Previous Dendrochronological Research in the Area
Dendrochronology in eastern Utah has also been practiced for more than 60 years, but with mixed results. Unpublished archaeological “reconnaissance” projects by Albert Reagan, L. L. Leh, and J.O. Brew in the 1930s collected specimens from sites in the Nine-Mile Canyon and Range Creek areas that were sent to A.E. Douglas (LTRR site file notes). Six samples, two of which later yielded dates, were also submitted to Emil W. Haury at Gila Pueblo, but the context of their collection is unknown.
In 1946, Edmund Schulman expanded his interest in old-age conifers and the Colorado River Basin to northeastern Utah. He was particularly attracted to the area because of the sample submitted by Reagan’s photographer, Leo Thorne. “It was this specimen which excited the writer’s curiosity .. and led eventually to the analysis …” (Schulman 1948:4). Schulman collected living tree samples from Nine-Mile Canyon in 1947 and 1948 and actively sought the collaboration of archaeologists to extend his chronology using archaeological samples. Using samples from several living tree and archaeological sites, he was quickly able to extend his chronology by almost 800 years to AD 397 (Schulman 1948). Unfortunately, Schulman’s interests shifted to the bristlecone pines of California (Schulman 1954), and his untimely death in 1958 prevented further research in northeast Utah.
Table 1 lists the living pinyon and Douglas-fir chronologies for northeast Utah and northwest Colorado contained in the International Tree-Ring Data Bank (ITRDB) and elsewhere. Interestingly, when Schulman’s chronology was submitted to the ITRDB, it was only extended to AD 1201, presumably because the AD 396-1200 period did not include enough samples to meet ITRDB standards. The Schulman (1948) chronologies, however, are the published master skeleton plots and indices on file at the LTRR.
Table 1. Living tree chronologies form northeastern Utah.
Site |
Species |
Elevation |
Beginning |
End |
Reference |
(m) |
Year |
Year |
|||
Nine Mile Canyon | D-fir | 1920 | 1201 | 1949 | Schulman (ITRDB) |
Nine Mile Canyon High | D-fir | 1920 | 1194 | 1964 | Stokes and Harlan (ITRDB) |
Nine Mile A | D-fir | 2400 | 1186 | 1947 | Schulman 1948 |
NIne MIle B | D-fir | 2300 | 1236 | 1947 | Schulman 1948 |
Nine MIle C | D-fir | 2130 | 1240 | 1947 | Schulman 1948 |
Sunnyside | D-fir | 2350 | 1225 | 1947 | Schulman 1948 |
Nine Mile Arch Combined | D-fir | n/a | 397 | 1947 | Schulman 1948 |
Minnie Maud | Pinyon | 2250 | 1215 | 1978 | LTRR Site files |
Plug Hat Rock | Pinyon | 2150 | 1241 | 1978 | LTRR Site files |
Uinta Mtns B | D-fir | 2289 | 1730 | 1971 | Harsha et al. (ITRDB) |
Uinta Mtns C | D-fir | 2289 | 1635 | 1971 | Harsha et al. (ITRDB) |
Uinta Mtns D | Pinyon | 2289 | 1423 | 1971 | Harsha et al. (ITRDB) |
Wells Draw | Pinyon | 2100 | 887 | 2001 | Gray et al. 2004 |
Nutter's Ridge | Pinyon | 2200 | 1040 | 2001 | Gray et al. 2004 |
Dutch John Mtn | Pinyon | 2150 | 1365 | 2001 | Gray et al. 2004 |
Red Pine Canyon | Pinyon | 2300 | 1405 | 2001 | Gray et al. 2004 |
Gray et al. (2004) used pinyon pines to develop a precipitation reconstruction for the Uinta Basin from AD 1226-2001. Interestingly, they did not exploit Schulman’s earlier research; thus their chronology is shorter than even Schulman’s ITRDB chronology, and 800 years shorter than his actual chronology. Their efforts are important, however, because they will provide a second, completely independent chronology and precipitation reconstruction for the area.
After Schulman’s efforts, dendroarchaeology in northeast Utah languished for almost five decades. In 1984, the Midwest Archaeological Center conducted excavations in a small rockshelter (42 UN 1103) in Dinosaur National Monument. The eight samples submitted, all pinyon, yielded seven dates ranging from 1291p-1682vv (LTRR site files), but are not related to the Fremont occupation of the area. In 1987, Abajo Archaeology submitted 12 samples, of which four produced dates ranging from 1046p-1156+r (Table 2).
Table 2 lists the tree-ring dates from Fremont occupations in northeastern Utah; the 50+ undated samples are not included in the table. The most notable aspect of the dates is that the dated species are all Douglas-fir. This species distribution clearly reflects the selection processes of dendrochronologists, not prehistoric Fremont people. It also reflects Schulman’s development of a Douglas-fir chronology. The development of long pinyon, and possibly juniper, chronologies will aid in dating previously collected samples of those species. A second important aspect of the dates is the preponderance of noncutting (vv) dates. Noncutting dates indicate the removal of outside rings from a sample, either by natural or cultural processes (Ahlstrom 1985; Dean 1978). In this particular case, we suspect that many of these rings were accidentally removed during collection and transport to the LTRR.
Table 2. Fremont archaeological tree-ring dates.
Site |
Sample |
Species |
Inside |
Outside |
Numbers |
Date |
Date |
||
42 EM 2095 | UKM-19 | D-fir | 1102p | 1155vv |
UKM-20 | D-fir | 1046p | 1150v comp | |
UKM-21 | D-fir | 1112p | 1156+r comp | |
UKM-24 | D-fir | 1109p | 1149r comp | |
Long Mesa Ruin | HLL-1 | D-fir | 798p | 979+vv |
HLL-2 | D-fir | 886p | 1013vv | |
HLL-3 | D-fir | 850p | 1000vv | |
HLL-4 | D-fir | 911p | 1073v inc | |
HLL-5 | D-fir | 981p | 1084r inc | |
F-2227 | D-fir | 851p | 1003vv | |
F-2230 | D-fir | 854p | 979+vv | |
Hill Canyon Ruin | HLL-7 | D-fir | 926p | 1001v inc |
42 DC 534 | NNM-40 | D-fir | 836p | 1062vv |
Four Name House | NNM-24 | D-fir | 1019p | 1152rB comp |
NNM-27 | D-fir | 815p | 997++vv | |
Four Name Annex | NNM-35-2 | D-fir | 746fp | 784vv |
Upper Sky House | NNM-33 | D-fir | 836p | 1051+vv |
NNM-34-1 | D-fir | 899p | 1090vv | |
NNM-34-2 | D-fir | 930fp | 1033vv | |
NNM-34-3 | D-fir | 1010p | 1088vv | |
NNM-34-4 | D-fir | 882fp | 1089vv | |
NNM-34-5 | D-fir | 918p | 1053vv | |
NNM-34-6 | D-fir | 833fp | 1033++vv | |
NNM-34-7 | D-fir | 816p | 892vv | |
Lookout House | GP-5931 | D-fir | 805p | 1143++LGB inc |
Sky House | NNM-5 | D-fir | 894p | 1090v inc |
NNM-6 | D-fir | 725p | 1059+vv | |
NNM-7 | D-fir | 937p | 1061rLG comp | |
NNM-8 | D-fir | 396p | 769+vv | |
NNM-9 | D-fir | 760np | 983vv | |
NNM-10 | D-fir | 815p | 1089vv | |
NNM-15 | D-fir | 992p | 1090vv | |
NNM-17 | D-fir | 849p | 1089v inc | |
NNM-18 | D-fir | 995p | 1088vv | |
NNM-20 | D-fir | 848fp | 931vv | |
NNM-21 | D-fir | 898p | 1088vv | |
NNM-22 | D-fir | 1011p | 1079vv | |
NNM-23 | D-fir | 816p | 1027+vv | |
GP-5910 | D-fir | 837p | 1012+vv | |
GP-5936 | D-fir | 937p | 1093vv | |
Olger Ranch Ruin | NNM-28 | D-fir | 931p | 1065cLB inc |
Finally, the distribution of the few available cutting dates, suggests Fremont site use in the AD 1000s, 1040s, 1050s, 1060s, 1070s, 1080s, 1090s, 1140s, and 1150s. This distribution suggests an episodic Fremont occupation in the early and late 11th century, a reoccupation in the mid-12th century, and abandonment before AD 1200 and is similar to the inferrences of Talbot and Wilde (1989), which have been disputed by Massimino and Metcalfe (1999). A greater number of dates, cutting dates, and dated sites will allow us to examine the Fremont “episodic occupation” hypothesis in terms of mobility and storage strategies and will have implcations for other Fremont areas. Perhaps it is simply a function of few real data points. In addition, a well-developed quantitative precipitation reconstruction will allow us to relate these behaviors to climatic variation.