Laserfiche WebLink
105 <br />• occupation has not yet been found in the study area, but the occurrence <br />of Early Prehistoric Period artifacts in the region suggests that the <br />area might have been occupied during this time. The archaeological se- <br />quence observed in the Williams Fork Mountains appears to parallel that <br />of the northwestern Plains and that of the Front Range of the Rocky <br />Mountains. Similarities to other sites in western Colorado and the <br />Great Basin are also indicated. <br />Artifactual materials recovered from the study area are similar to <br />items from well documented sites such as Signal Butte (Strong 1935), Picto- <br />graph Cave (Mulloy 1958), and the McKean Site (Mulloy 1954) to the north <br />and east; and to artifacts from LoDaisKa (Irwin and Irwin 1959) and Magic <br />Mountain (Irwin-Williams and Irwin 1966) on the eastern slope. Sites in <br />Dinosaur National Monument (Breternitz 1971; Burgh and Scoggins 1948; <br />E• Lister 1951); in the Uncompaghre Plateau (Wormington and Lister 1956), and <br />in Utah, such as Hogup Cave (Aikens 1970), Danger Cave (Jennings 1957), <br />and the Turner-Look Ranch site (Wormington 1955) also produced collections <br />of artifacts which are similar in form to those from the Williams Fork <br />Mountains. <br />Correlations with materials from these sites in the general region, <br />which have been dated or organized into a chronological framework, pro- <br />vide the Williams Fork Mountains with a general chronology that we can <br />use to order the materials recovered in the study area. <br />The Early Prehistoric Period is not represented in the present arti- <br />factual inventory. Sites of this sort are rare. The Early Middle and <br />Late Middle Prehistoric Periods are better represented. There are six <br />. sites which can be placed in these time periods with a fair degree of <br />