yellowstone science › ... › yellowstone-science › 11-4.pdfnational park service act. it was...

Archeology at Osprey BeachA Volunteer’s PerspectiveThe Red Sowash Saloon

Theodore Roosevelt IV’s YNP Keynote

Yellowstone ScienceA quarterly publication devoted to the natural and cultural resources

Volume 11 Number 4

The great philosopher and purveyor of interpretive principles,Freeman Tilden, once noted the extraordinary advantage Nation-al Park Service employees have over others because we are thestewards of “the Thing Itself.”

I remember experiencing this as a volunteer here 20 yearsago, when I first walked through the Albright Visitor Center andviewed, with some reverence, the pen that was used to sign theNational Park Service Act. It was more than just an object to me,more even than an interesting old ink pen. It represented theefforts of many to establish a Service to administer the nationalparks. It is the same hushed awe I feel when Lee Whittlesey pullsone of Nathaniel Langford’s letters out of the archives or I see oneof the many fascinating pieces from the park’s museum collec-tion. There is something magical about “the thing itself.”

In this issue, you’ll read Mack Shortt’s account of archeolog-ical work at Osprey Beach, in which he and his team dis-covered a number of significant artifacts dating fromroughly 10,000 years ago. These are the phys-ical “things” providing evidence ofpeople who once lived here.Having worked at Yel-lowstone Lake for a numberof years, I wondered ifthey shared the same won-

der at the beauty of theplace as did I.

When discussing “the Thing Itself,”Tilden implicitly includes “the Place Itself” and

“the People Themselves.” When visiting RobertFrost’s cabin in Vermont many years ago, I sat down in an over-stuffed chair and dutifully watched as thedocent switched on a rickety old filmprojector to show us the interpretive filmon the poet’s years in this place. Thefootage portrayed Frost himself speakingfrom the same old worn chair in which Iwas sitting. My instinct was to immedi-ately spring out of the chair, thinking twothings: that I shouldn’t be sitting in thefamous bard’s place, and that this organ-ization should be taking better care ofsuch significant “things” (in theirdefense, the Frost cabin was an exceed-ingly small operation, a tiny structurestaffed by a couple of retired volunteerswho seemed surprised and delighted tohave any visitors at all out there in themiddle of the Vermont woods). I am,nonetheless, grateful to have had thisfirsthand experience, and secretly hopedthat even the smallest fraction of his writ-ing prowess might have rubbed off on

me. It is the same vicarious thrill I sensed in John Muir’s “scrib-ble den” in the study of his Martinez, California, home. I knowthat the irresistible authenticity of sharing the space of the greatones will compel me to visit Aldo Leopold’s “Shack” in SandCounty one day. In a like manner, when Theodore Roosevelt IVspoke at the recent event celebrating the centennial of the Roo-sevelt Arch, he embodied, as much as anyone today can, the spir-it of his great grandfather. You can read his remarks in this issue.

This past year, I had the opportunity to go to the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania to spea with studentsand faculty of the geology departmentwhere Ferdinand V. Hayden taughtimmediately before embarking onhis first geological survey of

Yellowstone in 1871. As I walkedthe corridors of Hayden Hall, named in

honor of the intrepid explorer, some of the fac-ulty confided in me that there’s a longstanding tradi-

tion at the beginning of each academic year of visitingHayden’s gravesite in a nearby cemetery and drinking a toast inhis honor. Before leaving Philadelphia to return to Yellowstone,I also visited Hayden’s grave. Running my hand over the coldsmooth stone and seeing that name etched in granite, I felt a mys-tical connection over time and space between this man and thewild place in the Northern Rockies he helped to preserve. It mademe prouder still to be associated with the Service entrusted withthe care of “the Things Themselves” that are the physical linkbetween us and the people, places, and events that comprise ournation’s natural and cultural heritage.

RJA

The Power of “the Thing Itself”C

OU

RT

ES

Y JO

HN

MU

IR N

ATIO

NA

L HIS

TO

RIC

SIT

E

EditorRoger J. Anderson

[email protected]

Assistant Editor and DesignAlice Wondrak Biel

Assistant EditorsTami BlackfordVirginia Warner

PrintingArtcraft, Inc.

Bozeman, Montana

Yellowstone ScienceA quarterly publication devoted to the natural and cultural resources

Contents

Volume 11 Number 4 Autumn 2003

Cover:Cody Complex tools found at theOsprey Beach site, drawings by Tah Mad-sen. Researchers recording data in theirlogbooks at the site, 2002, NPS photo.

Facing page: Pen used to sign the Nation-al Park Service Act, NPS photo. JohnMuir’s desk at the John Muir NationalHistoric Site, Martinez, California.

Above:Emmanuel Gereta, of the Tanza-nia National Parks, speaks at the SeventhBiennial Scientific Conference on theGreater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

NP

S P

HO

TO

Yellowstone Science is published quarterly. Submissions are welcome from all investigators con-ducting formal research in the Yellowstone area. To submit proposals for articles, to subscribe toYellowstone Science, or to send a letter to the editor, please write to the following address: Editor,Yellowstone Science, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190. You may also email:[email protected].

Support for Yellowstone Scienceis provided by the Yellowstone Association, a non-profit educa-tional organization dedicated to serving the park and its visitors. For more information about theassociation, including membership, or to donate to the production of Yellowstone Science, write to:

Yellowstone Association, P.O. Box 117, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190.The opinions expressed in Yellowstone Scienceare the authors’ and may notreflect either National Park Service policy or the views of the Yellowstone Cen-ter for Resources.

Copyright © 2003, the Yellowstone Association for Natural Science, History & Education.

Yellowstone Science is printed on recycled paper with a soy-based ink.

Record of Early People on Yellowstone Lake 2Cody Complex Occupation at Osprey BeachA Museum of the Rockies crew pieces together life in Yellowstone 9,400 years ago.

by Mack W. Shortt

A Volunteer’s Perspective, and Archeology 101 10Just what do archeologists doout there?

by John Reynolds and Ann Johnson

Red Sowash and the Round Prairie Saloon 14Liquor, entrepreneurship, and the U.S. Army on the road to Cooke City.

by Bob Flather

The Froth and the Fury 17Keynote speech delivered by Theodore Roosevelt IV on the occasion of the Roosevelt Arch centennial, Yellowstone National Park, August 25, 2003

7th Biennial Scientific Conference Sets Attendance Record 22by Alice Wondrak Biel

News and Notes 24Mardy Murie Passes Away • Most of Norris Geyser Basin Reopens to Public • 2002 YCR Annual Report Available • Two Wyoming Men Charged withPoaching Elk • Resource Damage at Lone Star Geyser • Yellowstone Wolf Reprintedin Paper

2 Yellowstone Science

Summary

Archeological research in YellowstoneNational Park is in its infancy. Whilearcheologists generally know who was inthe park and when for any particular thou-sand year block, little is known about thedaily lives of the people. The NationalPark Service and the Museum of the Rock-ies (MOR) have been investigating aninteresting campsite that has potential tohelp fill in pieces of that gap.

The work described in this paper, con-ducted on Yellowstone Lake in 2000 and2002, has revealed new insights regardingthe earliest people who lived on the shore

of the lake. The location was given thename Osprey Beach for the birds who livethere (and whose fishing was not inter-rupted by our research). Our excavationand analysis have increased knowledgeand understanding of those who occupiedthe area roughly 10,000 years ago. It hasbeen learned that peoples thought to occu-py only the plains and foothills, andbelieved to be primarily bison hunters,were also present in this mountainous lakearea on a seasonal basis, and had adoptedthe broader strategy of hunter-gatherers.This work, while illuminating on its own,raises new questions about this early peri-

od, and should spark further investigations.

Introduction

In the study of archeology, the Precon-tact Period (i.e., the time prior to NativeAmerican contact with Non-Native Euro-American people) is divided into severalbroad time periods. Each time period isfurther broken down into cultural units(e.g., those with similar artifact assem-blages) arranged in temporal sequences.One such cultural unit is the “complex,”composed of a unique assemblage of arti-facts. Questions relating to the origin andultimate fate of each complex, or other cul-

Record of Early People on Yellowstone Lake

Cody Complex Occupation at Osprey Beach

by Mack W. Shortt

Artist’s rendition of life at the Osprey Beach site 9,400 years ago.

AM

AN

DA

DO

W

Autumn 2003 3

tural units, remain to beanswered. It is important tonote that the term complexdoes not directly equate withone particular ethnologicaltribe or cultural group we knowfrom the historic period; in fact,it could be shared by severalgroups of distinct people. Thisarticle describes recent archeo-logical discoveries in Yellow-stone National Park that relateto the cultural unit known asthe Cody Complex.

The Cody Complex

The Cody Complex wasfirst defined in 1951 at theHorner site; a bison kill locatedroughly 100 km (62 mi) east ofYellowstone Lake near Cody,Wyoming. The bison wereidentified as an extinct speciesknown as Bison Antiquusthat was halfagain as large as modern bison. Hornersubsequently became the type site (wherethis particular group of artifacts were firstidentified as occurring together) for theCody Complex. The three tools associatedwith the Cody Complex include Scotts-bluff and Eden projectile points (Figure 1,left and middle) and specialized toolsreferred to as Cody knives (Figure 1,right). A diagnostic feature of Eden points(Figure 1, middle) that does not show wellin this illustration is that they are diamond-shaped in cross-section. Complete Edenpoints are long and slender, which mayaccount for their frequent breakage.

These three diagnostic tools may occuralone in sites or with either of the othertwo diagnostic artifact types. Radiocarbondates from the Horner site ranged fromapproximately 9,300 to 8,700 radiocarbonyears before the present (B.P.). In recentyears, the Cody Complex has become arelatively well documented cultural entityidentified on the Northwestern Plains andin adjacent Central and Northern RockyMountain basins. The typical Cody sitedates from approximately 8,000 to 10,000B.P.

Cody people traditionally have beenviewed as representing “classic” earlyNative American plains bison hunters, dif-

ferent from the contemporaneous peopleswho inhabited foothills and mountainregions. Our work is helping change thatimpression, which was, for the most part,based upon a singular focus on the exca-vation of Cody bison kill sites and theirassociated processing and campsite areas.Indeed, sites such as Finley in the GreenRiver Basin, Carter/Kerr–McGee in thePowder River Basin, and the Frasca andJurgens sites in northeastern Colorado, areinterpreted as large-scale bison procure-ment operations. Campsites with Codycomponents include Hell Gap in eastern

Wyoming, Medicine Lodge Creek innorthern Wyoming, Claypool in easternColorado, the MacHaffie and MammothMeadow sites in southwestern Montana.

Cody Complex points and knives alsohave been found in montane and lakesidecontexts, however, such as the Lawrence

Site at Jackson Lake, and atFishing Bridge and near Solu-tion Creek in YellowstoneNational Park. Unfortunately,the Cody Complex artifacts atthese sites were mixed withthose of more recent periods,making it impossible to deter-mine what other artifacts mayhave been used at the CodyComplex camp. However, thedistribution of these sites sug-gests that seasonal adaptivestrategies are broadly-based,and that Cody people wereengaged in a variety of sub-sistence activities, not justbison killing. The followingdiscussion addresses CodyComplex strategies as reflect-ed by the recent archeologi-cal investigations on theshore of Yellowstone Lake.

Archeology at the Osprey BeachLocality

The Osprey Beach Locality is charac-terized by a high north-facing bluff thatrises slightly more than six meters (20feet) above the current lake level (Figure2). The site was first recorded during the1958 and 1959 field seasons by the Uni-versity of Montana’s J. J. Hoffman, duringthe first professional archeological inven-tory of Yellowstone National Park. It wasrevisited in summer 2000 when, at therequest of Yellowstone archeologist Ann

Johnson, WSU volunteers surveyed a longsection of beach and collected artifacts—two Cody knives and a Scottsbluff projec-tile point base—that suggested that earlyPrecontact Period archeological depositscould be present.

The Museum of the Rockies archeolo-

Figure 1. Idealized artifact types.Left to right, Scottsbluff, Eden, and Cody knife.

Archeological sites and artifact types are typically named after theperson who discovered the site, landowners of the site, or nearby

towns. The Horner site is named after Pearl Horner, the originallandowner. Scottsbluff and Eden points, Cody knives, and the CodyComplex derive their names from Scottsbluff, New Mexico, and Edenand Cody, Wyoming.

DRAWINGS BY TROY HELMICK (LEFT AND MIDDLE) AND TAH MADSEN (RIGHT)


gy field crew has com-pleted two field pro-grams at Osprey Beach:a four-day evaluativeexcavation and survey inAugust 2000, and a 15-day data recovery exca-vation program inAugust 2002. The goalwas to recover as muchof the archeologicaldeposits as possible,because ongoing naturalerosion and illegal arti-fact collection continueto impact the site. TheWSU group also con-ducted a limited testexcavation program inthe area during summer 2001. While thesmall number of artifacts recovered by theWSU test has not yet been documented ina formal report, the two Cody knives, aScottsbluff point base, and a shaft abradercollected by that crew are included in thisdiscussion.

Combined, the 2000 and 2002 MORfield testing programs at Osprey Beachresulted in the excavation of 66 completeand partial units that were one metersquare (Figure 3). Even so, site boundarieshave not been identified. The excavationsrevealed a simple stratigraphic sequencethat consisted of three sedimentary units:two colluvial sand deposits and a series ofpebbly beach sand lenses that resemble thesands exposed on the modern beach. Dr.Ken Pierce, of the Unit-ed States GeologicalSurvey, has suggestedthat after the formationof a paleo-shorelinedating to ca. 10,500years ago, the level ofYellowstone Lake low-ered and retreated to thenorth. The pebblybeach deposits repre-sented former paleo-beach lines cut by waveaction, and wereformed when the levelof Yellowstone Lakewas approximately fivemeters (16 feet) higherthan today. The arti-

facts were in bedded gravel beachdeposits. Thus, at the time of occupation,Cody Complex peoples were camped on avegetation-free beach, above the activewave zone (see rendering on page 2).

Who, What, Where, and When?

When were Precontact Native Ameri-can people at Osprey Beach, and whatactivities took place there? A convention-al radiocarbon age of 9,360 (± 60) B.P.was obtained on a charcoal sample col-lected by Ken Pierce in 2000. The largenumber of waste flakes (byproducts ofmanufacturing and repair activities), and avariety of stone tools suggested that anumber of domestic tasks were undertak-en. (An analogy for waste flakes would be

wood shavings fromwhittling, as there aremany more shavings thanfinished carving.) Severalsmall activity areas con-sisting of concentratedscatters of flakes wererecovered, marking thelocations where someoneworked on tools.

The great majority ofartifacts were smallpieces of obsidian pro-duced during the manu-facturing and mainte-nance of tools. Highnumbers of obsidian arti-facts are unusual in CodyComplex sites, but

Osprey Beach is the first Cody Complexsite excavated in an area where people hadeasy access to unlimited amounts of obsid-ian. In addition to obsidian, stone materialtypes at the site included opalized wood,various colors and grades of chert (anopaque stone with a high silica content thatis prized for tool-making), including semi-translucent dark green and pinkish-greyvarieties, and a single piece of Knife Riverflint (from quarries in west central NorthDakota). The flakes from tool manufac-ture and repair are currently being ana-lyzed and quantified.

The tools were of greatest diagnosticvalue, however, and much has beenlearned from them. Further, although nopreserved animal bone was recovered,

analysis of the tools hasprovided new and uniqueinsights into subsistenceactivities of these peo-ples.

Analytical Tools

Archeologists make aconcerted effort to deter-mine the sources of stoneused for tools, as thisinformation providesinsight into the travelpatterns of the users. Thedark green chert used fortwo of the Cody knives(Figure 4, top middle andright) are from theAbsaroka Mountains,

Figure 2. The Osprey Beach site is on an eroding terrace about six metersabove the current water level of Yellowstone Lake.

Figure 3. Osprey Beach site during the 2002 excavations.

NPS PHOTO

NPS PHOTO

Autumn 2003 5

which form the park’s eastern border.There are many sources of obsidian, and itis often possible to distinguish betweenthem.

Obsidian sourcing: At 70–77%, sili-con dominates the chemical compositionof obsidian. In addition, each obsidiansource contains a number of trace ele-ments, whose relative abundance (in partsper million) varies from source to source.

Using the trace elements zinc, gallium,rubidium, strontium, yttrium, zirconium,niobium, barium, titanium, and man-ganese, each source has a unique “finger-print.” The individual composition of these10 trace elements (in parts per million)creates an original pattern that permits theidentification and separation of differentobsidian sources and artifacts made fromthose obsidians.

Thirty-eight specimens fromOsprey Beach were analyzedthrough x-ray fluorescence. Theseobsidians were assigned sourcesas follows: 22 (58%) were fromObsidian Cliff Plateau, 8 (21%)were from Bear Gulch (in north-eastern Idaho), and 4 (11%) fromTeton Pass (west of JacksonHole). Conant Creek Tuff (nearthe Idaho border between Yellow-stone and Grand Teton NationalParks), Huckleberry Ridge Tuff(in the southeastern quarter of thepark), Cougar Creek (northwest ofMadison Junction), Park Point (onthe east shore of YellowstoneLake), and Packsaddle (in south-eastern Idaho) were representedby single specimens. We assumethere was little trade in local lith-ic materials, as everyone wouldhave had equal access to them. Aspeople are believed to have col-lected from nearby sources intheir travels, we can see wherethey went by knowing the loca-

tion of each source. A typical seasonal migration might

look like this: Assuming that people werecamped on Yellowstone Lake during thesummer, they might have gone south inthe fall and acquired obsidians fromConant Creek and Teton Pass on their wayto their winter camps in eastern Idaho. Inthe early spring, they might have movednorth and replenished their supplies of

obsidian from the Bear Gulch source,before coming into the park up the Madi-son River Valley and past the CougarCreek obsidian source. A slight jog to thenorth would get them in the vicinity ofObsidian Cliff obsidian, where a supply ofraw material could be obtained beforereturning to the Yellowstone Lake for thesummer. While on the lake, Park Point

obsidian was a locally available resourcefor tools (see map below).

Blood residue analysis: Upon comple-tion of the 2000 and 2002 field programs,the Cody knives, projectile points, endscrapers, and retouched flakes were sub-mitted for blood residue analysis, a testthat seeks to identify species of origin forblood proteins extant on some artifacts.This technique was pioneered by the

Royal Canadian MountedPolice for modern forensicswork, and has been appliedto archeological specimensover the past 10 years withconsiderable success. Arche-ological specimens arewashed with special liquids,and the residue is analyzed

in a method similar to human blood typ-ing. A tool’s blade and base are washedseparately, often producing distinctly dif-ferent results. This may be because theknife or point is attached to the handle orspear with one type of material such assinew or blood and then the blade mayhave had contact with a different animal.Labels in the artifact photos point to the

MONTANA

IDAHO WYOMING

YELLOWSTONENATIONAL PARK

Obsidian Cliff

Park Point

Summer

Fall

Winter

Spring

x

Cougar Creek

Packsaddle

Lava Creek

Bear Gulch

Conant Creek

Teton Pass

Sources for obsidian specimens found at Osprey Beach and hypothesized seasonal round.

As people are believed to have collected [obsidian] fromnearby sources in their travels, we can see where theywent by knowing the location of each source.

NP

S


type of blood residue found onthe blade and hafting(notches/base) elements. Haftingis the means by which the arti-fact is attached to a shaft or han-dle. About 25% of the specimenssubmitted for blood residueanalysis produce positive results.At present, the technique can dis-tinguish between families but notbetween members of the samefamily. We know the identifiedsheep blood is Rocky Mountainbighorn sheep because 9,400years ago there were no domesticsheep in North America.

The stem of one of the greenchert Cody knives (Figure 4) pro-vided a positive reaction to rabbitantiserum. This may have beenrelated to the site’s inhabitants’skinning rabbits or to the use ofrabbit ligaments for hafting. Bothare strong possibilities. Second,the blade of a broken obsidianCody knife yielded a positivereaction to canid antiserum, butwe cannot differentiate betweenthe four canid forms (wolf, coy-ote, fox, and dog) found in thepark. It should be noted that aScottsbluff projectile point col-lected during an excavation atFishing Bridge in 1992 also test-ed positive to rabbit antiserum.

Two Osprey Beach knivesprovided positive mixed speciesresults (Figure 4). One artifactelicited positive test results torabbit and deer on its stem andblade. The other provided posi-tive test results for rabbit on thestem and Rocky Mountainbighorn sheep on the blade.Combined, the blood residueanalyses of the Cody knives indi-cate that rabbit tissues were like-ly used as hafting materials andthat deer, Rocky Mountainbighorn sheep, and canids wereprobably butchered prior to arti-fact abandonment. Several yearsago, a chert Cody Knife, collect-ed from the beach in the late1950s, tested positive for bison.

The projectile points submit-

ted for residue analyses provid-ed equally diverse results (Fig-ure 5). The stems of two com-plete Scottsbluff projectilepoints each elicited positive testresults to cat (felid) antiserum,and one also provided a positiveresult for bear. Another projec-tile point provided a positivereaction to deer antiserum on itsstem and blade portions. Finally,the large obsidian expedientflake tool (Figure 5) provided apositive reaction to canid anti-serum. A key finding is thatbison, the hallmark targetspecies of the Cody Complex,was conspicuously absent in theartifacts tested from OspreyBeach; however, it may simplynot have been present in thesamples tested. Had bison beenidentified, this would confirmthe earliest evidence of bison inthe park.

Stone Tools Recovered

Stone tool types recoveredfrom the Osprey Beach Localityincluded seven Cody knives,eight projectile points and frag-ments, five shaft abraders, fiveawl abraders, a ground cobble,two end scrapers, one largeretouched flake, and an adze.These tools suggest that in addi-tion to domestic activities, awide range of manufacture andrepair tasks took place, imply-ing that the occupation lasteddays or even weeks. It is likelythat one or more hides were pre-pared at the site.

Cody knives: The Codyknives found both on the beachbelow the test units and duringexcavation represent three stonematerial types: vitreous darkgreen chert (probably from theAbsaroka volcanic rocks on thepark’s eastern border), brownchert, and obsidian (Figure 4).All four obsidian knives weremade of obsidian sourced to theObsidian Cliff Plateau betweenMammoth Hot Springs and

Figure 4 (above). Cody knives from the Osprey Beach site.The bottom row are all obsidian. Top left is brown chert, topmiddle and right are dark green chert. Blood residue analy-

sis results are shown by the arrows.

Figure 5 (below). Scottsbluff points and bases (upper andmiddle rows), and parallel-oblique lanceolate projectiles

(bottom row). Blood residue analysis results are shown bythe arrows.

AMANDA DOW/R. KEVIN THORSEN


Autumn 2003 7

Norris Junction. Generally, the finely-made

brown chert and dark greenchert Cody knives (Figure 4, toprow) are in better condition thantheir obsidian counterparts. Oneobsidian specimen had snappedduring use, and another appearsto have been re-sharpened sooften that the artifact has nearlylost its asymmetric form (Figure4, lower left). The two remain-ing complete obsidian Codyknives were, in relative terms,less finely made and heavilyworn. It seems that the Precon-tact Period inhabitants of theOsprey Beach locality were lessconcerned with curating obsidi-an knives than with maintainingthe integrity of the green andbrown chert specimens. Thisphenomenon may be related tothe unlimited quantities of read-ily-available Obsidian CliffPlateau volcanic glass versus more “exot-ic” stone types, and to the relatively morebrittle nature of obsidian.

Projectile points:For the most part, theprojectile points recovered at OspreyBeach were consistent with styles found atother Cody Complex sites. These wereprobably attached to spears or darts (thebow and arrow do not appear until about200 A.D. in this part of the world). Formsinclude three complete Scottsbluff projec-tiles, two manufactured of Obsidian Cliffobsidian and one of translucent brownchert (Figure 5, toprow), and threeScottsbluff pointbases, one each ofPark Point, ObsidianCliff, and Bear Gulchobsidian (Figure 5,middle row).

Two projectilepoints recovered dur-ing excavation weremorphologically dif-ferent from theScottsbluff and Edentypes, which are thehallmarks of the CodyComplex. One was afragmentary specimen

that had a convex base, straight lateralmargins, and an irregular-to-parallel-oblique flaking pattern (Figure 5, bottomleft). This is Bear Gulch obsidian. Theother complete specimen, sourced to theObsidian Cliff Plateau, was characterizedby a convex base, excurvate lateral mar-gins, a slightly narrowing stem, incipientshoulders, and a parallel-oblique flakingpattern (Figure 5, bottom right). The com-plete specimen closely resembles formsfrom the Lookingbill site southeast of Yel-lowstone National Park. While most par-

allel-oblique lanceolate projec-tiles temporally follow theCody Complex (ca. 9,000 to8,500 B.P.), archeologicalresearch at Barton Gulch(Alder Complex) in south-western Montana, and Medi-cine Lodge Creek in theBighorn Basin, demonstratethat lanceolate projectilesoccur in assemblages that areroughly contemporaneouswith, or older than, those of theCody Complex. The associa-tion of these forms with theCody Complex artifacts atOsprey Beach suggests thatmembers of different culturalgroups could have been com-ing together seasonally inmulti-ethnic gatherings. Bothgroups may have originatedfrom the Plains/IntermountainBasins and/or Rocky Moun-tains and foothills.

Abraders: Abraders are objects whosecoarse surfaces are used to smooth a soft-er object. We identified three types: shaftabraders (used to straighten spear shafts),awl/artifact edge abraders (used to makebone/wood awls or to grind the edges ofstone artifacts), and a ground cobble. The10 shaft and awl/artifact edge abraders arepieces of stone composed of cementedsand. The size of the sand determineswhether the artifact functioned as a fine orcoarse abrader. The ground cobble tool isa split pumice cobble. The discovery of 11

sandstone abraders dur-ing excavation is note-worthy in light of the factthat they are rare at otherCody Complex sites. Infact, the Osprey Beachsite has more sandstoneabraders than any otherCody Complex site inNorth America.

The artifacts identi-fied as shaft abraders(five) exhibit generallywider grooves thatextend continuouslybetween the lateral mar-gins of the artifact (Fig-ure 6, left column). Four

Figure 7. End scrapers and retouched flake (far right) showing working edges.

Figure 6. Three sandstone shaft abraders and split pumicecobble abrader (lower right).




of the specimens have broader, u-shapedgroove widths that approximate 1.5 cm inwidth. Another has a slight v-shapedgroove with a maximum width of 0.75 cm.Other sites with shaft abraders areMacHaffie, Claypool and Jurgens, andHorner.

In addition, six awl/artifact edgeabraders were found. These were likelyused to make bone/wood awls, or grind ordull the edges of stone artifacts so that thesharp edges would not cut through thehafting materials for the points and Codyknives. These awl/edge abraders tend tobe irregular in outline, and consist ofamorphous sandstone cobbles with dis-continuous 3- to 5-mm grooves incisedonto flat cobble surfaces. The grooves gen-

erally do not extend to the lateral marginsof the artifacts. The distinction betweenthese artifact types is blurry, as both broadand long grooves can be found on the sameobject with the shorter, narrower grooves.

Finally, a 7.8-cm-long split pumicecobble had been utilized as an abradingimplement (Figure 6, lower right). Oneside is relatively flat, with rough, unmod-ified surfaces, while the opposite exhibitsan undulating surface with smoothed, pol-ished facets. Portions of its edges alsoappear to have been worn smooth. Refer-ences to the use of such artifacts occur inthe ethnographic literature. For example,

in 1854, the Assiniboine were described asrubbing a heated hide with a pumice stoneor porous bone during tanning.

End scrapers:The two end scrapersfound at the Osprey Beach Locality arelarge flakes with modification along singleedges (Figure 7). The smaller (Figure 7,center) of the two has heavily worn ridges,perhaps indicative of heavy use, and isObsidian Cliff obsidian, while the larger(Figure 7, left) is from the Cougar Creeksource in the Madison Valley.

Retouched flake:The one large flaketool (created as the byproduct of the man-ufacture or refinement of another tool) hasslightly irregular flaking (shaping/sharp-ening) along its shortest edge (Figure 7,right). The obsidian from which this tool

was made is from Obsidian Cliff.Adze: An adze-like implement was

also recovered. It is a rectangular stoneslab that has heavy stepping and batteringon one end, and a flat, unmodified surfaceat the opposite end. Its lateral margins alsoconsist of flat, unmodified surfaces. Thin-ning of the artifact is suggested by twolarge flake scars on one side. The tool mayhave been used to split wood, bone, orother soft materials. In addition, it couldhave served as a heavy, hand-held chop-ping tool.

Conclusions

The Osprey Beach site is the first CodyComplex site to be excavated that demon-strates a clear stratigraphy. Its content andcontext suggests the site is of at leastregional and perhaps national importance.The MOR archeological program hasdemonstrated that by 9,360 (± 60 B.P.),probably during warm weather months,bands of Cody Complex peoples travelledinto the heart of Yellowstone country tohunt, gather, and make a wide variety oftools, and that they were joined at Yellow-stone Lake by other peoples. While nobone is preserved in the site, blood residueanalysis of the tools indicated that a varietyof mammalian species were exploited.

While canids, sheep, rabbits, and deerwere identified, no bison were present. It isnot known that bison were present in thepark at this early date. To date, we have noevidence of fish being used. We havefound no evidence for season of use, butgiven the severity of the winters duringthis post-glacial period, it is assumed thatthis was a summer camp.

While in the area around the lake, peo-ple utilized obsidian from both ObsidianCliff Plateau and Park Point to manufac-ture projectile points and specializedbifaces. Obsidian from sources such asBear Gulch and Cougar Creek was proba-

PROTECTING YELLOWSTONE’S ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

In the field of archeology, we always face the conflicting demands of education and preservation. Newanalyses and advances in our understanding of early people follow each important discovery of artifacts. Theprovenience of the discovery is often crucial to the new insights. Sharing this information widely, however,inevitably conflicts with our responsibility to preserve these resources as it advertises the park’s archeologi-cal sites and sometimes, directly or indirectly, results in illegal collecting. Last year, artifact thieves were incar-cerated and fined into the thousands of dollars for stealing artifacts within the park. As we continue our explo-ration of the park’s cultural resources, we are always mindful of striking the proper balance. We work close-ly with law enforcement and are pleased with their cooperative efforts to preserve and protect the nation’sarcheological resources in the park. Visitors sometimes find sites and artifacts as they enjoy the park. Theyare encouraged to bring these finds to our attention, and we make every effort to provide those who do withinformation about what they found and what it means.

—Dr. Ann Johnson, park archeologist

Autumn 2003 9

bly brought in for tools during the latespring and early summer, and obsidianfrom other sources were in use as well. Inaddition, non-local cherts were used byOsprey Beach peoples. Only two pieces ofobsidian were found during the excava-tions at the Horner site; one was fromObsidian Cliff Plateau, and the other froman unknown source. Most of the stone atthe Horner site indicated close ties to theBighorn Mountains to the east, and sug-gests minor contacts with the YellowstonePark area by the people at the Horner site.

Pieces of locally-derived sandstonewere used as abrading tools to fashionwood or bone tools. Indeed, the 11 sand-stone abrading tools represent the largestassemblage of such tools ever found at aCody Complex site. The type of groovespresent suggests that spear shafts and boneawls were being worked. The end scrapersand hide abraders suggest that hides werebeing tanned, possibly for shelters. Thesharpening of awls implies that clothingwas being prepared, as these tools arebelieved to be associated with manufac-ture of clothing.

As a result of the Osprey Beach inves-tigations, we have a more complete pic-ture of human life in the park some 9,000years ago. The picture on page 2 is anartist’s rendition of what the Osprey Beachcamp might have looked like. There arealso archeological sites on six of the sevenislands in Yellowstone Lake, and one ofthese sites is assigned to the Cody Com-plex. To date, there is no evidence for howpeople would have gotten to the islandsduring the summer.

Finally, in the past it was suggestedthat approximately 10,000 years ago, anecological boundary separated intermoun-tain basin/plains-oriented cultural groups(people adapted to plains bison huntinglifeways) from other contemporaneouscultural groups that occupied adjacentfoothill and mountain regions. The lattercultural groups were thought to be adapt-ed to hunting and gathering in environswhere a wider ranger of faunal and floralspecies could be exploited. Other studies,however, suggest that by Cody Complextimes, the different adaptations to thoseecological zones were breaking down. TheOsprey Beach evidence supports thehypothesis that Cody Complex peoples

were seasonally adapted not only to theplains and intermountain basins as bisonhunters, but also to upland/mountain envi-rons, where a variety of mammalianspecies were available. The diverse bloodresidue data indicate that themountains/plains cultural dichotomy, if itever existed, was in fact breaking down bythe time of the Osprey Beach occupation9,360 (± 60 B.P.). It appears, therefore,that early Precontact Period Native Amer-icans at Osprey Beach were versatilehunter-gatherers who sustained them-selves in many ways under the various nat-ural resource circumstances they encoun-tered.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the sub-stantial support of the Yellowstone ParkFoundation for the 2002 Osprey BeachLocality archeology project. Their gen-erosity has made a highly significant con-tribution to the understanding of earlyNative American settlement in Yellow-stone National Park. The Teton CountyPreservation Board is recognized for fund-ing the 2002 blood residue analyses thatprovided critical insights. John Albaneseand Dr. Kenneth Pierce visited the site andprovided important contributions throughtheir geological interpretations. Drs. AnnM. Johnson, Brian O.K. Reeves, andLeslie B. Davis are acknowledged for theirconsiderable efforts in facilitation, coordi-nation, and supervision. Finally, the par-ticipation of John Reynolds, a volunteeron the field project, in the review of thispaper is gratefully noted.

Suggested readings:Davis, Leslie B., Stephen A. Aaberg, and James

G. Schmitt, 1995. The Obsidian Cliff PlateauPrehistoric Lithic Source, YellowstoneNational Park, Wyoming. Selections fromthe Division of Cultural Resources No. 6.Rocky Mountain Region, National Park Ser-vice, Denver.

Frison, George C. 1997. The Foothill-MountainLate Paleoindian and Early Plains ArchaicChronology and Subsistence. Pages 85–104in Changing Perspectives of the Archaic onthe Northwest Plains and Rocky Mountains,M. L. Larson and J. E. Francis, eds. Vermil-lion: University of South Dakota Press.

Frison, George C. 1991. Prehistoric Hunters of

the High Plains. 2nd ed. New York: Acade-mic Press, Inc.

Frison, George C., and Lawrence C. Todd,1987. The Horner Site: The Type Site of theCody Cultural Complex. New York: Acade-mic Press, Inc.

Moss, J. H., K. Bryan, G. W. Holmes, L. Sat-terthwaite Jr., H. P. Hansen, C. B. Schultz,and W. D. Frankforter, 1953. Early Man inthe Eden Valley. Museum Monographs No.6. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University ofPennsylvania.

Pierce, Kenneth L., Kenneth P. Cannon, andGeorge M. Crothers, 1994. ArchaeologicalImplications of Changing Levels of Yellow-stone Lake, Yellowstone National Park,Wyoming. Current Research in the Pleis-tocene 11:106–108.

Mack W. Shortt holds an M.A. in Archeol-ogy from the University of Calgary. From1993 to 1998, he served as ProjectArcheologist for the Museum of the Rock-ies’ Glacier National Park ArcheologyProgram, and since 1996, he has heldthat position for the Museum’s Yellow-stone National Park Archeology Program.He has also performed archeologicalwork in the Canadian Rockies, NorthernPlains, and northern boreal forests. Macklives in Calgary with his wife, Dinah, andhis daughter, Amelia. Yellowstone is hisfavorite place.

NP

S P

HO

TO


Yellowstone’s archeology programoften uses a combination of professionalarcheologists and volunteers. As one ofthose volunteers, I worked at OspreyBeach during the 2000 and 2002 field sea-sons. The first season was abbreviated, butthe results were very promising, and theprogram gained a Yellowstone Park Foun-dation grant for more extensive work in

2002; the work I will describe here. For 15days in 2002, our days began with a shortdrive and then a hike of a mile or so, bothalong a low terrace above the shore and onthe lakeshore itself. In both cases, we

encountered a great deal ofdowned timber, the result of the1988 fires. Clambering over thisprovided a good way to wake upthe tired body for the rigors of theday. Once at the site, the archeol-ogists began preparations for theday’s excavation and I set up myown “work station.” As the

unskilledmember of thegroup, my jobwas to care-fully screenthe soil exca-vated by theprofession-als. First,though, let’s describethat excavation:

Getting Started

To ensure that noartifacts are missedduring an excavation,and that the locationsof each are preciselyrecorded, archeolo-gists divide sites intoexcavation units,carefully measuredto one meter square.They utilize a tech-nique involvingthree tape meas-ures, establishingtwo sides at a 90degree angle, andthen using thediagonal of the

unit to produce a perfect square. Next, theyset metal spikes at the four corners of theunit and, using a line level (a small level ina tube mounted on a string), establish thespot from which they will measure thedepth uniformly throughout the unit as

they excavate. The unit is then divided intofour quadrants, or “quads” (NE, NW, SE,and SW). The archeologists excavate onequad at a time and, using the line level,take periodic measurements to ensure thateach quad is excavated to a depth of 10centimeters (four inches). Where the sur-face of the ground is uneven, the amount ofsoil taken from the first level for each quadcan vary greatly. After the first level isestablished, however, the volume of soilfor all subsequent levels is the same,because all are started at equal depths.

Excavation of each quad begins with asquare-end shovel; the soil that is removedis placed into a bucket. Periodically, thearcheologist stops to measure the depth ofthe hole being dug to be sure that s/he hastaken 10 centimeters and no more. As thatdepth is approached, the shovel is used to“shave” the soil to achieve the correctdepth. At times, a whisk broom and dustpan are used to remove the last bit of soilfrom a given quad.

During this process, rocks are oftenencountered. The archeologist must deter-mine if they are of interest; for instance,

A Volunteer’s Perspective, andArcheology 101

by John Reynolds and Ann Johnson

The following photographs illustrate important steps in

archeological site investigation including SITE SELECTION,

PREPARATION, EXCAVATION, DOCUMENTATION, and CLOSING

THE SITE. The analysis and writing that follow the fieldwork

are equally or more important than the digging, and create a

record of what was found in the site, its meaning, and why

the site and artifacts are important. The examples shown

were taken during work conducted at Osprey Beach in 2002.

Above, Preparations for detailed excavation at the site

required the efforts of the entire crew to clear the area of

downed timber. Note the transit. It is used to precisely lay out

a grid within which excavation of individual units will take

place.

Mack Shortt and Kevin Thorsen establish a corner ofthe grid.

AL

L P

HO

TO

S N

PS

they may be the remnants of a hearth usedfor food preparation. If that is the case, thesoil is meticulously removed from aroundthe rocks (whisk broom and dust pan arebrought into play again). The rocks are leftin place, and then they are mapped andphotographed to recordtheir position, both later-ally and in depth belowthe surface. This slowsthe excavation, butenriches the collectionof information. If exca-vation continues in sucha unit, these rocks haveto be removed, and mayor may not be collectedfor further analysis.

Screening

After the archeolo-gist has finished siftingthrough the soil, s/heplaces it in a bucket tobe literally “screened”for more material thatmerits collection. Toaccomplish this, thebucket is emptied intoa wooden box of

roughly two feet by two-and-a-half feet,and six inches deep, its bottom coveredwith heavy-duty screen. The standard sizescreen for most archeological work is one-quarter inch, which is what we used in ourwork during 2000. For the more lengthyexcavation in 2002, we used a much finer

grade, one-eighth inch screen. Thisensured that even the smallest flakeswould be collected, significantly enhanc-ing the take from the site. It also made thework much more labor-intensive.

At Osprey Beach, we used rope to sus-pend the box and screen from a tripodmade from downed timber, which wasplentiful at the site. With the box hangingin this “swing,” my job was to shake it vig-orously to allow the soil to flow throughthe screen and onto a large tarp positionedunder the tripod. When the soil is cleanand sandy, it flows through the screenquickly, and the work is easy. More often,though, the soil is either full of clay orhard and cloddy. This makes for slowgoing, as the soil must be broken up todetermine if it contains anything of value.I am sometimes able to crumble the soil byhand, but when it proves too hard for that(as it often does), smashing it against theside of the screen is a better solution. Soilcontaining lots of gravel or rocks poses adifferent problem, as stones that will notfall through the screen have to be removedby hand. I scratched through, examined byhand, and threw out tons of gravel atOsprey Beach. My fingers were scarredpretty badly by the end of the project, andI believe that my fingerprints were at leasttemporarily modified.

The tarp beneath the tripod collects thesoil, and also pro-tects the vegeta-tion beneath itfrom damage. Thetripod is easilymoved by one per-son, so that the soilbeing processedcan be spread overdifferent parts of thetarp. By bringingthe tripod’s legscloser together, itwas also possible toraise the height ofthe box above thegrowing pile ofscreened soil.

Because much ofthe time I screen formore than one arche-ologist, I must keepclose tabs on whose

Excavation of a number of contiguous units, showing the work at differ-

ent levels in separate units. Visti Kjar is at the screen, while Kevin Thors-

en carefully removes soil from one of the units. In the sandy soil, it is dif-

ficult to keep the walls straight; they tend to collapse as they dry.

Because of its remote location, visitors to the Osprey Beach site were infre-quent. Here, Mack Shortt describes the work to an interested group fromthe Yellowstone Park Foundation who made the trek. The YPF sponsoredthe 2002 excavation.

Autumn 2003 11

soil is in the screen and where it camefrom within the unit to ensure that thematerial I collect goes to the right one sos/he can connect the collection to the cor-rect unit, level, and quad.This is key, as evaluationof the excavation strategygoes on constantly; deci-sions about whether to godeeper in a given unit, toexpand the unit laterally inone direction or another, orto open another unit that itis not contiguous to exist-ing ones are based on theamount and type of materi-al found at each level andquad during the excava-tion.

In addition to the tripodand tarp, my “work sta-tion” includes my trusteddustpan, in which I store the material ofvalue collected during the screeningprocess. My work is physically difficult,and my direct rewards are few. I usuallyfind only flakes, as the folks excavatinghave extremely sharp eyes and collect thetools directly. Nonetheless, every day ortwo I will spot a fragment of projectilepoint or other tool, and have found a com-plete point a couple of times. I also have tobe alert for fragments of rock that mayhave been fire-broken, as this can beanother indication of food preparation. Allof these finds are important, as they helpunravel the puzzle of who was here, whenthey were here, and what they did.

Finishing Up

When the excavation in a particulararea is complete, a detailed profile of one

wall is created by taking measurements ofeach change in soil color or type. Multiplephotographs are also taken, always using atarp to shade the wall to ensue proper light-

ing. Then the final stage of work begins:backfilling. At this point, all the soil takenfrom a unit or units is returned to the pit. Ifthe screening has taken place directly adja-cent to the pit, everyone may grab a shov-el and begin topitch the soildirectly back intoit. The more com-mon method, how-ever, is to usebuckets, as the pitsare often severalyards from thescreening area.What made thingsmore difficult atOsprey Beach wasnot just the dis-tance that the soil

had to be carried—it was the climbingover downed timber with a bucket in eachhand. When many units are contiguous,such as at the Osprey Beach site, little

backfilling can be doneuntil excavation is com-plete; for us, it took morethan a day. This is back-breaking work, even forthe younger fellows.

After the backfillingis complete, we try toreplace the original sur-face vegetation, evenwatering it to assist itsrecovery. Our goal is toreturn the site, as closelyas we can, to its originalstate. At Osprey Beach,this meant even haulingdowned timber back tothe areas we had cleared.

While working on this project, Iengaged the crew in an effort to develop aquantitative measure of our work. We cal-culated that in 2002 alone, we removedfrom the earth, one bucket at a time, 100


Top left, Meticulous notes are kept for each step of the excavationprocess. Here, Kevin Thorsen and Doug Mitchell record informationin their log books while Mack Shortt prepares to photograph thisstage of the work.

Middle left, When stones thought to be cultural in origin are uncov-ered, their precise location is recorded to assist subsequent analysis ofthe individual unit and of the overall site.

Bottom left, Kevin Thorsen carefully uses a whisk broom to removesoil from around a collection of stones believed to have been part ofa hearth used by early peoples. Each stone’s location is recorded beforeit is removed to allow further excavation.

tons of soil. All of this was returned to theearth, one bucket at a time—meaning thatat this site alone, we moved 200 tons ofsoil by hand over the course of 15 days.

For the most part, theweather was great duringthis project, with clear-to-partly cloudy skies, mildtemperatures, and alwaysa breeze off the lake. Onseveral days it was morethan a breeze, and galewarnings were posted atleast once. On that day, alarge tree fell in the mid-dle of our excavations, afew yards from where wewere eating lunch. Fortu-nately, the wind had driv-en us to take our lunchdown into the pits so nei-

ther our lunches nor we would be blownaway, so we were all safe. When I beganvolunteering with the archeology program,I never thought I might qualify for the

equivalent of hazardous duty pay. Because of the discoveries noted in this

article, as well as the fantastic people onthe project (especially park archeologist

Ann Johnson), this wasanother wonderful experi-ence in Yellowstone, thenation’s gift to itself and thepeople of the world. I con-sider myself very lucky tohave participated in thiseffort and to have beenassociated with such finepeople. It was exhilarating,fascinating, and rewarding,but at the end of every daymy body reminded me thatit was never easy.

Autumn 2003 13

Top right, John Albanese, an experienced geoarcheologist (geologistwith a long-term interest in archeology), visited the Osprey Beach siteand provided an analysis of the origin and distribution of the site’sstratigraphy.

Middle right, After all phases of the excavation are completed, aneffort is made to return the site to its original state. The labor-inten-sive process of backfilling is illustrated here as John Reynolds returnsa bucket of soil to the excavated unit.

John Reynolds (“A Volunteer’s Perspective”) has volunteeredwith archeologist Ann Johnson for the last five years. He holdsa B.S. from the University of Kentucky and an M.A. in econom-ics from the University of Maryland. Retired from the Central

Intelligence Agency, he con-tinues to work for that organi-zation as a consultant whilespending his summers in Yel-lowstone. In addition to thework noted in this report,John has worked on extend-ed backcountry archeologyprojects on the YellowstoneRiver, Hellroaring Creek, andrecently on the SoutheastArm of Yellowstone Lake.When not volunteering in thepark, he lives in northern Vir-ginia near his two daughtersand son-in-law.

Ann Johnson, a Montana native, earned a Ph.D. in anthropolo-gy from the University of Missouri at Columbia. Her areas of

interest are thenorthern plains

and adjacentmontane areas,

the past 3,000years, and pre-historic, ceram-

ic-using cul-tures. Ann hasworked for theNational ParkService for 26

years, but work-ing with Yellow-stone archeolo-gy and staff has

been her bestjob.

NP

S P

HO

TO

NP

S P

HO

TO


“I took a trip up to Cook[sic] City on17 inst and returned on the 18th. There isa man running a Saloon about nine milesthis side of Cook[sic] at a place calledRound Prairie,” reported Yellowstone’sAssistant Superintendent Cannon toSuperintendent Conger on June 19, 1884.l

A month later, F. J. Haynes took a photo ofthis saloon, which he described as “RoundPrairie Hotel (Saloon) Soda Butte Valleynear Cooke City, Mt.”2 There was confu-sion over the saloon’s location until lateMay 2000, when acquaintances of thiswriter, who visit the park every spring,found the exact spot. The problem waswith the words “Round Prairie,” as overthe past 50–60 years, at least, “RoundPrairie” has referred to the large meadowsurrounding the junction of Pebble andSoda Butte Creeks. However, as Elva and

Dale Paulson of Roseburg, Oregon, dis-covered, the saloon had been in a smallmeadow, currently bisected by the North-east Entrance road, about 0.1 mile west ofthe Barronette Peak pullout.

Discoveries in Yellowstone’s archiveshave revealed that originally, “RoundPrairie” was the meadow just north of theBarronette pullout, through which the firstwagon road to Cooke City traveled, as isevident today. Perhaps the earliest refer-ence to this Round Prairie is found inSuperintendent Norris’s 1881 AnnualReport, where Captain Stanton’s report onroad distances in the park notes that it is3.0 miles from Trout Lake to RoundPrairie.3 All the confusion could have beenavoided if anyone had checked intoHaynes’s photos, because he took an addi-tional picture from above and to the rear of

the saloon that clearly shows the saloon, astable to the north, a corral to the northeastand most importantly, what is unquestion-ably Barronette Peak in the background.4

A trip to the location today, to line up thestill-existing features observed in Haynes’sphoto, indicates that the front of the saloonmust have bordered quite closely, if notprotruded into, the current NortheastEntrance road (as can be observed todayby examining the truncated rectangulardepression in the ground about 1/3 of theway west across the meadow along thesouth edge of the current road).

The existence of this saloon was madeknown to the Secretary of the Interior in aletter from Superintendent Carpenter datedNovember 13, 1884, in which Carpenternoted that “about 8 miles further up SodaButte Creek, I found a man with a small

Red Sowash and the Round Prairie Saloon

by Bob Flather

Z. R. Sowash’s “Round PrairieHotel,” photographed in 1884 byF. J. Haynes near the Cooke Cityroad and Soda Butte Creek, wasonce thought to have been out-side the park. In 1886, however,

it was found to be three milesinside the park, leading to its

removal in 1887.

ALL

PH

OT

OS

CO

UR

TE

SY

HAY

NE

S F

OU

ND

ATIO

N C

OLL

EC

TIO

N, M

ON

TAN

A H

IST

OR

ICA

L S

OC

IET

Y

Autumn 2003 15

house and stable keeping a stopping placeand Station.”5 Carpenter was inclined tolet Sowash stay, as the boundary had notbeen surveyed. Then, in an August 21,1885, letter to Superintendent Wear, Z. R.Sowash, the saloonkeeper, stated that hehad “been located at a point on the CookeCity road for the past two years. Have beenkeeping a mail station and road house.”6

Sowash was requesting permission toremain, as it was still not clear whether ornot he was within the park’s boundaries(for no survey had been made).Wear forwarded this request to theSecretary of the Interior recom-mending approval. Sowash alsocalled attention to a letter written toWear by George Wakefield, thefirst person to have been awardedthe contract for carrying mail fromMammoth Hot Springs to CookeCity, on the same date. Wakefieldstated that the station kept bySowash was necessary for gettingthe mail to Cooke City in the win-ter.7

It is interesting to speculate onWakefield’s possible role in thebuilding of the saloon, for in a let-ter to the Secretary of the Interiordated December 16, 1883, Wake-field noted that he, as mail contrac-tor, had already built one mail sta-tion on the East Fork of the Yel-lowstone—probably the log cabinby Soda Butte cone that served themail carriers until 1938 when allstructures at Soda Butte wereremoved—and would need to buildtwo more stations on the route nextseason.8 Had he actually “jumpedthe gun” by a year in regard toSowash’s Saloon? Much was done in thosedays under the theory that it was better tobeg forgiveness than ask permission, espe-cially where structures were concerned. Inany case, the situation remained in limbountil Captain Harris arrived in August1886. While the basis for Harris’s decisionis unknown, he determined that the Saloonwas inside the park, and verbally advisedSowash sometime in the fall that he wouldhave to leave come spring.9 Sowash thenasked the help of Congressman J. K. Tooleof Montana in seeking a lease, for in a let-ter dated January 25, 1887, from the Sec-

retary of the Interior to Toole, the formerrefers to Toole’s letter of January 5 for-warding Sowash’s request, which the Sec-retary denied.10 The Secretary’s decisionwas undoubtedly strongly influenced by aJanuary 15, 1887, letter from Captain Har-ris recommending that the Secretary notapprove the lease sought by Sowash as“Mr. Sowash’s place is perhaps as wellkept as any of its kind, but it is nothingmore than a liquor saloon and there is noquestion as to its being detrimental to the

interests of the Park.”11 Thus, the stage wasset for Harris’s letter to Sowash on May 9,1887, advising the latter he would have toleave by June 30 of that year.12 Accordingto Harris’s 1887 Annual Report, the orderwas promptly obeyed.13

What happened to the saloon? Ordi-narily in those days, the structure wouldhave been destroyed—burnt to the ground,most likely. However, there is circumstan-tial evidence that the saloon may have sur-vived, condition unknown, until at leastFebruary 10, 1908. This speculationmakes sense in that Harris may have

bought Wakefield’s argument that thebuilding was needed in winter by the mailcarriers as a refuge in case of difficultweather conditions. The daily patrol logsof the U.S. Army’s Soda Butte patrol sta-tion include the following entry: “Decem-ber 7, 1895: patrol camped at Red’sSauvages cabin.”14 Patrols were also madeto “Red’s cabin on Cooke City road” onJune 9, 1905, January 8, 1908 and Febru-ary 10, 1908.15 Sowash was known as Red,and the significance of the surname

Sauvage will soon be discussed.The logs frequently mention theround-trip distance the patrols cov-ered, and in the above instances, thedistance was recorded as 15 miles.It is roughly seven miles from theSoda Butte patrol station to theoriginal Round Prairie. By the early1900s, the regular route to CookeCity traveled along the north sideof Soda Butte Creek, except themail carriers may have kept to theoriginal route on the south side untilthe coming of the auto. From thattime on, the saloon would havebeen “off the beaten path,” as autostook the north side, but may havesurvived in deteriorating conditionuntil it necessarily had to beremoved to make way for the cur-rent road in 1934.

Who was Red Sowash? A pic-ture of the man appears in DorisWhithorn’s book on Gardiner, Jar-dine, and Crevasse, Montana.16 AMr. Richard Soash of Wichita,Kansas, has been researching thefamily history, and published someof his findings on the Internet.17 Itbegins with a Johannes H. Sauvage

(see previous paragraph) and his wifeimmigrating from Alsace-Lorraine to theU. S. in 1738. They settled and had sever-al children, of which one son American-ized his name to Sowash. Subsequently,some family members used the spellingSoash. In a letter to this writer, Mr. Soashadvised that he believes Z. R. Sowash wasone of 11 children of a Jacob Sowash, thathe was known as Jackwell or Joseph, andthat he was listed in the 1870 census ofWashoe County, Nevada, as being a resi-dent of that county.18 The 1880 census ofMeagher County, Montana, lists a Joseph

F. J. Haynes photo showing the saloon (arrow), a sta-ble to the north, a corral to the northeast, and Bar-

ronette Peak in the background.

Sowash, age 33, and a William Sowash,age 23, both born in Indiana, apparentlywith the same parents, engaged in miningactivity in that county. By the early 1880s,Sowash’s mining activities had moved tothe Cooke City area, where on September26, 1883, he and several others signed anotarized claim as being the locators.19 Hesigned as Zack Sowash. Shortly, on Sep-tember 23, 1884, he sold his interest in amining claim, giving his residence asCooke City, while when he sold his inter-est in the Big Blue & Richmond mines onJuly 13, 1885, he listed his residence asRound Prairie, Wyoming Territory.20 In the1900 Park County, Montana, census, aZacarath R. Sowash is listed, age 53, bornin Indiana, a saloonkeeper but unemployedfor the past six months and owner of ahome in Horr, Montana. The countyrecords show no evidence of this owner-ship, but the county clerk noted to me thatmany individuals did not register theirownership in those days. It is doubtful thatSowash owned a home in Horr or any-where else, for county mining recordsindicate that he lived in Gardiner, Mon-tana, in 1899 and in Jardine in 1901. Nofurther information has come to lightexcept that no record exists in the ParkCounty Clerk’s Office of a Z. R. Sowashhaving died in Park County, Montana.

As a final aside, the small, white signon the front of the saloon below the largersign was hung apparently by Haynes, as itreads in part “Prof. F. J. Haynes, nationalpark views.”

References 1Document 1349, National Archives, Yellow-

stone National Park (hereafter NAYNP).2F. J. Haynes, Photo #1412, Montana Historical

Society, Helena, Montana (hereafterMTHS).

3Superintendent Philetus Norris, AnnualReport of the Superintendent, December 1,1881, p. 66, Yellowstone National Parklibrary (hereafter YNP library).

4F. J. Haynes, Photo #1410, MTHS. 5Superintendent Carpenter to Secretary of Inte-

rior, November 13, 1884, microfilm M-62Roll 2 of 6, MTHS.

6Z. R. Sowash to Superintendent Wear, August21, 1885, microfilm M-62 Roll 3 of 6,MTHS.

7George Wakefield to Superintendent Wear,August 21, 1885, microfilm M-62 Roll 3 of6, MTHS.

8George Wakefield to Secretary of the Interior,December 16, 1883, 48th US Congress, 1stSession, Sen. Ex. Doc. 47, Serial Set 2162,Government Publications section, Universi-ty of California at Santa Barbara library.

9Acting Superintendent Captain Moses Harris,Superintendent’s Annual Report, August 20,1887, p. 5, YNP library.

10Acting Secretary of Interior Muldrow to Hon.J. K. Toole, January 25, 1887, Document123, NAYNP.

11Captain Harris to Secretary of the Interior,January 15, 1887, Letters sent Box 213, v1,p. 73, NAYNP.

12Captain Harris to Z. R. Sowash, May 9, 1887;Letters sent Box 214, v2, p. 18, NAYNP.

13Acting Superintendent Captain Moses Harris,Superintendent’s Annual Report, August 20,1887, p. 5, YNP library.

14Letter Box 93, Monthly Logs, Soda Butte Sta-tion, NAYNP.

15Bound volume 181 and Letter Box 90, SodaButte Station Reports, NAYNP.

16Doris Whithorn, Photo History of Gardiner,Jardine, and Crevasse. Livingston, Montana:Park County News.

17Web site, [email protected] L. Soash to Robert Flather, undated

letter.19New World Mining District, Folder 2 of 2, p.

254, Accession number 96-132, NAYNP.20Mining Claim Records, Books 9-143 and 9-

196, Park County County Clerk’s Office,Livingston, Montana.


Site of Red Sowash’s saloon as it appears today.

Bob Flather has worked for the National Park Ser-vice seasonally at Yellowstone since 1971, vari-

ously as a fire guard, ranger, fire researcher, andvolunteer. The Lamar Valley is his favorite part of

the park, which is what led him to his investiga-tion of Red Sowash. He has also worked at Gulf

Islands and Point Reyes National Seashores.When away from Yellowstone, Bob lives in Santa

Barbara, California. He is 78 years old and hopeshe has a few more good years left in him in Yel-

lowstone.

NP

S P

HO

TO

NP

S P

HO

TO

Autumn 2003 17

The Froth and the FuryKeynote speech delivered by Theodore Roosevelt IV

on the occasion of the Roosevelt Arch centennial, Yellowstone National Park

August 25, 2003

Theodore Roosevelt IV is a Managing Director at LehmanBrothers, and a member of the firm’s senior client coverage group.Upon graduating from Harvard in 1965 with a B.A., Mr. Roo-sevelt joined the Navy as an officer in Underwater DemolitionTeam Eleven. Following his active duty, he joined the Departmentof State as a Foreign Service Officer. He initially served in Wash-ington, D.C., and was subsequently assigned to Ouagadougou,Upper Volta, West Africa (now Burkina Faso). In 1970, Mr.Roosevelt took a special leave of absence from the Department ofState to attend Harvard Business School, where he received hisM.B.A.. Upon his 1972 graduation, he was offered a WhiteHouse Fellowship, which he declined to join Lehman Brothers.

Mr. Roosevelt is an active conservationist. He is the formerChairman of the League of Conservation Voters; a Trustee of theAmerican Museum of Natural History; and Chair of the PewCenter on Global Climate Change. He is also on the board of

Trout Unlimited, on the Governing Council of The WildernessSociety, and is a Director of the University of Wyoming’s Institutefor Environment and Natural Resources. He was appointed byGovernor Pataki to the New York State Recreation and HistoricPreservation Commission for the City of New York and the Hud-son River Park Trust. In addition, he is a member of the Councilon Foreign Relations, a Governor of the Foreign Policy Associa-tion, and a frequent lecturer on history and economics at NewYork University. As a leader in the environmental movement, andfor his expertise in foreign policy issues, Mr. Roosevelt is frequent-ly asked to testify before Congressional Committees. He recentlyserved on a Congressional Chartered Committee to evaluate theUnited States’ role in multilateral institutions, and also served ona committee to review U.S. relations with Iran.

He and his wife, Constance, live in Brooklyn Heights, NewYork.

NP

S P

HO

TO

Left, President Theodore Roosevelt speaks at the dedication of the Roosevelt Arch, April 25, 1903.Right, Theodore Roosevelt IV delivers the keynote speech at the Arch’s re-dedication, August 25, 2003.

NP

S A

RC

HIV

ES


Thank you for your welcome and for thischance to visit with you. It is enormousfun to be here...I think.

Well, it would be fun if it weren’t forthe peculiar stomp, stomp, stomping that Ihear overhead. Undoubtedly, TR fulmi-nating in Heaven, pacing as he usually didwhen he wrote a speech, and now just itch-ing to put his words in my mouth.

Fulmination is probably not a heaven-ly activity, but I doubt even the lordalmighty would want to come between TRand a podium. As Alice Roosevelt oncesaid of her father:‘He wants to bethe bride at everywedding and thecorpse at everyfuneral.’

Facing thisaudience, I’mfeeling a littlelike the corpse atmy own funeral:local, regional,and maybe somenational environ-mental groups onthe one hand; themembers of theBush Adminis-tration and theresidents of ourgateway commu-nities on theother hand; ouroverworked,underpaid, andsorely belea-guered National Park Service rangers;maybe some ranchers, and, then, perhaps afew innocent bystanders—or tourists—who might want to duck for cover duringthe course of this speech.

It always bemuses me that humanitynever tires of these events: commemora-tions of dates on a calendar. We arrive at acertain number on a calendar, a certain dis-tance in time from the original event, andwe celebrate.

In reality, this often repeated look backto our origins is a profoundly necessaryemotional and intellectual gesture: that ofinvocation, of calling upon the wisdom ofour ancestors in our present day struggles.

In a society where the present and

future claim almost all of our attention,this pause to invoke the past restores asense of continuity, of intergenerationalresponsibility, pride and most importantly,humility.

Pride because Yellowstone was a revo-lutionary concept when it was created in1872. No other nation had ever establisheda national park. But it took another twodecades for Congress to pass the neces-sary legislation to protect the park frompoachers and others who wanted to use itfor selfish purposes. Humility because we,

as shareholders, are not managing our her-itage properly. The chronic underfundingof our national parks is tragic. The cumu-lative maintenance backlog, depending onwhat you count, is anywhere between$6–10 billion. A lot of money, on the onehand, but not even petty change in ournation’s budget.

How do we find ourselves in this situ-ation? I believe this chronic underfundingof our national parks is part of a larger fail-ure—the lack of an ethical relationshipwith the land, the duty to which another‘ancestor,’ Aldo Leopold, summoned us.And to which this gateway implicitlyinvites us, even if a ‘land ethic’ was not yetarticulated when it was built.

Most commentators on Leopold’s landethic will acknowledge that it obliges us tohonor ecological process. I believe, andthis is discussed less often, that a land ethicalso obliges us to honor the process in thesocial contract: to ensure that the steps wetake toward the goal don’t so damagehuman relationships that we fail to arriveat the goal.

Two commentators, Annie Booth andWinifred Kessler, examined how the spot-ted owl controversy in the Pacific North-west might have played itself out if the

main actors had beentruly informed byLeopold’s land ethic.Back in 1998, in anessay they coau-thored in the WildlifeSociety Bulletin, theywrote: ‘Having rec-ognized that com-plexity is the norm inecology, profession-als would have recog-nized that this wasnot a simple biologi-cal problem requiringa technical fix. Pre-sumably a full arrayof social scientists,economists, ecolo-gists, policy scien-tists, and otherswould have beenenlisted from thestart. Those connect-ed to the problemwould have been

engaged early on to find common groundsand search for alternative solutions…Hav-ing received a natural resources educationthat included humanistic as well as scien-tific values, leaders would have been moreperceptive and empathetic toward thediverse views that comprised the spottedowl dispute.’

The authors of this essay opined that ifa land ethic had been truly imbibed bythose one presumes to be entrusted with itthat maybe the spotted owl controversymight not have happened at all. Yet, in thefive years since they wrote that essay, havewe managed to avert any of the big con-troversies? Have we healed any of the riftscaused by the past controversies?

The crowd gathers in anticipation of the arch centennial celebration,August 25, 2003.

NPS PHOTO

“

Honoring a land ethic,in my view, should nec-essarily involve us in arespectful dialogue withthe communities whoactually live on the landand for whom ‘place’ isneither an abstraction, away station, or a careermove. A respectful dia-logue with rural commu-nities means that weregard them as equal part-ners, not as colonial vas-sals.

And, here, we cometo the crux of the resourceissues that confound ustoday—or, I should prob-ably say, ‘that confrontus.’

I have begun to won-der if our battles with one another—some-times characterized as ‘cultural warfare’—aren’t more about undoing the oppositionthan achieving positive benefits for theresource or for rural communities.

We have settled into painful andentrenched oppositions in which we nowseem to delight: urban versus rural; gate-way communities versus national stake-holders; the interior west versus the coasts;the right versus the left; the self-righteousversus the sanctimonious; the Princes ofDarkness versus Nature’s Anointed Ones.

As we practice the language of divi-sion and pressure politics, we begin tobelieve that economies of truth are trueenough and that the end justifies anymeans whatsoever.

We begin to believe that some of uswear the mantle of protectors—whether oflocal communities and democracy, or ofinviolate nature—while the unclean rest ofus are the exploiters. Both sides poison theprocess: both sides play by the rules thatsuit them, use tactics and language toinflame their own constituencies, and treatanyone with a different point of view asthe enemy.

Then we call our political stalematesby names like ‘analysis paralysis’—asthough our failures are more about thestructure of thought than the exercise of acivic conscience. And we move farther andfarther from a society that embraces a land

ethic and is in turn improved by it.And, yet, in the midst of hard-pressed,

angry rural communities and sick ecosys-tems, American citizens are comingtogether quietly—on the q.t., as it were—to build consensus and forge solutions.They are engaging in the disciplined,unglamorous, unheralded, and arduouswork of a democracy.

As Aldo Leopold wrote: ‘One of thecurious evidences that conservation pro-grams are losing their grip is that they haveseldom resorted to self government as acure for land abuse. We who are “about todie” unless democracy can mend its landuse have not tried democracy as a possibleanswer to our problem.’

So, I would like to pause in mypolemic to tell a story about two suchAmericans who decided to talk instead ofdemonizing one another. Telling stories,after all, is what we do in Yellowstone.Usually in a circle around a campfire. TRwas known for campfire tales and particu-larly hair-raising ghost stories! And thiscampfire tale might appeal to him; while itis not a ghost story, it is an east meets westand vice versa story.

A friend of mine—let’s call her Jill—is an ardent conservationist, but she freelyadmits to having very little interest inspending any time actually in nature. Hersister once challenged her to a pack tripinto the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Her sis-

ter is a good horse-woman; Jill is not.She’s a good tangodancer.

Her sister tells methat in the beginningof the trip, their out-fitter, Jack Rich,regarded Jill withconsiderable alarm.The last New Yorkerof her type whom hehad taken intowilderness apparent-ly had a heart attackand was helicopteredback to civilization,where they soon dis-covered he actuallyhad an anxiety attackbrought on by toomuch peace and

quiet. Nothing rattles a New Yorker quitelike peace and quiet.

At the end of her trip into wilderness,Jill said that roads never looked so good,and her next vacation would be in Europe.

So, you can imagine my surprise whenshe announced last year that she plannedon spending her vacation taking a range-land management course at the Universityof Wyoming that required she live on aworking ranch. I thought she had lost hermind and braced myself for a secondSagebrush Rebellion.

The ranchers in question, Jake andKate, consider themselves traditional, asopposed to progressive, ranchers. Theylive where most ranchers do today—between a rock and hard place.

On Jill’s first ride out onto the ranch,Jake turned to her to ask: ‘Who are youtalking to?’ Perplexed, she replied: ‘Thedogs, of course.’ Jake shrugged. Mostranchers don’t spend a lot of time chattingup their sheep dogs.

The next day, Jake suggested thatmaybe Jill shouldn’t go out on horseback.(We can only wonder why.) He had to getsome antibiotics to a cow blinded by aninfection, and so he loaded up his ownhorse and the dogs into the horse trailer,and together with Jill drove out to a hilltopthat was in the vicinity of the blinded cow.He left one dog in the cab of the van andtold Jill that she could wait up on the hill

Autumn 2003 19

As protestors from the Buffalo Field Campaign stood on a hill above him,Roosevelt expressed his belief that by embracing the “language of division,”

we “move farther and farther from a society that embraces a land ethic and isin turn improved by it.”

NPS PHOTO


and watch through the binoculars. Whathe didn’t tell her was that he was leavingbehind the two troublemakers—her andthe dog, Bella.

Jill described what she saw through thebinoculars in her own peculiar terms. Shesaid it was the perfect tango, whereimprovisation looks choreographed. Jakelassoed the rear leg of the cow and tied theother end of the rope to his saddle horn.The horse worked calmly. From her van-tage point, Jill watched its shoulder mus-cles straining to pull against the cow’sefforts to escape. And then, in Jill’s words,‘before I knew it, Jake just flipped that cowover on its side. My gosh, how does any-one DO that?’

When the job was done, Jake seemedto disappear around another part of the hillon another errand. Since everything aboutranching seemed to Jill to take a very longtime, she expected to wait. She returned tothe van, wherein the dog, Bella, was rais-ing a raucous howl. She thought: ‘Well,Jake may know a lot about cows, but thepoor dog shouldn’t be left in that hot van.I’ll just let her out, and we can sit in theshade.’ Upon her release, Bella paused fora nanosecond to look up at her foolish res-cuer. Then, before Jill knew it, the dog waslong gone and out of sight.

Jill figured she was in big trouble withJake.

Sometime later, Jake appeared, ridingup the hill. All the dogs, including thegleeful Bella, followed. Jake was laugh-ing. He said: ‘What happened? Bella makeyou think she was in there dying?’ Jill saidshe thought that Bella had taken off forIdaho after her release and was gone forgood. Jake explained that Bella could havefound him in Idaho if he had gone that far.

In these hopefully somewhat humor-ous vignettes about Jill and Jake, I’ve triedto convey the differences between them:their personal geography, their life experi-

ences, competencies, points of view. Butthere is much those vignettes don’t tellyou—Jill knew how angry ranchers werebefore she left on her trip and was actual-

ly pale with fear on her last day in theoffice. Despite that, because Jill believesthat the war with the west is serving otherpurposes than protecting the resource, shewanted to find out the truth for herself, onthe ground.

Those vignettes didn’t tell you thatJake and Kate had supported wildernessdesignation on forest service allotments intheir neck of the woods in order to, in theirwords, ‘save a real pretty place.’ Nor didthose vignettes tell you that the samegroups who shook hands with Jake andKate and praised their foresight manyyears ago eventually grew churlish aboutthe sight of cows in wilderness and pressedthe Forest Service to unfortunate and puni-tive and inaccurate readings of the Con-gressional Grazing Guidelines as theyaffected Jake and Kate.

Both sides of this encounter broughttrepidation, prejudice, and suspicion to thetable. They also brought grit, determina-tion, and a very necessary sense of humor.

Well, eventually, Jill returned to NewYork. She’s still not a horsewoman. As shesays, she loves ranchers, but doesn’t muchlike ranches. After her return, she said tome:

‘Ranchers have maybe two generationsleft on the American landscape, if that.They are TR’s roughriders. Just as ourecosystems lose if we lose wolves andgrizzlies, our nation loses if we lose ruralpeople. What are you prepared to do aboutit?’

Jill, Kate and Jake had set an examplefor me that represents the best in theAmerican people. We are, after all, essen-tially pragmatic and down to earth, with abias toward action and problem solving,and an inherent respect for differences. In

fact, the American people occupy no polit-ical position so well, in my opinion, aswhat some are beginning to call the ‘radi-cal center.’

For me, the radical center best modelswhat the practice of a land ethic mightmean on the ground and in our culture.

In order to learn about the radical cen-ter, I have spoken with the members ofThe Quivira Coalition in the Southwest,who include Bill McDonald, a rancherwith the Malpai Borderlands Group; withranchers such as the O’Keefe family andthe Hatfields in the Northwest; and, ofcourse, I continue to read Dan Kemmis’sbooks and submit to his tutelage. I havetalked to many many more people thanthese—our culture is rich in practioners ofthis unacknowledged new political move-ment. All in all, I can say that I find theirdecency, thoughtfulness, and commitmentstaggering and inspiring.

I also admire the willingness of themembers of the American Wildlife Con-servation Partners, who hold widely diver-gent views, to meet and find commonground. Or, right here, the Greater Yel-lowstone Coalition. While these groups donot sign onto the radical center ideas, thatI know of, they work toward similar goals.

The radical center is committed to theidea that ‘keeping people on the landscapeis crucial to the health of that landscapeand that the status quo is unacceptable.’As one rancher, Karl Ohs, put it: ‘Collab-oration is a sensitive process. You can’tram it down people’s throats. But when it’sdone well, there’s a trust that developsthat’s good for all society.’ And anotherrancher, Doc Hatfield, put it this way:‘Consensus building is not kind and gen-tle. Consensus is agreeing not to agree ona lot of things, but working together on thethings you can agree on.’ And then, aforester describes the lack of funding forcollaborative endeavors: ‘There’s moremoney for spear-throwers than peace-makers. There is a conflict industry outthere, which seems to be well-served bydeadlock.’

The question the radical center posesfor the rest of us is: ‘How can we developa land ethic if our people are lost from theland?’

Well, let me finally answer the ques-tion that this speech seems to beg and that

The question the radical center poses for the restof us is: “How can we develop a land ethic if ourpeople are lost from the land?”

Autumn 2003 21

is on everyone’s mind. What do I thinkabout snowmobiles in Yellowstone?Ridiculous that it all comes down to this,but this is where we find ourselves.

I heartily dislike snowmobiles in Yel-lowstone. But even more than I dislikesnowmobiles in Yellowstone, I dislike theway we got to this point and where we aregoing. We have all laid the groundwork indivisiveness for more divisiveness to fol-low.

What do I think should have hap-pened?

Instead of millions of dollars in Amer-ican charitable donations to environmentalgroups spent in the courts or in public rela-tions campaigns that utilize nothing somuch as the language of division, I think itwould have been far better to look at howthat money might have been used to buildsustainable economies and good will in thegateway communities which are so essen-tial to the parks. For instance, perhaps it ispossible to endow positions in Yellow-stone that the current Superintendent,Suzanne Lewis, thinks would be useful inpreventing another controversy like thisone. Positions such as a full time econo-mist for Yellowstone who could translatemacro trends into trends for the park andthe surrounding communities; a commu-nity outreach person in the interpretationarea; and a conflict facilitator. Environ-mental groups could also invest green, inorder to ensure that the proper incentivesfor industry to do the right thing are actu-ally in the marketplace. In addition, theyand their funders could look into securinglow interest loans so that the communitiescould make the weighty investments insnow coaches, an investment they shouldonly make if they have assurances thatsnow coaches won’t be litigated off thepark.

Instead of millions of dollars in share-holder earnings spent in litigation, thesnowmobile industry could get off its col-lective rear end and get the next generationof snowmobiles, those beyond the current4-stroke, off the drawing boards. Theycould embrace their civic obligation tohonor the spirit of our national parks andnot just make a buck off them. In doing sothey might find that the triple bottomline—the social, environmental and eco-nomic bottom lines—yields them an edge

in the market place. After all, less pollutionand noise would be good for all of ourpublic and private lands, and public rela-tions is as much a part of business as cap-ital investment.

The Bush Administration could finallyunderstand that, no, where our nationalparks are concerned, it is not ‘in thetourism business;’ our national parks arenot amusement rides.

Our parks carry meaning in law, in his-tory, and in the hearts of the Americanpublic that far exceeds this year’s vaca-tion. The Secretary of the Interior is, orshould be, the defender of that public trust.

This Administration would realize thatas tempting as it is to play to the often-

legitimate grievances of the west againstenvironmental organizations, its currentpolicies are doing nothing so much as pre-pare the next backlash against fragile com-munities. The Administration would real-ize that it is in those communities’ bestinterests to translate the experiences of thewest into the language of the east, and viceversa; to foster an understanding betweenregions so that we might authenticallyundertake restoring rural communities andfailing ecosystems.

The American people could under-stand that the empty places in our heartsand lives are not filled by more mania,more activity, and more consumption. Thatwe have obligations to one another and tothe natural world to be less heedless andmore observant, to be less willing to fol-low and more willing to lead, to give upthe ease of rancor and blame and take upthe difficulties of listening and learning.

And both sides—environmental and

conservative—need to turn from the lan-guage of division, which is in essencepropaganda. Propaganda has neverbrought the human race anything morethan sorrow. As Aldo Leopold wrote,‘instead of building roads into lovely coun-try, we need to build receptivity into thestill unlovely human mind.’

This is a splendid gate, a splendid arch.But, when all is said and done, it is likethose numbers on the calendar that we liketo celebrate, meaningless in itself until webring meaning to it. Throughout many cul-tures, crossroads and gateways signal us topause: they are the place where we gatherup our one more chance for rectification:rectification with our community, our cul-

ture, with our ancestors, and our god. The environmental community is very

fond of the word stewardship. But I have aproblem with it. It seems to leave us alonewith our responsibilities, to shoulder themas best we can and at whatever personalcost. I would like to resurrect a concept,standing here before this gateway, fromthe Old Testament—covenant. Covenantconveys a sense of mutuality, that we havemutual obligations to one another.

In terms of our use of the naturalworld, I believe that we enter into acovenant not only with God, our nation,and our neighbors, but with future genera-tions—what Theodore Rooseveltdescribed as ‘the number within the wombof time, compared to which those nowalive form but an insignificant fraction.’ Ibelieve that the American people, who areso blessed with the bounty of this land, canfind the good will and good sense to honorthat covenant.”

In terms of our use of the natural world, Ibelieve that we enter into a covenant not onlywith God, our nation, and our neighbors, but

with future generations—what Theodore Roo-sevelt described as “the number within the

womb of time, compared to which those nowalive form but an insignificant fraction.”

On October 6–8, the park hosted the Seventh Biennial ScientificConference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. This year’stheme was Beyond the Arch: Community and Conservation inGreater Yellowstone and East Africa.The conference, whichincluded a world-class slate of keynote speakers, including Dr.Richard Leakey, surpassed all previous Biennial Conferences inattendance, with 188 pre-registered participants and attendees, andseveral walk-up registrants.

Paper and panel presentations included discussions of localranchland dynamics (i.e., social, economic, and land use change);

national policy andthe rights of localpeoples; conserva-tion trends in bothEast Africa and theGYE; environmen-tal perception andimagery; compara-tive ecosystemanalyses; and thesometime collisionof conservation efforts and cultural agendas.

The primary theme that emerged from the roughly 30 papers and seven keynote lec-tures presented was the question of whether conservation efforts are most effectivelydirected from the national or local scale. A variety of opinions and reasons wereexpressed throughout the three days, sometimes leading to heated debate. Overall, theassembled group seemed to generally conclude that national-scale conservation worksbest in some situations, and should be maintained as such, while community-based con-servation efforts aremost appropriate inother situations.Improved collabora-tion between nationaland local efforts waswidely advocated.

The conferenceattracted speakers and attendees from across the U.S., and from Africaas well. Other keynote speakers included Drs. Dan Flores, A. B.Hammond Professor of History at the University of Montana, whodelivered the Aubrey Haines lecture, “What We’ve Learned AboutNature from the National Park Idea”; A.R.E. Sinclair, professor ofzoology and Director of the Centre for Biodiversity Research at theUniversity of British Columbia, who delivered the Superintendent’sInternational lecture, “Understanding Ecosystem Processes for Con-servation and Management”; Charles Preston, Founding Curator ofthe Draper Museum of Natural History; Lee Talbot, Professor ofEnvironmental Science, International Affairs, and Public Policy atGeorge Mason University; Steven Sanderson, President and CEO ofthe Wildlife Conservation Society; and Robin Reid, systems ecologist


Seventh Biennial Scientific Conference Sets Attendance Record

by Alice Wondrak Biel

Jeanette Wolfley, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and DrusillaGould, Idaho State University, were part of a panel on con-

servation agendas and indigenous peoples.

Dr. Doug Smith receives the 2002 NPS Director’s Award forNatural Resource Management. From left, Smith, Dr. Lee

Talbot, and John Varley.

Samson Lenjirr, of Kenya’s Narok Council,spoke in a session on African

Conservation Trends.

ALL

PH

OT

OS

NP

S

Autumn 2003 23

for the International Livestock Research Institute. On October 7, John Varley and Dr. Talbot, who was a co-

author of the Endangered Species Act, formally presented DougSmith with the 2002 NPS Director’s Award for Natural ResourceManagement. Doug won the award last spring, but it had yet tobe given to him, and the conference’s A. Starker Leopold Banquetseemed an apropos venue. The award presentation was followedby the A. Starker Leopold lecture, delivered this year by Dr.Richard Leakey, who spoke about his experiences in both con-servation efforts and the dangerous business of oppositional pol-itics in Kenya.

A conference proceedings will be published. In the mean-time, more conference wrap-up information and photos will soonbe available at www.nps.gov/yell/technical/conference.htm.

Dappled in the autumn sun, the conference’s seven keynote speakers are pictured here with Yellowstone Center for ResourcesDirector John Varley. From left, Drs. Lee Talbot, George Mason University; Robin Reid, International Livestock Research Institute;Steven Sanderson, Wildlife Conservation Society; Dan Flores, University of Montana; Charles Preston, Draper Museum of Natural

History; (John Varley); A.R.E. Sinclair, University of British Columbia; and Richard Leakey, of Nairobi, Kenya.

Dan Flores, A.B. Hammond Professor of History at the University of Montana, presented the Aubrey Haines Lecture.

Beyond the Arch


Mardy Murie Passes Away

The wilderness and conservation com-munities lost one of their most eloquentand passionate pioneers on October19, with the death of Mardy Murieat her ranch in Moose, Wyoming.She was 101. In the Fall 2002 issueof Yellowstone Science (volume10[4]), Margaret Elizabeth Thomaswas born in Seattle in 1902, butspent her childhood in Fairbanks,Alaska. In 1924, she was the firstwoman to graduate from the Uni-versity of Alaska. Her marriage toOlaus Murie in 1924 began a life-time of travel, scientific research,and involvement in conservationactivities. Mardy and Olaus hadthree children, Martin, Joanne, andDon. Mardy was the author of sev-eral books, including Two in the FarNorth and Wapiti Wilderness.Sheplayed a key role in the the designa-tion of the Arctic National WildlifeRefuge (1960) and the passage ofthe the Wilderness Act (1964) andAlaska National Interest LandsConservation Act (1980). Sheserved on the Council of the Wilder-ness Society, received an HonoraryDoctorate from the University ofAlaska, the prestigious AudubonMedal, and was an Honorary ParkRanger. She was on the founding board ofthe Teton Science School. In 1998, Mardywas awarded the Presidential Medal ofFreedom, which President Bill Clintonbestowed on her for her lifetime of serviceto conservation. Her most recent accoladecame at her 100th birthday celebration,when Mardy was awarded the NationalWildlife Federation's highest honor, the2002 J.N. Ding Darling Conservationist ofthe Year Award.

To honor her life, The Murie Centerwill host a special event, "Celebrating theLife of Mardy Murie," on Saturday,November 15, 2003, at the Snow KingResort, Jackson, Wyoming. The tributewill begin at 5 p.m., followed by a light

supper, cookie swap (in honor of Mardy'slong tradition of "tea & cookies," all areinvited to bring two dozen cookies-one

dozen to share and one dozen to swap),and music and dancing. All ages are invit-ed; interested parties can call 307-739-2246 for more information. For thoseunable to attend, a tribute to Mardy's lifeand work will also take place at the MurieSymposium, August 13-16, 2004 at theMurie Ranch in Moose.

Most of Norris Geyser Basin Reopensto Public

On October 9, 2003, portions of NorrisGeyser Basin that had been closed sinceJuly 23, 2003, reopened to the public.Approximately 4,800 feet of the 5,800-foot temporary closure were reopened,with only the portion of the Back Basin

trail from Green Dragon Spring to Pork-chop Geyser intersection remainingclosed.

Each year, there is a noticeablechange in the color and steam dis-charge of many of Norris's existinggeysers and thermal pools. Knownas the "annual disturbance," itappears related to increased emis-sion of deep, hot waters. This year's"annual disturbance" significantlyincreased measured ground temper-atures to unacceptable levels (up to200° Fahrenheit). Concern for visi-tor and employee safety necessitat-ed the temporary closure. Over thelast several weeks, monitored trailtemperatures have significantlydecreased in the closed area. Threeof the four temperature monitoringsites now indicate ground surfacetemperatures of less than 120°Fahrenheit.

During this year's annual distur-bance, a new thermal featureemerged near Son of Green DragonSpring, emitting a mudflow thatbegan spattering boiling, acidicmud onto the trail, requiring thetrail closure. This feature continuesto spatter mud onto the trail, andthe area surrounding the new fea-ture will remain closed until a

reroute of the trail can be accomplishedsometime in spring 2004.

2002 YCR Annual Report Available

The Yellowstone Center for ResourcesAnnual Report for 2002 is now availablefrom the YCR Publications Office. Con-tact Alice Wondrak Biel at 307-344-2233or [email protected] to obtaina copy.

Two Wyoming Men Charged withPoaching Elk

On October 3, 2003, two men fromnorthwestern Wyoming were cited intofederal court for illegally shooting andkilling three bull elk in a remote area

NEWS notes

Mardy Murie.

Autumn 2003 25

inside Yellowstone's eastern boundary.Multiple items, including rifles, handguns,motor vehicles, trailers, stock and opticalequipment were seized from the suspectsafter they abandoned the carcasses andattempted to leave the area. The investiga-tion is continuing with assistance from theU.S. Fish and WildlifeService and theWyoming Department ofGame and Fish. Multipleadditional charges areanticipated.

Resource Damage atLone Star Geyser

Considerableresource damage hasbeen done to Lone StarGeyser and the surround-ing area after two menillegally entered the areaby vehicle and drovearound the geyser andsurrounding meadows.On Friday evening, Octo-ber 10, 2003, Adam RayElford, 22 years old, ofVancouver, Washington,drove his 2000 4WDToyota Tacoma around the locked barri-cade at the parking area and proceededdown the trail to the end of the asphalt. Heand his companion then moved the logbarrier and drove completely around thecone of the geyser and surrounding mead-ows until the vehicle became stuck in thesoft soil. Once stuck, they set up camp nearthe geyser, started a fire, and stayed thenight.

On the following morning, theywalked to Old Faithful where they foundan unidentified couple in the Old Faithfulparking lot who agreed to help them. Thecouple drove Elford and his companionback to the Lone Star Geyser area, butafter realizing the gravity of the situation,they refused to help and returned them toOld Faithful. Elford and his companionthen went to the Old Faithful Ranger Sta-tion to report the incident.

Park rangers immediately returned toLone Star Geyser with Elford and his

friend. Once rangers investigated the sceneand made preliminary evaluations of thedamage, Elford was taken into custody andtransported to the jail in West Yellowstone,Montana. His companion was not arrestedbut was cited for his part in the damage topark resources.

Elford made his initial appearancebefore the U.S. Magistrate Judge StephenCole on October 13, 2003, and wascharged with operating a vehicle off road;injuring mineral resources; possession ofa loaded firearm in a motor vehicle;improper food storage; and operating amotor vehicle with a suspended driver’slicense. Judge Cole released Elford on a$5,000 Unsecured Bond. His compan-ion’s name will be released after he hasmade his initial court appearance some-time in the near future.

The park is currently assessing theresource damage done by the two indi-viduals, which appears to be significant.Tire tracks are clearly visible (see photo)around the geyser and throughout themeadows near the geyser. On behalf ofthe National Park Service, the U.S. Attor-ney’s Office in Cheyenne, Wyoming, willseek full restitution from the two individ-uals for all restoration costs.

Yellowstone Wolf Reprinted in Paper

The Yellowstone Wolf: A Guide andSourcebook, edited by Paul Schullery andwith a foreword by former Secretary of theInterior Bruce Babbitt, has been reprintedin paperback by the University of Okla-

homa Press. Originallypublished by the Yellow-stone Association, thebook is a comprehensivehistory of the Yellow-stone wolf restorationeffort, tracing the storyof wolves in the parkfrom the days of primi-tive wilderness, throughthe wolf eradication peri-od, and on to restorationand re-establishment.The book features a newafterword briefly dis-cussing the effects of therestoration on bothwildlife and human pop-ulations. All proceedsbenefit the YellowstoneWolf Project.

NEWS notes

Tire tracks from Lonestar Geyser across thermal channel into wetlands.

Yellowstone ScienceYellowstone Center for ResourcesP.O. Box 168Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190

CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED

PRSRT STD AUTOUS POSTAGE PAIDNational Park ServiceDept. of the Interior

Permit No. G-83

Help keepYellowstone Science

coming!We depend on our readers’

kind support to helpdefray printing costs.

Please use the enclosed envelope tomake your tax-deductible donation.

Checks should be payable to the Yellowstone Association.

Please indicate that your donationis for Yellowstone Science.

NP

S P

HO

TO

yellowstone science › ... › yellowstone-science › 11-4.pdfnational park service act. it was...

Documents