Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology of the Colorado High Country

2. Current Perspectives in Colorado High-Country Archaeology

This section surveys current approaches and perspectives in Colorado mountain archaeology, including the research domains considered important by Guthrie et al. (1984) and the Mountain tradition as proposed by Black (1991). The concept of social relationships is explored. FORMATION PROCESSES Formation processes consist of both the cultural practices of ancient peoples and the natural environmental conditions that affect what remains of old occupations . For example, a group of prehistoric people may fragment bones into tiny pieces when making bone juice, or the soils at a site may be naturally acidic—these cultural and natural formation processes may destroy bone so that the archaeologist finds scant or poorly preserved bone remains during excavation. Often archaeologists assume that they know about archaeological formation processes in the mountains. Many believe that formation processes are more destructive of archaeological information on open or non-cave sites, shallowly buried sites, and mountain sites than they are on cave sites, buried deposits, or lower-elevation sites. In places like Tenderfoot (an open, shallow, mountain site), a variety of destructive occurrences supposedly make the archaeologist’s job more difficult. “Problems of multiple-occupations in rodent-disturbed and compressed stratigraphies , low site visibility, and relatively poor preservation of perishable remains such as bone are among the characteristics common in mountain sites which have further clouded the picture” (Black 1991:1). In some regions, enough archaeological research has been done that a consistent layout of sites can be recognized. For example, an experienced archaeologist can walk on an unexcavated site in the American Southwest and confidently 2 Current Perspectives in Colorado High-Country Archaeology 14 Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology of the Colorado High Country point out the locations of storerooms, living rooms, and trash dumps. In contrast , the common lithic-scatter site is seldom viewed as having such a design; the lithic scatter is assumed to consist of randomly located artifacts and features. Finding features on a lithic scatter is viewed by many archaeologists as dependent on luck. “Typically, what an archaeologist finds in an unsheltered Archaic site is termed a lithic scatter, just a number of discarded flakes and perhaps a few broken or lost stone tools. If one is lucky, a firepit or two might be found” (Cassells 1997:111). If the lithic scatter is truly a horizontally homogeneous distribution of artifacts , the horizontal spatial associations among features and artifacts is spurious, and the only hope of associating artifacts and features is through vertical stratigraphy . Such homogeneity would dictate that excavations on multiple-occupation sites with absent or compressed vertical stratigraphy would yield mixed materials , so interpretations about individual occupations would be extremely difficult or impossible. This is a traditional conclusion based on unsupported assumptions about the archaeological record. The assumption of horizontally homogeneous archaeological deposits prompts most sampling programs that employ randomly distributed test pits. “Testing [of the lithic scatter] was aimed at detecting the presence or absence of important buried features, such as living surfaces or hearths, and buried artifactual and ecofactual materials” (Reed 1984:7). Also, the assumption of horizontally homogeneous archaeological deposits lies behind the facile classifications of sites (Kvamme 1988). With such classifications , the internal structure of a site and variation (both within a site and among sites in the same category) are ignored and considered unimportant. Many archaeologists do not regard horizontal stratigraphy to be as potentially informative as vertical stratigraphy. It is this approach that causes some archaeologists to ignore entire sites if the sites have no vertical differentiation. Also, some disregard horizontal distributions that may be informative. For example , Black (1991:18) discusses the dating of the Mount Albion Boardinghouse point type. Benedict (1975) proposes that the point type dates to 5730 B.P. based on the vertical distribution of points and two radiocarbon dates from a single test pit. I agree with Black (and Benedict) that the evidence is not solid, but Black argues a different date based on point/radiocarbon date associations at two other sites. These two other sites are 5GN344 (Black 1983b) and the Dead of Winter Site (Buckles 1978). At 5GN344, Black (1983b) found a projectile point shaped similarly to the Mount Albion Boardinghouse points. This point was 20 cm deep in the soil when found; most artifacts were located in this 20-cm surface layer. Postholes indicating a structure were “found at a depth of 6 cm below the present ground surface” (Black 1983b9), thirty meters southwest of the point. A radiocarbon sample was taken from deposits sixteen meters east of the structure, at...