Paleoarchaic land use strategies in upland environments.

A CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY FOR THE GRIFFON PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Ely Ranger District

Report R2012041702242

Prepared for: JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc.

595 Double Eagle Ct., Ste 2000 Reno, NV 89521

Prepared by: Sean Simpson

Theresa Simpson and

Jayma Stembridge

Submitted by: Sean Simpson, MA, RPA

Mesa Field Services 150 Isidor Court, Suite 101

Sparks, Nevada 89441

MFS project 1176

Final Report Confidential Do Not Release

July 1, 2013

Table of Contents

1. ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 1

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 3 Plan of Operations....................................................................................................................... 3

3. PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC OVERVIEW ...................................................................... 5 Prehistoric Overview .................................................................................................................. 5

Paleoarchaic Period (12,700 to 8,500 B.P.) ............................................................................ 5 Early Archaic (8,500 to 4,500 B.P.)........................................................................................ 9 Middle Archaic (4,500 to 1,500 B.P.) ................................................................................... 10 Late Archaic (1,500 to 650 B.P.) .......................................................................................... 11 Late Prehistoric (650 B.P. to Contact) .................................................................................. 11

Ethnographic Period.................................................................................................................. 12 Subsistence ............................................................................................................................ 12 Technology ........................................................................................................................... 14 Shelter ................................................................................................................................... 15

Historic Overview (200 to 50 B.P.) .......................................................................................... 16 Early Exploration .................................................................................................................. 16 Settlement ............................................................................................................................. 17

4. CULTURAL CONTEXT .......................................................................................................... 19 Prehistoric ................................................................................................................................. 22

Chronology ........................................................................................................................... 22 Data Requirements ............................................................................................................ 23

Land Use Patterns ................................................................................................................. 24 Data Requirements ............................................................................................................ 25

Site Structure ......................................................................................................................... 25 Data Requirements ............................................................................................................ 25

Trade and Exchange .............................................................................................................. 25 Data Requirements ............................................................................................................ 26

Property Types ...................................................................................................................... 26 Historic ...................................................................................................................................... 28

5. ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 29 Geology ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Flora and Fauna......................................................................................................................... 29

6. EXPECTATIONS .................................................................................................................... 31 Cultural Resources Records Search Results ............................................................................. 31 Archival Research ..................................................................................................................... 34

7. INVENTORY METHODS ....................................................................................................... 35 Survey Methods ........................................................................................................................ 35

Site Recording and Artifact Analysis ....................................................................................... 35

8. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 37 Previously Recorded Sites ........................................................................................................ 38 Newly Recorded Sites ............................................................................................................... 41 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 45

Chronology: .......................................................................................................................... 45 Land Use Patterns ................................................................................................................. 45 Site Patterning. ...................................................................................................................... 46

9. RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 48

10. REFERENCES CITED ......................................................................................................... 50

APPENDIX A: PROJECT AREA MAPS ................................................................................... 57

APPENDIX B: SITES AND ISOLATE LOCATIONS .............................................................. 59

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Endscrapers and Projectile Points from the Mount Moriah occupation (Bryan 1988:Figure 5) ................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2. Jakes Valley stemmed point examples (Estes 2009:Figure 4.12 .................................... 8 Figure 3. Distribution of Shoshone groups in the Great Basin .................................................... 13 Table 1. Previous Projects Within One Mile. ............................................................................... 31 Table 2. Previous Recorded Sites within One Mile. ..................................................................... 32 Table 3. Site Summaries and NRHP Recommendations. ............................................................. 37 Table 4. Isolate Summaries. .......................................................................................................... 37

Survey for the Griffon Exploration Project [R2012041702242]

Mesa Field Services

1

1. ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY Mesa Field Services (MFS) was contracted by JBR Environmental Services, Inc., to conduct an archaeological reconnaissance on behalf of Pilot Gold’s Griffon Exploration Project in White Pine County, Nevada. The proposed Griffon exploration project is on land managed by the Ely Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. The area of potential effect (APE) is located in the White Pine Range southwest of Ely and is on the Indian Garden Mountain, Nevada 7.5’ quadrangle map in portions of Sections 12, 13, and 24 of Township 14 North, Range 58 East, and Sections 7, 18, and 19 of Township 14 North, Range 59 East (Appendix A). As a result of the survey, eight archaeological sites and nine isolated artifacts were inventoried. Three of the sites are previously recorded and five are new discoveries. The sites include six prehistoric (04170912174 to 04170912176, and 04170913496 to 04170913498) and two historic sites (04170913495 and 04170913499). The two historic sites are comprised of limited scatters of domestic related artifacts and are not recommended eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The majority of prehistoric sites are small lithic scatters with projectile points, most likely attributed to limited hunting forays in the high country during the Paleoarchaic. One larger site (04170912174) included a variety of projectile point types from different periods and groundstone suggesting a possible base camp used repeatedly over a broad period of prehistory. Four of the prehistoric sites are recommended eligible to the NRHP including three with potential Paleoarchaic components (04170912174 to 04170912176) and a middle Archaic site with groundstone (04170913498). Both Paleoarchaic sites and Middle Archaic sites with groundstone are rare in the White Pine Mountain Range and offer the potential to contribute significant insight into land use strategies of upland environments for these little understood periods of prehistory. The documentation of Paleoarchaic sites in upland environments in close proximity to Estes’ synthesis of Paleoindian land use strategies in high altitude basins of the Great Basin offers the potential to expand our understanding of Paleoarchaic land use strategies. Additionally, the four sites maintain integrity of location and are recommended eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D.


Mesa Field Services

2


Mesa Field Services

3

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Between the dates of September 12 and 19, 2012 archaeologists with MFS conducted a Class III intensive archaeological block inventory of approximately 900 acres for the Griffon exploration project in White Pine County, Nevada. The APE area can be found on the Indian Garden Mountain, Nevada (1990) 7.5’ USGS quadrangle map in portions of Sections 12, 13, and 24 of Township 14 North, Range 58 East, and Sections 7, 18, and 19 of Township 14 North, Range 59 East. The APE is completely on land managed by the Ely Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Although the proposed APE is 954 acres, approximately 54 acres of disturbed mine pits were not subject to inventory for a total of 900 acres of intense Class III pedestrian survey. Sean Simpson served as Field Director, Natasha Nelson as Crew Chief, and Jayma Stembridge and Eleni Ziogas in the capacity as Field Technicians. JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. requested the survey on behalf of Project Gold.

Plan of Operations The following description of undertaking was obtained from the pre-field report for plant and wildlife surveys (JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2012a) and project revisions provided in the biological baseline report (JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2012b). Pilot Gold is currently performing a drilling program for mineral exploration within the APE on less than 4.75 acres and intends to expand their operation to other areas. As a result of the expansion of the drilling program there is an increased potential for surface disturbing activities to adversely impact significant cultural properties within the APE, thereby warranting an archaeological investigation. Pilot Gold intends to complete a program of reverse circulation exploration drilling nearby and within the footprint of the past producing Griffon Mine, located on lands administered by the United States Forest Service (USFS), Ely Ranger District Office. Total surface disturbance for the project would be less than five acres. Approximately 40 boreholes would be drilled from up to 31 drill sites (Appendix A). The boreholes are to be drilled from 300 feet to 1,200 feet in depth on drill sites approximately 30 feet by 50 feet in size. Operations at each location are to include a 15-foot by 10-foot sump to collect wastewater and drill fluids. Sumps would be bermed and fenced to prevent access. Equipment necessary for drilling will include one track-mounted buggy rig, one support/pipe truck and one water supply truck as well as several pickups for personnel. Up to 20 feet of temporary steel casing may be installed on each hole. Work will be done in 12-hour daytime shifts for up to 15 days at a time. All holes will be plugged immediately following completion as per State Regulations NRS/NAC Chapter 534. All equipment will be washed prior to mobilization from the project area. A drill site would be converted to a laydown area for temporary equipment storage. This disturbance would not result in an enlargement of the existing drill site with activities to be contained within the 30 feet by 50 feet area. The project will result in the use of approximately 5,280 feet of access. Roads would have an approximate width of 18 feet, depending on the cross slope with a preference given to existing and reclaimed, roads so as to minimize the impact to undisturbed areas. Roads to access these sites will be less than 1 mile in total length. Roads will be built using a D8 or equivalent bulldozer and a track hoe excavator. It is anticipated that upon commencement of work the drilling operations will take three months to complete. All activity is to be confined to the


Mesa Field Services

4

western half of the inventoried APE and there should be no direct effect to significant cultural properties within the APE. All drill pads and access roads are to be reclaimed at the end of the project so there should be no indirect adverse effects to significant cultural properties identified within the APE.


Mesa Field Services

5

3. PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC OVERVIEW There is archaeological evidence to suggest people have occupied eastern Nevada for at least 12,700 years (Hockett et al. 2008:38). The APE is located in western White Pine County just south of major activity associated with the historic White Pine Mining District during the 1860s and 1870s. However, few historic resources were identified within the APE. The study is unusual in the fact that the majority of cultural resources identified within the APE appear to be associated with late Pleistocene and early Holocene occupations termed the Paleoarchaic. Stemmed points are well represented in the vicinity of the APE and a number of associated smaller broken bifacial tool fragments could potentially represent stemmed points or related technology. The APE appears to have been utilized at least as much during the Paleoarchaic as during the later Archaic suggesting the earliest occupants of the Great Basin were well adapted to the exploitation of upland environments above 8,000 feet. As such, the cultural overview and context is weighted more toward the resources identified within the APE including Paleoarchaic and Archaic periods.

Prehistoric Overview The APE is located in the White Pine Range at the interface between the eastern and central Great Basin with a regional sequence derived from investigations of Gatecliff Shelter, Smith Creek Cave, Danger Cave, Hogup Cave, Bonneville Estates Rockshelter, Gypsum Cave and others as well as the results of surface investigations in the area. Since the APE is at the interface between two slightly different prehistoric sequences, the APE appears to have attributes common to both. The early prehistoric period has developments more typical of the eastern Great Basin. However, the APE falls just outside of the defined western extent of the Fremont; therefore, the late Archaic sequence is more reflective of developments in central and western Great Basin. The following prehistory is defined by work conducted in both subregions with chronological sequences that include reference to the Paleoarchaic, the Early, Middle and Late Archaic, and the Late Prehistoric periods. The prehistoric periods include the latest compilation of Great Basin prehistory edited by Fowler and Fowler (2008) and a synthesis of investigations of Paleoindian remains at rockshelters of the western Bonneville Basin provided by Goebel et al. (2011). Dates and definitions for the prehistoric periods are provided by Beck et al. (2002), Beck and Jones (2008), Elston (1986:135-148) and Hockett et al. (2008).

Paleoarchaic Period (12,700 to 8,500 B.P.) The Paleoarchaic is characterized as a continued shift to dryer Holocene climatic conditions and adaptations to an environment similar to todays by 8,500 years ago. After many decades of work in the Great Basin, there is still little evidence to distinguish Late Pleistocene from Early Holocene occupations (Hockett et al. 2008). Both fluted and stemmed points occur in the Great Basin during the terminal Pleistocene with stemmed points persisting well into the middle Holocene for over a 4,000 year period making it difficult to distinguish many late Pleistocene Paleoindian sites with stemmed points from Early Holocene ones. Although fluted points occur in the Great Basin they are rare, have yet to be dated directly, often occurring in association with stemmed points. Stemmed points are more common and perhaps slightly more recent with a wider geographical distribution occurring until the mid-Holocene around 8,500 years ago (Clay and McCabe 2012:12). Therefore, there is little to distinguish terminal Pleistocene occupations


Mesa Field Services

6

from those of the early Holocene (Beck et al. 2002:482). As a result, this period is termed the Paleoarchaic. Fluted points have not been recovered in rockshelters of the Great Basin but do occur sporadically in open-air sites. There is no reliable buried component for Clovis yet identified in the Great Basin. Only two fluted points have been found in a buried context and radiocarbon dated for the Great Basin as a whole (Beck and Jones 1997:163). The Sunshine Locality in eastern Nevada is a deeply stratified site with a buried Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene deposit containing fluted and stemmed points and crescents associated with the Western Stemmed Tradition that have been bracketed by calibrated radiocarbon samples between 12,400 to 11,250 B.P. (Jones et al. 1996:48-63). An existing synthesis of Western Fluted and Western Stemmed Tradition and analysis of potential land use strategies for open air sites recently completed for Jakes Valley east of the APE by Estes (2009) suggests fluted points were more restricted to lake margins in Jakes Valley around 6,319 feet in elevation. The period is also brief, possibly occurring over a four to five hundred year period during a warming and drying period near the end of the last glaciation termed the Bølling-Allerød interstadial (Fiedel 2002). Although Clovis occupations are lacking in rockshelters across the Great Basin, evidence for a stemmed point tradition is extensive in the central and eastern Great Basin with remains being recovered as early as the Younger Dryas (12,900 to 11,600 B.P.) from a variety of deposits at Bonneville Estates Rockshelter, Smith Creek Cave, Danger Cave, Sunshine Well, Buhl, Handprint Cave, and others (Goebel et al. 2011). Paleoindian tool kits often include high quality exotic tool stone in a formal state of preparation and highly resharpened, suggesting a curated technology (Basgall 1988; Beck and Jones 1990; Goebel 2007). A variety of stemmed points were produced over a 4,000 year period with tool kits including scrapers, gravers, knives and crescents (Hockett et al. 2008:39). Artifacts associated with this period have traditionally been interpreted as being limited to waterways such as rivers and lakeshores, suggesting an adaptive strategy based on riverine or water resources, termed the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition by Stephen Bedwell (Hockett et al. 2008:40). Willig (1988, 1989) later suggested that they utilized upland areas as well. Dry caves have preserved a wealth of textiles from this period including mats, basketry, sandals, cordage, and netting fragments. The presence of stemmed points in upland environments and game at Bonneville Estates, including rabbit, deer, bighorn sheep, pronghorn and others, suggests Paleoindian inhabitants were not necessarily exclusively reliant on the use of marshland resources but employed a range of subsistence practices over different habitats in both lowland and highland environments. Two of the closest stratified deposits containing Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition are Smith Creek Cave and Bonneville Estates Rockshelter. Smith Creek Cave, closest to the APE and northeast of Ely, contained a number of stemmed points and other artifacts (Figure 1) from the Mount Moriah occupation recovered from well dated deposits between 12,600 to 11,300 B.P. (Bryan 1988:60-65; Goebel et al 2011:489). Bonneville Estates Rockshelter south of Wendover includes six stemmed points and a number of associated biface fragments (Goebel et al. 2011:485). Occupation was between 13,000 and 9,600 B.P. with no apparent change in technology or materials utilized over the span. Artifacts were typical of late stage activities with debitage generally lacking cortex and with complex platforms suggesting they arrived with an already prepared or transportable tool kit and were very residentially mobile.


Mesa Field Services

7

Figure 1. Endscrapers and Projectile Points from the Mount Moriah occupation

(Bryan 1988:Figure 5).

The presence of fluted and stemmed points in similar lacustrine environments suggests makers of the tool traditions both made use of some of the same resources. Estes (2009) in Jakes Valley completed some of the most comprehensive work of Paleoindian surface remains in close proximity to the APE to the east. The presence of both fluted and stemmed points were noted at the same locations surrounding the extinct Pleistocene lake in Jakes Valley suggesting a specialized adaptation to lacustrine environments or pluvial lakes strategy. However, analysis in Jakes Valley revealed stemmed points to be more variable using a wider range of materials and in more diverse habitats. Occurring not only along lake shores, two feet higher than fluted points on average, but also along drainages leading into the lake at Illipah Creek and James Wash and upland environments between 6,370 and 7,185 feet. Assemblage composition suggests they


Mesa Field Services

8

were single use camp sites, processing sites, or retooling stations limited to tens of artifacts (Estes 2009:116). Large sites were not identified that might suggest the position of base camps in the vicinity of Jakes Valley that could imply a system of mobility tethered to lacustrine environments. Tool kits consist of high-grade exotic materials, well-constructed, and highly utilized or curated tools often being recycled as other tools (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Jakes Valley stemmed point examples (Estes 2009:Figure

4.12).

Specifics concerning the regular use of upland environments above 8,000 feet in the central Great Basin by Paleoarchaic peoples have largely not been discussed in the existing literature. An in depth synthesis of the different stemmed point types in relation to mountain settings and environments compiled by Pitblado (2003) is the most extensive study to date. The synthesis is of Late Paleoindian land use strategies as it relates to the exploitation of resources in lowland and highland environments for the Plains, Eastern Great Basin, Southern Rockies, and Colorado Plateau. It is one of the few available resources providing an in depth synthesis and analysis of stemmed points from upland environments in the eastern and central Great Basin. The study focuses on the use of highland environments in the Southern Rockies noting the regular appearance of high altitude stemmed points above 8,000 feet in elevation. Results indicate the same number of stemmed points in mountain lowlands, foothills and mountain park zones of the


Mesa Field Services

9

Great Basin as in the Rocky Mountains but few stemmed points present in high mountain elevations of the Great Basin considered montane, subalpine, and alpine zones (Pitblado 2003:134-135). The synthesis noted the Angostura type as the most dominate type at high mountain areas for the Rockies with a mean elevation of 2,257 meters and notes the lack of comparable high mountain specimens in the Great Basin with only one documented in a montane setting. However, the analysis of the Great Basin mountains only included 40 stemmed projectile points from the eastern Great Basin. Mountain parks are defined by pinyon pine and juniper zone related species between 1,830 to 2,440 meters above mean sea level for the Rocky Mountains with montane settings including Douglas fir, Ponderosa pine, juniper, and Limber pine between 2,440 and 2,900 meters. Other trends concerning high altitude mountain settings associated with late Paleoindian toolkits include the Angostura form of stemmed point in the Rocky Mountains as primarily made of local available quartzite during the Late Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic period between 10,000 and 7,000 years ago in contrast to the use of exotic tool stone such as obsidian (Pitblado 2003:233). Late Paleoindian occupation of the Rocky Mountains began in earnest circa 9,700 B.P. and peaked sometime after 9,470 with Great Basin Stemmed type points extending in use in Utah and Colorado as late as 7,550 B.P. (Pitblado 2003:236-237). Populations of the southern Rocky Mountains stayed year round with an upland land use strategy focused on hunting in higher elevations during summer months with winter camps potentially occurring in the lower mountain regions in sheltered valleys where game typically take refuge (Pitblado 2003:60). Paleoenvironmental work conducted in the Great Basin suggests modern conditions and vegetation arrived in the western Bonneville Basin as early as 11,000 B.P. (Goebel et al 2011:483). Relatively cool, wet conditions may have characterized the first 1,500 years of the Holocene with warming and drying beginning sometime around 8,500 B.P. Xerification may have commenced slightly later in the eastern Great Basin, circa 8,000–7,500 B.P. (Pitblado 2003:42). However, the use of the same stemmed point technology persisted well into the early Holocene before radical changes occur in technology resulting in the suspension of the manufacture and use of the points currently believed to be sometime around 8,500 B.P.

Early Archaic (8,500 to 4,500 B.P.) The Archaic is marked by a significant increase in the region’s temperatures and the continued drying of the region to its current hydrological conditions (Elston 1986:138). Like elsewhere, evidence of the Early Archaic period within eastern Nevada is scarce. Although there is little direct evidence concerning subsistence at this time, it is generally assumed inhabitants were focused on a broad-spectrum diet, a general lifeway that is believed to characterize North America as a whole, with little technological and subsistence changes for nearly a 10,000 year period (Beck and Jones 2008:45). With significant changes in the environment, there was a major shift in the local adaptation strategy within the archaeological record at this time characterized by the appearance of dart points and regular use of groundstone (Beck and Jones 2008:45-48; Elston 1986:138-141). Atlatls (spear throwers) and dart points marked the advent of a major change in hunting technology replacing the earlier stemmed point tradition. Early Archaic dart points include the Northern Side Notched and Pinto forms (Beck and Jones 2008; Justice 2002:173). Mass capture


Mesa Field Services

10

strategies are also commonly employed for the hunting of antelope and rabbits by driving them into a trap where they could be easily dispatched. Intensive use of seeds processed with groundstone mark major shifts in the exploitation of the region’s resources due to a changing environment including the regular use of basketry and grinding stones for processing seeds. Base camp sites are generally located adjacent to more permanent sources of water such as springs, rivers or lakes, while temporary camps for hunting and gathering are found in upland, desert scrub regions (Elston 1986:138). It is possible that special task groups exploited these high regions primarily for hunting. Pinyon trees most likely arrived in the region sometime during the transition from the Early to Middle Archaic with evidence at Danger Cave for their use as early as 7,500 years ago (Rhode and Madsen 1998).

Middle Archaic (4,500 to 1,500 B.P.) By 4,500 years ago, a transition to the Middle Archaic is marked by a population increase and a diversification of settings used including the regular use of mountain areas for hunting and overall diversification of resource exploitation. There is little technological difference to mark this period from the preceding Early Archaic. The differences between these two periods are based primarily on a population boom and gradual shifts in settlement and subsistence strategies. Winter and seasonal camps start to become noticeably reoccupied in the archaeological record with a greater diversification and exploitation of the region’s resources including intensive exploitation of particular ecozones (Elston 1986:142). Diagnostic projectile points for this period include Elko, Pinto, Gatecliff, and Martis series points. Also, there is an increase or reuse of certain areas and an increase in the variety of activities at this time (Elston 1986:142). There appears to be more of a reliance on the use of bifaces, seed processing, and the manufacture of grinding slabs and scrapers at Gatecliff Shelter. The first evidence for trade and exchange occurs during this period with the presence of obsidian, shell beads, and portable rock art with motifs. Big game hunting appears to remain an important subsistence strategy with a focus on mountain sheep and to a lesser degree antelope and deer. Trade networks develop with California at this time as well as the wide spread distribution and use of pinyon nuts as a food source. Few research oriented projects servicing the Archaic period have been conducted for eastern Nevada and as a consequence the region has been reliant on sequences delineated elsewhere in the Great Basin such as point types sequenced by David Hearst Thomas at Gatecliff Shelter in central Nevada (Hockett 1995:41). However, local date ranges for Archaic points may be significantly different for the eastern Great Basin than for the west with gradual diffusion of early Archaic Elko and Gatecliff forms to the west by the Middle Archaic. Elko points recovered from Danger and Hogup caves reveal the presence of Elko points in the Bonneville Basin as early as 8,000 years ago, nearly 3,000 years earlier than at Gatecliff Shelter (Hockett 1995:43). An obsidian hydration analysis of 109 projectile points from northeastern Nevada reveal Elko and Split Stem or Pinto forms to have possibly been in the Bonneville Basin region as early as 8,000 years ago with a date slightly later for central Nevada (Hockett 1995). The presence of these point types at Gatecliff Shelter between 5,000 and 3,300 supports the theory of gradual diffusion of these forms from the east. Elko, Gatecliff Contracting Stem or Gypsum, and Gatecliff split stem points have been recovered from Gatecliff Shelter in central Nevada (Thomas 1981). Gypsum points recovered from Gypsum Cave in southern Nevada tend to be small, thin, and gracile with short contracting stems


Mesa Field Services

11

dated between 4,000 and 2,800 B.P. (Justice 2002:291-295; Thomas 1981:22). Gatecliff Contracting Stem points or Gypsum points occur at Gatecliff Rockshelter with split stem points in deposits dating between 5,000 and 3,300 B.P. Elko Points are bracketed later between 3,300 to 1,300 B.P. (Thomas 1981:20-21).

Late Archaic (1,500 to 650 B.P.) This period begins around 1,500 B.P with the advent or appearance of a suite of technological changes across the Great Basin including the introduction of the bow and arrow and ceramics (Elston 1986:145-148). Diagnostic projectile points are smaller (arrow-size) points and include triangular and Rosegate Cluster points, which are found throughout the Great Basin and eastern California where they have been dated between 1,500 and 650 B.P. (Justice 2002:320-330). For Gatecliff Shelter and Monitor Valley Rosegate points are earlier, replacing Elko dart points in use between 1,500 and 650 B.P. Triangular Desert Side Notched and Cottonwood point forms predominate after 700 B.P. to contact (Thomas 1981:15-19). The most dominant ceramic type in the local record at this time was the Fremont’s Great Salt Lake Gray. The pottery is a gray color with a medium fine paste and a fine quartz temper (Steward 1936:6). Eastern Nevada includes the western extent of the Fremont identified as the Great Salt Lake variant documented from cave deposits along the periphery of the Bonneville Basin including Danger, Hogup, and Promontory Caves (Marwitt 1986:161-172). The degree to which influences associated with horticultural groups such as the Fremont influenced traditional Archaic hunter and gatherer systems in the region is largely unknown with some suggesting the presence of Fremont ceramics as an indicator for agricultural developments. Others believe local groups obtained ceramics as trade items and did not result in a significant change in land use patterns and site structure.

Late Prehistoric (650 B.P. to Contact) The prehistoric period that post-dates the Fremont occupation is generally thought to represent the arrival of Numic speakers across the Great Basin. It is marked in the archaeological record by the presence of Intermountain Brownware and later style triangular arrow points including the Desert Side Notch and Cottonwood series projectile points around 700 years ago (Konoske et al. 2009:18; Bischoff et al. 1999:56-57). The Late Prehistoric period represents the expansion of modern Native groups across the basin present at the time of contact at about 200 years ago (Stever 2011:25). In 1954, linguist Sidney Lamb suggested Numic speakers originated from Death Valley around 1,000 B.P. for the three major language groups spoken in the Great Basin extend in a fan like distribution from southeastern California (Beck and Jones 2008:51; Bischoff et al. 1999:56; Stever 2011:26). One of the more dominant diagnostic features or artifacts attributed to this period is the presence of Intermountain Brownware. It appears in the archaeological record sometime after 1,000 years ago and is believed to be produced by the Numic-speaking Shoshone that have moved into the region.


Mesa Field Services

12

Ethnographic Period The Ethnographic Overview focuses on aspects of nineteenth century hunter-gatherer life and post-contact history of a region. The fan shaped distribution of the Paiute and Shoshone and their linguistic similarity suggests to some the expansion of Numic speakers into the Great Basin from California. The APE is within the linguist distribution of the Western Shoshone whose range extends to the north and east from Death Valley into northern Utah, southern and eastern Idaho, and portions of western Montana and Wyoming (Steward 1938:626). The Shoshone are more of a linguistic group than a socio political group that share a common language but with regional specific dialects. Political groups of the Shoshone generally correspond to the different valley and mountain systems. Villages or groups within a valley system would form a political division were they could share resources and divisions of labor. Steward (1938) defines the main linguistic divisions within the Great Basin including the political divisions of the Shoshone (Figure 1). The APE can be found on the eastern edge of the Railroad Valley. The Shoshone called themselves Newe, or people (Crum 1994). Local groups named themselves after a primary food source, such as those in nearby Duckwater Valley who were known as the tsaitekka, or tule eaters. Estimates of population density for the Railroad Valley people are one person for every nine square miles (Steward 1938:117).

Subsistence The Western Shoshoni were more reliant on vegetal food sources for survival than game, which were generally scarce in the overall environment (Thomas et al. 1986:266). Family groups would commonly forage from the spring to the fall by exploiting key resources or staples distributed across the region in patchy resources. Groups would winter over in a single location not far from food caches and near a more permanent source of water. In more stable environments with better resources in the Reese River, Ruby, Spring, and Big Smoky valleys winter villages were more stable, occurring at the same location year after year. In the more marginal areas of their east territory such as the Kawich Mountains, Battle Mountain, and Goshute Territory, the location of winter villages varied depending on the location of the more productive pinyon areas, which would vary in intensity from grove to grove each year. Due to the scarcity of resources and difficulty in transportation, small family groups would forage for resources over a large area. In winter some ten to fifteen families would form a village near their food cache several miles from the next village. In areas of abundant pinyon local groups were reliant on the resource as a staple (Steward 1938; Thomas et al. 1986:266-267). During the gathering season in the fall, families would procure pine nuts from the nearest mountains, traveling together under their village chief. A typical family could gather around 1,200 pounds of pine nuts within a few weeks, enough to last a four-month period during the harsh winter before spring growth. Groups would often cache the large store of food near the gathering location for use later during the winter months.


Mesa Field Services

13

Figure 3. Distribution of Shoshone groups in the Great Basin (Steward 1937:Figure 1).


Mesa Field Services

14

In the fall men burned brush and in the spring sowed cheno-podium and other seeds. Seed plots were generally regarded as family property and sowed plots were protected against trespass. However, if a neighbor was in need they might be given permission to gather seeds on these plots or given seeds outright. Winter residential sites were generally positioned in the foothills between 5,000 and 8,000 feet near their pinyon caches (Steward 1937). Pine nut seeds were procured in the White Pine Mountains while sunflower, redtop grass, and other wild seeds were procured from the lush Duckwater Valley (Steward 1938:119). Large game was much scarcer than vegetal resources in eastern Great Basin (Steward 1937:628; Steward 1938:33). As during the Middle Archaic, Big Horn sheep remained the most important big game animal exploited in the region. Ranked second to the Big Horn was antelope. Rabbits also played an important part in the subsistence economy of the Western Shoshone. They would often come together for rabbit drives where large groups of people would herd rabbits together and dispatched them with clubs. In addition to being utilized for food, rabbits were also an important source of fur for blankets and clothing. Burrowing rodents and lizards were also taken. Fish were not a serious source of food except in well-watered areas such as the Reese and Humboldt River Valleys. Antelope lived in large herds in open terrain requiring communal hunting in the form of an antelope drive that typically involved several groups of people that would come together and cooperate for the hunt. Similar to the rabbit drive, an antelope drive was one of the few occasions large groups of people could come together and often festivals would also have taken place. The antelope would have been driven down into a V-shaped enclosure or corral comprised of brush, stone, and poles. An antelope shaman had the power to capture an animal’s soul through dreams, song, and other spiritual devices thereby “charming” them into the center of the corral (Thomas et al. 1986:267). Bowmen around the corral shot the animals, which were then skinned, butchered, and the meat dried (Steward 1938:120). Festivals were held in spring, midsummer, and fall at Duckwater. After the introduction of horses and improved transportation Deep Creek Goshute would attend festivals and Antelope Hunts at Duckwater (Steward 1938:120).

Technology Western Shoshone technology summarized by Thomas et al. (1986:269) is discussed below. Coiled baskets, twined seed beaters, and triangular winnowing trays characterize the basketry complex. Western Shoshone made twined basketry with the coiling method of construction basically being abandoned in the area. Sinew backed bow of juniper with horn glue was widely used. Arrow shafts made of reed and willow was hardened and straightened with double grooved heated stones. Animal bones and antlers were manufactured into eating utensils and digging instruments (Crum 1994:9). Brown ware pottery has been recovered from Late Archaic sites in the Western Great Basin and at sites post-dating the production of Fremont wares for the eastern Great Basin starting around 500 B.P. Intermountain Brown ware is a general term to describe post Fremont period ceramic production in the Great Basin (Hockett and Morgenstein 2003:7). The low quality pottery is also referred to as Shoshone ware in the vicinity of the APE and is manufactured from local clay


Mesa Field Services

15

deposits. The clay had a residual temper with the outer surfaces occasionally decorated with indentations. Brown wares from eastern Nevada are undecorated and made from coil and slab method with scraping marks often visible on surfaces from smoothing the pot. Vessels include flowerpot like forms with a rounded, cone like base to flat bottomed pots that occasionally exhibit impressions of basketry on the base.

Shelter Due to the highly mobile way of life, structures tended to be simplistic (Thomas et al. 1986:268). The type of structure employed was dependent on a number of factors, but primarily on the duration of stay and availability of local materials. Few structures were subterranean with winter structures being restricted to the surface and comprised of a light frame covered with slabs of bark or grass and skins, sometimes surrounded by a single tier of rock to keep supports firmly placed in the ground (Crum 1994:8). Summer structures often consisted of a mere circular sunshade comprised of brush.


Mesa Field Services

16

Historic Overview (200 to 50 B.P.) The APE is found within the White Pine Range located in southwestern of White Pine County, approximately 30 miles southwest of Ely, Nevada.

Early Exploration In the 1820s the Great Basin was one of the largest expanses of the United States that remained unexplored (Morgan 1997:36). Early American exploration of Nevada was first accomplished by fur trapping and trading. At the time fur hats and coats were a popular fashion in Europe and eastern North America as Wild West items that fueled the expansion for furs into the Great Basin by British and American Enterprises. The first American explorer that crossed through Nevada was Jedediah Smith with the Rocky Mountain Fur Company on his way to California (Morgan 1997:31-33). Smith passed through southern Nevada from Utah by way of the Virgin River in late 1826. On his return, the following year, Smith entered Nevada crossing the Wassuk Range and passing south of Walker Lake (Hulse 1978:38). Peter Skene Ogden of the Hudson Bay Company traveled from the Humboldt River, beyond the Humboldt Sink, to the Carson and Walker Rivers in 1828. On return, in 1829-1830, Ogden and his men explored the Lower Humboldt River, the Humboldt Sink, the lower Carson River, the Walker Lake area, and the central Great Basin to the Colorado River (Hulse 1978:39). In 1833, Joseph Walker, chief lieutenant for Captain Bonneville, led a party of explorers and trappers along the Humboldt River, up into the Sierra Nevada through the Carson or Walker River Valley to California. These early forays resulted in a loose collection of experiences concerning the Great Basin but did not result in a body of knowledge for the area in an official capacity. John C. Fremont, working for the Bureau of Topographical Engineers, was the first professional surveyor to enter the Great Basin. Through official government reports Fremont was the first to provide detailed knowledge that contributed the most to the opening of the Great Basin and Nevada making a significant contribution to the expansion of the American West (Egan 1985). Fremont recorded flora, fauna, and geological data in addition to travel routes, proper season of travel, necessary supply limits to make the journey possible, etc. Fremont passed through central Nevada on his third western expedition during the years of 1845-1846 (Egan 1985:300). He entered Nevada from the Great Salt Desert in the vicinity of Pilot Peak, near present day Wendover. Pilot Peak would later become an important landmark for people on the California Trail. The party split into two with the main expedition taking what was to later become the California Trail through the Humboldt River Valley. Fremont and ten volunteers, including Kit Carson, headed southwest toward a large lake near present day Hawthorne, known today as Walker Lake (Egan 1985:302). Fremont’s expedition traveled south into the Ruby Valley around the northern slopes of the Monitor Range and across the Toquima Range into Big Smoky Valley and reached the shores of Walker Lake on November 24th (Egan 1985:303). Other early explorers include, J. B. Bartleson and John Bidwell who, in 1841, guided an immigrant party to California along the Humboldt River (d’Azevedo 1986). As additional explorations were made and routes were established in the region, more travelers and emigrants were to follow. After the discovery of gold in California in 1848, the flow of emigrants increased considerably. The Chiles Party in 1842 and the Walker Party in 1843 followed a similar route to that blazed by the Bidwell-Bartleson Party in 1841, making further refinements


Mesa Field Services

17

to the route (Curran 1982:26). During the summer of 1848, a Mormon wagon trail returning to Salt Lake City followed a new route from Placerville to the Humboldt River Route. Joseph Chiles heard of the new route and helped to further define the Carson River Route, which lead from Humboldt Sink to Churchill Valley, Dayton, and Genoa, then continued to California through Carson Pass. After the discovery of gold in California in 1848, many emigrants used the Carson River Route (Curran 1982).

Settlement The incursion by Euro-Americans into Western Shoshone territories had a detrimental effect on the traditional life ways of the Native Americans in the Great Basin. After Fremont established routes through the Great Basin emigrants prior to 1848 were primarily farmers passing through the Great Basin along the California Trail in low numbers on their way to the coast (Hardesty 1997:20). In 1848 both the signing of the Treaty of Hidalgo ceding northern Mexico to the United States and gold discovered at Sutter’s Mill forced many more down the trail in the ensuing years. Between 1840-1848, 2,735 emigrants reached California over the California Trail (Hardesty 1997:20). After discovery of gold hysteria ensued, 60,000 people took the overland route in 1849 alone (Crum 1994:18). By the early 1850s, Native Americans began to sustain significant impact to their way of life and survival as ever increasing numbers of emigrant groups and their stock moved through the area depleting local food sources and restricted the native population from water sources. These threats caused friction between the populations largely leading to the end of the traditional native way of life by the 1870s. Congress established the Territory of Nevada in March of 1861 and on October 31, 1864, Nevada became the 36th state after telegraphing the Constitution of Nevada to Congress just days before the November 8 presidential election (Hulse 2004:74-90). White Pine County was formed from portions of Lander on April 1st, 1869 (Angel 1881:650). Some of the earliest and first major development in White Pine County is associated with the White Pine Rush in the White Pine Mountains near the vicinity of Hamilton Mountain, which experienced an influx of 25,000 miners by 1869 (Angel 1881:650). Although the strikes were rich, resulting in the formation of a number of towns including Hamilton and Treasure City, the mines were largely played out by the 1870s. Hamilton remained the county seat until 1875. Once the Eureka to Palisades spur to the central Pacific Railroad was built in 1875 Eureka became a center of stage transportation for Hamilton and Pioche and a stage route ran between Hamilton south to Pioche along Ellison Creek. After the end of the major mining period for Nevada local economies shifted to agricultural production with a number of ranches being developed in Railroad Valley, which was known as Warm Springs Valley, as early as 1867. White River Valley to the east was well watered and used for raising livestock as well. Two of the closest ranches to the APE include the Tom Plain Ranch just north east of the APE and the Ellison Ranch to the southeast. Both are located along the Hamilton to Pioche stage route. Economic activity in the county would eventually coalesce around the large copper deposits being mined in the Ely vicinity. The Nevada Northern Railroad was incorporated on June 1, 1905 and the opening of the route was signaled by the advent of Railroad Days in Ely, Nevada in September of 1906 (Myrick 1992:115-116). The railway was needed to handle the large quantity


Mesa Field Services

18

of copper being produced in the Ely vicinity at the time making the town the center of economic activity in the county with a focus on the extraction of copper to this day (Hall 1994:144-146). The APE experienced earlier modern mining activity during the late 1990s when Alta Gold developed an open pit leach facility in the center-west portion of the APE.


Mesa Field Services

19

4. CULTURAL CONTEXT The significance of resources in the APE should be evaluated within a regionally relevant framework or context when determining their relative significance to the NRHP at the local, regional, and worldwide level (Hardesty and Little 2009; NPS 1995). What is needed is the development of a series of middle range research questions specifically relevant to the APE that can link history to the archaeological record. A proper historic sequence provides an analytical framework within which the significance of an archaeological site or district can be understood. Research questions should not be over generalized and applicable to any cultural resource inventory in North American such as food practices, technology etc. (Hardesty 1990). They should be tailored to the resources at hand and within the limits of the proposed undertaking by being able to reach specific, detailed, and reliably supported conclusions within a reasonable amount of time (Hardesty 1990:43). Sites identified within the APE were evaluated based on their ability to meet the four National Register criteria. National Register eligibility recommendations were developed using the aspects of the historic context appropriate to the cultural resources identified during the inventory. Cultural resources were examined to determine significance based on property type, resources present, integrity, and association with time, space, and themes important to local, state, or national history. Guidelines provided in the National Register Bulletin 15 (NPS 1995) stipulate that properties must, as a rule, be at least 50 years old and meet requirements for site significance for listing on the NR under at least one of the following criteria: Criterion A: Association with major events or patterns of events significant in U.S.,

Nevada, or local history, or traditional cultural values. Criterion B: Association with persons important in the past. Criterion C: Representative of the distinctive characteristics of a particular type,

period, or method of construction; of the works of a master; of high artistic values; or of a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

Criterion D: Have the potential to yield important information to understanding

prehistory or history. In general, moved properties; birthplaces; cemeteries; reconstructed buildings, structures, or objects; commemorative properties; and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not considered eligible for the NR.

According to the guidelines a regionally relevant historic context is needed for determining the significance of a cultural property. A proper evaluation of a property’s significance must be based on the four criteria (A, B, C, or D). However, a site’s mere association with historic events, trends, or important person in the past is not enough for establishing eligibility for Criterion A and B. A property's specific association must be considered. In addition to the use of cultural contexts, arguments of significance should also consider comparisons with similar known sites in the area relative to the region’s prehistory and history, an appraisal of the


Mesa Field Services

20

expected kinds of information that the site could yield, and judgments about a cultural property’s research potential. Not only should a property have an important association with historic trends it must also retain its historic integrity. Evaluation of the integrity of a property can occur after the establishment of significance. An assessment of integrity relative to the data potential of a site depends on the research design or questions. It is important that the significant data contained in the property be preserved or is present to address important information relevant to a property’s significance (NPS 1995:23). Sites must not just meet eligibility criteria relevant to the local context but its key features must retain their integrity to convey its significance. An evaluation of integrity must be grounded in an understanding of the properties physical features and how they relate to its significance (NPS 1995:44). The National Parks Service (1995) defines seven aspects to integrity including: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain historical integrity a property should meet at least a few of these aspects. Determining which aspects are more important to the resource is determined by its association with the local relevant historic context. Location: The construction place of the historic property or place where the historic

event occurred. Location helps in understanding the “why” of a construction or an event.

Design: The result of the conception and planning that create the form, plan, space,

structure, technology, scale, materials, functions, aesthetics, and style of a property.

Setting: The character of the physical environment of a historic property. Setting,

or how the property is situated, includes topographic features, vegetation, cultural features, relationships between features, and open space.

Materials: The combination of physical elements that were used to create a historic

property during a particular period of time in a particular pattern. The property must retain actual historic resources dating from the period of its significance.

Workmanship: The evidence of artisans’ labor and skill of a particular culture or people in

creating a property during any given period in history or prehistory. Feeling: The presence of physical features that express the aesthetic or historic

sense of a particular period of time. Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and an

historic property.


Mesa Field Services

21

Assessing integrity requires determining whether or not the property retains the identity for which it is significant. A property that retains integrity may possess several of the seven aspects, as well as the essential features that define why a property is significant and when it was significant. Archaeological sites eligible under Criteria A and B must retain excellent preservation of features, artifacts, and spatial relationships to convey important associations with events or persons. For Criterion C, sites must retain the majority of features to illustrate a site type, time period, method of construction, or work of a master. Overall condition is less important under Criterion D, in which integrity is based upon the property’s data potential, as shown by intact or identifiable relationships among artifacts, features, and other elements of the site. A “property is not eligible if it cannot be related to a particular time period or cultural group and, as a result, lacks any historic context within which to evaluate the importance of the information to be gained” (NPS 1995:22).


Mesa Field Services

22

Prehistoric An attempt is made to evaluate prehistoric properties under all four criteria; however, the lack of written records compounds the difficulty in the development of prehistoric contexts and sites are most frequently considered eligible under Criterion D. Using the concepts of theme, place, and time a broad-based prehistoric context can be developed to address eligibility of prehistoric resources within the APE. Chronometric data such as diagnostic artifacts or features, with the potential for dating, must be present for a site to be considered eligible for the NRHP. Chronometric data is critical to defining the different periods of the past and trends over time. In addition, a site must retain sufficient integrity to yield important information that can address relevant research issues to the area of concern. A prehistoric site with additional research potential should be datable and contain significant subsurface deposits that are able to address one or more of the following broad based research themes: Chronology, Land Use Patterns, Site Structure, and Trade and Exchange. The four themes center on research issues that may help illuminate prehistoric occupation and land use for the vicinity of the APE over time.

Chronology One of the more critical data classes for reconstructing prehistoric human activities, land use patterns, and, ultimately, behavior, is the establishment of a chronological sequence. Chronology is the most important and basic research issue in any region, particularly in relation to questions involving human adaptation to changing environmental, technological, and population dynamics. Chronological placement allows for the definition of different time periods or trends in a region over time critical to our understanding of the past. A number of projectile point types and series are generally accepted as reliable chronological indicators, although testing with other datable deposits and relative obsidian hydration results are also contributors to our understanding of a sites chronology (Beck and Jones 1994; Hockett 1995). Chronology is important to our understanding of the remaining research issues. Secure dates on sites, features, and artifacts provide the basis for developing chronologies capable of being used for both temporal and regional comparison. The lack of high-resolution chronological data is commonplace in the Great Basin with temporal associations for most sites assigned from the presence of diagnostic projectile points from surface assemblages. Projectile Points Although all periods associated with the local chronological sequence are in need of additional refinement there are a number of research issues surrounding the nature of the Pleistocene occupation, adaptive strategies associated with the transition to the Holocene, and the nature and timing of the arrival of Middle Archaic point types from the eastern Great Basin. Since few datable deposits associated with Clovis have been identified in the Great Basin the timing and relationship of fluted points to stemmed forms is poorly understood. It is not clear if stemmed points are contemporaneous with fluted points or are a separate tool tradition. The only thing for sure is stemmed points are much more widely distributed across the Great Basin and were in use for a much longer duration than Clovis occupations identified elsewhere on the continent. There are few unambiguous time markers dating to the Pleistocene early Holocene transition, as a result, most other aspects concerning the early occupation in the Great Basin are not well understood. Major issues that compound the difficulty in our understanding of the Paleoarchaic are relevant diagnostic artifacts associated with the early Holocene overlap with the preceding Pleistocene.


Mesa Field Services

23

Concerning the Middle Archaic transition, large side-notched points and Gatecliff points (including Pinto) first used during the Early Archaic persist into the Middle Archaic and are sparsely represented in the record. Few research oriented projects have been conducted concerning the nature of the record between the Bonneville Basin and Central Nevada with the vicinity of the APE reliant on point types sequenced by David Hearst Thomas at Gatecliff Shelter and Monitor Valley in central Nevada (Thomas 1981; Hockett 1995:41). Local date ranges for Archaic points may be significantly different for eastern Great Basin than for the west with gradual diffusion of Early Archaic Elko and Gatecliff forms to the west by the Middle Archaic. Elko points recovered from Danger and Hogup caves reveal the presence of Elko points in the Bonneville Basin as early as 8,000 years ago, nearly 3,000 years earlier than at Gatecliff Shelter (Hockett 1995:43). An obsidian hydration analysis of 109 projectile points from northeastern Nevada reveals Elko and Split Stem or Pinto forms may have been in the Bonneville Basin region as early as 8,000 years ago with a date slightly later for northeastern Nevada (Hockett 1995). The presence of these point types at Gatecliff between 5,000 and 3,300 supports the theory of gradual diffusion of these forms from the east. The identification of these forms in the landscape can serve as an important indicator by identifying the source material and hydration readings to determine the age to help confirm the older date ranges for the local chronology. This is not only a local issue of relative importance for the Early Archaic period is poorly understood across North America and any knowledge we can contribute to these two early and least understood transitions in North American prehistory would constitutes a significant contribution. Data Requirements Research issues associated with the contemporaneity of fluted and stemmed points and the nature of late Pleistocene early Holocene transition cannot be effectively addressed under the confines of a surface investigation. What is needed to identify the transition is a number of intact datable deposits that cover the full range of the period. The nature of transitional periods could potentially be addressed if sites or activity areas can be defined that are associated with a single use event and contain both stemmed points and the earliest dart points. Research questions and data needs center on the presence and nature of stemmed point related deposits or components. Do stemmed points occur isolated or with earlier fluted or later Archaic dart points? A number of obsidian artifacts, or datable features present at a site could also address questions associated with the nature and timing of the transitions. Chronological information is paramount to properly address questions associated with reuse/reoccupation over time and to distinguish temporally specific activity areas from one another on multi-component sites as well as identifying diagnostic patterns associated with land use, site structure, and trade and exchange. The lack of chronometric data for small non-diagnostic lithic scatters makes it impossible to place a site’s prehistoric occupation within any of the regional periods. However, it is difficult to rule out the presence of chronological indicators during the confines of a surface inspection for all too often sites contain additional buried deposits in the form of artifacts and potential thermal features that could address chronology. In this instance, the site retains additional information potential or integrity in the form of buried deposits that could address the outlined research themes. This is why prehistoric sites are often evaluated under Criterion D.


Mesa Field Services

24

Land Use Patterns Land use patterns relate to a prehistoric population’s land use strategy. This is a broad category that includes but is not limited to issues of settlement, subsistence, and material production including lithic procurement. The research theme is based on the assumption that prehistoric activities have a direct relationship to landscape features and resource distributions. Binford’s (1980) model of foraging and collecting hunter-gatherer land use systems figures prominently in Great Basin archaeology as research has attempted to interpret variation in settlement patterns across both space and time. It is assumed landscape use is tied to the spatial position of key resources such as tool stone, water, game, and vegetation communities. The position of these key resources is potentially reflected in patterns of site type or use and distribution important to our understanding of resource acquisition strategies and mobility patterns and how they change over time. Hunter-gatherer land use systems are dynamic, changing in response to shifting environments and social factors such as population growth, movement, and territorial restrictions. The interpretation of land use is dependent on our understanding or how a site is used such as whether it is a base camp or a satellite site, a short term encampment for the procurement or processing of resources on a seasonal basis. A site must be able to provide data that can answer some of these basic questions such as what types of activities are represented at the site and how it compares to other sites in the area or relevant region or territory. Obsidian sourcing and hydration studies have gained in importance in the Great Basin for obsidian is prevalent at sites in northern Nevada and can provide both a source location on the landscape and temporal data important for addressing settlement mobility and changes over time. Obsidian sourcing and hydration analysis can contribute valuable data concerning broad land use patterns; however, we must be careful in interpretations for the tracing of obsidian artifacts to a specific source can reflect either direct or procurement by site occupants or acquisition through trade. Key to our understanding of land use practice is our need for reliable information on the different periods’ subsistence practices. The interpretation of land use strategies based on the distribution of lithic tool sources and analysis of their use alone is not adequate. However, almost no direct data concerning subsistence has been recovered in the archaeological record for the Great Basin. Interpretation of subsistence practices from open-air sites has been largely reliant on indirect evidence such as the analysis of projectile point sequences and associated tools including the presence or absence of groundstone artifacts to infer a reliance on vegetal food or the processing of seeds. Little is known concerning land use strategies for the Paleoarchaic period particularly as their occupation relates to the use of upland environments. Although adaptive strategies associated with fluted and stemmed point occupations were initially believed to be focused on lacustrine habitats, later work and synthesis has revealed the use of upland environments by people of the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition by the presence of upland resources identified at Smith Creek Cave and Bonneville Estates Rockshelter. Details concerning the timing and nature of the use of upland environments have yet to be discussed in much detail. Estes’ (2009) Jakes Valley synthesis identifies upland environments between 6,370 and 7,185 feet as containing stemmed point occupations; however, there is no mention of Paleoarchaic use of upland environments above 8,000 feet in elevation. The elevation associated with the use of upland environments is


Mesa Field Services

25

not generally discussed. The mechanics of uplands use strategies should include reference to specific mountain ranges and elevations. Data Requirements To address this issue a site’s significance cannot be addressed by itself but must be compared to the region as a whole and its ability to contribute to our understanding of land use patterns for eastern Nevada. Without chronological placement it is difficult to directly compare the occupation of a site to others in the region that have temporal associations. A site should contain tools or features that might reveal task specific activities that could contribute to our understanding of local land use strategies. A significant contributor would be the presence of obsidian artifacts, especially projectile points, suitable for dating and sourcing studies. Sites containing groundstone, hunting blinds, tools or pinyon caches, the identification of potential sites types as they relate to activities and their spatial patterning across the landscape can address questions relating to seasonal resource acquisition strategies.

Site Structure Site structure relates to how a site or area has been utilized. This research theme is valuable to our understanding of prehistory for its ability to interpret how resources were utilized and deposited or discarded on the landscape. An important issue associated with this research theme centers on small sites that are defined by only a few formed tools. Small sites have traditionally been deemed insignificant since it is assumed they represent short stays with little potential in regard to chronology and settlement issues. However, small sites constitute the bulk of the archaeological record and excavations at some small sites have yielded datable hearth features. Small sites should not be discarded outright but be examined more closely to assess their research value with their potential to yield additional and relevant data in a buried context that could address some of the more significant research issues outlined in this section. Data Requirements Various types of datable sites with discrete clusters of artifacts or spatial patterning, sites located in good depositional environments that retain integrity in the form of subsurface cultural material, and sites that appear to represent single occupations or activity areas at large sites that can be isolated are needed to address this research issue. A site’s structure is key to defining different site types, site activities, and their placement on the landscape across time.

Trade and Exchange This research issue relates to the identification of and distribution of trade goods both within and between regions. Trade relationships within the Great Basin itself are distinguished by a variety of regional goods. Extra-regional trade goods are rare and could include Pacific Coast shell beads and pendants, turquoise from Arizona and possibly central Nevada, and Anasazi ceramics. For small sites with limited artifact assemblages, task specific activities often do not contain data associated with trade and exchange. Not only does trade and exchange appear to be limited for Paleoarchaic and Archaic groups, whom predominantly used locally available resources, limited information regarding trade relations with other regions has been identified in the archaeological record of the Great Basin. Local exchange is more likely and could be represented by inter-valley, nearest neighbor encounters. Regional exchange may be represented at lithic scatter sites as material from regionally important quarries were traded over large areas. For example basin-


Mesa Field Services

26

wide exchange for central and eastern Nevada may be seen in the dispersion of Tosawihi cherts, and Brown’s Bench obsidian sources. One common method of identifying trade and exchange is through the identification and tracking of tool sources such as chert and obsidian. However, it is often difficult to determine if the resources were traded within a prehistoric group’s territory or between territories. Data Requirements Existing studies of toolstone transport suggest tool size decreases and late stage lithic reduction strategies can increase with distance from sources. Since site assemblages in the Great Basin are dominated by the presence of stone tools, waste flakes toolstone sourcing studies, lithic reduction sequences, and tool use is typically employed when trying to address issues associated with trade and exchange. For example, Paleoindian assemblages, including Paleoarchaic tool kits, are believed to be highly curated containing high grade and exotic tool stones. To address this significant issue sites should contain distinct artifacts that can address the issue of trade and exchange such as non-local toolstone or a potential trade items such as beads or pottery. The identification of exotic forms of toolstone can address research issues associated with both land use and trade and exchange for the Paleoarchaic groups who are believed to be highly residentially mobile people in contrast to later Archaic groups.

Property Types Previous archaeological work in central Nevada has defined nine prehistoric site types including; chipping station/workshops, open camp/gathering sites, rock shelters/caves, rock act, rock alignments, quarry sites, habitation sites, milling stations, and isolates (Hanes and Ball 1982:101). Rock shelters/caves, rock act, rock alignments, and quarry sites were not noted within the APE and are not discussed further. Habitation sites may be better described as residential bases, with subtypes being seasonal settlements, multi-seasonal settlements, and permanent settlements. Habitation sites should resemble more of a built environment where a variety of processing activities could be present often in substantial deposits that have built up over time. Cultural features could include midden deposits, dwellings, storage facilities, hearths, and a broad artifact assemblage comprised of non-portable items and a variety of tools. Residential base sites are generally located in close proximity to overlapping resource areas such as access to water, firewood, sheltered location, and high-density clusters of plant and animal resources. Habitation sites should be more patterned and relatively more complex than temporary or non-habitation sites and retain the potential to yield information concerning technology, resource procurement, subsistence strategies, trade networks, and adaptation to environmental fluctuation and change. Non-habitation sites encompass a wide variety of different resource procurement or processing activities that can be attributed to lithic procurement, hunting, or vegetal procurement strategies for example. Many of these types of sites are small consisting of only a few tens of artifacts that may be difficult to determine its specific use strategy. For these types of sites to be considered eligible they should contain enough diversity to indicate what type of activity the site relates to. These open campsites may contain stone tools, groundstone, debitage, or fire-cracked rock that represents temporary occupation by small groups of people moving across resource areas within a seasonal subsistence cycle. These property types are generally located within close proximity


Mesa Field Services

27

to the resources being exploited including hunting camps where game was butchered and processed, seed gathering and processing camps, or other camps focused on resource extraction activities. Field camps are generally less built and less patterned with few instances of elaborate cultural features beyond simple hearths. Recurrent field camps can often results in denser artifact concentrations with little pronounced clustering reflecting temporal or functional differences in the assemblage. Field camps may be recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP if they retain potential to provide information about subsistence strategies, lithic technologies, resource procurement, and use activities of past occupants. Campsites without subsurface deposits but with artifact diversity and a high frequency of cultural materials may still provide enough information to investigate patterns of raw material use, spatial relationships, social organization, trade, and technology. Sites associated with procurement activities include hunting\butchering sites, plant collection sites, and lithic quarries/initial reduction sites. Hunting sites have the ability to address research themes surrounding chronology, land use patterns, and trade and exchange. Artifact assemblages should include projectile point fragments, knives, scrapers, hammerstones, and debitage typical of late stage lithic reduction. The number and pattern or placement of hunting related sites across the landscape has the potential to provide information about hunting and subsistence practices associated with each period. Material and tool type analysis has the potential to provide data on tool technology, hunting strategies, resource procurement, and the potential for exchange of preferred or exotic tool stone. Although plant collection sites can occur in many settings, evidence of this site type may be difficult to discern in the archaeological record due the perishable nature and portability of the equipment used, mainly baskets and wooden objects. Plant gathering activities and resource areas may provide information about prehistoric subsistence strategies and cultural adaptations to climatic change. The presence of groundstone is the most obvious indicator of vegetal processing at a site. Assemblages also typically include expedient scraping tools in contrast to hunting sites, and would typically not include significant numbers of projectile points unless both activities are taking place on site. Lithic quarry/initial reduction sites are represented by utilized raw lithic material for tools, discarded/exhausted cores, tested cobbles, hammerstones and hammerstone spalls, partially finished tools, flakes with cortex, un-retouched tool preforms/blanks, and spatially discrete knapping areas. Quarry sites may provide information about a particular reduction technique, mobility patterns, trade and exchange, and procurement strategies.


Mesa Field Services

28

Historic Only by identifying the property types present, their associated theme, and relevance to the local historic context can a proper evaluation of a site’s significance be accomplished. With the exception of two small short term encampments containing domestic debris, historic sites attributed to a specific land use strategy were not identified within the APE. The sites could be attributed to ranching or mining. However, the absence of land use specific artifacts or features makes it impossible to address specific research issues surrounding the historic use of the APE and vicinity. The sites date to the turn of the twentieth century and are not unique and were deposited at a time of widespread rural use and occupation of Nevada during the significant period of agricultural development. The sites are not rare or unique; therefore, the context and research issues cannot be considered for the current undertaking. The sites cannot be directly related to a historic research theme relevant to the local cultural context and are not considered eligible to the under any of the four NRHP established criteria.


Mesa Field Services

29

5. ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND The APE is located at the southern extent of Indian Garden Mountain in the White Pine Range, approximately 60 miles southwest of Ely, Nevada. Ellison Creek is only a couple of miles to the east and two of its unnamed tributaries cross the APE. One tributary extends from the north, south along the western edge of the APE and then turns east near the southern boundary of the APE. The second tributary extends east to west across the northern portion of the APE. The APE ranges from steep mountain slopes to narrow valleys. The elevation ranges between a low of 7,400 to a high of 8,339 feet. The nearest climatic data available for the APE is from Lund, Nevada, approximately 15 miles southeast of the APE and at a lower elevation of 5,570 feet. The average precipitation for the area is 10.4 inches with the hottest month being July with an average high temperature of 88.9 degrees Fahrenheit and the coldest month being January with an average high of 43 degrees Fahrenheit (Western Regional Climate Center 2012).

Geology The APE is within the White Pine Range near the southern extent of Indian Garden Mountain. The White Pine Mining District, some 10 or more miles to the north but still in the White Pine Range was formed from Paleozoic sediments cut by quartz-monzonite and granodiorite (Lincoln 1982:258). The sediments in the immediate area around the abandoned Griffon Mine consist of limestone with some shale, jasperiod, and intrusive volcanic material. The Web Soil Survey of the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service was consulted, but does not have any information on soils in the APE. Recent work in the area by JBR consultants (2012) indicate that the soils in the area are mostly colluvium, are poorly developed and well drained.

Flora and Fauna The APE is in the Upper Sonoran Life Zone. Vegetation along the mountain is of the pinyon-juniper woodland, with some mountain mahogany on south facing slopes. Animals observed within the APE include red tail hawks, antelope, elk, deer, elk, rattlesnakes, wild horse, and rabbits.


Mesa Field Services

30


Mesa Field Services

31

6. EXPECTATIONS Prior to fieldwork, a background literature search for the project was performed from a variety of sources including historic General Land Office (GLO) and the United State Geological Survey (USGS) maps, historical indices, and land patents. An examination of previous archaeological sites and investigations within a one-mile radius of the APE was researched online with the Nevada Cultural Resource Information System (NVCRIS) database at the Nevada State Museum and records of past projects and recorded sites with the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Ely Ranger District. An aerial review of historic road routes and other potential historic features were examined from Digital Ortho Quadrangles (DOQ). Both the State Register and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) were consulted for potential significant properties in the project vicinity. A review of existing historic contexts related to the APE was also conducted. The compiled resources were used to predict the frequency and kinds of cultural resources that would be expected as well as for defining the cultural history of the APE. The compiled data was used for the following discussion concerning previous archaeological research, field expectations, and cultural overview. The compiled resources were used to predict the frequency and kinds of cultural resources that would be expected as well as for defining the cultural history of the APE. The data is presented below in the following discussion concerning previous archaeological research, and field expectations.

Cultural Resources Records Search Results The following pre-field research incorporated an examination of previous archaeological investigations that took place within one-mile of the current APE in additional to a search of properties listed on the NRHP. A search of previous archaeological investigations and previously recorded sites within one mile of the APE was performed on July 5, 2012 using the NVCRIS electronic database in addition to a record search conducted by Sean Simpson with MFS at the Ely District Office of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest on June 21, 2012. The record search revealed a total of eight previous surveys completed within one-mile of the APE (Table 1). Five of these reports could not be located at the Forest Service and were identified from NVCRIS or site forms located at the Forest Service. The surveys have resulted in the recordation of 37 archaeological sites within one mile of the APE (Table 2). Twelve of the previously recorded sites contain diagnostic artifacts in the form of projectile points. Seven of the twelve contain stemmed point associations or bifaces that could be stemmed points or related technology but that have been identified as bifaces.

Table 1. Previous Projects Within One Mile. Project No. Title Project

Size Transect width

Date & Author Institution

HM88-335 A Cultural Resources Survey in Billiton Minerals USA Inc.’s Griffon Claims, White Pine County, Nevada

536 acres Class II and III, not specified for Class II, 30 m for Class III

Price 1988 Retrospect Research Inc.


Mesa Field Services

32

Project No. Title Project Size

Transect width

Date & Author Institution

HM89-384 A Cultural Resources Survey in Billiton Minerals USA Inc.’s Griffon Claims: Spring 1989 Session

1617 acres Class III, 30 m transect intervals

Price 1989 Retrospect Research Associates

HM96-749 Heritage Resources Inventory Report for the Griffon Open Pit Mine Project in White Pine County, Nevada

1042 acres Class III, 30 m transect intervals

D’Angelo 1997 Archaeological Services Inc.

HM97-761+ Tom Plain Spring Enclosure Fence

1996 USFS

HM97-771* Addendum to HM96-0749, HM96-0744, HM88-335 and HM89-384, Griffon Open Pit Mining Project, White Pine Range, White Pine County, Nevada

HM98-800* HM92-523* HM00-840* Griffon Mine Leach Field *These projects were identified on the NVCRIS database. No other information could be found regarding theses inventories. +This project was identified from site records available at the USFS office. The related report was not available.

Table 2. Previous Recorded Sites within One Mile. Agency No.: Trinomi

al 26WP Project No. Description Eligibility

Rec. In Project Area

04170910978 4109 HM88-335 4 flakes in a 40 x 15 m area Yes 04170910983 HM88-335 Isolated jasper flake Yes 04170910985 4114 HM88-335 6 flakes in 20 x 15 m area No 04170910986 HM88-335 Isolated jasper flake No 04170910987 4115 HM88-335 Lithic scatter with 4 bifaces, 1

projectile point No

04170910988 HM88-335 Isolated jasper flake Yes 04170910990 4117 HM88-335 3 flakes in 10 m area No 04170911012 4079 HM89-384 6 flakes, 1 biface, 1 uniface in 20

x 15 m area None made Yes

04170911013 4080 HM89-384 3 flakes in 10 x 40 m area None made Yes 04170911014 HM89-384 Isolated chert flake None made Yes 04170911015 HM89-384 Isolated basalt flake None made Yes 04170911016 4081 HM89-384 6 flakes, one biface fragment,

one point midsection None made No

04170911032 4092 HM 89-384 8 flakes, 1 projectile point fragment, untyped

None made No


Mesa Field Services

33

Agency No.: Trinomial 26WP

Project No. Description Eligibility Rec.

In Project Area

04170911038 4098 HM89-384 Lithic scatter with 100 – 500 flakes, 1 pinto point, 1 corner-notched point, 3 untyped point fragments, 2 bifaces (one possible Humbolt point), one mano, one metate

None made No

04170911047 4107 HM89-384 Lithic scatter with over 500 flakes, 8 projectile points, 20 biface fragments, 2 manos, 12 metate fragments

None made No

04170912164 4443 HM96-749 38 flakes, one biface, 1 projectile point

Non-Significant

No

*04170912166 4445 HM96-749 14 flakes, 4 bifaces, 1 scraper. One broken biface that could be a stemmed point base.

Non-Significant

No

04170912168 4447 HM96-749 17 flakes, one utilized flake Non-Significant

No

04170912169 4448 HM96-749 5 flakes Non-significant

No


No


No

*04170912172 4451 HM96-749 Lithic scatter with 1 knife fragment, 9 bifaces, 3 projectile points, including 1 stemmed point

Unevaluated No

*04170912174 4453 HM96-749 14 flakes Non-Significant

Yes

*04170912175 4454 HM96-749 7 flakes, one drill, one biface Non-Significant

Yes

*04170912176 4455 HM96-749 12 flakes, one core, 1 biface Non-significant

Yes

04170912177 4456 HM96-749 Four flakes Non-Significant

No

04170912178 4457 HM96-749 10-25 flakes, 2 bifaces Non-significant

No

04170912182 4461 HM96-749 30 flakes, 4 bifaces, 1 chopper, two projectile points

Unevaluated No

04170912183 4462 HM96-749 75+ flakes Non-significant

No

04170912186 4465 HM96-749 500+ flakes, 1 metate, 2 drills, 1 knife, 2 scrapers, 9 bifaces, 10 cores, 14 projectile points

Significant No


Mesa Field Services

34

Agency No.: Trinomial 26WP

Project No. Description Eligibility Rec.

In Project Area

04170912187 4466 HM96-749 34+ flakes, 1 biface, two cores, 1 point fragment

Non-significant

No

04170912191 4470 HM96-749 10-25 flakes, two bifaces, four projectile points

Significant No

04170912192 4471 HM96-749 500+ flakes, 7 bifaces, 2 cores Non-Significant

No

04170912196 4475 HM96-749 100-500 flakes, 1 chopper, 13 biface fragments, 1 preform, 2 Elko style points, 2 cores

Unevaluated No

*04170912197 4476 HM96-749 500+ flakes, 2 Elko projectile points, 1 Rose Spring point. Bifaces at the site could be stemmed point or related

Significant No

*04170912199 4478 HM96-749 500+ flakes, two untyped points, 16 biface fragments. One basalt stemmed point midesection

Unevaluated No

*04170912341 None found

HM97-761 Lithic scatter with several concentrations, 2 projectile points, bifaces, a drill, 2 scrapers, 20 utilized flakes. Partial knife is most likely a stemmed point

Significant No

* Sites containing stemmed points or possibly stemmed points identified as bifaces.

Archival Research Online research was conducted of GLO plats, historic topographic maps, federal and state patent records, historical indices, master title plats using the BLM Public Land Records website as well as both the State and National Registers of Historic Places for listed resources within or near the APE. Two 1874 survey plat maps (T14N, R58E and T14N, R59E) were identified for the area. The T14N, R59E map depicted a road identified as Road and Telegraph with the Ellisons House located in Section 28 along the road. These historic resources are located almost 2 miles east of the APE. The review of the National and State Registers revealed the closest listed property being in Ely, Nevada.


Mesa Field Services

35

7. INVENTORY METHODS In this section, the procedures and standards that were used during fieldwork and for the completion of the report are identified and discussed. All survey and site inventory methods correspond to Class III inventory standards outlined by the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (2012) and in the scope of work for heritage compliance specific to the Griffon Project provided by Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (2012). The client provided maps and ESRI shape files in datum NAD 83 indicating the boundaries of the APE.

Survey Methods Survey of the APE was accomplished by walking parallel transects spaced no more than 30 meters apart as specified for moderate sensitivity areas to ensure the protection of cultural resources. Coverage was completed using cardinal transect techniques, either surveying east to west or north to south. The project boundary consists of a block survey of approximately 954 acres. However 54 of these acres are in an existing mine pit, and therefore excluded from this survey. The total area surveyed is about 900 acres.

Site Recording and Artifact Analysis A site is defined as any location containing three or more artifacts or features spaced no more than 30 meters apart. An isolate is considered two or fewer artifacts spatially discrete from other artifacts by a minimum distance of 30 meters. A single artifact broken into two or more pieces, for example a bottle or ceramic vessel, is to be considered a single artifact. All sites were documented in the field on a Forest Service Intermountain Antiquities Computer System (IMACS) site form required for recordation of all cultural resources identified during the survey. Aluminum site tags with field numbers were placed and mapped within site boundaries designating their location in the field. Sites were photographed, providing at least two overviews of the location and setting. Photographs were taken in TIFF format and at a minimum of 10 megapixels using 600 dpi. Site locations were mapped with an Ashtech Mobile Mapper 10 GPS unit, with one to two meters accuracy, with data generated to create an accurate sketch map within relative position to the proposed APE.


Mesa Field Services

36


Mesa Field Services

37

8. RESULTS As a result of the survey eight archaeological sites (Table 3) and nine isolated artifacts (Table 4) were inventoried (Appendices A and B). Three of the sites are previously recorded and five are new discoveries. The sites include six prehistoric (04170912174 to 04170912176, and 04170913496 to 04170913498) and two historic sites (04170913495 and 04170913499). The two historic sites are comprised of limited scatters of domestic related artifacts and are not recommended eligible to the NRHP. The majority of prehistoric sites are small lithic scatters with projectile points, most likely attributed to limited hunting forays in the high country during the Paleoarchaic. One larger site (04170912174) included a variety of projectile point types from different time periods and groundstone suggesting a possible base camp used repeatedly over a broad period of prehistory. Four of the prehistoric sites are recommended eligible to the NRHP including three with potential Paleoarchaic components (04170912174 to 04170912176) and a middle Archaic site with groundstone (04170913498). Both Paleoarchaic sites and Middle Archaic sites with groundstone are rare in the White Pine Mountain Range and offer the potential to contribute significant insight into land use strategies of upland environments for these little understood periods of prehistory. The documentation of Paleoarchaic sites in upland environments in close proximity to Estes’ synthesis of Western Fluted and Western Stemmed Tradition land use strategies in high altitude basins of the Great Basin offers the potential to expand our understanding of Paleoarchaic land use strategies. Additionally, the four sites maintain integrity of location and are recommended eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D.

Table 3. Site Summaries and NRHP Recommendations.

Agency No.: Trinomial 26WP Description

Cultural Affiliation

NRHP Eligibility (Criteria)

04170912174 4453 Prehistoric site with Elko Corner Notched and Rosegate Cluster points and groundstone

Paleoarchaic, Middle, and Late Archaic

Not eligible

04170912175 4454 Prehistoric lithic scatter with stemmed point Paleoarchaic Not eligible

04170912176 4455 Small lithic scatter with tools close to 041709122175

Paleoarchaic Not eligible

04170913495 11517 Historic can scatter Early 1900 Not eligible

04170913496 11518 Small non diagnostic lithic scatter Unknown prehistoric Not eligible

04170913497 11519 Northern Side Notched and stemmed point Paleoarchaic\ Early Archaic Not eligible

04170913498 11520 Prehistoric artifact scatter with Gatecliff Contracting Stem point and groundstone

Middle Archaic Not eligible

04170913499 11521 Historic refuse scatter with amethyst bottle Around 1900 Not eligible

Table 4. Isolate Summaries. Isolate Number

Description UTM Coordinates Legal Location Easting Northing

1 One white late stage chert flake with five dorsal scars. Has lichen on 10% of the surface area.

NW¼, SE¼, SW¼ of Section 13, T14N, R58E

2 One red jasperite mid stage reduction flake, has two facets with no dorsal scar.

NE¼, NE¼, NW¼ of Section 24, T14N, R58E


Mesa Field Services

38

Isolate Number

Description UTM Coordinates Legal Location Easting Northing

3 One basalt stemmed point midsection. Measures (3.5) x 2 x 0.4 cm.

SE¼, SE¼, SW¼ of Section 13, T14N, R58E

4 One basalt proximal end fragment of a stemmed point. Measures (2.1) x 0.6 x 2.7 cm.

SW¼, NW¼, SE¼ of Section 13, T14N, R58E

5 One red jasperite mid stage flake with two facets.

NE¼, NW¼, NE¼ of Section 24, T14N, R58E

6 One transluscent, cloudy obsidian possible biface fragment and one piece of angular debris from a biface.

NE¼, NW¼, NE¼ of Section 24, T14N, R58E

7 One gray chert early stage reduction flake with cortex and one gray chert mid stage reduction flake with three facets and 20% cortex.

N½, SE¼, NE¼ of Section 24, T14N, R58E

8 One retouched, utilized flake of white opaque chert material. Unifacial retouch along both dorsal lateral edges.

SW¼, NW¼, NW¼ of Section 18, T14N, R59E

9 One yellow chert Stage II biface unifacially retouched along one lateral edge, bifacial retouch along other edge. Artifact exhibits three sides that have been worked. Measures 4.5 x 2.5 x 1 cm

W½, SW¼, SE¼ of Section 24, T14N, R58E

Previously Recorded Sites For project HM88-335, two of the three sites plotted within the current APE, 04170910978 and 04170910988, likely correspond to Isolates 9 and 2 respectively from the current undertaking. Site designation 04170910978 included four flakes in a 40 by 15 meter area. Isolate 9 is a single utilized flake plotted in the same vicinity that could be one of the previously recorded artifacts; however, the area has been heavily disturbed from modern mining activity since they were recorded. Site 04170910988 could possibly correspond to Isolate 2; however, this is not certain. Site 04170910983 was a single jasper flake that was not relocated. An extensive search was conducted in the plotted vicinity for site 04170911012, recorded during project HM89-384, but was not relocated. The description of the site most likely corresponds to site 04170913496 consisting of five flakes of tan or red colored chert. However, the site would be misplotted close to 500 meters too far north. Given the small size and lack of defining assemblage characteristics, it could not be determined. The remaining sites, 04170911013 to 04170911015, each represent widely dispersed isolated artifacts that could not be relocated near their plotted location. The three prehistoric artifact scatters recorded by Archaeological Services Inc., in 1997 were identified and updated within the APE including sites 04170912174 through 04170912176. 26WP4453/04170912174 (1176-6) This is a moderate-sized prehistoric site with a variety of artifacts and tools from different prehistoric time periods located on a wide bench set just above the confluence of two streams in


Mesa Field Services

39

a deep canyon. The site is located immediately south and on the other side of the canyon from site 04170913498 in a similar setting. The site was first identified and recorded by Archaeological Services Inc., in 1996 as a small lithic scatter lacking diagnostic artifacts within a 32 by 32 meter area (D’Angelo 1997). This latest visit identified a much larger site, variety, and density including hundreds to possibly over 1,000 artifacts. The site includes a variety of diagnostic artifacts including a potential stemmed point fragment (A-6), three Elko Corner Notched (A-3, A-4, and A-10), and three Rosegate Cluster projectile points (A-1, A-5, and A-19). Other tools include seven bifaces (A-2, A-6, A-12- A-14, and A-17), four groundstone slab fragments (A-9, A-11, A-15, A-16,), and one flake tool (A-18). The majority of the tools and debitage are concentrated near the center of the site with a density of up to five artifacts per square meter. All stages of lithic reduction and tool manufacture are represented on site but late stage lithic reduction dominates. Materials types present are a wide variety of cherts and chalcedonies. The only obsidian represented at the site is associated with the Elko Corner Notched point (A-10) suggesting a preference for local materials. The one biface fragment (A-6) is similar in form to a number of Great Basin Stemmed points found in the vicinity of the APE and identified at Jakes Valley (Estes 2009). Given the presence of a site attributed to the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition, 04170912175, located immediately to the west, plus the large number of stemmed points identified within the APE and vicinity of Indian Garden Mountains this possibility cannot be ruled out. The site appears to represent a base camp where prehistoric people repeatedly occupied the location during the Paleoarchaic and Middle and Late Archaic periods. The presence of a significantly higher site density in the vicinity of the confluence with a range of prehistoric occupations present from the Paleoarchaic to Middle and Late Archaic periods suggests the site is a possible a base camp where a variety of activities took place for all major prehistoric time periods. The presence of a number of different groundstone fragments and Archaic projectile points suggests vegetal food processing and or the butchering of animals plus the manufacture of tools or sharpening activities occurred repeatedly at the location over the course of the Archaic. Additionally, the site is located in close proximity to two potential Paleoarchaic sites (04170912175 and 04170912176) suggesting the vicinity may also have served as a base camp or area of recurrent field camps for the processing of animal or plant resources during the Paleoarchaic. The site includes diagnostic artifacts that span almost the entire prehistoric sequence. Few sites attributed to the Paleoarchaic have been previously identified in the White Pine Mountain Range and the site has the potential to offer insight in site structure and land use patterns for both the Paleoarchaic and Archaic periods. The site provides rare insight into Paleoarchaic use of upland environments and complements a comprehensive review of lowland use strategies of Paleoindian inhabitants in nearby Jakes Valley (Estes 2007). The site is in close proximity to another Paleoarchaic occupation (04170912175) suggesting the vicinity is a rare example of a potential Paleoarchaic base camp in an upland environment. The site has much additional research value in the form of undocumented artifacts and depth potential for the site is located on a bench that maintains integrity of location. Therefore, the site is recommended eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D for its ability to offer significant insight concerning the use of upland environments by Paleoarchaic groups.


Mesa Field Services

40

26WP4454/04170912175 (1176-7) This site was previously recorded in 1996 by Archaeological Services, Inc. as a “25 x 25 meter very sparse lithic scatter” (D’Angelo 1997). Artifacts observed at that time included seven flakes plus a red drill and a white biface fragment. The site is on a flat bench overlooking a canyon and confluence of two streams immediately west of site 04170912174. The site revisit documented a much larger artifact scatter including 35 red chert flakes and six tools. Most flakes were found in a concentration in the center of the site with up to 4 to 5 per square meter. The tools indicate the site is likely associated with a single use event that may be entirely attributed to the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition or Paleoarchaic period. Tools include two chert biface fragments (A-1 and A-2), a stemmed point fragment of red chalcedony (A-3), a pink and white chert point tip or biface tip (A-4), a red biface fragment (A-5), and a white and gray chert biface tip (A-6). The “red drill” is actually a concave base biface fragment (A-5) whose material matches the red chert flakes within the concentration area suggesting the biface was manufactured on site. The stemmed point fragment of red chalcedony (A-3) and several of the bifaces compare favorably to a series of stemmed point fragments identified with the Mount Moriah occupation at Smith Creek Cave in central Nevada dating between 12,600 to 11,300 B.P. (Bryan 1988). The site is in close proximity to two other potential Paleoarchaic occupations at sites 04170912174 and 04170912176 immediately to the east and west suggesting a number of recurrent field camps in the immediate vicinity providing significant insight into Paleoarchaic land use strategies in an upland environment. The site is most likely associated with a single use event that took place during the Paleoarchaic period and is recommended eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Few sites attributed to the Paleoarchaic have been previously identified in the White Pine Range and the site has the potential to offer insight into site structure and land use patterns for the Paleoarchaic. The site provides a rare example of Paleoarchaic use of upland environments in the White Pine Range and complements a comprehensive review of lowland use strategies of Paleoindian inhabitants in nearby Jakes Valley (Estes 2007). Additionally, the site is located on a bench that maintains integrity of location and may contain additional artifacts not noted on the surface. Therefore, the site is recommended eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D for its ability to offer significant insight concerning the use of upland environments by Paleoarchaic groups. 26WP4455/04170912176 (1176-8) This site was previously recorded in 1996 by Archaeological Services, Inc. as “a very sparse 16 by 35 meter lithic scatter” (D’Angelo 1997). The latest visit identified the same assemblage including 18 flakes, two bifaces fragments, and a utilized flake. The debitage includes gray to white and red to orange colored cherts characteristic of late stage lithic reduction activity. The bifaces include a Stage II fragment made from a red chert (A-1) and a second biface made from a gray chert core (A-2) with a bifacial flat edge with a steep angle suggesting it was used for scraping. The core matches the material for many of the flakes suggesting it was utilized, sharpened, or produced on site. The third tool is a small white chert angular debris with retouch along one margin consisting of concentric flaking at a steep angle (>80°) suggesting it too was


Mesa Field Services

41

used for some sort of scraping activity that may relate to butchering or plant processing. The site is located only 35 meters west of site 04170912175, identified as a rare example of a Paleoarchaic site in an upland environment. The close proximity and presence of a red chert biface made of similar material to Paleoarchaic artifacts identified at site 04170912175 suggests they may be temporally related. The site is most likely associated with a single use event that took place during the Paleoarchaic period and is recommended eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Few sites attributed to the Paleoarchaic have been previously identified in the White Pine Range and the site has the potential to offer insight into site structure and land use patterns for the Paleoarchaic. The site provides a rare example of Paleoarchaic use of upland environments in the White Pine Range and complements a comprehensive review of lowland use strategies of Paleoindian inhabitants in nearby Jakes Valley (Estes 2007). Additionally, the site is located on a bench that maintains integrity of location and may contain additional artifacts not noted on the surface. Therefore, the site is recommended eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to offer significant insight concerning the use of upland environments by Paleoarchaic groups.

Newly Recorded Sites 26WP11517/04170913495 (1176-1) The site is a small historic can scatter located atop a ridged knoll of Indian Garden Mountain within the White Pine Range. The site is dispersed and primarily scattered on a southeast facing, low slope that increases in steepness rapidly along the north and eastern boundary of the site. Vegetation consists of sagebrush, mountain mahogany, and pinyon. The artifact assemblage consists of a total of nine cans and can fragments including a lard pail (H-1) and its lid (H-6), three tobacco tins (H-2, H-3 and H-5), one vent hole can (H-4), a sanitary can body fragment, and two rotary opened lids. The pail has lug handles and a 5 inch external friction lid. The tobacco tins are 4 inch tall kidney-shaped upright pocket tobacco tins produced by Tuxedo Tobacco in 1901 (Rock 1989:165). The size was in use for only a few years before being replaced by a 4½ inch tall tin. The vent hole can corresponds to the No. 1 Tall milk can in manufacture from c. 1914 to 1931 (Bitting 1937:751). The site is not eligible under Criteria A and B for it is likely a simple overnight encampment that lacks established features and cannot be directly associated with an important event or person in the local or national history. The site does not contain task related artifacts that would indicate what type of land use activity they are associated with; cattle ranching, sheep herding, or mining, etc. and is not considered eligible under Criterion C. The site lacks additional information or research potential outside of the site recording completed during the current investigation and is not recommended eligible under Criterion D. 26WP11518/04170913496 (1176-2) This site is a small lithic scatter comprised of five mostly late stage reduction flakes within a 6 meter diameter area. The site is located on a northwest facing steep slope with areas of exposed


Mesa Field Services

42

bedrock, gravels, and small chert nodules and exfoliating debris that could be construed as debitage but lack the more complex features associated with flaked stone debitage. Three of the flakes are a tan to white colored chert and one flake each of an orange to red chert and a tan, yellow, to pink colored chert. All flakes are late stage, lacking cortex, with three or more dorsal scars. Two are bifacial thinning flakes with cross flaking and lipping on the platform. The site lacked an association with formal tools including diagnostics and is a single use event where tools may have been finished or sharpened. The site consists of a very limited artifact scatter that lacks an association with diagnostic artifacts and cannot address context and research issues outlined for the prehistoric period. Therefore, the site is not considered eligible to the NRPH under any of the four established criteria. 26WP11519/04170913497 (1176-3) This small prehistoric lithic scatter is comprised of two projectile point fragments and a single flake in a canyon with a steep south facing slope. The artifacts are just above and to the north of a southeast/northwest trending drainage. The site consists of a possible Northern Side Notched basal fragment (A-1), and most of a stemmed point base (A-2), plus a single white chert flake. The possible Northern Side Notched point fragment includes enough of the concave base and both notches to suggest it is a Northern Side Notch point. The point type range is generally between 7,000 to 5,000 B.P. but may occur as early as 8,000 B.P. (Justice 2002:173). The other point fragment could be easily mistaken for a non-diagnostic biface fragment however it appears to be the proximal half of a stemmed point typical in form to others identified at Smith Creek Cave and Jakes Valley. It is possible these two points reflect different discard episodes separated in time; however, given their close proximity in an isolated area of rugged terrain they are more than likely associated with the same use episode. The presence of these two different temporally distinct point style traditions at the same location likely reflects the use of two temporally distinct technologies by the same occupants at about the time of the Paleoarchaic to Archaic transition. The site is a very limited artifact scatter in a steep canyon ravine and is not recommended eligible to the NRHP. Although the site does address context and research issues outlined in this study including chronology and the identification of land use patterns of different prehistoric groups over time, it consists of a very limited scatter of artifacts. The site is unusual in the fact that it contains diagnostic time markers that are associated with two separate and very distinct prehistoric periods and is associated with the important Paleoarchaic to Archaic period transition. However, the site is located at a high elevation in a rugged and steep canyon with little to no potential for additional or significant subsurface deposits. Therefore, the site is not recommended eligible to the NRHP. 26WP11520/04170913498 (1176-4) This site is a small lithic scatter located on a short bench set above the confluence of two streams in a deep canyon forming the east end of a mountain valley in the southern extent of the current APE. Three other sites (04170912174 to 04170912176) spanning almost the full occupation of


Mesa Field Services

43

prehistory are located just south at approximately the same elevation on the other side of the canyon suggesting use of the area was preferred by prehistoric occupants. Boulders are along the eastern edge of the site and vegetation consists of pinyon and juniper with low sagebrush and small bunchgrasses. The assemblage includes 13 flakes, two chert cores (A-1 and A-6), a milling slab (A-2), two bifaces (A-3 and A-5), and one projectile point (A-4). The debitage consists of local white to red and gray cherts typical of late stage lithic reduction. The debitage lacks dorsal cortex, with most having three to five dorsal scars. Several flakes are small and thin suggesting they are associated with the manufacture or shaping of bifaces. The artifacts are concentrated on the level bench and are dispersed downslope towards the canyon bottom. The site has a maximum density of four artifacts per square meter. The cores are small high quality chert nodules between five and seven centimeters in size that have been irregularly reduced. The groundstone is a large slab fragment with one facet made from a vesicular volcanic material. The fragment is worn through in the center and is roughly disc shaped in form. The two biface fragments are made from a high quality white chert material. The material is highly polished and thin suggesting it was heat treated. Biface A-3 has red coloration along one edge further suggesting it was subject to heat treatment. The second biface is much larger and appears mostly intact with a portion of its distal end broken off. The biface is over 8 centimeters in length and close to five centimeters wide. It is well constructed with parallel flaking and sides and is thin. The tool is constructed from a large thin flake and appears it may have been in the final stages of formal tool production before the top portion broke off. One lateral edge has been bifacially resharpened forming a denticulate like serrated edge. The one projectile point is made of white chert and has a contracting stem typical of Gatecliff Contracting Stem points. The points have been recovered from Gatecliff Rockshelter and identified in southern and central Nevada and are believed to date to the Middle Archaic between 5,000 to 3,300 B.P. (Thomas 1981:36). The site can be considered a temporary encampment associated with plant and or animal resource procurement related activities. The site contains a variety of artifacts including a projectile point, large biface, and the presence of groundstone suggesting a range of activities took place on site. The site is located in the vicinity of the confluence of two drainages and three other prehistoric sites (04170912174 to 04170912176) whose temporal associations span almost the entire prehistoric period suggests a number of recurrent field camps in the immediate vicinity. The area, including the current site, may have served as seasonal base camp for the acquisition and processing of upland resources during the Middle Archaic. The site is a Middle Archaic site with groundstone located on a level bench within a steep canyon that retains its integrity of location and is recommended eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Few Middle Archaic sites with groundstone have been identified within the White Pine Range and the site has the potential to contribute significant insight into land use strategies of upland environments during the Middle Archaic. The site does address context and research issues outlined in this study including chronology and the identification of land use patterns and task specific activities associated with the use of projectile points and groundstone. Although the site may not have significant intact subsurface deposits it is located on a level bench with the potential for additional unrecorded artifacts not noted on the surface. Therefore, the site is recommended eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D.


Mesa Field Services

44

26WP11521/04170913499 (1176-5) This site is a small can scatter within the White Pine Range located on the peak of a north-south trending ridgeline of Indian Garden Mountain. The site is located approximately 150 meters southwest of a modern open pit mine. Vegetation observed within the site includes mountain mahogany, pinyon, juniper and wild rye. The artifact assemblage is comprised of a broken amethyst glass bottle (H-1), two vent hole cans (H-2), one internal friction can (H-3) with “CANCO” embossed on one end, and three sanitary cans. Amethyst glass was generally manufactured between the 1880s until the end of World War I, but still had limited use until 1930 (Lindsey 2012). The vent hole cans correspond to Simonis Type 10 with a range of manufacture between 1917 and 1929 (IMACS 1992). The embossing on the internal friction lid can dates from as early as 1923 (Rock 1989:198). The site is not eligible under Criteria A or B for it is likely a simple overnight encampment that lacks established features and cannot be directly associated with an important event or person in the local or national history. The site does not contain task related artifacts that would indicate what type of land use activity they are associated with; cattle ranching, sheep herding, or mining, etc. and is not considered eligible under Criterion C. The site lack additional information or research potential outside of the site recording completed during the current investigation and is not recommended eligible under Criterion D.


Mesa Field Services

45

Discussion An evaluation of the results of the investigation would suggest the sites are associated with short-term occupations and, with all major prehistoric periods represented within the APE. Prehistoric property types inventoried include non-habitation related chipping workshops, milling stations and isolates associated with hunting and vegetal resource procurement strategies attributed to single use events or recurrent field camps. The one large site, 04170912174, is most likely a recurrent field camp associated with vegetal and animal resource procurement during the Paleoarchaic and Middle and Late Archaic periods. The four eligible prehistoric sites, including a number of potential Paleoarchaic components, are concentrated in the vicinity of a confluence of two drainages. This area may represent a base camp vicinity or staging area where upland resources were obtained and processed on a seasonal basis. The lack of trade goods items or exotic tool stone does not make it possible to properly address research issues associated with trade and exchange. Most sites appear as temporary encampments consisting of a few to tens of artifacts with an overwhelming preference for the use of localized materials.

Chronology: The most striking result is the presence of a number of stemmed points and their more wide spread occurrence in more diverse settings than Archaic materials. Given the similarity of stemmed points to biface technology, it can often be difficult to identify stemmed points when only fragments remain. Even with this in mind it appears half of the diagnostics and tools within the APE fit a pattern that relates to Paleoarchaic technology. Paleoarchaic points were identified on some of the steeper slopes within the APE with Archaic components primarily restricted to two sites in close proximity to one another at sites 04170912174 and 04170913498. The Early Archaic is largely not represented within the APE. The one exception is the badly damaged Northern Side Notched point found within a few meters of a stemmed point at site 04170913497. The stemmed points within the APE easily correspond in morphology to a number of Late Pleistocene artifacts associated with the Mount Moriah occupation at Smith Creek Cave in central Nevada dating between 12,600 to 11,300 B.P. as well as examples identified more locally in Jakes Valley (Bryan 1988; Estes 2009). However, Estes’ synthesis and analysis of land use strategies by the Western Stemmed Tradition makes no mention of use of upland environments above 8,000 feet by Paleoarchaic groups. The results of this study suggest the mobility pattern for Western Stemmed Tradition should be expanded to include an even more diverse set of use of upland environments including those above 8,000 feet.

Land Use Patterns The largest site, 04170912174, contains a number of projectile points from the Paleoarchaic and Middle and Late Archaic periods suggesting the location was reoccupied and built up over time as the existing cultural context suggests by the Middle Archaic. The site also contained the presence of groundstone and is a typical resource acquisition strategy for the Archaic. Paleoarchaic sites or components are smaller, comprised of a few tens of artifacts and appear to be focused on hunting with assemblages including lanceolate bifaces or projectile points and fragments with debitage characteristic of late stage reduction activities. The Paleoarchaic assemblages appear to lack exotic materials in contrast to existing models for Paleoindian groups with most points made from local basalt and a variety of chert materials. Obsidian was also low for the Archaic period suggesting neither group had a particular preference for highly curated toolstone.


Mesa Field Services

46

Stark contrasts in prehistoric land use strategies for the Paleoarchaic and Archaic are visible within the APE. The earlier occupation by the Paleoarchaic “Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition” seems heavily represented and more involved in this high elevation ecozone than later Archaic groups. Land use patterns also appear to vary greatly between the Paleoarchaic and Archaic periods. The presence of stemmed points in the steeper canyon slopes to the north contrasts to the lack of Middle and Late Archaic projectile point types over the same area. Paleoarchaic sites tend to be single use events occurring at different places across the landscape in contrast to the Archaic, where at 04170912174, the same location was repeatedly occupied. The results of the study and background search of the area would seem to suggest the frequency of stemmed point sites in high elevation areas are at least as prolific as the density for stemmed points synthesized in Jakes Valley and other riparian zones within the Great Basin suggesting they made use of upland environments at least as often. What we have determined as material potentially attributed to the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition appears to dominate the landform within the vicinity of the APE. The materials cover more of the territory of the APE. Additionally, the review of previously recorded sites within one mile of the APE has identified a number of additional sites recorded by D’Angelo (1997) that contain stemmed points or biface fragments that could easily fit within the known technological assemblages of the Paleoarchaic but that were overlooked with Paleoarchaic tools typically being misidentified as knives or non-diagnostic bifaces. It would appear the Paleoarchaic was at least as involved, possibly more so, in the exploitation of upland environments than Archaic groups or at least their land use strategies appear significantly different. Within the APE the Paleoarchaic appears to have made more or wider use of upland environments. Hunting game on steeper mountain slopes during the day and possibly retreating to a camp in the valley by nightfall where tools were maintained and or animals butchered. Although a number of projectile points were identified at 04170912174, the lack of Archaic projectile points in the upper and steeper elevations of the APE would suggest Archaic populations did not utilize this area to the degree Paleoarchaic groups did. Archaic groups may not have been as reliant on hunting as a resource procurement strategy as Paleoarchaic groups. The processing of vegetal resources would tend to restrict their population to a more localized area as opposed to the constant search on foot for moving game. Paleoarchaic groups must have been very active within the vicinity of the APE or for a long period of time to leave such an extensive record comparable to the level of intensity of use for Archaic.

Site Patterning. Only one site could be considered large enough and complex to potentially offer insight into site patterning (04170912174). Projectile points, groundstone, tools, and debitage are all concentrated in the general center of the site offering no clear insight into spatial patterning of activities at the locations from a surface evaluation with material overlapping over time in the same vicinity. Activity in the area appears to relate to limited processing resulting in the discard of a few items from each episode of use. Excavation of the site may reveal temporally discrete activity areas or significant subsurface deposits and would be more revealing or better able to address research issues associated with sate patterning. Otherwise most occupations lack a built environment or features that might reveal site patterning and temporal changes over time.


Mesa Field Services

47


Mesa Field Services

48

9. RECOMMENDATIONS Mesa Field Services was contracted by JBR Environmental Services, Inc., to conduct an archaeological reconnaissance on behalf of Pilot Gold’s Griffon Exploration Project in White Pine County, Nevada. The proposed Griffon Exploration project is on land managed by the Ely Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. The APE is located in the White Pine Range southwest of Ely and is on the Indian Garden Mountain, Nevada 7.5’ quadrangle map in portions of Sections 12, 13, and 24 of Township 14 North, Range 58 East, and Sections 7, 18, and 19 of Township 14 North, Range 59 East (Appendix A). As a result of the survey eight archaeological sites and nine isolated artifacts were inventoried. Three of the sites are previously recorded and five are new discoveries. The sites include six prehistoric and two historic sites. Four of the prehistoric sites are recommended eligible to the NRHP (04170912174 to 04170912176) and (04170913498).


Mesa Field Services

49


Mesa Field Services

50

10. REFERENCES CITED Angel, M. (editor) 1881 History of Nevada with Illustration and Biographical Sketches of Its Prominent Men and

Pioneers. Library of Congress, Washington D.C. Thompson and West, Oakland CA. Basgall, M. 1988 The Archaeology of CA-MNO-679: A Pre-Archaic Site in Long Valley Caldera, Mono

County, California. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis-Archaic Interface, edited by J. A. Willig, C. M. Aikens and J. L. Fagan, pp. 103-120. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 21, Carson City.

Beck, C., and G. Jones 1990 Toolstone Selection and Lithic Technology in Early Great Basin Prehistory. Journal of

Field Archaeology 17:283-299. 1994 Dating Surface Assemblages Using Obsidian Hydration. In Dating in Exposed and

Surface Contexts, edited by C. Beck, pp. 47-76. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1997 The Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Archaeology of the Great Basin. Journal of

World Prehistory 11(2):161-236. 2008 Archaic Times. In The Great Basin, edited by Catherine S. Fowler and Don D. Fowler,

pp. 45-54. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Beck C., A. Taylor, G. Jones, C. Fadem, C. Cook, and S. Millward 2002 Rocks are Heavy: Transport Costs and Paleoarchaic Quarry Behavior in the Great Basin.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:481-507. Binford, L. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological

Site Formation, American Antiquity 45(1):4-20. Bischoff, M., J. Ezzo, T. Majewski, R. Wegener, and S. Whittlesey 1999 Archaeological Research Design for the Eastern Great Basin. Technical Report 99-29,

Statistical Research, Inc. Tucson, Arizona. Prepared for Western Archeological and Conservation Center National Park Service Tucson, Arizona.

Bitting, A.W. 1937 Appertizing or the Art of Canning: Its History and Development. The Trade Pressroom,

San Francisco, California. Bryan, A. 1988 The Relationship of the Stemmed Point and Fluted Point Traditions in the Great Basin. In

Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis-Archaic Interface,


Mesa Field Services

51

edited by Judith A. Willig, C. Melvin Aikens, and John L. Fagan, pp. 53-74. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 21, Carson City.

Buck P., B. Hockett, K. Graf, T. Goebel, G. Griego, L. Perry, and E. Dillingham 2002 Oranjeboom Cave: A Single Component Eastgate Site in Northeastern Nevada. Utah

Archaeology 15(1):99-112. Clay V., and A. McCabe 2012 A Class III Inventory and Evaluation of 1,823 Acres on Range B-16 in support of a

Ground Training EA, Naval air Station (NAS) Fallon, Churchill County, Nevada, Volume I: Archaeological Inventory. NAS Fallon Technical Report No. 112, BLM Stillwater Field Office No. CRR3-2617(P).

Crum, Steven J. 1994 Po’I Pentun Tammen Kimmappeh: The Road on Which We Came: A History of the

Western Shoshone. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Curran, H. 1982 Fearful Crossing: The Central Overland Trail Through Nevada. Great Basin Press.

Reno, Nevada. D’Angelo J. 1997 Heritage Resource Inventory Report for the Griffon Open Pit Mine Project in White Pine

County, Nevada: Part I Main Report. Archaeological Services Inc. Submitted to USDA Forest Service, Contract No. HM96-749. Copies available from the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Ely Ranger District, Ely, Nevada.

d’Azevedo, W. 1986 Introduction. In Great Basin, edited by W. d’Azevedo, pp. 1-14. Handbook of North

American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

Egan, F. 1985 Fremont: Explorer for a Restless Nation. University of Nevada Press, Reno and Las

Vegas. Elston, R. 1986 Prehistory of the Western Area. In Great Basin, edited by W. d’Azevedo, pp. 135-148.

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

Estes, M. 2009 Paleoindian Occupations Within the Great Basin: A Comparative Study of Lithic

Technological Organization, Mobility, and Landscape use for Jakes Valley, Nevada. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.


Mesa Field Services

52

Fiedel, S. 2002 Initial Human Colonization of the Americas: An Overview of the Issues and Evidence.

Radiocarbon 44:407-436. Fowler, C.S. and D.D. Fowler (editors) 2008 The Great Basin: People and Place in Ancient Times. School for Advanced Research

Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Goebel, T. 2007 Pre-Archaic and Early Archaic Technological Activities at Bonneville Estates

Rockshelter: A First Look at the Lithic Artifact Record. In Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic?: Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene/Holocene Transition, edited by K. E. Graf and D. N. Schmitt, pp. 156-184. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Goebel T. K. Graf, B. Hockett, and D. Rhode 2007 The Paleoindian Occupations at Bonneville Estates Rockshelter, Danger Cave, and Smith

Creek Cave, (Eastern Great Basin, U.S.A.): Interpreting Their Radiocarbon Chronologies. In On Shelters Ledger: Histories, Theories and Methods of Rockshelter Research, edited by Marcel Kornfeld, Sergey Vasil’ev, Laura Miotti, pp. 147-161. BAR International Series. Oxford, England, in press.

Goebel, T. B. Hockett, K. Adams, D. Rhode, K. Graf 2011 Climate, Environment, and Humans in North Americas Great Basin During the Younger

Dryas, 12,900-11,600 Calendar Years Ago. Quaternary International 242:479-501. Hall, S. 1994 Romancing Nevada’s Past: Ghost Towns and Historic Site of Eureka, Lander, and White

Pine Counties. University of Nevada Press, Reno, Las Vegas, London. Hanes, R., and S. Ball 1986 The Central Nevada Study Unit. In An Archaeological Element for the Nevada Historic

Preservation Plan. Edited by M. Lyneis. Nevada Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Carson City.

Hardesty, D. 1990 Evaluating Site Significance in Historical Mining Districts. Historical Archaeology

24(2)42-51. 1997 The Archaeology of the Donner Party. University of Nevada, Press. Hardesty, D.L., and B. J. Little 2009 Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and Historians. Alta Mira Press,

Walnut Creek, California.


Mesa Field Services

53

Hockett, B. 1995 Chronology of Elko Series and Split Stemmed Points from Northeastern Nevada. Journal

of California and Great Basin Anthropology 17(1):41-53. Hockett, B., and M. Morgenstein 2003 Ceramic Production, Fremont Foragers, and the Late Archaic Prehistory of the North –

Central Great Basin. Utah Archaeology 16(1)1-36. Hockett, B., T. Goebel, and K. Graf 2008 The Early Peopling of the Great Basin. In The Great Basin, edited by Catherine S.

Fowler and Don D. Fowler, pp-33-44. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Hulse, J. 1978 The Nevada Adventure: A History. University of Nevada Press, Reno. 2004 The Silver State: Nevada’s Heritage Reinterpreted, Third Edition. University of Nevada

Press, Reno and Las Vegas. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 2012 Scope of Work for Heritage Resource Compliance at the Griffon Exploration Project,

White Pine County, Nevada. Report No. R2012041702242. Intermountain Antiquities Computer System Guide (IMACS) 1992 User’s Guide: Instructions and Computer Codes for use with IMACS Site Form. Revised

Edition. University of Utah, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service. JBR Environmental Consultants Inc. 2012a Pre-Field Report, Plant and Wildlife Surveys, Griffon Project Pilot Gold (USA), Inc.,

White Pine County, Nevada. Submitted to United States Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest on behalf of Pilot Gold (USA) Inc.

2012b Biological Baseline Report Griffon Exploration Project White Pine County, Nevada.

Submitted to United States Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest on behalf of Pilot Gold (USA) Inc.

Jones G., C. Beck, F. Nials, J. Neudorfer, B. Brownholtz, and H. Gilbert 1996 Recent Archaeological and Geological Investigations at the Sunshine Locality. Journal

of California and Great Basin Anthropology 18(1):48-63. Justice, Noel D. 2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Indiana University

Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis. Konoske, A., E. Johnson, and R. McQueen 2009 A Class III Survey of 235 Acres for the Mt. Hamilton Exploration Project. USFS Report

R2008041701876. Summit Envirosolutions, Inc., Reno, Nevada.


Mesa Field Services

54

Lincoln, F. C. 1982 Mining Districts and Mineral Resources of Nevada. Photographic reproduction. Nevada

Publications, Las Vegas. Originally published 1923. Nevada Newsletter Publishing Company, Reno.

Lindsey, B. 2012 Bottle/Glass Colors. Electronic document, http://www.sha.org/bottle/colors.htm,

accessed December 28, 2012. Marwitt, J. 1986 Fremont Cultures. In Great Basin, edited by W. d’Azevedo, pp. 161-182. Handbook of

North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

Morgan, D. 1997 Jedediah Smith and the Opening of the Far West. In Nevada: Readings and Perspectives,

pp 31-37, edited by Michael S. Green and Gary E. Elliott. Lincoln University of Nebraska Press 1953.

Myrick, D. 1992 Railroads of Nevada and Eastern California, Volume I: The Northern Roads. University

of Nevada Press, Reno, Las Vegas London. National Park Service (NPS) 1995 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin,

No. 15. National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Nevada State Historic Preservation Office 2012 Guidelines for Section 106 Submission. Electronic document,

http://nvshpo.org/index.php, accessed November 29, 2012. Pitblado, B. 2003 Late Paleoindian Occupations of the Southern Rockies: Early Holocene Era Projectile

Points and Land use in the High Country. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

Price, B. 1988 A Cultural Resources Survey in Billiton Minerals USA Inc.’s Griffon Claims, White Pine

County, Nevada. Submitted to USDA Forest Services, Contract No. HM88-335. Copies available from the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Ely Ranger District, Ely, Nevada

1989 A Cultural Resources Survey in Billiton Minerals USA INC.’s Griffon Claims: Spring

1989 Session. Submitted to USDA Forest Services, Contract No. HM89-384. Copies available from the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Ely Ranger District, Ely, Nevada


Mesa Field Services

55

Rhode D., and D. Madsen 1998 Pine Nut Use in the Early Holocene and Beyond: The Danger Cave Archaeobotanical

Record. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:1199-1210. Rock, J. 1989 Tin Canisters: Their Identification. Ms. On file at the U.S. Forest Service, Klamath

National Forest, Yreka, California. Steward, J. 1936 Pueblo Material Culture in Western Utah. Anthropological Series Vol. 1 No.3,

University of New Mexico Bulletin No. 287. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 1937 Linguistic Distributions and Political groups of the Great Basin Shoshoneans. American

Anthropologist 39(4):625-634. 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology

Bulletin No. 120. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Stever, E. (editor) 2011 Ward Mountain Management Area Historic Context, White Pine County, Nevada. Report

No. R2009041701961, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Ely Ranger District. Thomas, D. 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of

California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):7-43. Thomas, D., Lorann S., P. and S. Cappannari 1986 Western Shoshone. In Great Basin, edited by W. d’Azevedo, pp. 262-283. Handbook of

North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

Watkins, C. 2006 Parowan Pottery and Fremont Complexity: Late Formative Ceramic Production and

Exchange. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University.

Western Regional Climate Center 2012 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nv4745. Electronic document accessed

December 31, 2012. Willig, J. A. 1988 Paleo-Archaic Adaptations and Lakeside Settlement Patterns in the Northern Alkali

Basin, Oregon. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis-Archaic Interface, edited by J.A. Willig, C.M. Aikens, and J.L. Fagan, pp. 417-482. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 21, Carson City.


Mesa Field Services

56

1989 Paleo-Archaic Broad Spectrum Adaptations at the Pleistocene-Holocene Boundary in Far

Western North America. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene.


Mesa Field Services

57

APPENDIX A: PROJECT AREA MAPS


Mesa Field Services

58

This page intentionally left blank


Mesa Field Services

59

APPENDIX B: SITES AND ISOLATE LOCATIONS


Mesa Field Services

60

This page intentionally left blank

Paleoarchaic land use strategies in upland environments.

Documents

Transcript of Paleoarchaic land use strategies in upland environments.