TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPPING, GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING OF AN EARLY

PUEBLO II VILLAGE NEAR DOVE CREEK, COLORADO

PREPARED BY: DONALD E. DOVE, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY

STEVEN DINASO DAVID DOVE KIMBERLY M. GERHARDT HARVEY HENSON

VINCENT P. GUTOWSKI PATRICIA F.LACEY

ROBERT AND DIANE MCBRIDE RADLENER

FUNDING PROVIDED BY A COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY ASSESSMENT GRANT

PROJECT NO. 2004-AS-014

OF THE CO SOCIETY

DEL RT

JONATHAN TILL LARRY T

GRANT RECIPIENT: HISATSINOM CHAPTER

LORADO ARCHAEOLOGICAL

IVERABLE NO. 4: FINAL ASSESSMENT REPO

Topographical Mapping, Geophysical Studies and

Archaeological Testing of an Early Pueblo II Village near

Prepared by: Donald E. Dove, Principal Investigator

STEVEN DINASO DAVID DOVE KIMBERLY GERHARDT VINCENT GUTOWSKI HARVEY HENSON PATRICIAL LACEY

E MCBRIDE JOLARRY TRADLENER

FUNDING PROVIDED BY A COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY ASSESSMENT GRANT

PROJECT NO. 2004-AS-014

DELIVERABLE #4: FINAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

NOVEMBER 2006

Dove Creek, Colorado

With contributions by

ROBERT AND DIAN NATHAN TILL

ii

Greenlee Site

Figure 1.1 Location of the Greenlee Site group

iii

DavidHighlight

ABSTRACT

Inspired by a successful subsurface mapping project at the Mitchell Springs archaeological site near Cortez, Colorado researchers of that investigation expressed an interest in using the knowledge gained to study another potentially important ruin group in nearby Dolores County. Work was initiated at the Greenlee Site archaeological group in May 2004 following a successful assessment grant application to the State Historical Fund, a program of the Colorado Historical Society. The study was designed to evaluate site significance from the perspectives of size, function and temporal placement. To obtain the best results within the time constraints, it was expected that contour topographic studies would eliminate much of the guesswork regarding where one should ultimately conduct remote sensing work and archaeological testing to obtain the necessary data. Topography work has been completed and the intended geophysical work has been accomplished. Excavations based on data acquired through these efforts are also complete. The results of this work show the site was occupied largely within the 10th century with a probable overlap into both the late 9th century and early 1000s. The Greenlee Site was probably the largest in the area for this time period. It is recommended for National Register recognition.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Several individuals have played an important role in this project. Most of those named below have volunteered a good part of their time, energy and property to accomplish the work completed to date. To all of these folks, I extend sincerest thanks for their contributions.

The Greenlee Site Ruin Group is located on a 160 acre parcel of land owned by Robert and Diane Greenlee. Without their intervention, these sites would have been sold to an individual well known for his practice of looting archaeological remains. Special thanks go to the Greenlees for their interest in preserving the sites and for generously permitting us to conduct the investigations that are reported herein. Our thanks also for their financial contribution to supplement the portion of the grant allocated to site preparation. We have elected to rename the site “the Greenlee Site” out of appreciation for the support we have received from the Greenlee family.

The research at the Greenlee Site would not have been possible without funding provided by a Colorado Historical Society State Historic Fund Grant and the personal assistance of Thomas Carr, Staff Archaeologist.

The Hisatsinom Chapter of the Colorado Archaeological Society, Terri Helm President, agreed to the sponsorship of the grant. Sarah Hatch, Treasurer of the chapter willingly accepted the task of managing the funds. Subsequent chapter officers, Diane McBride and Sandy Tradlener agreed to carry on the work.

Dr. Vincent Gutowski, Geologist and Geographer was the principal motivator of this project. It was he who proposed the project and organized a team of specialists in the areas of geographic information systems and remote sensing, specifically Steven DiNaso, Harvey Henson, and Michael Sweeney accompanied by a few students. The topography and the graphics in this report would not have been possible without Dr. Gutowski and his team.

Jonathan Till and the laboratory staff at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center conducted the ceramic analysis of the items collected during the first year excavations. Their work was thorough and well documented and is included in this report.

Dave Dove, who understands Anasazi prehistory better than I, donated much of his time toward getting the project underway by clearing the vegetation, assisting with the data collection for the topographic mapping and for conducting ceramic studies.

Members of the Hisatsinom Chapter who participated in preparing the site for further work and also worked on the excavations….Bob and Diane McBride, Larry and Sandy Tradlener, Pat and Sarah Hatch, Denis Boon, Dwight Warren,

v

Terri Helm, Susan Underwood, Kim Sturm, Charity Halstead, Dave Dove, John and Ann Rogan, and Jim Bales.

Drs. Kim Gerhardt and Patricia Lacey donated considerable time combing nearby canyons searching for locations that would provide suitable materials for stone tool manufacture. The results of their efforts provided a significant contribution to our knowledge of the sources from which the local prehistoric occupants would have obtained their raw materials.

Mr. John Lestina, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Dove Creek Office, shared his time and wisdom to help this writer better understand the soils and agricultural issues in the Dove Creek area.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT_____________________________________________________ IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS __________________________________________ V CHAPTER 1 _____________________________________________________ 1 INTRODUCTION__________________________________________________1 Location_____________________________________________________ 1 Effective Environment__________________________________________ 3 Local water source_________________________________________ 3 Flora and fauna___________________________________________ 3 Geology__________________________________________________ 4 Soils_____________________________________________________ 4 Climate and crops__________________________________________ 5 Culture History and Previous Work_______________________________ 6 Culture prehistory__________________________________________ 6 Previous archaeological investigations__________________________ 8 Project Objectives, Research Issues and Methods__________________ 9 Objectives and research questions_____________________________ 9 Preparing the study areas___________________________________ 10 Establishing topography ____________________________________ 11 Geophysical studies _______________________________________ 12 Test Excavations__________________________________________ 12 Ceramic analysis__________________________________________ 12 Bone analysis ____________________________________________ 12 Lithics analysis and material sourcing__________________________ 12 Concluding Remarks__________________________________________ 13 CHAPTER 2____________________________________________________ 14 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEODETIC CONTROL__________________________ 14 CHAPTER 3____________________________________________________ 21 GEOPHYSICAL DATA____________________________________________ 21 Magnetic Gradiometry Background______________________________ 21 Magnetic Gradiometry Procedure and Results____________________ 22 CHAPTER 4____________________________________________________ 32 ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING_____________________________________ 32 General Excavation Procedure__________________________________32 North Ridge Excavations______________________________________ 33 EU 2 ___________________________________________________ 34 EU 3 ___________________________________________________ 34 EU 7 ___________________________________________________ 35 EU 8 ___________________________________________________ 35 Auger Tests______________________________________________ 36 EU 9 ___________________________________________________37 EUs 10, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25_______________________________ 38 EU 13 __________________________________________________ 40

vii

EU 20 __________________________________________________ 41 EU 26 __________________________________________________ 42 EU 30 __________________________________________________ 42 EUs 31 and 32____________________________________________ 43 South Ridge Investigations____________________________________ 44 EUs 11 and 14____________________________________________ 45 EU 12 __________________________________________________ 47 Trail ___________________________________________________ 47 Comments on Architecture____________________________________ 49 CHAPTER 5____________________________________________________ 51 GREENLEE SITE POTTERY ANALYSIS_____________________________ 51 Introduction_________________________________________________ 51 The Analysis ________________________________________________ 51 The Results_________________________________________________ 52 Bulk Sherds______________________________________________ 53 Vessels_________________________________________________ 53 APPENDIX_____________________________________________________ 71 CHAPTER 6____________________________________________________ 76 CERAMICS OF GREENLEE RUIN__________________________________ 76 Mancos Gray________________________________________________ 77 Bluff Black on Red or Deadman’s Black on Red??_________________ 79 Piedra Black on White ________________________________________ 81 Cortez and Mancos Black on White_____________________________ 82 Dating the Greenlee Ceramics by Feature________________________ 83 Great Kiva ______________________________________________ 85 Kiva 1__________________________________________________ 85 Kiva 2__________________________________________________ 86 Room 1, EU 9____________________________________________ 86 Room 2, EU 12___________________________________________ 86 Rooms 3 and 4, EUs 11 and 14______________________________ 86 Summary___________________________________________________ 87 CHAPTER 7____________________________________________________90 GREENLEE SITE FAUNAL STUDY_________________________________ 90 Methods____________________________________________________ 90 Tabular Data ________________________________________________ 91 Synopsis of Data____________________________________________ 93 Comments and Conclusions___________________________________ 94 CHAPTER 8____________________________________________________ 96 GREENLEE SITE LITHIC STUDY __________________________________ 96 Introduction_________________________________________________ 96 Lithic Artifacts by Excavation Unit______________________________ 97 EU 2 (great kiva) _________________________________________ 98 EU 3 (great kiva __________________________________________ 98

viii

EU 7 (great kiva) ________________________________________ 101 EU 8 (great kiva)_________________________________________ 101 EU 9 room 1 ____________________________________________ 103 EU 10 kiva 1____________________________________________ 103 EU 11 south ridge room 11_________________________________ 104 EU 12 south ridge room 13_________________________________ 105 EU 14 south ridge room 12 ________________________________ 106 EU 20A room 3__________________________________________ 106 Summary of EU 20A______________________________________ 107 EU 20B room 4__________________________________________ 108 EU 22 kiva 1____________________________________________ 109 EU 31 room 5___________________________________________ 109 Discussion of Lithic Artifacts by Type__________________________ 109 Observations on formal tool comparison______________________ 111 Projectile points _________________________________________ 111 Debitage_______________________________________________ 114 Observations regarding flaked lithics_________________________ 115 Observations regarding non-flaked lithic densities ______________ 116 Gizzard stones__________________________________________ 118 Ornaments_____________________________________________ 118 Polishing stones_________________________________________ 118 Summary and Conclusions___________________________________ 119 CHAPTER 9 __________________________________________________ 121 RAW MATERIAL SOURCES NEAR THE GREENLEE SITE_____________ 121 Objectives_________________________________________________ 121 Methods___________________________________________________ 121 Results ___________________________________________________ 124 Archaeological sites______________________________________ 124 Lithic sources___________________________________________ 125 Conglomerates__________________________________________ 125 Kdb quartzite ___________________________________________ 126 Kdb chert______________________________________________ 126 Kb/Jmb silicified mudstone_________________________________ 126 Kb/Jmb chert____________________________________________ 127 Jmb quartzite____________________________________________ 127 Clay source_____________________________________________ 127 Hematite_______________________________________________ 128 Brushy Basin chert _______________________________________ 128 NON-LOCAL MATERIALS_____________________________________ 128 Basalt__________________________________________________128 Jasper_________________________________________________ 128 CHAPTER 10__________________________________________________ 133 CONCLUSIONS________________________________________________ 133 REFERENCES CITED___________________________________________ 135

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1. Soil quality in Champagne Springs area______________________ 4 Table 1.2 Monthly climate summary for Dove Creek area_________________ 5 Table 1.2. Growing degree days for Dove Creek area ____________________ 6 Table 3.1. Magnetic susceptibility field measurements___________________ 21 Table 5.1 Pottery types by count___________________________________ 54 Table 5.2 Pottery types by weight__________________________________ 55 Table 5.3 Pottery types by form and count___________________________ 57 Table 5.4 Pottery types by form and weight __________________________ 58 Table 5.5 Pottery type counts, by location____________________________ 59 Table 5.6 Pottery type count percentages, by location __________________ 61 Table 5.7 Pottery type weights (g), by location ________________________ 63 Table 5.8 Pottery type weight percentages, by location _________________ 65 Table 5.9 Pottery wares by form, study unit, and count__________________ 67 Table 5.10 Pottery wares by form, study unit, and percent by count_________ 68 Table 5.11 Pottery wares by form, study unit, and weight (gm)_____________ 69 Table 5.12 Pottery wares by form, study unit, and percent by weight________ 70 Table A 5.1 Pottery type by study unit, PD, and count____________________ 72 Table A 5.2 Pottery type by study unit, PD, and percent by count___________ 73 Table A 5.3 Pottery type by study unit, PD, and weight (gm)_______________ 74 Total A 5.4. Pottery type by study unit, PD, and percent by weight (gm)______ 75 Table 6.1 Crow Canyon ceramic data on the final two PDs in each EU _____ 84 Table 6.2 Sherd counts by PD showing currently completed typologies_____ 88 Table 6.3 Sherd percentages by PD showing currently completed typologies 89 Table 7.1 Faunal remains recovered by level _________________________ 91 Table 7.2 Excavation unit no. 3 ____________________________________ 91 Table 7.3 Excavation unit # 8______________________________________ 92 Table 7.4 Bone recovered by level _________________________________ 92 Table 7.5 Excavation unit no. 15___________________________________ 92 Table 7.6 Excavation unit no. 20A__________________________________ 92 Table 7.7 Excavation unit no. 30___________________________________ 92 Table 7.3 Percentage of specimens sorted by taxon____________________ 93 Table 7.4 Bone tools and utilized bone______________________________ 93 Table 8.1 Site total formal tool comparisons, Duckfoot and Greenlee______ 111 Table 8.2 Site comparisons of flakes to flaked tools ratios ______________ 115 Table 8.3 Summary of flake and flake tool densities (count/volume)_______ 116 Table 8.4 Summary of non-flaked lithic densities (count/volume)_________ 119

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Location of the Greenlee Site group________________________ III Figure 1.2 Greenlee property, 3d topographic map_____________________ 2 Figure 1.3 Aerial view of Greenlee property showing major site locations____ 3 Figure 1.4 Sage covers both major sites ____________________________ 10

x

Figure 1.5A Felling and removing sage ______________________________ 10 Figure 1.5B Brush hog chopping fallen sage __________________________ 10 Figure 1.6 Setting up grids_______________________________________ 11 Figure 2.1 Greenlee Site 1m topography ___________________________ 14 Figure 2.2 Setting monument_____________________________________ 15 Figure 2.3 Typical satellite availability ______________________________ 16 Figure 2.4 Global positioning system and total station control monuments__ 16 Figure 2.5 Rover used in field survey and feature mapping______________ 17 Figure 2.6 GPS and total station spot elevations ______________________17 Figure 2.7 Total Station and Data Collector _________________________ 18 Figure 2.8 Greenlee Site 1 m topography ___________________________ 18 Figure 2.9 North ridge detailed topography __________________________ 19 Figure 2.10 South ridge detailed topography__________________________ 19 Figure 2.11 Slope analysis________________________________________ 20 Figure 3.1 Magnetic data collection using Geometrics G856 gradiometer___ 22 Figure 3.2 G-858 cesium gradiometer ______________________________ 23 Figure 3.3 Gray-scale images of gradient test data from the north ridge____ 24 Figure 3.4 Contoured images of gradient test data from the south ridge____ 24 Figure 3.5 Contoured images of the G-856 and G-858 gradient test data from the south ridge ___________________________________ 26 Figure 3.6A Magnetic gradient data and grid locations of the north ridge ____ 27 Figure 3.6B Magnetic gradient data and grid locations of the south ridge ____ 27 Figure 3.7A Color contour image of the G-858 cesium magnetic gradient at the north ridge______________________________________ 29 Figure 3.7B North ridge study area anomaly trends in the G858 cesium magnetic gradient data _________________________________ 29 Figure 3.8A Color contour image of the G-858 cesium magnetic gradient data at the south ridge__________________________________ 30 Figure 3.8B Anomaly trends in the G-858 cesium magnetic gradient data at the south ridge______________________________________ 30 Figure 3.9A Anomaly trends in the G-858 cesium magnetic gradient data at the north ridge______________________________________ 31 Figure 3.9B Anomaly trends in the G-858 cesium magnetic gradient data at the south ridge______________________________________ 31 Figure 4.1 North ridge topo showing location of excavation units _________ 33 Figure 4.2 EU 2 excavated_______________________________________ 34 Figure 4.3 EU 3 view to north_____________________________________ 34 Figure 4.4 EU 7 excavation complete_______________________________ 35 Figure 4.5 EU 8 floor 2__________________________________________ 36 Figure 4.6 EU 8 floor 1__________________________________________ 36 Figure 4.7A Auger test ___________________________________________ 36 Figure 4.7B Auger test ___________________________________________ 36 Figure 4.8 Great kiva outline _____________________________________ 37 Figure 4.9 EU 9 room 1 _________________________________________ 38 Figure 4.10 EU 10 completed______________________________________ 39 Figure 4.11 Ventilator ____________________________________________ 39 Figure 4.12 Kiva 1 outline_________________________________________ 40 Figure 4.13 Posthole in EU 21 _____________________________________ 40

xi

Figure 4.14 EU 13 completed______________________________________ 40 Figure 4.15 Surface room no. 3 ____________________________________ 41 Figure 4.16 Room 3 overview______________________________________ 41 Figure 4.17 Early construction exposed ______________________________ 42 Figure 4.18 Early construction, view to south__________________________ 42 Figure 4.19 Burned roof fall kiva no. 2 _______________________________ 43 Figure 4.20 Kiva 2 completed______________________________________ 43 Figure 4.21 Room 5 _____________________________________________ 44 Figure 4.22 3D topography of the south ridge showing location of excavation units_______________________________________ 45 Figure 4.23 Single cross walls, double outside walls ____________________ 45 Figure 4.24 Room 11 walls exposed________________________________ 46 Figure 4.25 Pre-pueblo post outline_________________________________ 46 Figure 4.26 Room 12 and earlier masonry ____________________________47 Figure 4.27 A portion of the gradiometer plot __________________________47 Figure 4.28 Thin vertical slabs are frequently used to support foundation masonry_____________________________________________ 47 Figure 4.29 3D Topo of south ridge, elevations exaggerated______________ 48 Figure 4.30 Aerial view of south and north ridge sites showing trail_________ 49 Figure 6.1 Mancos Gray varieties__________________________________ 79 Figure 6.2 Bluff Black on Red_____________________________________ 80 Figure 6.3 Deadman’s Black on Red _______________________________ 81 Figure 6.4 Cortez Black on White__________________________________ 82 Figure 6.5 Mancos Black on White (early?) __________________________ 83 Figure 7.1 Variety of bone tools ___________________________________ 96 Figure 7.2 Bone awl ____________________________________________ 96 Figure 8.1 One-quarter inch debitage_______________________________ 97 Figure 8.2 Roof entry cover (?)____________________________________ 98 Figure 8.3 Archaic point (left) and a Dolores point_____________________ 98 Figure 8.4 Polishing stone _______________________________________ 98 Figure 8.5 Slate bead___________________________________________ 99 Figure 8.6 Bead and pendant_____________________________________ 99 Figure 8.7 Miscellaneous tools____________________________________ 99 Figure 8.8 Bifaces and gizzard stones______________________________ 99 Figure 8.9 Various ground stone artifacts___________________________100 Figure 8.10 Pigmented lapstone __________________________________100 Figure 8.11 Bifaces of non-local chert ______________________________ 100 Figure 8.12 Projectile points______________________________________100 Figure 8.13 Chipped stone points and tools__________________________ 101 Figure 8.14 Greenlee point styles__________________________________ 101 Figure 8.15 Greenlee bifaces_____________________________________ 101 Figure 8.16 Disc and bead _______________________________________ 102 Figure 8.17 Turkey gizzard stones _________________________________ 102 Figure 8.18 Miscellaneous, see text________________________________ 102 Figure 8.19 Miscellaneous, see text________________________________ 103 Figure 8.20 Point with missing base________________________________ 103 Figure 8.21 Great kiva floor contact items ___________________________ 103 Figure 8.22 Ground Stone _______________________________________ 103

xii

Figure 8.23 ”Bug pendant” _______________________________________ 104 Figure 8.24 Artifacts and gizzard stone _____________________________ 104 Figure 8.25 Rose Spring point ____________________________________ 104 Figure 8.26 Pueblo Square Base side notch point_____________________ 104 Figure 8.27 Lithics from EU 11____________________________________ 105 Figure 8.28 Point from floor of room________________________________ 105 Figure 8.29 Black Mesa point_____________________________________ 105 Figure 8.30 Dolores style point____________________________________ 105 Figure 8.31 Tools from EU 20A ___________________________________ 106 Figure 8.32 Point and perform ____________________________________ 106 Figure 8.33 Two-handed manos___________________________________ 107 Figure 8.34 One-handed manos___________________________________ 107 Figure 8.35 Thinning flakes ______________________________________ 107 Figure 8.36 Point from EU 20B____________________________________ 108 Figure 8.37 EU 20B points_______________________________________ 108 Figure 8.38 Points from EU 20B___________________________________ 109 Figure 8.39 EU 20B groundstone__________________________________ 109 Figure 8.40 Ground stone on floor _________________________________ 109 Figure 8.41 Chipped stone_______________________________________ 110 Figure 8.42 Ground stone________________________________________ 110 Figure 8.43 Chipped stone_______________________________________ 110 Figure 8.44 EU 31 points Figure___________________________________ 110 Figure 8.45 Hammerstone _______________________________________ 110 Figure 8.46 Dolores style points___________________________________ 112 Figure 8.47 Early style points_____________________________________ 113 Figure 8.48 Unknown point styles _________________________________ 113 Figure 8.49 Histogram of point date ranges by EU ____________________ 114 Figure 8.50 Structure floor zone flakes by size _______________________ 117 Figure 9.1 Combined GPS tracks and waypoints from four exploratory hikes showing area surveyed ___________________________ 122 Figure 9.2 Geologic map of southwestern Colorado showing the location of Champagne Springs study area and Squaw Canyon ______ 122 Figure 9.3 Distribution of lithic material sources by stratigraphic level In Canyons of the Ancients National Monument_____________ 123 Figure 9.4 Results of raw lithic material source survey ________________ 124

xiii

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Donald E. Dove

Nine years ago a combined group of scientists and students geophysically mapped an archaeological site near Cortez, Colorado at the Mitchell Springs Ruin Group. Geographic Information System (GIS) and Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment, including a total station, were used to provide accurate mapping and topography of the locale. Ground penetrating radar (GPR), magnetometer instrumentation, and ground resistivity measuring equipment were used to collect and map subsurface data. That overall effort located subsurface features which, when tested, indicated that a respectable accuracy could be attained using these techniques. The results of these investigations were subsequently reported at geological and geophysical conferences (Beyer et al 2002, Henson et al 2003)

Inspired by the outcome of the Mitchell Springs investigations, these same individuals had indicated a serious interest in conducting similar investigations using state-of-the-art equipment at another archaeological location near Dove Creek, Colorado. The sites, recorded as 5DL2333 through 5DL2338, are herein referred to as the Greenlee Site. Together, these two sites encompass 13.5 hectare (5.5 acres).

The current property owner, Mr. Robert Greenlee, a Boulder, Colorado investor possesses a sincere interest in archaeological site conservation. Following the purchase of the property, Mr. Greenlee arranged for an archaeological foot survey of the 160 acres by Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants. The Chuipka and Fetterman (2002) report covering that survey notes that the site is particularly significant because of the few excavated, studied, well dated and documented sites of this period They further recommended the site be considered for National Register recognition.

Location

The Greenlee Site largely occupies two adjacent knolls near the Champagne Springs water source and borders the eastern edge of Squaw Canyon, approximately 12 km south and west of Dove Creek (Figure 1.1 above). The sites are usually accessible during dry periods via a vehicle trail originating a short distance away at a gravel road that serves the area.

The study area is situated within the 1200 square mile area known as the ”Sage Plain”, so named by J.S. Newberry in an 1876 geological report (Gregory 1938).

1

The name arises from the dense growths of sage across the landscape. Recent authors refer to the area as the “Great Sage Plain” of eastern Utah and western Colorado. Except for nearby arable farmland, the area of the Greenlee Site is covered with one to one and one-half meter high sagebrush.

Figure 1.2 is a 3D topographic map of the property. The sites are located on the dark blue high points. A black and white aerial photo of the property (Figure 1.3) shows the location of the two largest ruins enclosed by dotted lines. These two ruins are the focus of this report. All map axes in this report are shown using UTM coordinates, often using only the last three digits to simplify the text.

Figure 1.2 Greenlee property, 3d topographic map Map by Steven DiNaso

2

Figure 1.3 Aerial view of Greenlee property showing major site locations. North is at top of photo

Effective Environment

Local Water Sources

Sites in the area frequently reside on or near canyon rims, usually within a short distance from available water. The Champagne Springs water source is located a few hundred meters north of the site complex. Squaw Canyon, which the sites overlook from the east, carries stream flow following local rains.

Flora and Fauna

A wide variety of vegetation occurs in the area with sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) playing the dominant role. Pinyon/juniper trees (Pinus edulis/Juniperus sp.) and grasses blanket the canyon floors and slopes. Other plants with a large presence includes rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus), saltbush (Atriplex sp.) yucca (Yucca glauca) and various cacti.

3

Animals occurring in respectable numbers include mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus canadensis), jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes julva), prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) and many varieties of snakes. An occasional mountain lion (Felis concolor) has been observed in nearby canyon areas. Avifauna include ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), magpie (Pica hudsonia), crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), mourning dove (Zenida macroura, goose (Branta Canadensis). Scavengers and birds of prey include raven (Corvus corax), vulture (Cathartes aura), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and several hawk varieties.

Geology

Underlying the soils in the region is the Dakota Sandstone Formation which is ever present throughout the Four Corners region and is frequently exposed in outcroppings and escarpments. This formation provided the source of construction masonry for the prehistoric pueblos throughout the area. The canyons surrounding the Champagne Springs area expose the deeper Morrison Formation deposits (Finley 1951) that would have offered the highest potential for finer grained materials used in tool manufacture (see Chapter 9 by Kim Gerhardt, et. al., this volume).

Soils

Most soils in the area are eolian deposits weathered from sandstone and shale parent materials. Of importance to the prehistoric occupants is the value of these soils for agriculture. Modern local farmers grow dry-farm crops of beans and wheat in soils that conservationists classify as “fair”. Table 1.1 illustrates the land quality within a 2 km radius of the sites. The percentage estimates in the table

Table 1.1. Soil quality in Champagne Springs area

SOIL QUALITY FOR CROPS % OF AVAILABLE LAND

GOOD 4 FAIR 53

POOR 5 UNUSABLE 38

were extracted from soil maps produced by the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service within the Champagne Springs Quadrangle. Soils identified as “good” are located within the lower drainage area of Squaw canyon. Most good to fair soils within the radius either consist of Wetherill Loam or are of the Cahona-Sharps-Wetherill soil complex and reside on 0 to 6 percent slopes. Soils classified as fair exhibit a high water-holding capacity. The poor and unusable soils are found on the edges and slopes of the canyons.

4

Climate and Crops

Climate data (Tables 1.2 and 1.3). for the area have been accumulated at weather stations at or near Northdale, Colorado, approximately 15 km north of the Greenlee Site (Western Regional Climate Center, n.d.) The record covers a fifty-four year period from August 1948 to December 2002.

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANNUALAVERAGE MAX. TEMPERATURE (F) 36.7 41.3 49.2 59.5 69.9 81.1 86.5 83.8 76.4 64.1 48.6 38.6 61.3

AVERAGE MIN. TEMPERATURE (F) 9.8 14.5 22.1 27.9 35.2 42.5 50.4 49.6 41.0 30.6 20.5 12.0 29.7

AVERAGE TOTAL PRECIPITATION (IN.) 0.84 0.71 0.81 0.85 0.92 0.44 1.25 1.41 1.23 1.66 1.03 0.87 12.01

AVERAGE TOTAL SNOWFALL (IN.) 10.6 6.9 5.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 6.7 34.8

Table 1.2 Monthly climate summary for Dove Creek area

Other than precipitation, the successful development of crops is heavily dependent on daily temperatures. “Cooler than normal” days delay crop maturity, while “warmer than normal” days enhance opportunities for success. These phrases can be converted into meaningful mathematical terms by calculating the daily heat accumulation in soils. For any given area, these terms are documented as growing degree days (GDD). Different crops require different growing degree days. For further details about the calculations for GDD, see Neilsen (2001).

Peterson (1987) points out that 13 inches of rainfall and a CGDD (Corn Growing Degree Days) of 1600 are sufficient for corn production at Northdale, Colorado, (Dove Creek area) although 2500 CGDD is preferred. The CGDD requirement for a May-September growing season around the Dove Creek area usually meets the minimum requirements (table 1.3).

Table 1.2 indicates that rainfall in the area, on average, fails to meet the 13 inch requirement. A season with above average rainfall, however, would normally produce a successful crop. Some crop experts have suggested that with significant plant spacing, as used by Hopi farmers, corn could mature with as little as 7 inches of rainfall, although the ear quality would be reduced proportionally (Leonard Erie, personal communication 1980). Water harvesting techniques such as runoff capture and control or terracing systems would also enhance the chance for success as would mulching (Dove 1984). Canyon bottoms would provide a greater moisture availability to roots during dry periods although the available planting area would be much smaller. South and southwest facing fields would also have improved opportunities for success.

5

While corn may not always have fully matured, climatic conditions would likely have enabled viable crops during most years.

Despite the many difficulties involved in growing crops, corn was a popular staple in the prehistoric American Southwest. Excavations in the Cortez, Colorado area indicate that corn was grown throughout all pueblo periods. The Dove Creek climate would likely have offered a slightly greater amount of moisture to crops. During dry periods and cold seasons in which crops failed, a greater emphasis would be placed on other food collecting strategies. Only during extended periods of drought or cold would the most severe stress conditions likely emerge.

Table 1.2. Growing degree days for Dove Creek area

CORN GROWING DEGREE DAYS

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL

MONTHLY

2 10 51 156 310 461 569 539 399 225 49 4 2776

RUNNING

SUM

2 12 63 220 529 991 1559 2098 2497 2722 2772 2776 2776

Culture History and Previous Work

Culture Prehistory

The prehistoric Anasazi Culture of the American Southwest, also known in more recent times as Ancestral Puebloan, has its roots in the pre-agricultural Archaic period. In and around the Four Corners area, agriculture had its beginnings somewhere between 1000 B.C. and A.D. 400, during which time we see the emergence of the Anasazi as a cultural entity.

In 1927, A.V. Kidder convened a meeting of archaeologists at Pecos Pueblo in New Mexico to discuss the status of Southwestern archaeology. At this first Pecos Conference the participants defined eight Anasazi periods, Basketmaker I-III and Pueblo I-V. With the exception of the Basketmaker I period, the remaining terms are still in use. As originally defined, Basketmaker II represented a period of “agriculture, atlatl using, non-pottery making stage”. Later investigations have indicated that some B.M. II sites may, in fact, contain ceramic items. Basketmaker III sites contained pitstructures and saw the full emergence of pottery manufacture. With the Pueblo I stage came the introduction of cranial deformation, masonry surface structures and neck-banding of pottery vessels. Pueblo II was “the stage marked by small villages over large geographic areas and full vessel corrugation. The Pueblo III period was characterized by large communities and craft specialization. Pueblo IV is also known as the proto-historic period. Much of the original occupation area was abandoned prior to the

6

Pueblo IV period, particularly in the San Juan region including the area discussed in this report. Pueblo V is considered the historic period in the Southwest and like the Pueblo IV period has no known relevance to the prehistory of the Four Corners region.

The Pueblo I period saw a wide variability in settlements. Site sizes ranged from small, frequently short-lived, hamlets of 3-20 rooms upward to large villages of 75-400 rooms (Wilshusen 1999). Room blocks in these units were usually positioned north of associated pitstructures and further to the south were the trash middens and burial areas. Depopulation and movement to other areas was frequently the modus operandi during this period.

Within the Sage Plain area, growth and depopulation generally followed the pattern of neighboring areas. Little is known regarding occupations in the Champagne Springs area prior to Pueblo 1 since only a few archaeological investigations have been conducted, but starting with Pueblo I, the population of the area developed slowly until the late ninth century. For the period of A.D. 880 to A.D. 940 Wilshusen notes “....the Great Sage Plain and Mesa Verde drainage areas were largely depopulated, but likely had residual, although small, populations during this period (2002)”.

Following this period of decline, populations again grew as people aggregated into larger communities. The typical Pueblo II habitation site consisted of one or two room blocks with a layout similar to the preceding Pueblo I period. Prudden (1914) referred to sites of this nature as “unit pueblos”, and suggested they served family or clan units. Because of his early work, this type of occupation site is often referred to as a “Prudden Unit”.

During the late Pueblo II period communities were larger, often containing structures referred to as “great houses”, units thought to be the possession of “elite” members of the culture and probably serving a political or social function. These communities are frequently thought of as “outliers” of a larger social organization centered in the Chaco Canyon of New Mexico, some of which were part of a network that incorporated road systems. Often accompanying such features was a “great kiva”, a large enclosure used for community or inter-community activities.

Pueblo III was the final period of occupation of the Northern San Juan region. Aggregation into large pueblo units continued during this time. Large multi-story, multi-room buildings housed growing populations and crafts became more elaborate and specialized. Things, however, were to change during the 13th century. The large drought between 1276 and 1299 correlates with decline and emigration of populations during this period. Movement to more defensive positions on canyon rims in the late1200s suggests the possibility that conflict with nomadic groups or internecine warfare may have been a contributing factor

7

toward abandonment and all evidence points to a total abandonment of the area immediately prior to A.D. 1300.

Ceramic indicators and exposed masonry suggest the Greenlee group of sites date from the late Pueblo I into the Pueblo II period of the Anasazi sequence. Few sites in the Four Corners region have provided substantial information from within the A.D. 880 to 1000 time frame, resulting in the least understood portion of the Puebloan chronology (Varien 1999:145). Moreover, the development of the early Pueblo II ceramic style (Cortez Black on White) is also not regionally well dated. Developing and understanding of this period is complicated by the lack of tree cutting dates from sites of the early AD 900s and a population reduction in the area during this same period (Lipe and Varien 1999:253). The Greenlee Site has a very good potential to add to the current database.

Previous Archaeological Investigations

One may wonder why so little research has been conducted in and around the Dove Creek area, particularly covering the later pueblo periods. Perhaps it is due to the remote location, isolated somewhat from institutions that might otherwise have an interest or perhaps the questions that would lead researchers into the area have not been put forth. The few archaeological investigations of any significance that were conducted in the area include two mitigation projects that resulted in excavations, one master’s thesis based on a foot survey and excavation on private land, and finally a limited excavation by a university team of students.

In 1988 and 1989, Complete Archaeological Service Associates (CASA) conducted archaeological excavations at 15 sites a few kilometers east of the Greenlee Site (McNamee and Hammack 1999). Intensive excavations were carried out at six of the sites with limited investigations conducted on the remaining nine. These sites were excavated as part of the mitigation effort for Reach III of the Dove Creek Canal, a project undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation to transport water to the area from the McPhee Reservoir. Three sites could not be temporally placed, nine were assigned Basketmaker III dates and three were identified as Pueblo I units. Three of the Basketmaker III sites contained wooden post stockades which had burned.

A 200 mile pipeline survey conducted by Woods Canyon Archaeological Associates (N.D.) passed near the town of Dove Creek and resulted in the discovery of a single Basketmaker III habitation site northwest of the town. The site contained two burned pithouses and three activity areas. Stockade postholes encircled the pithouses and two of the activity areas.

Coffey’s master’s thesis (2004) examines 17 late Pueblo I and early Pueblo II sites east of Dove Creek. This includes 4 villages or large habitation sites, 11 multiple residence and single habitation units, and 2 sites which were interpreted

8

as possible reservoir and limited activity locations. Coffey’s analysis concluded the sites dated to between A.D. 880 to A.D. 940 and further suggesting his study area contained a possible population of perhaps 750 individuals. This is seemingly large for an area which was originally thought to have experienced depopulation during that period, leading Coffey to suggest that existing models may need fine-tuning.

The final known work of possible significance in the area was noted on a nomination form which recommended the placement of the Brewer Archaeological District (5DL578) on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties. Two pueblos are mentioned in the nomination, Brewer Mesa Pueblo, a multi-storied feature, and Brewer Canyon Pueblo, a tightly aggregated canyon head structure containing approximately 155 rooms. Brewer Mesa Pueblo is pottery dated between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1250. Brewer Canyon Pueblo is estimated to have been occupied between A.D. 1225 to A.D. 1300. Both lie approximately 5 km south of the Greenlee sites. The nomination notes that 5 of the rooms were excavated by L.D. Agenbroad (1978) and students from Chadron State College of Nebraska.

Project Objectives, Research Issues and Methods

Objectives and research questions

The objective of this investigation is to assess the significance of the Greenlee Site in terms of its potential to add new information to the culture history of the region. Our goal was to conduct this effort with a minimum impact on the ruins by using mapping and remote sensing techniques to assist in our decision of where best to place excavation units.

Our research focused on the following questions and issues.

1. What was the period of occupation of the Greenlee Site?

This is always a key question posed by archaeologists. At the Greenlee Site we may use this information to compare with other dated sites in the region. Do these sites display a period of occupation similar to others in the area? Can we note any temporal discontinuities? What are the temporal differences and similarities in architecture and artifacts through time? What degree of contemporaneity exists between the north ridge sites and the south ridge sites?

Tree ring dates from recovered wood would ideally be most useful since they provide the greatest accuracy; however, obtaining dendrochronology results usually requires a longer time than permitted by the assessment grant. Our next best option was to recover ceramic dates during subsurface testing.

9

2. What architectural styles are present at the site?

These are issues that can also yield answers to other questions, such as….did the site possess a defensive configuration? Was public architecture present? Is there evidence of a road system at or near the site?

3. How does the Greenlee Site compare in size with neighboring sites. Coupled with question 2 above, this may be one of the key issues toward assessing the cultural role of the site . Site size is often related to its importance in the area. A comparatively large site may have served as a community center that included other nearby sites. Following is a discussion on the methods used toward achieving these objectives. Preparing the study areas

Tall sage covered a majority of the Greenlee property (Figure 1.4) with the exception of the nearby woodland and canyon areas. Setting grids for future work and maneuvering remote sensing equipment over the sites would not be possible if the dense vegetation were not removed. Therefore the necessary equipment was obtained in order to minimize the impact of the tall and thick plant population (figures 1.5A and 1.5B)

Figure 1.4 Sage covers both major sites

Figure 1.5A Felling and removing sage Figure 1.5B Brush hog chopping fallen sage After a few days, the area was ready for setting grids within the proposed study areas. For simplicity we have identified study areas on the north ridge as 1A

10

(western) and 1B (eastern). Similarly, on the south ridge we identify the single large ruin location simply as area 2. Corner stakes for all study areas were established using the total station. Metric measuring tapes were then used to locate points at 1m intervals across each study area. Bio-degradable spray paint was used to mark all points prior to conducting the remote sensing work (Figure 1.6).

Figure 1.6 Setting up grids

Establishing topography

Surface topography in conjunction with remote sensing helps us to address another question, i.e. what areas of the sites will most likely provide the information necessary to assess overall significance?

While aerial photos are valuable, they do not permit detection of the more subtle terrain variations caused by erosion filled prehistoric pits or soil covered mounds and the scale of typical contour USGS topographic maps renders them useless for our needs. We elected to use a Sokkia Set 4B total station (see Chapter 2, Figure 2.7) assisted by GPS equipment to prepare topographic maps using thousands of points closely spaced, thereby allowing production of maps with very small contour intervals. Despite such a large number of elevation measurements, often as close as one meter apart, the mapping was accomplished expeditiously and proved to be extremely useful. It was more accurate, finer tuned and, therefore, more revealing than other available maps and methods. Figures 2.9 and 2.10 (next chapter) are 3D topographic maps of both the south and north ridges. The contour intervals in these figures have been enlarged to reduce viewing complexity for this report; however, shallow 0.1 m contour maps (not shown) were the tools most useful for identifying areas that may provide the best opportunity for recovering suitable subsurface data.

11

Geophysical studies Several remote sensing tests were first conducted at the site before deciding upon the best equipment for the task. The various techniques evaluated included instruments and methods for conducting ground penetrating radar (GPR) testing, electro-magnetic induction (EMI), ground resistivity and various means of magnetometry. Chapter 3 describes the equipment, process and results of the geophysical work accomplished at the Greenlee Site.

Test excavations Chapter 4 of this report addresses the excavations conducted. Our purposes were three-fold: 1) to confirm the quality of the remote sensing results, 2) to determine the nature of the architecture and 3) to gather wood samples and to study ceramic items for site dating purposes. Most excavations were conducted in rectangular units of a size sufficient to permit freedom of movement and useful observation. No features such as kivas and rooms were completely excavated. Ceramic analysis Chapters 5 and 6 are concerned with the analysis of the ceramics at the Greenlee Site. A large portion of the work was conducted by the staff and participants of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center (Chapter 5). Those ceramics were recovered during the 2004 and part of the 2005 field seasons. Comprehensive tables are presented providing their view of the ceramic styles and are accompanied by a written summary of their findings. Chapter 6 is a continuation of the analysis of ceramics excavated largely during the 2006 period. This chapter provides additional insights into the Greenlee Site pottery. Bone analysis Animals appear to have been an important part of the diet for the prehistoric occupants of the Greenlee Site. In Chapter 7 we will look at the variety and size of the faunal materials recovered and see photos of some of the bone tools.

Lithics analysis and material sourcing Ground stone and chipped stone tools and the by-products of their creation are covered in Chapter 8. Chapter 9 will look into the sources for the raw materials used to manufacture these items. Perhaps the most interesting artifacts recovered in this category are the projectile points which will be shown to have diagnostic value.

12

Concluding Remarks In Chapter 10 we will draw our conclusions concerning site significance and provide the rationale that played a role in arriving at the outcome. Additionally, we will present our recommendations for National Register recognition of the Greenlee Site.

13

Chapter 2

TOPOGRAPHY & GEODETIC CONTROL

Steven M. DiNaso, Geologist/GIS Specialist, Eastern Illinois University Vincent P. Gutowski, Ph.D Geology/Geography, Eastern Illinois University

Buried archaeological structures are often exemplified in the overlying surface topography. At the Greenlee Ruins, where wind blown loess has long since covered the structural amenities of this Ancestral Puebloan community, subtle details of the past become readily discernible following a detailed topographic survey, Figure 2.1. Where detailed topography and the arrangement of specifically orientated archaeological excavation and geophysical grids warrant

Figure 2.1 Greenlee Site 1m topography accurate and precise control, precision geodetic control is needed. Two Leica 14 channel GPS and GLONASS enabled, GX1230 RTK Global Positioning System provided true and consistent geodetic results. Dual frequency (L1, L2 full carrier phase, C/A narrow code) GPS is essential in obtaining highly accurate positioning by providing diminution of Ionospheric perturbations, good signal to 14

noise ratio, and prompt ambiguity resolution during brief rapid-static measurements. The GX1230 provides centimeter accurate positions at rates up to 20Hz with reliability better than 99.99% for base lines to 30km. (Leica Geosystems, specifications chart) Semi-permanent monumentation was established at three (3) predetermined, onsite locations. Approximately 7,200 in2 of material was removed from the substrate and filled with quick-setting concrete. A three-inch (~7.5cm) long aluminum survey marker with a 1 inch, (~2.5cm) hemispherical head and a one-quarter inch (~.6cm) concave center mark, was affixed in the matrix such that the length of the pin was plumb and the base of the head in contact with the top of the concrete (Figure 2.2). At all permanent control monuments, the GX1230 provided geographic coordinates in WGS84 and UTM grid coordinates using a local geoid model prior to data acquisition. The National Geodetic Survey’s Online

Positioning User Service (OPUS) provided two-centimeter (2cm) accurate base control coordinates using a Bursa-Wolf transformational model and the WGS84 ellipsoid. Universal Transverse Mercator (Zone 12N) coordinates complimented these data on the 1983 North American Datum (NAD83, CORS96) using the International Terrestrial Reference Frame of 2000 and three (3) local NGS base stations. These stations, Carbon County CORS, Myton 1 CORS, and Aztec CORS, (NGS PID’s AJ2124, AJ8476, and AI0265 respectively), were used to compute the final coordinates with an RMS error of 0.016m. IGS precise and IGS rapid orbits were not available at possessing time. Local coordinate confirmation using the NGS Chamberlain (PID HM0575) monument approximately seven (7) miles northwest of the Greenlee Site affirmed the OPUS results. Ephemeris data for each of the three (3) monuments were collected for a minimum of five hours’ duration during a period of low PDOP (precisional dilution of precision) and high satellite visibility (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.2 Setting monument

Mission planning using a GPS almanac no more than one week old provided the original, May 15th, 2003 acquisition times. These three (3) GPS stations have provided horizontal and vertical control for permanent and temporary total station monuments and dedicated backsight stations for the 2003 through 2006 field

15

surveys (figures 2.4 and 2.5). All GPS and total station survey data were projected to the Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 12N grid coordinates on the American Datum of 1983 (GRS80 Spheroid).

Figure 2.3 Typical satellite availability and precisional dilution of precision plot for GPS mission planning. June 26th, 2005 Almanac, Leica Geosystems Ski Pro Software

Figure 2.4 Global positioning system and total station control monuments

16

Of the 8,056 measurements acquired during the 2003 through 2006 field surveys, 4,946 (61%) of these were acquired using the Leica SR530 RTK Global Positioning System, and 3,110 (39%) using a Sokkia Set 4B total station and an SDR33 Data Collector shown in Figure 2.7. Until permanent onsite control was established on the NAD83 Datum, an arbitrary survey grid was established with temporary monumentation. All total station surveys began and closed-out using at least two (2) known bench marks with periodic redundancy checks at dedicated backsights to verify horizontal and vertical accuracy. Horizontal and vertical control variations between stations were less than 1.5cm for all surveys. Kinematic surveys using GPS allowed real-time monitoring of survey-grade

Figure 2.5 Rover used in field survey and feature mapping

accuracies where spot elevations exceeding the predetermined 2cm threshold on both the

Figure 2.6 GPS and total station spot elevations – view to northwest

vertical and horizontal could be removed post-survey using the Leica Ski-Pro software. Readjustment and transformation of the total station data from the arbitrary grid system to Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 12 North permitted amalgamation of the two datasets. A one meter (1m) contour interval topographic map for the 160 acre site was produced using a Kriging algorithm on all 8,056 spot elevations using Environmental Systems Research Inc.’s, 3D Analyst extension and ArcInfo ArcGIS software. Along the north and south ridges

17

Figure 2.8 Greenlee Site 1 m topography Figure 2.7 Total Station and Data

Collector

where cultural materials were known to exist, a more detailed topographic survey warranted a decrease in spacing between measured spot elevations. Both ridges were modeled using a .15m (~.5ft) contour interval to reveal more detail. Topography at the Greenlee Site consists of two parallel ridges approximately 300 meters apart trending northwest – southeast, where the two ridges are connected by means of a topographic “saddle” running perpendicular to their axis about mid-length along each ridge respectively (Figure 2.8). Topography is of relatively low to moderate relief with a maximum vertical relief of approximately 55 meters inclusive of the 160-acre site property boundary. The site parallels a steep canyon where the greatest vertical repose is found. Site geomorphology is due in part to the erosional attributes of the Dakota and Morrison Formations and overlying wind-blown loess deposits, by an intermittent stream in adjacent Squaw Canyon and by localized drainage into the canyon. Where resistant bedrock is exposed, steep-walled canyons exist adjacent to and downstream of the Greenlee Site. High-density GPS and total station measurements on the north and south ridges permitted use of a 0.15m (~.5ft) contour interval exemplifying shallow, subsurface archaeological structures. Surface depressions indicate possible pit structures as their presence is not warranted though normal geomorphologic processes. Short ridges and topographic highs are indicative of possible block wall

18

structures, particularly where they form reniform-like ridges adjacent to pit structures such as that at UTM coordinate 680,670E, 4,171,290N (Figure 2.9). The highest point on the ridge is an elliptical mound of rubble at UTM coordinates 680,625E, 4,170,950N. Nearly all of the depressions are symmetrical and are very similar in size to one another (Figure 2.10).

Figure 2.9 North ridge detailed topography Figure 2.10 South ridge detailed topography

As topography is often exemplified by the underlying archaeological structures, it would follow that some consistency in slope pattern be recognizant based on the type of structure present given their unique symmetry, e.g. pit structures, walls, etc. Slope angle was modeled using the original topographic raster data sets for both the north and south ridge occupations to produce a series of varying maps illustrating the relationship of slope to bioturbated surfaces. Overall, the models exhibited spatial patterns which, supplemental to topography, could be utilized as a template to distinguish one type of structure from another. Figure 2.11 illustrates the use of this technique at the south ridge to identify the possible location of pit-structures and associated architecture.

19

Figure 2.11 Slope analysis by Di Naso (purple) predicting kiva locations and associated architecture. Also shown is Dove interpretation (blue) using auger and visual methods.

20

Chapter 3

GEOPHYSICAL DATA

Harvey Henson Geophysicist, Southern Illinois University

Magnetic Gradiometry Background

Table 3.1. Magnetic susceptibility field measurements.

Susceptibility (1x10-3 SI units) AvgSample Location

Building Stones (Dakota Sandstone) .04 .06 .04 .03 .042

Dakota Sandstone Outcrops .04 .04 .03 .05 .02 .036

Soil #1 .69 .63 .65 .65 .64 .652

Soil #2 .95 .80 .95 .90 .81 .882

Magnetic gradiometry was used at the Greenlee Site to map buried archaeological features by measuring slight variations in the Earth’s magnetic field. Certain archaeological features and objects can be detected and possibly delineated if sufficient magnetic susceptibility contrasts exist with the surrounding subsurface materials and soils. Ferrous metals, fired clay, and burned areas, such as hearths or kilns, are easily detected using magnetic methods (Breiner,

1999; Weymouth, 1986). Areas of very low magnetic susceptibility, such as highly organic soil and sedimentary stone masonry, may also be detected if there is sufficient magnetic susceptibility contrasts between these substances and the materials surrounding them. In order to

exam the possible ranges of magnetic susceptibility at the Greenlee Site, susceptibility field measurements were collected from a few initial locations: 1) sandstone blocks presumably used as building material for pueblos at grid SR007 (near 680630E, 4170950N UTM), 2) nearby outcrops of Dakota Sand-stone located south of the study area, and 3) surficial soil deposits at the South Ridge near UTM coordinates 680619E, 4170940N and 680634E, 4170945N (table 3.1). A handheld KT-9 digital magnetic susceptibility meter was used to collect these initial measurements. Additional susceptibility measurements should be made of various soil horizons as test excavations are conducted.

The magnetic gradiometry method allows high-resolution magnetic prospecting of the shallow subsurface and actually eliminates undesirable magnetic noise, such as diurnal variations and other unpredictable short period fluctuations in the Earth’s total magnetic field. The diurnal component of the magnetic field is caused by cyclical solar interference with the Earth’s ionosphere and typically ranges 10-50 nanoTeslas (nT) over a 24 hour period. Other external magnetic variations caused by abnormal solar activity are unpredictable and may occur

21

over seconds, minutes, or hours with amplitudes from .001 to 100 nT (Breiner, 1999; Telford et al., 1976). These variations are unacceptable for effective magnetic remote sensing at prehistoric archaeological sites where associated magnetic anomalies usually vary by only a few nT. The magnetic gradiometer method utilizes dual sensors and a high-speed data logger to record two magnetic readings within approximately one second. The higher positioned (top) magnetometer sensor measures local magnetic intensity along with any diurnal variations while the lower (bottom) magnetometer sensor essentially measures the same magnetic signature (Figure 3.1). However, since the bottom sensor is closer to the ground, it is slightly more sensitive than the top sensor to any near surface or subsurface anomalous magnetic fields possibly related to archaeological features. Subtracting these two readings to calculate magnetic gradient cancels out the diurnal and other long wavelength magnetic anomalies to leave behind the higher frequency magnetic signatures generated from small magnetic variations within the shallow subsurface. Magnetic gradient (Mgrad) is obtained by subtracting the bottom sensor data (mbottom) from the top sensor data (mtop) and dividing by the distance (L) in meters separating the two sensors. Equation 1. Mgrad = (mtop - mbottom) / L Magnetic gradient units are usually expressed in nT/m (nanoTeslas/meter). Magnetic gradient, which may be positive or negative, is a measure of how rapidly the magnetic intensity is changing at a specific location in response to nearby magnetic influences.

Magnetic Gradiometry Procedure & Results Three different magnetic gradiometers were tested from 2004 and 2006 to determine their usefulness in detecting subtle magnetic anomalies possibly related to archaeological features at the Greenlee Site: 1) a Geometrics model G-856 proton precession gradiometer, 2) a Geometrics model G-858 Cesium magnetic gradiometer (Figure 3.2), and 3) a Bartington Instruments, Inc. Grad 601-2 gradiometer. Several researchers have successfully used these instruments or similar magnetometers to detect and map North American

22

prehistoric archaeological sites (Weymouth and Huggins, 1985; Gibson, 1986; Devore and Heimmer, 1995; Henson et al., 2005). These high-resolution instruments precisely measure the vertical intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field at the location of interest. Slight variations in the magnetic signature indicate that something near or below the ground surface is affecting the Earth’s local magnetic field. The presence of ferrous

metal, magnetic minerals in the soil, stone masonry, fired clay, and burned areas can cause slight contrasts in magnetic susceptibility resulting in these magnetic anomalies. Such anomalies can be mapped to detect possible locations of archaeological features.

Collecting Cesium Gradiometer Data Figure 3.2 G-858 cesium gradiometer

In May 2004, during the first year of geophysical field work, magnetic data were collected using two Geometrics G-856 portable proton precession gradiometers (G-856 Magnetometer Operator’s Manual, 1995). This system is extremely precise and capable of measuring magnetic field intensity to within 0.1 nanoTeslas (nT). The G-856 was easy to operate and required a single user. Various top and bottom sensor heights were tested to determine the optimum configuration for data acquisition at the site. A sensor separation of 75 cm was selected with the top and bottom sensors located 1.5 m and .75 m above the ground, respectively. Magnetometer test data were collected discretely every 1 m along grid lines that were measured and marked with spray paint in advance of the survey. Starting at one corner of the study area, each grid line was traversed (bi-directionally) with the operator pausing at each 1 m mark to manually trigger the instrument to take a measurement. This discrete method was laborious, time-consuming, and expensive. Grid location errors were easy to make and occasionally wasted field time. However, nearly 3000 magnetic stations were collected at the South Ridge study area and approximately 2000 stations at the North Ridge study area. All data values were stored automatically in the magnetometer memory and later transferred to a laptop computer in the field where preliminary contour maps were generated for data quality control. The preliminary plots of the North Ridge magnetic gradient data were plotted in the field and found to be extremely noisy, but there was not enough time to recollect the data. A horizontal differential operator was later applied to the data to remove the obvious vertical noise that was probably caused by instrument noise. A low-pass Gaussian filter was also applied to remove any residual high frequency noise (Figure 3.3). However, magnetic gradient data collected along the South Ridge study area at grid SR006 were less noisy and after digital processing provided more useful results. Possible subsurface prehistoric features were detected, but not completely delineated (Figure 3.4).

23

During the 2005 field season two newer and more sophisticated magnetometers were tested at grid NR005 along the North Ridge study area. A Bartington Grad 601 fluxgate gradiometer on loan from ASC Scientific, Inc. and a Geometrics G-858 Cesium gradiometer were tested at grid NR005. The Grad601 magnetic gradiometer is supplied in two versions, the dual sensor Grad601-2 and the single sensor Grad601-1 (Bartington Instruments Ltd., 2005). This instrument is light-weight, relatively easy to use and configure, and commonly used for

Figure 3.3 Gray-scale images of the 2004 magnetic gradient test data from the North Ridge study area (near grid NR005). Data were collected with a Geometrics model G-856 gradiometer and digitally filtered as noted above to remove noise.

Figure 3.4 Contoured images of the 2004 magnetic gradient test data from the south ridge study area (grids SR006 & SR007). Data were collected with a Geometrics model G-856 gradiometer and digitally filtered with a horizontal differential operator. Noise has not been completely removed, especially along the 4170956N horizontal. Several linear anomalies probably related to buried pueblo walls are present.

24

detailed archaeological site surveys and for the location of pipes, cables, steel drums or unexploded ordnance. The sensor used in the Grad601 is a high- stability fluxgate gradient sensor with a 1m separation between the sensing elements, providing a strong response to even deeply buried anomalous objects. The resolution is 0.1nT/m when used on the 100nT/m range, typical for shallow archaeological surveys. A dual sensor Grad601-2 was used and recorded two lines of data in only one traverse along the grid, thus reducing survey time significantly. Another major advantage of this instrument was only minimum grid layout was required. Essentially only start and end points for each traverse were necessary as distances along the traversed line were interpolated by instrument software during downloading to the computer. Magnetic measurements were taken with the high speed controller at intervals of 12.5 cm along each traverse line. This sample rate more adequately meets the very high level of resolution needed to detect and locate small prehistoric features buried in the subsurface. The grid was traversed bi-directionally with parallel lines spaced 50 cm apart. One significant limitation of this instrument is that it required square grids (10x10, 20x20, 30x30, etc.), which necessitated piece-meal data collection across rectangular or irregularly shaped grids. However, the Grad 601-2 provided significantly greater sampling of the survey area, dramatically faster data acquisition, and greater resolution of magnetic gradient anomalies, than the Geometrics G-856 magnetometer. Overall, the Grad 601 was much easier to use and provided much greater sampling of the survey grid. Special software was provided for downloading magnetic data from the data logger to a PC for subsequent data processing. A G-858 Cesium vapor gradiometer was also tested in 2005 at grid NR005 (Geometrics, Inc., 2001). This highly sensitive instrument utilizes the natural charge and spin of the outer-most electron in the Cesium atom to very accurately measure the Earth’s ambient magnetic field (Smith, 1997). The model G-858 was quick and efficient during magnetic surveying. Since only the start and end points of each traverse were required to be marked in order to layout the survey grid, as was the case with the fluxgate gradiometer, setup time and expense were significantly reduced. Data points were collected in continuous mode every 10-15 cm along parallel survey lines that were spaced 50 cm apart and traversed bidirectionally. The G-858 gradiometer was first tested in a horizontal configuration with both sensors positioned vertically 25 cm above the ground and separated by 75 cm. Preliminary contour maps were constructed in the field and revealed data quality and resolution were comparable to the Grad 601-2 results. The instrument was also tested in a vertically stacked configuration with the top sensor height set at 1 m above the ground and the bottom sensor positioned 25 cm above the ground, thus sensor separation was 75 cm. Preliminary contour maps of the magnetic gradient data collected with the G-858 gradiometer in a vertically stacked sensor configuration were very impressive and clearly showed much higher resolution anomalies than results from the G-858 gradiometer with a horizontal sensor configuration, the Grad 601-2 fluxgate gradiometer in dual

25

680620 680630 680640

4170935

4170940

4170945

4170950

4170955

4170960

4170965

4170970

4170975

4170980

4170985

-50-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-505101520253035404550

680620 680630 680640

4170935

4170940

4170945

4170950

4170955

4170960

4170965

4170970

4170975

4170980

4170985

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

G-856 (2004)

MagneticGradient(nT/m)

MagneticGradient(nT/m)

G-858 (2005)

Figure 3.5 Contoured images of the 2004 G-856 and 2005 G-858 magnetic gradient test data from the south ridge study area (grids SR006 & SR007). Data collected with Geometrics model G-858 gradiometer in a vertical sensor configuration provided higher frequency anomalies.

sensor mode, or the G-856 gradiometer data collected in 2004. Therefore, the G-858 gradiometer was selected during the 2006 field project to complete the magnetic gradient survey of the Greenlee Site. A portion of the G-856 and G-858 magnetic gradient results for grids SR006 and SR007 are compared in Figure 3.5. Approximately 120,000 magnetic stations were collected at the North Ridge study area and another 120,000 at the South Ridge study area (figures 3.6A and 3.6B). Data processing and editing were necessary to get the magnetic information into an interpretable format. Data were first downloaded into the Geometrics Mag-Map2000 software for preliminary processing and then into Golden Software’s Surfer version 8.0 for further processing, analysis, and construction of contour maps and images (Golden Software Inc., 2002). Magnetic sensor readings and survey line location information were downloaded onto a laptop computer interfaced to the gradiometer with the MagMap2000 software. MagMap2000 is PC-based software specially designed for downloading, locating, and analyzing magnetic data collected with Geometrics instruments. MagMap2000 prompts the user for specific survey information in order to inter-polate distance for each reading along survey lines and to correctly establish the grid layout. An on-screen graphical illustration of the survey area is provided so

26

that the user can make sure all readings are in the correct spatial orientation. After any (X and Y) location corrections were made to the data points, magnetic gradient was calculated and the data were exported in XYZ format for input into the Surfer program. Surfer provides user-friendly spreadsheet functions, detailed statistical computations, and sophisticated mathematical operations necessary to process and analyze large datasets.

NR005 NR006

NR007

NR003NR002

NR001

NR010

NR009 NR008

NR004

NR011

Figure 3.6A Magnetic gradient data and grid locations of the north ridge study area. Gray areas are where deviant data were eliminated. Large gray area in grid NR004 is missing data at excavation pits. Axes are in UTM meters.

SR010

SR006SR009

SR006b

SR003aSR002bSR001

SR007

SR005

SR003b

SR011

SR002

SR004

Figure 3.6B Magnetic gradient data and grid locations of the south ridge study area. Gray areas are where deviant data were eliminated. Axes are in UTM meters.

27

Once in Surfer, certain statistical variables of the magnetic gradient data were computed and examined for each dataset. It was determined that some datasets contained extreme values, or spikes, which were beyond several standard deviations of the dataset mean value. Noisy data, such as magnetic spikes, can obscure the more subtle magnetic signatures often generated by archaeological features and must be removed by editing or digital filtering. These extremes values were most likely caused by instrument noise, instrument error, user error, or ferrous debris such as bottle caps or cans. Preliminary contour maps of the raw data, including the extreme values, were examined in Surfer to be sure that the spikes were indeed not archaeologically significant. The gradient data were sorted in ascending order in the spreadsheet and extreme data eliminated outside of two standard deviations from the mean value. The edited datasets were then gridded by Surfer, contoured, and inspected. After de-spiking, all datasets were combined into a single file and gridded in Surfer to create com-posite contour and color image maps for each of the two ridges. The color range of each image was manipulated to try to enhance subtle anomalous features. Magnetic gradient data were filtered with a low-pass Gaussian matrix filter to further remove high frequency noise, such as (vertical or horizontal) striping, that could not be eliminated by manual editing. Striping often occurs in very low amplitude magnetic surveys when instrument noise is incorporated into the recorded magnetic data. Variations of the Gaussian low-pass filter worked especially well to remove the striping apparent in the magnetic data from grid NR005 (Figure 3.3). Preliminary and final maps were produced in Surfer for use in planning excavations. Numerous anomalies were identified based on their shape and amplitude. Anomalies with amplitudes greater than 3 nT/m were traced in black and anomalies ranging in amplitudes of 0-3 nT/m were identified with a gray line on the interpreted magnetic gradient maps (figures 3.7-3.9). Many interesting trends, most linear in nature, are observable and probably represent pueblo walls, combinations of walls, fire pits or hearths, kivas, and other more complex features (figures 3.7B, 3.8B and 3.9). Although it is unlikely that all of the identified anomaly trends have an archaeological basis, it is probable that many of these anomalies are related to prehistoric manmade features buried in the subsurface. Regular patterns and predictable rectilinear shapes rarely occur in nature and when observed in geophysical data usually signal manmade features. Two very well imaged pueblo structures are readily observable on the South Ridge magnetic gradient image at UTM coordinates 680605E, 4171005N and 680610E, 4170965N (figures 3.8A and 3.8B). It is possible that some of the magnetic anomalies on these images have more “natural” causes, such as lightning strikes. Some researchers have noted interesting magnetic signatures and anomaly patterns caused by lightning (Jones and Maki, 2005). A few anomalies that exhibit a distinctive high/low anomaly pair, often referred to as dipole anomalies, are observable on the images. These

28

may be the result of small iron objects or other (historical) ferrous materials near the surface, such as bottle caps, cans, or barbed-wire. Negative anomalies (shown in blue to blue-green colors) that exhibited a somewhat obvious circular shape were interpreted to be kivas and identified with a black circle, or with a gray circle if the anomaly amplitude was less intense. The patterns of anomaly trends and locations are rather complex and may suggest multiple phases of construction and/or occupation occurred at these sites.

Figure 3.7A Color contour image of the G-858 cesium magnetic gradient at the north ridge study area. Axes are in UTM meters.

Figure 3.7B North ridge study area anomaly trends in the G858 cesium magnetic gradient data. Anomalies greater than 3 nT/m are highlighted in bold black and anomalies 0-3 nT/m are shown in gray. Axes are in UTM meters.

29

Figure 3.8A Color contour image of the G-858 Cesium magnetic gradient data at the south ridge study area. Axes are in UTM meters.

Figure 3.8B Anomaly trends in the G-858 Cesium magnetic gradient data at the south ridge study area. Anomalies greater than 3 nT/m are highlighted in bold black and anomalies 0-3 nT/m are shown in gray. Axes are in UTM meters.

30

Figure 3.9A Anomaly trends in the G-858 Cesium magnetic gradient data at the north ridge study area. Anomalies greater than 3 nT/m are high-lighted in bold black and anomalies 0-3 nT/m are shown in gray. Axes are in UTM meters.

Figure 3.9B Anomaly trends in the G-858 Cesium magnetic gradient data at the south ridge study area. Anomalies greater than 3 nT/m are highlighted in bold black and anomalies 0-3 nT/m are shown in gray. Axes are in UTM meters.

31

Chapter 4

ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING

Donald E. Dove and David M. Dove

General Excavation Procedure

Our approach to site assessment involved a heavy reliance on remote sensing instrumentation and topographic mapping to guide our investigations. Excavations were limited in scope and used largely (1) to confirm instrumentation results, (2) to assess architectural style, and (3) to gather information on site chronology. By confirming our interpretations of the remote sensing results investigators could be selective in the type of architecture to study. Moreover, this non-invasive technique would help us also to evaluate particular aspects of the site without penetrating the site surface. Throughout this report there will be occasional references to “grids” and “segments”. A “grid” is simply a square excavation unit (EU), whereas a “segment” is a rectangular shaped excavation unit of a shape other than a square. For the most part the term EU will be used. With few exceptions, most excavation units at the site started as 1M X 3M "segments" or 2M X 2M "grids". Some were later expanded to improve our understanding of discovered features or to collect additional temporal data. The reference point for all measurements taken within any given excavation unit was the ground surface at the southwest corner of that particular EU. By and large, excavations were conducted in finite increments of depth, which are identified as Provenience Designation units or PDs and are generally framed by the EU boundary. A PD may range in depth from a few centimeters to a “full cut”. An example of a “full cut” could be an excavation that started at modern ground surface ending with the completed excavation of the unit. Full cuts are used infrequently. Uppermost PDs were usually removed using shovels. Near-surface levels are often disturbed by human or natural activity and materials are usually out of context. On the other hand, the lower levels, or “fill”, may often contain prehistoric discard, useful stratigraphic evidence or prehistoric surfaces, at which point the shovel is put aside. Trowels are usually the largest implement used for the remainder of the excavation. All material removed from the excavation units were screened through one-quarter inch mesh. In the first part of this section we will first discuss excavations at the great kiva and elsewhere on the north ridge. The reader may refer to figures 3.6A and 4.1

32

(below) to find locations of the EUs on the remote sensing plot and the 3d plot respectively. We will then follow with a discussion on the work conducted at the south ridge site. For this portion, figures 3.7A and 4.20 will be useful. Several assigned excavation units were either not investigated or abandoned very early. They will not be discussed in this report.

North Ridge Excavations

EU 30 Great kivaexcavation units

EU 26

EU 20

EU 31

EU 32 EU 13 EU 9

EU 10

Figure 4.1 North ridge topo showing location of excavation units Since the opportunity to conduct a thorough and adequate remote sensing of the sites was not possible until the arrival of the geophysical specialists from the Illinois colleges, it was decided to place excavation units in one 30m X 30m grid where topographic plots and visual survey indicated that a large depression existed. From all appearances, It was suspected that a great kiva may exist at this location. The first completed excavation units yielded sufficient evidence to confirm our suspicions. We discovered early that some of our excavation units were placed outside the kiva boundary which resulted in sterile conditions within the first 30 centimeters. At that point, work was discontinued and the units were backfilled. Such was the case with EUs 1, 4, 5 and 6 (not reported).

33

Excavation units 2, 3, 7 and 8 were placed at the southern periphery of the depression and yielded more favorable results (see Figure 4.8) EU 2 EU 2 measured 1M X 3M east-west oriented unit was located in the southwestern portion of the great kiva depression, approximately 1.5 M below the high point surrounding the structure. Within the first 30 to 40 cm of the excavation a demarcation created by two different soil colors was noted, clearly defining the outer boundary of the great kiva at this location. It became apparent that within the kiva, one could expect soil that was brown and organic in nature, while beyond the boundary, the soil was sterile and reddish in appearance. This discovery was useful in our later work, serving as an aid in defining the kiva boundary. All subsequent PDs were confined to the inside of the kiva.

nly

PDs below the first 40cm were excavated 20 cm levels. Narrowing the depth of each PD in this fashion permitted us to better study ceramic and faunal variation, depositional processes and chronology if any existed.

Figure 4.2 EU 2 excavated

At the 180 cm level a substantial bench was discovered carved from caliche subsoil, 55 cm wide and 40 cm above a caliche/mud plastered floor (Figure 4.2). A 50 cm diameter, 1 m deep posthole was located in the northeast corner of the EU. The post was supported, and surrounded by several stones at the bottom of the hole, undoubtedly to add stability.

EU 3 Excavation unit 3 (Figure 4.3) was a 1m X 3m segment located 1m east of EU 2. It was initiated concurrently with EU 2, again for the purpose of locating the southern boundary of the kiva. The completed excavation yielded odiscarded items in the fill and a few floor artifacts. This unit was well inside the kiva boundary. Figure 4.3 shows three of the post-holes that were exposed during excavation. There are other items in this photo that are noteworthy. In the profile can be seen the floor zone which varies from 5 to 10 cm in thickness.

Figure 4.3 EU 3 view to north

34

There are actually several micro-layers of floor surfaces that were compacted th