Y Canyon Cave contains unconsolidated cultural fill but contains no evidence of architecture of any kind. As such, Martin et al (1954) offered no ground plan or maps. The rockshelter is 50 feet wide and 30 feet deep, though the walls converge at the rear of the cave to a width of 12 feet.

Y Canyon Cave was excavated in 1952 using a tried-and-true recording strategy. A meter-square coordinate grid was laid out over the floor of the cave using metal measuring tapes, and an arbitrary datum line was established using a carpenter's level and a semi-permanent datum stake driven into a geomorphologically stable portion of the cave. Excavation of the trench began at the outer edge of the cave and proceeded inward. A total of six 1 x 1m squares were excavated and designated Squares 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 5R1. Within these squares, a total of 13 levels were excavated in arbitrary 20cm levels, though the first level in each square was excavated to achieve a level surface and therefore are probably not of uniform thickness. Natural levels were noted (Martin et al 1954:26; cf Martin et al 1954:79), though only one was deemed significant enough to alter the excavation strategy: "Level 1B" was a gray ashy layer present in Squares 4 and 5 that excavators deemed important enough to warrant segregated artifact recovery. The deepest portion of the cave was excavated to three levels, or 60cm. Deposits were significantly disturbed. All fill was screened; artifacts were tagged with find locations and returned to the laboratory.

Y Canyon Cave was excavated at a time when archaeologists did not collect and save the suite of artifactual material that are now deemed critical to sound archaeological analysis. Martin collected finished, unbroken, and formal stone and bone tools, whole and reconstructable ceramic vessels, decorated pottery sherds, and perishable artifact forms such as sandals. Non-artifactual faunal remains were returned to the museum. It is unclear whether non-artifactual botanical remains were found in Y Canyon Cave, but none are in Museum storage. Larger artifacts such as manos and metates were analyzed in the field, and only a few "type specimens" were returned to the Museum (Martin et al 1954:29). The Museum curates one bone awl, 47 chipped stone tools, 202 faunal remains, four manos, 44 projectile points, three sandals, 264 sherds, one piece of cloth or textile, 14 pieces of string, one piece of wood, and seven pieces of worked botanical remains.

Any archaeological collection, and the written documentation thereof, exists in several different forms, all of which need to be understood if one is to make productive analytical use of that collection. Prior to excavation, an archaeological collection exists within the ground and is thus poorly documented. The amount of written documentation associated with an archaeological collection is expected to increase as artifacts and assemblages are exposed, recorded, recovered, returned to the Museum, analyzed, published, and moved to storage. Through controlled analysis and comparison of the various data sets, we can identify and describe the life history of a collection and evaluate the utility and limitations of the collection for modern analyses. This review therefore considers the Y Canyon Cave collection from a number of different perspectives, as they are preserved in archived research records, accession files, catalog books, publications, and Martin Project inventories. Contents of these data sets do not necessarily correspond within or between each category; explanations are offered when causes for such discrepancies are discernable.

The total number of sherds recovered, and published, from Y Canyon Cave is 262 (Martin et al 1954:53). Martin Project staff cataloged 264 sherds from Y Canyon Cave but, unfortunately, the subsite provenience designation for those cataloged by us do not match the subsite-by-subsite tabulations published (Martin et al 1954:74-76). The discrepancies are not radical, however, and suggest only slight mixing at the provenience level. This may be a moot point, however, for Martin et al (1954:70) note that

The Department of Anthropology Archives Box SW 6 Folder "Southwest Expedition PS Martin JB Rinaldo Field Notes, etc., Hinkle Park Cliff Dwellings, O Block Cave, Cave 4 Canyon, Cosper Cliff Dwelling" contains the excavation records from Y Canyon Cave. Included here are tabulations and provenience listings for vegetal materials and general, paragraph-length excavation notes for the six squares excavated.

Accession Files

Accession file No. 2476 in the Department of Anthropology states the following:

Archaeological Material from 1952 Southwest Expedition:

Catalog Files

Items cataloged by Field Museum staff in 1952 include the formal stone and bone tools recovered that year: one awl, 47 chipped stone tools, four manos, 44 projectile points, three sandals, and one piece of worked bone, which was listed as a "gaming piece". The Martin Project assigned 33 catalog numbers to 489 artifacts including 204 faunal remains (bone), 264 sherds, 14 pieces of string, 1 piece of wood, and 7 pieces of worked botanical remains. Catalog numbers 262495 - 262578 (except 262575), and 317782 - 317814 apply to Y Canyon Cave.

Photographic Record

Photo Album 35S in the Department of Anthropology photo archives contains combined photographs of artifacts from Y Canyon Cave, Hinkle Park Cliff Dwelling, Cosper Cliff Dwelling, O Block Cave, and the Sawmill Site. Y Canyon artifacts photographed include manos, projectile points, chipped stone tools (drills, bifaces, scrapers, etc.), and awls. The photographs are all proofs of those published by Martin et al (1954). Unfortunately, the archives contain no photographs of the site or of excavations in progress.

PUBLICATION RECORD

Details of the excavation and analysis of Y Canyon Cave are published in a volume that includes discussion of Hinkle Park Cliff Dwelling, O Block Cave, and Cosper Cliff Dwelling, all but the latter of which are archaeologically more substantial than Y Canyon Cave. In other words, there is not a lot of detail presented by Martin et al (1954). A general photograph is presented on page 18, but no map of the site is offered.

Martin et al (1954:88-91) published tabulations on the number and type of artifacts recovered: Four manos, of which all are available for study, and 52 projectile points, of which 44 (85%) are currently available for study. Martin et al (1954:89) tabulated 37 chipped stone tools; the Martin Project tallied 47 that are currently on the shelves and available for study. The discrepancies in these numbers are due to minor reclassifications by the Martin Project: A number of "projectile points" that were deemed by Martin et al (1954) as too fragmentary to classify were reclassified for the current project as chipped stone tools.

In general, the collection inventoried, cataloged, and repackaged by the Martin Project accords well with the number presented by Martin et al (1954).

As noted above, the field crew felt that the excavation was "more or less a loss" because there was no evidence of stratigraphic or seriational differences evident in the pottery recovered from the shallow deposits in the cave (Martin et al 1954:72). Artifact analyses suggested that the cave was occupied during the "Pine Lawn through Reserve" phases, a span of over 1000 years from ca. 200 BC to A.D 1100. In addition, Apache sherds were found on the surface, suggesting that the site had been visited, and possibly disturbed, during the historic period. It is not clear, however, if these sherds were collected. They were not published. Given the paucity of artifactual material, the lack of chronometric control, and lack of features, one has to agree with the excavators' assessment.

Martin, Paul S., J.B. Rinaldo, and E.A. Bluhm.