A HIGH RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGY FOR STEWARD’S PROMONTORY CULTURE COLLECTIONS, PROMONTORY POINT, UTAH

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

John W. Ives, Duane G. Froese, Joel C. Janetski, Fiona Brock, and Christopher Bronk Ramsey Despite the rich array of perishables Julian Steward (1937) recovered during his 1930s excavations, the Promontory Cave assemblages were dated in relative terms with just a handful of radiocarbon assays until recently. Yet Promontory Caves 1 and 2 are the type sites from which the Promontory Culture was defined, and these assemblages have a critical bearing on our conception of three significant issues in western North American prehistory: the terminal Fremont transition, Numic expansion, and the potential presence of migrating ancestral Apachean populations. To better fix the age of the Promontory Phase, we have undertaken an additional 45 AMS determinations for Promontory perishables. Because of a research focus concerning Promontory footwear, most age estimates come from moccasins, but we have also dated gaming pieces, a bow, an arrow, netting, basketry, matting, and cordage. With the exception of a winnowing basket fragment and some ceramic residue dates, all Promontory Phase assays are tightly focused in an interval running from 662 to 826 radiocarbon years before present (a calibrated 2s range spanning A.D. 1166–1391). Bayesian analyses of the Cave 1 and 2 Promontory Phase perishables suggest that this late period occupation comprised one or two human generations, centering on the interval running from ca. A.D. 1250–1290.

A pesar de la colección rica de artefactos perecederos que recogió Julian Steward (1937) durante sus excavaciones en los años 1930, las colecciones de las cuevas Promontory hasta hoy fueron fechadas únicamente en términos relativos, con solamente unos cuantos de cálculos radiocarbónicos. No obstante, las cuevas Promontory 1 y 2 son los sitios tipos de lo que fue definida como la cultura Promontory y sus colecciones proveen informaciones clave para nuestro entendimiento de la prehistoria en el Oeste de América del Norte. En particular, se trata de la transición terminal de la cultura Fremont; la expansión de la populación Numic, y la posibilidad de la presencia de poblaciones Apachean migratorias. Para determinar más precisamente la edad del fase Promontory, hemos obtenido 45 fechas AMS más de los artefactos perecederos de la colección. Porque un foco de investigación era el calzado del fase Promontory, la mayor parte de las estimaciones de edad vienen de mocasines; pero también hemos fechado piezas de juego, un arco, una flecha, redes, cestería, esteras, y cordón. Con la excepción de un fragmento de una canasta para aventar, y algunas fechas del residuo en el interior de recipientes cerámicos, todas las fechas de los análisis de fase Promontory cayeron en el intervalo 662–826 años de radiocarbono antes del presente 14 C yr BP (1166–1391 cal d.C.). El análisis Bayesiano de los perecederos de las cuevas 1 y 2 del fase Promontory indica que esta ocupación del periodo tardío constaba de uno o dos generaciones humanos, en el intervalo de circa AD 1250–1290.

A

lthough they present challenges, existing archaeological collections remain a critical—and frequently underused— source of information for ongoing archaeological enquiry. In some extraordinary circumstances, it will be difficult for new discoveries to surpass

the caliber of existing materials. Given the sheer size and diversity of the resulting collections, such is the case with the material culture Julian Steward excavated from Promontory Caves 1 and 2 on Promontory Point, Great Salt Lake, in 1930 and 1931 (Steward 1937; Figure 1). Early in his career,

John W. Ives 䡲 Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Canada T6G 2H4 ([email protected]) Duane Froese 䡲 Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Canada T6G 2E3 ([email protected]) Joel Janetski 䡲 Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602 ([email protected]) Fiona Brock and Christopher Bronk Ramsey 䡲 Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK OX1 3QY ([email protected], [email protected]) American Antiquity 79(4), 2014, pp. 616–637 Copyright © 2014 by the Society for American Archaeology DOI: 10.7183/0002-7316.79.4.616 616

A HIGH RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGY FOR STEWARD’S PROMONTORY CULTURE COLLECTIONS

617

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

Ives et al.]

Figure 1. Locations discussed in the text: (1) Promontory Caves 1 and 2; (2) Chournos Spring Site (42BO 1915); (3) Injun Creek; (4) Bear River sites; (5) Orbit Inn; (6) 42DV2; (7) Deadman Cave; (8) Blackrock Cave; (9) Salt Lake Airport site; (10) Sandy Beach site; (11) Heron Springs site; (12) Spanish Spit site; (13) Goshen Island South site; (14) Danger Cave; (15) Hogup Cave; (16) Standing Rock Overhang; (17) 10OA275; (18) Wilson Butte Cave; (19) Malad obsidian source area.

and especially during his years at the University of Utah, Steward often worked as an archaeologist (Kerns 2003; Janetski 1999). He undertook these excavations (as well as a reconnaissance of ten smaller, less intensively occupied Promontory

Caves) out of fear that looting was about to result in the destruction of these sites. This work formed the basis for his definition of the Promontory Culture, now more commonly referred to as the Promontory Phase (Janetski 1994).

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

618

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Promontory Caves 1 and 2 thus have “type site” status, and it is no exaggeration to suggest that they are among the more remarkable late period archaeological assemblages in western North America. The conditions for preservation were excellent, and a wide variety of perishables were present. Most extraordinary of all were 250 pieces of footwear, most of which were in a distinctive “Promontory moccasin”–style. No other Promontory Phase sites—nor other Utah and Idaho sites from the last millennium—approach the Promontory assemblages for richness and abundance. Yet strangely, the Promontory Cave assemblages received scant attention after Steward’s work, perhaps because the Promontory Culture materials from the caves were not readily categorized. Steward himself articulated two significant issues: these concerned the notions of Apachean migration, on the one hand, and a broader view of Numic prehistory, on the other hand. Steward (1937, 1938, 1940, 1955) regarded the Promontory Culture materials in the caves as intrusive, resulting from occupation by northern, bison hunting peoples he suspected of being Apachean ancestors. He had ample opportunity to change his mind about his views, but nearly two decades later, in the last pronouncement he made on this subject, Steward (1955) expressed surprise and dismay at the notion that the Promontory Culture should be construed as Numic in character. His views on this matter were far from trivial: in his own ecologically oriented research and in culture element research conducted for Kroeber, Steward developed an informed opinion about whether or not the Promontory Culture resembled Numic material culture (Kerns 2003; Steward 1937, 1938, 1943, 1955). Steward simply could not see a connection between the Promontory Culture materials and various Shoshonean speaking peoples. Instead he felt that determining more about whether the Promontory Culture reflected Apachean ancestors should be a prime research topic (Steward 1940). With regard to Numic prehistory, the Promontory Phase assemblages from the caves might be considered as late instances of long-term continuity (cf. alternative perspectives outlined in Rhode and Madsen 1994). Others, such as Reed (1986:260), have been more inclined to see the Promontory Phase assemblages from the caves

[Vol. 79, No. 4, 2014

as intrusive, like Steward, but as Shoshonean in character. This would reflect a late spread toward the northeastern Great Basin and northern Plains, consistent with the influential model proposed on archaeological grounds by Steward (1940) and linguistic grounds by Lamb (1958; Ives 1998; Rhode and Madsen1994). Steward used the term Puebloan rather loosely in his correspondence and publications of this era for cultural manifestations we would now know as Fremont. The denouement of Fremont would be the third major issue that the Promontory Cave assemblages have a bearing upon. Fremont took shape early in the first millennium A.D. and persisted over several centuries as a series of communities with varying subsistence emphases on horticulture and hunting and gathering. Our current impression of the closing centuries for Fremont would be one in which periodic droughts and other factors had profound impacts on those using this material culture. By A.D. 1150, maize horticulture ended in the northeastern Great Basin; Fremont pithouses, granaries, burial traditions, and other signature artifacts waned (Coltrain and Leavitt 2002). Fremont material culture ceased to exist just after A.D. 1300, at which time the Promontory Phase materials remained present in this region and spread south along the Wasatch Front as far as Utah Valley. There elements of Promontory material culture persisted for another two centuries (Janetski and Smith 2007). Fremont was hardly the only prehistoric cultural entity to be affected in this fateful time range (e.g., Benson et al. 2007). The Puebloan world underwent a dramatic contraction at the same time, with clear signs of social upheaval; on the opposite side of the Plains, a major center of social complexity at Cahokia collapsed. Although complex social and environmental factors must have been at work across interior North America, it is clear that this was a period with significant cultural fluidity that included a number of human migrations, fundamental economic shifts for many groups, and new social landscapes that in many cases featured a greater range of opportunities for hunter-gatherer populations. In his suspicions about a proto-Apachean group, Steward touched on an intriguing human population movement in this general time range.

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

Ives et al.]

A HIGH RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGY FOR STEWARD’S PROMONTORY CULTURE COLLECTIONS

Apachean origins are widely thought to lie in the Canadian Subarctic, and to have involved a relatively recent transit along the Rockies, their eastern slopes, and adjacent Plains regions (e.g., Ives 1990, 2003, 2010, 2014; Krauss and Golla 1981; Matson and Magne 2007; Sapir 1936). Perhaps stimulated by the massive, second White River ash fall affecting a vast region of northern Canada ca. A.D. 800, Navajo and Apache ancestors were likely attracted to the Plains bison hunting lifestyle (as representatives of so many language families were), and drawn yet further south through interactions with neighboring societies and shifting bison population dynamics (Cooper 2008; Ives 2003; Sapir 1936; Workman 1978). Multiple lines of genetic evidence (mtDNA haplotypes, y-chromosome data, and rare mutations) have led researchers to conclude that that the proto-Apachean population underwent a founder effect, with the implication that the initial population size was small (e.g., Achilli et al. 2013; Erickson 2009; Malhi 2012; Monroe et al. 2013). It is equally clear from the mtDNA evidence that ancestral Apachean populations must have incorporated many others during their journey southward, just as oral traditions suggest (e.g., Brugge 2003, 2006; Zolbrod 1984). Linguists have long seen a close connection between Apachean speech communities and Canadian Dene speakers extending from northern British Columbia across northern parts of western Canada (Krauss and Golla 1981; Sapir 1936). There are parallel linguistic indications that the initial Apachean speech community was small and cohesive (Ives 2014; Rice 2012). Dene communities also have a strong proclivity to protect language identities, yet they readily accept material culture and ceremonial life from neighboring societies. All of these factors make efforts to trace Apachean migration in the archaeological record challenging. Our current research involves a renewed assessment of Promontory Phase artifacts from Subarctic and northern Plains perspectives to evaluate Steward’s idea that Apachean ancestors were present in the Promontory caves. The rich perishable record in the Promontory caves is critically important because it greatly expands the range of material culture that might be assessed for evidence of an Apachean (or other cultural) presence. These same perishable artifacts

619

provide an unparalleled array of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating opportunities, both for developing a sound chronology and for hypothesis testing that probes beyond a basic temporal framework (including more detailed propositions about the potential presence of a migratory population). This work has resulted in a large number of AMS assays on perishable items from Steward’s original collections (housed at the Natural History Museum of Utah). In subsequent phases of our research, we will report on renewed excavations in both Promontory Caves 1 and 2, where intact stratified deposits remain. However we might regard the Promontory Cave collections, it is clear that they come from a pivotal interval and geographic locus. They have a bearing on three issues of great moment from the perspective of prehistoric cultural dynamics in western North America and they comprise a material culture record of unusually high fidelity. The absolute dating of the Promontory Cave expressions is therefore both readily attainable as well as vital to our understanding of some significant processes in the more recent prehistoric past—with connections that may reach toward larger Subarctic, Plains, Great Basin, and Southwestern worlds. Characterizing the Promontory Phase

In Promontory Cave 1, Steward (1937:9) found “only the slightest traces of human occupation” at depths below 60 cm, above which lay the rich Promontory Phase occupation (Supplemental Figure 1). The Promontory Phase layer was physically separated from layers underneath it by a completely sterile layer. Next largest Cave 2 also had substantial Promontory Phase deposits. These are preceded by several mid- and early Holocene occupations, although the occupations prior to the Promontory phase have considerably less material culture. Steward thought the Promontory Phase occupations took place during the winter. The nearest significant freshwater source is more than two kilometers distant, a factor that could be mitigated by occupation when there was winter snow. Steward (1937) found abundant and diverse traces of all aspects of domestic life, much of this organized around a large central hearth in Cave 1, in a Promontory Phase layer some 60

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

620

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

cm thick. Materials from both caves together included hunting paraphernalia such as Desert Series arrow points, cane arrow shafts, hardwood foreshafts, and self and sinew bow fragments. There were several knife handles, including one that served as the base for a fire kit. Intensive hide preparation and sewing activities took place, as revealed by scrapers, bone fleshers, bone awls, and many scraps of hide and leather. Other items involved Promontory pottery (see below), slate knives, basketry, cordage, and matting of various plant materials, including juniper bark and tule used for bedding. Gaming pieces and etched slate were also present. There was no supporting evidence for horticulture or intensive plant food use, and few indications of groundstone technology. The few remaining bones in Steward’s “grab” sample have more antelope, deer and sheep, but there can be little doubt from Steward’s description that bison remains were abundant, with copious bison hide, fur, leather, and bones (see also Johansson 2013). Perhaps this economic focus provides part of the explanation for the sudden occupation of Cave 1, but whatever the cause, a different subsistence settlement system dynamic clearly came into play in the thirteenth century A.D. (cf. Grayson 2006; Ives 2003, 2010; Lupo and Schmitt 1997). In terms of habitable space, Cave 1 is large in total extent, but a massive rock fall rendered a significant central area of the cave too rugged for ready use. Cave 2 is yet smaller. Steward’s data are best interpreted as reflecting small residential bases from which other activities were conducted. Men, women, and children were present. The discarded moccasins come in many sizes, for example, including those for small children. Judging from Steward’s diagrams, the habitable space in Cave 1 would be unlikely to exceed 350 m2, while for Cave 2, the habitable space would be roughly 100 m2. If we allot 2–3 m2 of space for each person, the two caves could accommodate no more than 150–200 persons at any one time; given the presence of spatially extensive activities (like the processing of staked down bison hides), this may have been considerably less. Considered from the perspective of hunter-gatherer principles of group formation, it was most likely small- to moderate-sized local groups or microbands that created the Cave 1 and

[Vol. 79, No. 4, 2014

Cave 2 occupations, likely in the range of 30 to 50 persons between the two caves (e.g., Binford 2001; Ives 1990, 1998). Despite the phenomenal record of perishables, interest in the Promontory Cave materials lagged. Enger (1942) and Smith (1952) found a few sherds of “cave ware” in Black Rock III and Deadman’s Caves, also sheltered sites near the Great Salt Lake (Figure 1). Following Steward, they included a Promontory Phase sandwiched between Fremont and Shoshone in their cultural historical reconstructions. Gunnerson (1956, 1960) took renewed interest, proposing connections with the Dismal River Aspect of the Central Plains and feeling that Promontory resulted from an early protohistoric thrust of Apachean ancestors west across the Wasatch Range. Aikens (1966, 1967), working with the Injun Creek and Bear River 1 sites on the east and northeast shore of the Great Salt Lake (Figure 1), saw the Promontory Phase as a Fremont variant. He initially construed both Fremont and Promontory as Plains-influenced and of Apachean origin, with Promontory remaining closer to its Plains roots. Neither of these formulations proved to be correct—Gunnerson’s Dismal River assemblages turned out to be younger than Promontory, and Fremont origins proved to be far earlier than the Promontory Culture (e.g., Aikens 1972). Not readily categorized, these assemblages became part of what has been known as the “Promontory Problem” (Forsyth 1986; Ives 2014). Some authors saw the Promontory materials as distinctive, but many regarded them as the consequence of Fremont societies with variant subsistence practices. Steward knew this distinctive material culture extended along the eastern shore of Great Salt Lake and into Utah Valley; research in subsequent decades focused on Promontory Phase sites there. The demise of Fremont farming societies in the northeastern Great Basin at about A.D. 1150 ushered in an era marked by renewed dependence on wild foods (Allison 2000; Allison et al. 2002; Cannon and Creer 2011; Coltrain and Leavitt 2002; Coltrain and Stafford 1999; Janetski 1994; Janetski and Smith 2007; Simms 2008; Simms and Heath 1990). By A.D. 1400, Promontory Phase hunter-gatherers occupied numerous lowland and cave sites along the Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake margins (Figure 1; Enger 1942; Janetski and Smith 2007; Madsen 1983; Simms 1999;

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

Ives et al.]

A HIGH RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGY FOR STEWARD’S PROMONTORY CULTURE COLLECTIONS

621

Figure 2. Promontory cave examples of more durable artifacts seen at other Promontory Phase sites: (a) a snapped obsidian arrow tip (Desert Side-Notched) hafted to a wooden foreshaft; (b–d) Desert Side-Notched points; (e) a small sidenotched point; (f) a complete Desert Side-Notched point hafted to a wooden foreshaft; (g) a tabular biface or chi-tho (from Promontory Cave 5); (h–m) decorated Promontory pottery sherds recovered by Steward; (n) a cross-section of a Promontory sherd showing the distinctive, coarse white calcareous temper. All artifacts other than (g) come from Steward’s 1930–31 or more recent 2011 excavations in Cave 1. Photographs g–m courtesy of the Natural History Museum of Utah.

Simms et al. 1991; Steward 1937). Open Promontory sites contain middens, storage pits, abundant animal bone, and diverse artifacts, suggesting long-term use (Janetski and Smith 2007; Lupo and Schmitt 1997). Excavations at the Hot Springs Lake site (42DV2) in the Jordan River delta north of Salt Lake City resulted in discovery of a Promontory-age structure (Cannon and Creer 2011:848), and Simms and Heath (1990) reported post hole and site structure patterning that revealed a possible ephemeral residence. These sites are typically at elevations lower than Fremont occupations, presumably to be closer to wetland resources, without the constraint of better-drained soils required for maize horticulture. Diet focused on aquatic plants and animals: bulrush and cattail seeds and roots, waterfowl, and muskrats. Fish bones (trout, chub, and suckers) occur by the thousands in Utah Valley Promontory sites. Uplands saw short-term use for hunting larger game and gathering berries. Promontory Phase occupations along the eastern shore of Great Salt Lake and in Utah Valley

no doubt involved larger total populations. Janetski and Smith (2007) summarized 21 mainly conventional radiocarbon dating results for Utah Valley Promontory Phase sites in the range 650 ± 70 to 300 ± 70 radiocarbon years B.P. (calibrating anywhere in the range between the thirteenth and early 20th century; all calibrations reported here were made with OxCal 4.2 and the IntCal13 curve; calibrated dates are presented with 2␴ ranges [Reimer et al. 2013]). Some of these age estimates are as early as the thirteenth century (650 ± 70 B.P.) for Promontory sites along the Wasatch Front, but most of these assays cluster between 350 and 570 B.P. (calibrating to the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries). Similarly, 16 Promontory-age dates from Hot Spring Lake range from 680 ± 40 B.P. (cal. A.D. 1276–1305 on Prunus charcoal) to 280 ± 40 14C yr B.P. (cal. A.D. 1521–1662 on Rosaceae charcoal; see Cannon and Creer 2011). The signature artifact at open sites is Promontory pottery (Janetski and Smith 2007). Promontory wares are dominated by large-mouthed, glob-

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

622

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 79, No. 4, 2014

Figure 3. Basketry from Promontory Cave 1: (a) an instance of one rod and bundle construction, 42BO1 9659, AMS radiocarbon dated to 746 ± 27 B.P. (OxA-18464); (b) a winnowing basket fragment, 42BO1 10409.1, AMS radiocarbon dated 165 ± 25 B.P. to (OxA-18463). Photographed courtesy of the Natural History Museum of Utah.

ular-shaped jars with thick walls, coarse, often visible temper, and poorly smoothed surfaces. Rims are typically thickened or folded and often exhibit incised or punched geometric designs (Figure 2; Forsyth 1986; Janetski and Smith 2007; Smith 2004). Unlike Fremont ceramics, much Promontory ware is minimally decorated, lacks handles, is low fired, and fragile. It occurs in more limited forms, mainly large and small jars, and more rarely, bowls and pinch pots. Promontory pottery is most abundant in the northeastern Great Basin, but Butler (1983) noted its presence in southern Idaho. Recent reports document sherds from Standing Rock Overhang in Weston Canyon near the Utah–Idaho border, Wilson Butte Cave near Twin Falls, Idaho, and at bison kill complexes in the Curlew National Grasslands (Arkush 2002, 2008, 2014; Gruhn 2007). Although Promontory ceramics are distinguishable from regional variants (such as Great Salt Lake Gray or Sevier) occurring in the Late Prehistoric Period, Promontory pottery is often seen as a local, temporally variant gray ware among other such wares (Simms et al. 1997). Temper particle size, sherd thickness, and degree of surface smoothing have been used as indices

of investment and mobility in ceramic pots, with the presumption that more sedentary circumstances would encourage a greater degree of care in ceramic manufacture than would a greater degree of mobility. Promontory ceramic attributes (undulating surfaces, thick walls, and highly variable temper) fit with some of these criteria for more residentially mobile groups whose potters invested less in manufacture and did not expect vessels to have a long use life (Simms et al. 1997; Janetski and Smith 2007). Yet, Promontory vessels were surprisingly large (with diameters close to 30 cm across and vessel heights of 30–35 cm) and were more likely to have been cached than carried (Janetski and Smith 2007). Steward’s (1937:33–34) Promontory assemblages contained just 12 instances of basketry. Among them were a one rod and bundle example (42BO1:9659; Figure 3a), an example of one or two rods interlocked, and an example of one rod noninterlocked. Another basketry instance (42BO1:10409.1; Figure 3b) recovered by Steward from Cave 1 features close, diagonal twining with weft turns up to the right (as an S-twist); it appears to be the edge of a winnowing tray.

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

Ives et al.]

A HIGH RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGY FOR STEWARD’S PROMONTORY CULTURE COLLECTIONS

623

Figure 4. Late prehistoric footwear characteristic of the Great Basin region: (a) a hide “sandal,” of which there are five examples in Steward’s collection (42BO1 10191, AMS dated to 689 ± 26 B.P. [OxA-18156]); (b) Fremont moccasin, Hogup Cave (42BO36 FS 47.7 AR.12459); (c) hock moccasin from Hogup Cave (42BO36 FS 47 AR.12456). Photographed courtesy of the Natural History Museum of Utah.

The Promontory Moccasins

Steward’s singular discovery lay in the 250 items of Promontory footwear. These are dominated by the Promontory style of moccasin (n = 237), the remainder being comprised of five hide “sandals” (discussed below), as well as moccasin pads or linings and indeterminate fragments (Steward 1937:57). It is here that we find the clearest evidence for a sharp discontinuity in the Promontory record. Moccasins frequently signal cultural identity, provide an avenue through which (primarily) women can show the skill through which they care for family members, and are often conservatively retained long after other elements of western dress become common. The discontinuity begins with the raw material used to construct the moccasins themselves. Antecedent footwear in the Great Basin—Fremont- and hock-style moccasins— was often produced on hide that was generally thick

and not completely dehaired (as opposed to welltanned leather; see Figure 4; Aikens 1970:97–111). Some Promontory moccasins were made of antelope or deer and were lined with plant material, but the great majority of the Promontory moccasins recovered by Steward were made from bison with the fur turned inward. Irrespective of the species of origin, Promontory moccasins are generally fashioned from leather of good to high quality in terms of its evenness and preparation. In fact, it is often the case that the moccasin leather had been carefully grained and softened, such that it would have been supple and suedelike (i.e., buckskin; Figure 5). This attention to detail carries throughout the entire moccasin preparation process: porcupine quills are present in the Cave 1 assemblage, along with sinew and very finely pointed bone awls, indicating the final decorative stages of moccasin preparation also took place in the caves. The Promontory style of moccasin represents a

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

624

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 79, No. 4, 2014

Figure 5. Examples of Promontory moccasins: (a) a finely made, quill decorated BSM 2 (Bb) moccasin, 42BO1:10241, radiocarbon dated to 784 ± 28 B.P. (OxA-18162); (b) a BSM 2 (Bb) moccasin, 42BO1:FS173, radiocarbon dated to 706 ± 25 B.P. (OxA-25183); (c) a BSM 2 (Bb) moccasin with fringed ankle wrap, 42BO1:10055, radiocarbon dated to 730 ± 26 B.P. (OxA-23853); (d) a BSM 2 (Bb) moccasin with higher ankle wrap, 42BO1:10065, radiocarbon dated to 757 ± 23 B.P. (OxA-23921). Photographs a, c, and d courtesy of the Natural History Museum of Utah.

complete departure from the earlier Great Basin footwear patterns (Aikens 1970:97–109; Jennings 1957:221–223; Steward 1937). Hock moccasins rely on the tubular nature of the lower ungulate limb, while Fremont moccasins are, as Aikens said, fashioned “from the top downward” (Figure 6). Most hock and Fremont moccasins at Hogup came from Stratum 12, which may be younger than 1260 ± 120 B.P. (cal A.D. 576–1016; cf. Madsen and Berry 1975:397). Hogup-style moccasins were manufactured on better quality leather and are associated with Hogup Stratum 10. There is variability in the refinement of sewing for the Promontory moccasins, but on the whole, their construction details far exceed that of previous Great Basin moccasins. Promontory moccasins are fashioned “from the bottom up” and feature sewing as fine as 7–8 stitches per centimeter, whereas stitching on hock and Fremont moccasins is coarse (one stitch or less per centimeter) (Figures 5, 6 b and c, and 7; see especially the fine sewing in Figure 7a).

Historical and Ethnological Documentation of Comparable Footwear

Steward (1937) cited Hatt’s (1916) pioneering work on moccasins and was quite correct to point out that the soft-soled Promontory moccasins were typical of the Canadian north. Relying on Hatt, Steward drew his comparisons with northern British Columbia, where there were ethnographic collections of similar moccasins from Tsimshian, Tlingit, and Tahltan peoples from the first decade of the twentieth century. These round-toed moccasins, with a puckering of the vamp or apron where the bottom piece joined, were typical in northern British Columbia (the Bata Shoe Museum [BSM] 2[Bb] style noted below). Tlingit and Tsimshian people often received moccasins and leggings from inland trade partners such as the Dene Tahltan that Steward mentioned (e.g., Teit 1956). Today we have better knowledge of the historic distributions of moccasin styles, most no-

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

Ives et al.]

A HIGH RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGY FOR STEWARD’S PROMONTORY CULTURE COLLECTIONS

625

Figure 6. Patterns for moccasin construction: (a) Fremont; (b) hock; and (c) Promontory moccasin patterns, redrawn from Aikens (1970:103, Figures 63 and 64) and Steward (1937:51, Figure 21). Corresponding letters on the patterns and the moccasins show how the pattern pieces were assembled in the finished moccasin. Reproduced with permission of the University of Utah Press.

tably from Thompson’s (1990, 1994) comprehensive studies, records of the global census of Subarctic Canadian clothing gathered for the 1988 The Spirit Sings Olympic exhibition, and greater access to historic art depicting early nineteenthcentury clothing (e.g., Brasser 1987; Houston 1994; Thompson 1987). Because Hatt’s (1916) classification of footwear lacked some known manufacturing options, specialists working in this area now apply the BSM typology for moccasin construction templates (Webber 1989). Moccasins in the BSM 2(Ab) style dominated mid-nineteenth-century

Dene and Algonquian ethnological collections (Thompson 1990, 1994). These are two-piece, soft-soled moccasins with an apron or vamp over the arch; the apron meets a front seam that runs toward a somewhat more pointed toe; there is a T-seam at the heel. A separate ankle wrap was often joined to the body of the moccasin. Thompson (1994) concluded that by the early twentieth century the BSM 2(Bb) style swept from the eastern Subarctic northwestward through Mackenzie Basin Dene communities (Thompson 1994). This variant differs from BSM 2(Ab) in that it lacks the center toe seam: the apron meets directly with

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

626

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 79, No. 4, 2014

Figure 7. Variation in sewing details on Promontory moccasins: (a) quill decoration on moccasin 42BO1:10241 (note how each quill segment was stitched with sinew; the welt covering the seam between the vamp and the lower portion of the moccasin has been wrapped in basketry material); (b) detail of moccasin 42BO2 10202 from Cave 2, in BSM style 2 (Ab), showing the center seam running from the vamp toward the toe; (c) puckered effect created by gathering at the seam between the lower portion and the vamp of a large Promontory moccasin; (d) toe and vamp of a Promontory moccasin with coarser “puckering,” also showing inwardly turned bison fur lining. (a–c) photographed courtesy of the Natural History Museum of Utah.

a single, lower edge of the moccasin, creating a more rounded and puckered toe (with the apron providing a larger platform for decorative motifs). Fur Trade–era art suggests a somewhat more complex picture: representations of prominent Mackenzie Basin Dene personages such Akaitcho and his son, Keskarrah and his daughter Green Stockings, and other individuals in the 1820s clearly depict detached, round-toed moccasins that were worn in winter with leggings or trousers at this earlier date (e.g., Houston 1994). In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, then, BSM 2(Ab), BSM 2(Bb), and BSM 2(Ad) styles (the latter having the same construction, but with a T-shaped center seam at the toe as well) were present in central and northern British Columbia, while the BSM 2(Ab) and BSM 2(Bb)

variants occurred widely across the Peace and Mackenzie Basins, and into the eastern Subarctic. Each of these BSM 2 patterns are minor variants within a single mode of construction for moccasins—quite in contrast to other categories, such as the BSM 4 family of styles common in the Plains region, for example. Most Promontory moccasins (244) were sewn in variations of the BSM 2(Bb) moccasin type (variations consisting of features such as the presence or absence of an ankle wrap). Steward did not mention the different construction of 42BO2 10202 from Cave 2, in BSM style 2 (Ab), with a center toe seam (Figure 7b). This moccasin is significant in that it means Promontory populations knew both common Subarctic variants that would remain in use during the historic period.

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

Ives et al.]

A HIGH RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGY FOR STEWARD’S PROMONTORY CULTURE COLLECTIONS

Intricate details of the Promontory moccasins, including the use of a welt or piping to cover the toe seam and the manner of affixing quill appliqué, are also characteristic of Subarctic or Plains motifs (Brasser 1987; Reynolds 1977; Turner 1976). Because of this, and because of the sharp discontinuity between Promontory moccasins and hock- or Fremont-style moccasins, Steward’s conclusion that they were northern elements in the assemblages continues to be accurate. There is a clear and objective basis for regarding Promontory moccasins as atypical of the Great Basin. Speaking more broadly of interior western North America, the Promontory moccasins are also different from footwear examples from Wilson Butte and Pence-Deurig Caves in Idaho as well as Mummy and Daugherty Caves in Wyoming (Supplemental Text; Frison 1968; Gruhn 1961, 2007; Husted and Edgar 2002). The Promontory moccasins are not completely isolated instances, however. The single moccasin reported from Franktown Cave in Colorado by Gilmore (2005) is in fact a small Promontorystyle moccasin (i.e. BSM 2 [Bb]) that slightly precedes the Promontory examples in age. Most intriguing of all is a low-cut moccasin recovered from the Yukon ice patches (Greer and Strand 2012; Hare et al. 2012). This moccasin was left behind during high altitude hunting on ice patches that are now retreating with climatic change. It has been AMS radiocarbon dated to 1430 ± 40 B.P. (cal A.D. 558–663; see Hare et al. 2012). The apron extends farther toward the toe than is typical of most Promontory moccasins, but it remains round-toed, with no center seam, and has a slight gathering or puckering of folds at the toe. Although much of the heel is missing, the back appears to have a straight seam (rather than Tseam) that would conform to the BSM 2(Ba) type. Again, BSM 2(Ab), 2(Bb) and 2(Ba) are all minor variants on one basic plan for making a soft-soled moccasin. There were five instances of another type of footwear in the Promontory assemblages. These each involved use of a single piece of hide covering folded upward, the edges of which were comprised of a series of loops which could be drawn together over the upper part of one’s foot. This design is more akin to that of a sandal (Fig-

627

ure 4a). Rudy (1953:29 and Figure 60) reported an identical instance of this looped footwear from Heizer’s Site #1 at the Nevada-Utah border, near Wendover, Utah. An item with the same construction was also recovered from Research Cave in the Ozarks; it has been AMS radiocarbon dated to 1040 ± 70 B.P. (cal A.D. 778–1161) (Kutruff et al. 1998). Rexroth (2010:173–174, 205–207) reported a date of 826 ± 33 B.P. (cal A.D. 1160– 1267) for a side-looped bison hide sandal of the same construction from Kenton Cave in northwestern Oklahoma. We regard these styles of footwear to be elements more characteristic of southerly regions. With respect to Steward’s proposition that the Promontory Cave assemblages could reflect the presence of Apachean ancestors, two observations are pertinent. The Promontory moccasins definitely are out of place in the footwear landscape of the late period in the Great Basin and adjacent regions. Yet, they are not simply isolated instances: detached moccasins fashioned in the same way as the Promontory moccasins were being made in the proto-Dene homeland roughly seven centuries prior to the onset of Promontory Phase occupation in Caves 1 and 2. A pene-contemporaneous moccasin in the same style also occurs in the Colorado Rockies—at another location in which it would not be surprising to find that Apachean ancestors were present. Although we have focused on the moccasins here, both perishable and nonperishable elements of the Promontory collections require further comprehensive assessment from Subarctic, Plateau, and Plains perspectives (Supplemental Text). For example, Steward (1937) recovered a linear segment of knotless netting (in Table 1, 42BO1 10513, OxA-18158; 706 ± 27 B.P.; cal A.D. 1260–1384) that shows a pattern of knotless construction identical to that applied in Dene hunting bags (Marie and Thompson 2004). Subarctic specialists will recognize the artifact in Figure 2g as a tabular biface or chi-tho (Le Blanc 1984; Rainey 1939; Workman 1978). These distinctive artifacts have the specific function of softening leather; they are typical of western Subarctic prehistoric assemblages, and remain in use today among Dene women practicing traditional hide preparation (Baillargeon 2010; Pokotylo and Hanks 1989).

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

628

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 79, No. 4, 2014

Table 1. Recent AMS Results for Promontory Cave 1 (42BO1) & 2 (42BO2) Artifacts.

Lab # Artifact Material Dated Cave 1 CAMS-112638 42BO1:9545 Bison leather, moccasin CAMS-112639 42BO1:10132 Deer/antelope leather, moccasin CAMS-112640 42BO1:11582.52 Bison leather, moccasin CAMS-79944 42BO1:9703.1 Residue, ceramic sherd B-286892 42BO1: Promontory sherd residue B-286893 42BO1: Promontory sherd residue OxA-18156 42BO1:10191 Buffalo hide sole, with loops OxA-18157 42BO1:10241 Grass lining of moccasin OxA-18158 42BO1:10513 Netting fragment OxA-18160 42BO1:10070 Leather from moccasin OxA-18161 42BO1:11582.7 Bark lining from moccasin OxA-18162 42BO1:10241 Deer/antelope leather, moccasin OxA-18460 42BO1:9630 Braided cattail OxA-18461 42BO1:10547 Pottery ring, juniper bark OxA-18463 42BO1:10409.1 Basketry, diagonal twining, S-twist OxA-18464 42BO1:9659 Basketry, “1 rod and bundle” OxA-18465 42BO1: 9654 Basketry, 1 or 2 rods, interlocked OxA-18466 42BO1:11604.2 Basketry, 1 rod, non-interlocked OxA-18467 42BO1:10474 Tule fringing OxA-18468 42BO1:AR4539 Wooden shaft OxA-18469 42BO1:FS1160.4 Cane arrow fragment OxA-23853 42BO1:10055 Moccasin leather OxA-23854 42BO1:9750 Moccasin leather OxA-23855 42BO1:9756 Moccasin leather OxA-23856 42BO1:10353 Moccasin leather OxA-23857 42BO1:10083 Moccasin leather OxA-23882 42BO1:10360 Sinew from hoop OxA-23883 42BO1:10515 Twig, Dart (split sample) OxA-23884 42BO1:10515 Twig, Dart (split sample) OxA-23885 42BO1:11602–2 Bow, Juniperus OxA-23886 42BO1:9764 Moccasin leather OxA-23887 42BO1:10129 Moccasin leather OxA-23888 42BO1:10107 Moccasin leather OxA-23889 42BO1:10058 Moccasin leather OxA-23890 42BO1:10270 Moccasin leather OxA-23917 42BO1:11582.37 Moccasin leather OxA-23918 42BO1:11582 Moccasin leather AR 4195 OxA-23919 42BO1:11582.15 Moccasin leather OxA-23920 42BO1:10251 Moccasin leather OxA-23921 42BO1:10065 Moccasin leather OxA-24002 42BO1:11582.3 Moccasin leather OxA-24003 42BO1:11582.41 Moccasin leather OxA-24004 42BO1:10102 Moccasin leather OxA-26133 42BO1:11582.64 Hide, leather “sandal” OxA-26134 42BO1:AR815 Hide, leather “sandal” OxA-26135 42BO1:FS9625 Hide, drum top (?) OxA-26136 42BO1:10462 Twig, dart for hoop game OxA-26137 42BO1:11602.34 Twig, dart for hoop game OxA-26138 42BO1:11582.43 Moccasin leather Cave 2 OxA-18159 42BO2:10070 Leather from moccasin OxA-18462 42BO2:10409 Tule Matting aNot reported bCalibrations in OxCal v4.2, IntCal13 (Reimer et al. 2013) cOut of range.

δ13C

n.r.a n.r. n.r n.r. −23.9 −23.2 −20.35 −22.36 −22.20 −20.13 −20.20 −19.85 −24.90 −24.13 −24.78 −21.98 −24.88 −24.20 −26.42 −24.26 −23.05 −20.21 −20.33 −22.46 −19.49 −19.89 −19.46 −22.86 −22.21 −19.54 −20.01 −20.51 −18.67 −20.30 −20.21 −19.27 −20.36 −20.00 −18.68 −20.39 −19.85 −20.04 −19.75 −20.30 −20.13 −20.19 −20.66 −24.30 −19.30 −19.4 −23.1

14C

Date

Cal AD (2σ)

737 ± 27 699 ± 26

1225–1293 1264–1385

725 ± 35 785 ± 40 755 ± 40 330 ± 40 360 ± 40 610 ± 40 689 ± 26 692 ± 29 706 ± 27 753 ± 27 780 ± 26 784 ± 28 691 ± 27 733 ± 27 165 ± 25 746 ± 27 698 ± 26 700 ± 26 662 ± 26 726 ± 27 691 ± 27 730 ± 26 756 ± 24 826 ± 26 767 ± 26 758 ± 26 733 ± 24 824 ± 25 815 ± 24 802 ± 24 817 ± 24 714 ± 23 811 ± 23 793 ± 23 684 ± 23 775 ± 23 734 ± 23 763 ± 23 735 ± 23 757 ± 23 731 ± 24 723 ± 25 782 ± 25 766 ± 23 746 ± 22 679 ± 23 710 ± 23 826 ± 22 714 ± 22

1224–1382b 1170–1283 1191–1297 1466–1645 1450–1636 1290–1409 1269–1387 1265–1388 1260–1384 1223–1285 1217–1278 1209–1280 1266–1388 1225–1295 1664–c 1224–1288 1264–1385 1263–1385 1278–1391 1246–1377 1266–1388 1226–1296 1224–1283 1166–1261 1220–1280 1223–1283 1247–1294 1169–1261 1170–1265 1191–1273 1170–1264 1260–1379 1185–1268 1212–1274 1272–1386 1221–1277 1250–1293 1223–1280 1249–1293 1224–1283 1248–1295 1255–1298 1217–1277 1222–1280 1226–1287 1274–1388 1262–1380 1169–1259 1261–1298

Ives et al.]

A HIGH RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGY FOR STEWARD’S PROMONTORY CULTURE COLLECTIONS

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

Previous Efforts to Date the Promontory Phase Collections from Cave 1 and 2

Steward was strikingly prescient in his remarks concerning the age of the Promontory Phase materials in the caves, even though he worked two decades prior to the application of conventional radiocarbon dating. He applied his knowledge of contemporary eastern Great Basin work and information from Southwest tree ring and ceramic sequences, while making good use of the stratigraphy he observed (Reagan 1935a, 1935b). The Cave 1 Promontory Phase deposits lay at or near the surface and comprised roughly 60 cm of artifact-rich, highly fibrous, and largely organic deposits. Although Steward excavated a large area in Cave 1, he detected little trace of earlier artifacts in the compressed and relatively shallow cave deposits overlying the present day floor of the cave. In the greater region, where major habitable caves typically have lengthy occupational histories (e.g., Danger, Hogup, Mummy, or Spirit Caves), Cave 1 is therefore unique, featuring as it does a sudden onset of intensive occupation late in prehistory. The smaller Cave 2 is not nearly so heavily occupied in its Promontory Phase or lower layers, but has better-developed stratigraphy, with deeper underlying Holocene deposits above the Lake Bonneville sediments. Its Promontory Phase layers nevertheless provide the richest body of material culture in that cave too. In keeping with his perception that the Promontory Culture materials came from a northern hunting people who inhabited northern Utah long enough to begin acquiring southern and local traits, Steward (1937:83, 86) estimated that these peoples arrived some time after ca. A.D. 1000, perhaps roughly A.D. 1200, and vanished prior to the contact era. Steward (1940:473) thus felt that the Promontory Culture inhabitants of the caves had arrived before preexisting (Fremont) societies had come to an end, and persisted after the Fremont demise. He was further aware of nineteenth-century Shoshone presence in the Promontory region from his work with Old Diamond and his sister Posiats, both of them Promontory Shoshone, and Grouse Creek Jack, a Shoshone person living to the northwest of the Promontory region (Steward 1937; Kerns 2003). Aikens (1966:4) reported a single date of 840

629

± 75 B.P. (cal A.D. 1034–1279) for one of the Promontory Cave moccasins. Marwitt (1973) subsequently mentioned a leather date from Promontory Cave 1 of 320 ± 80 B.P. (cal A.D. 1431; out of range). More recently, Smith (2004) reported a date of 330 ± 40 B.P. (see Table 1, cal A.D. 1466–1635) on residue from a pottery sherd in Promontory Cave 1. Finally, the Natural History Museum of Utah secured AMS dates of 725 ± 35 (cal A.D. 1224–1382), 755 ± 40 (cal A.D. 1191– 1297), and 785 ± 40 B.P. (cal A.D. 1170–1283) for three Promontory moccasins (see Table 1, CAMS 112638–640; Janetski and Smith 2007). Materials and Methods

We discuss 51 AMS radiocarbon ages for Promontory Phase assemblages in Promontory Caves 1 and 2, including 45 AMS dates recently processed at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, four previously reported AMS samples (three on moccasins and one on sherd residue; Janetski and Smith 2007), and two new sherd residue dates. A broad array of substances has been dated, including leather, hide, sinew, wood (in both stave and twig forms), juniper bark, grass and other plant fibers, basketry material, tule matting, braided cattail, and cane. More than half of the dates come from footwear (25 Promontorystyle leather moccasins and three hide “sandals”); the remainder included gaming pieces (hoops and darts), the few instances of basketry, tule fringing and matting, a bow, arrowshafts, netting, and a possible drum top. The samples were processed with the treatment methods described in Brock et al. (2010) (Supplemental Text). Results of AMS Dating

The 51 AMS dates from Steward’s original collection are presented in Table 1 where we see that the perishable materials and faunal remains yielded ages in a narrow range from 662–826 B.P. (cal A.D. 1166–1391) in both caves. The Promontory Phase occupation of Cave 1 may have begun as early as the last half of the twelfth century, although the great majority of dates in Cave 1 are positioned within the thirteenth century. The ceramic residue ages are more recent, ranging from 330–610 B.P. (cal A.D. 1290–1465), with closer

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

630

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

parallels to the Promontory Phase dates for Salt Lake and Utah valleys cited above (cf. Janetski and Smith 2007). It could be that these sherds really are later than the perishable materials. From ongoing excavations, however, we know that Promontory pottery co-occurs with Promontory moccasins throughout Cave 1 Promontory Phase deposits. More investigation will be required, but there will likely turn out to be no real disparity between the age of the ceramics and perishables when more data accumulates. Cave 2 has never been the subject of radiometric dating. We report here two Promontory Phase AMS dates (42BO2:10070, leather from a moccasin [737 ± 27 B.P.; cal A.D. 1223–1285] and 42BO2:10409, tule matting [699 ± 26 B.P.; cal A.D. 1264–1385]). Johansson (2013:56) has also reported a date of 734 ± 41 B.P. (cal A.D. 1215–1385) for 42BO2:FS10480, a large artiodactyl bone from Cave 2. These dates cluster between 699 and 737 B.P. (cal A.D. 1264–1285) and are therefore contemporaneous with the dates for the Cave 1 Promontory Phase perishables. Three of the rare instances of basketry—and most particularly the one rod and bundle example (42BO1:9659; Figure 3a, Table 1)—each have dates consistent with the Promontory Phase occupation in Cave 1. The remaining basketry instance (42BO1:10409.1) recovered by Steward from Cave 1 produced an outlier date and does appear to be directly connected to a later Numic occupation (Figure 3b). It features close, diagonal twining with weft turns up to the right (as an S-twist) and appears to be the edge of a winnowing tray (Catherine Fowler, personal communication 2008; see also Fowler 1986:66 and Fowler and Dawson 1986:715). This fragment produced a date of 165 ± 25 B.P. (OxA-18463), with a 2s calibrated age range extending from A.D. 1664 to out of range. This result has several calibration intercepts; the seventeenth century peak (A.D. 1664–1697, p = .167) might reference an initial Shoshonean occupation of Promontory Cave 1, while the eighteenth to nineteenth century range (A.D. 1725–1815, p = .521; A.D. 1835–1878, p = .068) would be consistent with the nineteenth century Shoshone presence Steward documented.

Discussion

[Vol. 79, No. 4, 2014

The artifacts we selected for dating reflected several ongoing research strategies. The large number of moccasin dates results from two circumstances. We are currently exploring the relationship between the absolute age of a moccasin and both its length and the degree of refinement reflected in the sewing of a moccasin. Moccasin length data allow us to predict the foot size, stature, and age for the wearer, while sewing refinement could reveal potential temporal trends in the skill accompanying moccasin manufacture (Billinger and Ives 2014). Both interests necessitate reasonable sample sizes extending across a range of moccasin attributes. Our selection of artifacts was also influenced by the debate concerning the relative degree of continuity between late Fremont and Promontory Phase assemblages. In defending his interpretation of the Promontory materials, Steward (1955:89) argued that “the pottery is unique, the moccasins are wholly unlike any Shoshonean type but identical with a Canadian style, basketry is unimportant and the people seem to have been primarily bison hunters and not gatherers.” Certain elements in the Promontory assemblages might therefore be regarded as characteristic of the region, whereas others are uncharacteristic of the region. We confine our discussion here to those perishable and other objects for which we could secure direct AMS dates. For elements characteristic of the region, we were interested in dating the few instances of basketry, including one specimen with one rod and bundle construction, two specimens with one or two rods interlocked, and a winnowing basket. One rod and bundle basketry construction is regarded as diagnostic of Fremont material culture (Adovasio 1986:202). We regarded a cane arrow fragment and a wooden arrow shaft segment (frequently used in conjunction with cane, which was otherwise inclined to split during use) as other elements typical of the Great Basin. Another date for a juniper bark “pottery ring” also falls into this category. We are not aware of evidence for such material culture in the northern Plains region, and pottery is entirely

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

Ives et al.]

A HIGH RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGY FOR STEWARD’S PROMONTORY CULTURE COLLECTIONS

631

Figure 8. Bayesian modeling of the onset and ending of the Promontory Phase occupation in Caves 1 and 2, based on 48 AMS dates from Steward’s original Promontory collections, indicating the probable interval of occupation during the thirteenth century.

absent from the archaeological record over most of the western Subarctic region (save for those areas of Alaska where Dene speakers such as the Deghitan and Koyukon were in close proximity to Eskimoan populations who did make pottery). Although they do not have cross-pieces, these Promontory artifacts also resemble hoop game rings; should they have been hoops, their construction from juniper bark also seems more typical of the southern world (Culin 1907). With respect to footwear, the Promontory moccasins in BSM styles 2 (Ab) and 2 (Bb) are clearly out of place in the northeastern Great Basin. They reflect a northern element in the assemblages, just as Steward concluded (see the discussion above, as well as Driver and Massey’s [1957:323, 327] maps on the historic distribution of softsoled moccasins and quill decorative techniques). The hide sandals with loop and drawstring construction are known to occur in instances extending from Nevada across the Plains and into the Ozarks. With Fremont-, Hogup-, and hock-style moccasins, we regard them as characteristic of the region and as a southern element in the Promontory assemblages.

Bayesian Modeling of the Promontory Cave Ages

With the relatively large number of AMS ages available to us, we are able to pose some key questions for which Bayesian models can provide answers (Bronk Ramsey 2009). These questions concern the timing of the onset of Promontory Cave 1 and 2 occupations, their duration, and the

relative temporal position of artifacts characteristic of the region versus artifacts uncharacteristic of the region. With regard to the duration of the occupations, all of the Promontory Phase perishable dates (48 in total, as per Table 1) were modeled as a single phase of activity (Bronk Ramsey 2009). There is a very high probability that Caves 1 and 2 were inhabited for a period of 20–50 years—essentially one or two human generations (Supplemental Figure 2). Figure 8 shows probabilities for the inferred start and end calibrated dates for all of the Promontory Phase perishable results: the onset of this rather brief occupation centered on ca. A.D. 1250, while the ending centered on ca. A.D. 1290. Because there is a legitimate basis to a distinction between artifacts that are characteristic as opposed to uncharacteristic of the northeastern Great Basin, it is also possible to query the sample of AMS ages for these distinctions (cf. Bronk Ramsey 2009). We therefore created separate subsamples of “northern” or regionally uncharacteristic artifacts (comprising dates CAMS-112638–40, OxA18157–62, OxA-23853–57, OxA-23886–90, OxA23917–21, OxA-24002–04, and OxA-26138; see Table 1) as well as “southern” or regionally characteristic artifacts (comprising dates OxA-18156, OxA-18460–62, OxA-18464–69, and OxA26133–35; see Table 1). We then modeled the start and end dates for each of the regionally characteristic and uncharacteristic subsamples of dates. Figure 9 shows that the ages for the two categories of artifact overlap in time, but also that the “northern” or regionally uncharacteristic artifacts tend to pre-

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

632

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 79, No. 4, 2014

Figure 9. Bayesian analysis of two subpopulations of Cave 1 and Cave 2 Promontory Phase AMS ages for artifacts (top) uncharacteristic of the Great Basin (with northern ties), and (bottom) AMS ages for artifacts characteristic of the Great Basin (with southern ties). The start and end dates for the two subsamples overlap, but the uncharacteristic artifacts tend to precede the characteristic artifacts.

cede the “southern” or regionally characteristic artifacts. These patterns in the present sample are consistent with Steward’s notion that an intrusive population began to take up regional material culture (cf. Ives 2014; Sapir 1936:235). Despite the rather sudden appearance of the thick Promontory Phase deposits, one might also ask is there any evidence for the emergence of a progressively more refined sewing tradition in the Promontory moccasins? The data portrayed in Figure 10 would suggest that there is not. There is no significant correlation in a modest sample of moccasin dates (n = 20, comprising median, calibrated dates) plotted against the number of stitches per cm on the upper of each moccasin. In fact, the eight earliest dates in that sample reflect the entire gamut of stitching expertise, from coarsest to finest. The moccasin with the finest stitching (42BO1 10241) has the most elaborate and intricate quill decoration of all the Promontory moccasins; it is also one of the earlier Promontory Phase dates (OxA-18162, 784 ± 28 B.P., with a median calibrated date of A.D. 1246 [2s range of A.D. 1209– 1280]). Given that there is so very much direct

evidence of hide processing and moccasin production in Promontory Cave 1, it would seem reasonable to think that the entire range of sewing skills existed from the onset of occupation— including instances of sewing and decorative mastery that would take years to learn and perfect. Conclusions

The Promontory Phase occupations in Promontory Caves 1 and 2 date to an interval running from 662 to 826 B.P. (cal A.D. 1166–1391). Bayesian modeling provides strong indications that those two caves were intensively inhabited for a brief period of time extending from ca. A.D. 1250–1290, an interval that would reflect one or two human generations. The Promontory Phase occupations on Promontory Point therefore do precede those of Utah Valley, Salt Lake Valley, adjacent Idaho, and the Bear River sites. The winnowing basket verifies a later period occupation of Promontory Cave 1 by Shoshone people. Steward’s estimates for the age and timing of these occupations were uncannily accurate.

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

Ives et al.]

A HIGH RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGY FOR STEWARD’S PROMONTORY CULTURE COLLECTIONS

633

Figure 10. A cross-plot of 20 AMS moccasin ages (calibrated to median calendar years A.D.) against the average number of stitches per cm on the upper of a moccasin, showing that there is no temporal trend in the sophistication of sewing. A complete range of skills is evident from the earliest Promontory Phase occupation of Caves 1 and 2. If anything, this index of sewing skill may diminish slightly through time.

The abruptly intrusive nature of some material culture (particularly the moccasins)—and the temporal patterning for artifacts both characteristic and uncharacteristic of the northeastern Great Basin—are consistent with Steward’s inferences that a northern, bison hunting population had entered the caves, and had begun to take up regional material culture. Much more can be done with the existing collections at the Natural History Museum of Utah, and our ongoing excavations will help in disentangling Cave 1 and 2 stratigraphies, particularly with respect to internally differentiated levels with the Promontory Phase layer itself. We can, however, regard the Promontory Phase occupation of Cave 1 in particular as securely dated. Steward’s suspicion that Apachean ancestors were in the Promontory caves was well

warranted. Although a number of possibilities must continue to be entertained, it is quite plausible that either Apachean ancestors or a terminal Fremont population under strong northern Plains influence (that could well have been Apachean in origin) were in the caves.

Acknowledgments. Michelle Knoll, Kathy Kankainen, Glenna Nielsen-Grimm, Janaki Krishna, and Duncan Metcalfe of the Natural History Museum of Utah provided us with greatly valued assistance on this project. Our work in the Promontory caves would not be possible without the friendship, hard work, and most generous assistance of George and Kumeroa Chournos. Gabriel Yanicki, Reid Graham, and Courtney Lakevold helped with diagrams and maps. Perla Ben-Zvi and Risa Piper assisted with the Spanish abstract. Thanks also to Lindsay Johansson, Katie Richards, Scott Ure, and Richard Talbot for field and laboratory assistance through Brigham Young University. Mr. Bruce Starlight (Tsuut’ina Gunaha In-

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

634

stitute) has provided wise counsel from a Dene perspective. We thank the Archaeological Survey of Alberta and Sally Rice (University of Alberta) for assistance with the early stages of this project, and the College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences, Brigham Young University, for a Faculty Research grant. Ives acknowledges support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Standard Research Grant 410–2010–0480 and Insight Grant 435– 2012–0140), as well as funds from the Landrex Distinguished Professorship, University of Alberta. We appreciated improvements to the article suggested by reviewers.

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

Supplemental Materials. Supplemental materials are linked to the online version of the paper, which is accessible via the SAA member login at www.saa.org/members-login.

References Cited

Achilli, Alessandro, Ugo A. Perego, Hovirag Lancioni, Anna Olivieri, Francesca Gandini, Baharak Hooshiar Kashani, Vincenza Battaglia, Viola Grugni, Norman Angerhofer, Mary P. Rogers, Rene J. Herrera, Scott R. Woodward, Damian Labuda, David Glenn Smith, Jerome S. Cybulski, Ornella Semino, Ripan S. Malhi, and Antonio Torroni 2013 Reconciling Migration Models to the Americas with the Variation of North American Native Mitogenomes. PNAS 110:14308–14313. Adovasio, James M. 1986 Prehistoric Basketry. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevado, pp. 194–205. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Aikens, C. Melvin 1966 Fremont-Promontory-Plains Relationships, Including a Report of Excavations at the Injun Creek and Bear River No. 1 Sites, Northern Utah. Anthropological Papers No. 82. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 1967 Plains Relationships of the Fremont Culture: A Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32:198–209. 1970 Hogup Cave. Anthropological Papers No. 93. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 1972 Fremont Culture: Restatement of Some Problems. American Antiquity 37:61–66. Allison, James R. (Editor) 2002 Archaeological Excavations at the Salt Lake Airport. Research Report No. 02-23. Baseline Data, Inc, American Fork, Utah. Allison, James R., Judi L. Cameron, Arlene Colman, and Quint A. Colman 2000 Test Excavations at 42DV2, A Late Prehistoric and Archaic Site in the Jordan River Delta, Davis County, Utah. Research Report No. U97–20. Prepared by Baseline Data, Inc., Orem, Utah. Prepared for the Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City. Arkush, Brooke S. 2002 Archaeology of the Rock Springs Site: A Multi-Component Bison Kill and Processing Camp in Curlew Valley, Southeastern Idaho. Monographs in Archaeology No. 1. Boise State University, Boise, Idaho. 2008 The Archaeology of Standing Rock Overhang: A Long-Term Record of Bighorn Sheep Hunting and Processing in Southeastern Idaho. Intermountain Region Heritage Report 3–06. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.

[Vol. 79, No. 4, 2014

2014 Report of Archaeological Investigations at 10Oa275 on the Curlew National Grassland in Southeastern Idaho. Cooperative Agreement 04-CS-11041563-033, CaribouTarghee National Forest, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, ID. Baillargeon, Morgan 2010 North American Aboriginal Hide Tanning: The Act of Transformation and Revival. Ethnology No.146. Canadian Museum of Civilization Mercury Series, Gatineau, Québec. Benson, Larry V., Michael S. Berry, Edward A. Jolie, Jerry D. Spangler, David W. Stahle, Eugene M. Hattorif 2007 Possible Impacts of Early-11th-, Middle-12th-, and Late-13th-Century Droughts on Western Native Americans and the Mississippian Cahokians. Quaternary Science Review 26:336–350. Billinger, Michael and John W. Ives 2014 Inferring Demographic Structure with Moccasin Size Data from the Promontory Caves. American Journal of Physical Anthropology DOI: 10.1002/ajpa22629. Binford, Lewis R. 2001 Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Ethnographic and Environmental Data Sets. University of California Press, Berkeley. Brasser, Ted J. 1987 By the Power of Their Dreams: Artistic Traditions of the Northern Plains. In The Spirit Sings: Artistic Traditions of Canada’s First Peoples, edited by the Glenbow Museum, pp. 93–131. Glenbow Museum and McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, Ontario. Brock, Fiona, Thomas Higham, Peter Ditchfield, and Christopher Bronk Ramsey 2010 Current Pretreatment Methods for AMS Radiocarbon Dating at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Radiocarbon 52:103–112. Bronk Ramsey, Christopher 2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51:337–360. Brugge, David M. 2003 DNA and Ancient Demography. In Climbing the Rocks: Papers in Honor of Helen and Jay Croty, edited by Regge N. Wiseman, Thomas C. O’Laughlin, and Cordelia T. Snow, pp. 49–56. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico Vol. 29. Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 2006 When Were the Navajos? In Southwestern Interludes: Papers in Honor of Charlotte J. and Theodore R. Frisbe, edited by Regge N. Wiseman, Thomas C. O’Laughlin, and Cordelia T. Snow, pp. 45–52. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico Vol. 32. Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Butler, B. Robert 1983 The Quest for the Historic Fremont and a Guide to the Prehistoric Pottery of Southern Idaho. Occasional Papers No. 33. Idaho Museum of Natural History, Pocatello. Cannon, Mike, and Sarah Creer (editors) 2011 Data Recovery Excavations at 42DV2, Davis County, Utah. SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 2010–350. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City, Utah. Coltrain, Joan B., and Steven W. Leavitt 2002 Climate and Diet in Fremont Prehistory: Economic Variability and Abandonment of Maize Agriculture in the Great Salt Lake Basin. American Antiquity 67:453–485. Coltrain, Joan B., and Thomas W. Stafford 1999 Stable Carbon Isotopes and Great Salt Lake Wetlands Diet: Towards an Understanding of the Great Basin For-

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

Ives et al.]

A HIGH RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGY FOR STEWARD’S PROMONTORY CULTURE COLLECTIONS

mative. In Prehistoric Lifeways in the Great Basin Wetlands: Bioarchaeological Reconstruction and Interpretation, edited by Brian E. Hemphill and Clark Spencer Larsen, pp. 55–83. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Cooper, Judith R. 2008 Bison Hunting and Late Prehistoric Human Subsistence Economies in the Great Plains. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. Culin, Stewart 1907 Games of the North American Indians. Annual Report No. 24. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Driver, Harold R., and William C. Massey 1957 Comparative Studies of North American Indians. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society New Series 47:165–456. Philadelphia. Enger, Walter D. 1942 Archaeology of Black Rock III Cave, Utah. Archaeology and Ethnology Papers No. 7. Museum of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erickson, R. P. 2009 Autosomal Recessive Diseases among the Athabaskans of the Southwestern United States: Recent Advances and Implications for the Future. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 149A:2602–2611. Forsyth, Donald 1986 Post Formative Ceramics in the Eastern Great Basin: A Reappraisal of the Promontory Problem. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8:180–203. Fowler, Catherine S. 1986 Subsistence. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevado, pp. 64–97. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Fowler, Catherine S., and Lawrence E. Dawson 1986 Ethnographic Basketry. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevado, pp. 194–205. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Frison, George 1968 Daugherty Cave, Wyoming. Plains Anthropologist 13:253–295. Gilmore, Kevin P. 2005 National Register Nomination Form Franktown Cave (5DA272) Douglas County, Colorado. https://www.google.ca/search?q=franktown+cave+colorado&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:enUS:official&client=firefox-a, accessed March 17, 2013. Grayson, Donald K. 2006 Holocene Bison in the Great Basin, Western USA. The Holocene 16:913–925. Greer, Sheila, and Diane Strand 2012 Cultural Landscapes, Past and Present, and the South Yukon Ice Patches. Arctic 65 (Supplement 1):136–152. Gruhn, Ruth 1961 A Collection of Artifacts from Pence-Deurig Cave in South-Central Idaho. Tebiwa 4:1–24. 2007 New Excavations at Wilson Butte Cave. Occasional Papers No. 38. Idaho Museum of Natural History, Pocatello. Gunnerson, James H. 1956 Plains-Promontory Relationships. American Antiquity 22:69–72. 1960 An Introduction to Plains Apache Archaeology: The Dismal River Aspect. Bulletin No. 173. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

635

Hare, P. Gregory, Christian D. Thomas, Timothy N. Topper, and Ruth M. Gotthardt 2012 The Archaeology of Yukon Ice Patches: New Artifacts, Observations, and Insights. Arctic 65 (Supplement 1):118– 135. Hatt, Gudmund 1916 Moccasins and Their Relation to Arctic Footwear. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 3:149–250. Houston, C. Stuart (editor) 1994 Arctic Artist: The Journal and Paintings of George Back, Midshipman with Franklin, 1819–1822. McGillQueen’s University Press, Montreal, Québec. Husted, Wilfred M., and Robert Edgar 2002 The Archeology of Mummy Cave, Wyoming: An Introduction to Shoshonean Prehistory. Midwest Archeological Center Special Report No. 4 and Southeast Archeological Center Technical Reports Series No. 9. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Ives, John W. 1990 A Theory of Northern Athapaskan Prehistory. Westview Press/University of Calgary Press, Boulder, Colorado/Calgary, Alberta. 1998 Developmental Processes in the Pre-Contact History of Athapaskan, Algonquian and Numic Kin Systems. In Transformations of Kinship, the Round Table: Dravidian, Iroquois and Crow-Omaha Kinship Systems, edited by Maurice Godelier, Thomas R. Trautmann, and Franklin Tjon Sie Fat, pp. 94–139. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 2003 Alberta, Athapaskans and Apachean origins. In Archaeology in Alberta: A View from the New Millennium, edited by Jack W. Brink and John F. Dormaar, pp. 256– 289. Archaeological Society of Alberta, Medicine Hat. 2010 Dene-Yeniseian, Migration and Prehistory. In The Dene-Yeneseian Hypothesis, edited by J. Karie and B. Potter, pp. 324–334. Anthropological Papers Vol. 5. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 2014 Resolving the Promontory Culture Enigma. In Archaeology for All Time: Essays in Honor of Don D. Fowler, edited by Nancy J. Parezo and Joel C. Janetski, pp. 149–162. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Janetski, Joel C. 1994 Recent Transitions in the Eastern Great Basin: The Archaeological record. In Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 157–178. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 1999 Steward and Utah Archaeology. In Julian Steward and the Great Basin, edited by Richard O. Clemmer, L. Daniel Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden, pp. 19–34. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Janetski, Joel C., and Grant C. Smith 2007 Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in Utah Valley. Occasional Paper 12. Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Jennings, Jesse D. 1957 Danger Cave. Anthropological Papers Number 27. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Johansson, Lindsay D. 2013 Promontory Culture: The Faunal Evidence. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Kerns, Virginia 2003 Scenes from the High Desert: Julian Steward’s Life and Theory. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

636

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Krauss, Michael E., and Victor K. Golla 1981 Northern Athapaskan Languages. In Subarctic, edited by June Helm, pp. 67–85. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 6, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Kutruff, Jenna T., S. Gail DeHart, and Michael J. O’Brien 1998 7500 years of Prehistoric Footwear from Arnold Research Cave, Missouri. Science 281:72–75. Lamb, S. M. 1958 Linguistic Prehistory of the Great Basin. International Journal of American Linguistics 24:95–100. Le Blanc, Raymond J. 1984 The Rat Indian Creek Site and the Late Prehistoric Period in the Northern Interior Yukon. Paper No. 120. National Museum of Man Mercury Series. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Lupo, Karen, and David Schmitt 1997 On Late Holocene Variability in Bison Populations in the Northeastern Great Basin. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 19:50–69. Madsen, David B. 1983 Black Rock Cave Revisited. Cultural Resource Series No. 14. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah. Madsen, David B., and Michael S. Berry 1975 A Reassessment of Northeastern Great Basin Prehistory. American Antiquity 40:391–405. Malhi, Ripan S. 2012 DNA Evidence of a Prehistoric Athapaskan Migration from the Subarctic to the Southwest of North America. In From the Land of Everwinter to the American Southwest: Athapaskan Migrations, Mobility and Ethnogenesis, edited by Deni J. Seymour, pp. 241–248. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Marie, Suzan, and Judy Thompson 2004 Whadò? Tehmi, Long-Ago People’s Packsack—Dene Babiche Bags: Tradition and Revival. Ethnology Paper No. 141. Canadian Museum of Civilization Mercury Series, Gatineau, Québec. Marwitt, John P. 1973 Median Village and Fremont Culture Regional Variation. Anthropological Papers No. 95. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Matson, R. G., and Martin P. R. Magne 2007 Athapaskan Migrations: The Archaeology of Eagle Lake, British Columbia. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Monroe, Cara, Brian M. Kemp, and David Glenn Smith 2013 Exploring Prehistory in the North American Southwest with Mitochondrial DNA Diversity Exhibited by Yumans and Athapaskans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 150:618–631. Pokotylo, David L., and Christopher C. Hanks 1989 Variability in Curated Lithic Technologies: An Ethnoarchaeological Case Study from the Mackenzie Basin, Northwest Territories, Canada. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by Daniel S. Amick and Raymond Mauldin, pp. 49–66. BAR International Series 528. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Rainey, Froelich G. 1939 Archaeology in Central Alaska. Anthropological Papers Vol. 36, Part 4.American Museum of Natural History, New York. Reagan, Albert B. 1935a Archaeological Report of Field Work Done in Utah in 1934–35. Proceedings of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 12:50–87.

[Vol. 79, No. 4, 2014

1935b Some Notes on an Ancient Culture of the ProvoSalt Lake Region. Northwest Science 9(2):13–15. Reed, William G. 1986 Artifacts of a Lifeway. In Shoshone-Bannock Culture History, edited by Richard N. Holmer, pp. 245–270. Reports of Investigations 85–16. Swanson/Crabtree Anthropological Research Laboratory, Idaho State University, Pocatello. Reimer, Paula J., Edouard Bard, Alex Bayliss, J. Warren Beck, Paul G. Blackwell, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Caitlin E. Buck, Hai Cheng, R. Lawrence Edwards, Michael Friedrich, Pieter M. Grootes, Thomas P. Guilderson, Haflidi Haflidason, Irka Hajdas, Christine Hatté, Timothy J. Heaton, Dirk L. Hoffmann, Alan G. Hogg, Konrad A. Hughen, K. Felix Kaiser, Bernd Kromer, Sturt W. Manning, Mu Niu, Ron W. Reimer, David A. Richards, E. Marian Scott, John R. Southon, Richard A. Staff, Christian S. M. Turney, and Johannes van der Plicht 2013 IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years Cal BP. Radiocarbon 55:1869– 1887. Rexroth, Allison N. 2010 Prehistoric Sandals of the Southern High Plains: Indicators of Cultural Affinity and Change. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Reynolds, Marge 1977 Dene Arts and Crafts. Saskatchewan Indian Cultural College, Saskatoon. Rhode, David, and David R. Madsen 1994 Where are We? In Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 213–221. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Rice, Keren 2012 Linguistic Evidence Regarding Apachean Migration. In From the Land of Everwinter to the American Southwest: Athapaskan Migrations, Mobility and Ethnogenesis, edited by Deni J. Seymour, pp. 249–270. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Rudy, Jack R. 1953 An Archaeological Survey of Western Utah. Anthropological Papers No. 12. Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Sapir, Edward 1936 Internal Linguistic Evidence Suggestive of the Northern Origin of the Navaho. American Anthropologist 38: 224–235. Simms, Stephen R. 1999 Farmers, Foragers and Adaptive Diversity: The Great Salt Lake Wetlands Project. In Prehistoric Lifeways of the Great Basin Wetlands: Bioarchaeological Reconstruction and Interpretation, edited by Brian E. Hemphill and Clark Spencer Larsen, pp. 21–54. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2008 Ancient Peoples of the Great Basin & Colorado Plateau. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. Simms, Stephen R., Jason R. Bright, and Andrew Ugan 1997 Plain-Ware Ceramics and Residential Mobility: A Case Study from the Great Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:779–792. Simms, Stephen R., and Kathleen M. Heath 1990 Site Structure of the Orbit Inn: An Application of Ethnoarchaeology. American Antiquity 55:797–813. Simms, Stephen R., Carl J. Loveland, and Mark E. Stuart 1991 Prehistoric Human Skeletal Remains and the Prehistory

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

Ives et al.]

A HIGH RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGY FOR STEWARD’S PROMONTORY CULTURE COLLECTIONS

of the Great Salt Lake Wetlands. Contributions to Anthropology No. 6. Utah State University, Logan. Smith, Elmer R. 1952 The Archaeology of Deadman Cave, Utah: A Revision. Anthropological Papers No. 10. Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Smith, Grant C. 2004 Promontory Ware or Promontory Gray? Revisiting the Classification Problems of Eastern Great Basin Ceramics. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Steward, Julian 1937 Ancient Caves of the Great Salt Lake Region. Smithsonian Institution Bulletin No. 115. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bulletin No. 120. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1940 Native Cultures of the Intermontane (Great Basin) Area. In Essays in Historical Anthropology of North America: Published in Honor of John R. Swanton, edited by Alfred L. Kroeber, pp. 445–502. Miscellaneous Collections Vol. 100. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1943 Culture Element Distributions: XXIII, Northern and Gosiute Shoshone. Anthropological Records Vol. 8, Part 3. University of California, Berkeley. 1955 Review of Archaeological Survey of Western Utah by Jack R. Rudy. American Antiquity 21:88–89. Teit, James Alexander 1956 Field Notes on the Tahltan and Kaska Indians: 1912– 1915. Anthropologica (o.s.) 3:39–171.

637

Thompson, Judy 1987 No Little Variety of Ornament: Northern Athapaskan Artistic Traditions. In The Spirit Sings: Artistic Traditions of Canada’s First Peoples, edited by the Glenbow Museum, pp. 133–168. Glenbow Museum and McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, Ontario. 1990 Pride of the Indian Wardrobe: Northern Athapaskan Footwear. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. 1994 From the Land: Two Hundred Years of Dene Clothing. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Québec. Turner, Geoffrey 1976 Hair Embroidery in Siberia and North America. Occasional Paper on Technology No. 7. Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford, Oxford. Webber, Alika Podolinsky 1989 North American Indian and Eskimo Footwear: A Typology and Glossary. Bata Shoe Museum, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. Workman, William B. 1978 Prehistory of the Aishihik-Kluane Area, Southwest Yukon Territory. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 74. National Museum of Man Mercury Series Ottawa, Ontario. Zolbrod, Paul G. 1984 Diné bahané: The Navajo Creation Story. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Submitted January 11, 2014; Revised March 10, 2014; Accepted April 8, 2014.

A HIGH RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGY FOR STEWARD’S PROMONTORY CULTURE COLLECTIONS, PROMONTORY POINT, UTAH: SUPPLEMENTAL TEXT

John W. Ives, Duane G. Froese, Joel C. Janetski, Fiona Brock, and Christopher Bronk Ramsey

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

AMS Radiocarbon Sample Treatment

continuous-flow mode. Carbon dioxide from the combustion was cryogenically distilled and graphite prepared by reduction of CO2 over an iron catalyst in the presence of excess hydrogen prior to AMS radiocarbon measurement.

Artifacts from the Promontory Cave deposits come from a dry cave context where there are rich organic deposits with a degree of internal differentiation (Supplemental Figure 1). The moccasins in Steward’s original collection have nevertheless been the subject of complex curatorial and conservation histories that had the potential to impact our radiocarbon results: we therefore describe our treatment methods in detail (cf. Brock et al. 2010). All Oxford samples were initially subjected to a solvent extraction to remove any potential contamination from any museumadded preservation treatments by sequential rinsing with acetone (45°C, 1 hour), methanol (45°C, up to 3 hours) and chloroform (room temperature, 1 hour) before being left to air dry. The leather samples were then given an acid-base-acid (ABA) treatment consisting of sequential washes with .5 M HCl (room temperature, 20 minutes), .2 M NaOH (room temperature, 20 minutes), .5 M HCl (room temperature, 1 hour), and 2.5 percent (w/v) NaClO2 solution at pH3 (70°C, up to 30 minutes), with thorough rinsing with ultrapure water after each wash. The samples of plant material (bark, netting, and grass) were given a similar treatment using 1 M HCl (80°C, 20 minutes), .2 M NaOH (80°C, 20 minutes), 1 M HCl (80°C, 1 hour) and 2.5 or 5 percent (w/v) NaClO2 solution at pH3 (80°C, up to 30 minutes). The samples were freeze-dried before being combusted at 1000°C and mass spectrometrically analyzed using a Europa ANCA Roboprep interfaced with a Europa 20/20 IRMS operating under

Comparative Examples of Late Prehistoric Moccasins

Footwear is rare in the archaeological record, and there is a substantial temporal gap between the nineteenth-century instances described in the article and more ancient examples. Yet, we do have some broader knowledge of late period prehistoric moccasin manufacture in western North America. In Idaho, the Wilson Butte Cave moccasin has a single-piece, hard-leather sole joined to a singlepiece, soft-leather upper, to which an ankle wrap is attached (Gruhn 2007). Pence-Deurig Cave yielded two hock moccasins plus another softsoled moccasin of similar construction to the Wilson Butte example, but with a coarsely laced center seam running from the toe up the instep (Gruhn 1961:14–15 and her Figure 6). The PenceDeurig collection is of uncertain age, although much of it is likely of late prehistoric age. In Wyoming, at Mummy Cave, Husted and Edgar (2002:90, Plate 57) described a boot or hightopped moccasin made of mountain sheep hide with hair intact. The foot of this artifact is made of four pieces of hide sewn longitudinally with a running stitch, with seams along both edges and down the center of the sole and body. It came from layer 36, which produced a single radiocar-

American Antiquity 79(4), 2014, pp. S1–S4 Copyright © 2014 by the Society for American Archaeology S1

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

S2

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY SUPPLEMENTAL TEXT

[Vol. 79, No. 4, 2014]

Supplemental Figure 1. A 2013 test section adjacent to Steward’s Trench B excavation, in the back of Promontory Cave 1. Fibrous, perishable rich Promontory Phase layers roughly 60 cm thick overlie sterile mineral sediments in a stratigraphic arrangement much as Steward (1937) described over larger areas of Cave 1.

bon date of 1230 ± 110 radiocarbon years before present (I-1009; cal A.D. 625–1018). The toe half of a moccasin with bison fur turned inward from Level 1 (likely late prehistoric in age) in Daugherty Cave is more similar to the Promontory moccasins, but nevertheless features a single piece for a sole, reinforced by patches, and is seamed to the upper; the bison leather and fur interior inset is stitched to the sole (Frison 1968:284). None of these moccasins from Idaho and Wyoming has construction details like those at Promontory, making the Promontory moccasins unique in a larger region for later period prehistoric footwear (apart from the Promontory-style moccasin (BSM 2 [Bb]) from Franktown Cave in Colorado (Gilmore 2005). Evaluating Promontory Phase Artifacts from Other Regional Perspectives

Although the task is challenging because it requires extensive knowledge of archaeological and ethnological assemblages extending far beyond

the Great Basin and Southwest, the large and diverse Promontory assemblage Steward recovered does need to be assessed from Subartic, Plains, and Plateau perspectives. Steward (1937) wondered if the linear segment of knotless netting (Table 1, 42BO1 10513, OxA-18158, 706 ± 27 B.P., cal A.D. 1260–1384) that he recovered might be part of a hair net, but this seems improbable. The artifact is not characteristic of Great Basin material culture (Catherine Fowler, personal communication 2008). Although this artifact is fashioned from a vegetal fiber, Steward’s (1937) diagram for this netting (as well as our direct observation) confirms a pattern of knotless construction identical to that applied in Dene hunting bags (Marie and Thompson 2004). These were typically woven with babiche or caribou leather thong. Hunting bags were a unique aspect of nineteenth-century Dene material culture. Although Steward noted that Lemhi Shoshone used mittens, the two Promontory mittens that he found are not characteristic of the Great Basin (Catherine Fowler, personal communication

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

[Vol. 79, No. 4, 2014]

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY SUPPLEMENTAL TEXT

S3

Supplemental Figure 2. Bayesian modeling of the duration of Promontory Phase occupation, based upon 48 AMS dates from Steward’s original Promontory collections, indicating the probable length of occupation (one to two human generations).

2008; Steward 1937:50, 70, 84, and 1943:323). Steward was also aware that the incised Beaver tooth die he found at Promontory resembled Plateau and Puget Sound examples (Culin 1907:155–158; Steward 1937:26). Gaming requires a degree of fluency among participants: the hoops, darts, possible hand game pieces, and cane dice Steward found are being reevaluated with current knowledge of gaming and gambling practices in intersocietal contexts (Yanicki and Ives 2012). There is a full complement of hide-processing implements in the Promontory Phase assemblages, and here too we see artifacts common in Plains and Subarctic settings. A variety of finely formed through expedient fleshers are present, along with beamers and a number of endscrapers. Tabular bifaces or chi-thos such as the one illustrated in Figure 3g are typical of western Subarctic prehistoric assemblages, and remain in use today among Dene women practicing traditional hide preparation (Baillargeon 2010; Le Blanc 1984; Pokotylo and Hanks 1989; Rainey 1939; Workman 1978). There are a number of these

implements in Promontory Phase assemblages in the Great Salt Lake area, although they are apparently absent from Fremont assemblages in the Great Basin. These distinctive artifacts are often made on tabular raw materials such as schist, slate, or sandstone, in a D-shape, and have the specific function of softening leather. Considerably more comparative work would be most desirable for the Promontory artifacts, and holds promise for a more refined understanding of these assemblages. Duration of the Promontory Phase Occupations in Caves 1 and 2

All of the Promontory Phase perishable dates (48 in total, as per Table 1) were modeled as a single phase of activity (Bronk Ramsey 2009). On the basis of this model, Supplemental Figure 2 shows the number of years encompassed by the start and end of the phase. There is a very high probability that Caves 1 and 2 were inhabited for a period of 20–50 years—essentially one or two human generations. The statistical possibility of an

S4

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY SUPPLEMENTAL TEXT

even briefer period of occupation (a year or less) seems low given the volume of culturally introduced materials in the caves. The onset of this rather brief occupation centered on ca. A.D. 1250, while the ending centered on ca. A.D. 1290.

Delivered by http://saa.metapress.com Society for American Archaeology - American Antiquity access (392-89-746) IP Address: 50.65.149.36 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:53:28 PM

Supplemental References Cited

Baillargeon, Morgan 2010 North American Aboriginal Hide Tanning: The Act of Transformation and Revival. Ethnology No.146. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Gatineau, Québec. Brock, Fiona, Thomas Higham, Peter Ditchfield, and Christopher Bronk Ramsey 2010 Current Pretreatment Methods for AMS Radiocarbon Dating at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Radiocarbon 52:103–112. Bronk Ramsey, Christopher 2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51:337–360. Culin, Stewart 1907 Games of the North American Indians. Annual Report No. 24. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Frison, George 1968 Daugherty Cave, Wyoming. Plains Anthropologist 13:253–295. Gilmore, Kevin P. 2005 National Register Nomination Form Franktown Cave (5DA272) Douglas County, Colorado. https://www.google.ca/ search?q=franktown+cave+colorado&ie=utf-8&oe=utf8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a, accessed March 17, 2013. Gruhn, Ruth 1961 A Collection of Artifacts from Pence-Deurig Cave in South-Central Idaho. Tebiwa 4:1–24. 2007 New Excavations at Wilson Butte Cave. Occasional Papers No. 38. Idaho Museum of Natural History, Pocatello. Husted, Wilfred M., and Robert Edgar 2002 The Archeology of Mummy Cave, Wyoming: An Introduction to Shoshonean Prehistory. Midwest Archeo-

[Vol. 79, No. 4, 2014]

logical Center Special Report No. 4 and Southeast Archeological Center Technical Reports Series No. 9. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Le Blanc, Raymond J. 1984 The Rat Indian Creek Site and the Late Prehistoric Period in the Northern Interior Yukon. Paper No. 120. National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Marie, Suzan, and Judy Thompson 2004 Whadò? Tehmi, Long-Ago People’s Packsack—Dene Babiche Bags: Tradition And Revival. Ethnology Paper No. 141. Canadian Museum of Civilization Mercury Series, Gatineau, Québec. Pokotylo, David L., and Christopher C. Hanks 1989 Variability in Curated Lithic Technologies: An Ethnoarchaeological Case Study from the Mackenzie Basin, Northwest Territories, Canada. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by Daniel S. Amick and Raymond Mauldin, pp. 49–66. BAR International Series 528. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Rainey, Froelich G. 1939 Archaeology in Central Alaska. Anthropological Papers Vol. 36, Part 4. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Steward, Julian 1937 Ancient Caves of the Great Salt Lake Region. Bulletin No. 115. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1943 Culture Element Distributions: XXIII, Northern and Gosiute Shoshone. Anthropological Records Vol. 8, Part 3. University of California, Berkeley. Workman, William B. 1978 Prehistory of the Aishihik-Kluane Area, Southwest Yukon Territory. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 74. National Museum of Man Mercury Series Ottawa, Ontario. Yanicki, Gabriel, and John W. Ives 2012 Mobility, Exchange, and the Fluency of Games: Promontory in a Broader Sociodemographic Setting. Paper presented at the 33rd Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Lake Tahoe, Stateline, Nevada.