DTIC ADA475441: Archeological Testing at Four Sites on the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Las Animas County, Colorado

163.2 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

ARCHEOLOGICAL TESTING AT FOUR SITES ON THE PINON
CANYON MANEUVER SITE, LAS ANIMAS COUNTY,
COLORADO
by
Amy Nelson, Mona Charles, Randy Nathan, and Philip Duke
with contributions by
Daniel R. Bach
Cerisa Reynolds
Department of Anthropology,
Fort Lewis College, Durango, CO
Cooperative Agreement Number CA-6000-A9-003
Research administered by
Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln, NE
Prepared for and funded by:
The Directorate of Environmental Compliance and Management, Fort Carson, CO
Fort Carson Cultural Resource Management Series Contribution Number 16
20080118051
2007
ARCHEOLOGICAL TESTING AT FOUR SITES ON THE PINON
CANYON MANEUVER SITE, LAS ANIMAS COUNTY,
COLORADO
by
Amy Nelson, Mona Charles, Randy Nathan, and Philip Duke
with contributions by
Daniel R. Bach
Cerisa Reynolds
Department of Anthropology,
Fort Lewis College, Durango, CO
Cooperative Agreement Number CA-6000-A9-003
Research administered by
Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln, NE
Prepared for and funded by:
The Directorate of Environmental Compliance and Management, Fort Carson, CO
Fort Carson Cultural Resource Management Series Contribution Number 16
2007
1om
Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
PL DOO RburdVaOnU W10V iFORt7M Tz O DR tT s
1. Fd 0RT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 12. RIORT TYPE 3. DATES COVErS (From - To)
2/10/2007 Final July 2003 - September 2007
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Archeological testing at Four Sites on the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Las
Animas County, Colorado 6b. GRANT NUMBER
CA-6000-A9-003
6o. PROGRAM EEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR($) 6d. PROJECT NUMBER
Nelson, A., Charles, M., Nathan, R., Duke, P.
Se. TASK NUMBER
6f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(Q) AND ADDRE$S(E) a. PREERPOFORRT MNINUGM BER4R3ANIZATION
Fort Lewis College, Department of Anthropology
1000 Rim Drive
D,urango, CO 81301
9. SPONSOING1MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONWOR/MONITORI$ ACRONYM($)
MWAC
Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service
100 Centennial Mall North, Room 474
Litcoln, NE 68508-3873 11. SPONSORMTVONITORS REPORT
NUMBER(S)
Fort Carson Contribution Number 16
12. DISTIBUTIONAVAILABIUTY $TATEMENT
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A
Available
Approved for Public Release
Distrihutinn Unlimited
13. SUPPLEMvENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
In the surmer of 2003, evaluative testing was undertaken at four sites in the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) for the purpose
of evaluating the potential for these sites to yield significant infonnation about the prehistory of the PCMS and to better manage its
cultural resources. The work was conducted under a cooperative agreement with the Midwest Archeological Center (MWAC),
National Park Service. three sites are multicomponent historic and prehistoric and the fourth is prehistoric with a historic rock art
inscription. Surface mapping, artifact analysis, and subsurface testing were implemented at each site. Archival research and
geophysical surveys were conducted at two of the the historic sites. Information gathered from these investigations was used to make
eligibility recommendations for the National Register of Historic Places (NR.IP). One site, 5LA6108, is recommended as eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP. The other three sites are recommended as not eligible. This report summarizes the results of the testing,
which includes detailed information on each site's stratigraphy, material culture, features, and structures.
16. SUBJECT TERMS
Archaeology, History, Pinon Canyon, Colorado
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 1. NUMBER 19. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
at.I ORT b. AE;TRACT .THIS PAGE ABSTRACT OPAFGES
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified None 386 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER th-Ath o cok)
Stadad Fonn 208 (rv. 8.98)
rieseribod bry A41 SW. M3O10
FOREWORD
The archeological investigations reported in this manuscript are an important part of
the Fort Carson Cultural Resources Management Program whose goal is to maintain the
largest possible area for military training while protecting significant cultural and
environmental resources. The current study is part of an integrated plan that takes a long-
term systematic approach to meeting identification, evaluation, and resource protection
requirements mandated by the National Historic Preservation Act. While meeting legislated
requirements, this project also provides a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the
prehistory and resources of Las Animas County, Colorado. Fort Lewis College completed
the reported project in cooperation with Fort Carson.
Fort Carson began cultural resource studies on the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in
1983, immediately following the purchase of these lands. The Cultural Resources Program
takes a multidisciplinary approach, combining archeological theory and historical methods
with geological, geomorphological, botanical, and statistical techniques and procedures in
order to focus its efforts to locate, evaluate, and protect significant cultural resources.
Professional studies and consultations with Native American tribes have resulted in the
identification of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible sites and districts. The
cultural resources of Fort Carson and the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site represent all major
prehistoric and historic cultural periods recognized in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains.
Sites of the Paleoindian, Archaic, and Ceramic stages are present as are sites from the Fur
Trade era, 19h century Hispanic and Euroamerican settlements, early 20h century
homesteading and ranching, and World War II and Cold War era military sites. The project
reported here completes the first phase of the archeological inventory program -
identification and documentation of archeological sites to determine their NRHP eligibility.
The Cultural Resources Management Program is part of the Directorate of
Environmental Compliance and Management (DECAM). This Directorate is tasked with
maintaining Fort Carson's compliance with federal, state, and local enyironmental laws and
mandates. The DECAM's holistic management philosophy holds that all resources are
interrelated. Decisions affecting one resource will impact other resources. The decisions we
make today will affect the condition of Department of Army lands and resources for future
training, research, and recreation. Mission requirements, training resources, wildlife, range,
soil, hydrology, air, and recreation influence cultural resources management decisions.
Integrating compliance and resource protection concerns into a comprehensive planning
process reduces the time and effort expended on the compliance process, minimizes conflicts
between resource protection and use, allows flexibility in project design, minimizes costs,
and maximizes resource protection.
Federal laws protect the resources on the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site and Fort
Carson. Theft and vandalism are federal crimes. Protective measures ensure that Army
activity does not inadvertently impact significant cultural and paleontological sites. Fort
Carson does not give out site location information nor are sites developed for public
visitation. Similar resources are located in the Picketwire Canyonlands where public visits
can be arranged through the U.S. Forest Service, Comanche National Grasslands in La Junta,
Colorado.
Fort Carson endeavors to make results of the resource investigations available to the
public and scientific communities. Technical reports on cultural resources are on file at the
Fort Carson Curation Facility (Building 2420) and the Colorado State Historic Preservation
Office. They are also available through the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield VA. Selected reports have been distributed to public libraries in Colorado.
Three video programs produced by Fort Carson are periodically shown on Public
Broadcasting Stations. Non-technical reports on the prehistory, history, and rock art of
southeastern Colorado have been distributed to schools and libraries within the state. Fort
Carson continues to demonstrate that military training and resource protection are mutually
compatible goals.
Thomas L. Warren
Director, Directorate of Environmental
Compliance and Management
Fort Carson, Colorado
December 2006
ii
POPULAR ABSTRACT
The archeological resources of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS), located in
Las Animas County, Colorado, have been intensely studied since the land was purchased by
the Army in the 1980s. Before this, several important archeological sites in the near vicinity
were identified and a few were excavated by professionals. Sites within and surrounding the
PCMS have been inhabited since approximately 10,000 years ago. The earliest prehistoric
natives lived off wild plants and game including now extinct megafauna, and were nomadic,
after which they remained dependent on wild animals but incorporated more plant remains
into their diet. The majority of the known archeological sites on the PCMS; however, date
from the period known as the Late Prehistoric Stage. This Stage began about AD 100 and
ended around AD 1725. During that time, the prehistoric natives constructed houses made
of hide, wood, and stone, and often settled in suitable rock shelters. This lifestyle changed
dramatically in the 18 1ha nd 19th centuries when Anglo and Hispanic populations settled the
area. The indigenous populations were removed from the land and forced onto reservations.
The land where the PCMS is located was homesteaded by a few hardy Hispanic and Anglo
people (several of the Anglo residents were recent European immigrants) who sought a living
farming and ranching. By the late 1800s, economic and natural factors lead to the change
from small homesteads to larger ranches. The American "Dust Bowl" in the 1930s caused
many of these remaining people to sell their lands or to let the land go back to the
government for back taxes. These actions resulted in a few landowners owning large parcels.
In 1983, the U.S. Army acquired the PCMS area to use for military training. In 2003, four
archaeological sites were tested by Fort Lewis College. The cultural landscape of the PCMS
is better defined and our understanding of the past is enhanced through the study of these
sites.
TECHNICAL ABSTRACT
In the summer of 2003, evaluative testing was undertaken at four sites. Three sites
are multicomponent historic and prehistoric and the fourth is prehistoric with a historic rock
inscription. The project's purpose was to evaluate the potential of each site to yield
significant information about the prehistory and history of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site
(PCMS). The work was conducted under a cooperative agreement between Fort Carson's
Directorate of Environmental Compliance and Management (DECAM), the National Park
Service, Midwest Archeological Center (MWAC) and Fort Lewis College (FLC). This
project was prepared for and funded by DECAM, Fort Carson, Colorado. Archeological
investigations included surface mapping, surface artifact collection, geophysical surveys and
limited subsurface testing.
Site 5LA3333 is dominated by the ruins of an early 20h century homestead. The land
was patented in 1922 by Harold Sater. The Sater family was part of the early homesteading
era of southeastern Colorado. A less obvious prehistoric component consists solely of lithics
and groundstone that probably date to the Late Archaic. Our subsurface investigations
M11
yielded shallow cultural deposits; erosion and bioturbation had extensively damaged the
integrity of both components.
Site 5LA4417 is comprised of prehistoric features and artifacts and one historic
feature. Several ephemeral structures were visible. Two radiocarbon dates were obtained
from this site. One sample from Feature 12, provides an intercept date of AD 1040 (940 +
60 BP). A second radiocarbon sample with an intercept date of AD 1160 (910 ± 40 BP) was
obtained from Feature 1. Sandstone boulders and juniper posts delineate a historic telephone
line. Test unit excavations failed to demonstrate the presence of significant subsurface
cultural deposits.
Site 5LA5612 consists of a large but sparse scatter of flaked lithics and bedrock
metates primarily limited to the surface. Although several hearth features were noted when
the site was originally recorded, our investigations did not produce evidence of these
features. A radiocarbon sample with an intercept range from 760 BC to 550 BC (2480 ± 40
BP) and a second radiocarbon sample of AD 880 (1170 + 40 BP) are from sequential layers
in one test unit. The dates are on wood charcoal that we could not directly tie to artifacts,
features or cultural horizons. A single historic surname was scratched into the sandstone
outcropping.
Site 5LA6108 is dominated by the ruins of a large early 20th century homestead/ranch.
The land was patented in 1922 by Henry Alfred Barnes. Several substantial architectural
features suggest the full range of activities associated with historic ranching. A seasonal or
temporary prehistoric habitation component was also tested and it produced buried artifacts,
a hearth and a cultural horizon. An AMS radiocarbon date of AD 650 (1410 ± 40 BP) was
obtained on charcoal from a hearth.
Surface mapping, artifact analysis and subsurface testing were implemented at each
site. Archival research and geophysical surveys were conducted for the two historic
homesteads. Information gathe!-ed from these investigations was used to make eligibility
recommendations for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). One site, 5LA6108,
is recommended as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The other three sites are
recommended as not eligible. This conclusion is based on their limited information potential.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Numerous individuals and organizations contributed to this report. Primary among
these are the 2003 field crew members and supervisors. The project supervisor and principal
investigator was Mona Charles. Christine Markussen and Randy Nathan shared the
responsibilities of field director. Listed alphabetically the crew members included Melissa
Baier, Ian Crosser, Derek Heersink, Nathan Hill, Cerisa Reynolds, and Joe Samulski. Sierra
Geraci and Rosalind Sanford each spent a field session with us and Kep Heintz helped during
the last field session. The crew members endured heat, wind, rain, cholla wrestling, red ants
and other discomforts to make this project the best that it could be. Amy Nelson had multiple
responsibilities serving as field and laboratory supervisor and field crew member. We are
grateful to Thann Baker for assisting in setting up the field laboratory and operating the
electrical resistance meter.
We thank the National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center (MWAC) and
the Fort Carson Directorate of Environmental Compliance and Management (DECAM) for
the opportunity to conduct archeological work at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. We
graciously acknowledge Steven DeVore from MWAC for his guidance and support
throughout. In particular we thank Steve for sharing his knowledge of geophysical surveying.
We wish to express our appreciation to Randy Korgel of the DECAM Cultural
Resources Management Program for his support and advice, which greatly enhanced the
content of this report. Other members of the Program that aided in this project included Mike
Chidley, Pam Cowen, Thad Swan, and Kelly Wright. Cowen and Wright provided us with
archival data that we needed to complete the report. Pam Cowen aided with the catalog
system.
Our thanks go to Patricia Holm for the artifact photographs, artifact cataloging,
database input, and computer technical support. Ian Crosser and Cerisa Reynolds were
invaluable to the completion of the laboratory work at Fort Lewis College. Haley Harms
designed the artifact database and once again her assistance is greatly appreciated. Danielle
Sheptow greatly aided in the final report editing and artifact compilation. The staff at the
PCMS cantonment facilitated our comings and goings and we are thankful to them for
helping us along the way.
We shared accommodations with New Mexico State University (NMSU) staff at the
Red Rocks Ranch. We appreciate them sharing their space and their knowledge with us. We
especially acknowledge Mark Owens for sharing his insights into Pinon Canyon archaeology
and particularly his knowledge of lithic technology. This project and our crew greatly
benefitted from his expertise in both areas. We thank Mead Klavetter, PCMS wildlife
biologist of the Red Rocks Ranch, for helping with just about everything, not the least of
which were small-scale crises.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Introduction ..................................................... 1.1
CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY: THE NATURAL AND CULTURAL
ENVIRONMENTS
Introduction . .................................................... 2.1
The Great Plains of North America ................................... 2.1
The Natural Environment of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site ............. 2.3
The Cultural Setting ............................................... 2.7
The Ethnohistory and History of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site ......... 2.14
CHAPTER 3 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS ARCHEOLOGICAL WORK IN THE PINON
CANYON MANEUVER SITE
Introduction ..................................................... 3.1
Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site Literature Review ......................... 3.2
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES
CHAPTER 5 FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODS
Field M ethods and Techniques ....................................... 5.1
Surface Investigation ............................................... 5.1
G eophysical Survey ................................................ 5.2
Subsurface Testing ................................................ 5.5
Field A rtifact A nalyses . ........................................... 5.8
Laboratory M ethods and Techniques .................................. 5.9
Cataloging and Database Management ............................... 5.12
CHAPTER 6 SITE 5LA3333
Introduction . .................................................... 6.1
Surface Investigation .............................................. 6.3
Structures and Features ............................................. 6.5
G eophysical Survey .............................................. 6.14
Subsurface Testing ............................................... 6.19
A uger Test Probes ............................................... 6.19
Shovel T est ..................................................... 6.19
T est U nits ...................................................... 6.20
H istorical Research .............................................. 6.38
M aterial Culture ................................................. 6.41
H istoric A rtifacts ................................................ 6.41
Prehistoric A rtifacts .............................................. 6.44
C onclusions .................................................... 6.48
vi
Management Recommendation ..................................... 6.49
CHAPTER 7 SITE 5LA4417
Introduction ..................................................... 7.1
Surface Investigation .............................................. 7.3
Features ......................................................... 7.3
Subsurface Testing ............................................... 7.11
Shovel T ests .................................................... 7.11
T est U nits ...................................................... 7.11
M aterial Culture ................................................. 7.30
Prehistoric A rtifacts .............................................. 7.30
Co nclusions .................................................... 7.36
Management Recommendation ..................................... 7.37
CHAPTER 8 SITE 5LA5612
Introduction ...................................................... 8.1
Surface Investigation .............................................. 8.3
F eatu res ......................................................... 8.4
Subsurface Testing .................................................. 8.6
Shovel T ests ..................................................... 8.6
T est U nits ...................................................... 8.6
M aterial Culture ................................................. 8.14
Prehistoric A rtifacts .............................................. 8.14
H istoric Ar tifacts ................................................ 8.18
C onclusions ..................................................... 8.18
Management Recommendation ..................................... 8.19
CHAPTER 9 SITE 5LA6108
Introduction ..................................................... 9.1
Surface Investigation .............................................. 9.1
F eatures ........................................................ 9.5
G eophysical Survey .. ............................................ 9.16
Subsurface Testing ............................................... 9.20
A uger Test Probes ................................................ 9.20
T est U nits ...................................................... 9.20
H istorical Research ............................................... 9.76
M aterial Culture ................................................. 9.78
H istoric A rtifacts ................................................ 9.78
Prehistoric A rtifacts .............................................. 9.90
C onclusions .................................................... 9.10 1
Management Recommendations ................................... 9.102
CHAPTER 10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
vii