Utah Archaeology 1991

Archaeological Evidence Of Prehistoric Fishing At Utah Lake

44 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1991 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF PREHISTORIC FISHING AT UTAH LAKE Rick J. Hunter, Utah Valley Chapter, Utah Statewide Archaeological Society, 345 East 300 South, Lehi, Utah, 84043 significant in terms of inflow are the Provo River, American Fork River, Spanish Fork River, and Hobble Creek. However, inflow from springs and numerous secondary streams, both perennial and intermittent also contribute to the lake's volume. The lake has one perennial outlet, the Jordan River. NATIVE FISHERY INTRODUCTION Utah Lake in the eastern Great Basin, has long been known as a major fishery that was important to prehistoric peoples. However, we have little in the way of prehistoric fishing gear to support this statement. This is surprising, especially when compared with western ( Lahontan) Basin fisheries such as Pyramid and Winnemucca lakes, where archaeologists have documented an abundance of prehistoric fishing equipment ( cf. Tuohy 1990). Utah Lake, however, has only recently become the focus of researchers studying various wetland subsistence strategies. The principal objective of this paper is to serve as an introduction to ongoing research geared toward understanding the fishing technologies employed at Utah Lake in the prehistoric past and to present examples of early fishing gear recently recovered from lake edge sites. STUDY AREA Utah Lake ( Figure l), located in north central Utah, is one the largest freshwater lakes in the United States west of the Mississippi River ( Jackson and Stevens 1981: 3). It measures about 32 km long north to south and 10 to 12 km east to west excluding Provo Bay. It also inundates approximately 25% of the valley floor and contains about 900,000 acre- feet of water ( Heckrnann et al. 1981: 1). It is a relatively shallow lake with an average depth of only 2.8 m ( 9.2 ft) at the compromise level elevation of 1368.35 m ( 4489.34 ft) ( Fuhriman et al. 1981: 43). This shallowness combined with wind and lake bed sediments comprised of fine clays and organic silt, contributes greatly to the turbidity or polluted image of the lake. However, this turbidity is, for the most part, a natural feature ( Brimhall and Merritt 1981: 30,31). The lake is fed by several tributary streams draining the Wasatch Front. The most The wetlands of Utah Valley are rich in lacustral resources. Extensive marshlands provide a wide variety of both flora and faunal species. One of the most important of these to the early inhabitants of the valley was fish ( Janetski 1986, 1990a, 1990b, 1991). Fish species endemic to Utah Lake and its tributaries include: Bonneville cutthroat trout ( salmo clarki utah), Mountain whitefuh ( Prosopium williamsoni), Utah sucker, Webug sucker, Mountain sucker ( catostomus spp.), June sucker ( chasmistes liorus), Utah chub, Leatherside chub ( Gila spp.), Least chub ( Iatichthys phlegethontis), Longnose dace ( Rhinichthyes cataractae), Bonneville mottled sculpin and the Utah lake sculpin ( cottus spp.) ( Heckman et al. 1981: 108). The spawning season for these species, with one exception ( the Mountain whitefish, a late fall spawner) occurred in the spring. It was during these spawning runs that fish were most susceptible to the various harvesting techniques used by early fishermen. ETHNOGRAPHIC FISHING PATTERNS Written accounts concerning Utah Valley by early explorers, trappers, settlers, and ethnographers, provide important information on the various subsistence strategies used by native inhabitants in both the recent and prehistoric pasts. The ethnographies and ethnohistories all document the importance of lacustrine resources to the Timpanogots or Utah Valley Utes ( Janetski 1991). They also provide useful data on the types of strategies and equipment used to take fish in the lake and its tributaries. For example, Smith ( 1974: 61,64) working with Ute informants in 1936- 37, received information on the use of such items as: special unfeathered fish arrows, composite fish spears 4 to 8 ft long with sharpened greasewood tips, gorge hooks made of bone or greasewood, basketry traps, cordage nets, dip REPORTS Figure 1. Utah Lake archaeological sites mentioned in the text. 46 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1991 nets and weirs made of brush used in conjunction with many of the above items. Fish were also clubbed, or simply caught by hand. Smith also states that rafts were used for deep water hook and line fishing. Although important, this information is lacking in some detail and probably reflects the fact that these accounts were obtained from informants long after the Utes had been displaced from Utah Valley to their Uintah Basin reservation ( Janetski 1991: l). Ethnographic accounts of fishing practices that were obtained at fisheries where native peoples were . still in situ, tend to provide a more complete picture. For example, Willard 2. Park an early twentieth century ethnographer, working with the Northern Paiute of Pyramid Lake in western Nevada, received very detailed information concerning both fishing techniques and gear used by the Paiute in pre- and immediate post- contact times ( Fowler 1989). His description of hook and line fishing is presented here primarily to demonstrate how bone hooks were used. Parks's informant stated that: Fishing was done with wiha ( Apocyruun cannabinma) ropes a couple of hundred feet long to which about 30 bone hooks were attached. The hooks were made of bone and had a barb. They would tie on a small minnow on each hook for bait. The fisherman then removes his clothes. He has a large tule float in a circle around his nedc. It is tied to his neck. He holds one end of a rope in his mouth. The other end is on the shore held by a man who keeps it from tangling. He swims out as far as he can and when he is at the end of the line the man on the shore shouts that it is the end. He takes the float off his neck and ties the wiha rope to it as well as a stone sinker. This is left there until the next morning and then he pulls it in and takes off the fish. He may catch 10 or 15 fish that way. The hooks are spaced on the long rope. They hang down a couple of feet. A fish caught on one hook would moved back and folth causing the other hooks to move and making it appear that the minnows used as bait were. alive thus attracting other fish ( Fowler 1989: 37). ARCHAEOLOGICAL FISHING GEAR As stated in the introduction, numerous examples of prehistoric fishing gear have been found at the major fisheries of the Great Basin. Western basin sites within the Lahontan system are especially rich in archaeological fishing equipment. Researchers there have documented such artifacts as: caches of dried fish, net fragments, complete setlines with hooks ( mostly from dry caves), net weights, line sinkers, bone harpoons, and a wide variety of bone fishhooks, all used to take fish prehistorically. Donald Tuohy ( 1990: 129- 142) working with the extensive collections of fishing gear from Pyramid Lake, has worked out typologies for both fishhooks and stone net sinkers, with over 100 examples of the former and more than 300 of the latter. Archaeological examples of fishing gear from Utah Lake, however, have been poorly represented in both numbers and types. Past research conducted in Utah Valley has generated little data concerning early fishing equipment. However, some of the artifacts that have been found and documented in the literature include: several complete and fragmentary bone harpoons recovered from two Fremont period mound sites Seamon's ( Gilsen 1968) and Woodard Mound Wchens 1983); a wood harpoon recovered in 1938 from American Fork Cave in the Wasatch mountains east of Utah Lake ( Hansen and Stokes 1941: 35); and a number of grooved and perforated stones referred to as sinkers recovered during surveys from at least two sites, 42Ut142 located along the inlet channel to the Jordan River ( Jones 1961) and 42Ut295 in Goshen Valley ( Gilsen 1968). Recent surface finds at several lake edge sites have now added to the above assemblage. Included are a bone fishook and several types of stone sinkers. The bone hook was found at Heron Springs ( 42Ut591) a Late Prehistoric lake edge settlement excavated by Brigham Young University in 1987 ( Janetski 1990). The site was radiocarbon dated to about A. D. 1400 and contained a large number of fish bones. However, no clear evidence of fishing gear was recovered during the excavations. The bone hook discussed below was recovered from the surface in 1988. The bone point ( Figure 2a) appears to be part of a composite- angle hook, fitting into Tuohy's ( 1990: 130) Pyramid Lake Type 11 unbarbed- single-pointed hook classification. It is made from a splinter of mammal bone, 4.4 cm long and .5 cm wide at the center, and is somewhat triangular in cross- section. The distal end is ground t o a sharp point. The proximal end, although tapered, is not sharpened. Also located on the proximal end are two short lashing grooves, used to assist in the attachment of the bone point to a wooden or bone shank. A complete composite- angle hook from Pyramid Lake is illustrated in Figure 2b. REPORTS Figure 2. Bone fishhook element from Ut591 ( a); composite- angle hook from Pyramid Lake ( b) ( after Tuohy 1990: 137, Figure 12). In addition to this hook, numerous sinkers have now been found at several lake edge sites. During August 1991, the receding waters of Utah Lake exposed a cluster of stone sinkers, located along the inlet channel of the Jordan River. This site ( 42Ut142) was first recorded in 1961 during a survey of Utah County by Jones ( Jones 1961: 70,71). It was then considered to be an Archaic site based on projectile point styles and the presence of a number of atlatl weights. Of particular interest here is the mention of grooved stones found at the site ( Jones 1961: 70). Recent work conducted by the author and Joel Janetski of Brigham Young University at 42Ut142 during August and September of 1991, consisting primarily of mapping, photographing, and collecting samples, has resulted in the recovery of a large number of these grooved stones in a variety of sizes and styles. It is interesting to note that they occurred in a cluster along the edge of the river channel; however, it was not possible to determine with certainty if this clustering was the result of natural deposition or past dredging operations. Over 148 modified stone sinkers were found in the cluster alone, and another 76 were scattered across the site. A cluster of about 30 sinkers was found in 1988 at another lake edge site ( 42Ut645) located along an extinct channel of the American Fork River. This site is considered to be Late Prehistoric based on diagnostic artifacts. These sinkers differ from the Jordan River sinkers in being smaller and much more uniform in size, weight, and modification techniques. Based on these finds a revised version of Tuohy's ( 1990: 141- 142) western basin sinker typology has been adopted by the author, strictly for the purposes of this report, in classifying the various styles of Utah Lake sinkers. This typology is based primarily on macation of a stone ( grooving, notching etc.) to make it suitable for line attachment, or, as in the case of the Class I sinkers, on natural suitable shape. This revised typology and a brief description of classes follows: I. Unmodified ( Figure 3a) II. Perforated ( Figure 3b) UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1991 111. Knobbed A. Grooved ( not illustrated) B. Notched ( Figure 4a) IV. Grooved A. Longitudinally grooved ( not illustrated) B. Radially grooved ( Figure 4b, 5b) C. Combination longitudinally and radially grooved ( not illustrated) V. Notched A. Longitudinally notched ( Figure 5a) B. Radially notched ( not illustrated) C. Combination longitudinally and radially notched ( not illustrated) VI. Combination grooved and notched ( not illustrated) VII. Reworked ground stone sinkers A. Grooved ( Figure 6a) B. Notched ( not illustrated) VIII. Historic Stone Sinkers A. Unmodified with liie attached ( not illustrated) B. Notched with line attached ( Figure 6b) It became apparent during the field work at 42Ut142 in 1991, that many of the unmodified rocks associated with the sinker cluster, were of a natural shape suitable for liie attachment. Natural notches and central depressions were the most noted attributes. Also size and weight ranges were consistent with the modified sinkers. Based on these findings it was hypothesized that these stones may have also been used as sinkers. It should be stressed, however, that only stones found within the Jordan River cluster were included in this class. As can be seen from the above typology, fishing sinkers from Utah Lake are highly variable in the types of modifications used in their manufacture. The grooved and notched styles are by far the most common. Both of these classes exhibit a high degree of variation in both the amount and placement of the modifications on a stone. On the grooved sinkers, these modifications range from subtle pecking to deep, full grooving, and on the notched classes they range from the dulling of a sharp edge, to deep, broad notching. Placement of the modifications occurs in at least two styles, longitudinally ( around the long axis) and radially ( around the short axis). Combination grooved and notched styles were also found. The perforated sinkers are generally smaller, lighter in weight ( usually under 100 g), and less common than sinkers in the other classes. The knobbed class consists of stones modified on one end as opposed to a central modification and are also less common. The reworked groundstone class consists of manos and metates both fragmentary and whole that have been modified in a variety of ways for line attachment. This class was common in the Jordan River cluster, and is interesting in that it suggests a rather opportunistic use of available stone. The historic stone sinkers are the modem day counterparts to the other seven classes. They have been observed at numerous locations around Utah Lake. At least two styles occur, unmodified and notched. They are distinguished from the other classes by having a modem fishing line attached and an absence of calcium carbonate deposits in their notches. Historic sinkers exhibit fresher looking modifications, whereas, many examples in the other classes have heavy calcium deposits both inside and outside of their modifications, suggesting greater age. Table 1 plots the distribution and number of sinkers by class found in both of the clusters as well as at various lake edge archaeological sites. 42Ut142 is represented by two columns, a cluster count and a general site count. As shown in Table 1, the Jordan River cluster contained seven of the eight sinker classes; only Class III was not represented. The notched and grooved styles were the most common types of modified sinkers. The hypothesized Class I unmodified sinkers were also very common with 68 specimens. When combined with the 148 modified specimens, then a total number of 216 sinkers were present in the Jordan River cluster. Weights ranged from 18 kg down to about 300 g and averaged about 1.5 k. The American Fork River cluster contained only three of the sinker classes, grooved, notched, and combination grooved and notched. Also as noted above, they were smaller and more uniform in size and weight than the Jordan River sinkers. Weights ranged from 590 g to 180 g with an average weight of 360 g. The stone material used for sinkers and their possible sources has not yet been analyzed. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY It seems likely that these stones functioned as fishing sinkers based on several lines of evidence: ( 1) their presence at strategic locations at a major fishery; REPORTS Figure 3. Stone sinkers: ( a) Type IA, unmodified; ( b) Type IT, perforated ( actual size). UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1991 0- 5cm Figure 4. Stone sinkers: ( a) Type IIIB, knobbed, notched; ( b) Type IVB, radially grooved ( actual size). REPORTS Figure 5. Stone sinkers: ( a) Type VA, longitudinally notched, ( b) Type IVB, radially grooved ( actual size). ( 2) they exhibit no use- wear markings indicating other functions such as hammers or mauls, and ( 3) the use of stones for fishing sinkers is documented- in some of the ethnographic accounts of Great Basin fishing ( Fowler 1989: 37). As stated above, the sinkers discussed in this report were found in clusters. Tuohy ( 1990: 139) also states that sinkers are found in clusters at Pyramid and Winnemucca lakes in the western basin. This clustering suggests that these sites probably functioned as specialized fishing stations associated with river netting operations. However, as shown in Table 1, fishing sinkers also occur in non- clustered surface contexts at several Utah Lake archaeological sites. Temporal placement of the fishing sinkers is difficult as no sinkers have been found yet in a dated context at Utah Lake. However, several inferences UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY I991 Figure 6. Stone sinkers: ( a) Type VIIA, reworked groundstone ( mano); ( b) Type VIIIB, historic notched with line attached. concerning dating can be made. For example, a Class V notched sinker was found on the surface at a site ( 42Ut808) located on the southwest side of Utah Lake, which contained a burial dated to ca. 5500 B. P. ( Joel Janetski, personal communication 199 1). This suggests that a sinker technology was in place by at least 3500 B. C. The presence of sinkers at the American Fork River site, a Late Prehistoric occupation, suggests that this technology was still being used in later times. However, differences in styles and weights, as noted above, may reflect a possible change through time. It is also interesting to note that several examples of modern stone sinkers with fishing lines attached were found at the Jordan River site, demonstrating that this old technology is still being used today, basically unchanged, at the same place as it was in the prehistoric past. The wetlands of Utah Valley have long been the focus of various subsistence strategies of both the recent and prehistoric pasts. The ethnographies, as Table 1. Distribution of sinkers by class from various Utah Lake sites UTAH LAKE SITES Ut142 Ut142 Ut645 Isolated Sinker Classes Cluster Site Cluster Ut646 Ut591 Ut823 Ut796 Ut477 Ut686 Ut821 Ut687 Ut808 Ut820 Finds Totals 68 0 < ' L Unmodified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 11. Perforated 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 5 111. Knobbed 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 IV. Grooved 27 9 4 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 45 V. Notched 90 39 18 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 157 VI. 9 7 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Combination Grooved- Notched VII. 17 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 Reworked Ground Stone VIII. Historic 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Stone Sinkers Totals 216 76 30 4 4 3 2 1 3 1 I 1 1 3 346 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1991 well as recent archaeological research conducted at several lake edge settlements, all document the importance of fish to the native inhabitants of Utah Valley. However, as stated in the introduction, we have found little in the way of prehistoric fishing gear. This may reflect the fact that Utah Lake has only recently become the focus of researchers studying these strategies. The recent finds presented here have begun to shed some new light on this problem. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to Joel Janetski for his encouragement, support, and helpful advice, both in the field and during the preparation of this paper. Thanks also goes to Tuula Rose for the fine illustrations. REFERENCES CITED Brimhall Willis H., and Lavere B. Merritt 1981 Geology of Utah Lake; Implications for Resource Management. In Utah Luke Monograph, Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs No. 5. Brigham Young University, Provo. Fowler, Catherine S. 1989 Willard Z. Park's Ethnographic Notes on the Northern Paiute of Western Nevada, 1933- 1944. Anthropological Papers No. 114. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Fuhriman, Dean K., Lavere B. Merritt, A. Woodruff Miller, and Harold S. Stock 1981 Hydrology and Water Quality of Utah Lake. In Utah Lake Monograph, Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs No. 5. Brigham Young University, Provo. Gilsen, Leland 1968 An Archaeological Survey of Goshen Valley, Utah County, Central Utah. Unpublished Master's thesis, Anthropology and Archaeology Department, Brigham Young University, Provo. Hansen, George H., and W. L. Stokes 1941 An Ancient Cave in American Fork Canyon. Proceedings, Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 11: 3- 13. Heckman, Richard A., Charles Thompson, and David A. White 1981 Fishes of Utah Lake. In Utah Lake Monograph, pp. 107- 127. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs No. 5. Brigham Young University, Provo. Jackson, Richard H. and Dde J. Stevens 1981 Physical and Cultural Environments of Utah Lake and Adjacent Areas. In Utah Lake Monograph, pp. 3- 23. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs, No. 5. Brigham Young University, Provo. Janetski, Joel C. 1986 The Great Basin Lacustrine Subsistence Pattern: Insights from Utah Valley. In Anthropology of the Desert West, Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, edited by Carol J. Condie and Don D. Fowler, pp. 145- 168. Anthropological Papers No. 110. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 1990a Wetlands in Utah Valley Prehistory. In Wetland Adaptations in the Great Basin, edited by Joel C. Janetski and David B. Madsen, pp. 233- 257. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 1. Brigham Young University, F'rovo. 1990b Utah Lake: Its Role in the Prehistory of Utah Valley. Utah Historical Quarterly 58( 1): 4- 31. 1991 The Ute of Utah Lake. Anthropological Papers No. 116. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Jones, Carl H. 1961 An Archaeological Survey of Utah County, Utah. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Richens, Lane D. 1983 Woodard Mound: Excavation at a Fremont Sife in Goshen Valley, Utah County, Utah 1980- 1981. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, F'rovo. Smith, Anne M. 1974 Ethnography of the Northern Ute. Papers in Anthropology No. 17. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Tuohy, Donald R. 1990 Pyramid Lake Fishing: The Archaeological Record. In Wetland Adaptations in the Great Basin, edited by Joel C. Janetski and David B. Madsen, pp. 121- 158. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 1. Brigham Young University, h v o .