2.0 THE PREHISTORIC PERIOD OF THE

HANFORD SITE AND ASSOCIATED
PORTION OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER,
WASHINGTON, CIRCA 10,000 B.P. - A.D. 1805

2.1 Introduction

Federal agencies have responsibility for the identification, evaluation, registration, and protection of properties with historic, archeological, architectural, engineering, or cultural significance. Accordingly, agencies are encouraged to undertake a preservation planning effort which is based on the following principles: 1) important historic properties cannot be replaced if they are destroyed, 2) effective preservation planning must begin early, and 3) public involvement is a necessary component.

Decisions made about the identification, evaluation, registration and treatment of historic properties are most appropriately made when relationships between individual properties and other similar properties are considered. The historic context provides the organizational framework for these decisions. The context must take into account "the significant broad patterns of development in an area that may be represented by historic properties" and provide a definition of expected property types against which individual properties may be compared. Once the significant patterns are identified and expected property types are defined, the [pre]historic context provides the foundation from which future decisions about property identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment are handled (48 FR 44717).

This historic context will be used to help the U. S. Department of Energy evaluate the National Register eligibility of prehistoric properties and districts located on the Hanford Site. Therefore, it is imperative that the context provide a framework for assessing management needs and registration requirements against which prehistoric archaeological sites can be compared during the National Register evaluation process. For the purposes of this study, 'prehistory' is considered to be that period of time encompassing the late Pleistocene to early Holocene through the initial contact with Lew The geographic extent of this prehistoric context is the administrative boundary of the Hanford Site although the context includes information from the surrounding environs as well.

The restrictive federal land use policies in place since 1943 resulted in an expansive preserve of natural habitat and archaeological deposits which have been minimally impacted by resettlement of the Hanford Site (see Bard and Cox this volume) and the industrial development (see Gerber, Harvey, and Longenecker this volume) that followed. The archaeological record of comprehensive prehistoric use as cultures changed through time is preserved along the banks and islands of the Columbia River and throughout the interior plateau as well.

2.2 Statement of Historic Context

This historic context statement contains a synopsis of known information relating to the prehistoric setting and cultural developments of the area now known as the Hanford Site. The statement discusses what is currently known about the prehistoric environment, prehistoric cultural chronologies, and the archaeological record as it has been documented on the basis of surface observations, analyzed excavations, and archaeological reports.

2.2.1 Geography and Environment

The areal extent of the 1450 km2 (560 mi2) Hanford Site lies within the Pasco Basin which is part of the larger geographic region known as the Columbia Plateau province. The Columbia Plateau province, extending over much of eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and southern Idaho, makes up most of the Intermontane Plateau physiographic unit. In eastern Washington State, landform elevations average between 300 and 600 m (984 ft and 1968 ft) in altitude. Much of the Columbia Plateau consists of a thick sequence of basalt that was formed during Miocene time by successive lava flows. In eastern Washington, Pleistocene cataclysmic floods, associated with the sudden release of water from ice-dammed lakes, were responsible for the morphology of the Channeled Scabland. Floodwaters scoured basalt bedrock as well as preexisting fluvial-lacustrine suprabasalt sediments before a blanket of relatively coarse-grained flood deposits were laid down over low-lying areas of the central Columbia Plateau.

The complexities of prehistoric environmental, geographic, and cultural relationships are compounded by a sparsity of data from the study area. Much of what we know about the early prehistoric vegetation history on Hanford comes from pollen samples retrieved off the Hanford Site in moist bogs and lakes of the interior Northwest (Barnosky, Anderson, and Barlein 1987; Barnosky 1985 and 1983; Mack, Rutter, and Valastro 1979; Mack, Rutter, Bryant, and Valastro 1978; Mehringer, Jr., and Wigand 1986; Mehringer, Jr. 1985; Mehringer, Jr., Arno, Petersen 1977). In contrast, the complex geologic record of Hanford has been well researched (Bjornstad 1984; Bjornstad, Fecht, and Tallman 1987; Reidel, Fecht, Hagood, and Tolan 1989) and offers an excellent stage for research into the timing and frequency of major catastrophic flooding (Fecht, Reidel, and Tallman 1987; Mullineaux, Wilcox, Ebaugh, Fryxell, and Rubin 1978) and the impacts of climate change on Columbia River fluvial systems (Chatters and Hoover 1992; Chatters, Neitzel, Scott, and Shankle 1991). Other information, contained in prehistoric archaeological sites, is also preserved within the sediments of the Hanford Site (Rice 1980; Rice and Chavez 1980; Chatters, Cadoret and Minthorn 1990; Chatters, Gard and Minthorn 1991; Chatters and Gard 1992; Chatters et al. 1993; Last et al. 1994) and can be used to define cultural chronologies and man's response to environmental change (Fryxell 1963; Aikens 1983).

During the close of the Pleistocene, the environmental setting in the Columbia Plateau region was punctuated by a series of catastrophic events which precipitated associated responses in climate, vegetation patterns, and human adaptation. Each response was uniquely modified by local factors. General accounts of these catastrophic events and the associated natural and human responses are available in several sources (cf. Barry 1983; Aikens 1983; Heusser 1983; Antevs 1955). Some of the detail missing incriptions can be found in more specific environmental studies addressing the prehistoric environment of the study area (cf. Petersen et al. 1993; Chatters and Hoover 1992; Chatters, Neitzel, Scott, and Shankle 1991; Chatters 1989).

Basalt Flows

On the Hanford Site, the principal rock unit is the Miocene Columbia River Basalt Group. Covering approximately 164,000 km2 with 174,000 km3 of basalt (Tolan et al. 1989 quoted in Reidel, Lindsey, and Fecht 1992), the Miocene Columbia River Basalt Group is primarily underlain by Tertiary continental sedimentary rocks and overlain by late Tertiary and Quaternary fluvial and glaciofluvial deposits (Reidel, Lindsey, and Fecht 1992:1-3).

Catastrophic Flooding

During the Pleistocene, lobes of the western Cordillera ice-sheet extended southward to cover low hills in northern Washington to the Continental Divide of southwestern Montana. The glacial ice dammed rivers causing great lakes to form. The largest of these was Glacial Lake Missoula which covered about 3,000 square miles and contained an estimated 500 cubic miles of water. (Weis and Newman 1989). It is estimated that 40 separate catastrophic flooding events (Waitt 1980:674; Waitt 1984) occurred as the ice dam impounding Glacial Lake Missoula water was repeatedly breached . The channels created by the early releases from glacial Lake Missoula led eventually to the Pasco Basin.

As the frequency of these catastrophic floods increased and the released volume of water decreased through the close of the Pleistocene (Waitt 1980) with the final flood occurring at approximately 13,000 B.P. (Mullineaux, Wilcox, Ebaugh, Fryxell, and Rubin 1978). Locally, these flood sediments have been reworked by winds, depositing dune sands in the lower elevations and loess in the margins of the Pasco Basin (Reidel, Lindsey, and Fecht 1992:2). Large floods, confined to the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River have occurred since the last of the catastrophic floods at approximately 13,000 B.P. The largest flood occurred before 6,500 B.P., the remainder resulted from high water stages of the Columbia River.

2.2.2 Paleoenvironments and Cultural Adaptations

The complexities of reconstructed technological developments and cultural responses to environmental change in the study area from the close of the Pleistocene through the early Holocene has generated numerous chronologies and phase designations focused on technological innovations and modifications (Figure 2.1). While these chronological sequences serve to organize material culture into temporal patterns, they are also used to infer cultural adaptations to the environmental change (Figure 2.2).

The Late Pleistocene (15,000 to 10,500 years B.P.)

In the millennium preceding the close of the Pleistocene, a colh localized variations dominated throughout much of the interior Pacific Northwest (Heusser 1983; Mehringer 1985; Mack et al., 1976). A variety of mammals including megafauna were part of ecosystem along with early man (Anderson 1984). Evidence of early mans hunting abilities, e.g., Clovis projectile points, and the remains of Jefferson's mammoth (M. jeffersonii exilis) have been found in kill sites throughout Canada, the United States, and Mexico (Kurten and Anderson 1980:352).

The timing of man's arrival in the New World is disputed and plagued by insufficient data prior to 12,000 B.P. (Kunz and Reanier 1994) and some researchers have begun to question the hypothesis that people using the Clovis tool assemblage were the first to enter into the New World (Whitley and Dorn 1993). Genetic connections between the dentition of early Americans and early inhabitants of northeast Asia have been investigated (Turner, III, 1992) and similarities between the American Clovis tool kit (except for fluted points) and the Upper Paleolithic tool kits from Central Asia and eastern Europe have been noted (Haynes 1987).

Although sparsely represented, Paleoindian sites exist throughout the New World. Recent work on the Mesa site in arctic Alaska provides additional evidence of a Paleoindian occupation in North America between 11,000 and 12,000 B.P. (Kunz and Reanier 1994). The recent discovery of Clovis projectile points associated with the Paleoindian period at the Ritchie-Roberts site near Wenatchee, Washington suggest that early man was present in the Pacific Northwest between 12,000 and 11,000 B.P. (Bonnichsen, Stanford, and Fastook 1987).

The Paleoindian adaptation pattern is thought to be one of nomadic hunting that included a tool assemblage generally accepted as the first "clear-cut", securely dated evidence for human occupation in the Americas. These early nomadic people with diverse hunting and gathering strategies likely took advantage of local resources such as bison and salmon (Nelson 1969). Their tool assemblage included the fluted Clovis with lateral and basal edge grinding. Other tools associated with the fluted Clovis point included: triangular bifaces with convex bases, triangular end scrapers, side scrapers, and bone foreshafts or points (Bonnichsen, Stanford, and Fastook 1987); thumbnail scrapers, gravers, large side scrapers, and grinding stones; prepared blade cores, blades, lithic wedges, and other perhaps locally unique implements (West 1983).

From approximately 10,950 to 7,950 B.P. early peoples of the study period and surrounding environs began to shift gradually away from a focus on big game hunting to hunting smaller game with a growing emphasis on plant gathering activities. Clovis points are not known after 10,000 years B.P. (Bonnichsen, Stanford, and Fastook 1987). This fact coupled with megafauna extinctions at approximately 11,000 B.P. (Meltzer and Mead 1983), a change to Folsom cultures and concurrent switch to bison hunting (Kurten and Anderson 1980:352-353), and indications of gradual environmental warming (Heusser 1983; Mehringer 1985) provide substantial evidence of widespread, and perhaps punctuated environmental change.

The Early Holocene (10,500 to 8,000 years B.P.)

The interior Northwest saw a period of gradual warming after 10,500 years B.P. (Heusser 1983; Mehringer 1985). At lower elevations, the decreasing effective moisture meant contracting lakes and the expansion of shadscale and sagebrush plant communities into grassland and forest ecosystems (Mehringer 1985). In the study area, this cool, dry climate may have supported a variety of small animals as well as large; examples include bison, elk, deer and pronghorn (Chatters 1989).

The people of this period were apparently well adapted to their environment and followed a diversified seasonal round of subsistence activities (Chatters 1989) using a tool assemblage commonly referred to as Windust (Rice 1972a). The lithic technology of this period was well developed. Cryptocrystalline silicates were the dominant toolstone material selected although fine-textured basalts were also used (Leonhardy and Rice 1970:4). Tool types associated with this period include short-bladed projectile points with straight or contracting stems and straight or slightly concave bases with variously sized shoulders. The most common and varied lithic items of this period were utilized flakes. Cobble tools with large planes, choppers, utilized spalls and large scraper-like tools are also recognized as part of this tool assemblage with basalt the preferred material for large chipped stone tools used for crushing, scraping,

Figure 2.1. Holocene Climatic Sequences (after Stilson 1986 and Galm, Hartmann, and Masten 1985).

Figure 2.2 Cultural Adaptations for the Columbia Plateau (after Stilson 1986 and Galm, Hartmann, and Masten 1985).chopping, grinding, milling, and pounding. Other items present but to a lesser extent, include bone needles, atlatl spurs, and burins. Stone tool manufacturing techniques were lavallois-like, a trait characteristic of both the Windust and later Cascade phases (Leonhardy and Rice 1970:4) which includes thin, fine finished tools (Rice 1972a).

The Upper Mid-Holocene (8,000 to 5,000-4,000 years B.P.)

During this period, combined effective moisture on the Hanford Site would have been less than today. Such a scenario would have resulted in a reduced vegetative cover and open drifting sands. Animals such as elk were likely absent, mountain sheep rarely present, and deer likely present in the study area (Chatters 1989).

Locally, the cultural adaptation to this period is called the Cascade (Leonhardy and Rice 1970) and/or Vantage Phase (Nelson 1969). Inhabitants of this period were faced with continued gradual environmental desiccation. As a result, big game hunting was a diminishing activity replaced by a generalized hunting and gathering strategy that placed an emphasis on hunting smaller animals, food gathering, and plant processing as people moved into riverine environments (Nelson 1969). The Hanford Site may have been an ominous place during this time where the only water sources were the Columbia and Yakima rivers (Chatters 1989).

Artifacts common to the Cascade Phase include well-made lanceolate and triangular knives (Cascade) and large side-notched projectile points (Cold Springs) which appear after 6,850 B.P. (Chatters 1989; Leonhardy and Rice 1970), and tabular and keeled end scrapers with numerous utilized flakes in most assemblages. The large side-notched projectile points of this period are also known as the Bitterroot Side-Notched in parts of the southern Columbia Plateau and Idaho (Nelson 1969). Atlatl weights are rare while cobble tools include large scraper-like tools, pounding stones, small grinding stones, manos, and the edge-ground cobble. Bone items include bone atlatl spurs, bone awls, and bone needles of various sizes. The only shell artifacts known to be associated with the Cascade Phase are Olivella beads (Leonhardy and Rice 1970:8-9).

Unlike the preceding Windust Phase, tool stone materials associated with the Cascade Phase are generally fine-textured basalt, although cryptocrystalline silicates are common in some earlier assemblages (Leonhardy and Rice 1970:8-9). The end of the Cascade Phase has not been clearly defined nor is the beginning of the following phase known. Neither the Cascade, Frenchman Springs (Nelson 1969), or Tucannon (Leonhardy and Rice 1970) phases that followed appear to be related historically (Leonhardy and Rice 1970:11).

The Mid-Holocene (5,000-4,000 to 3,400 years B.P.)

The pace of moisture reduction had slowed by 5,400 B.P. and an upswing in apparent moisture became evident by 4,000 B.P. The return of apparently cooler, moister conditions after 4,000 B.P. in southeastern Washington and southwestern Columbia Basin resulted in the retreat of sagebrush steppe as a more humid, cooler phase developed after 4,000 B.P. (Mehringer 1985). In the study area and surrounding environs sagebrush dominated the steppe environment (Daubenmire 1956, 1970) and was at least 50 kilometers beyond its present perimeter (Mack, et al. 1976, 1978).

People continued to use the riverine environment during this period, subsisting on a variety of small species and ungulates. Various roots and seeds were consumed as well.

Locally, artifacts assigned to this period are referred to as the Frenchman Springs Phase (Swanson 1962; Nelson 1969) and/or the Tucannon Phase (Leonhardy and Rice 1970). These tool assemblages include semi-triangular projectile points or knives, gravers, a variety of scrapers, core tools, edge-ground cobbles, grinding slabs, pestles, bone points, antler splitting wedges, bone projectile points, and awls(?) (Nelson 1969). This period also contains a variety of projectile point styles which often make recognition and date determination difficult (Chatters 1989).

A brief hiatus in regional knowledge is apparent from approximately 3,800 to 3,400 B.P. During this period, housepit features disappear from the archaeological record (Leonhardy and Rice 1970, Chatters 1989). The house form and the Tucannon and Frenchman Springs artifact styles reappear after 3,400 B.P., but they are is found in association with a different subsistence strategy - one that includes intensification of food processing activities in conjunction with a storage based economy (Chatters 1989).

The types of documented archaeological sites increase during this period; housepits are present as are hunting sites with hearths and the remains of large and small mammals, plant processing sites with earth ovens, quarry sites, and open campsites with lithic scatters and mussel shell middens.

The Lower Mid-Holocene (3,400 to 2,000 years B.P.)

A gradual return to a dryer climate and environment occurred during this last portion of the Holocene heralded the onset of our modern climate. Although the Hanford Site may not have been a favored location for pronghorns during this period (Chatters 1989), it is estimated that bison returned to the Central Columbia Basin (Schreodle 1973) and the Hanford Reach sometime after 3,300 B.P. People may have taken advantage of the increased ratios of elk and mountain sheep to deer populations (Chatters 1986). Archaeological sites assigned to the earliest part of this period reflect year round use of the riverine environment (Chatters 1989) with seasonal hunting and gathering activities designed to use many of the resources also considered important in early historic times (Nelson 1969). After 3,400 B.P., storage facilities appear as features in archaeological sites assigned to this period and subsistence patterns began to include evidence for large-scale food processing activities.

Artifacts of this time period changed very little from the earlier Frenchman Springs and Tucannon Phases. The Tucannon artifacts remained the same while change in the Frenchman Springs assemblage is evident in the predominance of narrow-bladed, contracting stemmed projectile points, frequently called Rabbit Island stemmed points. The earlier portion of this period include Rabbit Island style projectile points and the large corner-notched or triangular basal Quilomene Bar projectile point styles up to approximately 2,000 B.P. Known archaeological property types include those present circa 5,000-4,000 to 3,400 years B.P.

The Late Holocene (2,000 years B.P. to A.D. 200)

Inhabitants of this period faced a decline in resources which required increased travel time between resources and an intensification of collection activities at selected resource areas. After 1,500 B.P. large villages are common throughout the study area.

After that time, arrowpoints of various types in association with large villages become common (Chatters 1989). This latter period is commonly known as the Harder Phase (Leonhardy and Rice 1970) or the Cayuse Phase (Nelson 1969). The characteristic Cayuse Phase site is often an open site which contains the remains of house structures, storage shelters and pits, rock art, fish walls, and other associated features such as burials (Nelson 1969).

The variety of recognized property types increase dramatically during this period of time. Large housepit villages and fishing stations are present along rivers with plant collection and processing camps, hunting camps, quarries, and open campsites all situated nearby. Most sites contain some form of storage facility, a reflection of a more sedentary lifestyle linked to fishing, hunting, and plant /root collection in the plateaus and uplands.

The arrival of the horse at approximately 200 B.P. (cf. Hunn 1990; Uebelacker 1984) increased group mobility in innumerable ways. Travel to selected resource collections areas was enhanced as were inter-regional trade networks. The more portable mat house was increasingly used at the expense of the housepit during this period.

Summary

The prehistoric Columbia Plateau region has been impacted by basalt flows, catastrophic flooding, and environmental change which has meant that prehistoric regional inhabitants adapted their cultural subsistence systems as necessary to survive. The moist, cool conditions of the early Holocene meant that early people were probably mobile, taking advantage of available resources in an organized fashion.

As the environment became drier after 8,000 years B. P., it is likely that the descendants of these early people developed a more mobile, generalized riverine-based economy. The arrival of a more moist and cool environment at approximately 4,500 years B. P. was coupled with year-round residency and a hunter-gatherer subsistence pattern which was modified briefly at 3,800 years B.P.

Approximately four-hundred years later, circa 3,400 years B.P., the climate cooled once again but the sedentary lifestyle did not return to the study area until 3,000 years B.P. After this point, populations increased along the rivers as groups focused on salmon, roots, and ungulates. A significant increase in storage and food processing activities was common to many people throughout the Columbia Basin although the mobility of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle remained a strong component into the ethnographic period.

2.2.3 History of Archaeological Research in the Study Area

A history of archaeological research conducted on the Hanford Site has already been summarized in detail elsewhere (Rice 1980 and 1983; Rice and Chavez 1980; Chatters 1989; Chatters 1992). Present purposes require inclusion here of a brief review of these studies.

Before the arrival of professional archaeologists, local relic collectors operated throughout the study area (Cowles 1959; Strong 1959). The collectors cooperated with the early researchers who sought, in part, to define culture areas based on artifacts and objects (Smith 1905; Holmes 1919; Krieger 1927). Smith (1905) set up an operational base camp in the Yakima Valley hoping to find the cultural boundary between The Dalles and the Thompson River cultures. He concluded, on the basis of material recovered during the expedition, that the Yakima Valley was inhabited by a people who had numerous communications with the inhabitants of the Thompson River region to the north and The Dalles area to the south (Smith 1905:119). In 1926 and 1927, Krieger (1927) surveyed the Middle Columbia River valley from the mouth of the Yakima River to the Canadian border then tested eight sites including one at Wahluke (45GR306). Krieger did not identify the location of his test pits at Wahluke although selected cultural items from his excavation were described and photographed (Krieger 1927, 1928). Both Smith and Krieger had a shallow sense of time although Krieger recognized connections between the early occupants of Wahluke and the historic Salish, Shahaptian, and Shoshoean cultures of the western plateau (Kreiger 1928:8). Their published works were state-of-the-art studies that focused on the objects, artifacts, and funerary practices of the regions they investigated and neglected the cultural, temporal, and historic context within which these items were found.

A decade later, the Historic Sites Act of 1935 brought about active federal involvement in archaeological investigations (Schiffer and Gumerman 1977). It was this Act that spawned numerous archaeological investigations under a national archaeological survey and salvage program called the Inter-Agency Archaeological Salvage Program, River Basin Surveys. In the study area, River Basin Surveys focused on lands surrounding the proposed McNary and Priest Rapids Reservoirs as part of the a larger survey project conducted in the Columbia River watershed. Drucker (1948), Director for the Pacific Coast region of the River Basin Surveys Program, wrote in his final report of the McNary Reservoir survey that the Columbia River was important to the ...history of aboriginal culture growth in western North America and was the ...most important aboriginal trade route in the West... (Drucker 1948:3-4). He recommended that 52 of the 120 sites found be tested to obtain ...the complete range of materials since man first entered the Columbia Basin... (Drucker 1928:10). Archaeological survey and excavation work undertaken within the proposed McNary Reservoir generated extensive survey and excavation data that was later reported through the Smithsonian Institute and the Bureau of American Ethnology (Shiner 1961, 1951, 1952a and 1952b, 1953; Osborne 1949, 1957; Osborne and Shiner 1950, 1951).

A River Basins Survey was also conducted for the proposed Priest Rapids Reservoir (Campbell 1950). The bulk of Campbells final report is comprised of site forms for the approximate 75 archaeological sites he encountered within the reservoir. Campbell found the most difficult challenge of the survey to be breaking down the area into separate sites... because along some portions of the river ...one can walk for several miles without once losing sight of artifacts, camp refuse, middens, hearths, etc... (Campbell 1950:1). He recommended that only four sites within the proposed reservoir be excavated ...as representative sites although he designated many others as suitable for excavation (Campbell 1950:1). Lee (1955), an amateur, reported the collection of artifacts...begun in 1938 and continued at irregular intervals until 1954 (Lee 1955:141) from sites in Grant County as an archaeologial survey for the Columbia Basin Project. His survey was not connected with previous work conducted for McNary or Priest Rapids Reservoirs. Two sites included in Lees brief narrative are located on the Hanford Site.

Archaeological research continued outside the fences and buffer zones of the Hanford Site after 1943 but inside neither archaeological research or preservation of archaeological resources were considered as construction activities and national defense issues proceeded through the early 1970s. The Wanapum band, represented by their le their cemeteries located on the Hanford Site. Several years passed as issues involving site identification and protection were negotiated. In 1955, two years after cemetery locations had been visited by Wanapums and an AEC official, maps showing their locations were placed on file for use in site planning and police patrols were recommended to deter looting. Nearly twenty years later, these cemeteries were marked on-the-ground (Chatters 1992).

The passage of two important laws, the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966 and the National Environmental Protection Act in 1969 provided the impetus needed for federal agencies to initiate historic preservation programs and establish comprehensive procedures governing the management of environmental, historical, and cultural resources. At Hanford, these legal drivers helped to fuel archaeological assessments specifically tied to site-wide planning for a variety of proposed projects. The first large-scale reconnaissance on Hanford was conducted in 1968 in response to proposed construction of the Ben Franklin Dam. During reconnaissance one hundred-five prehistoric sites were documented within the proposed pool reservoir (to the 400 foot contour line) along the Columbia River from Wooded Island to Priest Rapids Dam (Rice 1968a). The first reconnaissance survey to document historical and ethnohistorical archaeological sites in addition to prehistoric sites was also undertaken in 1968 (Rice 1968b). Although only selected portions of the Hanford Site (outside of fenced security areas) were investigated during these projects, the latter effectively confirmed the presence of archaeological sites well away from the Columbia River.

From 1970 through 1979, various agencies commissioned archaeological assessments on the Hanford Site; most involved field survey and a few included minor test excavations. Small scale surveys (Smith, Uebelacker, Eckert, and Nickel 1977; Jackson and Hartmann 1977) reconnaissances (Rice 1972b; Rice, Stratton and Lindeman 1978), and test excavations were conducted (Rice 1973; Rice 1976) during this period (Rice 1980 and 1987; Rice and Chavez 1980). These efforts resulted in the documentation of new archaeological sites (Smith, Uebelacker, Eckert, and Nickel 1977; Jackson and Hartmann 1977; Rice 1972b) and provided evidence of continuous prehistoric use along the banks of the Columbia River (Rice 1973). Occasionally site testing and/or site excavation was initiated during these early years to salvage archaeological sites that would be lost during construction. Although the salvage objective was achieved, other benefits resulted as well. The significance of Rices (1973) excavations at 45BN179 and 45BN180 is readily apparent. Work at these sites resulted in the first excavation report to connect site stratigraphy, diagnostic tools, and radiocarbon dating with cultural chronologies for the greater Mid-Columbia region. Information taken from oral history, artifacts, and stratigraphy were also combined to establish a pattern of continuous use from approximately 6500 years B.P. to the Wanapum band who used the area as a dog-salmon fishing site during the spring and summer seasons of the historic period (Rice 1973:9; Relander 1956:306). Rices recognition of ties between prehistoric use and historic use by the Wanapum people continued to be a factor in his subsequent work on the Hanford Site (Rice 1973).

During the 1970s, Rice directed Mid-Columbia Archaeological Society excavations (Table 2.1) and conducted test excavations at a historic log structure (45FR266) on the east bank of the Columbia River at the White Bluffs ferry landing (Rice 1976). Although the bulk of his findings at the latter were historic in nature, his excavation confirmed an earlier prehistoric presence at this important river crossing. Two overviews produced in 1980, a document produced for the Washington Public Power Supply System (Rice 1983), and a compendium map of cultural resource surveys conducted through 1987 (Rice 1987b) provided comprehensive synopses of known archaeological sites, excavations, and surveyed areas completed during the 1980s (Rice 1980; Rice and Chavez 1980; Rice 1983).

Numerous archaeological surveys were conducted during the early 1980s as the Department of Energys major contractors and other companies and agencies commissioned their own archaeological investigations in response to an expanding pace of construction (ERTEC 1981 and 1982; Thoms and others 1983; Rice 1981; Rice 1983; Rice 1985; Rice 1984a and 1984b, 1987a, 1987c). In spite of this effort, ...many construction activity areas were not surveyed for cultural resources and most construction excavation went unmonitored... during this time period (Rice 1987b). Recognizing this fact, U.S. Department of Energy established a cultural resource compliance program in 1986 to consolidate and standardize cultural resource management for all Hanford activities (Rice 1987b). Thereafter, cultural resource compliance reviews became a standard procedure (Chatters 1989; Chatters, Cadoret, and Minthorn 1990; Chatters, Gard and Minthorn 1991; Chatters and Gard 1992; Chatters

Table 2.1. Test Excavations Conducted on the Hanford Site

et al. 1993; Last et al. 1994). In recent years, tribal involvement by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Wanapum Band, the Yakama Indian Nation, and the Nez Perce Tribe provided the input necessary to more successfully manage and conserve the prehistoric record of the Hanford Site.

Summary

A majority of archaeological survey and research work conducted on the Hanford Site has been conducted in response to Section 106 and Section 110 actions. This approach to cultural resource management practices has meant a steady increase in the number of acres surveyed and archaeological sites documented. Future work should include the completion of an intensive cultural resource surveys on the remaining unsurveyed portions of the Hanford Site. This will balance early biases toward the documentation, evaluation, and nomination of large prehistoric village sites to the National Register at the expense of other prehistoric property types.

2.3 Prehistoric Archaeological Property Types

The archaeological record of the human activities on Hanford includes information about the past lifeways matrixed with information about past environments. The record is culturally diverse. Since 1970, several archaeological districts have been identified and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. These districts are, for the most part, located along the Columbia River. Many other prehistoric properties have been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register and receive the same level of management as National Register sites (Table 2.2).

Archaeological properties on Hanford have been described in terms of site function as defined on the basis of surficial evidence, (e.g., fishing station, campsite, burial), features, (e.g., depression, shell midden, lithic scatter), artifacts (e.g., cobble tool, projectile point), or a combination of all three. The surficial evidence has been greatly reduced through time as collectors, relic hunters, archaeological studies, and natural erosional processes have taken their toll. Fifty years ago Drucker (1948) described the archaeological camp and village sites seen during his river surveys in McNary Reservoir portion of Oregon and Washington:

The village and camp sites are indicated by concentrations of artifacts, such as arrowpoints and blades of chipped stone, stone choppers, celts, hammers, and net-sinkers, awls and similar tools of horn and bone, and ornaments of shell beads and other materials. In addition there are quantities of organic refuse, river clam shells, fish and animal bone, ash and charcoal from the cooking-fires, mixed into the natural soil and drift sand of the river terraces. Shallow depressions, marking the pits of semi-subterranean earth lodges, are often to be seen also (Drucker 1948:6).

Although the diversity of surficial cultural materials observed by Drucker no longer exists as it did in 1948, archaeological sites are still most commonly documented on the basis of surficial evidence. Over 380 property types can be identified as components or probable components of the prehistoric period in the study area. Prehistoric archaeological properties have been described by many researchers since Krieger visited the Columbia River in 1926 and 1927 (Krieger 1928; Drucker 1948; Rice 1968a; Rice 1968b; Rice 1980a and 1980b; Rice 1983; Cleveland et al.; Morgan 1981; Jackson and Hartmann 1977; Lynch 1976; ERTEC 1982; Den Beste and Den Beste 1974, ERTEC 1981; Rice 1981, Rice 1984 a and b). The archaeological property type listing which follows identifies the predominant property types reported by Hanford Site researchers (Table 2.3).

2.4 National Register Evaluation Criteria and Statement of Significance

Once identified, prehistoric properties are evaluated against the National Register criteria to determine their ability to convey significance. Significance is based on the degree to which properties retain and convey integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. All seven of the integrity variables must be considered, however certain aspects of integrity more than others, may express the significance of a prehistoric property. Selection of the appropriate aspects is based upon an understanding of the property's significance and its essential physical features.

When evaluating any propertys significance, it is vital to do so from the standpoint of those who may ascribe significance to them (Parker and King n.d.:4). Native Americans value archaeological sites as elements of a single whole, a concept which includes the integration of humans, nature, and the supernatural. The evaluation of archaeological sites as Native American traditional cultural properties is addressed in The Ethnographic/Contact Period (Lewis and Clark 1805 - Hanford Engineer Works 1943 of the Hanford Site, Washington. In essence, tribal involvement will be necessary throughout the National Register evaluation process as the significance of Hanfords prehistoric archaeological sites is considered.

A prehistoric property may be eligible for listing on the National Register if it meets one or more of Criteria A, B, C, or D or the Criteria Considerations, is associated with an important historic context, and retains integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance. Criteria considerations are individually applied to properties, however, only Criteria Consideration A, C, D, F, and G are more commonly used with prehistoric archaeological properties.

Each of the National Register criteria may be used to evaluate prehistoric archaeological sites and districts, however, Criterion D is more commonly used than Criteria A, B and C. The characteristics of each criterion as it relates to the evaluation of prehistoric archaeological sites is discussed in the following section.

2.4.1 Criterion A

If a prehistoric property or district is selected for nomination under Criterion A, it must be documented, through accepted means (including oral history), to have existed at the time of the event or pattern of events and to have been associated with those events. Well reasoned inferences drawn from data recovered at the site can be used to establish the association between the site and the events. Mere association with historic events or trends is not enough - the propertys specific association must be considered as well (National Park Service 1991:12).

If an archaeological property is also a traditional cultural property and is evaluated under Criterion A, its significance must be derived from the role it plays in a communitys historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices and its association with events, or series of events, significant to the cultural traditions of a community. Historically rooted may be taken to include traditional oral history as well as recorded history. The means of research commonly employed to deal with traditional cultural resources include ethnographic, ethnohistorical, and folklore studies, as well as historical and archaeological research history (Parker and King n.d.:11).

2.4.2 Criterion B

Under Criterion B, persons associated with the archaeological property must be individually significant. Usually, archaeological properties considered under this criterion are associated with a persons productive life and the period of time in which significance was achieved. Well reasoned inferences, gathered from data recovered at the site are acceptable documentation of this association (National Park Service 1991:15). Persons can refer to persons whose past tangible, human existence can be inferred on the basis of historical, ethnographic, or other research, and to persons such as gods or demigods who feature in the traditions of a group history (Parker and King n.d.11).

2.4.3 Criterion C

Prehistoric archaeological properties evaluated under Criterion C must represent significant physical design or construction, including elements such as landscape architecture, architecture, engineering, and artwork (National Park Service 1991:17). Although this criterion is more often used to evaluate historic archaeological sites and historic structures and/or buildings, prehistoric villages may be evaluated under this criterion if they represent important concepts in prehistoric community design, planning, and construction techniques. A property may also be significant for construction techniques and subsequent adaptation if it illustrates the evolution of historic character of a place over a particular span of time (National Park Service 1991:19). Prehistoric properties with artwork valued by a group for traditional cultural reasons, such as a petroglyph or pictograph site, may also be evaluated under this criterion.

In addition to the above, a prehistoric property may be regarded as representative of a significant and distinguishable entity, even though it may not be individually unique, if it represents is an intregal part of a larger entity of traditional cultural importance. For instance, certain locations along the Columbia River in the study area Native Americans as excellent fishing locations. Although the fishing locations themselves are virtually indistinguishable to the untrained observer, they are representative of, and vital to, the larger entity of fishing rites and practices as they have been connected through time.

2.4.4 Criterion D

Criterion D is most commonly used to nominate prehistoric archaeological sites and districts to the National Register. Any property nominated under this criterion must meet two requirements:

• the property must have, or have had, information to contribute to our understanding of human history or prehistory, and
• the information must be considered important (National Park Service 1991:21).

Properties nominated under this criterion must be associated with human activity and usually contain or are likely to contain information that can contribute to important archaeological research questions. Often this information is represented in artifact configurations, stratigraphy, natural and cultural features, and structural remains. To support the contention that a prehistoric property has the necessary information, appropriate investigative techniques should be used to establish the presence and integrity of relevant data categories (National Park Service 1991:21).

Traditional cultural properties such as Native American villages are often prehistoric archaeological sites which have already yielded, or have the potential to yield, important information through oral history, ethnographic, archaeological, sociological and other studies. This potential, is however, usually secondary to its association with the traditional history and culture of the group that ascribes significance to it (Parker and King n.d.:12).

2.4.5 Criteria Considerations

Several kinds of properties are not commonly considered eligible for listing in the National Register: religious properties, moved properties, birthplaces and graves, cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties achieving significance within the past fifty years. These kinds of properties may be eligible if they meet special requirements, called Criteria Considerations, in addition to meeting Criteria A, B, C, and D (National Park Service 1991:25). Criteria considerations are individually applied to properties, however, only Criteria Consideration A, C, D, F, and G are more commonly used with prehistoric archaeological properties.

2.4.6 Integrity and Prehistoric Archaeological Properties

During the evaluation process, properties are considered for the aspects of location, design, setting, workmansretain integrity and which convey historic significance. Although all of these elements may be present in most properties, some may convey significance more strongly than others. Prehistoric archaeological properties are evaluated differently than other property types. In the section that follows, each aspect of property integrity is discussed as it relates to prehistoric properties.

Integrity of Location

"Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred ... Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved" (National Park Service 1991:44). Unlike buildings, a prehistoric site is rarely, if ever, intentionally moved from its original location because of the inseparable relationship between the cultural feature and/or artifact and the stratigraphic matrix within which the archaeological deposit resides. Therefore, establishing integrity of location or connections between place and historic event requires a characterization of the stratigraphic separation of cultural components both spatially and temporally. Cultural and natural formation processes (Schiffer 1987) must be taken into account throughout the characterization process.

Integrity of Design

"Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property ... Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials" (National Park Service 1991:44). Integrity of design may be perceived in a variety of ways. Design elements are commonly considered to be represented in the technology of the archaeological record; the form and style of culturally modified and finished tools. Other elements of design may be represented in the spatial placement of features within a multi-component archaeological site or the extended associations between separate, temporally related archaeological sites and the landscape.

Integrity of Setting

"Setting is the physical environment of a historic property ... The physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade, including such elements as: topographic features (a gorge or the crest of a hill); vegetation; simple manmade features (paths or fences); and relationships between other features or open space" (National Park Service 1991:45). The symbiotic relationship between previous inhabitants and their physical environment has long been recognized. While the consideration of setting integrity for archaeological properties is fairly straightforward, it is the consideration of the orientation, placement, and density of archaeological sites that may provide the most information about past environments and successful human response through the millennia. Therefore, an evaluation of setting integrity may include a determination regarding the current setting in terms of disturbance or alteration due to 'modern' development as well as a determination regarding the possible contemporaneous physical environment(s) as they are temporally defined in the archaeological record.

Integrity of Materials

"Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of materials reveals the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies" (National Park Service 1991:45). When materials are present in an archaeological context it is important to establish the integrity of the material and the cultural components comprising the cultural deposit. Therefore, deposits of natural lithic materials must be distinguishable from culturally modified lithic materials while vegetal and fust be identifiable. Further, the materials must be associated with datable materials and/or stratigraphic separation of cultural components. The use of locally available materials as opposed to exotic materials could provide insight into possible trade networks.

Integrity of Workmanship

"Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular cultural or people during any given period in history or prehistory ... Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technology of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles ... Examples of workmanship in prehistoric contexts include Paleo-Indian Clovis projectile points, [and] Archaic period beveled adzes . . ." (National Park Service 1991:45). In the case of a prehistoric archaeological site, workmanship is most apparent in the technology and artifacts that are present. This evidence is most likely to survive even if the site has lost its integrity of location, setting, or association through natural and/or cultural transformations.

Integrity of Feeling

"Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time ... A grouping of prehistoric petroglyphs, unmarred by graffiti and intrusions and located on its original isolated bluff, can evoke a sense of ... spiritual life" (National Park Service 1991:45). A majority of the prehistoric archaeological sites located on the Hanford Site retain integrity of feeling due to the restricted public access and absence of extensive urban and/or industrial development in much of the preserve since 1943. Integrity of feeling is intermeshed with the physical setting and location of the archaeological site. On the Hanford Site, integrity of feeling may be expressed in many property types.

Integrity of Association

"Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer" (National Park Service 1991:45). Clear, defensible associations between the cultural components of an archaeological site, e.g., temporally diagnostic artifacts and materials, as well as site location and setting provide the knowledge to determine the external links and associations between the site and an important historic event or person. Internal associations between cultural components are essential if the site is significant for its ability to yield information important in prehistory or history.

2.5 Associated Property Types

Known archaeological properties on the Hanford Site date from approximately 6,000 to 8,000 B. P. to the recent ethnographic past. In the discussion that follows, documented archaeological sites are grouped and described according to similar, visible, physical attributes.

2.5.1 Properties Associated With Habitation

In general, habitation properties should retain the potential to yield information about prehistoric lifeways and adaptation strategies. Properties with evidence of habitation such as housepit features will usually meet registration requirements because of semi-subterranean form, floor plan, cultural materials and associated features such as storage pits and/or shell middens. In the case of natural shelters such as caves and rockshelters, eligibility considerations may focus on preservation issues and geologic information in addition to the cultural material and features present. The integrity of location, materials, design, setting, and association of habitation properties can be demonstrated in various ways. For example, integrity may be argued on the basis of associations between floral and faunal remains and cultural materials, the presence of datable materials, the architectural design of individual housepits, intact spatial relationships between features, various living and activity areas, and the cultural landscape.

Several prehistoric habitation subtypes not included here have been documented in nearby areas. These subtypes may be added if they are later encountered on the Hanford Site: used depressions and circular rock alignments lacking evidence of artificial or natural depressions have been presumed to represent the placement of stones around the perimeter of a mat or skin dwelling (Chatters 1986).

Subtype: Cave

Description: This resource type is defined by the presence of a natural cavity or opening in a rock outcrop or rock exposure. Along the Priest Rapids reservoir Greengo (1986) found evidence of habitation in virtually every opening in the basalt rock large enough to hold at least one person and artifacts were found in smaller openings as well. Although individual caves and openings have not been documented on the Hanford Site, a small portion of the Site does include landforms that may contain this type of resource. The information and cultural materials associated with this resource type will help to gain an understanding of past technology, resource procurement, subsistence strategies, trade networks, transportation, ritual, and adaptation to environmental and climatic fluctuations.

Significance: ts that date from the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene periods. Hence, caves offer the unique opportunity to investigate the prehistoric use of caves as well as the fluctuations of paleoenvironments and climates. Caves have provided living sites and shelter for small groups of people and storage space for foodstuffs and other objects throughout the Mid Columbia region. Caves are important because it is possible to deduce, on the basis of sediment analysis, the sequence and causes of the geological events and their relationship to use by people. The study of cave sediments is thus the study of earths most recent history which may include cultural materials left by prehistoric people and the degree to which people influenced cave deposits (Schmid 1963).

National Register Registration Requirements: Caves are eligible for the National Register under Criterion D particularly if their integrity is based upon the propertys potential to yield specific data that addresses important research questions (National Park Service 1991:46). Caves containing cultural resource deposits are important because of their ability to link information about paleoenvironments with the lifeways of previous occupants. As an individual properties caves are likely to contain floral and faunal remains in direct association with cultural materials. If so, the supporting argument for site integrity will rest on association, material, and location (if the stratigraphy demonstrates separation of cultural components). A second argument may be made for those aspects of integrity that focus on material, design, workmanship and association if lithic debitage, stone tools and/or datable materials are present and are stratigraphically intact.

Subtype: Housepit Village

Description: Large housepit villages and/or smaller residential sites with housepit features are common to the Hanford site; most are situated along the river shore and on islands (Greengo 1986). Depressions associated with this property type may beground due to the rapid rate of deposition and/or previous flooding episodes which may obscure, or in the case of flooding, eliminate depressions. The use of historic aerial photography has been found to be an essential component of identification. In general, housepit depressions are commonly saucer-shaped to oval in form and range in size from 7 to 9 or more in diameter. This resource type may exhibit different construction techniques such as a steep-walled depression versus shallow saucer-shaped depression (Nelson 1969; Schalk 1983) capable of supporting a variety of structural elements: semi-subterranean earth lodges, large mat lodges constructed over shallow pits, or intermediate forms combining fairly deep pits with mat covered superstructures (Nelson 1969:53). Researchers have encountered variations in the sizes of housepit depressions (Chatters 1986; Schalk 1983; Osborne 1957). The construction details which may be temporally sensitive (Schalk 1973).

Archaeological sites containing housepit features represent a more sedentary lifestyle as groups of people settled into a year-round or seasonal residential pattern. This property type, more than any other, may potentially hold data relating to nearly all aspects of the prehistoric lifestyle including social organizational, technology, resource procurement, subsistence strategies, trade networks, transportation, adaptation to environmental fluctuation and change, and other important information.

Significance: Housepit villages and residential sites with housepit features are significant because of their potential to provide a wide array of data relating to late prehistoric subsistence strategies, settlement patterns, and adaptational strategies. They may be considered for eligibility as individual sites or as part of an archaeological district. All of these elements, if present, may provide information specified in research questions such as correlations between property types and microenvironments, the origin, spread, and temporal distribution of housepit villages in the Mid-Columbia region, the temporal and spatial variations in subsistence orientation, the process of change from prehistoric cultures to those observed ethnographically, the history of ethnic groups in the Plateau region since earliest habitation, and information about local and regional trading patterns.

National Register Registration Requirements: To be eligible under Criterion D, a property of this type must exhibit stratigraphic integrity, preservation of floral and faunal remains, and datable materials with little post-depositional disturbance. If construction techniques of the housepit and associated features can be demonstrated, the site may be eligible under Criterion C. Housepit sites may be significant under Criteria A and B if the property is related to an important event or chain of important events or if it is associated with the productive life of an important person (National Park Service 1991:15). Under Criterion D, aspects of integrity used in the eligibility evaluation will focus on associations between cultural materials and organic remains, the design of housepits and/or finished tools, the organic materials present, and the location (spatial and temporal) of cultural materials within the stratigraphic context. The integrity of association will be greatly enhanced by the presence of nearby features such as storage pits, burials, and trail systems. If eligible under Criterion A and B, the property must also exhibit integrity of setting while consideration under Criterion C requires retention of essential design features and evidence of assembly techniques and workmanship.

Subtype: Open Campsite

Description: The "open camp" (Drucker 1948, Lee 1955; Rice 1968a, 1968b, 1980a, 1980b; Jackson and Hartmann 1977; Chatters 1989) appears to be the most predominant property type in the study area (Rice 1968; Greengo 1986). These sites may contain scattered or concentrated fire-cracked rock, hearth features, stone tools, shell, ground stone, and lithic debitage may also be present in lesser quantities although housepit depressions are absent. This property type is found along the river shoreline and beaches on alluvial fans and gravel bars (Greengo 1986), on islands, and to a lesser extent, in the interior of the Hanford Site and may range in size from a single hearth area to several thousand meters.

Open campsites are likely the remains of temporary occupation by small groups of people moving from resource area to resource area within a seasonal subsistence cycle. As such, these properties potentially hold data about lithic technology, subsistence and adaptive practices, resource procurement, and other information about past inhabitants.

Significance: The significance of prehistoric campsites rests with their potential to provide information about the settlement and subsistence strategies, lithic technologies, resource procurement and use activities of past occupants. This property type in particular may potentially reveal more about subsistence and settlement strategies than any other property type. When open campsites are not considered as eligible properties on an individual basis, they may be eligible as contributing properties to an archaeological district because of their potential to provide information about settlement and subsistence strategies and association with other property types in the study area.

National Register Registration Requirements: Open campsites may be individually eligible for the National Register under Criterion D if they contain intact stratigraphic deposits. Optimally, the cultural deposits should be intact from the surface through the subsurface matrix with minimal post depositional disturbance. Soils should be well stratified with datable materials and good preservation of faunal and floral material. It is likely that only a portion of the prehistoric property will meet or approach these requirements, therefore, eligibility ed be structured around the intact portion of the property.

Campsites with artifact diversity and a high frequency of cultural materials may be individually eligible. Even without subsurface cultural materials and datable materials, these sites may provide enough information to investigate patterns of raw material use, spatial relationships, social organization, trade, and technology. When datable materials are absent, the information provided by this property type may be limited in application but may contribute to broad general patterns in prehistoric subsistence strategies.

When open campsites are located near major travel corridors such as the Columbia River or the cross country route now known as the White Bluffs Road, they may contain important information about transportation and trade strategies of prehistoric people. Equally as important, these sites may help to identify the location of prehistoric transportation networks.

Subtype: Rockshelter

Description: Rockshelters may be defined by a natural cavity or rock overhang where shelter was obtained in the past. Associated cultural materials, soil staining, and soot on the upright walls of the feature are attributes often found in association with this property type. This resource type is restricted to rocky outcrops and is therefore minimally represented on the Hanford Site.

Significance: Rockshelters may be associated with temporary occupation by groups of people seeking shelter, perhaps moving from resource area to resource area within a seasonal subsistence cycle. As such, these sites potentially hold data about subsistence and adaptation, hunting activities, lithic technology, storage and/or caches, and other information about past inhabitants. Pictographs and petroglyphs have been found in association with this resource type.

National Register Registration Requirements: Rockshelters may be eligible under Criterion D if they contain datable materials, lithic debitage, caches and/or storage pits, intact stratigraphy, and ns between cultural material and floral/faunal remains - or variations thereof. Aspects of integrity to be investigated when determining eligibility include those elements that pertain to materials, association, location, design, and perhaps workmanship (if pictographs and petroglyphs are also present). As an individual property, this resource type should retain datable material and lithic materials and/or intact stratigraphy to be eligible. However, if datable materials are not present, a rockshelter may still be eligible as a contributing property to an archaeological district because it contains information about the broad patterns of subsistence and settlement strategies used by past inhabitants.

2.5.2 Properties Associated With Procurement Activities

To qualify for listing, procurement of natural resources must be shown to have been done by prehistoric people. The properties must be intact examples of resource procurement in the subtypes identified below: quarrying of toolstone materials, harvesting of fish and freshwater aquatic species, and hunting of large and small animals. Unless otherwise specified, procurement resources must have integrity of association, location, materials, and design.

Subtype: Butchering/Kill Site

Description: Cultural material found at this property type will include specific tools in association with animal remains. The animal remains will include bone fragments and tooth enamel (Bison, pronghorn, elk, etc.), in association with projectile point fragments, lithic debitage, hammerstones, and utilized flakes. Discrete work stations, reflecting primary disarticulation activities may also be present at kill sites (Slaughter, Fratt, Anderson, and Ahlstrom 1992:52). In addition, the natural terrain at the site is likely to contain geophysical features such as box canyons, precipices, and dune ridges (Chatters 1995). These landform features are important factors in the identification of this resource type.

Significance: Sites of this type are important for their ability of provide information about the huntingtrategies used by prehistoric people in their pursuit of large game. Information retrieved from this resource type may be applied to studies of correlation between property types and microenvironments, temporal and spatial variations in subsistence strategies, and paleoenvironments.

National Register Registration Requirements: Under Criterion D, butchering/kill sites must contain cultural materials in association with faunal remains that have the potential to yield information about prehistoric subsistence strategies. In addition to clear associations between the cultural materials and faunal remains, other elements must also be represented including features of the natural terrain that may have enhanced the hunting success of prehistoric peoples. Evaluation of integrity are likely to focus on associations between cultural materials and faunal remains, the location and separation of these components in their stratigraphic context, and on the tools.

Subtype: Fishing Station

Description: Features such as low cobble walls, large boulder aggregations, and shallow depressions have been encountered at fishing stations. Small tools commonly associated with this property type include concentrations of grooved cobbles and/or notched stones used as net weights. Many of the tools and evidence associated with prehistoric fishing activities were perishable (fish remains), highly portable and perishable (leisters, and harpoons, etc.), or have been destroyed by natural post depositional processes and are therefore not part of the archaeological record. More importantly, the use of nets and net weight fishing strategies to harvest fish may have been specific to a particular fish species or season of the year. Hence, other attributes may need to be used in conjunction with the archaeological record to define this property type including river channel morphology and anadromous fish behavior (Gard 1991).

Significance: Fishing stations are important because of their ability to reveal information about fs, to the define the full range of fish species and other aquatic animals sought by prehistoric peoples, and the types of tools used to harvest fish and other aquatic animals. Information gained from this resource type will provide data requested in broad research questions dealing with subsistence strategies, social organization, season-of-use determinations, tool technologies, and ritual activities.

National Register Registration Requirements: Under Criterion D, fishing stations must retain cultural materials, e.g. net weights, in association with floral and faunal material or be likely to yield such information. Fishing stations are typically situated near the Columbia River and are susceptible to post-depositional impacts caused by changes in river levels imposed by dam operations, collector digging, and loss of net weights due to surface collecting activities by amateur enthusiasts. Evaluations should focus on that portion of the site containing a high degree of integrity such as intact stratigraphy and separation of cultural components and/or the presence of datable materials. The presence of perishable material in the form of fish or other aquatic remains is essential information and intensive analysis is required for evaluation.

Fishing stations can be evaluated under Criterion A and B if it can be demonstrated that the property is important for association with an event, historical pattern, or person.... For example, a fishing station that was also the location of important fish ceremonies as demonstrated by oral history accounts may qualify for listing under Criterion A, Criterion B, and Criterion D (as described above). To establish the propertys integrity under Criterion A and B, the prehistoric setting must be recognizable as it exists today (National Park Service 1991:48).

Fishing stations that are severely deflated or eroded by post depositional impacts such as water erosion along cutbanks and on cobble beaches are not eligible as individual properties. Deflated or eroded fishing stations may however contain information about the broad patterns of settlement and subsistence throughout prehistory. As such, these resources can be considered for eligibility as contributing properties within an archaeological district.

Subtype: Hunting Station

Description: Hunting stations may include several attributes including lithic debitage, projectile points and point fragments with the most important of these attributes being geomorphology and geological features attractive for use as hunting blinds or stations. Although opportunistic hunting strategies were employed by prehistoric people, hunting stations were often selected to take advantage of unique elementsc features encountered in association with hunting stations include prominences, saddles, natural constrictions in basaltic outcrops, talus, and precipices. Prehistoric man also altered these vantage points by creating low uncoursed rock walls to funnel animals into box canyons or natural constrictions, by creating depressions in talus and scree slopes to hid or camouflage the body, or by building semi-circles of stone behind which to crouch. The latter have been described as hunting blinds particularly when their crescent shape has a greater height in the center as opposed to the wings which wrap, in a curve, around the sides of the alignment. When situated on the top of prominence these alignments vary in length from 1.5 to 3.0 meters (4.9 to 9.8 feet) (Smith 1977).

Significance: This resource type is important because of its ability to retain information about tool technology, resource procurement, and hunting strategies of prehistoric people.

National Register Registration Requirements: Under Criterion D, hunting stations must retain the potential to yield information important to prehistory. Accordingly, hunting stations must retain primarily undisturbed cultural materials in association with floral and faunal remains and/or datable materials. Unique geologic features may also be present. Evaluations will focus on those aspects of integrity that deal with materials, association, and design if finished stone tools are present. Some elements of the prehistoric setting may be intact if geologic features such as overlooks, prominences, and box canyons are also present.

If diagnostic materials, clear distinctions between naturally and culturally modified materials, or stratigraphic integrity are lacking, the hunting station will be ineligible for listing as an individual property. However, if enough information is available to support broad patterns of subsistence and settlement, a hunting station may be considered eligible as contributing property in an archaeological district.

Subtype: Plant Collection

Description: Plant and seed collection occurred in many settings but the archaeological record may not retain much evidence of plant gathering locations because of the perishable nature and portability of plant digging tools and baskets, mats, or other items used as collection vessels. Digging sticks were used to secure food plants such as rootso gather other plant materials such as hemp, tule reed, and willows, etc. Prehistoric plant gathering areas may not be identifiable on the basis of the archaeological record alone. Distinctions between specific types of plant gathering activities such as areas where specialized gathering techniques were productive or areas where particular plant species were exploited may not have been adequately addressed during the course of site documentation. Identification of these prehistoric resource areas may be enhanced by paleoethnobotanical reconstuction efforts at prehistoric residential areas (Lennstrom and Hastorf 1995) and through paleoenvironmental reconstruction of the region as a whole.

Significance: Plant gathering activities and resource areas although not well represented in the archaeological record are important because of their potential to yield information about prehistoric subsistence strategies and cultural adaptations to climatic change. Such information can be used to study relationships between the intensification of plant gathering and processing activities, increasing reliance on vegetal foods, and cultural adapations as they relate to sedentism and demography.

National Register Registration Requirements: Under Criterion D, plant gathering areas may qualify for listing if they have the potential to yield specific data such as datable materials, intact stratigraphy, culturally modified tools and preserved floral remains that can be used to answer important research questions. Such requirements are rigorous and it is not likely that these requirements will be met solely in the archaeological record because of modern semiarid environment which is not conducive to the preservation of pollen and floral remains. Additional analysis may be required in paleoenvironmental reconstruction and paleoethnobotanical studies undertaken at contemporary residential sites to identify prehistoric plants used in the past and establish their likely range before individual plant gathering sitesn the National Register.

Subtype: Quarry

Description: Natural toolstone material is readily available throughout the Hanford Site (petrified logs, chalcedony, e.g., chert and agate, and cobbles of various lithologies) and natural sources of these materials have been documented in the surrounding mountain ranges of the Hanford Site and along the cobble beaches of the Columbia River. Some or all of the following attributes are associated with this property type: tested pieces of toolstone material, discarded cores, blanks, and a dominance of decortication flakes. Hammerstones, hammerstone spalls, anvil stones, fire-cracked rock (heat treatment), flaked cobble scatters, and spatially discrete knapping areas may also be present. The cobble scatters, whether unifacial or bifacial flaking has occurred are considered to represent an early stage of tool manufacture associated with quarrying of selected toolstone materials from the cobble beaches of the river shoreline (Thoms et al. 1983).

Toolstone materials may exhibit similar flaking patterns whether the material is flaked by natural mechanisms or by the tool maker - particularly during the early stages of manufacture or later as postdepositional damage to flaked tool edges is introduced by natural movement or human trampling. Therefore, considerations of eligibility must include a discussion of attributes used to identify cultural flaking debris versus the attributes used to identify natural alteration. Technical attributes that have been used to differentiate culturally modified toolstone from naturally modified toolstone include identification of a relatively unweathered fracture surface and the presence prepared platforms, acute platform angles, and multiple dorsal flake scars that originate from different directions (Root 1993). Flaking debitage is the most dominant attribute of this resource type; finished tools are not commonly present in high numbers.

Significance: The lithic analysis of this property type may reveal attributes that are characteristic of a particular reduction technique or provide information about finished, temporally diagnostic stone tools and reveal new information about the microenvironments most often exploited for natural toolstone material. Identification of natural toolstone materials, their sources, and the reductive technique(s) employed at a quarry site may be expanded to provide information relating to mobility pattern(s), trade or exchange, organization of technology distinguished by specific periods of time and spatial location, travel routes to and from a prime resource area, and procurement strategies used by prehistoric peoples.

National Register Registration Requirements: Quarry sites considered under Criterion D must retain stratigraphic separation of cultural components and clear associations between floral and faunal material and/or datable materials. Lithic debitage, finished stone tools, cobble tools, hammerstones, or manufacturing tools must be present in sufficient quantities to potentially yield information about the reductive techniques employed at the site. Site integrity n a source of natural toolstone and tool preforms, including representative examples of the byproducts of each stage of tool manufacture. If workmanship and style can be demonstrated in the manufacture of temporally diagnostic stone tools, this property type may be considered under Criterion C in addition to Criterion D as discussed above.

2.5.3 Properties Associated with Resource Processing Activities

Places or properties falling within this category will contain tool classes reflective of the processing activities carried out at the site. The types of processing strategies and tools used by prehistoric people as they manufactured stone tools, harvested fish, ground seeds, and/or processed berries and plant vegetal matter for later use are varied. (Other processing activities such as working hides and creating paints from local or traded minerals may also be present on the Hanford Site although they have not been documented as individual properties.) Any disturbance that has occurred at sites where processing are evident must not have compromised the potential of the site to yield information relevant to prehistoric activities or associations between cultural materials and floral and faunal remains.

Subtype: Fish Drying/Processing

Description: Fish processing sites are likely to retain utilized flakes, flaked cobble cores, activity areas centered around fish drying racks, and grinding implements. Associated features may include cobble piles, small depressions, and fish remains. This property type is likely to be adjacent to and/or part of a fishing station, open campsite, or village site, near the Columbia River.

Significance: Fish processing sites are important for their potential to yield information about prehistoric subsistence strategies. Processing sites are more likely to provide information about the full range of fish species and other aquatic animals sought by prehistoric peoples and the tools they used than cultural materials associated with fish harvesting activities. Information gained from this resource type may potentially provide data on subsistence strategies, social organization, season-of-use determinations, and tool technologies.

National Register Registration Requirements: Under Criterion D, fish processing sites must retain the potential to yield information about prehistoric fishing practices and strategies. Fish remains, e.g., accumulations of offal and fish bone, must be found in clear association with cultural materials representing fish processing activities, e.g., drying rack activity centers and activity areas where pulverization of whole fish occurred, etc. (Gard 1991).

Fish processing sites may fail to qualify for listing due to the poor preservation of cultural materials and fish remains and the routine disposal/removal of these elements at the processing site because of storage needs and consumption elsewhere. In this case, fish processing sites should be considered for listing, not as individual sites, but as sites contributing to an archaeological district.

Subtype: Lithic/Tool Scatters

Description: Tool manufacturing sites must contain clear associations between lithic debitage and/or finished tools. This property type is located along the Columbia River, often in association with residential sites, and as individual sites located in interior areas well away from the Columbia River. The areal extent of lithic scatters may vary significantly from less than 3 meters in diameter to more than several thousand square meters. Attributes of this property type include flaking debitage resulting from the final stages of tool manufacture, finished tools or tool fragments, cobble and ground stone tools, anvil stones, and hammerstones/pecking stones for both flaking and/or pecking activities.

Significance: Stone tool manufacturing sites are important records of lithic technologies. A wide range of data can be derived from the analysis of a lithic property: the stages of reduction passed through during tool manufacture, labor, use, and discard rates associated with stone tool manufacture, reductive technique(s) used, and the variation of tool types (Slaughter, Frnd Ahlstrom 1992:52). Such information will assist in developing general cultural chronologies and in establishing tool typologies for the Mid Columbia region.

National Register Registration Requirements: Under Criterion D, a tool manufacturing site important for yielding information on lithic technologies will contain lithic debitage, cobble tools, finished flaked tools, hammerstones in clear association, usually within an undisturbed stratigraphic context. The presence of datable materials and floral and faunal remains will further enhance the eligibility of this property type. Evaluations of integrity will focus on the lithic materials present and the associations between these cultural materials and other elements such as floral and faunal remains and/or datable materials.

Deflated or eroded tool manufacturing sites that have lost clear associations between cultural materials and datable materials or floral and faunal remains will not qualify for listing as individual sites. However, these sites may contain information applicable to cultural chronology and broad patterns of settlement and subsistence. In this case, they may qualify as contributing properties within an archaeological district.

Subtype: Plant/Seed Processing

Description: This property type contains milling and/or grinding stones and pestles or manos. It is likely to be associated with plant gathering areas or to be included as an associated activity area within the confines of an open camp or housepit village site.

Significance: Plant processing sites are important because of their potential to yield information about prehistoric subsistence strategies, paleoenvironments and cultural adaptations to climatic change. Plant processing sites must retain the potential to yield specific information that addresses important research questions can be used to study relationships between the intensification of plant gathering and processing activities, increased reliance on vegetal foods, and cultural adapations as they rsm and demography.

National Register Registration Requirements: Under Criterion D, evaluations of eligibility must establish the presence of well preserved floral and faunal remains found in clear association with grinding and milling tools, stratigraphic integrity, and datable materials. Evaluations may also be made under Criterion A and B if it can be demonstrated that the plant processing site was associated with a significant event or person. Evaluations of integrity will focus on materials, association, location, and design for eligibility considerations made under Criterion C; on location, setting, and materials for Criterion A and B.

2.5.4 Properties With Religious, Burial, and Ceremonial Associations

Information about properties associated with religious, burial, and ceremonial activities is restricted under several laws and regulations. Evaluation of this type of archaeological site can only proceed with tribal involvement and/or the appropriate ethnic community.

Subtype: Rock Cairn

Description: These sites may consist of one or several cairns. Cairns are small, cone-shaped piles of placed basalt rubble containing four to 12 individual rocks. Individual rocks may range in size from 10 to 30 cm (3.9 to 11.8 inches) in diameter (Smith 1977). Rock features within this category are usually situated, singly or in groups, on prominences and may represent religious and ceremonial activities and/or burials/cemeteries.

Significance: Such properties are important because they represent religious and spiritual values of prehistoric people. These properties are also highly important to modern Native Americans and may be in active use. Several laws govern the management of these properties including the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.

National Register Requirements: Properties considered for eligibility under Criterion D and Criteria Consideraton A, C, D, or F must retain the ability to yield information about religious or spiritual values of the past. The configuration of prehistoric cairns may be similar to historic cairns placed by early surveyors or cattlemen to define property lines or mark trail locations. Documentation and evaluation of this property type must identify and define these differences. The property must have characteristics such as lichen coverage, preserved natural and cultural features/materials that may bear information about religious aspects of prehistoric culture. However, it is likely that a clearer case for National Register nomination can be made under Criterion A by Native people rather than under Criterion D which deals primarily with the ability of archaeological sites to yield scientific data.

Subtype: Petroglyphs and Pictographs

Description: Petroglyph is defined as a rock engraving or drawing that has been created in a variety of ways. The most common method involves the repeated striking of a sharp stone against a rock surface (pecking) to produce a shallow pit which is slowly enlarged to create a design (Keyser 1992). Once common in the Priest Rapids area (Cain 1950), these features were inundated by pool reservoirs following dam construction. Pictographs have also been described as rock paintings, often made with mineral pigments that were combined with organic binding agents such as fat, eggs, blood, urine, or plant juice to make paint (Keyser 1992). Once applied, these pigments survive natural elements very well.

Petroglyphs and pictographs have not been documented on the Hanford Site. Their potential presence is expected to be rare and restricted to a very limited topographic setting. The designs commonly encountered in areas adjacent to the Hanford Site include human, animal, and geometric forms.

Significance: Petroglyphs and pictographs are important because of their ability to relay visual information created by prehistoric people. This resource type may yield information about hunting strategies, the timing of events, and places of prehistoric importance. Although problematic, cation-ratio dating techniques may be used to establish dates for panels when rock surfaces have a veneer of naturally created varnish.

National Registration Requirements: This resource type may qualify for listing on the National Register under Criterion C and Criterion D. Under Criterion C, this resource type must represent an aesthetic ideal more fully than other properties of the same type (National Park Service 1991a). Consequently, the pictograph and/or petroglyph must have the essential features of its design intact to retain integrity, e.g., design, feeling, workmanship, association, and location. If the property is considered under Criterion D, it must potentially yield information about prehistoric subsistence and hunting strategies, contain a varnished surface that may be datable, or be clearly associated with cultural materials. Evaluation of integrity under Criterion D will likely focus on the location, design, and material aspects.

2.5.5 Properties Associated with Transportation

Description: Transportation systems were present during prehistoric times but little evidence of their presence can be seen today. Early visitors were often guided across trail systems on their way to the western part of the Oregon Territory by Native people. These transportation systems predated the exploration and resettlement period. Within the study area, the Columbia River and shoreline provided both an avenue and obstacle to travel across the Hanford Site.

Subtype: Trails

Description: Trail systems were in use by native people before the arrival of Euro-Americans. On the Hanford Site, the White Bluffs Road has been determined to be eligible for the National Register based on its antiquity as a trail and a historic road.

Significance: Trail segments and systems were intregal elements of prehistoric settlement and subsistence strategies but they are especially difficult to associate with any particular time or cultural group unless associated properties such as open campsites located at river crossings and trail intersections, lithic scatters, or construction details and/or ruts can be discerned. This property type has not been widely documented on the Hanford Site for the prehistoric time period but it is recognized as significant because of the information it may potentially yield about prehistoric settlement and subsistence patterns, social organization, and local, regional and national trade networks.

National Registration Requirements: Evaluations must focus on the potential of the individual property to yield data about prehistoric travel and transportation. Under Criterion D, the property must have been used by prehistoric people and should contain clear associations between cultural materials, e.g., lithic debitage and hearth features, etc., and the trail segment itself. Trail networks may contain segments which no longer retain characteristics that qualify them for listing on the National Register, these may be included as contributing segments to the property as a unit.

2.6 Thematic Goals For Archaeological Research

There are general principles of cultural evolution and there are also unique conditions, events, and processes (Gumerman 1994:4).

A representative picture of prehistory may be gained if we pose and work to answer three general research questions: What environmental and cultural changes have occurred in the region? What impact did the environmental and cultural changes have on settlement and subsistence behavior, technological development, population size, social organization, interaction patterns, and religion of? What were the mutual interactions among these related variables?

Current knowledge of local prehistory on the Hanford Site and vicinity has increased only moderately since the first researchers visited the study area. Consequently, archaeological sites of discernible types representing the full range of time in each period have not been yet been clearly defined. Using what we know about local prehistory then contrasting and comparing that knowledge with other local prehistories should help to create a complete picture of the human history in the study area and the surrounding Mid-Columbia Basin region.

2.6.1 Theoretical Issues

Throughout prehistory, the occupants of the Hanford Site have subsisted by hunting, plant gathering, and fishing. Such peoples have come to be known as hunter-gatherers or hunter-fisher-gatherers. Because of the dependence on naturally occurring food species as opposed to domestic ones, some believe that the ecological and social adaptations of these people differ from those of agriculturists. An extensive array of specific research questions can be asked of the archaeological record in an effort to illuminate major research questions about prehistoric hunter-gathers. All of these questions require acquisition of data on settlement patterns and subsistence, dwelling type and size; floral and faunal remains; stone, bone and shell tools; and/or various facilities used to process and store food to formulate answers or hypotheses. Data collected in pursuit of such questions must be done conservatively and as thorough as the state of the art will allow to avoid the potential loss of significant information. The results generated from analysis can be used to complete the image of regional culture history.

The major themes identified here (Table 2.4) reflect three different but associated categories and one associated subset category. The first, cultural chronology, serves to center research questions around specific time periods and the elements of culture which may be discernible in the archaeological record. Important questions to pursue include those which address gaps in local prehistoric sequences particularly as they pertain to radiocarbon assays. The second, social-cultural reconstruction, provides a thematic focus on regional chronological systems and the local development of culture. Here research questions should attempt to capture data that will assist with investigations of areal linkages, ethnic distributions, subsistence, technology, demography, and onset of the housepit and village phenomenon. The third thematic goal, cultural process, focuses on cultural response and adaptation to environmental change. Environmental research is essential for evaluating the effects of resource distribution on prehistoric settlement and subsistence patterns. A subset category of this last goal is paleoenvironmental reconstruction and paleo-anthropology.

^aAfter Western 1985 and Stilson 1988

2.6.2 Specific Research Questions

Archaeologists studying the prehistory of the Columbia Plateau Region have observed discontinuities in the archaeological record that warrant explanation. In developing the evaluation component for the Resource Planning and Protection Process Mid-Columbia Study Unit, the Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation compiled some of these questions, and a few more are added here (Table 2.5). The answers to all of these questions could be obtained from the representative sample of the archaeological resource base of the area; therefore, details of the data required to answer each question are not presented. This task, creating a research design, is left to any individual investigator seeking a permit to conduct research on one or more of these questions on the Hanford Site (Chatters 1989).

Table 2.5. Research Questions Posed for the Mid-Columbia Study Unita

1. Is there a relationship between the dependability of water or minimum annual river flow and the continuity of cultural traditions? Those areas near riverine systems that would be least affected by climatic fluctuations seem to have the most stable cultural systems. Is this observation correct?
2. Which of the various competing land use models currently in use is the most accurate? Is each, in fact, applicable to only a portion of the region?
3. What is the character of the lithic assemblage through time? What are the lithic sources and why do they change through time? What is the projectile point sequence, especially that from the Hanford Site?
4. Does the Plateau pattern really exist? If so, what are its spatial and temporal origins?
5. What is the correlation between property types and microenvironments? Do such microenvironments as springs, dunes, basaltic badlands, rapids, and major and minor tributaries, contain specific property types? How important are such factors as sun and wind exposure, and proximity of botanical resources? Have the correlations changed through time?
6. What are the origin, spread, and temporal distribution of housepit villages in the Mid-Columbia region? Are they in evidence at the Hanford Site early in its sequence? How many houses in a village were occupied contemporaneously? What is the seasonality of house occupancy in different time periods? What are the characteristics of the supporting adaptations?
7. What are the temporal and spatial variations in subsistence orientation? This information should be manifested in tool assemblage, faunal and floral assemblages, projectile point frequencies, and site locational data. What are the environmental parameters of these variations? Do such variables as salmon variability and annual mean river level fluctuations play a major role in these variations?
8. What was the process of change from pre-historic cultures to those observed ethnographically? What were the cultural impacts of: the horse, the fur trade economy, depopulation from disease, the introduction of new tool technologies, and the introduction of domestic plants and animals (other than the horse)?
9. What is the history of ethnic groups in the Plateau region since earliest habitation. How long have the different groups held their historically observed territories?
10. What is the history of trading patterns in the Plateau and how has trade contributed to the stability of adaptations?

2.7 Bibliography

48FR44716-44742. September 29, 1983. "Archaeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines. Part IV Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Federal Register.

Aikens, C. M. 1983. "Environmental Archaeology in the Western United States." In Late-Quaternary Environments of the United States, ed. H. E. Wright, Jr., pp. 239-251. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Anderson, E. 1984. "Who's Who in the Pleistocene: A Mammalian Bestiary." In Quaternary Extinctions A Prehistoric Revolution, eds. P. S. Martin and R. G. Klein, pp. 40-89. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Antevs, E. 1955. "Geologic-Climatic Dating in the West." American Antiquity 20:317-35.

Baker, R. G. 1983. "Holocene Vegetational History of the Western United States." In Late-Quaternary Environments of the United States, ed. H. E. Wright, Jr., pp. 107-127. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Barnosky, C. W. 1985. "Late Quaternary Vegetation in the Southwestern Columbia Basin, Washington." Quaternary Research 23:109-122.

Barnosky, C. W. 1983. "Late Pleistocene and early Holocene Environmental History of Southwestern Washington State, U.S.A." Canadian Journal of Earth Science 21:619-629.

Barnosky, C. W. 1987. "The Northwestern U.S. During Deglaciation; Vegetational History and Paleoclimatic Implications." In The Geology of North America, Vol. K-3, eds. W. F. Ruddiman and H. E. Wright, pp. 289-321. North America and Adjacent Oceans During the Last Deglaciation. The Geological Society of America. Boulder, Colorado.

Barnosky, C. W., P.M. Anderson, and P.J. Bartlein. 1987. "The Northwestern U.S. during Deglaciation: Vegetational History and Paleoclimatic Implications." In The Geology of North America, Vol. K-3, eds. W. F. Ruddiman and H. E. Wright, pp 289-321. North American and Adjacent Oceans During the Last Deglaciation. The Geological Society of America. Boulder, Colorado.

Barry, R. G. 1983. "Late-Pleistocene Climatology." In Late Quaternary Environments of the United States, Vol. 1, ed. S. C. Porter, pp. 390-316. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Bjornstad, B. N. 1984. Suprabasalt Stratigraphy Within and Adjacent to the Reference Repository Location. SD-BWI-DP-039. Rockwell Hanford Operations. Richland, Washington.

Bjornstad, B. N., K. R. Fecht, and A. M. Tallman. 1987. Quaternary Geology of the Pasco Basin Area, South-Central Washington. WHC-SA-0042. Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Bonnichsen, R., D. Stanford, and J. L. Fastook. 1987. "Environmental Change and Developmental History of Human Adaptive Patterns; The Paleoindian Case." In The Geology of North America, Vol. K-3, eds. W. F. Ruddiman and H. E. Wright, pp. 403-424. North America and Adjacent Oceans During the Last Deglaciation. The Geological Society of America. Boulder, Colorado.

Bower, B. 1987. "Extinctions on Ice." Science News. 132(18):284-285.

Browman, and D. A. Munsell. 1969. Columbia Plateau Prehistory: Cultural Development and Impinging Influences, American Antiquity, 34(3):249-264.

Butler, B. R. 1965. Perspectives on the Prehistory of the Lower Columbia Valley. Tebiwa 8(1):1-16.

Cain, H. T. 1950. Petroglyphs of Central Washington. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington.

Campbell J. M. 1950. Report of an Archaeological Survey Priest Rapids Reservoir State of Washington. Submitted to Mr. Douglas Osborne. Typescript available at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington.

Carlson, R. L. 1983. "The Far West." In Early Man in the New World, ed. R. Skutler. Jr. Sage Publications.

Chance, D. H. 1980. Research Questions and Approaches for the Middle Columbia River Area. A study prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District. Moscow, Idaho.

Chatters, J. C. 1986. The Wells Reservoir Archaeological Project: Vol. 1: Summary of Findings. Central Washington Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Report 86-6. Central Washington University. Ellensburg, Washington.

Chatters, J. C. 1989a. "History of Cultural Resources Management Activity on the Hanford Site," In Hanford Cultural Resources Management Plan. PNL-6942, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Chatters, J. C., ed. 1989b. Hanford Cultural Resources Management Plan. PNL-6942, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Chatters, J. C. 1992. "A History of Cultural Resources Management Activity at the U. S. Departments of Energy's Hanford Site, Washington." Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 26(1):73-88.

Chatters, J. C. 1995. Bison Procurement in the Far West: A 2,100-Year-Old Kill Site on the Columbia Plateau. American Antiquity 60(4):751-763.

Chatters, J. C., D. A. Neitzel, M. J. Scott, and S. A. Shankle. 1991. "Potential Impacts of Global Climate Change on Pacific Northwest Spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): An Exploratory Case Study." The Northwest Environmental Journal 7:71-92.

Chatters, J. C., and H. A. Gard. 1992. Hanford Cultural Resources Laboratory Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1991. PNL-8101. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Chatters, J. C., H. A. Gard, and P. E. Minthorn. 1991. Hanford Cultural Resources Laboratory Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990. PNL-7853. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Chatters, J. C. and K. A. Hoover. 1992. "Response of the Columbia River Fluvial System to Holocene Climatic Change." Quaternary Research 37:42-59.

Chatters, J. C., H. A. Gard, M. K. Wright, M. E. Crist, J. G. Longenecker, T. K. O'Neil, and M. V. Dawson. 1993. Hanford Cultural Resources Laboratory Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1992. PNL-8676. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Chatters, J. C., H. A. Gard, and P. E. Minthorn. 1992. Fiscal Year 1991 Report on Archaeological Surveys of the 100 Areas, Hanford Site, Washington. 1992. PNL-8143. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Chatters, J. C., N. A. Cadoret, and P. E. Minthorn. 1990. Hanford Cultural Resources Laboratory Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1989. PNL-7362. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Cleveland, G., B. Cochran, J. Giniger, and H. Hammatt. 1976. Archaeological Reconnaissance on the Mid Columbia and Lower Snake River Reservoirs for the Walla Walla District Army Corps of Engineers. Washington Archaeological Research Center. Project Reports 27. Pullman, Washington.

Cowles, E. 1959. Hunting Artifacts, Screenings, the Oregon Archaeological Society 8(6):1-2.

Cressman, L. S. In Collaboration with D. L. Cole, W. A. Davis, T. M. Newman, and D. J. Scheans. 1960. Cultural Sequences at the Dalles, Oregon: A Contribution to Pacific Northwest Prehistory. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 50(10), Philadelphia.

Daubenmire, R. F. 1956. "Climate as a Determinant of Vegetation Distribution in Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho." Ecological Monographs 26:131-154.

Daubenmire, R. F. 1970. Steppe Vegetation of Washington. Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. Technical Bulletin 62. Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.

Daugherty, R. D. 1962. The Intermontane Western Tradition. American Antiquity, 28(2):144-150.

Den Beste K., and L. Den Beste. 1974. Background and History of the Vernita Site (45BN157). In Annual Report of the Mid-Columbia Archaeological Society, ed. D. G. Rice, pp. 10-19. Mid-Columbia Archaeological Society Richland, Washington.

Drucker, P. 1948. Appraisal of the Archaeological Resources of the McNary Reservoir, Oregon and Washington. Columbia Basin Project. River Basin Surveys. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

Dumond, D. E., and R. Minor. 1983. Archaeology inthe John Day Reservoir: The Wildcat Canyon Site, 45GM9. Anthropological Papers No. 30. University of Oregon. Eugene, Oregon.

ERTEC. 1981. A Cultural Resources Overview and Scenic and Natural Resources Assessment for the Skagit-Hanford Nuclear Power Project. ERTEC Northwest. Seattle, Washington.

ERTEC. 1982. Cultural Resources Survey and Exploratory Excavations for the Skagit-Hanford Nuclear Power Project. ERTEC Northwest. Seattle, Washington.

Fecht K. R., S. P. Reidel, and A. M. Tallman. 1987. "Paleodrainage of the Columbia River System on the Columbia Plateau of Washington State; A Summary." In Selected Papers on the Geology of Washington, ed. J. E. Schuster, pp. 219-248. Bulletin 77. Division of Geology and Earth Resources.

Fladmark, K. R. 1983. "Times and Places: Environmental Correlates of Mid-to-Late Wisconsinan Human Population Expansion in North America.." In Early Man in the New World, ed. R. Shutler, Jr., pp. 13-41. Sage Productions.

Fryxell, R. 1963. Late Glacial and Post Glacial Geological and Archaeological Chronology of the Columbia Plateau, Washington. Report of Investigations No. 23, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.

Galm, J. R., G. D. Hartmann, R. Maston, and G. O. Stephenson. 1981. A Cultural Resources Overview of Bonneville Power Administrationss Mid-Columbia Project, Central Washington. Eastern Washington University Reports in Archaeology and History 100-16, Bonneville Cultural Resources Group, Cheney, Washington.

Galm J. R., F. D. Hartmann and R. A. Masten. 1985. An Archaeological Overview of the Mid-Columbia Study Unit, Benton, Franklin, Klickitat, and Walla Walla Counties, Washington. RP3 document prepared for the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Archaeological and Historical Services. Cheney, Washington.

Gard, H. A. 1991. A Fish Eyes View: Salmonid Behavior as a Means of Predicting Archaeological Fishing Site Locations. Paper on file Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington.

Greengo, R. E. 1986. Prehistory of the Priest Rapids - Wanapum Region Columbia River, Washington. BAR International Series 290(i). Great Britain.

Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1987. "Clovis Origin Update." The Kiva. 52(2):83-93.

Heusser, C. 1983. "Vegetational History of the Northwestern United States Including Alaska." In Late-Quaternary Environments of the United States, Vol. 1, ed. H. E. Wright, Jr., pp. 239-258. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Hunn, E. S. (with J. Selam and family) 1990. Nch'I Wana: "The Big River: Mid-Columbia River Indian People and Their Land. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Jackson, B., and G. Hartman. 1977. Archaeological Survey From Lower Monumental Substation to Ash Substation. Project Report Number 38, Washington Archaeological Research Center, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.

Keyser, J. D. 1992. Indian Rock Art of the Columbia Plateau. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington.

Krieger H. W. 1927. Prehistoric Inhabitants of the Columbia River Valley. Smithsonian Institution Miscellaneous Collections 78(7):187-200.

Krieger, H. W. 1928. "A Prehistoric Pit House Village Site at Wahluke, Grant County, Washington." In Proceedings of the United States National Museum, Vol. 73, pp. 1-29, United States Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Kunz, M. L and R. E. Reanier. 1994. "Paleoindians in Beringia: Evidence from Arctic Alaska." Science 263: 660-662.

Kurten, B. and E. Anderson. 1980. Pleistocene Mammals of North America. Columbia University Press. New York, New York.

Last, G. V., M. K. Wright, M. E. Crist, N. A. Cadoret, M. V. Dawson, K. A. Simmons, D. W. Harvey, and J. G. Longenecker. 1994. Hanford Cultural Resources Laboratory Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1993. PNL-10077. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Lee, W. T., 1955. "An Archaeological Survey of the Columbia Basin Project in Grant County, Washington." Davidson Journal of Anthropology 1(11):141-145.

Lennstrom, H. A. And C.A. Hastorf. 1995. Interpretation in Context: Sampling and Analysis in Paleoethnobotany. American Antiquity 60(4):701-721.

Leonhardy, F. C. and D. G. Rice. 1970. "A Proposed Cultural Typology for the Lower Snake River Region, Southeastern Washington." Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 4(1):1-29.

Lynch, A. J.. 1976. An Archaeological Test of an Aboriginal Burial Site Near Richland, Washington. University of Idaho Anthropological Research Manuscript Series, No. 28. Laboratory of Anthropology. University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho.

Mack, R. N., V. M. Bryant, Jr., and R. Fryxell. 1976. "A Pollen Sequence from the Columbia Basin Washington: Reappraisal of Post Glacial Vegetation." American Midland Naturalist 95:390-397.

Mack, R. N., N. W. Rutter, V. M. Bryant, Jr., and S. Valastro. 1978. "Reexamination of Postglacial Vegetation History in Northern Idaho: Hager Pond, Bonner Co." Quaternary Research 10:241-255.

Mack, R. N., N. W. Rutter, and S. Valastro. 1979. "Holocene Vegetation History of the Okanogan Valley, Washington." Quaternary Research 12:212-225.

Mehringer, P. J., Jr. and P. E. Wigand. 1986. "Western Juniper in the Holocene." Presented at the Pinyon-Juniper Conference, Reno, Nevada. Department of Anthropology. Washington State University. Pullman, Washington.

Mehringer, P. J., Jr. 1985. "Late-Quaternary Pollen Records from the Interior Pacific Northwest and Northern Great Basin on the United States." In Pollen Records of Late Quaternary North American Sediments, eds. V. M. Bryant, Jr., and R. G. Holloway,

pp. 167-189. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists. Dallas, Texas.

Mehringer, P. J., Jr., S. F. Arno, and K. L. Petersen. 1977. "Postglacial History of Lost Trail, Pass Bog, Bitterroot Mountains, Montana." Artic and Alpine Research 9(4):345-368.

Meltzer, D. J., and J. I. Mead. 1983. The Timing of Late Pleistocene Mammalian Extinctions in North America. Quaternary Research 19:130-135.

Mierendorf, R. R. 1983 Stratigraphy at the Miller Site, 45FR5, A Prehistoric Village on Strawberry Island. R.F. Schalk editor. In The 1978 and 1979 Excavations at Strawberry Island in the McNary Reservoir. Project Report Number 19. Laboratory of Archaeology and History. Washington State University. Pullman, Washington.

Morgan, V. 1981. Archaeological Reconnaissance of the North Richland Toll Bridge and Associated Access Roads (L6909). Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington.

Mullineaux, D. R., R. E. Wilcox, W. F. Ebaugh, R. Fryxell, and M. Rubin. 1978. "Age of the Last Major Scabland Flood of the Columbia Plateau in Eastern Washington." Quaternary Research 10:171-180.

National Park Service. 1991a. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. Department of the Interior, Washington D. C.

National Park Service 1991b. How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form. National Register Bulletin 16. Department of the Interior, Washington D. C.

Nelson, C. M. 1969. The Sunset Creek Site (45-KT-28) and its Place in Plateau Prehistory. Report of Investigations No. 47. Laboratory of Anthropology. Washington State University. Pullman, Washington.

Osborne, H. D. 1949. The Archaeological Investigations Of Two Sites In The McNary Reservoir, Washington. Columbia Basin Project, River Basin Surveys, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.

Osborne, H. D. 1957. Excavations In The McNary Reservoir Near Umatilla, Oregon. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 166. River Basin Surveys Papers No. 8.

Osborne, H. D., and J. L. Shiner. 1950. River Basin Surveys-State College of Washington Archeological Excavations in the Lower McNary Reservoir, Oregon, 1949. Columbia Basin Project. River Basin Surveys. Smithsonian Institution.

Osborne, H. D., and J. L. Shiner. 1951. The 1950 Excavations in Two McNary Sites, Washington and Oregon. Columbia Basin Project. River Basin Surveys. Smithsonian Institution.

Parker, P. L. and T. F. King. n.d. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. Department of the Interior. Washington D.C.

Petersen, K. L. 1993. Long-Term Climate Change Assessment Study Plan for the Hanford Site Permanent Isolation Barrier Development Program, Westinghouse Hanford Company WHC-EP-0569. Richland, Washington.

Petersen, K. L., J. C. Chatters, and W. J. Waugh. 1993. Long-Term Climate Change Assessment Study Plan for the Hanford Site Permanent Isolation Barrier Development Program. Westinghouse Hanford Company. WHC-EP-0569. Richland, Washington.

Randolph, J. E. 1980. Archaeological Assessment for Benton County Unit Resource Analysis Step 3. U. S. Bureau of Land Management. Spokane, Washington.

Relander, C. 1986. Drummers and Dreamers. Caxton Printers, Ltd.

Reidel, S. P., K. R. Fecht, M. C. Hagood, and T. L. Tolan. 1989. The Geologic Evolution of the Central Columbia Plateau. In Volcanism and Tectonism in the Columbia River Flood-Basalt Province, eds. S. P. Reidel and P. R. Hooper, pp. 247-264. Special Paper 239. Geological Society of America. Boulder, Colorado.

Reidel, S. P., K.A. Lindsay, and K. R. Fecht. 1992. Field Trip Guide to the Hanford Site. WHC-MR-0391, Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington

Rice, D. G. 1968a. Archaeological Reconnaissance, Ben Franklin Reservoir Area, 1968. Laboratory of Anthropology. Washington State University. Pullman, Washington.

Rice, D. G. 1968b. Archaeological Reconnaissance Hanford Atomic Works. U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, National Park Service, and Washington State University. Pullman, Washington.

Rice, D. G. 1972a. The Windust Phase in Lower Snake River Region Prehistory. Report of Investigations No. 50. Laboratory of Anthropology. Washington State University. Pullman, Washington.

Rice, D. G. 1972b. Historic and Natural Landmarks in the Area of the Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Steam Supply System Project Hanford No. 1, Benton County, Washington. Report on file, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Department of Sociology-Anthropology. University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho.

Rice, D. G. 1973. Archaeological Investigations at WPPS Hanford No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant Benton County, Washington. Department of Sociology/Anthropology. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Rice, D. G. 1976. The Log Structure at White Bluffs Landing Franklin County, Washington: A Case Study in Historical Archaeology. Anthropological Research Manuscript Series No. 25. University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho.

Rice, D. G. 1980. Overview of Cultural Resources on the Hanford Reservation in South Central Washington State. Report submitted to the Richland Operations. U.S. Department of Energy. Contract No. RL-E-80-0043. Troy, Idaho.

Rice, D. G. 1981a. Archaeological Transects through Interior Dunes on the Hanford Reservation, Washington. U. S. Department of Energy. Richland, Washington.

Rice, D. G. 1981b. Archaeological Inventory of the Basalt Waste Isolation Project, Hanford Reservation, Washington. Report submitted to Rockwell International. Rockwell Hanford Operations. Under Contract No. M19-SBB-258817. Seattle, Washington.

Rice, D. G. 1983a. Archaeological Investigations at Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Plants on the Hanford Reservation. Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, Washington.

Rice, D. G. 1983b. Cultural Resources Assessment of Two Potential Locations For a New Production Reactor on the Hanford Reservation, Washington. Report submitted to Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories under Subcontract No. B-DO258-A-X.

Rice, D. G. 1984. Archaeological Survey and Monitoring of Initial Excavations Within the Basalt Waste Isolation Project Reference Repository Location and Associated Drill Borehole Site Locations. Letter report to Rockwell Hanford Operations, Energy Systems Group, Richland, Washington.

Rice, D. G. 1985. Archaeological Survey of A Potential Barge Unloading Site at the 300 Area at Hanford. Y5N - S44 - 42566. Prepared for Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Rice, D. G. 1987a. Cultural Resources Surveys on the Hanford Site, Washington. Report submitted to the Westinghouse Hanford Company under Consultant Agreement No. X7F-SCA-453004. Richland, Washington

Rice, D. G. 1987b. An Administrative History of the Involvement and Participation of Richland Operations U.S. Department of Energy in Cultural Resources Management At the Hanford Site, Washington. Report prepared under Consultant Agreement No. X7F-SCA-453004. Rockwell Hanford Operations. Richland, Washington.

Rice, D. G. 1987c. Archaeological Reconnaissance of Gable Butte and Gable Mountain on the Hanford Site, Washington. Report submitted to the Westinghouse Hanford Company under Consultant Agreement No. X7F-SCA-453004. Richland, Washington.

Rice, D. G. and M. Chavez. 1980. Cultural Resources Assessment of the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, State of Washington. Report submitted to the Seattle District. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Contract DACW67-M-80-1193. Seattle, Washington.

Rice, H. S., D. H. Stratton, and G. W. Lindeman. 1978. An Archaeological and Historic Survey of the 400 Area, Hanford Reservation. National Heritage, Inc. Pullman, Washington.

Root, M. J., ed. 1993. Site 32DU955A: Folsom Occupation of the Knife River Flint Primary Source Area Phase III (Part 1) Archaeological Data Recovery at Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge, Dunn County, North Dakota: Interm Report for 1992-1993 Investigations at 32DU955A. Project Report Number 22. Center for Northwest Anthropology. Department of Anthropology. Washington State University. Pullman, Washington.

Schalk, R. F. 1980. Cultural Resource Investigations for the Second Powerhouse Project at McNary Dam Near Umatilla, Oregon. Project Report 1. Laboratory of Archaeology and History. Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.

Schalk, R. F. 1983. The 1978 and 1979 Excavations at Strawberry Island in the McNary Reservoir. Project Report Number 19. Laboratory of Archaeology and History. Washington State University. Pullman, Washington.

Schiffer, M. B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Schiffer, M. B. and Gumerman. 1977. Conservation Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc. New York, New York.

Schreodle, G. F. 1973. The Archaeological Occurrence of Bison in the Southern Plateau. Laboratory of Anthropology Reports of Investigations No. 51. Washington State University. Pullman, Washington.

Schmid, E. 1963. Cave Sediments and Prehistory, In Science in Archaeology, eds.

D. Brothwell, E. Higgs, and G. Clark, pp. 123-138. Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York.

Shiner, J. L. 1951. The Excavations at Site 35-UM-5 in the McNary Reservoir, Oregon. Columbia Basin Project. River Basin Surveys. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D. C.

Shiner, J. L. 1952a. A Preliminary Report on the Archeology of Site 45-WW-6 on the Columbia River, Washington. Columbia Basin Project. River Basin Surveys. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D. C.

Shiner, J. L. 1952b. The 1950 Excavations at Site 45-BN-6, McNary Reservoir, Washington. Columbia Basin Project. River Basin Surveys. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D. C.

Shiner, J. L. 1953. Excavations at Site 35-WS-5 on the Columbia River, Oregon. Columbia Basin Project. River Basin Surveys. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D. C.

Shiner, J. L. 1961 . The McNary Reservoir: A Study in Plateau Archaeology. Smithsonian Institution. River Basin Survey Papers No. 23. Bureau of Ethnology Bulletin 179, pp. 149-266. Washington, D. C.

Slaughter, M. C., L. Fratt, K. Anderson, R. V. N. Ahlstrom. 1992. Making and Using Stone Artifacts: A Context for Evaluating Lithic Sites in Arizona. Project Identification Number: SP9017-50. SWCA Archaeological Report No. 92-5. SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants.

Smith, H.I. 1905. An Archaeological Expedition to the Columbia Valley. Records of the Past 4(4):19-127.

Smith. H. I. 1910. "The Archaeology of the Yakima Valley." Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. VI, Part I. New York, New York.

Smith, W. C. 1977. Archaeological Explorations in the Columbia Basin a Report on the Mesa Project 1973 - 1975. Department of Anthropology. Central Washington Archaeological Survey. Ellensburg, Washington.

Smith, W.C., M. L. Uebelacker, T. E. Eckert, and L. J. Nickel. 1977. An Archaeological-Historical Survey of the Proposed Transmission Power Line Corridor from Ashe Substation, Washington to Pebble Springs Substation, Oregon. Washington Archeological Research Center. Project Report No. 42. Pullman, Washington.

Spier, L. 1936. "Tribal Distribution in Washington." In General Series in Anthropology, No. 3. George Banta Publishing Company. Menasha, Wisconsin.

Staley, D. P. 1986. National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form. Manuscript on file. Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Richland, Washington.

Stanford, D. 1983. "Pre-Clovis Occupation South of the Ice Sheets." In Early Man in the New World, ed. R. Shutler, Jr., pp. 65-72. Sage Publications.

Stilson, M. L. 1986. Identification Component and Evaluation Component. In Resource Protection Planning Process Mid-Columbia Study Unit. An RP3 Document prepared for the Washington State Department of Community Development. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington.

Stilson, M. L. 1988. Resource Protection Planning Process South Cascades Study Unit. An RP3 Document Prepared for the Washington State Department of Community Development. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington.

Strong, E. 1959. Stone Age on the Columbia River. Binfords & Mort Publishers, Portland, Oregon.

Swanson, E. H. 1962. The Emergence of Plateau Culture. Idaho State College Museum, Pocatello, Idaho.

Thoms, A.V., S. J. Bobalik, K. Dohm, R. R. Metzger, and D. Olson, S. R. Samuels. 1983. Archaeological Investigations in Upper McNary Reservoir: 1981-1982. Project Report Number 15. Laboratory of Archaeology and History. Washington State University. Pullman, Washington.

Turner III, C. 1992. New World Origins: New Research from the Americas and the Soviet Union. In Ice Age Hunters of the Rockies, eds. D. J. Stanford and J. S. Day, pp. 7-50. Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado.

Uebelaker, M. L. 1984. Time Ball: A Story of the Yakima People and the Land. Shields Bag and Printing Company. The Yakima Nation. Yakima, Washington.

Waitt, R. B. 1980. About Forty Last-Glacial Lake Missoula Jökulhlaups Through Southern Washington. Journal of Geology 88:653-679.

Waitt, R. B. 1984. Periodic Jökulhlaups from Pleistocene Glacial Lake Missoula - New Evidence from Varved Sediment in Northern Idaho and Washington. Quaternary Research 22:46-58.

Warren, C. N. 1968. The View from Wenas: A Study in Plateau Prehistory. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum, Number 24, Pocatello, Idaho.

Weis, P. L. and W. L. Newman. 1989. The Channeled Scablands of Eastern Washington - The Geologic Story of the Spokane Flood. 2nd ed. Eastern Washington University Press. Cheney, Washington.

Wessen, G. C. 1985. A Resource Protection Planning Process Identification and Evaluation for Prehistoric Archaeological Resource of the Southern Puget Sound Study Unit. Wessen and Associates, Kirkland.

West, F. H. 1983. The Antiquity of Man in America. In Late Quaternary Environments of the United States; The Late Pleistocene, Vol. 1, ed. S.D. Porter, pp. 364-382. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Whitley, D. S., and R. I. Dorn. 1993. "New Perspectives on the Clovis Vs. Pre-Clovis Controversy." American Antiquity 58(4):626-647.

Download Section 2 [WordPerfect 5.1]

Go to Section 3

For questions or comments, please email to Paul R. Nickens [pr_nickens@pnl.gov]
Document Number: DOE/RL-97-02, Rev. 0
URL: http://www.hanford.gov/doe/culres/mdp/sec2.htm
Date Posted: January 24, 1997