Citation
Archaeology and the Denver Natural History Museum

Material Information

Title:
Archaeology and the Denver Natural History Museum
Creator:
Smith, Margaret Moore
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 134 leaves : illustrations ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Archaeological museums and collections -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Archaeological museums and collections ( fast )
Colorado -- Denver ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 125-134).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Arts, Department of Anthropology.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Margaret Moore Smith.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
16855161 ( OCLC )
ocm16855161
Classification:
LD1190.L43 1985m .S64 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE DENVER
NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
by
Margaret Moore Smith
B.A., University of Colorado, 1979
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Department of Anthropology
1985


This thesis for the Master of Arts Degree by
Margaret Moore Smith
has been approved for the
Department of
Anthropology
by
Janet R. Moone
Duane Quiatt
Date
s/ // /%gr


Smith, Margaret Moore (M.A., Anthropology)
Archaeology and the Denver Natural History Museum
Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Jane Stevenson Day
The focus of this thesis is on those systematic
archaeological collections held in the Denver Museum of
Natural History which were collected in Colorado and
associated environs over the last sixty years.
Of the over twenty collections described in
this thesis six are composed of Paleo-Indian site
materials including those from Dent, Folsom and Linden-
meier. Seven are from Archaic Period locations on the
Western Slope and two are multicomponent sites located
on the Eastern Slope. Materials from two Peripheral
Pueblo areas and two Protohistoric/Historic collections
are discussed, along with two Life Collections, one
comprised of artifacts from the eastern plains and
mountain areas and the other of items from the Buena
Vista area and other locales in Colorado and Wyoming.
Each collection is considered for its historical
importance, content and potential for future research.
It is argued that all systematic archaeological
collections, whether provenienced or unprovenienced,
are important but often neglected sources for current
and future research by archaeologists and other


IV
scientific disciplines. However, these collections are
valuable resources only if they have been properly
documented, conserved, organized and made accessible by
the museums in which they are held, in such a manner that
their research value has been maintained.
The value of systematic archaeology collections,
both privately and publicly owned, will only increase as
the emphasis on excavation decreases. Therefore, it is
necessary that both the researcher and the holder of
these collections become more involved in their care and
support.
The potential problems involved in researching
any museum collection and the techniques and methods
which have been used by others in this exercise are
also addressed in hopes that they will enlighten and
encourage interested investigators in systematic collec-
tions everywhere and in those held at the Denver Museum
of Natural History particularly.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As usual in projects of this type, there are
many people who deserve my heartfelt and deepest thanks
for their help, advice, support and encouragement.
First of all, thanks are due to the members of
my thesis committee: Jane Day, without whose ideas
and gentle but presistent prodding this thesis may never
have been written; Duane Quiatt, whose interest and
suggestions were invaluable; and Janet Moone, who not
only encouraged and advised me, but who also ran inter-
ference and cut through much red tape in order that this
thesis be accomplished on time.
To those employees at the Denver Museum of
Natural History who offered their, time and help my
thanks are also extended: Joyce Herold, Curator of
Anthropology, whose permission to work with the collec-
tions and enthusiasm over the project were heartening;
Kris Hoaglund in the Library who gave me many leads to
follow; Barb Stone who took time out of her twenty-five
hour a day schedule to discuss some of the shortcomings
and remedies with me; and particularly to Bob Akerly,
Assistant Curator of Archaeology, who not only offered
many helpful suggestions, ran errands and shared his


vi
knowledge and expertise with me, but who did them all
with a smile and a joke.
I would especially like to thank all those people
who permitted me to interview them and without whom this
thesis would not be complete: Marie Wormington who kindly
allowed me to view the Frazier documents and material and
also to pick her brain; Bob Easterday who went over his
collection and recollections with me; and Joe Hutchinson,
who not only shared his memories and materials with me, but
who thoughtfully spent weeks drawing maps and artifacts,
invaluable aids to me and to others who might eventually
work with his collection.
To Toby Cohen of A&D Typing, who took pity on
me and offered to type the sometimes messy draft in a
very limited amount of time, my appreciation and thanks
are also gratefully given.
And to my family and loved ones, Kelly, David and
Keith, who not only unflaggingly encouraged and supported
me throughout, but shopped, cooked, cleaned, ran errands
and continued to love me in spite of it all.


CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION.................................... 1
Organization .................................. 3
Goals.......................................... 4
II. THE HISTORY OF THE INTERDEPENDENCY
OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND MUSEUMS .................... 5
Introduction .................................. 5
General Historical Relationships .............. 6
Historical Relationships in the
United States ............................... 6
III. PROBLEMS IN RESEARCHING SYSTEMATIC
ARCHAEOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS IN
MUSEUMS ...................................... 12
Introduction................................. 12
Problems from the Field....................... 12
Problems in the Museum........................ 14
Deaccessioning ............................... 20
Conclusion.................................... 22
IV. RESEARCH POTENTIALS OF MUSEUM
COLLECTIONS................................. 23
Introduction ................................. 23
Technological Developments ................... 24
Skeletal Materials ......................... 27
The Computer.................................. 28


Vlll
CHAPTER
Comparative Procedures ....................... 33
Multidisciplinary Approach .................. 37
Summation .................................... 38
V. HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
AT THE DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURAL
HISTORY...................................... 39
General History .............................. 39
Paleontology Department ...................... 40
Archaeology Department ....................... 42
Anthropology Department ...................... 44
Summary . 45
VI. SYSTEMATIC COLLECTIONS IN THE
DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURAL
HISTORY..................................... 47
Paleo-Indian Sites ........................... 47
Lone Wolf Creek ......................... 47
The Folsom Site............................ 48
The Dent Site.............................. 56
The Lindenmeier Site....................... 59
The Frazier Site........................... 66
Mathieson Site ............................ 69
Archaic Sites ................................ 69
"Basketmaker" Cave Sites .................. 69
The Huscher Collection .................... 71
Tracy Canyon............................. 74
Captain H. H. Smith Spring............... 76


IX
CHAPTER
VII.
Cactus Park................................ 78
The Moore-Casebier Sites .................... 79
The Taylor-Alva Sites................. . 81
The Sand Wash Basin Sites.................... 82
Eastern Slope: Multicomponent
Sites....................................... 84
Introduction ................................ 84
The LoDaisKa Site............................ 85
The Apex/Magic Mountain Site................. 87
Peripheral Pueblo Area Sites .................. 91
Huschers' Stone Circle or
"Hogan" Sites ............................. 91
The Turner-Look Site......................... 97
Protohistoric/Historic/Sites .................. 99
Ute Sites.................................... 99
Shoshoni(?) SiteGraeber Cave ............. 104
Life Collections...............................106
The Hutchinson Collection .................. 106
The Easterday Collection ................... 109
THE FUTURE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT THE
DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURAL
HISTORY...................................... 112
Introduction.................................. 112
Purpose.......................................113
Traditions.................................... 113
Deficiencies
114


X
CHAPTER
Recommendations ..............
The Physical Plant ..........
Data Retrieval ..............
Expansion of the Archaeological
Holdings............... . .
Inventory .................
Donations ..........
Fieldwork .................
The Role of the DMNH ........
Repository ................
Funding ...................
Conclusions ..................
116
117
117
119
119
120
120
121
122
122
123
LIST OF REFERENCES
125


XI
FIGURES
Figure
1. General Map.................................... 49
2. Paleo-Indian Sites ............................ 50
3. Cotter 1s Sketch of CMNH
Excavation at Lindenmeier..................... 63
4. Archaic Sites on the
Uncompahgre Plateau ........................... 77
5. Stone Circle Sites on the
Uncompahgre Plateau ........................... 93
6. Stone Circle Sites in the
Sagauche Area.................................. 94
7. Ute Sites on the Uncompahgre
Plateau
101


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of this thesis is to describe
the systematic collections of archaeological materials
available in the Denver Museum of Natural History (DMNH)
for study, research and exhibit. A systematic archaeo-
logical collection is defined by Ford (1977: 5) as being
unified by a central theme which gives it internal
cohesiveness. A systematic research collection has
intrinsic potential for [archaeological] research
based on the objects themselves, the documentation
of the object [and] the history of circumstances
which created the collections. . The scientific
value of these collections transcends the original
basis for its assemblage and permits a range of
research objectives to be pursued.
Consequently, not only those systematic collec-
tions held at the DMNH, but collections everywhere have
definite scientific importance and the potential to yield
as much information as the researcher is willing to
extract given the proper training, a knowledge of the
new techniques and methods available and a problem
oriented approach combined with an open mind and a
creative imagination.
Second, this report delineates the problems
involved in researching systematic collections in
museums generally and in the DMNH particularly. It also


2
discusses the various techniques and methods which not
only can be used for research on the DNHM collections but
which are applicable to collections in museums every-
where .
Only those systematic collections that were
recovered in Colorado and its immediate environs through
direct excavation or survey by personnel employed by the
Museum or those donated by avocational or professional
archaeologists are discussed here. These I call primary
source materials.
This study does not cover the vast category of
archaeological items purchased by or donated to the
DMNH which were not directly excavated or found by the
collectors or donors themselveis but instead were acquired
through sources other than direct survey or excavation
such as purchases or trade. These I call secondary
source materials.
This does not intend to say that these collec-
tions are not important. There is also much information
inherent in these but their potential is more limited than
the primary source materials but the same techniques and.
methods described in this thesis can be applied to them
with good expectation of results.


3
Organization
This thesis is separated into six major topics.
The first is a historical synopsis of archaeology and
its long-term interdependence with museums. The second
is a discussion of the problems encountered in most
museums when researching both provenienced and unpro-
venienced collections. The third topic considers the
possibilities and potentials existing in the study of
all archaeological collections. The fourth describes, in
general terms, the archaeological history of the DMNH.
The fifth contains descriptions of the systematic
archaeological collections held in the Museum, and the
final topic concerns the future of archaeology at the
DMNH.
This report is not intended to include detailed
analyses of the artifacts contained in each assemblage.
When specific tool types are mentioned, it is within the
general terminology only and is not meant as a definitive
typological classification. Further, if artifacts have
been listed and described by the collector in available
reports or publications, details of these are not
included to avoid redundancy. The reports or publica-
tions will be cited in the body of this thesis and in
the references.


4
Goals
It is hoped that this study will interest and
enlighten those researchers, both professional and
avocational, who might hold a legitimate, scientific
interest in the archaeological holdings in the DMNH and
that it will encourage use of and research in these
materials, both in and out of house. It is further
hoped that with the evaluations of the problems and
potentials involved in working with these collections
and of the strengths and weakness inherent in the
materials themselves and in the Museum as a whole, the
way will have been eased somewhat for that research and
further light might be shed on the numerous questions
still being asked about Colorado's past.


CHAPTER II
THE HISTORY OF THE INTERDEPENDENCY
OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND MUSEUMS
Introduction
"A vast amount of data awaits anthropological
research in the huge, tangled puzzles of museum collec-
tions ..." (Sturtevant 1973: 49).
Archaeological material collections in museums
are rich, varied and too often untapped sources of
valuable information on the past. These collections
become more important and more valuable as the realiza-
tion increases that archaeological sites are limited
resources to be conserved, that financial backing is
limited and that the one-site-one-graduate student
mentality of universities lessens (Thomas 1981). Without
this, material, much of what there is to learn about
many cultures would be lost. Museums are the reposi-
tories, the "warehouses" if you will, of our material
cultural past. Through this material, archaeologists
read of the adaptations, the successes and failures, the
evolution and devolutions of cultures and societies over
time and of the processes that affeeted .them.


6
General Historical Relationships
In a sense, archaeology and museums have always
gone together, although this association may not have
been recognized as such in today's terms. The apparent
habit of collecting unusual, interesting and rare
objects dates back to the beginning of human curiosity.
Along with this habit goes the desire for learning and
appreciation of these objects which continues to bring
the public flocking to museums (Encyclopaedia Britannica,
1968) .
Historical Relationships in
the United States
In the United States before the late 1800s
archaeology was mostly a pastime for the rich or arm-
chair archaeologists who collected relics for their
curio cabinets (Encyclopedia Britannica 1968; Thomas
1979). These private curio cabinets slowly evolved into
commercial enterprises available to 'the public for their
amusement and instruction (Osgoode 1979) Perhaps the
most famous of these operations was that of P. T.
Barnum who had a large collection of anthropological
materials. It was not until his museum burned for the
second time in 1868 that he turned to circuses as a means
of making money and entertaining the public (Osgoode
1979) .


7
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, the time Willey and Sabloff (1974) call the
Speculative Period in American archaeology, archaeology
arose as a professional scientific discipline (Thomas
1979). This was a time when the emphasis was on
extensive.exploration, excavation and collection,
especially that which involved vanishing cultures (Thomas
1979). There was a realization that much important
information concerning these cultures would soon be lost
because of advancing civilization and consequent contact.
It was assumed that by extracting all possible informa-
tion from the dying cultures, threads would then lead to
those that had already disappeared. The concern was with
obtaining large quantities of material, but little time
was spent on scientifically documenting these collec-
tions (Matthews 1981).
As a consequence, museums were created and
expanded to handle and store this vast amount of material
that was pouring in from everywhere. With this, their
function ideally changed from one of entertainment to
research and education (Osgoode 1981), and the anthro-
pologist and the archaeologist moved into the museums
along with their collections (Ford 1977).
This frantic search and gathering of data did not
stop in the next stage Willey and Sabloff (1974) label


8
the Classificatory-Historical Period. This was a time
dominated by Franz Boas and his students (Harris 1968).
Using the Direct Historical Approach, their goal was a
complete description of the materials with a grouping
and classification of these artifacts into different
typological categories (Woodall 19 72) They recognized
the particular history of an objectthat it would
appear, increase in popularity and diebut their
analysis was taken no further (Harris 1968; Willey and
Sabloff 1974; Woodall 1972). Evolutionary theory was
ignored by these historical particularists. Their
interests, at least in the first part of this period,
focused on developing a cultural chronology and synthesis
of specific materials within a culture area and of a
particular culture itself, but they did not look into
the cultural processes that might be affecting and
producing these changes (Willey and Sabloff 1974; Harris
1968).
In the decades before World War II, more and
more sites were discovered and a large amount of data
were generated as the western part of the United States
became more populated and the climate dried. The Dust
Bowl effect in the west led to the uncovering of here-
tofore unknown sites and artifacts; transportation facil-
ities improved and the search for sites and artifacts by


professionals and amateurs alike increased. The Great
Depression caused the channeling of federal monies into
archaeological projects and enormous amounts of material
were collected (Thomas 1979). Some of this material was
studied according to the principles of the times, and
either sold to private collectors or placed in museums,
many of whom immediately put it on exhibit or in storage
unresearched and uncatalogued (Cantwell et al. 1981).
However, in the period after World War II, the
emphasis in anthropology turned to theories of diffusion
cultural context and function (Willey and Sabloff 1974)
and the importance that had been placed on the arti-
facts themselves decreased (Ford 1977). The end of the
fifties left us with a great deal of data and reports
filled with descriptions and analysis of the data, but
with little cohesiveness or collation of these data
into explanatory^conclusions (Thomas 1979).
The museums turned inward with a focus on exhi-
bition of these collections and the construction of
facilities in which to show them (Ford 1977). This led
to better curation and recording practices, but conse-
quently, it also led to a loss in appeal for employment
in museums for the archaeologist (Bourque et al. 1980;
Thomas 1979). Instead, he went flocking to the univer-
sities and to the field as salvage and contract archae-
ology rose in importance in the following decades.


10
The period since 1960, the Explanatory Period in
Willey and Sabloff's (1974) classification, evidenced a
return to scientific investigations with the goals of
cultural chronologies, the explanation of past lifeways
and cultural process uppermost (Thomas 1979; Woodall
1972). With this new and evolving emphasis on evolu-
tionary, environmental and systems theories, a conse-
quent loss of interest in the cultural materials for
themselves alone occurred (Freed 1977). However,, in this
age of diminishing resources, inflation, new federal laws,
the death of the energy boom and the recognized need to
save something for future archaeologists to excavate
with advanced technologies, methodologies and theories,
archaeologists are coming in out of the field. The
place to go is into the archives and basements of museums,
many of which are not adequately prepared for such an
invasion (Bourque et al. 1980).
Museums have been pretty much ignored by scholars,
students and professionals over the last twenty years,
"reinforcing a subtle, negative attitude on the museums'
value of anthropology and diminishing the whole field"
(Kane 1985: 52).
Museums today have developed a profession of their
own called Museology. This discipline seems more
concerned with administration and curatorial practices


11
which has left them too little time for the study and
research of the objects of which they are primarily in
charge. Archaeology has taken a back seat to ethno-
logical concerns; but due to changing conditions on
both fronts, the archaeologist and the museologist must
cooperate in order to benefit both.


CHAPTER III
PROBLEMS IN RESEARCHING SYSTEMATIC
ARCHAEOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS IN
MUSEUMS
Introduction
There are many problems that present themselves
to the researcher when setting out to study systematic
collections in museums. He may face any or all of these
obstacles and should be aware of and alert to these
hurdles before beginning if he wishes to make his
project a successful one. Many of these are problems
that I experienced while researching the collections for
this thesis, but they apply throughout the museum world
and will be discussed as such here. "Without a doubt,
there is a crisis in curation" of systematic collections
in museums (Marquardt et al. 1982: 411).
Problems From the Field
In researching some of the collections that were
recovered prior to the 1960s, the scholar will find that
many of the problems started in the field. In most of
the early archaeological work there was little or no
real collection strategy, and certainly no research


13
design outlining techniques or methodologies to be
followed by the archaeologist. Collecting was often
selective and biased, emphasizing the unusual or spec-
tacular site or artifact (Thomas 1979). There were no
real scientific "random" collection policies practiced
(with the possible of Spier's at Zuni, see below) so
often whatever information was collected was biased.
Seemingly unimportant materials were overlooked or
urecognized and left in the field or thrown away.
Stratigraphic controls were almost non-existent before
the twenties and elemental up through the fifties
(Thomas 1979). Locations for many objects often were
general only (state, county or even site if one is
lucky), but as for exact provenience on or in the site
itself, the documentation was often lacking.
Many times the scholar will find a lack of
other supporting evidence for these collections as
these were not recovered as routinely as they are now
(Ford 1977). Remains such as charcoal, wood for tree-
ring dating, soil samples, hearth or firepit materials,
floral categories such as seeds, nuts or pollen and
faunal remains are often overlooked as the value of
these data was not yet perceived (Woodall 1979) .
There was often poor documentation in the form
of fieldnotes, maps, profiles, geologic and environmental


14
descriptions and final reports. Photography was non-
existent in the early days and poorly used later on,
and analyses of the materials were often spotty or
wrong. Some or all of this documentation may or may not
be kept at one institution. Even excellently and
methodically documented notes may be difficult for the
student to decipher due to bad handwriting or the use
of personal shorthand and abbreviations. Wilmsen (1979),
for example, had a very difficult time following Roberts'
fieldnotes from Lindenmeier and it took him over a
year before he finally figured out most of the transcrip-
tions and references contained in them. I had the same
trouble in matching the Huschers' designations for their
sites with those in the collection.
Without doubt, the systematically collected
materials of the last few decades will be easier to
research when approached with new hypotheses, but the
older collections, whether collected by professionals or
amateurs, provenienced or not, will also prove just as
valuable for the information inherent in them (Cantwell
et al. 1981).
Problems in the Museums
Once a collection reached a museum, many of the
above problems were compounded and recently have been.


15
exacerbated by the sheer volume of collections that has
been generated by government funded projects(Marquardt
et al. 1982). There has always been little interest'by
the collector in following up his collection once it
reached the museum and usually there was no communication
between the museum staff and the archaeologist either
before, during or after the project (Bourque et al.
1980). Funds were set aside for fieldwork and analysis
but hardly ever for curation. Consequently, museums were
left responsible for a vast array of materials without
input or funding from.the outside.
Without doubt, the biggest and most difficult
problem museums have always confronted has been inade-
quate funding for the care, storage and research or
collections, or for the staff required to process and
care for them (Cantwell et al. 1981; Osgoode 1979).
Without adequate financing, many curation practices
have been mismanaged, left undone or done inappropriately.
Many museums were constructed years ago, and
provided with little and/or overcrowded storage space,
allowing for limited and difficult access to artifacts
which may be stored incorrectly, a situation leading to
damage (Ford 1977; Osgoode 1979). Ventilation, lighting,
temperature, humidity and insect-proofing may be defi-
cient; again, situations that may be harmful to


16
collections. Physical security may sometimes be insuffi-
cient, allowing for the theft of artifacts and rare
documentation (Ford 1977; Osgoode 1977). In addition,
it is likely there may be no appropriate facilities in
which to carry out this research. Tables may have to be
cleared, only to be reclaimed before the project is
terminated. People may be in and out constantly, squeez-
ing past or stopping to chat, lighting may be poor and
equipment needed to carry out certain aspects of this
research non-existent.
New problems may be encountered with the
record keeping practices in many museums. Frequently,
artifacts may not be accessioned or catalogued and may
still remain in their original packing crates, old boxes
or bags in some dark basement or unknown location. If
they have been catalogued, the information may be
misleading or not specific enough for the data one
might require, necessitating an investigation into the
whole collection to pinpoint exactly what may be avail-
able (Matthews 1981).
Many items may be misclassified or not classified
at all due to ignorance or error by the recorder or the
collector himself. Some specimens may have become mixed
in with other collections or even accessioned with them
leading to loss or confusion in information. (For


example, portions of the material from one of the
Huschers' sites from the Uncompahgre Plateau were
numbered and catalogued with their Apex/Magic Mountain
material). Still others may be accessioned and specif-
ically catalogued, but may be on permanent loan else-
where or on exhibit and consequently, may not be avail-
able for study. Other collections may be lost
altogether. Even small, local museums have an obliga-
tion, not necessarily for research, but for proper
curation, cataloguing, recording and preservation of
local artifacts in their care.
Not all museums may have documented their
materials with photographs, a time-saver for the
researcher who wishes to get a general idea of a collec
tion or the typological holdings available, or who is
dealing with hundreds or thousands of the same type
of artifact from many different institutions and needs
to make comparisons of these materials (Matthews 1981)
Even if photographs are in existence, they may be of
poor quality or not of enough detail to be useful, or
so poorly documented as to be worthless (Freed 1981) .
Different museums may have curated their
material in different ways, an important point depend-
ing on what category the researcher is interested in.
Ford (1979: 5-14) has outlined this very succinctly.


18
Items may be catalogued as a single culture unit, those
objects that were recovered from the same site or
similar sites. Most archaeological collections are
organized this way (Matthews 1981). They may be cata-
logued according to culture area, such as Northwest
Coast or Plains. They may be classified by typology:
those of similar materials, form or function. Life
collections are comprised of all items from one collec-
tion whether from a single site, area, culture or a
mixture thereof. The Easterday of Hutchinson Collec-
tions at the DMNH are examples (see below). However,
if there are no cross-reference files to correlate all
these components, exhaustive drawer-to-drawer or box-
to-box searches may ensue by both museum personnel and
researcher resulting in valuable time lost (Matthews
1981).
Documentation of these collections may not be
catalogued or accessioned along with the artifacts and
may be stored in other areas or not at the museum at
all. Proper curation procedures may not have been used
and ink and pictures may be faded and the paper yellowed
and aged (Freed 1981). Often, laborious searches for
written materials relevant to the study may be necessary.
Inadequate or harmful conservation of materials
has always been a major source of concern for curators


19
(Osgoode 1979). Ideas on cleaning and restoration have
changed over the years as new techniques and methods
have been developed. Although cleaning may be necessary
to help protect certain objects from deterioration, it
may lead to the obliteration of certain other informa-
tion that may be valuable to the student. Information
such as pollen and food residue, color or pigmentation,
wear patterns, manufacturing techniques, soil types,
blood, wrappings and even evidence or provenience (as
some artifacts can leave traces on other artifacts if
they have been lying on or next to each other), may be
obliterated (Freed 1981; Pringle 1985). Some cleaning
methods may even destroy certain objects such as tex-
tiles, wood or basketry, although new techniques and
ideas have improved these processes (Bourque et al.
1981; Freed 1981).
Preservation and restoration may also bias data.
Although many articles need some sort of preparation
before they are stored or exhibited, the less done,
both in the field and in the museum, the better for the
artifact and the less information destroyed. The
integrity of many collections may have been harmed by
the various methods employed by curators to improve them
for public exhibit (Freed 1981).


20
Restoration may lead to the modification of an
artifact, a serious problem for the researcher. As
Freed (1981) points out, the repair or replacement of
missing parts or surface manipulations by some well-
meaning restorer may transform the original specimen so
that it may not be recognizable to the original manu-
facturer or user, which again may lead to disinformation.
It is the obligation of the archaeologist and the curator
to take precautions when preparing to modify the condi-
tion of an article. Who knows what new interpretative
procedures may be developed in the future that will be
worthless for obtaining information due to mistaken
curation?
Deaccessigning
Over time, many museum collections may have
become separated, divided up, sold, loaned, traded, lost,
stolen, mixed up or simply thrown away. Museums have
different policies on what can be done with unwanted or
unneeded material. The DMNH has a policy that nothing
can be deaccessioned unless by complete authorization of
the Board of Directors (Herold 1983). However, deacces-
sioning is encouraged by some and outlawed by others
(Osgoode 1979). Many museums may have gaps in their
inventories that need to be filled; consequently, whole


21
or parts of some collections may have been traded, sold
or put on permanent loan in exchange for necessary
materials. If complete records are not kept updated,
many of these transactions may have become lost, again,
with resultant loss in data. As times change and
museums grow and staff leaves, unwritten agreements may
be forgotten and poorly written ones misunderstood or
ignored. Proper care may not have been taken when
returning items to their regular storage place after
they have been removed, and they may be stored with
other materials.
The significance of existing collections, no
matter what their history or documentation, will only
increase as the emphasis on field work diminishes
(Brown 1981; Ford 1977). Museum collections will
become the laboratory for many future archaeologists
and museums have a professional obligation to these
collections, to the resarcher and to themselves. If
it becomes absolutely necessary to exchange or sell
collections, they should go to an institution which
already has part of that collection or which special-
izes in that culture or area from which the collection
derives, and then only if the collection is redundant
to the original holding museum.


22
Conclusion
There is much that can be done by museums and
collectors alike to remedy many of these situations.
Most curators are aware of the problems extant in their
own departments and are working on solutions. However,
without sufficient financing, modernized buildings
and updated record keeping procedures, many of the
shortcomings will continue.


CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH POTENTIALS OF MUSEUM
COLLECTIONS
Introduction
The man who comes after and carries on the
work of the excavator in recovering data on the
past is followed by others who come after and
improve on the earlier studies . bringing
new problems, new techniques . (Cantwell
1981: 8).
In spite of the seemingly insurmountable
obstacles outlined in the preceding chapter, there are
abundant research opportunities or restudy projects
which have been or can be done utilizing museum
materials. Kintigh (1981) did a restudy of Spier's
randomly collected ceramics from various Zuni sites and
discovered them still to be a valuable source of
information. In fact, he relates (1981: 468) "For a
variety of reasons, Spier's collection turned out to
be the most valuable . . for my research, signif-
icantly more useful than even my own collections."
Museum collections are not only used by archae-
ologists, but by anthropologists, art historians,
geologists, botanists, historians, sociologists and
others, and by students of all these disciplines.


24
Often museum collections are the only source of informa-
tion on many sites and the major source for others
which have been destroyed (Greben, Davis and DuFresne
1981) due to erosion, urbanization, excavation or
vandalism (Kintigh 19 81) Museums often contain informa-
tion and collections from certain areas that have not
been professionally surveyed, excavated or researched
in regions little known for their archaeological poten-
tials .
Technological Developments
Recent developments in technology, methodology
and theory have opened new doors for innovative research
of archaeological collections unimagined by their collec-
tors. For instance, Clarence B. Moore, one of the
principle collectors of burial furniture from Moundville
in the early 1900s, would be amazed at the information
recovered from his materials. Even though his collec-
tions are scattered in museums throughout the United
States, recent researchers have developed a specific
chronology for Moundville, have recognized exchange net-
works, identified two local ceramic traditions and
determined settlement patterns within and without the
site; and the research has just begun (Peebles et al.
1981).


25
Perhaps the most spectacular advances in the
last twenty years have been made in the technological
and methodological fields which have updated and revolu-
tionized techniques in dating, identification of
materials and their origins, functions and manufacturing
techniques, just to name a few (Wilson 19 74) In turn
they have enabled us to come closer to answering ques-
tions posed by new theoretical concepts. All these
techniques have aided in the identification of chrono-
logical placement, materials and their sources, trade
routes, geographical distribution, diffusion and even
the recognition of new cultures and traditions (Cantwell
et al. 1981; Wilson 1974). The possibilities are almost
boundless on what information can be retrieved using
these techniques.
Dendrochronology has been used for absolute and
cross-dating of many sites and associative artifacts, and
for identification of climatic changes and environments
in the prehistoric Southwest (Wilson 1974). Since 1929,
some investigators collected wood samples for this and
other purposes as the Huschers (1939) did for the Ute
sites. Many new researchers have returned to the field
in order to acquire samples as an adjunct to their
research.


26
Radiocarbon dating, first used in 1949 but not
fully accepted until the sixties (Wilson 1974), has
been used extensively for dating older collections of
bone, shell, wood and carbon samples withexcellent
results (Griffin 1981; Wilson 1974). Haynes and Agogino
(1960) tested bone from the Lindenmeier site and
accurately dated the period of occupation of that site.
Trace element and spectroscopic analyses have
been used on copper, obsidian, galena and pottery found
in many collections to trace the origin of these
materials (Day 1984; Wilson 1974). Such studies have
been done by Griffin (1981) when he traced obsidian
found in sites in the eastern United States to Yellow-
stone. Neutron activation resolved the questions of
the origin of Maya Fine Orange Ware when- it was found
that Kixpec was the center of manufacture
. . and that the samples found at Piedras
Negras and elsewhere must have been imported
from Kixpec, because the undoubted local pottery
of Piedras Negras had quite a different composi-
tion in terms of trace elements (Wilson 1974: 203).
Many studies have been done utilizing electro-
spin resonance or thermoluminescence for identification
of proveniences of certain ceramics, flint, calcite and
mollusks (Day 1984; Griffin 1981; Wilson 1974). Other
techniques that have been used for identification pur-
poses of types and origins include x-ray defraction,


27
petrographic and geologic analyses (Anderson, Haynes
and Agogino 1974; Griffin 1981; Wilson 1974). For
instance, Haynes (1980) did an analysis of Clovis points
and found they were made of high quality lithic source
materials frequently obtained over great distances from
where the points had been found, although some local
sources were used as well. Yet 78 percent of Folsom
points studied by Briolo (1971) in Blackwater Draw were
made of material from a single source of Edwards Plateau
chert which was along the route of the bison that were
being hunted by the Folsom people.
Skeletal Materials
There have been numerous research projects that
have focused on human and animal skeletal materials that
were collected in association with artifacts or by
themselves and which were packed away in boxes gathering
dust (Shipman 1981; Wilson 1974). The information that
these studies have given us is phenomenal, as long as
the materials have not been ground up for bone meal and
put on the Chairman's lawn, as was done with one collec-
tion (Griffin 1981).
Bones have been analyzed for tooth marks and
cut marks made by stone and metal, and for spiral frac-
tures which are studied to determine if they occurred due


28
to natural causes or human action (Stanford 1982);
skeletal remains have also been analyzed for- signs of
burning, weathering, abrasion or digestion (Shipman
1981; Wilson 1974).
Demographic and health questions have been
answered using skeletal material which have identified
the age, sex, weight, height, toxicology, disease,
nutrition and age at which death occurred (Brown 1981).
These studies have elucidated issues of social strati-
fication and status associated with differential access
to food. One such research project was conducted by
Blakely and Buck (1981: 428) in Etowah where they
discovered through trace element analysis that "social
structure included a dual hierarchical ranking" but that
status was more commonly achieved than ascribed.
Trace carbon isotope studies have been used on
bone to determine the arrival of corn or other classes of
cultigens in certain areas (Brown 1981) Skeletal and
dentition studies have also traced immigration and
migration patterns, changes in cooking utensils, differ-
ent dietary patterns and nutritional stress (Brown 1981;
Shipman 1981; Wilson 1974) .
The Computer
Perhaps one of the most important technologi-
cal advances has been the invention of the computer.


29
Many innovative studies have been conducted using this
new tool, and new ways to put it -to use are turning up
daily (IBM 1985; Wilson 1974; Woodall 1974). The uses
of the computer in the field, lab and the museum by the
researcher are just now being realized. It is now
used in almost all reseaarch projects to collate data
in a way that was impossible even ten years ago, allow-
ing for the retrieval of information that might never
have been attempted before (Wilson 1974; Woodall 1974).
Computers have been used for the time-consuming
chores of filing and sorting and for studies that include
large quantities of data which need to be collated
rapidly (Wilson 1974). Projects that involve complicated
mathematical techniques have been simplified by the use
of the computer. Long lists of attributes or of certain
classes of data have been fed into the computer. Then
comparisons have been punched in from other representa-
tive samples from various collections for comparative
purposes (Wilson 1974) .
Identification of signature characteristics have
been computerized facilitating the incorporation of old
and poorly documented collections into usable data
(Brown 1981).
Multivariate factor analysis, principal compo-
nents analysis and cluster analysis, to name a few, have


30
been certain computer methods applied to collections in
order to discover what particular types of objects are
concentrated in association with other types of arti-
facts; or if, instead, they are scattered at random
throughout the site (Wilson 19 74) Neustupny, as
described in Wilson (1974) learned of the social relation
ships and sexual'division of labor among the Cord-Ward
peoples of Bohemia by feeding in data on the pottery
located in their burials. Even fragments of the same
object located in different museums or private collec-
tions have been reassembled using these methods (Brown
1981; Matthews 1981).
Many different kinds of ceramic studies have .
been completed using the computer to analyze data.
Feldman and Rowlett (1981: 340) have devised a computer
program which analyzes the
. . . curved fracture lines of pot sherds in order
to complete a ceramic study with the proper pro-
files of vessels produced in each of the different
wares [from a Late-Iron-Age fort in Luxembourg]
using fracture texture, thickness, fine-lines,
grit, decor and other attributable dimensions.
Puniello (1981), sorting Woodland sherds .according to
their different attributes of body surface finish and
using statistical analysis, has been able to develop
a chronology for these wares along the Upper Delaware
River Valley.


31
Lithic analyses have been done, using museum
collections and the computer, that were impossible before
(Wilson 1974). As Feldman and Rowlett (1981: 340)
explain
. . refitting of broken materials or finished
artifacts with the manufacturing debris ... is
often done in Europe. Refitting of unknown pro-
venience or stray-find flaked . tools with
their manufacturing debris, and other artifacts
from the same core can restore the innumerable
[lithic] and arrowhead collections so often
arriving in Museums with weak documentation.
Many "orphans" with little or no provenience have been
traced and placed in their right context (Gramly 1980).
Such projects have led to the identification of nomadic
groups and their temporary camps, migration routes and
the identification of resource and area use (Feldman
and Rowlett 1981; Gramly 1980; Wilson 1974).
Waste debris has been used to determine pre-
historic technology and ecology (Gramly 1980). Identi-
fication of lithic tools, caches and raw materials
through their debris has been traced back to original
quarry sites such as Weigand's tracking of turquoise
sources in the Southwest and Renfrew's discovery of
Middle Eastern obsidian origins all discussed in Wilson
(1974). As he points out (1974: 204), such techniques
have helped us distinguish various exchange networks
and population movements within and without specific
culture areas.


32
There are even studies going on now that are
attempting to identify different manufacturers' "signa-
tures" on specific tools and ceramic materials, a
concept with enormous potential for proveniencing of
artifacts (Gramly 1980; Griffin 1981).
Another notable discovery mentioned in Pringle
(1985: 16) was that of Tom Loy of the British Columbia
Provincial Museum who has developed a technique that
detects traces of ". . ancient blood, tissue and hair
on 98 percent of the Stone Age tools and weapons" he
has studied. This development may allow future scholars
to gain insights into diseases and their introduction
into an area. It also may provide information on the
diets, prey and hunting patterns of prehistoric peoples
and perhaps even trace their genetic evolutions.
Through computer use, other notable advances
have been made in the techniques for determining func-
tions of certain classes of prehistoric lithic arti-
facts. Winters (1981) did a study on Woodland copper
celts/axes/gouges from different unprovenienced collec-
tions and found that contrary to their classification,
these objects were not utilitarian at all but were
ritual items placed in burials and caches of wealth for
those of certain status in the society.


33
Winters (1981) also did a computer assisted
study of Mississippian hoes and not only discovered
their sources, but that there had been hoe "factories"
exporting ready-made implements to Mississippian popu-
lations. He also recognized patterns in trade and land
use through these studies.
Comparative Procedures
Cross-cultural and intra-cultural comparative
studies with both well provenienced and unprovenienced
artifacts have been essential in most research projects
that use collections. They have been valuable tools for
dating different ceramic and lithic tool types and inter-
and intrasite contacts (Ford 1981). Functional studies
have been carried out with implements from many collec-
tions and the evolution of various technologies have been
followed. For example, Boast (1983) determined that the
Lindenmeier and other Folsom gravers probably were
used to cut the tendons of the game animals that were
hunted and not, as was once surmised, used for engraving
bone (Wormington 1949). By using comparative methods
with specific type or untyped collections, new periods,
phases, subcultures and cultures have been recognized
and dated (Griffin 1981) These methods have also been


34
used in the analysis and interpretation of new data
(Cantwell et al. 1981; Griffin 1974).
Comparative analysis has been useful in identi-
fying artifacts that were not previously known to occur
in a culture, such as Griffin's (1981) identification of
pottery in Adena sites, a culture previously thought to
be non-ceramic. He accomplished this by matching differ-
ent wares in various museums and typing and provenienc-
ing them into Adena sites.
Inter-and intraregional style pattern's and their
variability in design and/or structure on ceramics,
engraved tools or ornamentation have been recognized
using both whole specimens and fragments with cross
comparative techniques (Conkey 1981) Traditions and
their evolution or disappearance have been identified
through design structures studies using the comparative
method (Conkey 1981) .
Brown (1981) traced provenienced and unpro-
venienced and whole and fragmentary pieces of engraved
marine shell from Spiro Mound through museums and
private collections. He not only identified them as
coming from Spiro, but discovered that most had been
broken before burial and pieces from the same specimens
were interred in different graves. "This circumstance,
which is very illuminating of the social contexts of


35
use and ownership of valued objects, is an important
means for reassembling the Great Mortuary inventory
(Brown 1981: 69). By comparing these articles he dis-
covered traces of marine shell dust, green glauconite
clay smears and textile fibers which also identified
their provenience.
Another favored, but controversial, method of
comparative analysis is ethnographic analogy. Often,
researchers will go to the present to learn about the
past by looking at objects extant in the ethnographic
literature and extrapolating back in time to compare
these in form and function, with those materials found
during their investigations (Thomas 1979). Ethno-
graphic analogies have been used to generate hypotheses
to be tested with archaeological data and is taking the
place of inferential analogy.
Art historians have often done stylistic and
iconographic research utilizing archaeological collec-
tions and cross comparative methods. Matthews'(1981)
states:
Objects that have been archaeologically exca-
vated can provide a framework for the use of poorly
recorded material. Working first with objects from
controlled sites, certain patterns become clear and
many of the other pieces can be included in analyses
of chronology and distribution ... as more objects
from controlled excavations become available the
clearer our picture of context will become (172) .


36
Obviously, the larger and more complete the
available sample, the more information obtained; this
has assisted both the historian and the archaeologist.
One can begin to perceive differing developments through
the study and comparisons of attributes and types, such
as changes in contact and how this affected the ideology
of the culture; different characteristics of various
groups have become clearer and defined movements and
influences. This information can be cross-checked with
linguistic, ethnohistorical and archaeological data.
The exposure of fakes also has been an important
outcome of the comparative method. Most, if not all,
museums include fakes and erroneous documentation in
their collections, although these usually have come with
donated or purchased materials (Perino 1985) Restora-
tion of an object may have changed it in such a way as
to make it a completely different specimen (Freed 1981).
Many talented artisans have increased their incomes
substantially by manufacturing fakes in lithic and
ceramic materials, and often have fooled all but the
most knowledgeable experts (Perino 1985). But by
comparing the original techniques and materials used in
their manufacture, and by comparing signature character-
istics, most can be culled from the collections.


37
Multidisciplinary Approach
Perhaps one of the more sensible procedures
encouraged by the "new" archaeology has been the use of
the multidisciplinary approach in archaeological research
and this has carried over into collections research as
well (Day 1984; Bourque et al. 1980; Thomas 1979;
Williams 1981). Many of the examples cited above used
disciplines outside their own to augment their studies.
Chemists provided the expertise for many of the new
techniques used; computer experts and statisticians
wrote and interpreted programs to be used in this
research.
Ethnobotanists, paleontologists and zoologists
have studied the flora and fauna found in and aro,und
sites and have identified different species, their
evolution and disappearance, their uses and whether
they were wild or domesticated (Ford 1981; Shipman 1981;
Wilson 1974). Geologists and climatologists have
revealed the various environmental conditions under
which prehistoric peoples lived and the changes that
occurred in these environments over time. Conditions
such as climatic change, earthquakes, volcanic activity
and changes in permanent and temporary water sources
have all been determined by these associated disciplines.


38
They have also aided in the identification of lithic and
clay materials and their sources (Cantwell et al. 1981;
Wilson 1974).
There is no limit to the assistance these and
other professions can offer archaeologists and their
advice and help should be utilized whenever possible.
Summation
The examples cited above are just a few of the
studies that have been conducted utilizing systematic
archaeological collections in museums and private collec-
tions. Some were studies done on well documented collec-
tions but many of these projects used poorly provenienced
and documented materials and these too yielded substan-
tive and theoretical information.
It is hoped that these examples will serve as
models for prospective researchers and will encourage the
preservation of both old and new collections as they
contain considerable potential for many different kinds
of research. By investigating the various methods and
techniques addressed here, it is further hoped that
interested parties will focus their attentions on some,
if not all, of the collections held in the DMNH which
are described in Chapter VI.


CHAPTER V
HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
AT THE DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURAL
HISTORY
General History
The Colorado Museum of Natural History (CMNH)
was founded after a naturalist, Edwin Carter, offered to
sell his collection of specimens of birds and mammals to
the highest bidder (Dolan 1980). According to Dolan,
who wrote a synopsis of the Museum's history in 1980,
a group of businessmen got together in 1897 and proposed
that a fireproof museum be built to house Mr. Carter's
collection, and that he be appointed Curator for life
(Mr. Carter died in 1900). The proposal was agreed on
and the collection was stored temporarily in the basement
of the State Capitol until suitable housing could be
found. With further pledges from two other collectors,
a contract was entered into with the City of Denver to
donate one quarter of a mill tax from one year's
revenues to finance a museum.
On December 6, 1900, the CMNH was incorporated
and construction of.a building started in Denver's City
Park. The Museum officially opened to the public in


40
July, 1908 with over 3,400 articles under its roof.
Since then, the Museum has grown enormously in both its
physical size and in the number of its collections. In
1949, the name was changed from the Colorado Museum of
Natural History to the Denver Museum of Natural History
as Denver provided the majority of the funding for the
Museum.
Paleontology Department
Although there were many natural science depart-
ments organized after the founding of the CMNH, no
archaeological or anthropological departments were
established until 1932. Consequently, all the early
systematic archaeological collections currently held at
the Museum are attributable to the discoveries of the
Paleontology Department. Field trips for study and the
acquisition of samples for exhibition were common prac-
tices for the Paleontology Department in the first thirty
years of its history, and it was through these expedi-
tions that evidence of Early Man in America was first
recognized.
In 1910, Jesse D. Figgins, a paleontologist
and staff member of the American Museum of Natural
History (AMNH), was named the Director of the CMNH and
he became involved in many of these paleontological


41
excursions as the search for fossil samples intensified
in the first quarter of this century.
In 1923-24, while on a paleontological field
trip for the Museum, an employee, H. D. Boyes, uncovered
two projectile points in association with extinct bison
in Lone Wolf Creek, Colorado City, Texas. Although this
evidence was not accepted as proof of early man by
renowned scholars (Wormington 19 49) this discovery
intrigued Figgins and he increased the efforts to find
evidence of the association of man with extinct fauna.
In less than two years this proof was confirmed by the
discoveries outside Folsom, New Mexico; and in less than
ten years was further verified by the discovery of Clovis
points in association with mammoth in Dent, Colorado.
The Paleontology Department participated in both those
finds.
In 1929 Figgins sent Dr. E. Renaud to survey
caves in New Mexico and Oklahoma in hopes of finding
further evidence of prehistoric man. In 1930 Figgins
(1930) reported that the CMNH, the Smithsonian and the
University of Denver were jointly financing archaeologi-
cal surveys of eastern Colorado and fossils were
collected near, or in association with, human artifacts
near Colorado City, Texas.


42
A. M. Brooking of the Hastings, Nebraska Museum,
excavated a site in 1931 which had the remains of an
articulated mammoth and recovered a fluted point with
the skeleton (Figgins, 1931). J. D. Figgins obtained
this point and confirmed it as a Folsom. However,
subsequent investigations revealed that the geologic
deposits containing the mammoth remains were far too
early for human artifacts, and, according to Wormington:
The point itself has always been somewhat of i
an anomaly, for it is much cruder and thicker than
most similar specimens, and it is possible that it
was made from a piece of stone which was already
grooved. It seems possible that it was.a forgery,
deliberately introduced into the deposits by some
unknown individual (Wormington 1949: 43).
The point is still held in the archaeological storage
room as a curiosity.
Archaeology Department
For the first time, a Division of Prehistoric-,,
artifacts was established at the CMNH in 1932. "The
importance that now attaches to the Museum's discover-
ies of prehistoric artifacts, plus the result of field-
work and contributions made a necessary betterment of
this phase . ." (Figgins, 1932: 23).
In 1933 the CMNH participated in the excavation
of the Dent Site and in 1934 one of the Dent mammoths
and a Folsom bison were given to the Carnegie Museum in


43
exchange for a skeleton of Diplodocus and one of Ana-
tosaurus (Figgins 1934) .
The year 1935 was a very important one for
archaeology at the CMNH. John Cotter and a small crew
from the Museum joined Frank Roberts of the Smithsonian
in the field at Lindenmeier. The Department of Archae-
ology was founded in October of that year. Marie Worming-
ton was hired as an archaeologist and photographer
(Figgins 1935), and in December investigations were
begun at the Moore Shelter in the Uncompahgre Plateau
(Wormington 1935). J. D. Figgins retired in 1936 and
Alfred Bailey, an ornithologist, took over as Director
of the Museum.
From 1935 to 1967, H. Marie Wormington remained
as Curator of Archaeology and became one of the world's
foremost experts on Paleo-Indian studies combined with a
broad interest in other areas of prehistoric archaeology.
She ". . . expanded the Museum's regional and temporal
specializations in archaeology" (Herold 1983: 5). She
encouraged and co-sponsored the.Huschers' surveys of
1939-194i in the foothills areas in Colorado and led her
own excavations at the Moore-Casebier Sites during 1935-
1939 and the Turner-Look Fremont Sites between 1939-1948.
She also excavated the Taylor-Alva Sites in 1950-52 and
co-headed an expedition to Alberta, Canada which was funded


44
by the Glenbow Foundations in 1955-56. She published
widely in the Denver Museum of Natural History Proceeding
Series and in other journals. She encouraged young
archaeologists such as Cynthia Irwin-Williams and her
brother Henry Irwin who excavated the LoDaisKa Site in
1957 and the Magic Mountain Site in 1959-60. In 1966-67,
Marie Wormington excavated the Frazier Site in northern
Colorado which was to be her last excavation with the
DMNH. She left the Museum in 1967 and the Department of
Archaeology was discontinued.
In 1962 there was a disastrous fire in Phipps
Auditorium and the archaeology office and storage area
were badly affected by it (Akerly, 1985). Many items
sustained heavy smoke damage and a number of them were
covered with tar which had melted down on them from the
roof.
Anthropology Department
From 1967 to the present the emphasis shifted
from archaeology to ethnology, especially with the addi-
tion of the Crane Collection consisting of over 11,000
items of both ethnographic and archaeological signif-
icance collected by the Cranes during their lifetime
(Herold, 1983). Very little archaeological work was
done during the late sixties and seventies. Richard


45
Stucky led a survey to the Lowry Bombing Range in 1976.
In 1976-77 he. conducted a reconnaissance survey on the.
Sand Wash Basin in northeastern Colorado on which he
wrote his Master's thesis for the University of Colorado
at Denver. Robin Boast also wrote a Master's thesis for
the same institution in 1983 on the micro-wear patterns
of the Lindenmeier gravers and he excavated the Gregory
Allen Burial in 1984.
Summary
The evolution of the archaeological tradition at
the DMNH parallels, to a great extent, the history of
archaeology and museums nationally. The twenties and the
thirties were years of discovery and collection centered
around the search for man's antiquity in the New World.
In the period just following World War II, the concen-
tration was mainly on the projects on the Western Slope
where a continuum was sought between the Early Man sites,
the Pueblo culture and possible early Ute. DMNH publi-
cations remained on the descriptive level with typologies,
functional analysis and trait lists predominating.
In the fifties the Museum cut down somewhat on
field work conducted by its staff, and began to concen-
trate oh the exhibition of its holdings and much work


46
went into the construction of showrooms and the design of
these exhibits.
The sixties saw a gradual but definitive change
in the emphasis from archaeology to ethnology and after
1967 archaeology as a discipline was no longer repre-
sented. In 1968 anthropology gained a department of its
own.
The eighties have brought a renewed interest
in archaeology to the Museum as it is understood in
America to be part of the anthropological framework.
With the appointment of Dr. Jane S. Day as Curator of
Archaeology in 1985, a new step forward has been taken.


CHAPTER VI
SYSTEMATIC COLLECTIONS IN THE DENVER
MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
Paleo-Indian Sites
It was not until the verification of the Folsom
discoveries that many believed in the great antiquity of
early man in the New World (Wormington 1949). Prior to
this time, most scholars followed the lead of Alex
Hdrlicka, a physical anthropologist, who loudly critiqued
any mention of this possibility. Consequently, many
archaeologists and paleontologists ignored the Paleo-
Indian field (Cassells 1983).
Lone Wolf Creek
In 1923-24, the first recorded evidence of man
in association with extinct Pleistocene fauna was
uncovered on Lone Wolf Creek, Colorado City, Texas by
H. D. Boyes, an employee of the CMNH Paleontology Depart-
ment (Figgins 1924). This occurred on a field expedi-
tion from the CMNH which was seeking extinct mammals to
be placed on exhibition at the Museum; while Boyes and
his crew were excavating a deposit of extinct bison,
Boyes found ". . two arrowheads associated with the


48
material, one immediately beneath a series of cervical
vertebrae and the other below a femur" (Figgins 1924: 17).
Remarking on the fine workmanship displayed in
the manufacture of these "arrowheads," Figgins (1924:
17) recognized that ". .a stage of culture unlike that
found in specimens picked up on the surface ..." was
represented.
However, these two projectile points, one a
Plainview and the other a Milnesand, were not regarded
as evidence of man's association with prehistoric bison
due to the uncontrolled conditions under which they were
found (Wormington 1949). These artifacts are listed in
the Accession Catalogue as items one and two: "Two
flint arrowheads found with fossil bison at Colorado
City, Texas, donated by H. D. Boyes and Nelson Vaughn"
(Herold 1983: 46). They are still held in the department.
The Folsom Site
In early 1908, George McJunkin, a black cowboy,
was riding along Wild Horse Creek, a tributary of the
Cimarron River (Figures 1 and 2) when he noticed bones
eroding out of the deep wall in a box canyon near Folsom,
New Mexico (Cassells 1983; Folsom and Agogino 1968;
Wormington 1949). McJunkin, primarily a self-educated
man and the son of slaves, was interested in a variety


sO


Figure 2. Paleo-Indian Sites
m
o


51
of subjects and fascinated with old rocks and bones;
Folsom and Agogino (1968) state that after trying to dig
some of-the bones out of the wall and having them crumble,
McJunkin devised a formula for preserving bones and those
he eventually preserved survived on his mantle for many
years.
Folsom and Agogino (1968) go on to say that over
the next few years, McJunkin tried to interest others in
his discovery as he realized the bones on his mantle that
eroded out of the canyon were not modern bison or cow
bones. Eventually, he related his findings to a black-
smith and. amateur paleontologist, Carl Schwachheim and
later to a Raton, New Mexico banker, Fred Howarth. But
it was not until 1922, when, with three others, these
two amateur enthusiasts saw the site for the first time.
One of these men contacted Figgins at the CMNH and
Figgins and Harold Cook, a paleontologist at the Museum,
visited the site in April, 1926 (Figgins 1927).' That
summer, Figgins' son, Frank, assisted by Schwachheim and
Cook, began the actual excavation of this site, located
on the Crowfoot Ranch, eight miles from Folsom, New Mexico.
On July 14, 1926, Schwachheim wrote in his diary:
Found part of a broken spear or large arrow-
head near the base of the fifth spine taken out.
It is about two inches long and is of a dark-amber-
colored agate and of very fine workmanship. It is
broken off nearly square and we may find the rest


52
of it. I sure hope so. It is a question which
skeleton it was in but from the position of them
it must have been the skeleton of the smaller one
and just inside the cavity of the body near the
back (Folsom and Agogino 1968: 7).
This statement documents the first Folsom point recovered
in direct association with extinct bison in Pleistocene
soils (Wormington 1949)y shortly after the missing
section was found.
Figgins, after much soul searching, wrote Barnum
Brown of the AMNH and told him of the discovery. Figgins
was worried that the news would not be believed by
Hrdlicka and his disciples, especially after the reception
he received when he announced the Lone Wolf Creek finds
(Tolsom and Agogino 1968). But before he decided on a
course of action, another point was discovered. Again,
from Schwachheim's diary, are the words relating this
find:
I found an arrow point this morning. It is
of clear colored agate or jaspar. It is not exposed
the full length but it is hollow on the sides and
. . . was near a rib in the matrix. One barb is
broken off (Folsom and Agogino 1968 : 7) .
Several more points were found during the first
season, but the second one, in its matrix, was removed to
the CMNH and finally Figgins had the proof he needed to
proclaim to the world that man was living in the Americas
during the time of fauna now known to be extinct. This
announcement was made in the winter of 1927, but few


53
believed it; most were sure the points were intrusive
(Cassells 1983; Figgins 1927).
Work resumed in the summer of 1927 under the
i
direction of Cook and five more points were discovered;
the fifth one was also recovered in its original matrix
(Cassells 1983; Figgins 1927; Folsom and Agogino 1968).
With this, Figgins sent telegrams to Barnum Brown, Dr.
Frank Roberts, Jr. of the Smithsonian and to A. V. Kidder
of the Peabody Museum, Andover, Massachusetts (Cassells
1983). These three experts traveled to the Folsom Site
and confirmed the findings and the link of humans with
extinct bison was secured (Cassells 1983; Folsom and
Agogino 1968; Wormington 1949).
The AMNH joined the DMNH in the field in the
third season and more bones and points were discovered
which reinforced the evidence and the acceptance. It
was this discovery and its accreditation by learned
scientists that initiated Paleo-Indian studies (Cassells
1983; Wormington 1949).
It is ironic that George McJunkin never learned
of the great importance of his discovery; it is reported
that he had died of dropsy around 1922 (Folsom and
Agogino 1968).
Another irony associated with the Folsom dis-
covery concerns Alex. Hrdlicka. He refused to believe


54
that evidence of ancient man would ever appear in the New
World and categorically rejected the Folsom discovery.
Folsom and Agogino (1968) pointedly write:
As late as 1939 he continued to deny that
there was acceptable evidence of really ancient
man in America. Hrdlicka equally rejected racial
equality . claiming the inherent inferiority
of Negros and urging segregation of the two races
. . to avoid danger to the superior white race.
It is indeed irony that a black man . . was
instrumental in the discovery of the first accepted
Paleo-Indian site . (1968: 8).
It appears there was one other person who was
not completely pleased with the announcement. Harold
Cook, who published the first geological interpretation
of the site in 1927, in letters written to Dr. Bailey,
Dr. Wormington and others, decries the fact that
Figgins received all the credit for the discovery and
subsequent dig as he was the actual one in charge of the
general project. There is a quantity of correspondence
concerning this subject in the files at the DMNH, and
most reflect the feeling that since Figgins was the
Director of the Museum and one of the instigators of the
project, he was the one to receive the credit.
Contained in the museum collection are the two
original Folsom points with the bison bones still in the
original matrices and three other loose points from the
site. Figgins (1928) mentions that sixteen points were
located overall. Wormington (1949) says there were


55
nineteen. Six are recorded in the Accession Book. How-
ever, according to correspondence in the Museum's files,
seven incomplete points were shipped to the University of
Pennsylvania in 1941 on temporary loan. In a letter from
Edgar Howard of that institution to Dr. Bailey written
on November 28., 1941, Mr. Howard requests that they be
allowed to keep one of the Folsom tips sent to them as
they had recovered the base to that tip on a recon-
naissance trip to Folsom. Dr. Bailey granted this
request. It is assumed that the remaining points are
in the AMNH, but so far have not been traced.
There is also confusion as to the actual number
of bison uncovered at the Folsom Site. Wormington
(1949) says there were twenty-three. These were origin-
ally classified as sub-species Bison taylori and were
later named Bison antiquus fiqginsi (Wormington 1949)
but are now just called Bison antiquus. When they were
uncovered at the site, most of these bison skeletons
were missing their tail bones which suggests to most
experts they had been skinned (Wormington 1949) .
Cassells (1983) says that between 25-50 bison
were located. Some of these are on exhibit at the DMNH.
but there is a question about how many are still held at
the Museum (Akerly 1985).


56
There are many documents in the Archives per-
taining to the Folsom discovery including the original
photographs of the site and the excavation and the three
experts verifying the association of man and bison.
Publication was originally done by Figgins in
1927 and by Hay and Cook in 1930 and references to the
site can be found in any book which discusses Paleo-
Indian traditions. Recent studies done on the material
l
include the biography of McJunkin by Folsom and Agogino
(1968), a restudy of the geochronology by Anderson,
Frazier and Haynes (1976) in which they propose that the
Folsom Site was a locale where bison were trapped in a
narrow headcut in the arroyo and then quickly dispatched
by the Folsom hunters. They also report collagen dates
from bones recovered in 1970-71 of 10,260 110 B.P.
The Folsom Site has become the type site for all
locations in which the distinctive grooved points are
found. Needless to say, it is probably one of the most
important discoveries ever made in North America.
The Dent Site
In 1932, after a heavy cloudburst and subsequent
flash flood, bones were observed eroding out of the sands
and gravel of a gully near a railroad siding in Dent,
Colorado by Frank Garner, a railroad foreman (Cassells


57
1983; Wormington 1949) (Figures 1 and 2). Dent is a
small railroad town located on the eastern plains by an
intermittent stream that emerges from a sandstone bluff
to join the Platte River.
Garner reported his find to the Dent Depot
Manager whose son was a student at Regis College in
Denver (Wormington 1949). Michael Ryan, Jr. informed his
professor, Father Conrad Bilgery, of these bones and
Regis undertook an excavation of the site in the fall of
that year (Cassells 1983; Wormington 1949). It was on
November 5, 1932 that Father Bilgery and his students
uncovered the first fluted point resting under the pelvis
of a mammoth (Cassells 1983; Wormington 1949). The follow'
ing summer, the CMNH:
. . . through the liberality of Father Conrad
Bilgery . . took over the work of excavating
the remainder of the mammoth remains from the
quarry near Dent, Co. In addition, Father Bilgery
delivered to the Museum all skeletal parts he had
taken from the location during the preceding period
(Figgins, 1933: 13).
Figgins joined Bilgery in the field and a second
fluted point was discovered on July 7, 1933 still embedded
in the matrix (Cassells 1983; Figgins 1933). Still and
motion pictures were taken of the find and are in the
Archives at the DMNH. Figgins (1933) recognized that both
points resembled Folsom points, but that they were larger
and cruder in workmanship.


58
The original point that was uncovered by Bilgery
was held by Regis and has since been lost. However, the
DMNH has a cast of that point. A third point was picked
up by Mr. Garner in 1932, but was not reported until 1955
(Akerly 1985). It, too, is now at the Museum along with
the second one that was located in 1933.
Figgins published the results of the excavation
in 1933 and in this article he announced that one adult
male and eleven immature female mammoth had been recovered
along with the two points and several "bowlders." (None
of these "bowlders" measured more than six inches in
diameter.) (Cassells 1983). He went on to say that these
"bowlders," not common to the area, might have been used
as weapons or tools.
Father Bilgery (1935) on the other hand, thought
the whole assemblage had been redeposited, an observation
that has been strengthened by recent researchers, Frank
Frazier and Linda Spikerd (Cassells 1983). Due to the
lack of any butchering evidence on the bones, they feel the
whole site may have washed down from a higher, earlier
terrace (Cassells 1983). Haynes (1960) says the Dent
Site is a place where animals who had sustained non-mortal
wounds died and the hunters never benefitted from their
efforts.


59
The mammoths from the Dent Site, with the excep-
tion of the one traded to the Carnegie Museum, are held at
the DMNH. One is on permanent display.
Subsequent studies done on the Dent Site and its
material include Harold E. Malde's examination of the
geology and stratigraphy in 1954 and Agogino's radios
carbon dating of bone from the site. This he did in
1968; but before he could subject the bone to the tests
he first had to experiment with a process to remove the
preservation material applied to the bone by Figgins.
The study by Spikerd and Frazier is still unfinished and
unpublished (Wormington 1985).
The discovery at the Dent Site held real meaning
at that time for it ". . provided the first acceptable
proof of the contemporanity of man and mammoth in
America . . . and pushed back the antiquity of man in
North America by thousands of years" (Wormington 1949: 3).
Regretfully, neither Father Bilgery nor Figgins
gave a. name to these large fluted points and it was left
to John Cotter, excavating a similar site in Blackwater
Draw near Clovis, New Mexico, to name them.
The Lindenmeier Site
The discovery of the Folsom Site increased
efforts to locate a site that could be accurately dated


60
geographically and which might give a more complete and
detailed picture of the culture that developed and manu-
factured the Folsom point. This search ended in 1934
when Dr. Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr. of the Smithsonian
Institution began excavating the Lindenmeier Site, twenty-
three miles north of Fort Collins, Colorado (Cassells
1983; Wormington 1949) (Figures 1 and 2).
The original discovery of the Lindenmeier Site
occurred in the summer of 1924 when Judge Claude Coffin,
his son A. Lynn Coffin and C. K. Collins found "several
odd, similarly shaped artifacts from the surface in a
small area on the so-called 'chalk1 formation ..."
(Coffin 1957: 5) just south of the Wyoming State line.
During this time, the Coffins, accompanied by Judge
Coffin's brother, Major Roy Coffin, a geology professor
at Colorado State University, returned three times to the
area and collected a total of thirty-four specimens
(Coffin 1937).
This collecting continued for six more years when
in the summer of 1930, Dr. E. B. Renaud inspected their
collection and recognized the "odd-shaped" articles as
Folsom points (Coffin 1937). In 1931, Renaud visited
the site where he found two Folsom point fragments; with
this, he borrowed the collection and it was subsequently
displayed at the DMNH (Coffin 1937; Figgins 1932).


61
Eventually, Major Coffin reported the site to the
United States Geological Survey on February 26, 1934
(Cassells 1983; Coffin 1937). A response was received
from Dr. John E. Resides, Jr. in which he stated "...
you have found a Folsom Culture site . . you have some-
thing very much worth publication" (Coffin 1937: 11).
As a result, he forwarded the reports to the Bureau of
American Ethnology :and the Smithsonian sent Dr. Roberts
to investigate (Coffin 1937).
The site itself is located on a terrace in the
remnants of a valley above a small tributary of the
Cache La Poudre River on a horse ranch once owned by
William Lindenmeier (Figures 1 and 2) (Coffin 1937;
Wormington 1947). The Coffins had received permission
from him to dig on his land, and later leased that portion
of the ranch from him (Coffin 1937). The Smithsonian,
and later the CMNH, took over part of.that lease (Figgins
1935).
After his first day in the field, Roberts wrote
that he was ". . not sanguine over the prospects for
getting more information beyond that already obtained
. ." (Roberts 1935: 3). At. the end of the second day,
however, Roberts' opinion had changed radically for he
had located a concentration of buried bone and artifacts
deep in the arroyo which cuts through the Lindenmeier.Site


62
(Wilmsen 1978). Roberts was to continue to excavate
Lindenmeier until it was backfilled in 1940 (Wilmsen
1978). The Coffins also worked on the site, independent
of, but next to, the Smithsonian party until 1938
(Cassells 1983; Wormington 1949).
In 1935, a small team from the CMNH composed of
John Cotter, Harley Goettshe and Robert Landberg joined
the other two groups at Lindenmeier where they worked
from June 14 to September 1 (Cotter 1935; Figgins 1935).
This crew put down numerous test pits in two
separate areas of the site and located a few artifacts
(Finnings 1935) (Figure 3).* However, in a location just
west of Roberts' west trench, Hole 13 revealed a cultural
level twenty-one inches thick beginning at a depth of
five feet; it was selected for more intensive excavation
and three more holes were sunk to delineate the area
(Cotter 1935; Figgins 1935).
According to Figgins' 1935 report, three strati-
graphic levels were located and designated A, B, C,
respectively. Each artifact was labeled with three
*Note: A copy of John Cotter's free-hand drawn
diagram of the CMNH excavation (Figure 3) is included in
order to show the relationship between the CMNH's test
areas and those of the Smithsonian's. This map was
included in a letter from Cotter to Figgins (1935) and
is the only known original diagram of the CMNH excava-
tions .


0 pa a
N-
o\
U>


64
different provenience codes: hole number, section letter
and level letter. In that one summer, the CMNH uncovered
227 artifacts including 55 points or point fragments,
flakes, scrapers, knives, channel flakes and a large
number of gravers (Figgins 1935). Five bone tools or
fragments were recovered along with a piece of a circular,
graved bone ornament or gaming piece. No polished stone
tools were discovered, but some small rubbing stones with
red pigment residue and pieces of hematite and limonite
were found.
Near the camp site itself the crews uncovered a
large pile of bones of nine (plus) bison that had been
killed and partially butchered there (Figgins 1935;
Wormington 1949). Other bison bones were located in
surrounding areas along with camel bones, which may or
may not belong to this horizon (Wilmsen 1979). Mammoth
remains also were found, but there is no clear cut
association with humans. Other animal remains indicate
that these early people also hunted rabbit, fox, wolf,
coyote, pronghorn and turtle (Cassells 1983; Wilmsen
1978) .
More than 6,000 stone implements were catalogued
from Lindenmeier, not including waste flakes and chips
(Wilmsen 1979). The majority of these are stored at the
Smithsonian; those found by the CMNH are in Denver, and


65
portions of the Coffins' collection are in the Pioneer
Museum in Fort Collins, although reportedly some has been
sold.
According to Wilmsen (1979) who did a complete
restudy of the site, its artifacts and documents, Linden-
meier was the location of periodic seasonal camps of the
Pleistocene Big Game hunters who followed the migratory
herds and set up their camps above or near water sources.
Lindenmeier was probably occupied by ". . two geograph-
ically distinct but interacting groups ..." (Wilmsen
1979: 86) who lived in small bands or extended families.
These two groups shared the same social and game procure-
ment systems but their differences are evidenced by a
stylistic variation in the finishing of their projectile
points (Cassells 1983; Wilmsen 1979).
As has been mentioned above, many restudies of
the Lindenmeier materials have been done. Those that
were done either through the DMNH or with its collections
include Vance Haynes' (1960) radiocarbon tests in which he
got two dates of 11,200 400 and 10,780 375 years
ago, J. Jeffrey Flenniken's (1978) study of manufactur-
ing techniques of Folsom points and the aforementioned
micro-wear analysis of the gravers by Robin Boast (1983) .
Documentation in the DMNH Archives includes all
the above mentioned studies and photographs of the


66
excavation from 1934-1938. Also there are copies of
Roberts' fieldnotes, Figgins and Cotter's correspondence
and Cotter's fieldnotes.
Along with the artifacts and Bison antiquus
bones, there is an original stratigraphic profile taken
from the site itself by Cotter and Figgins which shows the
dark, rich Folsom occupation level.
The great significance of Lindenmeier lies in the
fact that it was a combination kill and habitation/camp
site (Cassells 198,3; Coffin 1937; Figgins 1935; Wilmsen
1979; Wormington 1949). Here, various man-made objects
of the Big Game Hunting tradition were found in direct
association with extinct bison revealing information about
the daily living patterns as well as the hunting tradi-
tions of the groups that manufactured the grooved and
ungrooved Folsom points.
The Frazier Site
In July of 1965, Frank Frazier, then a geology
student and surveyor from Greeley, set out to located
the Powars Folsom Site in northeastern Colorado; he did
not find it, but instead happened upon another, unknown
site on which bison bones, Agate Basin points and other
stone tools were lying on the surface over a considerable
area (Wormington n.d.; 1966).


67
Dr. Wormington surveyed the area after Mr.
Frazier reported his discovery to the DMNH, and, in
early August, borrowed a crew from Harvard that was
working on the Hell Gap Site under the auspices of George
Agogino and Cynthia Irwin (Wormington 1966). As Dr.
Wormington relates (1966) this crew worked for a week at
the Frazier site before they were forced to return to
Wyoming. The site was reopened in October of that year
with volunteers from the DMNH and this persistence paid
off when a section of an Agate Basin point was located in
situ with bison bones.
Dr. Wormington continued to conduct full-scale
investigations during the 1966 and 1967 field seasons and
altogether 124 five foot squares were excavated (Worming-
ton n.d.; 1967). Dr. Wormington kindly allowed me to
examine the Frazier materials and there were ten whole
or fragmentary points from this site including one with
a long narrow flute on one face and another with a short
flute on one face. There were also "... fourteen end
scrapers, twenty side scrapers and five scraping tools
worked on all edges. Knives are represented by two thin
broken bifaces ..." (Wormington n.d.) and two multi-
purpose tools with graver tips.
These tools were concentrated over three differ-
ent flaking areas and most of the scrapers were found in


68
one specific locality in the site which was probably
where hide working activities were carried out (Worming-
ton, 1967) No skulls or horn cores were found and the
bison were strewn randomly over the site, mostly
composed of hindquarters. Wormington (n.d.) notes that
The kill site and primary butchering area was
not found, although it must not have been too far
away, for it is unlikely that heavy bison quarters
would be carried any great distance. There are no
cliffs in the area over which the animals could
have been stampeded. ...
With the exception of two grant proposals and a
preliminary report, all other material relating to the
excavation, including the artifacts, field notes, etc.,
are still in Dr. Wormington's possession while she
concludes her examination of them and publishes the
results in a new book. These will be returned to the
DMNH and will go into the archaeological storage facil-
ities after they are accessioned and catalogued.
The Frazier Site was the first single component
Agate Basin site to be excavated and subsequent dating
by Vance Haynes has produced dates of 9,550 130 years
and another at 9,650 130 years B.P. (Wormington n.d.).
According to Wormington (n.d.) the time of occupation
was somewhat earlier as those dates were only minimum
dates.


69
Mathieson Site
On March 9, 1959, Marie Wormington received a
letter from J. P. Mathieson (on file DMNH) informing her
of some sites located on his ranch near Las Vegas, New
Mexico (Figures 1 and 2) In this letter he described
some of the sites and apparently also sent her samples
of artifacts located at these various sites. Whether
these we're, returned or not is unknown, but they are not
recorded at the Museum.
However, Dr. Wormington did investigate some of
these sites in 1959 with Haynes, Agogino and the Irwins.
In the 1959 Annual Report she describes one site which
produced a number of Scottsbluff points and one Cody
Knife. The Cody knife was found by her on August 31,
1957 on the east side of an arroyo in square 37 (Field-
note 1957) and is the only known artifact in the Museum
collection from this particular site. Dr. Wormington
thinks the rest went either with Mr. Agogino. to the
University of Northern New Mexico or were kept by the
Mathiesons (Wormington 1985).
Archaic Sites
"Basketmaker" Cave Sites
In 1929, flush from its success with the Folsom
Site, the CMNH broadened its interest in prehistoric man


70
and named Etienne Renaud, Professor of Anthropology at
the University of Denver, Field Work Supervisor for
". .an expedition organized by the CMNH, Department of
Paleontology. The purpose of this expedition was to
search for the remains of the body, dwellings and culture
of Folsom Man . ." (Figgins 1929: 19) in the areas of
northeastern New Mexico and western Oklahoma. The field
crew consisted of Nelson Vaughn, Carl Schwachheim, Paul
Bearbieu and a Mr. Taotoa (Figgins 1929) This expedi-
tion surveyed caves in the regions and "... pictures,
notes and artifacts were collected" (Figgins 1929: 19).
I have not been able to find eitherthe notes or the
pictures from this trip; perhaps they are among Dr.
Renaud1s private papers.
There are some articles from this project in
archaeology storage which were turned over to the Anthro-
pology Department by the Paleontology Department in 1981.
However, although each item was carefully wrapped in
paper toweling, most of the provenience notations were
mixed up, so it is difficult to tell in most cases from
where or from which cave the artifacts were collected.
This collection is composed almost completely of
lithic materials with the exception of one polished bone
bead and an unpolished turquoise fragment. The most
diagnostic artifacts, besides a few possible early point


71
fragments, are a type of flaked tool with a crescent-
shaped concavity on one side and possibly a graver tip
on the top of some of these. These concavities are worn
smooth and would appear to have been used as shaft
smoothers. Three tools from a cave near Tucumcari, New
Mexico collected by Vaughn in 1930 are made of Alibates
chert; these are comprised of one large, rectangular-
shaped biface and two large, curved blades, one of which
is heavily worn.
There are no ceramics included in this collection
and they are labeled "Basketmaker" Caves because this was
what Figgins (1933) called them in the Annual Report.
Whether or not they are from Basketmakers is problemati-
cal but I have placed them under the Archaic label due
to the negative ceramic evidence. It would be a good
project for some student to trace Renauds notes and see
if there is any mention of these sites and what arti-
facts were listed as having been found.
The Huscher Collection
One of the largest and least well-known of the
collections in the DMNH is that of Harold and Betty H.
Huscher. Mrs. Huscher was an assistant to Marie Worm-
ington at the CMNH from 1937 to 1942 and Mr. Huscher
volunteered his services during the Moore-Casebier


72
excavations in 1938 (Wormington 1939) During the field
seasons of 1939 through 1941, Mr. and Mrs. Huscher
conducted a survey of open foothill sites in Colorado,
partially funded by the CMNH (Huscher and Huscher 1939).
These surveys were carried out in the Saguache-La Garita
mountain areas in Saguache County and in the Uncompahgre
Plateau, mainly in Mesa and Montrose Counties (Figure 1).
(They also surveyed and tested the Apex/Magic Mountain Site
in 1941, which will be discussed separately).
The purpose of this survey was to locate sites
which might shed some light on the various distinct
cultural groups that had either lived in, hunted in or
passed through Colorado over time (Huscher and Huscher
1942; 1939). Along with this it was hoped to establish
a basic chronology for these different groups.
Because the central massif of the Colorado
Rockies presented a barrier which must have been
skirted by any great north-south or east-west move-
ments of Early Man. [The foothills] would be the
place to look for traces of successive occupations
(Huscher and Huscher 1939: 1).
Indeed, during these three summers the Huschers
found a great deal of evidence for many different nomadic
cultures in the foothills area ranging from the Archaic
Period to Historic Ute. Many of the earlier sites were
tentatively dated by geological methods and it was hoped
to make comparative studies of these artifacts with


73
well-provenienced and dated material from other collec-
tions and excavations which would confirm the geologic
evidence (Huscher and Huscher 1943; 1939). The later
sites were also tentatively dated using ethnographic,
comparative and diagnostic materials (Huscher and Huscher
1939).
There were ten sites located by the Huschers in
1939 which they considered to be of great antiquity and
these will be discussed here. The majority of the
information on them comes from the Huschers' 1939
Fieldnotes which are in the DMNH Archives. There are
no fieldnotes from the 1940-41 surveys in the Museum,
but these are stored in Mr. Huscher1s basement (1985).
Unless otherwise indicated, the descriptions of the sites
discussed below derive from the 1939 fieldnotes.
Of these ten sites, the DMNH has the materials
from three: Tracy Canyon (HT in the Huschers' labeling
system), the Captain H. H. Smith Spring (HES) and Cactus
Park (HC). None of the specimens from these sites is
listed in the old Accession Book but were located while I
was sorting through the collection. According to the
Huschers'.notes, no artifacts were discovered in associ-
ation with the other seven sites, although informants and
amateur collectors related to the Huschers some of the
various different types of artifacts that had been seen


74
and/or picked up on and around these sites, and through
these accounts and the physical evidence the Huschers
determined the antiquity of these seven sites.
Tracy Canyon. The Tracy Canyon site lies in the
open near a spring, ten miles south of Saguache at
approximately 8,800 feet (Figure 1). It is composed of
slab-lined cists and rock-lined hearths which were not
exposed until 1934 after a heavy storm. It was surveyed
in 1939 and one test pit was sunk. In 1940 and 1941 the
Huschers returned and sank more test trenches (Huscher
and Huscher 1940a, 1941). They felt a stratigraphic
sequence could be obtained from the site with further
investigation. As it was, three to four occupational
levels were identified (Huscher and Huscher 1941).
There are' numerous artifacts from this site in
the collection which encompass tools from onemetal arrow
point to crude, percussion flaked choppers. Although all
artifacts have field numbers on them, there are no indi-
cations in these numbers or in the notes to designate
from which levels they were found, although it is
supposed that those with the same.numbers came from the
same levels. According to the 1940 Museum Annual Report,
modern potsherds and metal and stone points were found
on the surface and were categorized as recent Ute. The


75
lowest stratum contained charcoal, bones and the crude,
percussion flaked tools. Of the-numerous artifacts held
in storage, perhaps the most diagnostic might be two
Archaic-type points and five corner-notched points with
bifurcated bases, probably Pinto type points similar to
those that have been dated elsewhere ca. 3000 B.C.
(Cassells 1983). There are also various corner-notched
points and two small lanceolate points.
Also included are at least sixteen gravers,
numerous scrapers, including snub-nosed, core and keel
varieties. There are flakes, both with retouch and
without. Many worked bone tools were recovered which
are comprised of awls, two bone saws, fleshers, and one
ground bone point and burned bone fragments. Ground
stone implements consist of two axes/choppers, pecked
manos, eight small handstones, two metate fragments and
one narrow, anvil-like metate.
There are also numerous soil samples which the
Huschers collected from this site, presumably from the
different strata that were encountered. As far as is
known, however, none of these has been tested.
Taking into- consideration the thinking of the
times, the Huschers (1934; 1940a; 1941) were inclined
to classify this camp as a Basketmaker-type camp and
hoped it might prove to be the forerunner to Basketmaker


76
II. Through geographical estimates they dated it as old
as 4000 B.C. (1939; 1941).
The Huschers. urged further and immediate excava-
tion of this site but the war intervened and they never
returned to it. I could not discover if this, or any
of these sites, has since been recorded in the ensuing
years.
Captain H. H. Smith Spring. This site is located
5.5 miles from Dry Escalante Ford in the Uncompahgre
Plateau in Mesa County (Figure 4). It lies on an
alluvial cone and is comprised of a series of small,
deep bowl-shaped fireplaces. A test trench was started
and evidence of occupation was found at six to six and one
half feet below the surface where numerous overlapping
fireplaces, most carefully rock-lined, were encountered.
"From three to six feet down narrow, corner-notched
points and ovate blades of quartzite and chalcedony were
the predominant artifact type" (Huscher and Huscher
1939; 16). There are twenty-three points, one a
triangular side-notched point of quartzite, and thirty-
six large, ovate blades in the collection. According to
the Huschers (1940) the blades were concentrated below
the points, but whether this was a cache is not made
clear.


Figure 4. Archaic Sites on the
Uncorapahgre Plateau


78
Other artifacts uncovered were large knives, two
gravers, crude choppers, scrapers, utilized flakes, char-
coal fragments and two small pot lids.
Again, the Huschers advocated a more thorough
excavation which might give a valid, chronological
sequence for this site and establish it as possibly
pre-Basketmaker. Certainly, radiocarbon dates might
still be obtained from the charcoal if it has not been
contaminated.
Cactus Park. A third "early site" was the Cactus
Park open site which is located nine miles south of
Whitewater in Mesa County (Figure 4). This site contains
twenty (plus) pentagonal, slab-lined cists. In the 1939
Fieldnotes the Huschers refer to it as having possible
Basketmaker II affiliations due to the presence of the
cists. One cist was excavated and no artifacts were found
in association with it. Yet many artifacts were found
nearby consisting of five corner-notched points and one
Shoshonean three-notched point, one laurel-leaf shaped
blade, one large knife,four drills, two gravers, one
core, twelve scrapers and flakes, and one small hand-
stone with a notch on one side. (In the 1939 notes.the
Huschers specifically state that although numerous
stone artifacts were discovered in and near the site, it


79
was a non-ceramic site. Nevertheless, there were eight
Pueblo sherds in the box containing the Cactus Park
items; however, there are no field numbers on these
sherds and they may have become mixed in with the Cactus
Park artifacts by some unknown means.)
Whether these sites are as old as the Huschers
supposed can only be determined by further investigation,
a careful analysis and cross comparative approach,
perhaps starting with the Uncompahgre Plateau sites
excavated by Wormington (19 56) with some of the Magic
Mountain materials and, moving southwest, to San Jose
sites. A return to these sites for further testing,
archaeomagnetic dating and a collection of radiocarbon
samples might also augment any research study.
The Moore-Casebier Sites
In Archaeological Investigations on the Uncom-
pahgre Plateau, Wormington and Lister (1956) reported on
various sites that had been investigated by them in the
Uncompahgre Plateau off and on between 1937-1952 (Figure
4). Wormington excavated the Moore and Casebier sites
in 1937-39 and the Taylor Site in 1951 and 1952. Lister
worked on the Alva Site in 1952.
The Moore-Casebier Sites, named after their dis-
coverers, usually are discussed together due to their


80
close proximity and similarities (Cassells 1983; Worming-
ton and Lister 1956). After reporting the existence of
the Moore shelter in 1936 to Wormington, Harold Huscher
joined her and Betty Holmes (Huscher) for a survey of
the site (Wormington 1937), Excavations were officially
begun in 1938 and continued into the 1939 field season.
The Casebier rock shelter was found and less extensive
work was started on this site(Wormington and Lister
1956) .
Both sites are located in Roubideau Canyon on
the Uncompahgre Plateau and both sites contained hearths
while petroglyphs lined the walls of the Moore Shelter
(Wormington and Lister 1956).
Implements recovered included sixty projectile
points, knives, numerous retouched and utilized flakes,
six drills/perforators, choppers and hammerstones. Many
scrapers were located, including two keeled, end scrapers
and others that were distinctive enough that Wormington
(1956) felt were diagnostic of the area and these she
labeled Uncompahgre scrapers. These were large, triangular
to rectangular shaped tools "... one edge being flaked
only on one face, while one or more edges are normally
flaked on both faces" (Wormington and Lister 1956; 18).
All these artifacts are held in the Museum.


81
Documentation includes site reports with photo-
graphs recording each portion of the excavation, an
artifact list with catalogue numbers and proveniences
and copies of the book.
Taylor Alva Sites
"In 1950, Al Look discovered two rock shelters on
East Creek in Mesa County, Colorado. He and Warren Bush
put down a test in one of these and Mr. Look brought the
specimens he had obtained to the DMNH" (Wormington and
Lister 1956: 1). The site (Figure 4), its features and
cultural material were very similar to those located in
the Moore-Casebier Sites, including an Uncompahgre
scraper. Consequently, Wormington and a crew started
excavations on this site (Wormington and Lister 1956).
In 1952 they were joined by Dr. Robert Lister from the
University of Colorado who worked on the Alva Site.
The Taylor Site was by far the most prolific of
all the Uncompahgre sites and allowed for the first well
controlled projectile point sequence in the area
(Cassells 1983).
From these four sites, the Moore-Casebier and
Taylor Alva Shelters, Wormington and Lister defined the
"Uncompahgre Complex" based in many respects on the
distinctive scrapers associated with these sites the


82
adze-like scrapers and the large polished objects found
in a cache at the Taylor Site (Wormington and Lister
1956: 78).
From the descriptions and partial viewing of the
artifacts from the Moore-Casebier Sites by the author, it
would seem likely that they belong in the Mid-to-Late
Archaic Period of the Great Basin Culture; Buckles (1971)
and Cassells (1983) agree. Buckles feels that the cul-
tures represented deserve being designated as the
"Uncompahgre Complex," but does not feel that the
scrapers found merit a separate category (Buckles 1971;
Cassells 1983).
There are no artifacts from the Taylor-Alva
Sites currently held at the DMNH. These were turned over
to the Museum of Western Colorado in Grand Junction and
are on display there.
The Sand Wash Basin Sites
In partial fulfillment of his Master's degree at
the University of Colorado at Denver, Richard Stucky
conducted a reconnaissance survey of the San Wash Basin
area in Moffat County, Colorado (Figure 1). He was
partly supported in this endeavor by NSF grants and the
DMNH; consequently, all material that was recovered is
held at the Museum.


83
Stucky's main purpose in this study was to out-
line the historical sequences of this little known area,
to delineate the adaptive strategies of the nomadic
groups who were utilizing it and to develop and test
various hypotheses concerning these groups (Stucky 1976).
All in all twenty-^three different archaeological
sites were located and these were classified into four
different types: nineteen open camp sites, one cache,
two architectural sites and two lithic manufacturing
sites. A total of 2,257 chipped stone implements were
recovered including 89 projectile points which were
classified into different categories, 125 scrapers,
utilized flakes and bifaces and a large quantity of
debitage. Ground or pecked stone tools consisted of
thirteen items comprised of three hammerstones, six
manos, two metates and two other fragments. Miscellane-
ous tools recovered were one bone chopper, one copper
blade and one unidentified pot sherd (Stucky 1976).
Stucky (1976) determined that there were three
different periods of occupation of the Sand Wash Basin
Sites which extended from 8,500 B.P. up through the
Late Prehistoric/Historic periods using Mulloy's chrono-
logical scheme. The first phase encompassed some Paleo-
Indian period tools but these graded into the Great
Basin-Desert Culture Archaic and lasted until circa


84
1250 B.C. The next manifestation was that of the Great
Basin-Plains cultures of the Late Archaic and Late Pre-
historic occupation periods; and the third was that of
the Late Prehistoric-Historic Plains groups.
Included in the Museum are all the artifacts
from the Sand Wash Basin survey, the preliminary report,
maps and artifact sketches, site locations and descrip-
tions and the bound thesis.
This survey and report have important and rele-
vant information on what was occurring in the northwest
Colorado area through time and have great potential for
supplying much more. A study of the known lithic
sources in the area or outside the area could be done
using the lithics recorded from this survey. A compara-
tive study of the projectile points and other tools
could be conducted and updated by analyzing them and
others from surrounding regions to distinguish associ-
ations and cultural groups. Trading sources, contact,
migration and immigration studies could be done utilizing
this material along with the methods and ideas described
in Chapter III.
Eastern Slope: Multicomponent Sites
Introduction
Included in this section are the descriptions
of the LoDaisKa and the Apex/Magic Mountain Sites which


85
are located on the Eastern Slope, west of Denver, Colo-
rado. Both these sites were excavated by Cynthia and
Henry Irwin in the fifties and were published in the
Museum Proceedings Series. None of the materials from
these excavations is represented in the Museum's collec-
tions at the moment. However, material recovered by
amateur collectors and the Huschers from the Apex site
are included in the Museum's collections. Currently,
steps are being taken to initiate the return of the
materials from these sites to the DMNH. Consequently,
they are discussed in this thesis.
Both the LoDaisKa and Apex/Magic Mountain Sites,
are multicomponent sites that include levels of occupa-
tion from the Archaic Period, Peripheral Pueblo Cultures,
Woodlandpeoples and Historic groups. They are discussed
in their temporal entirety here.
The LoDaisKa Site
Physically, the LoDaisKa Site is located in a
rock shelter one mile south of Morrison, Colorado on a
privately owned ranch (Figure 1); geographically and
ecologically it is located between three different
cultural areas, the Great Basin, the Plains and the
Southwest (Irwin 1959). This area is in the Hogback
region west of Denver which was first surveyed by Renaud


86
in 1930-31 and remained relatively untouched by amateur
collectors (Figgins 1931; Irwin 1959).
The site was discovered by LoDaisKa Bethel and
brought to the attention of Cynthia and Henry Irwin by
Marie Wormington in the mid-1950s (Wormington 1985) and
excavated by them in 1955-56 (Irwin 1959).
The site itself contained five levels of occupa-
tion, the first three pre-ceramic, and extended to a
depth of fifteen feet with varying degrees of overlap
(Irwin and Irwin 1959). According to the Irwins (1959)
the lowest stratum which they designated Level E,
contained a few early lithics from the Plains. Level D
materials were classified as belonging to a phase of the
Great Basin/Desert Culture. Radiocarbon samples gave
a date of 2880 B.C. from this level. Level C was
identified as belonging to a Middle Archaic Plains
McKean Complex dated between 1440 B.C. and 1190 B.C.
The next level, B, was comparative to Zone A at the
Magic Mountain Site and contained a manifestation of
Plains Woodland cultures, a ceramic phase dating ca.
A.D. 700-1000. Level A probably was an extension of B,
but showed evidence of Fremont contacts as it contained
gaming pieces similar to those found in Fremont sites
accompanied by Dent variety corn.


87
I have not had an opportunity to view the
materials from the LoDaisKa Site as they were returned
to the owner after they were analyzed (Irwin and Irwin
1959). It is hoped the artifacts can be traced and
will be donated to the Museum.
The Apex/Magic Mountain Site
The Apex/Magic Mountain Site lies on a low ridge
in the foothills area west of Denver, in Jefferson
County between Golden and Morrison (Figure 1). (The
name was changed from the Apex Site to the Magic Mountain
Site at the request of the owner when the Irwins began
their investigations.) It will be referred to as Magic
Mountain throughout this report.
At the time of the Irwin's excavations of Magic
Mountain in 1959-60, little scientifically was known of
the archaeology of the area, although it had been a ripe
location for amateur collectors since 1925 and by the
1940s, what had once been an extensive Woodland ceme-
tery, was completly looted (Irwin and Irwin 1966).
Several surface sites in this region were seen by Renaud
in 1930-31 during his reconnaissance of eastern Colorado,
but it is not clear if this site was one of those seen
(Irwin and Irwin 1966).
In 1939-40, Jack Putnam and Bob Akerly carried
out some collecting on the site and donated these finds


88
to the CMNH (Akerly 1985). Among these items is a shaft
wrench with two drilled holes and engraved line markings
on it, bone awls and fleshers, stone blades of different
shapes, scrapers, a chopper and a groundstone mano and
one cordmarked sherd.
It was this collection that prompted the investi-
gation of the site by the Huschers in 1941 (Akerly
1985; Irwin and Irwin 1966). According to the Huschers'
account (1941), three different stratigraphic levels all
containing artifactual materials were recognized. A
burial was uncovered of parts of a semi-flexed individ-
ual located under a cairn; only the long bones and
skull remained, and "... with sandstone slabs including
utilized slab metates . . piled around and over the
body. Stone and bone artifacts were found along the
left arm, none of the artifacts was definitive" (Huscher
and Huscher 1941: 226-27). The burial was probably from
the Apex Complex, Zone C (Irwin and Irwin 1966). These
materials are in the DMNH and are generally similar to
the Akerly-Putnam collection.
It was also Akerly (1985) who, in the fifties,
informed Wormington of the Magic Mountain Site and
subsequently, they encouraged the Irwins to begin initial
investigations. These were carried out in 1956 (Irwin
and Irwin 19 66) .


89
As the Irwins (1966) recount, they undertook
this project with four problems in mind: to confirm and
extend the regional and local sequences found at the
LoDaisKa Site; to obtain a clearer definition of the
complexes in the region; to acquire a correlation of the
archaeological materials with the geological and ethno-
botanical evidence; and last, to determine the relation-
ships of the Foothills region to adjacent cultural areas
over time.
Indeed, the Foodhills Region lies in the border
area between three different culture areas, the High
Plains to the east, the Rocky Mountain-Great Basin to
the west, and the Southwest culture area.
The Irwins (1966) found six stratigraphic levels
which they labeled Zones A-F and these zones represented
four complexes. Portions of the lower three zones,
F, D, C, contained artifacts from the Magic Mountain
Complex, an early Archaic Stage local manifestation with
possible ultimate ties to the northwest. Zone E was
comparable in time to Level D at LoDaisKa, yet the
cultures were not comparable.
The second Complex identified by the Irwins was
one they called the Apex Complex which composed the
materials from Zone C and parts of D and E and suggested


Full Text

PAGE 1

DYNAMIC TEST SIMULATIONS FOR DETERMINING GROUND QUADRILATERAL FAULT IMPEDANCE MEASUREMENTS by Karl M. Smith BSc., Colorado School ofMines, 1986 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Electrical Engineering Spring 2000

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Master of Science degree by Karl M. Smith has been approved 4-(-00 Date

PAGE 3

Smith, Karl M. (M.S., Electrical Engineering) Dynamic Test Simulations for Determining Ground Quadrilateral Fault Impedance Measurements Thesis directed by Professor Pankaj K. Sen ABSTRACT Complex algorithms in todays microprocessor based relays are capable of determining ground quadrilateral fault impedance, fault location and direction by unique measurement calculations from settings and inputs. This complexity, however, increases the challenge for developing test procedures for these relays. This is in part due to the limitations of the test equipment and the high volume of complex calculations required for dynamic testing. Therefore it is necessary to provide advanced mathematical models and simulations of the power system to demonstrate how the fundamentals are applied when implementing test procedures that conform to more rigorous standards than outlined in the test manuals To automate the calculation process, a spreadsheet ha been developed to determine ground quadrilateral measurements by conveniently entering in relay settings and inputs. This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its iii

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank New Century Energies for the vast amount of financial and technical resources made available to me for the completion of this thesis and my education. In particular, I would like express my appreciation for the following individuals; George Laughlin, a system protection engineer at New Century Energies, for his guidance and providing engineering support. Chris Gallegos, coworker, for providing the necessary test data for the extensive numerical examples throughout this thesis. Ken Behren, SEL developer, for discussion on reactance element error. Karl Zimmerman, Brad Heilman and Bill Flemming, SEL application engineers, for discussion on directional elements. Edi VonEngeln, classmate, for help in the development of Excel spreadsheets. Carlene Stroh, coworker, for help in using Microsoft Word commands. Mickey Pitt, a friend and fellow student who has taken many classes with me, for his time and commitment in helping me to complete the graduate program. Thanks for your encouragement. Dean Nester, my supervisor, for his support and encouragement. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. P.K. Sen, who has taught the majority of my courses, for helping me realize my potential as an electrical power systems engineer.

PAGE 5

CONTENTS F .. 1gures ................... .... ................................................................................ vn Tables ....................................................................................................... viii Abbreviations and tenns ............................................................................ ix Chapter 1. Introduction ...................................................................................... 1 2. Theory and fundaillentals ............................ .......................... .......... 4 2.1 Reactance measurement .............. ..................................................... 4 2.2 Resistance measurement ................................................................. 11 2.3 Negative sequence impedance measurement. ....... ............. ........... 14 3. Modeling a nonhomogeneous system ....... ..................................... 19 3.1 Reactance measurement calculation for the .......................... ......... 21 zone 1 fault location with 5 n fault resistance (T=O) 3.2 Reactance measurement calculation for the .................................... 22 zone 1 fault location with 5 n fault resistance (T=5) 3.3 Resistance measurement calculation for the ................................... 22 zone 1 fault location (true resistance from the fault study= 50) 3.4 Negative sequence impedance measurement threshold .................. 24 calculations for a bolted fault at the zone 1 fault location 3.5 Negative sequence impedance measurement threshold .............. ... 25 calculations for 5 n fault resistance at the zone 1 fault location v

PAGE 6

4. Dynamic test simulations ................................................................ 27 5. Results and Conclusion ................................................................... 31 Appendices A. Dynamic test simulation spreadsheet (T=O) ................................... 33 B. Dynamic test simulation spreadsheet (T=5) .................................... 34 C. Residual current compensation factor derivation ........................... 35 D. Zero sequence current compensation factor derivation .................. 38 E. Effect of transmission line conductor changes on KN and Ko . ........... 39 References ................ ................................................................................ 40 vi

PAGE 7

FIGURES Figure 1.1 Ground Quadrilateral characteristics ................................................ 1 2.1 Reactance reach dimension .............................................................. 4 2.2 Sequence network for SLG fault ...................................................... 5 2.3 Measurement error for a two source system .................................... 7 2.4 Voltage phasors for a resistive fault in a nonhomogeneous system. 8 2.5 Zero sequence network for a single line to ground fault.. ................ 9 2.6 Resistance reach dimensions ................... ...................................... 11 2. 7 Negative sequence network for a SLG fault .................................. 16 2.8 Z2 characteristics, MTA = 90 ........................................................ 17 2.9 Z2 charcteristics, MTA <90 ............................................................ 18 3.1 Nonhomogeneous system-345 KV line from Rifle to Craig ....... 19 4.1 PROTEST 3 Z plot ......................................................................... 27 4.2 Reactance measurement error (T=O) .............................................. 29 4.3 Reactance measurement error (T=5) .............................................. 30 C.l Sequence network for SLG fault ................................................... 35 vii

PAGE 8

TABLES Table 3.1 Relay inputs from fault data (Rr= 0 Q) ........................................ 20 3.2 Relay inputs from fault data (Rr= 5 Q) ........................................ 20 Vlll

PAGE 9

ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS ZuPositive sequence line impedance at the zone 1 fault location. ZuNegative sequence line impedance at the zone 1 fault location. Z1..0Zero sequence line impedance at the zone 1 fault location. ZtANGPositive sequence line impedance angle MTA-Maximum torque angle RF Fault resistance IF-Total fault current IR Residual relay current ( 3Io) KN-Residual current compensation factor Zero sequence current compensation factor T-Nonhomogeneous compensation correction factor angle ALT-Reactance element error term Z2M-Negative sequence impedance measurement ( a) z2F, z2R-Negative sequence impedance for forward, reverse faults Z 2 rr, Z 2RT Negative sequence impedance forward and reverse thresholds SEL-Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories IX

PAGE 10

1. Introduction Ground quadrilateral distance elements provide more fault resistance coverage than ground mho units when protecting transmission lines from ground faults. Fault resistance coverage in a ground quadrilateral is controlled by the resistive reach setting which defines the side boundaries of the quadrilateral in the RX plane. The upper boundary of the quadrilateral is controlled by the reactive reach setting. In recent versions of microprocessor based relays, the reactive reach setting is defined in terms of the positive sequence line impedance in the R-X plane instead of the X-axis. The lower boundary defining direction, resides in the negative sequence impedance plane and is controlled by negative sequence impedance threshold settings [ 1]. jX R FORWARD DIRECTION -----....... ... __ REVERSE DIRECTION Figure 1.1: Ground quadrilateral dimensions. 1

PAGE 11

When power systems have unequal source and line impedance angles, the fault resistance measurement will have a reactive component that is introduced into the reactance measurement that will cause the relay to overreach or underreach. This type of system is defined as nonhomogeneous. The difference between the source and line impedance angles determines the value of the nonhomogeneous compensation setting required for correcting the reactance measurement error To determine the reactance measurement error, a fault study needs to be conducted to model a non-homogeneous system for increasing increments of fault resistance at the reactive reach point. The apparent impedances for each value of fault resistance then need to be converted to current compensated reactance measurements that would occur in the relay. The difference between the current compensated reactance measurement and the reactive reach boundary from relay test results defines the reactance measurement error. Test results for the reactive reach boundary can be obtained by running a computer generated impedance search plot. Apparent impedances from the search plot are then converted to current compensated reactance measurements to confirm that these measurements are within close tolerances to the reactive reach setting boundary. To simulate the relays conversion of reactance and resistance measurements, a spread sheet will be created that expedites the calculation for these measurements from relay settings, voltages and currents. This method of dynamic testing is necessary since 2

PAGE 12

there is no way to determine the reactance measurement error from a computer generated search plot since the relay is underreaching. 3

PAGE 13

2. Theory and Fundamentals 2.1 Reactance Measurement The ground reactance measurement calculates the positive sequence impedance of the line at the fault location [ 1]. The reactive reach dimension of the ground quadrilateral can be represented by lines sloped at the positive sequence line angle that originate from the R-axis (figure 2.1 ). The distance of these lines depends on the zone of protection which designates the percentage of the line length expressed in terms of positive sequence impedance. jX R Figure 2.1: Reactance reach dimension 4

PAGE 14

If the reactance reach measurement is within the reactive reach defined by the top portion of the the reactive reach element will assert. For a trip output to occur, however, all ground quadrilateral elements must assert. To derive the expression for the reactance measurement, a voltage drop expression needs to be written from a single line to ground sequence network (figure 2.2), that includes a fault resistance term. RELAY LOCATION FAULT LOCATION Figure 2.2: Sequence network for a SLG fault (Phase A) 5

PAGE 15

From the A phase relay voltage equation written in terms of the symmetrical impedances, and, 31o = IA+ Is+ Ic The voltage drop equation can be expressed in terms of the residual current compensation factor KN. VA= Zu(IA + KN) (2.1) (2.2) Derivations of residual and zero sequence current compensation factors including effects of conductor line changes are shown in appendices C-E. Adding a fault resistance term to the voltage drop equation, the expression now yields, VA= Zu(IA + KNIR) + IFRF (2.3) Multiplying both sides of the equation by the complex conjugate ofiRLT to make the voltage across the fault resistance appear real yields, V A(IRLT )* = Zu (lA + KNIR)(IRLT )* + IFRF (IRLT )* where T is the nonhomogeneuos compensation factor correction angle. Taking the imaginary component of both sides of the equation, the expression now yields, Im[V A(IRLT )*] = Im[Zu(IA + KNIR)(IRLT )*] + Im[IFRF (IRLT )*] where, 6

PAGE 16

Multiply both sides of the equation by IZul, IZul = Im[V A(IRLT )*] Im[ Zu/IZul (IA + KNIR)(IRLT )*] where IZul is the reactive reach referenced to the positive sequence line angle. Therefore Zu/!Zul = lLZtANG Substituting, (2.4) If the T setting is not used for nonhomogeneous systems, an error term will be introduced into the reactance measurement since the voltage across the fault resistance now appears reactive (figure 2.3) [3]. Figure 2.3: Measurement error for a two source system 7

PAGE 17

The voltage drop from equation 2.3, now has an error term in the relay voltage (figure 2.4). jiX underreach ALT-REACTANCE ERROR ALT overreach IR Figure 2.4: Voltage phasors for a resistive fault in a nonhomogeneous system 8

PAGE 18

The reactance element error term, ALT, can be determined from zero sequence currents and impedances shown in the zero sequence network (figure 2.5). I Zso ZRO I so IRO I ... - I ZLO (\..IF=Iso+IRo Figure 2.5: Zero sequence network for a SLG fault There are two methods of calculating ALT. One method requires a theoretical approach while the other takes a more practical approach. ALT = ALT = IFo Iso (2.5) (2.6) The reactance measurement error, 11IZLII, can now be expressed in terms of ALT from the following equation; 9

PAGE 19

AIZul = (2.7) The reactance measurement error AIZul can easily be obtained from fault studies and relay settings to determine the compensation required to prevent the relay from overreaching or underreaching. 10

PAGE 20

2.2 Resistance Measurement The resistance measurement calculates fault resistance for line to ground faults from relay inputs and settings. The resistance reach dimension is defined by any point on the reactive reach line that intersects the origin in the R-X plane to the side boundaries of the quadrilateral. [ 1] jX Figure 2.6: Resistance reach dimensions 11 R

PAGE 21

If the resistance measurement is within the resistive reach boundary of the quadrilateral, the resistive reach element will assert. Like the reactance measurement derivation, deriving the resistance measurement can also be accomplished by writing a voltage drop expression (equation 2.3) from the sequence network found in figure 2.2. [2] Multiplying both sides of the equation by the complex conjugate of ZLI (IA + KNIR) to make the positive sequence line impedance appear real, Taking the imaginary component of both sides of the equation Im[V A (ZLICIA + KNIR))*] = Im[ZLICIA + KNIR)(ZLICIA + KNIR))*] + .......... where, Solving for Rp, R Im[V A (ILZIANGCIA + KNIR))*] F Im [lp(lLZIANG(IA + KNIR))*] .. ........ Im [lpRp(ZLICIA + KNIR))*] Since IF includes current contributions from both ends of the line, fault current seen from the relay, 3Io, is approximated in terms of zero and negative sequence currents to eliminate the effects ofload current, i.e., 12

PAGE 22

for a SLG fault, Therefore, 3Io = 3/2( 12 + Io ) Substituting, RF = Im[VA (1LZtANG0A + KNIR))*] (2.8) Im [3/2(I2+Io){lLZtANG(IA + KNIR))*] From the derivation it is evident that Rr will only be half the actual fault resistance if source impedances are equal for both fault contributions. To calculate the true fault resistance, the ratio of total zero sequence fault current to relay fault current, 3Io, must be calculated [3,4] The measured fault resistance then needs to be multiplied by this ratio to determine the true value of fault resistance. (2.9) 13

PAGE 23

2.3 Negative Sequence Impedance Measurement The negative sequence impedance measurement was designed to overcome several limitations imposed by the negative sequence directional relay [5]. These limitations occur whenever the negative sequence voltage is minimized by strong negative sequence sources behind the relay or when the negative sequence current is minimized due to fault resistance. The negative sequence impedance measurement is derived by compensating the negative sequence voltage in the traditional negative sequence torque equation shown below ([3,4]); where MTA is typically set to the positive sequence impedance line angle, LZtANG Expressing equation 2.10 in complex conjugate form, V2 is compensated by rewriting the expression as V2-a.LZ1ANGI2 where a = the negative sequence impedance measurement. Substituting, The term will now increase V2 for forward faults and decreaseh for reverse faults. Setting the torque equal to zero to define the balance point, 14 (2.10) (2.11) (2.12)

PAGE 24

Rearranging, 0 = Re[ Vz(hLZtANG)*] -(ZzM)Re[(lzLZtANG) (hLZtANG)*] Solving for ZzM, From the identity, the expression now yields, Re[ V,(l,LZJ ANal*] (2.13) IIi For the relay to sense fault direction, ZzM must be compared to negative sequence impedance threshold quantities. These threshold quantities are a function of ZzM and the negative sequence voltage and currents for faults at the relay point. To determine threshold quantities, a fault study must be conducted to arrive at Zz in the forward (ZzF) and reverse (Z2 R) directions at the relay point. The negative sequence network for ground faults shown in figure 2. 7 indicates Is2 for forward faults and IR2 for reverse faults. 15

PAGE 25

+ R ---1 FORWARD FAULT Figure 2.7: Negative sequence network for a SLG fault From V 2 and I2 at the relay point, ZzF = -V2 -Zs2 ZzR = -Vz = Zu+ ZR2 -IR2 To obtain Z2F and Z2R from the fault study, several contingencies are required (2.14) (2.15) to obtain the strongest negative sequence source behind the relay. If this method is not convenient, a simplified approach is to set Z2 F equal to half of the positive sequence line impedance and add 0.1 to arrive at ZzR From z2F and z2R threshold settings, the negative sequence impedance threshold quantities can now be calculated [ 1]. 16

PAGE 26

THRESHOLD CONDTIONS THRESHOLD QUANTITIES ZzF < 0; ZzFr = 0.75( ZzF)0.25 I ZzM I (2.16) ZzF > 0; ZzFr = 1.25(ZzF)0.25 I ZzM I (2.17) ZzR> 0; ZzRT = 0.75(ZzR) + 0.251 ZzM I (2.18) ZzR ZzRT a reverse fault is declared. The characteristics for the threshold quantities for a 90 degree MTA are shown in the Z2 plane in figure 2.8. I Z2PLANE I REVERSE FAULT ll!///1/1 FORWARD FAULT Figure 2.8: Z2 characteristics, MTA = 90 17 Z2RT Rz Z2FT

PAGE 27

For MTA's other than 90 degrees, the negative sequence impedance threshold characteristics are perpendicular to the positive sequence line impedance which is typically set at the MTA. This is required to maintain the same threshold characteristics since positive sequence line and fault impedances remain unchanged when mapped in the Zz plane. I Z2PLANE I Figure 2.9: Z2 characteristics, MTA <90 18 REVERSE FAULT FORWARD FAULT Z2RT R2 Z2FT

PAGE 28

3. Modeling a Nonhomogeneous System To verify the accuracy of ground quadrilateral measurements, a fault study was conducted using "ASPEN" software on the 345 kV 81.7 mile PSCOTri State transmission line from Rifle to Craig substations to model a nonhomogeneous system. MODELING A NONHOMOGENEOUS SYSTEM RIFLE SUBSTATION T = L3Io-LIF=S 345 KV LS 3Io RELAY PT 3000: CT; 300:1 ....... f-:=...-.... 1 I SEL 321 I :,. ZLI = 4.1 L86 n secondary IF l CRAIG SUBSTATION 345KVLO ... RF=50 primary --Figure 3 .I: Nonhomogeneous system-345 KV line from Rifle to Craig 19

PAGE 29

Fault data for zone 1 faults ( 85 % of the line ) were obtained for increasing 1.0 ohm increments of fault resistance to determine how fault resistance effects the reactance measurement (appendix A). Relay inputs for 0 ohm and 5 ohm fault resistances are shown in tables 3.1 and 3.2. (S d ) econ ary ( Secondary ) VOLTAGE(V) CURRENT(A) v A= 37.52L-3.2 5.53L-81.6 Vs = 63.87L-117.1 .027L96.1 Vc = 65.0Lll6.6 .027L96.1 Table 3.1 :Relay inputs from fault data (Rr= 0 0) ( Secondary ) ( Secondary ) VOLTAGE(V) CURRENT(A) VA= 40.8L-ll.l 5 24L-69.2 Vs = 63.7L-117.7 .026L108.5 Vc = 65.9Lll6.6 .026L108.5 Table 3.2 : Relay inputs from fault data (RF =50) For bolted faults in a nonhomogeneous system the reactance measurement is unaffected. However if a fault resistance is introduced, the reactance measurement will have an error term. From fault data and relay settings the reactance measurement without compensation can be calculated and compared to the reactive reach of the relay. The difference from this comparison is the reactance measurement error. When the compensation factor T, is used in the calculation, the reactance measurement should be within close tolerances to the reactive reach setting for a zone 1 fault. 20

PAGE 30

3.1 Reactance Measurement Calculation for the Zone 1 Fault Location with 5 n Fault Resistance (T = 0) IZul = Im[V A(IRLT )*] lm[lLZrANG (IA+KNIR)(IRLT )*) IZul = Im[V A0AL-9(1LT ))*] Im[ 1 LZrANG(IA(l + KN)(IRLT )*) From the following identity, the equation can be simplified to IZul = Im[V A(IIAIL-9(1LT ))*] Im[lLZtANGIIAI2(1 + KN)(lLT )*] = Im[V A(1L-9(1LT ))*] IIAI Im[lLZtANGCl+ KN)(lLT )*] = lm[40 8L-11.1C1L-69.2 ClLO ))*] 5.24 Im[1L86(1+ 75L-19)(1LO )*] = 3.92 n 21

PAGE 31

3.2 Reactance Measurement Calculation for the Zone 1 Fault Location with 5 n Fault Resistance ( T=5 ) IZul = Im[40.8L-11.1(1L-69.2 C1L5 ))*] 5.24 Im[1L86(1+ .75L-19)(1L5 )* = 3.77 n It is also important to model the system since the true fault resistance from the fault study does not equal the measured fault resistance. The measured fault resistance depends only on the relays contribution of zero sequence fault current. The true fault resistance measurement will depend on the ratio of total zero sequence current to the relay zero sequence fault current. From this ratio, the true fault resistance can be calculated and checked with the resistance from the fault study. 3.3 Resistance Measurement Calculation For the Zone 1 Fault Location (True Resistance From Fault Study = 5 Q) R Im[V A (1 LZIANG(IA + KNIR))*] FJm [3/2(IA2 + IAo)(lLZIANG(IA + KNIR))*] Since, IR, I IA I= IAL-8 IA2 = lAo = IA/3 then, 22

PAGE 32

Rp = Im[V A (IIAI L-8(1 + KN)ILZIANo)*] Im [IA(IA(I+KN) ILZIANG)*] From the following identity, The equation can be simplified, Rp = Im[V A (I L-8(1 + KN)ILZIANG)*J IIAI Im [((I+KN) ILZIANG)*] RF = Im[40.8L-Il.I (1 L-69.2 (1 + .75L-19)IL86)*] 5.24 Im [((I+ .75L-I9) 1L86)*] = 2.6940 To calculate the true fault resistance the following equation is used Rp(true) = 2.694 x 2885.4 I4I8.3 = 5.48 n The fault resistance measurement is now consistent with the resistance from the .. fault study when this approximation method is used. To verify fault direction for the system model, negative sequence impedance measurements and threshold quantities should be calculated from the fault study at the zone I fault location. Directional quantities should be calculated for both bolted faults and faults with resistance at the resistive reach setting to understand how the threshold characteristics are affected by fault resistance in the plane. 23

PAGE 33

3.4 Negative Sequence Impedance Measurement Threshold Calculations for a Bolted Fault at the Zone 1 Location From table 3.1 relay inputs, = 113(37.52L-3.2 + 1L240(63.87 L-117.1) + 1L120(65.0L116.6)) = 11.04L-175 V = 1/3(5.53L-81.6 + 1L240(0.27L96.1) + 1L120(0.27L96.0)) = 1.93L-81.7 A 312 = IA = 5.79 A (exceeds typical3I2 supervision setting of0.5A) = Re[ 11.04L-175(1.93(L-81.7(1L86))*] 11.9312 =5.72 n = 1.25(Z2F)0.251Z2ml = 1.25(3.6)0.25(5.72) = 3.07 n Z2m < Z2Fr ; forward fault declared 24

PAGE 34

3.5 Negative Sequence Impedance Measurement Threshold Calculations for 5 n Fault Resistance at the zone 1 Location From table 3.2 relay inputs, = l/3(40.8L-11.1 + 1L240(63.7L-117.7) + 1L120(65;9Ll16.6)) = 10.53L-163.4 V = 1/3(5 24L-69.2 + 1L240(0.026L108.5) + 1L120(0.026L108.5)) = .1.76L-69.2 A 312 = IA = 5.28 A (exceeds typical3I 2 supervision setting of0.5A) Ref 10.53L-163.4(1.76L-69.2ClL86))*] 11.7112 =-5.98 n Z 2Fr = 1.25(Z2F)0.25IZ2ml = 1.25(3.6)0.25(5.98) =3.0.0. Z2M < z2Ff ; forward fault declared 25

PAGE 35

The margin between Z2M and Z2Fr is slightly greater for the 5 ohm fault resistance, therefore, the fault will appear more in the forward direction when fault resistance is introduced. Creating a region between the threshold settings will prevent high fault resistances from causing a fault behind the relay to appear in the forward direction. For this example, a 5 ohm fault resistance does not significantly affect the directional capabilities of this model. 26

PAGE 36

4. Dynamic Test Simulations To establish the reactance measurement base line for a dynamic test simulation, an impedance search plot test was conducted for a zone 1 ground quadrilateral in a SEL 321 (Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories ) relay at Rifle substation using "PROTEST 3" software. The search plot calculates values of apparent ground fault impedance by setting the equation in the "PROTEST 3" Z PLOT binary search macro to Z=VII. Apparent impedances are plotted at specified increments of test current angles (figure 4.1 ). -6 -2 2 6 H Figure 4.1: PROTEST 3 Z PLOT [ 6] The voltage and currents from relay test results were then entered into an "Excel" spreadsheet to convert the apparent ground fault impedances to current compensated resistance and reactance measurements that correspond to reach settings of the 27

PAGE 37

ground quadrilateral. These results were then checked for accuracy and plotted. Relay voltage and currents from the fault study were also entered in the spreadsheet. Fault reactance and true resistance measurements were then plotted against the results from the search plot to graphically show reactance measurement error when the T setting was set to zero (figure 4.2 ). When the T setting was changed to 5, the reactance measurement was reduced significantly (figure 4.3) 28

PAGE 38

,..,.------------------------ZL1 (OHMS) FIGURE 4.2: REACTANCE MEASUREMENT ERROR (T=O) SEL 321 ZONE 1 GROUND QUADRILATERAL FOR 345 KV LINE TO CRAIG 5.0 3.93 3.93 ..... 3 93 3.92 3.92 4Jr. . . . 3.0 2.0 1.0 .-------'-----.-------.--------10:9 -----r .. _ .. ___ 1 ----...... 1 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 FAULT RESISTANCE (OHMS) 0\ N

PAGE 39

ZL1 (OHMS) ---------------.......... --.. FIGURE 4.3: REACTANCE MEASUREMENT ERROR (T=S) SEL 321 ZONE 1 GROUND QUADRILATERAL FOR 345 KV LINE TO CRAIG 5 0 3 0 2.0 1 0 . ------0;0--t --,------1 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 FAULT RESISTANCE (OHMS) L___________________ -------------0 ("f)

PAGE 40

5. Results and Conclusion Reactance measurements for ground faults are set in tenns of the positive sequence line impedance to detennine the fault location. This is convenient since the positive sequence line impedance is directly proportional to the length of the line. However, it is evident from the fault study that the reactance measurement will not be exactly proportional to the length of the line if the system is nonhomogeneous and includes fault resistance. A system is nonhomogeneous when the total zero sequence fault current angle is not equal to relay zero sequence fault current angle This angular difference is defined as the nonhomogeneous compensation correction factor angle setting T. The reactance measurement line from figure 4.2 tilts at this angle when referenced to the reactive reach line generated from the impedance search plot. If the correction factor T is applied, the reactance measurement error is now proportional to the length of the line for ground faults. This method of testing requires a high volume of complex calculations. By creating a spreadsheet, protection engineers and technicians can conveniently enter relay settings, impedance search plot points and fault data to augment testing and verify relay accuracy. 31

PAGE 41

Appendices 32

PAGE 42

Appendix A Dynamic Test SimulationReactance Measurement Error (T = 0) SEL 321 Zone 1 Ground Quadrilateral345 KV line to Craig IMPEDANCE SEARCH PLOT TEST PROTEST RESULTS Ia angle Ia magnitude 0 20 40 48.2 60 80 90 105 120 135 165 SElTINGS kOM kOA Z1ANG T RG XG FAULT STUDY 5.98 5.16 3.74 3 .04 3.64 4 3 4.44 4.38 4 12 5 .16 6 .12 0.75 -19 86 5 5 4.1 ASPEN RESULTS Va@ o deg 30 T 0 Ia angie I a magnitude Va angle Va magni!llde Fault Z .S1.6 5.53 .J.2 37.52 5.49 5.1 37. 94 1 76 .5 5.44 .0 9 38.5 2 -74 5.38 .a.5 39.18 3 -71.6 5 .31 .9 39 95 4 -
PAGE 43

Appendix B Dynamic Test Simulation-Reactance Measurement Error (T = 5) SEL 321 Zone 1 Ground Quadrilateral345 KV line to Craig IMPEDANCE SEARCH PLOT TEST PROTEST RESULTS Ia (calc) l'ro ERROR R (calc) X (calc) Region Ia angie Ia magnitude Va@O deg R canst Xconst 0 5 98 30 6 000 0 33% 5 017 -0.265 20 5.16 5.197 0.71% 5.036 0.912 40 3.74 3 767 0 72% 5 037 2.789 48.2 3 .04 3.038 0 07% 4.996 4 094 60 3.64 3.472 4 84% 2.587 4 092 80 4.3 4.094 5.03% -0.265 4.085 90 4.44 4.222 5 15% .452 4 080 10. 5 4.38 4.174 4 93% -3.195 4.088 120 4.12 3.841 7.25'ro -4.996 4 000 135 5.16 -5.155 0.11'ro -4.995 2.699 165 6.12 .129 0 15% 5.008 1 016 SETTINGS kOM 0.75 1+KO 1+k01 kOA Magnitude Angle Z1ANG 86 1.726493 .13054 T 5 RG 5 XG 4 1 FAULT STUDY ASPEN RESULTS T Ia (calc) l'ro ERROR R (calc) X (calc) Region I a angle Ia magnitude Vaangle Va magnitude Fautt Z 5.53 ..:3.2 37.52 0 5 080 8.86% -0. 064 3 941 -79 5.49 1 37.94 I 5.001 9.78% 0.489 3 908 5 5.44 -6. 9 38.5 2 4.914 10. 71'r. 1.041 3 875 -74 5.38 -8.5 39.18 3 4.818 11.67% 1.596 3 842 6 5.31 -9. 9 39.95 4 4.718 12.56% 2.143 3 .811 -69. 2 5.24 .1 40.8 5 4 610 13. 67'l'. 2.694 J .n4 34

PAGE 44

Appendix C C.l Derivation of Residual Current Compensation Factor KN [7 ,8] RELAY LOCATION FAULT LOCATION Figure C.l: sequence network for a SLG fault (Z1=Z2, phase A) 35

PAGE 45

V1F =CV2F+VoF) V1F = V A-I1 (Zu) V 2F = l2(Zu) VoF = -Io(ZLO) Substituting equations C.2, C.3 and C.4 into C. I yields, VAI1(Zu) = h(Zu)+Io(ZLO) For an "a" phase to ground fault, Is= Ic = 0 Therefore, II = I2 = Io = I,J3 Then, VA= II(Zu+Zu+ZLO) Substituting Zu = Zu, the expression now yields, VA= II(Zu)+I2(Zu)+Io(ZLO) Rearranging this expression by substitution from the equation, 3Io= IA+Is+Ic, yields, VA= I1Zu+I2Zu+(IA +Is +Ic)/3ZLO = Zu[ II+I2+(IA+Is+lc)Zw/3Zu] since, IA = I1+I2+Io, or I1 = IA-Irlo 36 (C. I) (C.2) (C.3) (C.4)

PAGE 46

Then, = Zu[ IA-lo+3Io(ZL0/3Zu)] = Zu[ IA+3Io(-1/3+Zw/3Zu)] where ZLO-Zu is the residual curr3Zu ent compensation factor KN 3Zu Z1.0-Zu KN = 3Zu and IA+Ia+Ic is the residual current, Substituting, Dividing by the sum of A phase current, IA and compensated residual current, Ioc, the expression now yields = Zu(IA +KNIR) = IA+KNIR Zu KN can also be written, KN = Ko -1 3 where Ko is the zero sequence compensation factor Z1.0/Zu 37

PAGE 47

AppendixD Derivation of Zero Sequence Current Compensation Factor, Ko [7 ,8] Ko is derived in a similar manner to KN. From the SLG fault sequence network in Appendix C, Rearranging, where Z10/ZLI is the zero sequence current compensation factor Ko Ko=Zw/ZLI and Io is the zero sequence current substituting and dividing by the compensated A phase current, lAc, in terms of symmetrical quantities, the expression now yields, v A = ZLI(Il+l2+Kolo) = ZLI lAc l1+I2+Kolo 38

PAGE 48

AppendixE Effect of Transmission Line Conductor Changes on KN and Ko [9] From the following equations, Zu = jroJ.to[l/4+1n(D/R)] 21t Zw = jroJ.to[l ] 21t J.lO = 41t xl0-7 ro = 21tf where, D = Geometric mean distance of phase conductors DN = Average distance of neutral conductor to phase conductors R = Geometric mean radius of phase conductors RN = Geometric mean radius neutral conductor And, K Zw-Zu N3Zu Ko=Zw/Zu It is evident that changes in conductor spacing, radius and bundling result in impedance changes that are not proportional to the length of the line and that vary from positive sequence to negative sequence. Therefore KN and Ko do not remain constant over the length of the transmission line. Settings on the SEL 321 address this problem by assigning a dedicated residual compensation factor for zone 1. 39

PAGE 49

References [ 1 ] [ 2] [ 3] [ 4] [ 5] [ 6] [ 7] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories Inc. SEL 321 Instruction Manual Pullman, Washington, March 20, 1998 edition S.E. Zocholl. Three Phase Circuit Analysis and the Mysterious KO factor Presented before the 22nd annual Western Protective Relay Conference Spokane, Washington, October 24-26, 1995 J. Mooney, P.E., J. Peer. Application Guidelines for Ground Fault Protection Presented before the 241h annual Western Protective Relay Conference Spokane, Washington, Oct 21-23, 1997 E.O. Schweitzer, III, J. Roberts. Distance relay element design Presented before the 46th annual conference for protective relay engineers Texas A&M University, April12-14, 1993 B. Flemming. Negative Sequence hnpedance Directional Element Presented before the 101h Annual Protest User Group Meeting Pasadena, California, February 24-26, 1998 C. Gallegos. Provided 321 test results using the "Protest 3" relay testing software for the SEL 321 installation at Rifle substation, 1999 GE Multilin-Distance Relays Fundamentals GER-3966 GEC Measurements. Protective Relays Application Guide Published GEC Measurements, Stafford England, 1987 0. Elgerd. Electric Energy Systems Theory-an Introduction, 2nd edition McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1982 40



PAGE 1

AECHAEOLOGY AND THE DENVER NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM by Margaret Moore Smith B.A., University of Colorado, 1979 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Anthropology 1985

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Master of Arts Degree by Margaret Moore Smith has been approved for the Department of Anthropology by Date J'/ I/ ;9?S / 7

PAGE 3

Smith, Margaret Moore (M.A., Anthropology) Archaeology and the Denver Natural History Museum Thesis directed by Assistant Professor JaneStevenson Day The focus of this thesis is on those systematic archaeological collections held in the Denver Museum of Natural History which were collected in Colorado and associated environs over the last sixty years. Of the over twenty collections described in this thesis six are composed of Paleo Indian site materials including those from Dent, Folsom and Lindenmeier. Seven are from Archaic Period locations on the Western Slope and two are multicomponent sites located on the Eastern Slope. Materials from two Peripheral Pueblo areas and two Protohistoric/Historic collections are discussed, along with two Life Collections, one comprised of artifacts from the eastern plains and mountain areas and the other of items from the Buena Vista area and other locales in Colorado and Wyoming. Each collection is considered for its historical importance, content and potential for future research. It is argued that all systematic archaeological collections, whether provenienced or unprovenienced, are important but often neglected sources for current and future research by archaeologists and other

PAGE 4

iv scientific disciplines. However, these collections are resources only if they have been properly documented, conserved, organized and made accessible by the museums in which they are held, in such a manner that their research value has been maintained. The value of systematic archaeology collections, both privately and publicly owned, will only increase as the emphasis on excavation decreases. Therefore, it is necessary that both the researcher and the holder of these collections become more involved in their care and support. The potential problems involved in researching any museum collection -.and the techniques and methods which have been used by others in this exercise are also addressed in hopes that they will enlighten and encourage interested investigators in systematic collections everywhere and in those held at the Denver Museum of Natural History particularly.

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As usual in projects of this type, there are many people who deserve my heartfelt and deepest thanks for their help, advice, support and encouragement. First of all, thanks are due to the members of my thesis committee: Jane Day, without whose ideas and gentle but presistent prodding this thesis may never have been written; Duane Quiatt, whose interest and suggestions were invaluable; and Janet Moone, who not only and advised me, but who also ran inter-ference and cut through much red tape in order that this thesis be accomplishedon time. To those employees at the Denver Museum of Natural History who offered their time and help my thanks are also extended: Joyce Herold, Curator of Anthropology, whose permission to work with the collec-tions and enthusiasm over the project were heartening; Kris Hoaglund in the Library who gave me many leads to follow; Barb Stone who took time out of her twenty-five hour a day schedule to discuss some of the shortcomings and remedies with me; and particularly to Bob Akerly, Assistant Curator of Archaeology, who not only offered many helpful suggestions, ran errands and shared his

PAGE 6

knowledge and with me, but who did them all with a smile and a joke. vi I would especially like to thank all those people who permitted me to interview them and without whom this thesis would not be comple.te: Marie Wormington who kindly allowed me to view the Frazier documents and material and also to pick her brain; Bob Easterday who went over his collection and recollections with me; and Joe Hutchinson, who not only shared his memories and materials with me, but who-thoughtfully spent weeks drawing maps and artifacts, invaluable aids to me and to others who might eventually work with his collection. To Toby Cohen of A&D Typing, who took pity on me and offered to type the sometimes messy draft in a very limited amount of time, my appreciation and thanks are also gratefully given. And to my family and loved ones,Kelly, David and Keith, who not only unflaggingly encouraged and supported me throughout, but shopped, cooked, cleaned, ran errands and continued to love me in spite of it all.

PAGE 7

CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION II. Organization . . . Goals THE HISTORY OF THE INTERDEPENDENCY OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND MUSEU!1S Introduction General Historical Relationships Historical Relationships in the United States .... III. PROBLEMS IN RESEARCHING SYSTEMATIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS IN MUSEUMS . . . . IV. Introduction Problems from the Field Problems in the Museum Deaccessioning Conclusion RESEARCH POTENTIALS OF MUSEUM COLLECTIONS . . . Introduction Technological Developments Skeletal Materials The Computer 1 3 4 5 5 6 6 12 12 12 14 20 22 23 23 24 27 28

PAGE 8

CHAPTER Comparative Procedures . . . . Multidisciplinary Approach . . . . Summation . . v. HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS AT THE DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY . . . General History Paleontology Department Archaeology Department Anthropology Department . Summary . VI. SYSTEMATIC COLLECTIONS IN THE DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY . . . . Paleo-Indian Sites Lone Wolf Creek . The Folsom Site . The Dent Site . . The Lindenmeier Site The Frazier Site Mathieson Site . Archaic Sites "Basketmaker" Cave Sites The Buscher Collection Tracy Canyon . . Captain H. H. Smith Spring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viii 33 37 38 39 39 40 42 44 45 47 47 47 48 56 59 66 69 69 69 71 74 76

PAGE 9

CHAPTER VII. Cactus Park . The Moore-Casebier Sites .The Taylor-Alva Sites . .The Sand Wash Basin Sites Eastern Slope: Multicomponent Sites . . . Introduction . . . . . . The LoDaisKa Site The Apex/Magic Mountain Site Peripheral Pueblo Area Sites Huschers' Stone Circle or "Hogan11 Sites ... The Turner-Look Site Protohistoric/Historic/Sites Ute Sites Shoshoni(?) Site--Graeber Cave Life Collections The Hutchinson Collection The Easterday Collection THE FUTURE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT THE DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY . . . . Introduction Purpose . Traditions Deficiencies ix 78 79 81 82 84 84 85 87 91 91 97 99 99 104 106 106 109 112 112 113 113 114

PAGE 10

X CHAPTER Recommendations . . . 116 The Physical Plant . 117 Data Retrieval . . . 117 Expansion of the Archaeological I Holdings . . . 119 Inventory . . . 119 I Donations . . . 120 I Fieldwork . . . 120 The Role of the DMNH . . . 121 Repository . . . 122 Funding . . . . 122 Conclusions . . . . . 123 LIST OF REFERENCES . . 125

PAGE 11

FIGURES Figure 1. General Map 2. Paleo-Indian Sites 3. Cotter's Sketch of CMNH Excavation at Lindenmeier 4. 5. Archaic Sites on the Uncompahgre Plateau Stone Circle Sites on the Uncompahgre Plateau . 6. Stone Circle Sites in the xi 49 50 63 77 93 Sagauch.e Area . . . . 9 4 7. Ute Sites on the Uncompahgre Plateau . . . 101

PAGE 12

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of this thesis is to describe the systematic collections of archaeological materials available in the Denver Museum of Natural History (DMNH) for study, research and exhibit. A systematic archaeo-logical collection is defined by Ford (1977: 5) as being unified by a central'theme which gives it internal cohesiveness. A systematic research collection has intrinsic potential for [archaeological] research based on the objects themselves, the documentation of the object [and] the history of circumstances which created the collections .... The scientific value of these transcends the original basis for its assemblage and permits a range of research objectives to be pursued. Consequently, not only those systematic collec-tions held at the DMNH, but collections everywhere have definite scientific importance and the potential to yield as much information as the researcher is willing to extract given the proper training, a knowledge of the new techniques and methods available and a problem oriented approach combined with an open mind and a creative imagination. Second, this report delineates the problems involved in researching systematic collections in museums generally and in the DMNH particularly. It also.

PAGE 13

2 discusses the various techniques and methods which not only can be used for research on the DNHM collections but which are applicable to collections in museums everywhere. Only those systematic collections that were recovered in Colorado and its immediate environs through direct excavation or survey by personnel employed by the Museum or those donated by avocational or professional archaeologists are discussed here. These I call primary source materials. This study does not cover the vast category of archaeological items purchased by or donated to the DMNH which were not directly excavated or found by the collectors or donors but instead were acquired through sources other than direct survey or excavation such as purchases or trade. These I call secondary source materials. This does hot intend to say that these collections are not important. There is also much information inherent in these but their potential is more limited than the primary source-materials but the same techniques and. methods described in this thesis can be applied to them with good expectation of results.

PAGE 14

Organization This thesis is separated into six major topics. The first is a historical synopsis of archaeology and its long-term interdependence with museums. The second is a discussion of the problems encountered in most museums when researching both provenienced and unprovenienced collections. The third topic considers the possibilities and potentials existing in the study of 3 all archaeological collections. The fourth describes, in general terms, the archaeological history of the DMNH. The fifth contains descriptions of the systematic archaeological collections held in the Museum, and the final topic concerns the future of archaeology at the DMNH. This report is not intended to include detailed analyses of the artifacts contained in each assemblage. When specific tool types are mentioned, it is within the general terminology only and is not meant as a definitive typological classification. Further, if artifacts have been listed and described by the collector in available reports or publications, details of these are not included to avoid redundancy. The reports or publications will be cited in the body of this thesis and in the references.

PAGE 15

Goals It is hoped that this study will interest and enlighten those researchers, both professional and avocational, who might hold a legitimate, scientific interest in the archaeological holdings in the DMNH and that it will encourage use of and research in these materials, both in and o.ut of house. It is further hoped that with the evaluations of the problems and potentials involved in working with these collections and of the strengths and weakness inherent in the materials themselves and in the Museum as a whole, the way will have been eased somewhat for that research and further light might be shed on the numerous questions still being asked about Colorado'spast. 4

PAGE 16

CHAPTER II THE HISTORY OF THE INTERDEPENDENCY OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND MUSEUMS Introduction 11A vast amount of data awaits anthropological research in the huge, tangled puzzles of museum collec-tions ..... (Sturtevant 1973: 49). Archaeological material collections in museums are rich, varied and too often untapped sources of valuable information on the past. These collections become more important and more valuable as the realiza-tion increases that archaeological sites are limited resources to be conserved, that financial backing is. limited and that the one-site-one-graduate student mentality of universities lessens (Thomas 1981). Without this material, much of what there is to learn about many cul tur.es would be lost. Museums are the reposi-tories, the 11warehouses11 if you will, of our material cultural past. Through this material, archae6logists read of the adaptations, the successes and failures, the evolution and devolutions of cultures and societies over time and of the processes that affected .them.

PAGE 17

6 General Historical Relationships In a sense, archaeology and museums have always gone together,although this association may not have been recognized as such in today's terms. The apparent habit of collecting unusual, interesting and rare objects dates back to the beginning of human curiosity. Along with this habit goes the desire for learning and appreciation of these objects which continues tci bring the public flocking to museums (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1968) Historical Relationships in the United States In the United States before the late l800s archaeology was mostly a pastime for the rich or arm-chair archaeologists who collected relics for their curio cabinets (Encyclopedia Britannica Thomas 1979). These private curio cabinets slowly evolved into commercial enterprises available to;the public for their amusement and instruction (Osgoode 1979). Perhaps the most famous of these operations was that of P. T. Barnum who had a large collection of anthropological materials. It was not until his museum burned for the second time in 1868 that turned to dircuses as a means of making money and entertaining the public (Osgoode 19 7 9)

PAGE 18

7 In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the time Willey and Sabloff (1974) call the Speculative Period in American archaeology, archaeology arose as a professional scientific discipline (Thomas 1979). This was a time when the emphasis was on extensive.exploration, excavation and collection, especially that which involved vanishing cultures (Thomas 1979). There was a realization that much important information concerning these cultures would soon be lost because of advancing civilization and consequent contact. It was assumed that by extracting all possible informa-tion from the dying cultures, threads would then lead to those that had already disappeared. The concern was with obtaining large quantities of material, but little time was spent on scientifically documenting these collecI 1 tions (Matthews 1981). i j As a consequence, museums were created and I 1 to handle and store this vast amount of material I that was pouring in from everywhere. With this, their function ideally changed from one of entertainment to research and education (Osgoode 1981), and the anthro-pologist and the archaeologist moved into the museums along with their collections (Ford 1977). This frantic search and gathering of data did not stop in the next stage Willey and Sabloff (1974) label

PAGE 19

I I the Classificatory-Historical Period. This was a time dominated by Franz Boas and his students (Harris 1968). Using the Direct Historical Approach, their goal was a complete description of the materials with a grouping and classification of these artifacts into different typological categories (Woodall 1972). They recognized the particular history of an object--that it would appear, increase in popularity and die--but their analysis was taken no further (Harris 1968; Willey and Sabloff 1974; Woodall 1972). Evolutionary theory was ignored by these historical particularists. interests, at least in the first part of this period, 8 focused on developing a cultural chronology and synthesis of specific materials within a culture area and of a particular culture itself, but they did not look into the cultural processes that might be affecting and producing these changes (Willey and Sabloff 1974; Harris 1968). In the decades before World War II, more and more sites were discovered and a large amount of data were generated as the western part of the United States I became more populated and the climate dried. The Dust 1 Bowl effect in the west led to the uncovering of heretofore unknown sites and artifacts; transportation facil-ities improved and the search for sites and artifacts by

PAGE 20

professionals and amateurs alike increased The Great Depression caused the channeling of federal monies into archaeological projects and enormous amounts of material were .collected (Thomas 1979). Some of this material was studied according to the principles of the times, and either sold to private collectors or placed in museums, many of whom immediately put it on exhibit or in storage unresearched and uncatalogued (Cantwell et al. 1981). 9 However, in the period after World War II, the emphasis in anthropology turned to theories of diffusion, cultural context and function (Willey and Sabloff 1974) and the importance that had been placed on the artifacts themselves decreased (Ford 1977). The end of the fifties left us with a great deal of data and reports filled with descriptions and analysis of the data, but with little cohesiveness or collation of these data into explanatory, (Thomas 1979) The museums turned inward with a focus on exhibition of these collections and the construction of facilities in which to show them (Ford 1977). This led to better curation and recording but consequently, it also led to a loss in appeal for employment in museums for the archaeologist (Bourque _et al. 1980; Thomas 1979). Instead, he went flocking to.the universities and to the field as salvage and contract archaeology rose in importance in the following decades.

PAGE 21

I I 10 The period since 1960, the Explanatory Period in Willey and Sabloff's (1974) classification, evidenced a return to scientific investigations with goals of cultural chronologies, the explanation of past lifeways and cultural process uppermost (Thomas 1979; Woodall 1972). With this new and evolving emphasis on evolu-tionary, environmental and systems theories, a conse-quent loss of interest in the cultural materials for themselves alone occurred (Freed 1977). However, in this age of diminishing resources, inflation, new federal laws, the death of the energy boom and the recognized need to save something for future archaeologists to excavate with advanced technologies, methodologies and theories, archaeologists are coming in out of the field. The place to go is i .nto the archives and basements of museums, many of which are not adequately prepared for such an invasion (Bourque et al. 1980). Museums have been pretty much _ignored by scholars, students and professionals over the last twenty years, "reinforcing a subtle, negative attitude on the museums' value of anthropology and diminishing the whole field" (Kane 1985: 52). Museums today have developed a profession of their own called Museology. Thls discipline seems more concerned with administration and curatorial practices

PAGE 22

which has left them too little time for the study and research of objects of which they are primarily in Archaeology has taken a back seat to ethnological concerns; but due to changing conditions on both fronts, the archaeologist and the museologist must cooperate in order to benefit both. 11

PAGE 23

CHAPTER III PROBLEMS IN RESEARCHING SYSTEMATIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS IN MUSEUMS Introduction There are many problems that present themselves to the researcher when setting out to study systematic collections in museums. He may face any or all of these obstacles and should be aware of and alert to-these hurdles before beginning if he wishes to make his project a successful one. Many of these are problems that I experienced while researching the collections for this thesis, but they apply throughout the museum world and will be discussed as such here. "Without a doubt, there is a crisis in curation" of systematic collections in museums (Marquardt et al. 1982: 411). Problems From the Field In researching some of the collections that were recovered prior to the 1960s, the scholar will find that many of the problems started in the field. In most of the early archaeological work there was little or no real collection strategy, and certainly no research

PAGE 24

design outlining techniques or methodologies to be followed by the archaeologist. Collecting was often selective and biased, emphasizing the unusual or spectacular site or artifact (Thomas 1979). There were no real scientific "random'' collection policies practiced (with the possible of Spier's at Zuni, see below) so often whatever information was collected was biased. Seemingly unimportant materials were overlooked or urecognized and left in the field or thrown away. Stratigraphic controls were almost non-existent before the twenties and elemental up through the fifties (Thomas 1979). Locations for many obje.cts often were general only (state, county or even site if one is lucky), but as for exact provenience on or in the site itself, the documentation was often lacking. Many times the scholar will find a lack of other supporting evidence for these collections as these were not recovered as routinely as they are now (Ford 1977). Remains such as charcoal, wood for treering dating, soil samples, hearth or firepit materials, floral categories such as seeds, nuts or pollen and faunal remains are often overlooked as the value of these data was not yet perceived (Woodall 1979). There was often poor documentation in the form 13 of fieldnotes, maps, profiles, geologic and environmental

PAGE 25

descriptions and final reports. Photography was nonexistent in the early days and poorly used later on, 14 and analyses of the materials were often spotty or wrong. Some or all of this documentation may or may not be kept at one institution. Even excellently and methodically documented notes may be difficult for the student to decipher due to bad handwriting or the use of personal shorthand and abbreviations. Wilmsen (1979), for example, had a very difficult time following Roberts' fieldnotes from Lindenmeier and it took him over a year before he finally figured out most of the transcriptions and references contained in them. I had the same trouble in matching the Huschers' designations for their sites with those in the collection. Without doubt, the systematically collected materials of the last few decades will be easier to research when approached with new hypotheses, but the older collections, whether collected by professionals or amateurs, provenienced or not, will also prove just as valuable for the information inherent in them (Cantwell et al. 1981). Problems in the Museums Once a collection reached a museum, many of the above problems were compounded and recently have been.

PAGE 26

1 I I I I exacerbated by the sheer volume of collections that has been generated by government funded projects(Marquardt et al. 1982). There has always been little interest' by the collector in following up his collection once it 15 reached the museum and usually there was no communication between the museum staff and the archaeologist either before, during or after the project (Bourque et al. 1980). Funds were set aside for fieldwork and analysis but hardly ever for curation. Consequently, museums were left responsible for a vast array of materials without input or funding from.the outside. Without doubt, the biggest and most difficult problem museums have always confronted has been inade-quate funding for the care, storage and research or collections, or for the staff required to process and care for them (Cantwell et al. 1981; Osgoode 1979). Without adequate many curation practices have been mismanaged, left undone or done inappropriately. Many museums were constructed years ago, and provided with little and/or overcrowded storage space, allowing for limited and difficult access to artifacts which may be stored incorrectly, a situation leading to damage (Ford 1977; 1979). Ventilation, lighting, temperature, humidity and insect-proofing may be defi-cient; again, situations that may be harmful to

PAGE 27

I -I 16 collections. Physical security may sometimes be insuffi-cient, allowing for the theft of artifacts and rare documentation (Ford 1977; Osgoode 1977). In addition, it is likely there may be no appropriate facilities in which to carry out this research. Tables may have to be cleared, only to be reclaimed before the project is terminated. People may be in and out constantly, squeez-ing past or stopping to chat; lighting may be poor and equipment needed to carry out certain aspects of this research non-existent. New problems may be encountered with the recordkeepingpractices in many museums. Frequently, artifacts may not be accessioned or catalogued and may still remain in their original packing crates, old boxes or bags in some dark basement or unknown location. If they have been catalogued, the information may be misleading or not-specific enough for the data one might require, necessitating an investigation into the whole collection to pinpoint exactly what may be avail-able (Matthews.l981). Many items may be misclassified or not classified at all due to ignorance or error by the recorder or the collector himself. Some specimens may have become mixed in with other collections or even accessioned with them leading to loss or confusion in information. (For

PAGE 28

example, portions of the material from one of the Huschers sites from the Uncompahgre Plateau were numbered and catalogued with their Apex/Magic Mountain material). Still others may be accessioned and specifically catalogued, but may be on permanent loan elsewhere or ori exhibit and consequently, mat not be available for study. Other collections may be lost altogether. Even small, local museums have an obligation, not necessarily for research, but for proper curation, cataloguing, recording and preservation of local artifacts in their care. 17 Not all museums may have documented their materials with photographs, a time-saver for the researcher who wishes to get a general idea of a collection or the typological holdings available, or who is dealing with hundreds or thousands of the same type of artifact from many different institutions and needs to make comparisons of these materials (Hattli.ews 1)..). Even if photographs are in existence, they may be of poor quality or not of enough detail to be useful, or so poorly documented as to be worthless (Freed 1981) Different museums may have curated their material in different ways, an important point depending on what category'the researcher is interested in. Ford (1979: 5-14) has outlined this very succinctly.

PAGE 29

Items may be catalogued as a single culture unit, those objects that were recovered fromthe same site or similar sites. Most archaeological collections are organized this way (Matthews 1981). They may be catalogued according to culture area, such as Northwest Coast or Plains. They may be classified by typology: those of similar materials, form or function. Life collections are comprised of all items from one collection whether from a single site, area, culture or a mixture thereof. The Easterday of Hutchinson Collections at the DMNH are examples (see below). However, if there are no cross-reference files to correlate all these components, exhaustive drawer-to-drawer or boxto-box searches may ensue by both museum personnel and researcher resulting in valuable time lost (Matthews 1981). Documentation of these collections may not be catalogued or accessioned along with the artifacts and may be stored in other areas or not at the museum at 18 all. Proper curation procedures may not have been used and ink and pictures may be faded and the paper yellowed and aged (Freed 1981). Often, laborious searches for written materials relevant to the study may be necessary. Inadequate or harmful conservation of materials has always been a major source of concern for curators

PAGE 30

19 (Osgoode 1979). Ideas on cleaning and restoration have changed over the years as new techniques and methods have been developed. Although cleaning may be necessary to help protect certain objects from deterioration, it may lead to the obliteration of certain other information that may be valuable to the student. Information such as pollen and food residue, color or pigmentation, wear patterns, manufacturing techniques, soil types, blood, wrappings and even evidence or provenience (as some artifacts can leave traces on other artifacts if they have been lying on or next to each other), may be obliterated (Freed 1981; Pringle 1985). Some cleaning methods may even destroy certain objects such as textiles, wood or basketry, although new techniques and ideas have improved these processes (Bourque et al. 1981; Freed 1981). Preservation and restorat.ion may also bi.as data. Although many articles need some sort of preparation before they are stored or exhibited, the less done, both in the field and in the museum, the better for the artifact and the less information destroyed. The integrity of many collections may have been harmed by the various methods employed by curators to improve them for public exhibit (Freed 1981).

PAGE 31

Restoration may lead to the modification of an artifact, a serious problem for the researcher. As 20 Freed (1981) points out, the repair or replacement of missing parts or surface manipulations by some wellmeaning restorer may transform the original specimen so that it may not be recognizable to the original manufacturer or user, which again may lead to disinformation. It is the obligation of the archaeologist and the curator to take precautions when preparing to modify the condition of an article. Who knows what new interpretative procedures may be developed in the future that will be worthless for obtaining information due to mistaken curation? Deaccessioning Over time, many museum collections may have become separated, divided up, sold, loaned, tr-aded, lost, stolen, mixed up or simply thrown away. Museums have different policies on what can be done with unwanted or unneeded material. The DMNH has a policy that .nothing can be deaccessioned unless by complete authorization of the Board of Directors (Herold 1983). However, deaccessioning is encouraged by some and outlawed by others (Osgoode 1979). Many museums may have gaps in their inventories that need to be filled; consequently, whole

PAGE 32

21 or parts of some collections may have been traded, sold or put on permanent loan in exchange for necessary materials. If complete records are not kept updated, many of these transactions may have become lost, again, with resultant loss in data. As times change and museums grow and staff leaves, unwritten agreements may be forgotten and poorly written ones misunderstood or ignored. Proper care may not have been taken when returning items to their regular storage place after they have been removed, and they may be stored with other materials. The significance of existing collections, no matter what their history or documentation, will only increase as the emphasis on field work diminishes (Brown 1981; Ford 1977). Museum collections will become the laboratory for many future archaeologists and museums have a professional obligation to these collections, to the resarcher and to themselves. If it becomes absolutely necessary to exchange or sell collections, they should go to an institution which already has part of that collection or which special-izes in that culture or area from which the collection derives, and then only if the collection is redundant to the original holding museum. I I

PAGE 33

Conclusion There is much that can be done by museums and collectors alike to remedy many of these situations. Most curators are aware ofthe problems extant in their own departments and are working on solutions. However, without sufficient financing, modernized buildings and updated record keeping procedures, many of the shortcomings will continue. 22

PAGE 34

I I 1CHAPTER IV RESEARCH POTENTIALS OF MUSEUM COLLECTIONS Introduction The man who comes after and carries on the work of the excavator in recovering data on the past is followed by others who come after and. improve on the earlier studies bringing new problems, new techniques (Cantwell 1981: 8). In spite of the seemingly insurmountable obstacles outlined in the preceding chapter, there are abundant research opportunities or restudy projects which have been or can be done utilizing museum materials. Kintigh (1981) did a restudy of Spier's randomly collected ceramics from various Zuni sites and discovered them still to be a valuable source of information. In fact, he relates (1981: 468) "For a variety of reasons, Spier's collection turned out to be the most valuable ... for my research, signif-icantly more useful than even my own collections." Museum collections are not only used by archae-ologists, but by anthropologists, art historians, geologists, botanists, historians, sociologists and others, and by students of all these disciplines.

PAGE 35

I I I I I I 24 Often museum collections are the only source of informa-tion on many sites and the major source for others which have been destroyed (Greben, Davis and DuFresne 1981) due to erosion, urbanization,. excavation or vandalism (Kintigh 1981). Museums often contain informa-tion and collections from certain areas that have not been professionally surveyed, excavated or researched in regions little known for their archaeological poten-tials. Technological Developments Recent developments in technology, methodology and theory have opened new doors for innovative research of archaeological collections unimagined by their collec-tors. For instance, Clarence B. Moore, one of the principle collectors of burial furniture from Moundville in the early 1900s, would be amazed at the information recovered from his materials. Even though his collec-tions are scattered in museums throughout the United States, recent researchers have developed a specific chronology for Moundville, have recognized exchange net-works, identified two local ceramic traditions and determined settlement patterns within and without the site; and the research has just begun(Peebles et al. 1981).

PAGE 36

I i I I I I 25 Perhaps the most spectacular advances in the last twenty years have been made in the technological and methodological fields which have updated and revolu-tionized techniques in dating, identification. of materials and their origins, functions and manufacturing techniques, just to name a few (Wilson 1974). In turn they have enabled us to come closer to answering ques-tions posed by new theoretical concepts. All these techniques have aided in the identification of chrono-logical placement, materials and their sources, trade routes, geographical distribution, diffusion and even the recognition of new cultures and traditions (Cantwell et al. 1981; Wilson 1974). The p9ssibilities are almost boundless on what information can be retrieved using these techniques. Dendrochronology has been used for absolute and cross-dating of many sites and associative artifacts, and for identification of climatic changes and environments in the prehistoric Southwest (Wilson 1974). Since 1929, some investigators collected wood samples for this and other purposes as the Huschers (1939) did for the Ute sites. Many new researchers have returned to the field in order to acquire samples as an adjunct to their research.

PAGE 37

I I I I I 26 Radiocarbon dating, first used in 1949 but not fully accepted until the sixties (Wilson 1974), has been used extensively for dating older collections of bone, shell, wood and carbon samples withexcellent results (Griffin 1981; Wilson 1974). Haynes and Agogino (196q) tested bone from the Lindenmeier site and accurately dated the period of occupation of that site. Trace element and spectroscopic analyses have been used on copper, obsidian, galena and pottery found in many collections to trace the origin of these materials (Day 1984; Wilson 1974). Such studies have been done by Griffin (1981) when he traced obsidian found in sites in the United States to Yellow-stone. Neutron activation resolved the questions of the origin of Maya Fine Orange Ware when. it was found that Kixpec was the center of manufacture . and that the samples found at Piedras Negras and elsewhere must have been imported from Kixpec, because the undoubted local pottery of Negras had quite a different composition in terms of trace elements (Wilson 1974: 203). Many studies have been done utilizing electro-spin resonance or thermoluminescence for identification of proveniences of certain ceramics, flint, calcite and mollusks (Day 1984; Griffin 1981; Wilson 1974). Other techniques that have been used for identification pur-poses of types and origins include x-ray defraction,

PAGE 38

27 petrographic and geologic analyses (Anderson, Haynes and Agogino 1974; Griffin 1981; Wilson 1974). For instance, Haynes (1980) did an analysis of Clovis points and found they were made of high quality lithic source materials frequently obtained over great distances from where the points had been found, although some local sources were used as well. Yet 78 percent of points studied by Briolo (1971) in Blackwater Draw were made of material from a single source of Edwards Plateau chert which was along the route of the bison that were being hunted by the Folsom people. Skeletal Materials There have been numerous research projects that have focused on human and animal skeletal materials that were collected in association with artifacts or by themselves and which were packed away in boxes gathering dust (Shipman 1981; Wilson 1974). The information that these studies have given us is phenomenal, as long as the materials have not been ground up for bone meal and put on the Chairman's lawn, as was done with one collection (Griffin 1981). Bones have been analyzed for tooth marks and cut marks made by stone and metal, and for spiral fractures which are studied to determine if they occurred due

PAGE 39

28 to natural causes or human action (Stanford 1982); skeletal remains have also been analyzed for signs of burning, weathering, abrasion or digestion (Shipman 1981; Wilson 1974). Demographic and health questions have been answered using skeletal material which have identified the age, sex, weight, height, toxicology, disease, nutrition and age at which death occurred (Brown 1981). These studies have elucidated issues of social strati-fication and status associated with differential access to food. One such research project was conducted by Blakely and Buck (1981: 428) in Etowah where they discovered through trace element analysis that "social structure included a dual hierarchical ranking" but that status was more commonly achieved than ascribed. Trace carbon isotope studies have been used on bone to determine the arrival of corn or other classes of cultigens in certain areas (Brown 1981). Skeletal and dentition studies have also traced immigration and migration patterns, changes in cooking utensils, differ-ent dietary patterns and nutritional stress (Brown 1981; Shipmari 1981; Wilson 1974). The Computer Perhaps one of the most important technologi-cal advances has been the invention of the computer . I I

PAGE 40

Many innovative studies have been conducted using this new tool, and new ways to put it -to use are turning up daily (IBM 1985; Wilson 1974; Woodall 1974). The uses of the computer in the field, lab and the museum by the researcher are just now being realized. It is now .used in almost all reseaarch projects to collate data in a way that was impossible even ten years ago, allowing for the retrieval of information that might never have been attempted before (Wilson 1974; Woodall 1974). 29 Computers have been used for the time-consuming chores of filing and sorting and for studies that include large quantities of data which need to be collated rapidly (Wilson 1974). Projects that involve complicated mathematical techniques have been simplified by the use of the computer. Long lists of attributes or of certain classes of data have been fed into the computer. Then comparisons have been punched in from other representative samples from various collections for comparative purposes (Wilson 1974). Identification of signature characteristics have been computerized fac{litating the incorporation of old and poorly documented collections into usable data (Brown 1981). Multivariate factor analysis, principal components analysis and cluster analysis, to name a few, have

PAGE 41

30 been certain computer methods applied to collections in order to discover what particular types of objects are concentrated in association with other types of arti-facts; or if, instead, they are scattered at random throughout the site (Wilson 1974). Neustupny, as described in Wilson (1974) learned of the social relation-ships and sexual.division of labor among the Cord-Ward peoples of Bohemia by feeding in data on the pottery located in their burials. Even fragments of the same object located in different museums or private collec-tions have been reassembled using these methods (Brown 1981; Matthews 1981). Many different kinds of ceramic studies have been completed using the computer to analyze data. Feldman and Rowlett (1981: 340) have devised a computer program which analyzes the curved fracture lines of pot sherds in order to complete a ceramic study with the proper profiles of vessels produced in each of the different [from a Late-Iron-Age fort in Luxembourg] using fracture texture, thickness, fine-lines, grit, decor and other attributable dimensions. Puniello (1981), sorting Woodland sherds .according to their different attributes of body surface finish and using statistical analysis, has been able to develop a chronology for these wares along the Upper Delaware River Valley.

PAGE 42

31 Lithic analyses have been done, using museum collections and the computer, that were impossible before (Wilson 1974). As Feldman and Rowlett (1981: 340) explain refitting of broken materials or finished artifacts with the manufacturing debris ... is often done in Europe. Refitting of unknown provenience or stray-find flaked . tools with their manufacturing debris, and other artifacts from the same core can restore the innumerable [lithic] and arrowhead collections so often arriving in Museums with weak documentation. Many "orphans" with little or no provenience have been traced and placed in their right context (Gramly 1980). Such projects have led to the identification of nomadic groups and their temporary camps, migration routes and the identification of resource and area use (Feldman and Rowlett 1981; Gramly 1980; Wilson 1974). Waste debris has been used to determine pre-historic technology and ecology (Gramly 1980). Identi-fication of lithic tools, caches and raw materials through their debris has been traced back to original quarry si te s such as Weigand's tracking of turquoise sources in the Southwest and Renfrew's discovery of Middle Eastern obsidian origins all discussed in Wilson (1974). As he points out (1974: 204), such techniques have helped us distinguish various exchange networks and population movements within and without specific culture areas.

PAGE 43

There are even studies going on now that are attempting to identify different manufacturers' "signatures" on specific tools and ceramic materials, a concept with enormous potential for proveniencing of artifacts (Gramly 1980; Griffin 1981). Another notable discovery mentioned in Pringle (1985: 16) was that of Tom Loy of the British Columbia. Provincial Museum who has developed a technique that detects traces of ... ancient blood, tissue and hair on 98 percent of the Stone Age tools and weapons" he 32 has studied. This development may allow future scholars to gain insights into diseases and their introduction into an area. It also may provide information on the diets, prey and hunting patterns of prehistoric peoples and perhaps even trace their genetic evolutions. Through computer use, other notable advances have been made in the techniques for determining functions of certain classes of prehistoric lithic artifacts. Winters (1981) did a study on Woodland copper celts/axes/gouges from different unprovenienced collections and found that contrary to their classification, these objects were not utilitarian at all but were ritual items placed in burials and caches of wealth for those of certain status in the society.

PAGE 44

Winters (1981) also did a computer assisted study of Mississippian hoes and not only discovered their sources, but that there had been hoe "factories" exporting ready-made implements to Mississippian populations. He also recognized patterns in trade and land use through these studies. Comparative Procedures 33 Cross-cultural and intra-cultural comparative studies with both well provenienced and unprovenienced artifacts have been essential in most research projects that use collections. They have been valuable tools for dating different ceramic and lithic tool types and interand intrasite contacts (Ford 1981). Functional studies have been carried out with implements from many collections and the evolution of various technologies have been followed. For example, Boast (1983) determined that the Lindenmeier and other Folsom gravers probably were used to cut the tendons of the game animals that were hunted and not, as was once surmised, used for engraving bone (Wormington 1949). By using comparative methods with specific type or untyped collections, new periods, phases, subcultures and cultures have been recognized and dated (Griffin 1981). These methods have also been

PAGE 45

I I I I I I I 34 used in the analysis and interpretation of new data (Cantwell et al. 1981; Griffin 1974). Comparative analysis has been useful in identi-fying artifacts that were not previously known to occur in a culture, such as Griffin's (1981) identification of pottery in Adena sites, a culture previously thought to be non-ceramic. He accomplished this by matching differ-ent wares in various museums and typing and provenienc-ing them into Adena sites. Inter-and intraregional style patterns and their variability in design and/or structure on ceramics, engraved tools or ornamentation have been recognized using both whole specimens and fragments with cross comparative techniques (Conkey 1981). Traditions and their evolution or disappearance have been identified through design structures studies using the comparative method (Conkey 1981). -Brown (1981) traced provenienced and unpro-venienced and whole and fragmentary pieces of engraved marine shell from Spiro Mound through museums and private collections. He not only identified them as coming from Spiro, but discovered that most had been broken before burial and pieces from the same specimens were interred in different graves. 11This circumstance, which is very illuminating of the social contexts of

PAGE 46

35 use and ownership of valued objects, is an important means for reassembling the Great Mortuary inventory (Brown 1981: 69). By comparing these articles he dis-covered traces of marine shell dust, green glauconite clay smears and textile fibers which also identified their provenience. Another favored, but controversial, method of comparative analysis is ethnographic analogy. Often, researchers will go to the present to learn about the past by l ooking at objects extant in the ethnographic literature and extrapolating back in time to compare these in form and function, with those materials found during their investigations (Thomas 1979). Ethno-graphic analogies have been used to generate hypotheses to be tested with archaeological data and is taking the place of inferential analogy. Art historians have often done stylistic and iconographic research utilizing archaeological collec-tions and cross comparative methods. Matthews (1981) states: Objects that have been archaeologically excavated can provide a framework for the use of poorly recorded material. Working first .with objects from controlled sites, certain patterns become clear and many of the other pieces can be included in analyses of chronology and distribution . as more objects from controlled excavations become available the clearer our picture of context will become (172).

PAGE 47

I I l I 36 Obviously, the larger and more complete the available sample, the more information obtained; this has assisted both the historian and the archaeologist. One can begin to perceive differing developments through the study and comparisons of attributes and types, such as changes in contact and how this affected the ideology of the culture; different characteristics of various groups have become clearer and defined movements and influences. This information can be cross-checked with linguistic, ethnohistorical and archaeological data. The exposure of fakes also has been an important outcome of the comparative method. Most, if not all, museums include fakes and erroneous documentation in their collectioris, although these usually have come with donated or purchased materials (Perino 1985) Restora-tion of an object may have changed it in such a way as to make it a completely different specimen (Freed 1981) Many talented artisans have increased their incomes substantially by manufacturing fakes in lithic and ceramic materials, and often have fooled all but the most knowledgeable experts (Perino 1985). But by comparing the original techniques and materials used in their manufacture, and by comparing signature characteristics, most can be culled from the collections.

PAGE 48

37 Multidisciplinary Approach Perhaps one of the more sensible procedures encouraged by the "new" archaeology has been the use of the multidisciplinary approach in archaeological research and this has carried over into collections research as well (Day 1984; Bourque et al. 1980; Thomas 1979; Williams 1981). Many of the examples cited above used disciplines outside their own to augment their studies. Chemists provided the expertise for many of the new techniques used; computer experts and statisticians wrote and interpreted programs to be used in this research. 1 Ethnobotanists, paleontologists and zoologists I I have studied the flora and fauna found in and aro.und I sites and have identified different species, their evolution and disappearance, their uses and whether they were wild or domesticated (Ford 1981; Shipman 1981; I Wilson 1974). Geologists and climatologists have revealed the various environmental conditions under which prehistoric peoples lived and the changes that occurred in these environments over time. Conditions such as climatic change, earthquakes, volcanic activity and changes in permanent and temporary water sources have all been determined by these associated disciplines.

PAGE 49

38 They have also aided in the identification of lithic and clay materials and their sources (Cantwell et al. 1981; Wilson 1974). There is no limit to the assistance these and other professions can offer archaeologists and their advice and help should be utilized whenever possible. Summation The examples cited above are just a few of the studies that have been conducted utilizing systematic archaeological collections in museums and private collections. Some were studies done on well documented collections but many of these projects used poorly provenienced and documented materials and these too yielded substantive and theoretical information. It is hoped that these examples will serve as models for prospective researchers and will encourage the preservation of both old and new collections as they contain considerable potential for many different kinds of research. By investigating the various methods and techniques addressed here, it is further hoped that interested parties will focus their attentions on some, if not all, of the collections held in the DMNH which are described in Chapter VI.

PAGE 50

CHAPTER V HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS AT THE DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY General History The Colorado Museum of Natural History (CMNH) was founded after a naturalist, Edwin Carter, offered to sell his collection of specimens of birds and mammals to the highest bidder (Dolan 1980). According to Dolan, who wrote a synopsis of the Museum's history in 1980, a group of businessmen got together in 1897 and proposed that a fireproof museum be built to house Mr. Carter's collection, and that he be appointed Curator for life (Mr. Carter died in 1900). The proposal was agreed on and the collection was stored temporarily in the basement of the State Capitol until suitable housing could be found. With further pledges from two other collectors, a contract was entered into with the City of Denver to donate one quarter of a mill tax from one year's revenues to finance a museum. On December 6, 1900, the CMNH was incorporated and construction of. a building started in Denver's City Park. The Museum officially opened to the public in

PAGE 51

July, 1908 with over 3,400 articles under its roof. Since then, the Museum has grown enormously in both its physical size and in the number of its collections. In 1949, the name was changed from the Colorado Museum of Natural History to the Denver Museum of Natural History as Denver provided the majority of the funding for the Museum. Paleontology Department 40 Although there were many natural science departments organized after the founding of the CMNH, no archaeological or anthropological departments were established until 1932. Consequently, all the early systematic archaeological collections currently held at the Museum are attributable to the discoveries of the Paleontology Department. Field trips for study and the acquisition of samples for exhibition were common practices for the Paleontology Department in the first thirty years of its history, and it was through these expeditions that evidence of Early Man in America was first recognized. In 1910, Jesse D. Figgins, a paleontologist and staff member of the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), was named the Director of the CMNH and he became involved in many of these paleontological

PAGE 52

41 excursions as the search for fossil samples intensified in the first quarter of this century. In 1923-24, while on a paleontological field trip for the Museum, an employee, H. D. Boyes, uncovered two projectile points in association with extinct bison in Lone Wolf Creek, Colorado City, Texas. Although this evidence was not accepted as proof of early man by renowned scholars (Wormington 1949), this discovery intrigued Figgins and he increased the efforts to find evidence of the association of man with extinct fauna. In less than two years this proof was confirmed by the discoveries outside Folsom, New Mexico; and in less than ten years was further verified by the discovery of Clovis points in association with mammoth in Dent, Colorado. The Paleontology Department participated in both those finds. In 1929 Figgins sent Dr. E. Renaud to survey caves in New Mexico and Oklahoma in hopes of finding further evidence of prehistoric man. In 1930 Figgins (1930) reported that the CMNH, the Smithsonian and the University of Denver were jointly financing archaeologi-cal surveys of eastern Colorado and fossils were collected near, or in association with, human artifacts I near Colorado City, Texas. I

PAGE 53

42 A. M. Brooking of the Hastings, Nebraska Museum, excavated a site in 1931 which had the remains of an articulated mammoth and recovered a fluted point with the skeleton (Figgins, 1931). J.D. Figgins obtained this point and confirmed it as a Folsom. However, subsequent investigations revealed that the geologic deposits containing the mammoth remains were far too early for human artifacts, and, according to Wormington: The point itself has always been somewhat of an anomaly, for it is much cruder and thicker than most similar specimens, and it is possible that it was made from a piece of stone which was already grooved. It seems possible that it was. a forgery, deliberately introduced into the deposits by some unknown indiVidual (Wormington 1949: 43). The point is still held in the storage room as a curiosity. Archaeology Department For the first time, a Division of Prehistoric:. artifacts was established at the CMNH in 1932. "The importance that now attaches to the Museum's discover-ies of prehistoric artifacts, plus the result of field-work and con.tributions made a necessary betterment of this phase ... (Figgins, 1932: 23). In 1933 the CMNH participated in the excavation of the Dent Site and in 1934 one of the Dent mammoths and a Folsom bison were given to the Carnegie Museum in

PAGE 54

exchange for a skeleton of Diplodocus and one of Anatosaurus (Figgins 1934). The year 1935 was a very important one for archaeology at the CMNH. John Cotter and a small crew from the Museum joined Frank Roberts of the Smithsonian 43 in the field at Lindenmeier. The Department of Archaeology was founded in October of that year. Marie Wormington was hired as an archaeologist and photographer (Figgins 1935), and in December investigations were begun at the Moore Shelter in the Uncompahgre Plateau (Wormington 1935). J. D. Figgins retired in 1936 and Alfred Bailey, an ornithologist, took over as Qirector of the Museum. From 1935 to 1967, H. Marie Wormington remained as Curator of Archaeology and became one of the world's foremost experts on Paleo-Indian studies combined with a broad interest in other areas of prehistoric archaeology. She ... expanded the Museum's regional and temporal specializations in archaeology" (Herold 1983: 5). She encouraged and co-sponsored the.Huschers' surveys of 1939-l94i in the foothills areas in Colorado and led her own excavations at the Moore-Casebier Sites during 1935-1939 and the Turner-Look Fremont Sites between 1939-1948. She also excavated the Taylor-Alva Sites in 1950-52 and co-headed an expedition to Alberta, Canada which was funded

PAGE 55

44 by the Glenbow Foundations in 1955-56. She published widely in the Denver Museum of Natural History Proceeding Series and in other journals. She encouraged young archaeologists such as Cynthia Irwin-Williams and her brother Henry Irwin who excavated the LoDaisKa Site in 1957 and the Magic Mountain Site in 1959-60. In 1966-67, Marie Wormington excavated the Frazier Site in northern Colorado which was to be her last excavation with the DMNH. She left the Museum in 1967 and the Department of Archaeology was discontinued. In 1962 there was a disastrous fire in Phipps Auditorium and the archaeology office and storage area were badly affected by it (Akerly, 1985). Many items sustained heavy smoke damage and a number of themwere covered with tar which had melted down on them from the roof. Anthropology Department From to the present the emphasis shifted from archaeology to ethnology, especially with the addition of the Crane Collection consisting of over 11,000 items of both ethnographic and archaeological significance collected by the Cranes during their lifetime (Herold, 1983). Very little archaeological work was done during the late sixties and seventies. Richard

PAGE 56

I I I . I 45 Stucky led a survey to the Lowry Bombing Range in 1976. In 1976-77 he. conducted a reconnaissance survey on the. Sand Wash Basin in northeastern Colorado on which he wrote his Master's thesis for the University of Colorado at Denver. Robin Boast also wrote a Master's thesis for the same institution in 1983 on the micro-wear patterns of the Lindenmeier gravers and he excavated the Gregory Allen Burial in 1984. Summary The evolution of the archaeological tradition at the DMNH parallels, to a great extent, the history of archaeology and museums nationally. The twenties and the thirties were years of discovery and collection centered around the search for man's antiquity in the New World. In the period just following War II, the concen-tration was mainly on the projects on the Western Slope where a continuum was sought between the Early Man sites, the Pueblo culture and possible early Ute. DMNH publi-cations remained on the descriptive level with typologies, functional analysis and trait lists predominating. In the fifties the Museum cut down somewhat on field work conducted by its staff, and began to concen-trate on the exhibition of its holdings and much work

PAGE 57

46 went into the construction of showrooms and the design of these exhibits. The sixties saw a gradual but definitive change in the emphasis from archaeology to ethnology and after 1967 archaeology as a discipline was no longer represented. In 1968 anthropology gained a department of its own. The have brought a renewed interest in archaeology to the Museum as it is understood in America to be part of the anthropological framework. With the appointment of Dr. Jane S. Day as Curator of Archaeology in 1985, a new step forward has been taken.

PAGE 58

CHAPTER VI SYSTEMATIC COLLECTIONS IN THE DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Paleo-Indian Sites It was not until the verification of the Folsom discoveries that many believed in the great antiquity of early man in the New World (Wormington 1949). Prior to this time, most scholars followed the lead of Alex Hdrlicka, a physical anthropologist. who loudly critiqued any mention of this possibility. Consequently, many archaeologists and paleontologists ignored the Paleo-Indian field (Cassells 1983). Lone Wolf Creek In 1923-24, the first recorded evidence of man in association with extinct Pleistocene fauna was uncovered on Lone Wolf Creek, Colorado City, Texas by H. D. Boyes, an employee of the CMNH Paleontology Depart-ment (Figgins 1924). This occurred on a field expedi-tion from the CMNH which was seeking extinct mammals to be placed on exhibition at the Museum; while Boyes and his crew were excavating a deposit of extinct bison, Boyes found ... two arrowheads associated with the

PAGE 59

I 48 material, one immediately beneath a series of cervical vertebrae and the other below a femur" (Figgins 1924: 17). Remarking on the fine workmanship displayed in the manufacture of these "arrowheads," Figgins (1924: 17) recognized that ... a stage of culture unlike that found in specimens-picked up on the surface was represented. However, these two projectile points, one a Plainview and the other a Milnesand, were not regarded as_evidence of man's association with prehistoric bison due to the uncontrolled conditions under which they were found (Wormington 1949). These artifacts are listed in the Accession Catalogue as items one and two: "Two flint arrowheads found with fossil bison at Colorado City, Texas, donated by H. D. Boyes and Nelson Vaughn" (Herold 1983: 46). They are still held in the department. The Folsom Site In early 1908, George McJunkin, a black cowboy, was riding along Wild Horse Creek, a tributary of the Cimarron River (Figures 1 and 2) when he noticed bones eroding out of the deep wall in a box canyon near Folsom, New Mexico (Cassells 1983; Folsom and Agogino 1968; Wormington 1949). McJunkin, primarily a self-educated man and the son of slaves, was interested in a variety

PAGE 60

' P:LlNDENMEIER :7"""1 e,. .. f\i'!!"! ,o. o c, TURNE:J.____ X-T.IWLOR-ALVA X-CACTUS PARK oo0 r u ou o. ._{ef u u u 1 '"'' X-MOORE-CASEBIER !!.,"o"b X-SM11:H SPRING ./ 0u't1: o uuu u Gr G unfttSoh \!) uo 00 0 0 :\ -o "'7. 0 .J'' DENT MOUNTAIN+ GRAEBER CAVE LODAISKA+ ER BUENA VISTA *HUTCHINSON "' 0 0 SAGUACHE 00 X-TRACY CANYON .\. ----'1i'!f!,. jj" ,.,.J' 'f o oo / / Im lleil I y 0 1_,.,...-km 1 J 1.50 "I)
PAGE 61

1 ::! 0 (/) 2 5 0 \&. (/) IIJ :z: !i ::! 50 N

PAGE 62

51 of subjects and fascinated with old rocks and bones; Folsom and Agogino (1968) state that after trying to dig some of-the bones out of the wall and having them crumble, McJunkin devised a formula for preserving bones and those he eventually preserved survived on his mantle for many years. Folsom and Agogino (1968) go on to say that over the next few years, McJunkin tried to interest others in his discovery as he realized the bones on his mantle that eroded out of the canyon were not modern bison or cow bones. Eventually, he related his findings to a smith and.amateur paleontologist, Carl Schwachheim and later to a Raton, New Mexico banker, Fred Howarth. But it was not until 1922, when, with three others, these two amateur enthusiasts saw the site for the first time. One of these men contacted Figgins at the CMNH and Figgins and Harold Cook, a paleontologist at the Museum, visited the site in April, 1926 (Figgins 1927); That summer, Figgins' son, Frank, ass_isted by Schwachheim and Cook, began the actual excavation of this site, located on the Crowfoot Ranch, eight miles from Folsom, New Mexico. On July 14, 1926, Schwachheim wrote in his diary: Found part of a broken spear or large arrowhead near the base of the fifth spine taken out. It is about two inche_ s long and is of a dark-ambercolored agate and of'very fine workmanship. It is broken off nearly square and we may find the rest

PAGE 63

52 of it. I sure hope so. It is a question which skeleton it was in but from position of them it must have been the skeleton of the smaller one and just inside the cavity of the body near the back (Folsom and Agogino 1968: 7). This statement documents the first Folsom point recovered in direct association with extinct bison in Pleistocene soils (Wormington 1949)r shortly after the missing section was found. Figgins, after much soul searching, wrote Barnum Brown of the AMNH and told him of the discovery. Figgins was worried that the news would not be believed by Hrdlicka and his disciples, especially after the reception he received when he announced the Lone Wolf Creek finds (Tolsom and Agogino 1968). But before he decided on a course of action, another point was discovered. Again, from Schwachheim's diary, are the words relating this find: I found an arrow point this morning. It is of clear colored agate or jaspar. It is not exposed the full length but it is hollow on the sides and . was near a rib in the matrix. One barb is broken off (Folsom and Agogino 1968: 7). Several more points were found during the first season, but the second one, in its matrix, was removed to the CMNH and finally Figgins had the proof he needed to proclaim to the world that man was living in the Americas during the time of fauna now known to be extinct. This announcement was made in the winter of 1927, but few

PAGE 64

believed it; most were sure the points were intrusive (Cassells 1983; Figgins 1927). Work resumed in the summer of 1927 under the direction of Cook and five more points were discovered; the fifth one was also recovered in its original matrix (Cassells 1983; Figgins 1927; Folsom and Agogino 1968). 53 With this, Figgins sent telegrams to Barnum Brown, Dr. Frank Roberts, Jr. of the Smithsonian and to A. V. Kidder of the Peabody Museum, Andover, Massachusetts (Cassells 1983). These three experts traveled to the Folsbm Site and confirmed the findings and the link of humans with extinct bison was secured (Cassells 1983; Folsom and Agogino 1968; Wormington 1949). The AMNH joined the DMNH in the field in the third season and more.bones and points were discovered which reinforced the evidence and the acceptance. It was this discovery and its accreditation by learned scientists that initiated Paleo-Indian studies (Cassells 1983; Wormington 1949). It is ironic that George McJunkin never learned of the great importance of his discovery; it.is reported that he had died of dropsy around 1922 (Folsom and Agogino 1968). Another irony associated with the Folsom discovery concerns Alex. Hrdlicka. He refused to believe

PAGE 65

54 that evidence of ancient man would ever appear in the New World and categorically rejected the Folsom discovery. Folsom and Agogino (1968) pointedly write: As late as 1939 he continued to deny that there was acceptable evidence of really ancient man in America. Hrdlicka equally rejected racial equality . claiming the inherent inferiority of Negros and urging segregation of the two races ... to avoid danger to the superior white .nace. It is indeed irony that a black man . was instrumental in the discovery of the first accepted Paleo-Indian site ... (1968: 8). It appears there was one other person who was not completely pleased with the announcement. Harold Cook, who published the first geological interpretation of the site in 1927, in letters written to Dr. Bailey, Dr. Wormington and others, decries the fact that Figgins received all the credit for the discovery and subsequent dig as he was the actual one in charge of the general project. There is a quantity of correspondence concerning this subject in the files at the DMNH, and most reflect the feeling that since Figgins was the Director of the Museum and one of the instigators of the project, he was the one to receive .the credit. Contained in the museum collection are the two original Folsom points with the bison bones still in the original matrices and three other loose points from the site. Figgins (1928) mentions that sixteen points were located overall. Wormington (1949) says there were

PAGE 66

55 nineteen. Six are recorded in the Accession Book. However, according to correspondence in the Museum's files, seven incomplete points were shipped to the University of Pennsylvania in 1941 on temporary loan. In a letter from Edgar Howard of that institution to Dr. Bailey on November 28, 1941, Mr. Howard requests that they be allowed to keep one of the Folsom tips sent to them as they had recovered the base to that tip on a reconnaissance trip to Folsom. Dr. Bailey granted this request. It is assumed that the remaining points are in the AMNH, but so far have not been traced. There is also confusion as to the actual number of bison uncovered at the Folsom Site. Wormington (1949) says there were twenty-three. These were originally classified as sub-species Bison taylori and were later named Bison antiquus figginsi (Wormington 1949) but are now just called Bison antiquus. When they were uncovered at the site, most of these bison skeletons were missing their tail bones which suggests to most experts they had been skinned (Wormington 1949). Cassells (1983) says that between 25-50 bison were located. Some of these are on exhibit at the DMNH_ but there is a question about how many are still held at the Museum_ (Akerly 1985).

PAGE 67

There are many documents in the Archives pertaining to the Folsom discovery including the original photographs of the site and the excavation and the three experts verifying the association of man and bison. 56 Publication was originally done by Figgins in 1927 and by Hay and Cook in 1930 and references to the site can be found in any book which discusses Paleo. Indian traditions. Recent studies done on the material include the biography of McJunkin by Folsom and Agogino (1968), a restudy of the geochronology by Anderson, Frazier and Haynes (1976) in which they propose that the Folsom Site was a locale where bison were trapped in a narrow headcut in the arroyo and then quickly dispatched by the Folsom hunters. They also report collagen dates from bones recovered in 1970-71 of 10,260 110 B.P. The Folsom Site has become the type site for all locations in which the distinctive grooved points are found. Needless to say, it is probably one of the most important discoveries ever made in North America. The Dent Site In.l932, after a heavy cloudburst and subsequent flash flood, bones were observed eroding out of the sands and gravel of a gully near a railroad siding in Dent, Colorado by Frank Garner, a railroad foreman (Cassells

PAGE 68

57 Wormington 1949) (Figures 1 and 2). Dent is a small railroad town located on the eastern plains by an intermittent stream that emerges from a sandstone bluff to join the Platte River. Garner reported his find to the Dent Depot Manager whose son was a student at Regis College in Denver (Wormington 1949). Michael Ryan, Jr. informed his professor, Father Conrad Bilgery, of these bones and Regis undertook an excavation of the site in the fall of that year (Cassells Wormington 1949). It was on November 5, 1932 that Father Bilgery and his students uncovered the first fluted point resting under the pelvis of a mammoth (Cassells Wormington 1949). The follow-ing summer, the CMNH: . through the liberality of Father Conrad Bilgery . took over the work of excavating the remainder of the mammoth remains from the quarry near Dent, Co. In addition, Father Bilgery delivered to the Museum all skeletal parts he had taken from the location during the preceding period (Figgins, 1933: 13). Figgins joined Bilgery in the field and a second fluted point was discovered on July 7, 1933 still embedded in the matrix (Cassells 1983; Figgins 1933). Still and motion pictures were taken of the find and are in the Archives at the DMNH. Figgins (1933) recognized that both points resembled Folsom points, but that they were larger and cruder in workmanship.

PAGE 69

58 The original point that was uncovered by Bilgery was held by Regis and has since been lost. However, the DMNH has a cast of that point. A third point was picked up by Mr. Garner in 1932, but was not reported until 1955 (Akerly 1985). It, too, is now at the Museum along with the second one that was located in 1933. Figgins published the results of the excavation in 1933 and in this article he announced that one adult male and eleven immature female mammoth had been recovered along with the two points and several 11bowlders.11 (None of these "bowlders11 measured more than six inches in diameter.) (Cassells 1983) He went on to say that these 11bowlders,11 not common to the area, might have been used as weapons or tools. Father Bilgery (1935) on the other hand, thought the whole assemblage had been redeposited, an observation that has been strengthened by recent researchers, Frank Frazier and Linda Spikerd (Cassells 1983). Due to the lack of any butchering evidence on the bones, they feel the whole site may have washed down from a higher, earlier terrace (Cassells 1983). Haynes (1960) says the Dent Site is a place where animals who had sustained non-mortal wounds died and the hunters never benefitted from their efforts.

PAGE 70

59 The mammoths from the Dent Site, with the excep-tion of the one traded to the Carnegie Museum, are held at the DMNH. One is on permanent display. Subsequent studies done on the Dent Site and its material include Harold E. Malde's examination of the geology and stratigraphy in 1954 and Agogino's carbon dating of bone from the site. This he did in 1968; but before he could subject the bone to the tests he first had to experiment with a process to remove the preservation material applied to the bone by Figgins. The study by Spikerd and Frazier is still unfinished and unpublished (Wormington 1985). The discovery at the Dent Site held real meaning at that time for it ... provided the first acceptable proof of the contemporanity of man and mammoth in America . and pushed back the antiquity of man in \ North America by thousands of years" (Wormington 1949: 3). Regretfully, neither Father Bilgery nor Figgins gave a name to these large fluted points and it was left to John Cotter, excavating a similar site in Blackwater Draw near Clovis, New Mexico, to name them. The Lindenmeier Site The discovery of the Folsom Site increased efforts to locate a site that could be accurately dated

PAGE 71

geographically and which might give a more complete and detailed picture of the culture that developed and manufactured the Folsom point. This search ended in 1934 60 when Dr. Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr. of the Smithsonian Institution began excavating the Lindenmeier Site, twentythree miles north of Fort Collins, Colorado (Cassells 1983; Wormington 1949) (Figures 1 and 2). The original discovery of the Lindenrneier Site occurred in the summer of 1924 when Judge Claude Coffin, his son A. Lynn Coffin and C. K. Collins found "several odd, similarly shaped artifacts from the surface in a small area on the so-called 'chalk' formation ... (Coffin 1957: 5) just south of the Wyoming State line. During this time, the Coffins, accompanied by Judge Coffin's brother, Major Roy Coffin, a geology professor at Colorado State University, returned three times to the area and collected a total of thirty-four specimens (Coffin 1937). This collecting continued for six more years when in the summer of 1930, Dr. E. B. Renaud inspected their collection and recognized the "odd-shaped" articles as Folsom points (Coffin 1937). In 1931, Renaud visited the site where he found two Folsom point fragments; with this, he borrowed the collection and it was displayed at the DMNH (Coffin 1937; Figgins 1932).

PAGE 72

61 Eventually, Major Coffin reported the site to the United States Geological Survey on February 26, 1934 (Cassells 1983; Coffin 1937). A response was received from Dr. John E. Resides, Jr. in which he stated ". you have found a Folsom Culture site you have some-thing very much worth publication" (Coffin 1937: 11). As a result, he forwarded the reports to the Bureau of American Ethnology the Smithsonian sent Dr. Roberts to investigate (Coffin 1937). The site itself is located on a terrace in the remnants of a valley above a small tributary of the Cache La Poudre River on a horse ranch once owned by William Lindenmeier (Figures 1 and 2) (Coffin 1937; Wormington 1947). The Coffins had received permission from him to dig on his land, and later leased that portion of the ranch from him (Coffin 1937). The Smithsonian, and later the CMNH, took over part of.that lease (Figgins 19 35) After his first day in the field, Roberts wrot. e that he was ". not sanguine over the prospects for getting more information beyond that already obtained .. '' (Roberts 1935: 3). At the end of the second day, however, Roberts' opinion had changed radically for he had located a concentration of buried bone and artifacts deep in the arroyo which cuts through the Lindenmeier.Site

PAGE 73

62 (Wilmsen 1978). Roberts was to continue to excavate Lindenmeier until it was backfilled in 1940 (Wilmsen 1978). The Coffins also worked on the site, independent of, but next to, the Smithsonian party until 1938 (Cassells 1983; Wormington 1949). In 1935, a small team from the CMNH composed of John Cotter, Harley Goettshe and Robert Landberg joined the other two groups at Lindenmeier where they worked from June 14 to September 1 (Cotter 1935; Figgins 1935). This crew put down numerous test pits in two separate areas of the site and located a few artifacts 1935) (Figure 3) .* However, in a location just west of Roberts' west trench, Hole 13 revealed a cultural level twenty-one inches thick beginning at a depth of five feet; it was selected for more intensive excavation and .three more holes were sunk to delineate the area (Cotter 1935; Figgins 1935). According to Figgins' 1935 report, three strati-graphic levels were located and designated A, B, c, respectively. Each artifact was labeled with three *Note: A copy of John Cotter's free-hand drawn diagram of the CMNH excavation (Figure 3) is included in order to show the relationship between the CMNH's test areas and those of the Smithsonian's. This map was included in a letter from Cotter to Figgins (1935) and is the only known original diagram of the CMNH excavations.

PAGE 74

Y'(. I lfrrortJs t"' I our camf ooo Sring -IV. {..\\ ;tv.9' Ivy 7 \ -....' I I 0 I---/ ( I ( rd w --7( j I I I I _.:.--...:.... I J I t . 1'-g ,.'ffof'l :L fl}\ l(e.' flo/; IJI;;,.t:..k B _', @ ( -, \ , ,, 1.!.' ft, ';:,MIIIlf'<.l( :. iil /,,,,,,, ffolt1 /?lt!U:Jl/7 b'lac../c as i/l d t' c. a. c i!d r t r c /'1'11/t!.S" .... Did g 12177 Te..st: tf"l -J-I I ---1 I S"cra.ct://77 Figure 3. Cotter's Sketch of CMNH Excavation at Lindenmeier L:.-"' w

PAGE 75

64 different provenience codes: hole number, section letter and level letter. In that one summer, the CMNH uncovered 227 artifacts including 55 points or point _fragments, flakes, scrapers, knives, channel flakes and a large number of gravers (Figgins 1935). Five bone tools or fragments were recovered along with a piece of a circular, graved bone ornament or gaming piece. No polished stone tools were discoveredi but some small rubbing stones with red pigment residue and pieces of hematite and limonite were found. Near the camp site itself the crews uncovered a large pile of bones of nine (plus) bison that had been killed and partially butchered there (Figgins 1935; Wormington 1949). Other bison bones were located in surrounding areas along with camel bones, which may or may not belong to this horizon (Wilmsen 1979). Mammoth remains also were found, but there is no clear cut association with humans. Other animal remains indicate that these early people also hunted rabbit, fox, wolf, coyote, pronghorn and turtle (Cassells 1983; Wilmsen 1978). More than 6,000 stone implements were catalogued from Lindenmeier, not including waste flakes and chips (Wilmsen 1979). The majority of these are stored at the Smithsonian; those found by the CMNH are in Denver, and

PAGE 76

65. portions of the Coffins' collection are in the Pioneer Museum in Fort Collins, although reportedly some has been sold. According to Wilmsen (1979) who did a complete restudy of the site, its artifacts and documents, Linden-meier was the location of periodic seasonal camps of the Pleistocene Big Game hunters who followed the migratory herds and set up their camps above or near water sources. Lindenmeier was probably occupied by ... two geograph-ically distinct but interacting groups ... (Wilmsen 1979: 86) who lived in small bands or extended families. These two groups shared the same social and game procure-ment systems but their differences are evidenced by a stylistic variation in the finishing of their projectile points (Cassells 1983; Wilmsen 1979). As has been mentioned above, many restudies of the Lindenmeier materials have been done. Those that were done either through the DMNH or with its collections include Vance Haynes' (1960) radiocarbon tests in which he got two dates of 11,200 400 and 10,780 375 years ago, J. Jeffrey Flenniken's (1978) study of manufactur-ing techniques of Folsom points and the aforementioned micro-wear analysis of the gravers by Robin Boast (1983). Documentation in the DMNH Archives includes all the above mentioned studies and photographs of the

PAGE 77

excavation from 1934-1938. Also there are copies of Roberts' fieldnotes, Figgins and Cotter's correspondence and Cotter's fieldnotes. 66 Along with the artifacts and Bison antiguus bones, there is an original stratigraphic profile taken from the site itself by Cotter and Figgins which shows the dark, rich Folsom occupation level. The great significance of Lindenmeier lies iri the fact that it was a combination kill and habitation/camp site (Cassells 19R3; Coffin 1937; Figgins 1935; Wilmsen 1979; Wormington 1949). Here, various man-made objects of the Big Game Hunting tradition were found in direct association with extinct bison revealing information about the daily living patterns as well as the hunting traditions of the groups that manufactured the grooved and ungrooved Folsom points. The Frazier Site In July of 1965, Frank Frazier, then a geology student and surveyor from Greeley, set out to located the Powars Folsom Site in northeastern Colorado; he did not find it, but instead happened upon another, unknown site on which bison bones, Agate Basin points and other stone tools were lying on the surface over a considerable area (Wormington n.d.; 1966).

PAGE 78

67 Dr. Wormington surveyed the area af.ter Mr. Frazier reported his discovery to-the DMNH, and, in early August, borrowed a crew from Harvard that was working on the Hell Gap Site under the auspices of George Agogino and Cynthia Irwin (Wormington 1966). As Dr. Wormington relates (1966) this crew worked for a week at the Frazier site before they were forced to return to Wyoming. The site was reopened in October of that year with volunteers from the DMNH and this persistence paid off when a section of an Agate Basin point was located in situ with bison bones. Dr. Wormington continued to conduct full-scale investigations during the 1966 and 1967 field seasons and 124 five foot squares were excavated (Wormington n.d.; 1967). Dr. Wormington kindly allowed me to examine the Frazier materials and there were ten whole or fragmentary points from this site including one with a long narrow flute on one face and another with a short flute on one face. There were also ... fourteen end scrapers, twenty side scrapers and five scraping tools worked on all edges. Knives are represerited by two thin broken bifaces . (Wormington n.d.) and two multi-purpose tools with graver tips. These tools were concentrated over three different flaking areas and most of the scrapers were found in

PAGE 79

68 one specific locality in the which was probably where hide working activities were carried out (Worming-ton, 1967). No skulls or horn cores were found and the bison were strewn randomly over the site, mostly composed of hindquarters. Wormington (n.d.) notes that The kill site and primary butchering area was not found, although it must not have been too far away, for it is unlikely that heavy bison quarters would be carried any great distance. There are no cliffs in the area over which the animals could have been stampeded .. With the exception of two grant proposals and a preliminary report, all other material relating to the excavation, including the artifacts, field notes, etc., are still in Dr. Wormington's possession while she concludes her examination of them and publishes the results in a new book. These will be returned to the DMNH and will go into the archaeological storage facil-ities after they are accessioned and catalogued. The Frazier Site was the first single component Agate Basin site to be excavated and subsequent dating by Vance Haynes has produced dates of 9,550 130 years and another at 9,650 130 years B.P. (Wormington n.d.). According to Wormington (n.d.) the time of occupation was somewhat earlier as those dates were only minimum dates.

PAGE 80

69 Mathieson Site On March 9, 1959, Marie Wormington received a letter from J. P. Mathieson (on file DMNH) informing her of some sites located on his ranch near Las Vegas, New Mexico (Figures 1 and 2). In this letter he described some of the sites and apparently also sent her samples of artifacts located at these various sites. Whether these we-re returned or not is unknown, but they are not recorded at the Museum. However, Dr. Wormington did investigate some of these sites in 1959 with Haynes, Agogino and the Irwins. In the 1959 Annual Report she describes one site which produced a number of Scottsbluff points and one Cody Knife. The Cody knife was found by her on August 31, 1957 on the east side of an arroyo in square 37 (Fieldnote 1957) and is the only known artifact in the Museum collection from this particular site. Dr. Wormington thinks the rest went either with Mr. Agogino_ to the of Northern New Mexico or were kept by the Mathiesons (Wormington 1985) Archaic Sites 11Basketmaker11 cave Sites In 1929, flush from its success with the Folsom Site, the CMNH broadened its interest in prehistoric man

PAGE 81

and named Etienne Renaud, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Denver, Field Work Supervisor for 70 ... an expedition organized bythe CMNH, Department of Paleontology. The purpose of this expedition was to search for the remainsof the body, dwellings and culture of Folsom Man . (Figgins 1929: 19) in the.areas of northeastern New Mexico and western Oklahoma. The field crew consisted of Nelson Vaughn, Carl Schwachheim, Paul Bearbieu and a Mr. Taotoa (Figgins 1929). This expedition surveyed caves in the regions and ... pictures, notes and artifacts were collected" (Figgins 1929: 19). I have not been able to find eitherthe notes or the pictures from this trip; perhaps they are among Dr. Renaud's private papers. There are some articles from this project in archaeology storage which were turned over to the Anthropology Department by the Paleontology Department in 1981. However, although each item was carefully wrapped in paper toweling, most of the provenience notations were mixed up, so it is difficult to tell in most cases from where or from which cave the artifacts were collected. This collection is composed almost completely of lithic materials with the exception of one polished bone bead and an unpolished turquoise fragment. The most diagnostic artifacts, besides a few possible early point

PAGE 82

71 fragments, are a type of flaked tool with a crescentshaped concavity on one side and-possibly a graver tip on the top of some of these. These concavities are worn smooth and would appear to have been used as shaft smoothers. Three tools from a cave near Tucumcari, New Mexico collected by Vaughn in 1930 are made of Alibates chert; these are comprised of one large, rectangularshaped biface and two large, curved blades, one of which is heavily worn. There are no ceramics included in this collection 1 and they are labeled 11Basketmaker 11 Caves because this was what Figgins (1933) called them in the Annual Report. Whether or not they are from Basketmakers is problematical but I have placed them under the Archaic label due to the negative ceramic evidence. It would be a good project for some student to trace Renaud's notes and see if there is any mention of these sites and what artifacts were listed as having been found. The Huscher Collection One of the largest and least well-known of the collections in the DMNH is that of Harold and Betty H. Huscher. Mrs. Huscher was an assistant to Marie Wormington at the CMNH from 1937 to 1942 and Mr. Huscher volunteered his services during the Moore-Casebier

PAGE 83

72 excavations in 1938 (Wormington 1939). During the field seasons of 1939 through 1941, and Mrs. Huscher conducted a survey of open foothill sites in Colorado, partially funded by the CMNH. (Huscher and Huscher 19 39) These surveys were carried out in the Saguache-La Garita mountain areas in Saguache County and in the Uncompahgre Plateau, mainly in and Montrose Counties (Figure 1). (They alsosurveyed and tested the Apex/Magic Mountain Site in 1941, which will be discussed separately). The purpose of this survey was to locate sites which might shed some light on the various distinct cultural groups that had either lived in, in or passed through Colorado over time (Huscher and Huscher 1942; 1939). Along with this it was hoped to establi.sh a basic chronology for these different groups. Because the central massif of the Colorado Rockies presented a barrier which must have been skirted by any great north-south or east-west movements of Early Man. [The foothills] would be the place to look for traces of successive occupations (Huscher and Huscher 1939: 1). Indeed, during these three summers the Huschers found a great deal of evidence for many different nomadic cultures in the foothills area ranging from the Archaic Period to Historic Ute. Many of the earlier sites were tentatively dated by geological methods and it was hoped to make comparative studies of these artifacts with

PAGE 84

well-provenienced and dated material from other collec-tions and excavations which would confirm the geologic evidence (Huscher and Huscher 1943; 1939). The later sites were also tentatively dated using ethnographic, 73 comparative and diagnostic materials (Huscher and Huscher 1939). There were ten sites located by the Huschers in j 1939 which they considered to be of great antiquity and these will be discussed here. The majority of the information on them comes from the Huschers' 1939 Fieldnotes which are in the DMNH There are no fieldnotes from the 1940-41 surveys in the Museum, but these are stored in Mr. Huscher's basement (1985). Unless otherwise indicated, the descriptions of the sites discussed below derive from the 1939 fieldnotes. Of these ten sites, the DMNH has the materials from three: Tracy Canyon (HT in the Huschers' labeling system), the Captain H. H. Smith Spring (HES) and Cactus Park (HC). None of the specimens from these sites is listed in the old Accession Book but were located while I was sorting through the collection. According to the Huschers'.notes, no artifacts were discovered in associ-ation with the other seven sites, although informants and collectors related to the Huschers some of the various different types of artifacts that had been seen

PAGE 85

and/or picked up on and around these sites, and through these accounts and the physical evidence the Huschers determined the antiquity of these seven 74 Tracy Canyon. The Tracy Canyon site lies in the open near a spring, ten miles south of Saguache at approximately 8,800 feet (Figure 1). It is composed of cists and rock-lined hearths which were not exposed until 1934 after a heavy storm. It was surveyed in 1939 and one test pit was sunk. In 1940 and 1941 the Huschers returned and sank more test trenches (Huscher and Huscher l940a, 1941). They felt a stratigraphic sequence could be obtained from the site with further investigation. As it was, three to four occupational levels were identified (Huscher and Huscher 1941). There are' numerous artifacts from this site in the collection which encompass tools from one-metal arrow point to crude, percussion flaked choppers. Although all artifacts have field numbers on them, there are no indications in these numbers or in the notes to designate from which levels they were found, although it is supposed that those with the same numbers came from the same levels. According to the 1940 Museum Report, modern potsherds and metal and stone points were found on the surface and were categorized as recent Ute. The

PAGE 86

75 lowest stratum contained charcoal, bones and the crude, _percussion flaked tools. Of the-numerous artifacts held in storage, perhaps the most diagnostic might be two I Archaic-type points and five corner-notched points with bifurcated bases, probably Pinto type points similar to those that have been dated elsewhere ca. 3000 B.C. (Cassells 1983) There are also corner-notched points and two small lanceolate points. Also included are at least sixteen gravers, numerous scrapers, including core and keel varieties. There are flakes, both with retouch and without. Many worked bone tools were recovered which are comprised of awls, two bone saws, fleshers, and one ground bone point and burned bone fragments. Ground stone implements consist of two axes/choppers, pecked manos, eight small handstones, two metate fragments and one narrow, anvil-like metate. There are also numerous soil samples which the Huschers collected from this site, presumably from the different strata that were encountered. As far as is known, however, none of these.has been tested. Taking into. consideration the thinking of the times, the Huschers (1934; 1940a; 1941) were inclined to classify this camp as a Basketmaker-type camp and hoped it might prove to be the forerunner to Basketmaker

PAGE 87

76 II. Through geographical estimates they dated it as old as 4000 B.C. (1939; 1941). The Huschers. urged further and immediate excavation of this site but the war intervened and they never returned to it. I could not discover if this, or any of these sites, has since been recorded in the ensuing years. Captain H. H. Smith Spring. This site is located 5.5 miles from Dry Escalante Ford in the Uncompahgre Plateau in Mesa County (Figure 4). It lies on an alluvial cone and is comprised of a series of small, deep bowl-shaped fireplaces. A test trench was started and evidence of occupation was found at six to six and one half feet below the surface where numerous overlapping fireplaces, most carefully rock-lined, were encountered. "From three to six feet down narrow, corner-notched points and ovate blades of quartzite and chalcedony were the predominant artifact type" (Huscher and Huscher 1939: 16). There are twenty-three points, one a triangular side-notched point of quartzite, and thirtysix large, ovate blades in the collection. According to the Huschers {1940) the blades were concentrated below the points, but whether this was a cache is not made clear.

PAGE 88

,. I I I I I -----// Figure 4. / / MOORE-CASEBIER-X ./. '( .' ( )!(-CAPT. SMITH SPRING :; /. --. _( ( . ... C' ... ... Ill I ( Q ( I / I / -/ I / / / / / -i. / \ \ Archaic Sites on the Uncompahgre Plateau \ "' Gl .Q/ ... ,o 77

PAGE 89

78 Other artifacts uncovered were large knives, two gravers, crude choppers, scrapers, utilized flakes, charcoal fragments and two small pot lids. Again, the Huschers advocated a more thorough excavation which might give a valid, chronological sequence for this site and establish it as possibly pre-Basketmaker. Certainly, radiocarbon dates might still be obtained from the charcoal if it has not been contaminated. Cactus Park. A third "early site was the Cactus Park open site which is located nine miles south of Whitewater in Mesa County (Figure 4). This site contains twenty (plus) pentagonal, slab-lined cists. I-n the 1939 Fieldnotes the Huschers refer to it as having possible Basketmaker II affiliations to the presence of the cists. One cist was excavated and no artifacts were found in association with it. Yet many artifacts were found nearby consisting of five corner-notched points and one Shoshonean three-notched point, one laurel-leaf shaped blade, one large knife,four drills, two gravers, one core, twelve scrapers and flakes, and one small handstone with a notch on one side. (In the 1939 notes.the Huschers specifically state that although numerous stone artifacts were discovered in and near the site, it

PAGE 90

79 was a non-ceramic site. Nevertheless, there were eight Pueblo sherds in the box containing the Cactus Park items; however, there are no field numbers on these sherds and they may have become mixed in with the Cactus Park artifacts by some unknown means.) Whether these sites are as old as the Huschers supposed can only be determined by further investigation, a careful analysis and cross comparative approach, perhaps starting with the Uncompahgre Plateau sites excavated by Wormington (1956), with some of the Magic Mountain materials and, moving southwest, to San Jose sites. A return to these sites for further testing, archaeomagnetic dating and a collection of radiocarbon samples might also augment any research study. The Sites In Archaeological Investigations on the Uncom pahgre Plateau, Wormington and Lister (1956) reported on various sites that had been investigated by them in the Uncompahgre Plateau off and on between 1937-1952 (Figure 4). Wormington excavated the Moore and Casebier sites in 1937-39 and the Taylor Site in 1951 and 1952. Lister worked on the Alva Site in 1952. The Moore-Casebier Sites, named after their discoverers, usually are discussed together due to their

PAGE 91

80 close proximity and similarities (Cassells 1983; Wormington and Lister 1956). After reporting the existence of the Moore shelter in 1936 to Wormington, Harold Huscher joined her and Betty Holmes (Huscher) for a survey of the site (Wormington 1937), Excavations were officially begun in 1938 and continued into the 1939 field season. The Casebier rock shelter was found and less extensive work was started on this site(Wormington and 1956) Both sites are located in Roubideau Canyon on the Uncompahgre Plateau and both sites contained hearths while petroglyphs lined the walls of the Moore Shelter (Wormington and Lister 1956). Implements recovered. included sixty projectile points, knives, numerous retouched and utilized flakes, six drilis/perforators, choppers and hammerstones. Many scrapers were located, including two keeled, end scrapers and others that were distinctive enough that Wormington (1956) felt were diagnostic of the area and these she labeledUncompahgre scrapers. These were large, triangular to rectangular shaped tools . one edge being flaked only on one face, while one or more edges are normally flaked on both faces" (Wormington and Lister 1956: 18). All these artifacts are held in the Museum.

PAGE 92

I Documentation includes site reports with photographs recording each portion of-the excavation, an artifact list with catalogue numbers and proveniences and copies of the book. Taylor Alva Sites 81 11In 1950, Al Look discovered two rock shelters on East Creek in Mesa County, Colorado. He and Warren Bush put down a test in one of these and Mr. Look brought the specimens he had obtained to the DMNH" (Wormington and Lister 1956: 1). The site (Figure 4), its features and cultural material were very similar to those located in the Moore-Casebier Sites, including an Uncompahgre scraper. Consequently, Wormington and a crew started excavations on this site (Wormington and Lister 1956). In 1952 they were joined by Dr. Robert Lister from the University of Colorado who worked on the Alva Site. The Taylor Site was by far the most prolific of all the Uncompahgre sites and allowed for the first well controlled projectile point sequence in the area (Cassells 1983). From these four sites, the Moore-Casebier and Taylor Alva Shelters, Wormington and Lister defined the "Uncompahgre Complex" based in many respects on the distinctive scrapers associated with these sites the

PAGE 93

I I 82 adze-like scrapers and the large polished objects found in a cache at the Taylor Sit-e (Wormington and Lister 1956: 78). From the descriptions and partial viewing of the artifacts from the Moore-Casebier Sites by the author, it would seem likely that they belong in the Mid-to-Late Archaic Period of the Great Basin Culture; Buckles (1971) and Cassells (1983) agree. Buckles feels that the cul-tures represented deserve being designated as the "Uncompahgre Complex," but does not feel that the scrapers found merit a separate category (Buckles 1971; Cassells 1983). There are no artifacts from the Taylor-Alva Sites currently held at the DMNH. These were turned over to the Museum of Western Colorado in Grand Junction and are on display there. The Sand Wash Basin Sites In partial fulfillment of his Master's degree at the University of Colorado at Denver, Richard Stucky conducted a reconnaissance survey of the San Wash Basin area in Moffat County, Colorado (Figure 1). He was partly supported in this endeavor by NSF grants and the DMNH; consequently, all material that was recovered is held at the Museum.

PAGE 94

83 Stucky's main purpose in this study was to outI line the historical sequences of.this little known area, I to delineate the adaptive strategies of the nomadic groups who were utilizing it and to develop and test various hypotheses concerning these groups .(Stucky 1976). All in all different archaeological sites were located and these were classified into four different types: nineteen open camp sites, one cache, two architectural sites and two lithic manufacturing sites. A total of 2,257 chipped stone implements were recovered including 8 9 l?roj ectile .points which were classified into different categories, 125 scrapers, utilized flakes and bifaces and a large quantity of debitage. Ground or pecked stone tools consisted of thirteen items comprised of three hammerstones, six manes, two metates and two other fragments. Miscellane-ous tools recovered were one bone chopper, one copper blade and one unidentified potsherd (Stucky 1976). Stucky (1976) determined that there were three different periods of occupation of the Sand Wash Basin Sites which extended from 8,500 B.P. up through the Late Prehistoric/Historic periods using Mulloy's chrono-logical scheme. The first phase encompassed some Paleo-Indian period tools but these graded into the Great Basin-Desert Culture Archaic and lasted until circa

PAGE 95

1250 B.C. The next manifestation was that of the Great Basin-Plains cultures of the Late Archaic and Late Pre historic occupation periods; and the third was that of the Late Prehistoric-Historic Plains groups. 84 Included in the Museum are all the artifacts from the Sand Wash Basin survey, the preliminary report, maps and artifact sketches, site locations and descriptions and the bound thesis. This survey and report have important and vant information on what was occurring in the northwest Colorado area through time and have great potential for supplying much more. A study of the known lithic sources in the area or outside the area could be done using the lithics recorded from this survey. A comparative study of the projectile points and other tools could be conducted and.updated.by analyzing them and others from surrounding regions to distinguish associations and cultural Trading sources, contact, migration and immigration studies could be done utilizing this material along with the methods and ideas described in Chapter III. Eastern Slope: Multicomponent Sites Introduction Included in this section are the descriptions of the LoDaisKa and the Apex/Magic Mountain Sites which

PAGE 96

85 are on the Eastern Slope, west of Denver, Colorado. Both these sites were excavated by Cynthia and Henry Irwin in the fifties and were published in the Museum Proceedings Series. None of the materials from these excavations is represented in the Museum's collections at the moment. However, material recovered by amateur collectors and the Huschers from the Apex site are included in the Museum's collections. Currently, steps are being taken to initiate the return of the materials from these sites to the DMNH. Consequently, they are discussed in this thesis. Both the LoDaisKa and Apex/Magic Mountain Sites, are multicomponent sites that include levels of occupation from the Archaic Period, Peripheral Pueblo Cultures, Woodland-peoples and Historic groups. They are discussed in their temporal entirety here. The LoDaisKa Site Physically, the LoDaisKa Site is located in a rock shelter one mile south of Morrison, Colorado on a privately owned ranch (Figure 1); geographically and ecologically it is located between three different cultural areas, the Great Basin, the Plains and the Southwest (Irwin 1959). This area is in the Hogback region west of Denver which was first surveyed by Renaud

PAGE 97

in 1930-31 and remained relatively untouched by amateur collectors (Figgins 1931; Irwin 1959). The site was discovered by Bethel and brought to the attention of Cynthia and Henry Irwin by Marie Wormington in the mid-1950s (Wormington 1985) and excavated by them in 1955-56 (Irwin 1959). 8 6 The site itself contained five levels of occupation, the first three pre-ceramic, and extended to a depth of fifteen feet with degrees of overlap (Irwin and Irwin 1959). According to the Irwins (1959) the lowest stratum which they designated Level E, a few early lithics from the Plains. Level D materials were classified as belonging to a phase of the Great Basin/Desert Culture. Radiocarbon samples gave a date of 2880 B.C. from this level. Level C was identified as belonging to a Middle Archaic Plains McKean Complex dated between 1440 B.C. and 1190 B.C. The next level, B, was comparative to Zone A at the Magic Mountain Site and contained a manifestation of Plains Woodland cultures, a ceramic phase dating ca. A.D. 700-1000. Level A probably was an extension of B, but showed evidence of.Fremont contacts as it contained gaming pieces similar to those found in Fremont sites accompanied by Dent variety corn.

PAGE 98

I have not had an opportunity to view the materials'from the LoDaisKa Site as they were returned to the owner after they were analyzed (Irwin and Irwin 1959). It is hoped the artifacts can be traced and will be donated to the Museum. The Apex/Magic Mountain Site 87 The Apex/Magic Mountain Site lies on a low ridge in the foothills area west of Denver, in Jefferson County between Golden and Morrison (Figure 1). (The name was changed from the Apex Site to the Magic !-iountain .Site at the request of the owner when the Irwins began their investigations.) It will be referred to as Magic Mountain throughout this report. At the time of the Irwin's excavations of Magic Mountain in little scientifically was known of the archaeology of the area, although it had been a ripe location for amateur collectors since 1925 and by the 1940s, what had once been an extensive Woodland cemetery, was completly looted (Irwin and Irwin 1966). Several surface sites in this region were seen by Renaud in 1930-31 during his reconnaissance of eastern Colorado, but it is not clear if this site was one of those seen (Irwin and Irwin 1966). In 1939-40, Jack Putnam and Bob Akerly carried out some collecting on the site and donated these finds

PAGE 99

I ,. I I I 88 to the CMNH (Akerly 1985). Among these items is a shaft wrench with two drilled holes and engraved line markings on it, bone awls and fleshers, stone blades of different shapes, scrapers, a chopper and a groundstone mano and one cordmarked sherd. It was this collection that prompted the investi-gation of the site by the Huschers in 1941 (Akerly 1985; Irwin and Irwin 1966). According to the Huschers' account (1941), three different stratigraphic levels all containing artifactual materials were recognized. A burial was uncovered of parts of a semi-flexed individ-ual located under a cairn; only the long bones and skull remained, and . with sandstone slabs including utilized slab metates ... piled around and over the body. Stone and bone artifacts were found along the left arm, none of the artifacts was definitive" (Huscher and Huscher 1941: 226-27). The burial was probably from the Apex Complex, Zone C (Irwin and Irwin 1966). These materials are in the DMNH and are generally similar to the Akerly-Putnam collection. It was also Akerly (1985) who, in the fifties, informed Wormington of the Magic Mountain Site and subsequently, they encouraged the Irwins to begin initial investigations. These were carried out in 1956 (Irwin and Irwin 1966).

PAGE 100

89 As the Irwins (1966) recount, they undertook this project with four problems in mind: to confirm and extend the regional and local sequences found at the LoDaisKa Site; to obtain a clearer definition of the complexes in the region; to acquire a correlation of the archaeological materials with the geological and ethnobotanical and last, to determine the relationships of the Foothills region to adjacent cultural areas over time. Indeed, the Foodhills Region lies in the border area between three different culture areas, the High Plains to the east, the Rocky Mountain-Great Basin to the west, and the Southwest culture area. The Irwins (1966) found six stratigraphic levels which they labeled Zones A-F and these zones represented four complexes. Portions of the lower three zones, F, D, C, contained artifacts from the Magic Mountain Complex, an early Archaic Stage local manifestation with p ossible ultimate ties to the northwest. Zone E was comparable in time to Level D at LoDaisKa, yet the cultures were not comparable. The second Complex identified by the Irwins was one they called the Apex Complex which composed the materials from Zone C and parts of D and E and suggested

PAGE 101

90 parallels to aspects of the Desert Culture and was dated from 3000 B.C. to 1000-800 B.C. {Irwin and Irwin 1966). Zone B held few artifacts and it was difficult to determine with which Complex they should be correlated, but the Irwins felt they were probably late manifestations of Zone C. Zone A was comprised of material from the High Plains Woodland Culture accompanied by Fremont trade wares and the distinctive "Dent" type maize associated with this culture (Cassells 1983). The overwhelming majority of lithic material was of local origin from two known quarry sites and were of every general type (Irwin and Irwin 1966). The Irwins broke down the projectile point types into thirty-nine different classes. The ceramics, all from Zone A, were of four types: Fremont, thick cordmarked, thin cordmarked, and crossed cordmarked. As was stated earlier, none of the artifacts and associative material from the Irwins' excavation is currently held at the DMNH, but is at the Peabody Museum at Harvard who funded the project. In a comparison of the Magic Mountain Complexes and those identified at LoDaisKa, the Irwins (1966), surprisingly, found little comparable material even though the sites are only six miles apart and seemingly

PAGE 102

91 were occupied over the same period of time. Evidence of their economic subsistence base was similar but arti-facts indicated there were two or more distinct groups over time. Peripheral Area Sites Huschers' Stone Circle or "Hogan" Sites During their surveys between 1939-41 (see above) the Huschers discovered a certain class of site that is still poorly understood today. rhese sites have been included with the Fremont Sites excavated by Wormington as they lie between the Pueblo Culture area and the Fremont Culture area, and may have been occupied during portions of the time that these cultures were thriving. The Huschers p ,aid close attention to those sites which contained dry laid stone masonry dwellings. As they relate (1942), it was hoped to develop a time frame for these sites, identify the origins and builders, classify different types of buildings and their entranceways, wall heights, the type of roofing associ-ated with them, locate and identify any features linked with them and establish a typology for the artifacts found in association with these structures. The Huschers did, in fact, write a long .article on this topic

PAGE 103

I I I 92 in Southwestern Lore in 1943 describing these sites and the artifacts found with them; therefore, I will not go into any great detail describing each site and the arti-facts found with them as this information is all contained in the published report. In the old Accession Book, artifacts from thirteen different so-called 'hogan sites are recorded but not with any specific classification. There are artifacts from one hogan site that is not recorded. Many more sites are mentioned in the 1939 Fieldnotes that either were seen by the Huschers themselves, or were described to them by informants. The majority of these sites were located in southeast Mesa County and northwest Montrose County on the Uncompahgre Plateau (Figure 5). Others were found in Saguache County (Figure 6). Almost all of these stone circles were built on exposed locations at alti-tudes between 8,000 and 9,000 feet on rock ledges, often with a large boulder making up one wall. However, none of these sites was in a defensive position as there almost always higher ground above them. Most household activities were carried bn outside the dwellingsi but even hearths and middens were hard to locate (Buscher and Buscher 1943) which is reminiscent of Fremont cultural sites (Cassells 1983).

PAGE 104

, .. 0-HHC t I 7 N I mrles f A ,.f / . . 1'.'/ .--.. I , ,. .. rl',. ) .. / r; ... I'. / ,' ( _/ /'1' 'f '/' ... .. r' / ,.,...) r' . ./ f' I / t' ,1"11'' / '/ ,. ... , f/ . ( f / :/ / ./ / .I I / a ./ I Gf.tHR I /'' 0-HRH f Figure 5. Stone Circle Sites on the Uncompahgre Plateau 93

PAGE 105

r mjles km 0 N .. Figure 6. r I y 40 ( Stone Circle Sites in the Saguache Area 94

PAGE 106

I I. l I I I 95 Cultural material of all types was scarce at all these sites. This could indicate a number of things: .these sites were inhabited for a short time or a series of short times only; most artifacts were taken with the inhabitants when they left; or, they could have been removed by natural or human agents. Relative dating of these was based, in part, on. associated Pueblo sherds and traits such as corn and single-trough metates found with many_of these sites on the Western Slope (1943). Whether this indicated that the hogans were occupied at the same time as the Pueblo I-II sites farther south and the ceramics represent trade wares, or they were camps or summer homes of the Pueblo themselves is not understood, although the latter is not given too much weight (Cassells 1983). Perhaps the sherds or whole pots were picked up by later nomadic groups to use as charms or as relics from the "ancestors," or for more practical purposes such as for use as temper for their own pottery. Perhaps they were Fremont camps. To my knowledge, these sherds have not been completely analyzed and it would prove an interesting project to test the sherds for signs of calcite temper, a common trait at some Fremont ceramics (Worm-ington 1947).

PAGE 107

96 Terminal dates for these stone circles were often based on large, trees growing over some of these sites and which were estimated to be around years old (Huscher and Huscher 1939; 1943). The Huschers felt that the earlier sites were the ones. located on the Western Slope and could have been occupied as early as A.D. 1000. The eastern sites show a movement of the hogan dwellers from northwest to southeast and these probably occupied up to the entrance of the Spaniards or beyond. As to who built these stone circles, the Huschers (1944) argue for early Athabaskan affiliations due to the similarity of the stone rings with later, known Navajo sites in northern New Mexico. There is no mention of possible Fremont association, but this culture was poorly defined at the time. These sites record the southward passage of many of several groups of Southern Athabaskans and that they represent a time range of many hundreds of years. The main mountain ranges of the western U.S., far from constituting barriers, more likely were corridors by which the Athabaskan's movements took place (Huscher and Huscher 1943: 83). Just how correct the Huschers were would make an interesting project for some researcher. Most of these sites should be reinspected, some excavated and charcoal from the hearths and/or wood samples taken for testing,

PAGE 108

97 and diagnostic artifact comparisons made. However, a thorough analysis of the artifacts from these sites relevant to new information and techniques could be very informative and could clear up some of the questions that have been raised concerning the time and cultural affiliations of these sites. The Turner-Look Site In 1939, Mr. Al Look, an amateur archaeologist and newspaper reporter from Grand Junction, Colorado, examined three of five sites located on the Albert J. Turner ranch near Cisco, Utah (Figure 1) and subsequently sent reports, photographs and artifacts from these sites to the CMNH (Wormington 1955). These so intrigued Marie Wormington (1955) that she gained permission to excavate these sites from Mr. Turner and for five seasons, from 1939-1941 and again in 1947-48, she and a volunteer crew from the DMNH worked .at the Turner-Look Site. The site is located 200 yards from Cottonwood Creek and is a village site consisting of nine coursed masonry stone circles or ovals with mud mortar construction, cists and fireplaces both in and outside the struc-tures, and five .. large, upright sandstone blocks embedded. in the earth (Wormington 1955: 12) which she called monoliths.

PAGE 109

98 All but one dwelling was excavated and four burials were uncovered outside the dwellings around some cists; one burial contained the skeletons of an adult male and a child lying on the back of the adult (Wormington 1956). Artifacts recovered from this site were numerous and included grinding tools of different types of metates and manos, some used to grind corn, choppers and hammerstones, shaft smoothers and stone balls. Projectile points were divided into three different categories: Type A were unstemmed and basically trianglular in shape, Type B were side-notched and Type C were corner-notched, but nochronological sequence could be derived from these points (Wormington 1955). Other lithic implements recovered include knives, scrapers and drills. Bone toolsconsisted of awls, fleshers and serrated items, probably used as cutting or sawing implements, and one large barbed tool. One of the most intriguing categories of bone, ceramic and lithic articles, were smoothed and shaped gaming pieces, both decorated and undecorated. Ornaments of bone, shell and lithic materials were discovered along with perforated discs and spindle whorls. Stone and ceramic pipes or "cloud-blowers" were also located along with figurines of unfired clay.

PAGE 110

99 Pottery was of the typical Fremont wares (Cassells 1983) and ranged from Plain Grey to Deadman's Black-on-Red and had the peculiar calcite temper, a material not abundant in the area (Wormington 1947). This site represents a Fremont Culture manifestation as is shown in the types of artifactual materials recovered and in the pictogrqaphs representing the shield figures found so often in association with many Fremont sites (Cassells, 1983). The Museum retained a portion of these materials; the remainder was given to the Museum o f Western History in Grand Junction, Colorado. Also contained in the DMNH is documentation relating to this project; it is composed of photographs of the excavation and crew, maps, drawings, reports, drawings and copies of the printer's proof of Wormington's (1955) book on this subject entitled A Reappraisal of the Fremont Culture. Protohistoric/Historic Sites Ute Sites A third category of sites located by the Huschers during their 1939-1941. survey were those associated with the Utes. Most of the information about these sites is contained only in the 1939 Fieldnotes. Some information is presented in an article in Masterkey entitled

PAGE 111

100 "Potsherds in a Pinon Tree" (Huscher and Huscher 1940c) and in another article in Southwestern Lore entitled "Conventional Bear-Track Petroglyphs of the Uncompahgre Plateau" (Huscher and Huscher l940b). There are some photographs taken of an exhibition the Huschers did at the DMNH on the various artifacts and features found in association with Ute sites. Most of the intensive work was carried out in the Lower Gunnison River Drainage which was occupied by Uncompahgre Utes prior to their removal to reservations in 1876 (F .igure 7). These sites were composed of cedarbark cists, pole and brush wickiups and tree platforms (Huscher and Huscher 1939; 1940c). According to the Huschers (1939), the vast majority of these sites contained no cultural material with the exception of rough hewn poles used for construction. All the archaeological remains of the Utes were recorded in hopes of establishing a datable upper horizon and that "actual artifactual material of definite Ute provenience would give valuable cross-checks on ethnological data" (Huscher and Huscher 1939: 88). Much of the material collected by the Huschers concerning the Utes has disappeared from the DMNH. Dated January 27, 1949 there are records in the DMNH which show the Huschers borrowed for research purposes

PAGE 112

.I ./ / J u ,.. 1u u : I / I I II I N I 0 miles J I Figure 7. Ute Sites Mentioned by the Hurschers on the Uncompahgre Plateau 101

PAGE 113

some of the heavier stone artifacts, blades, scrapers, etc., that had been found on various Ute sites. These sites included HD 2-7, HPCW, HPCB, HPC, HLW, HMFW and HD 1. These sites are not now represented in the Museum's collection. However, Mr. Huscher (1985) states that these articles were all returned. It is hoped they will eventually be located. 102 There are artifacts from four other Ute sites in the Museum which include portions from HMFW, and "Tree-Platform." HD-8 was not accessioned but was described by the Huschers (1939) as a wickiup site located on Dry Mesa, four miles east of the Escalante Post Office. The artifacts in storage at the DMNH include two dark, grey sherds, two grey sherds with fingernail impressions, one grey rim sherd with a band across the lip and one buff-colored sherd also with fingernail impressions. All have a chunky, protruding temper. Two charred corn cobs, one flake, a bone fragment and a small, side-notched point are the other artifacts from this site. The sherds correspond to Ute Pottery types described by Buckles (1971). HMFW contained a standing wickiup and was located on Escalante Creek, Hesa County. There is one small scraper from that site in the collection. The "Tree Platform" Site, not mentioned in the Accession

PAGE 114

Book, has one small, round handstone, one cornernotched point fragment, two scrapers and three flakes. 103 However, even though there is little artifactual evidence from these Ute sites, the 1939 Fieldnotes are a gold mine of information in their careful descriptions of wickiup and tree platform construction and location. Types from full-circle pole-wickiups to simple lean-tos are described. Comparisons are also made with additional wickiup types from other geographical areas. Most. if not all, of these sites have vanished due to natural decay, vandalism and theon-going push of civilization. The Fieldnotes and photographs might be the only evidence left of their existence. The Huschers (1939) indicate that most of the tree platforms were probably hunting and/or lookout stations and not burial platforms, as was thought by many modern residents of the areas in which they were found. (However, see Hutchinson reference to burial platforms below.) These platforms were usually built over-looking game trails and/or water sources. Other features associated with the Historic Utes were "dog houses" (brush too small for human occupation) Ute game traps and Bear Paw petroglyphs of which the Huschers describe nineteen that were seen and examined by them during their survey (1939).

PAGE 115

No rubbings or drawings are available in the Museum but .the article on them is explicit.104 In another section of the 1939 Fieldnotes, the Huschers characterize various cultural materials from pipes to pottery thought to be associated with the Utes which were held in private collections in the region in which the survey was conducted. In the DMNH are two Ute pots which were to the Museum at the Huschers' request. Catalogue number 86 is a dark grey, sub-conical based olla with mica temper, said to have been found in a pinon tree on the Uncompahgre Plateau in 1900. The other, number 87, is a reconstructed grey jar, conical based, with fingernail This was found on the surface of a Ute wickiup camp in 1940 in the same area. Shoshoni(?) Site--Graeber Cave Graeber Cave was excavated by Charles E. Nelson and Colorado Archaeological Society in 1964 and the artifadts and materials were given to the Museum. The cave is located one mile above Tiny Town in Jefferson County, Colorado, 22 feet west of 285 at the junction of Turkey Creek Canyon Road (Figure 1) (Nelson and Graeber 1966). According to Graeber (1966), who used to picnic with her family around the cave, the streambed of Turkey

PAGE 116

105 Creek was seven feet below the floor in the twenties and th.irties; due to the construction of the bridge over 285 and the new road along North Turkey Creek. the stream bed deepened and the midden was destroyed. After a test pit was sunk, the site was excavated in two phases; due to regulations that forbade the dumping of screened material anywhere near the site. Consequently, the left side of the site was gridded and excavated first while the screened dirt was deposited on the right side; then the left side was backfilled and the right side was excavated. The upper four feet contained fallen rock and picnic trash, including metal pop bottle caps, etc. The final six inches, sandy fill mixed with more fallen rock, revealed an earlier occupation level which contained sherds and lithic materials (Graeber 1964). During the first phase of the excavation, a slab-lined hearth in a horseshoe-shape was encountered; this hearth contained two rocks and one probable cooking stone, but no artifacts were located. In the remainder of this section, seven artifacts were recovered which included one corner-notched point with serrated edges, one triangular-shaped point and two point fragments, one keeled scraper and two retouched flakes.

PAGE 117

106 Phase two uncovered no features but pottery sherds were discovered, all madeof a grey, micaceous clay with large pieces of granite visible in the matrix. It was possible to reconstruct part of a vessel using these sherds and one flat-bottomed pot The construction technique appears to be of a "patch" construction with walls of varying thickness and fingerimpressed. This has been identified as a Shoshoni pot, a rare find in Colorado as the Shoshoni tended to make their home farther to the north (Nelson and Graeber 1966). Life Collections The Hutchinson Collection In 1983 the DMNH received the collection of Mr. Joe Hutchinson. This collection was originally loaned to a couple who taught at Greeley at the University of Northern Colorado and who had requested the material to show to their classes (Hutchinson 1985) For reasons unexplained, this couple suddenly left town, and the collection remained at the University; it was eventually forwarded to the DMNH. In an interview conducted with Mr. Hutchinson in July 1985, the following facts were ascertained.

PAGE 118

107 Mr. Hutchinson, a former United Airlines pilot and avid collector, was brought up around the Buena Vista area and remembers stories his father told him of entertaining Ute chiefs on his homestead in 1872-76. Mr. Hutchinson's mother was a student of Edgar Hewitt at the Greeley Normal School in thelate 1800s and accompanied Hewitt to Espanola, New Mexico to teach school there. In the 1920s and 1930s, Hutchinson collected artifacts from around the ranch and the Buena Vista area, regions in New Mexico, eastern Colorado where he lived.for a time, and Wyoming (Figure l). The majority of the collection was provenienced by Mr. Hutchinson and these proveniences are contained with the artifacts in the collection. The bulk of the lithics from the Buena Vista area appear to be of Ute origin and consists of cornernotched points, scrapers, blades, drills, gravers, hammerstones, etc. There is a large, grooved maul, both sides showing heavy use, which was found on the Piedra River near Chimney Rock, along with handstones and metate fragments. Those items from eastern Colorado and southeast Wyoming include early points, shell pendants and a large "marrow" stone which he picked up at Lindenmeier and

PAGE 119

108 which Dr. Roberts told him was used to crack the bones of the bison to extract the marrow.-From the Hell Gap area are hammerstones, a large quartzite knife, a scraper and a large beamer/hoe. From a fire hearth on top of an isolated butte near Chugwater, Wyoming, Hutchinson located more than twenty large, curved blades associated with charred deer bones, two small points, two scrapers, one small stove pot lid and two ovalshaped, polished shell fragments. Other interesting items in this collection iriclude a lithic "fire-starter" found on Gran Quivera Ruin in New Mexico, blue beads from an Indian grave near Montrose, cordmarked sherds from Sand Creek, east of Denver and a large, curved metal skinning knife with a partially decayed wooden handle which was discovered in the pinon hills on a grave/tree platform, with skeleton, near Centerville, Colorado. There are over 500 artifacts in this collection. Detailed maps with some of the discoveries located on them, and a letter describing the Buena Vista finds are also part of the documentation. A great deal can be learned about and from Mr. Hutchinson's collections. Specific pieces should intrigue those scholars who are interested in comparative material from specific locales and/or cultures in and around Colorado.

PAGE 120

109 The Easterday Collection In 1985 the Museum received a large collection of Mr. Robert Easterday of Longmont, Colorado which contains almost 5,000 articles from Weld and Larimer Counties (Figure 1). The author interviewed Mr. Easterday in June 1985 for the information presented below. Mr. Easterday was brought up in Weld and Larimer Counties and since a child had been fascinated with the cultural materials that could be found scattered around on the eastern Plains of Colorado. With his parents, Mr. Easterday would go searching for "arrowheads" when he was young, and this shows in the records he kept. "Mom's" site and "Dad's" site are just two of the names given to the many sites investigated. In 1936-38 he worked on the Lindenmeier Site with Dr. Roberts and later on the San Jon Site in New Mexico in 1941. Mr. Easterday is a teacher and has worked in eastern Colorado and Alaska. The vast majortiy of the Easterday Collection is comprised of lithic materials with an emphasis on tile points which encompasses Paleo-Indian to Historic Plains cultures, including three early metal points. There are numerous blades, knives and preforms in the collection along with scrapers, some of which are keeled, others hafted, and utilized flakes. There are drills,

PAGE 121

110 perforators and gravers, choppers and cores. The pecked or groundstone objects include metates and manos, or .handstones, and four "beamers"; these are groundstone, rectangular stones with one side concave and polished with wear. Mr. Easterday feels these were used for rubbing hides to make buckskin. Of the more interesting groups of artifacts contained in the assemblage are three separate caches. Cache GG 1, located in the Rivergide ReServoir area, is composed of 103 items of blue chalcedony, mostly large, ovoid, hi-facially flaked preforms with a few, bifacially flaked utilized choppers. One large blade was found on the surface on top of the cache. Cache GG II, found on Chalk Bluffs, contained 140 pieces_ and was found one quarter mile from bison bones. Included in this cache were large "hide" scrapers, preforms, .keeled s6rapers, meat tools, and flaked blades, with a flaking pattern similar to some prehistoric tools from England and France (as was told to Mr. Easterday by Marie Cache III was located near Dent in a ploughed field west of next to the radio tower and is comprised of different materials and includes long, broad flakes, scrapers and preforms.

PAGE 122

111 Ceramic sherds are mostly of the Plains Woodland variety; one large rim sherd is corn-cob impressed and according to Priscilla Ellwood, who had a cursory look at it, appears to be an odd shape, with a flat bottom like a flower pot (1985). It would be interesting to compare it to the Shoshoni pot found at Graeber Cave. Other unique pieces located by Mr. Easterday are a piece of selenite carved in the form of a shell which was picked up on Hummingbird Ruin west of Albuquerque, New Mexico, two pieces of hematite-like concretions, one of them hi-conically drilled found near Riverside Reservoir plus other drilled concretions. All in all, this is an important collection as it encompasses over 10,000 years of occupation and use by prehistoric peoples of Weld and Larimer Counties in both the plains and mountain areas. Accompanying the collection is some documentation of provenience and Mr. Easterday is willing to return to many of the locations and pinpoint the various places that many of the items derived from. The pieces in this collection could increase our knowledge of the Plains cultures, trade and trade routes, possible lithic sources, the utilization and adaptation of plains versus mountain environments-the possibilities are many.

PAGE 123

CHAPTER VII THE FUTURE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT THE DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Introduction As was stated previously, many of the problems outlined in Chapter IV were experienced by this writer while working with the various collections described. These problems were due to a combination of many factors. A museum serves many functions: it is a storehouse that conserves and protects rare, precious and interesting materials important to the public. It provides entertain-ment through its exhibits and special However, education is probably its primary purpose and this cannot accomplished without primary resource on its own collections as well as on the material it wishes to obtain. This requires the support of the public, the Board of Directors, staff and volunteers. The difficulties encountered by me are not specific to this museum but are true throughout the museum population (Cantwell etal. 1981}. Most curators are well aware of the problems existing in their own museums and would correct them if given adequate fund-ing, space, time and support (Salwyn 1981).

PAGE 124

113 Purpose Although this is a large and complicated subject, and one in which I profess little expertise, I would like briefly to outline some recommendations and improvements that will facilitate and further advance one of the stated purposes of the Anthropology Department at the DMNH as I see it: that is the advancing of the research on the systematic archaeological collections held at the Museum. These suggestions will benefit the Museum specifically, and promote the education and the entertainment of the general public as well as the profession as a whole. Traditions There was a great and'.long tradition of archaeological investigation, collection, sponsorship and publication at the DMNH prior to 1967. The primary emphasis was on Early Man assemblages but others were represented as well. However, some materials from projects encouraged and published by the were not deposited here but rather in institutions cosponsoring them or they were returned to their original owners. These include the material from the Irwin's Magic Mountain excavations which are at the Peabody Museum at Harvard, the Taylor-Alva and part of the

PAGE 125

114 Turner-Look collections which are in private hands or in the Museum of Western History in-Grand Junction as well as the LoDaisKa articles which were returned to the owner. Action to trace and/or retrieve all or part of these collections is already being considered (Day 1985). Likewise, during this period the Museum acquired exchange and loan items to supplement the collections. These included the prehistoric Southwestern artifacts that were acquired through trade with the Arizona State Museum in 1953 and the excellent collection of Pueblo pottery that came with the Crane Collection, to name a few. However, these are not primary source materials. Deficiencies There are some glaring deficiencies in the systematic collections which need to be corrected in order to put the Museum in the as a good research institution. Chief among these is the lack of any systematic collection from the Southwestern Anasazi Tradition. Also missing are any representations of the Dismal River and Upper Republican manifestations in eastern Colorado. Most of the other collections have quantitative and qualitative gaps, both temporally and regionally, and most lack continuity.

PAGE 126

115 The addition of the Frazier materials discussed above will be beneficial for augmenting the Paleo-Indian collections. The Archaic Period is represented by materials from the Sand Wash Basin, the Huscher material, the Moore-Casebier and Taylor-Alva sites, but more is needed in this area. The Fremont Culture in Western Colorado and Utah is partially represented by the specimens from the Turner-Look excavations and possible Fremont/Athabaskan evidence is contained in the Huschers' stone circle sites. Multi-component sites on the eastern slope are not as yet part of these collections, and until they are, the Archaic and Woodland cultures from this region will not be represented. The Proto Historicperiod is featured by the Huschers' Ute materials and specimens from the Hutchinson Collection and possible Shoshoni forays are represented by the Graeber Cave items. Both the Hutchinson and Easterday Collections provide a continuum for portions of Colorado, but they lack depth. All these collections need augmentation for a better understanding of the chronology, the environmental adaptations and maladaptations, the lifeways and the processes that brought about the changes and disappearances of the many groups.that made Colorado their home at one time or another.

PAGE 127

116 Recommendations No museum can possibly hope to have an adequate sample of every culture at its disposal. Therefore, there is a need to emphasize certain regional areas and/or cultures. I feel the logical direction for the DMNH to head is toward the various groups and cultures that have participated in some way in the prehistory and history of Colorado and its neighboring areas and still retain its stress on Paleo-Indian collections. This does not mean limiting the collections to only these traditions and ignoring those from other regions; it should gratefully accept all donations from every area possible. But it should actively pursue those which will aid in our understanding of Colorado traditions for which it already has some foundation. Obviously, the DMNH needs a coherent and cohesive archaeotogical strategy that will foster the additions to its existing collections and which, in turn, will for better use and research in collections. Part of the problem has been remedied by the appointment of a new Curator of Archaeology, Dr. Jane S. Day, only the second such appointment in over fifty years. One of the greatest assets at the DMNH has been the encouragement, help and enthusiasm shown by the anthropology staff

PAGE 128

117 to researchers and students inerested in the tions, and the new Curator is no-different. Professional and student projects are welcomed, but this and the. knowledge of what is available for study is poorly known in the academic community. It is hoped this thesis will enlighten the situation. The Physical Plant Another remedy will be the new addition to the Museum that is already under construction. Part of the design plans provide answers to the limited and disconnected storage problems, along with increased security and beneficial environmental conditions. There will be adequate accommodations, with a wet lab, for the student and researcher to carry on investigations of the collections (Stone 1985). Access to and care of the materials will be greatly facilitated as the new storage space becomes available. Data Retrieval Retrieval .of data of the archaeological material is sometimes a difficult and complex task at the DMNH, resulting in lost time for both staff and investigator. The files are distressingly incomplete and often uninformative, due in part to the poor record keeping of earlier days. First ahd foremost a new and complete

PAGE 129

118 review_and re-evaluation of each and every artifact in the systematic collections is imperative. Those items that have not been accessioned and/or catalogued must be inventoried immediately, and_ each catalogue card should be checked and updated. Specifitations such as location, identification of the artifact and the material of which it is made, its form and function, the culture.area and site, collector/donor and any documentation relevant to the item and its location should be added. Artifacts should be checked for signs of recent damage or deterioration and those that require it should be carefully inspected and repaired in ways that will not bias the information that might be retrieved from them. Records of the restoration and preservation techniques used should be kept and put on the catalogue cards. Those artifacts that have disappeared should be noted and this information kept in a different file in hopes that they can be located. Experts should be br6ught in when necessary to identify articles whose documentation is poor or non-existent and where identification is in question. Fakes should be separated and kept as curiosities or as eventual collectors' items themselves. A file and provenience card file should be maintained so that the staff and researchers can look up a subject, an area or specific location or

PAGE 130

type of artifact in which they are interested and find various references to their topic in these catalogues. Most importantly, all this information must be computerized so that retrieval of the data is at the finger tips of every interested person. 119 photographs of each object and collec-tion should be taken from different angles and kept in a separate, sterile and secure location that is centrally located to the research area. Lithic and ceramic type collections from various culture areas and traditions should be assembled and made available to the staff, student and professional for reference. Expansion of the Archaeological Holdings Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if the DMNH wishes to retain its earlier reputation among archaeological professionals, steps must be taken to increase its systematic holdings. It must become more involved in the acquisition of primary collection materials. Inventory. Plans are being developed to inven-tory the collections to determine strengths and weak-nesses and ". a negative inventory will be produced to pinpoint lacks" (Herold 1983: 16).

PAGE 131

120 Donations. New acquisitions from known avoca-tional and professional archaeologists alike already are being actively solicited invarious areas of Colorado in hopes of gaining donations of their collections, either now or in the future. Letters are being prepared toward that goal stating the needs and aims of the Museum. Site report and collection forms will also be enclosed enabling the collector to document his finds. In a sense, it is a way of educating the amateur enthusiast on the importance of proveniencing and documenting his collection both for his own benefit and that of future researchers. It also is informing the public of the renewed interest in archaeology by the DMNH. Fieldwork. I also feel it will be necessary for the Museum to sponsor and/or participate in small surveys and excavations that will enhance the existing collections, fill in gaps and allow the Museum to become more actively involved in the prehistoric and historic archaeology of Colorado. A start toward this end would be a return to some of the sites surveyed by the Huschers and to certain rich areas described by Mr. Easterday and Mr. Hutchinson. Along with this, in-depth interviews with living informants and original collectors, if possible, would

PAGE 132

121 be beneficial in order to gather data on their collec--tions and the areas in which they were found. These interviews might also lead to other collectors and collections. Informants can often give pertinent ethno-graphic information as well, such as Mr. Easterday's knowledge of the Dust Bowl days on the eastern plains and Mr. Hutchinson's reminiscences and memories of his father's experiences of settling in Colorado. The Role of the DMNH A museum of Natural History is an ideal partie-ipator in this scheme in accordance with the accepted Natural History approach which emphasizes field research, scientific collection and publication (Herold 1983). Many of the personnel necessary in a multi-disciplinary approach required in archaeological research today are employed by a museum of this type. Professionals such as archaeologists, anthropologists and ethnologists, paleontologists, botanists, zoologists and historians are available for advice and analysis and might add to their own departments as well. Moreover, amateur archaeologists, members, students and volunteers are willing and eager to participate as crew members. It also allows for the close collaboration of the conserv-ator and the archaeologist during all phases of the

PAGE 133

project. Most of the research and preservation of the artifacts can take place in the museum itself instead of in a temporary lab in the field. 122 Repository. With the completion of its new facilities the DMNH can also become a repository for those materials from excavated sites and surveys in and around Colorado, especially-for those materials that may augment the existing holdings. Funding. The Museum and the Anthropology Department should actively seek financial support for these projects through grants, donations, "pay-for-theprivilege" participants and special programs that will .increase public awareness of the importance. of archae-ology, and awareness of the responsibilities and ethics .involved in archaeological work. Classes could be offered in a variety of archaeological/anthropological subjects pertinent to the goals of the Department. Subjects such as Colorado History and Pre-history (with -artifacts available for viewing and handling) different archaeological field methods and the identification of artifacts are but a few suggestions. Exhibitions of those artifacts from various systematic collections such as the DMNH did in 1985 with the three Paleo-Indian sites

PAGE 134

123 would interest many. The ideas are limitless.and can be expanded upon with a little imagination. Financing for ield work could be written into the budget, although I realize this has been tried before with little success; consequently, the Board of Directors must be educated in the importance of the systematic archaeological collections to the reputation of the Museum and the income that could be derived from .such undertakings. Conclusions These suggestions are but a few that might be implemented in order to improve the facilities for researchers and to increase and improve.the archae-ological holdings at the Denver Museum of Natural History. If a museum wishes to improve, to grow and I evolve, it must take actions to ensure these wishes. I I A museum should be a participant in its community and it owes an obligation to that community to have on hand the best and the most complete inventory possible; in turn, the public owes it to the museum to become involved and to support programs that will advance the quality of that museum. One of these ways is to support and encourage the acquisition of new materials, and to assist research on these materials for the advancement

PAGE 135

124 of knowledge. As was said by John Campion at the opening ceremonies for the Museum in 1908, .. A Museum of Natural History is never finished. A completed Museum is a dead Museum ... a result, of course, the people of Colorado do not want ..

PAGE 136

Agogino, 1968 Agogino, 1975 LIST OF REFERENCES George A. The experimental removal of preservative from radiocarbon samples. Plains Anthropologist 13:146-47. George A., and Franklin Folsom New light on an old site:Events leading up to discovery of the Folsom type site. Anthropologist 16(52} :111-14. Akerly, Robert 1985 Personal communication. Bilgery, 1935. Blakely, 1981 Conrad S. Correspondence to J.D. Figgins, 2 August. On file at the Denver Museum of Natural History. Robert L., and Lane A. Beck Trace elements, nutritional status, and social stratification at Etowah, Georgia. In The research potential of anthropological museum collections, A. M. Cantwell, J. Griffin and N. Rothschild, eds. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Science. Pp. 417-32. Boast, Robin 1983 Folsom gravers. M.A. thesis, University of Colorado. Bourque, Bruce G., Stephen W. Brooke, Ronald Kley, and Kenneth Morris 1980 Conservation in archaeology: Moving toward closer cooperation. American Antiquity Briolo, 1971 45 (4) :194-798. Frank J. An investigation of surface collected clovis, Folsom and midland projectile points from Blackwater Draw and adjacent localities. Unpublished M.A., Department of Anthropology, Eastern New Mexico Univer sity, Portales.

PAGE 137

Brown, Antoinette B. 1981 Assessment of Paleonutrition from skeletal remains. In The research potential of anthropological museum collections, Vol. 376, A. M. Cantwell, J. Griffin, and N. Rothschild, eds. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Science. Pp. 405-16. Brown, James A. 126 1981 The potential of systematic collections for archaeological research. In The research potential of enthopologicar-museum collections, Vol. 376,A. M. Cantwell, J. Griffin, and N. Rothschild, eds. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Science. Pp. 65-76. Buckles, 1971 William G. The Uncompahgre complex: Historic Ute archaeology and prehistoric archaeology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. Cantwell,Anne-Marie, James B. Griffin, and Nan A. Rothschild 1981 The research potential of anthropological museum collections, Vol. 376. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Cantwell, Anne-Marie, and Nan A. Rothschild 1981 The future of the past. In The research potential of anthropological museum collections, Vol. 376, A. M. Cantwell, J. Griffin, and N . Rothschild, eds. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Pp. 579-84. Cassells, E. Steve 1983 The archaeology of Colorado. Boulder, Johnson Books. Coffin, Roy 1937 Northern Colorado's first settlers. Fort Collins, Colorado State College. Conkey, 1981 Margaret W. What can we do with broken bones? Paleolithic design structure, archaeology research, and the potential of museum

PAGE 138

collections. In The research potential of anthropologicalmuseum collections, Vol. 376, A. M. Cantwell, -J. Griffin, and N. Rothschild, eds. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Pp. 35-52. Cotter, John L. 127 1935 A report o the field work of the Colorado Museum of Natural History at the Lindenmeier Folsom campsite. On file, Denver Museum of Natural History. Cotter, John L., and J.D. 1935 Correspondence between Cotter and Figgins. On file, Denver Museum of Natural History. Day, Jane S. 1984 New approaches in stylistic analysis: The late Polychrome period ceramics from Hacienda Tempisque, Guanacaste Province, Costa Rica. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder. 1985 Personal communication. Dolan, Veronica 1980 Denver Museum of Natural History,l900-1980: The first 80 years: A summary. Denver Co., Denver Museum of Natural History. Easterday, Robert 1985 Personal communication. Ellwood, Priscilla 1985 Personal communication. Encyclopaedia Britannica 1968 Museums and galleries, Vol. -15. Chicago, William Benton. Pp. 1037-53. Feldman, 1981 Lawrence H., and Elsebet S.-J. Rowlett Old donations and new approaches. In The research potentials of anthropological museum collections, Vol. 376, A. M. Cantwell, J. Griffin, and N. Rothschild, eds. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Pp. 337-44.

PAGE 139

128 Figgins, Jesse D. 1924. Annual report of the Colorado Museum of Natural History. 1927 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 Flenniken, 1978 The antiquity of man in America. Natural History 27(3) :229-39. Annual report of the Colorado Museum of Natural History. Annual report of the Colorado Museum of Natural History. Annual report of the Colorado Museum of Natural History. Annual r eport of the Colorado Museum of Natural History. Annual report of the Colorado Museum of Natural History. Annual report of the Colorado Museum of Natural History. Annual report of the Colorado Museum of Natural History. J. Jeffrey Re-evaluation of the Lindenmeier Folsom: A replication experiment in lithic technology. American Antiquity 43(3) :470-78. Ford, Richard I. 1977 Systematic research collections in anthropology. Cambridge, Mass., Peabody Museum for the Council on Museum Anthropology. 1981 New ideas about the origin of agriculture: Based on fifty years of museum curated plant remains. In The research potential of anthropological museum collections, Vol. 376. New York,Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Pp. Freed, Stanley A. 1981 Research pitfalls as a result of the restoration of museum specimens. In The research potentials of anthropological museum collections, Vol. 376. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Pp. 229-46.

PAGE 140

I 129 Gramly, Richard M. 1980 Raw materials source areas and "curated" tool assemblages. American Antiquity 45(4): 823-33. Greber, 1981 N'omi, Richard S. Davis, and Ann S. DeFresne The micro-component of the Ohio Hopewell lithic technology: In The research potentials of anthropological museum collections, Vol. 376. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Pp. 48 9-528. Griffin, James B. 1981 The man who comes after: Or, careful how you curate. In The research potentials of anthropological museum collections, Vol. 176. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Pp. 7-16. Harris, Marvin 1968 The rise of anthropological theory. New York, Crowell Company. Haynes, C. Vance 1980 The clovis culture. Canadian Journal of. Haynes, C. 1960 Anthropology 1. Vance, and George Agogino Geological significance of a new radiocarbon date from the Lindenmeier site. Proceedings, Denver Museum of Natural History 9. Haynes, C. Vance, Adrienne Anderson, and N. Frank Frazier 1974 Geochronology of the Folsom site. Manuscript on File at the Denver Museum of Natural History. Herold, Joyce 1983 Situation analysis report. On File: Denver Museum of Natural History. Huscher, B. H., and Harold A. Huscher 1939 Fieldnotes for 1939. Manuscript on File at the Denver Museum of Natural History. 1940a Annual report of the Colorado Museum of Natural History: 20-23.

PAGE 141

1940b Conventional bear-track petroglyphs of the Uncompahgre plateau. Southwestern Lore 6(2):25-27. 130 1940c Potsherds in a pinon __ tree. 137-42. Masterkey 14(4): 1941 1942 1943 1985 Annual report of the Colorado Huseum of Natural History 21:21-23. Athapaskan migration via the inter-mountain region. American Antiquity 8(1) :80-88. The hogan builders of Colorado. Southwestern Lore 9. Personal communication. Hutchinson, Joseph 1985 Personal communication. 1985 IBM 1985 Documents on File, Denver Museum of Natural History. Progress report to the stockholders. Irwin, Cynthia, and Henry Irwin 1959 Excavations at the LoDaisKa site in the Denver, Colorado area. Proceedings of the Denver Museum of Natural History 12. Irwin-Williams, Cynthia, and Henry Irwin 1966 Excavations at Magic Mountain. Proceedings of the Denver Museum of Natural History 12. Kane, Katherine 1985 The archaeological tradition of the Colorado Historical Society. M.A. thesis on file: University of Colorado, Denver. Kintigh, Keith 1981 An outline for a chronology of Zuni ruins, revisited: Sixty-five years of repeated analysis and collection. In The research potentials of anthropological museum collections, Vol. 376. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Pp. 467-88.

PAGE 142

Marquardt, William H., Anta Montet-White and Sandra Scholtz 1982 Resolving the crisis 1n archaeological collections curation. American Antiquity 47 (2) :409-18. Mathieson, J. P. 1959 Correspondence to Marie Wormington. On File: Denver Natural History Museum. Zena 131 Matthews, 1981 Art historical photodocumentation of Iroquoian effigy pipes. In The research potentials of anthropological museum collections, Vol. 376, A. M. Cantwell, J. Griffin, and N. Rothschild, eds. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Pp. 161-76. Nelson, Charles E., and Jessie M. Graeber 1966 Excavation of Graeber cave, North Turkey Creek. Southwestern Lore 32(2) :47-54. Osgoode, 1979 Corne1ius Anthropology in museums of Canada and the United States. Publication in Museology 7. Milwaukee Public Museum. Peebles, Christopher, Margaret Schoeninger, Vincas Steopnaitis, and C. Margaret Scarry 1981 A bequest. Contemporary research with the WPA-CCC collections from Moundville, Alabama. In The research potentials of anthropological museum collections, Vol. 3767 A. M. Cantwell, J. Griffin, and N. Rothschild, eds. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Pp. 433-47. Perino, Gregory 1985 Personal communication. Pringle, Heather 1985 Stone age blood. Equinox 4:16. Puniella, Anthony J. 1981 The research potentials of salvage collections in New Jersey. In The research potentials .of anthropological museum colle.ctions, Vol. 376, A. M. Cantwell, J. Griffin,

PAGE 143

Saywyn, 1981 Shipman, 1981 Bert Pat and N. Rothschild, eds. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Pp. 556-66. 132 Collecting now for future research. In The research potentials of anthropology museum collections, Vol. 376, A. M. Cantwell, J. Griffin, and N. Rothschild, eds. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Pp. !) 6 7-7 4 Applications of scanning electron microscopy to taphonomic problems. In The research potentials of anthropological museum collections, Vol. 376, A. M. Cantwell, J. Griffin, and N. Rothschild, eds. New. York, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. PJ?. 357-86 . Stanford, Dennis 1982 Personal communication. Stone, Barbara 1985 Personal communication. Stucky, Richard 1976 The sand wash basin survey. M.A. thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder. Sturtevant, 1973 P. Anthropology beyond the university. Alden Redfield, ed. Southern Anthropology Society Proceedings 7:40-55. Thomas, David H. 1979 Archaeology. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1981 Ethics and the contemporary museum of archaeology. In The research potential of anthropologicalmuseum collections, Vol. 376, A. M. Cantwell, J. and N. Rothschild, eds. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Pp. 575-78. Willey, Gordon, and Jeremy Sabloff 1974 A history of American archaeology. London, Thames and Hudson.

PAGE 144

Vhlliams 1 1981 Wilmsen, 1978 L. E., D. C. Parris, and S. S. Albright Interdisciplinary approaches to WPA archaeology collections in the northeast. 133 In The research potential of anthropological museum collections, Vol. 376,. A. M. Cantwell, J. Griffin, and N. Rothschild, eds. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Pp. 141-60. Edwin N., and Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr. Lindenmeier, 1934-1974: Concluding report on investigations. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 24. Wilson, David 1974 The new archaeology. New York, New American Library. Winters, 1981 Howard D. Excavating in museums: Notes on !'-1ississippian hoes and middle woodland copper gouges and celts. In The research potential of Anthropology museum collections, Vol. 376, A. M. Cantwell, J. Griffin, and N. Rothschild, eds. New York, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Pp. 17-34. Woodall, J. Ned 1972 An introduction to modern archaeology. Cambridge, Schenkman Publishing. Wormington, H. Marie 1935 Annual report of the Colorado Museum of Natural History. 1936 1937a 1949 1955 Annual report of the Colorado Museum of Natural History. Annual report of the Colorado Museum of Natural History. Ancient man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History Popular Series 2. A reappraisal of the Fremont culture, with a summary of the archaeology of northern periphery. Denver Museum of Natural History Popular Series 1.

PAGE 145

1957 1966 1967 1985 in prep. Wormington, 1958 134 (Mathieson) Fieldnote on file at the Denver Museum of Natural History. Annual report of the Colorado Museum of Natural History. Annual report of the Colorado Museum of Natural History. Personal communication. Ancient hunters and gatherers of the Americas. The archaeological record before 6000 B.C. New York, Academic Press. H. Marie, and Robert Lister Archaeological investigations on the Uncompahgre plateau. Denver Museum of Natural Popular Series 2.