual size.

The third group includes 14 examples. The construction of these is similar to group two, but they are generally thicker, more symmetrical and usually longer and narrower. The largest is 2½ × 1, the smallest 1½ × ¾ ([Fig. 29]).

There are in addition 15 broken pieces belonging to one or the other of the last two categories.

Eleven pieces were classified as flake knives. These are characterized by manufacture on a flake, with flaking on both faces but only along one edge. Shape is variable, but the cutting edge is generally curved. Largest, 2 × 1¾ inches, smallest 1½ × 1 inch.

One large stemmed artifact with straight sides and a blunt point is felt to have been a hafted knife. The base is broken. Estimated length, 2 inches, width 1⅓ inches. The material is quartzite.

For all the categories of cutting implements, approximately 70 percent were made of flinty or crypto-crystalline quartz; a rather large number were of fossilized wood, not commonly used for other artifacts.

Figure 30— Large obsidian knife, type two. Actual size.

Figure 31— Large Knives, type two.
Slightly larger than actual size.

SCRAPERS

End Scrapers ([Figs. 32], [33])

The end scrapers are divisible into three categories. The first form is a flat scraper, generally triangular to oval in outline. The working end is often thin. There are a few true snub-nosed scrapers in this category. The second type is generally fan-shaped with a wide thin bit. The opposite end usually tapers to a sharp edge which could have had secondary use as a cutting tool. The third variety includes rougher forms, though there are a few well made specimens. All have a distinct keel. There are 31 of the first type, the smallest ½ × ⁷/₁₆; the largest 1¼ × 1½ inches. Of the second group there are 17 specimens, the smallest 1¼ × ¾; the largest 1½ × 1¼ inches. There are 10 of the third form, the smallest 1 inch square, the largest 2½ × 1½ inches. Seventy percent of the scrapers are of crypto-crystalline quartz.

Side Scrapers ([Fig. 34])

Twenty-three specimens are classified as side scrapers. In general, as with discoidal scrapers, it is hard to draw a line between these and utilized flakes. An arbitrary division was made because, when the material was laid out, some specimens consistently showed more regular work or flaking than others. The largest of these is 2½ × 1 inch, the smallest 1¼ × 1 inch. In general, they are long flakes with considerable flat flaking and/or retouch along one face, usually on only one edge. Quartzite and crypto-crystalline quartz were about equally popular.

Discoidal Scrapers ([Fig. 35])

Twenty-five artifacts are classified as discoidal scrapers. Again, as noted in the case of side scrapers, the dividing line between some of these and certain utilized flakes is somewhat arbitrary. Generally these artifacts are steeply flaked, by percussion, on both faces and all edges, giving them a rather rounded appearance. The largest is 2½ × 2¼ inches, the smallest ¾ × 1½ inch. Quartzite and flinty materials show about equal usage.

Serrated Scrapers ([Fig. 37])

There are 21 serrated scrapers. These are usually serrated on one edge only, but other sides often show secondary usage. The serrations appear to have been made in the course of the primary flaking, by blows dealt at intervals, with the remaining protrusions left instead of being chipped off. Some with steep sides would have been useful as scrapers, but several small thin specimens could have been used as saws. Flinty materials were preferred. The largest is 2 × 1¼, the smallest 1 × ¾ inches. From the ethnographic data ([see below]) it is interesting to note that the Ute used serrated scrapers for taking the hair off hides.

“Uncompahgre” Scrapers ([Fig. 36])

Six complete and one broken artifact are included in this category. They conform in general to Wormington and Lister’s (1956) description of those found at the type locality. Those at LoDaisKa are smaller. Specifically they are flakes, usually triangular, although one is rectangular. One edge is flaked on one face alone, one or more edges are flaked on both faces. The butt, generally the striking platform of the flake, is usually unflaked and thick. They appear to have been serviceable without hafting, and are probably a multiple purpose tool, possibly with a specific combination of uses. The largest is 2 × 1¾ inches; the smallest, 1¼ × ⅞ inches. All but one are quartzite.

Hafted Scrapers

One artifact was found that could be described as a hafted scraper. It is 1 × 1¼ inches, with a semicircular working bit, straight barbs, expanding stem, narrower than a blade, and a rounded base. It could have been made from a type H projectile point.

Spoke-shaves ([Figs. 37], [39])

Two artifacts are designated spoke-shaves. One is combined with a perforator; the other is made from a large flake. Both exhibit simple steep flaking. The working surfaces are arcs of about 100° on small circles, ½ inch in diameter.

Drills ([Fig. 38])

Though only five specimens were recovered that can be classified as drills, they comprise four types. The first, represented by one specimen, is of the expanding base T-shaped variety. The base is flattened and the point is diamond-shaped in cross-section; the flakes were struck from either side to meet in the middle and form the central ridge. The second type, possibly a variant of the first, comprises two specimens, one fragmentary. The bases expand but are thick and irregular, rather than flat. The point of the complete example is biconvex to diamond-shaped in cross-section and exhibits fine workmanship. The third type differs from the first two in having a straight base. It is biconvex in cross-section, with rather fine flaking meeting along the midline. The fourth variety has the outline of a small side-notched projectile point. Upon examination, however, the edges of the lower one-third of the point show signs of extensive abrasion and polishing. It is very probable that such a tool was hafted for use. The method of usage is less certain for the others. All five were made from varieties of flinty quartz.

Figure 32— End scrapers, type one. A-E snub-nosed.
Actual size.

Figure 33— End scrapers. A-C, type three. D-F, type two.
Actual size.

Figure 34— Side scrapers. Actual size.

Figure 35— Discoidal scrapers. Actual size.

Figure 36— Uncompahgre scrapers. Actual size.

Figure 37— A-E, serrated scrapers. F, spoke-shave.
Actual size.

Figure 38— A-D, drill types one-four. E-I, gravers.
Actual size.

Perforators ([Figs. 38], [39])

Twenty-one specimens are considered to have been used as awls or perforators. Though individual form varies greatly, most are made on plano-convex or concavo-convex flakes. Flaking is concentrated on the short point, though it sometimes extends further on one or both faces. Occasionally, one or more of the edges have seen secondary use as a scraper. Of the total, nine specimens are of flinty material, one of obsidian. The remainder are quartzite (8) or quartz (3). They range in length from ¾ to 2½ inches, and from ½ to 1½ inches in width.

“Gravers” ([Fig. 38])

The term “graver” is not especially desirable since 1) it implies function, and 2) it is generally applied to a special form associated with the Upper Paleolithic of Europe. Nevertheless, the term is also used in connection with sharp-pointed flakes employed in making incisions, and as such is well entrenched in the literature. These tools were divided into two categories. The first contains 16 specimens. These were all made from irregular flakes, the largest 1⅜ × 1⅛ the smallest ¾ × ½. There are one or more points on each. Usually the point shows evidence of usage on one or two sides only. Some show scars all around. The second class, comprising 14 specimens, is distinguished by the fact that all are made from prismatic flakes ([see below]). Usually there is only one point on each. Despite their diminutive size (the largest 1½ × ⅝ inch, smallest, ¾ × ¼), tests made by the authors involving cutting bone, showed even the smallest to be an efficient tool.

Most of these artifacts are of the flinty variety of quartz, often fossilized wood.

Prismatic Flakes ([Figs. 40] and [41])

Of the total number of flakes recovered certain appeared technologically distinctive and were classified as prismatic. The primary characteristics of these are a length exceeding twice the width, a striking platform at one end with a small bulb of percussion and ripple marks radiating from it. In addition, most of these exhibit a longitudinal ridge or ridges formed by facets intersecting at a low angle, representing the intersection of former flake scars. Most of the striking platforms are plain, but about 30 percent show a series of tiny flake scars which may be evidence of preparation. They range in length from 2¼ to ⅝ inches and in width from ³/₁₆ to ¾ inches.

Sixty-two of these show signs of use. Thirty had apparently served as gravers ([see above]). Thirty-two show usage marks caused by cutting, and 14 of these had served secondarily as small scrapers. About 80 percent of the utilized prismatic flakes are of a flinty material. The remainder are of quartzite. Of the unmodified specimens, about 65 percent were of flinty quartz, 30 percent of quartzite, and 5 percent of quartz.

Figure 39— A-F, perforators. G, flake knife. H, hafted knife.
Actual size.

Figure 40— Prismatic flakes. A-I, gravers. J-L, cutting edges.
Actual size.

Figure 41— Prismatic flakes, cutting implements. Actual size.

Choppers or Hammerstones ([Fig. 42])

Forty-one implements are classified as choppers or hammerstones. Seventy percent of these are of rock quartz, 20 percent of a metamorphic rock, usually schist, and 10 percent of a grainy quartzite. Due to the nature of the material it is extremely difficult to determine whether such artifacts were used primarily as hammerstones or choppers. There are no small round heavily battered specimens which could be considered as hammerstones only. The pieces usually exhibit one sharp edge and one or more blunt battered edges. The first two lithic materials mentioned fracture rather easily, and the tools were probably used and discarded at will. Rock quartz and various metamorphic rocks are plentiful in the area, making such careless use practical; quartzite and flinty materials are rather scarce, (see below). The largest of these tools measures 5 × 5½ inches, the smallest 1¼ inches square.

Cores

Only eight specimens are considered to have been cores. Three are of quartzite, three of agate and two of fossilized wood. The largest is about 3 × 3 × 2 inches, the smallest about a one inch cube. All are irregular, none fluted or prismatic. Since there were so few cores it is believed that the primary work of preparing flakes took place elsewhere, perhaps at the source of the material.

Figure 42— Choppers and hammerstones, ½ actual size.

TABLE II

Artifacts exclusive of projectile points and ground stone

• LEGEND:
• A - Wood awl
• B - abrading stone
• C - Elk antler tool
• D - Atlatl weight?

• LEGEND:
• E - Limestone pendant
• F - Quartz crystal
• G - Clay ball
• H - Notched rib

Milling Stones ([Figs. 43], [44], [45])

Characteristics of grinding stones at LoDaisKa are largely summarized in Tables III and IV. These are presented in the hope that future studies will make it possible to distinguish cultural associations from such tools, although as Haury (1950) and Jennings (1957) reiterated, metates or grinding stones are often so nondescript as to defy cultural interpretation. Dealing for the most part with complete examples, there seem to be two general types: large worn boulders, and flat slabs often with a slight depression. The former are usually of an igneous material. Either type may be intentionally shaped. Most were more or less rectangular. The largest of the first type weighs about 120 pounds, and is 2 feet 3 inches long × 14 inches wide. The smallest is 11 inches × 12 inches and weighs about 20 pounds. Of the second type the maximum is 1½ feet × 14 inches, the minimum 10 inches × 12 inches. Shaping, when present, is confined to percussion and smoothing around the edges. Pecking probably served to roughen the surface.

A number of specimens in the ½ to ¾ inch thick class were made of hard fine sandstone. On some of the large fragments both faces appear parallel with no concavity. Only one fairly complete example of this type was found. This ([Fig. 45]) is a roughly triangular section about 5 inches on a side. It was found in Hearth B. It shows no basin and is very smooth. Two sides appear to have been the original edges of the complete specimen. These are roughly shaped. The smoothing extends all the way to these edges. There is ethnological evidence, ([see below Lowie, 1924; R. M. Underhill, p.c.]) that stones similar to this specimen were used for cooking stones. Since most of the artifacts of this type are small pieces, it would be hard to distinguish definitely between a small section of a cooking stone and a section of a slab metate. Lacking further proof, these have been treated as grinding stones, with this possible reservation.

Handstones ([Fig. 46])

One hundred and four specimens are classed as handstones or handstone fragments. Of these 50 could not be classified further except that 40 were of igneous rock and 10 of sandstone. The general data pertaining to handstones is summarized in the chart. The largest of these is 8 × 4 inches, the smallest 4 × 3 inches. All appear to have been used in one hand. Seventy-five percent are made of igneous rock, usually of a metamorphic type such as schist. This choice was probably due to the scarcity of good sandstone in the area. There are two basic types, those used on one and those used on two sides. For both these groups there is a variant which has a center ridge formed by the meeting of two grinding surfaces on each face. Probably the simple motion of pushing forth, rocking, and then pulling back caused this. One of these has the ridges on its two sides at right angles to each other. Some specimens are pecked. These forms seem to lack distributional significance.

TABLE III

Grinding Slabs, Complete Specimens