This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication Experimentation and Technological Analysis Author(s): J. Jeffrey Flenniken and Anan W. Raymond Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 51, No. 3 (Jul., 1986), pp. 603-614 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/281755 Accessed: 05/02/2010 07:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact email@example.com.
Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity.
This articledemonstrates that the contingencies of point manufacture. MORPHOLOGICAL PROJECTILE POINT TYPOLOGY: REPLICATION EXPERIMENTATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS J.REPORTS 603 Rick. Johnson 1978 A Survey of Disturbance Processes in Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 48:675-706.Washington State University. Rouse 1960.g. 1976 Downslope Movement and Archaeological Intrasite Spatial Analysis. David H. Experimentswithhafting. Viable. Scheffer. i. American Antiquity 48:277-289. J. a pioneer who set the stage for a long debate concerning morphological typology.and rejuvenation demonstrate that a singlepoint-typemay manifestmore than one "time-sensitive" shape withinits normaluselife. JeffreyFlennikenand Anan W. 1983 Earthworm Activity: A Source of Potential Disturbance of Archaeological Sediments. Ford 1954.. most of these methods of classification either became extinct (e. Kreiger 1944. Spaulding 1953). Wood. Julie K. systematic methods of flaked stone tool classification have concerned archaeologists since the late 1800s (e. By the 1960s. H. 1982 On Small Mammal Remains in Archaeological Contexts. American Antiquity 47:822-829.use. 1986. Pullman. Peter W. Springett. The artifact type reflects conscious preferences and norms on the part of the prehistoric people making and using the artifacts. Schiffer. 1931 Habits and Economic Status of the Pocket Gophers.. Kreiger (1944:272). pp." of stone tools that temporally assume prehistoric manufacture and use (cf. and Donald L. edited by Michael B. McKern 1939) or culminated in techniques to delimit patterns of morphological attributes. 51(3). Raymond.impact. J. was concerned with types that would have "demonstrable historical meaning" and "represent a unit of cultural practice. Journal of Applied Ecology 20:865872. T. Ford (1954) maintained that an artifact type may have historical meaning but it is an arbitrary device that serves to chronicle cultures over J. WA99164-4910 American Antiquity. A. 315-318. Thomas. New York." Spaulding (1953) advocated the use of statistical procedures to discover clusters of attributes that define an artifact type. 1971 On Distinguishing Natural from Cultural Bone in Archaeological Sites. vol. Thorp. USDA Technical Bulletin 224. John W. Copyright ? 1986 by the Society for American Archaeology . Raymond. 1949 Effects of Certain Animals that Live in the Soil. 1983 Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. Stein.g. Academic Press. 1983 Effects of Five Species of Earthworm on Some Soil Properties. Thirtyprojectilepoints were replicatedaccordingto the attributesof a commonlyemployedtypological schemefor the GreatBasin. 1. American Antiquity 36:366371. Raymond Morphologicaltypologiesof projectilepoints in North America have often been employedas time-sensitive prehistoric culturalmarkers.Laboratory of Lithic Technology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. "types. Stahl. Jeffrey Flenniken and Anan W. and rejuvenation create morphological use of these morphological changes that may renderquestionable typologies as prehistoriccultural markers.e. 603-614. W.. Deetz 1967. pp. Schiffer. American Antiquity 41:133-144. Wilson 1899). Michael B. Science Monthly 68:180-191. hafting.
We selected this point type because of its distinctive shape among Great Basin projectile points and its apparent temporal significance.604 AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. In particular. a temporal type. Slight variations in morphology between the populations of Elko corner-notched points resulted from different skill levels or intraquarry lithic material variation. and typed according to . and rejuvenation during simulated uselife. This present experiment addresses morphological change within a single projectile point type as a result of hafting. obsidian. EXPERIMENTATION The design of this experiment developed from an earlier one that addressed. we rejected these points (6 out of 36 attempts. and demise of prehistoric cultures. From the distribution of variation that composes a cultural trait. 1986] time. consisting of customs followed by the artisans in making and using the artifacts. and (2) procedural modes. Figure 1. Our purpose for producing two populations of the same projectile point type was to provide a data base that is more representative of a sample recovered archaeologically and used to create a typology than a single population would be." We contend that typologies based upon morphological attributes of end products. No. use. Oregon. consisting of ideas and standards that the artisans expressed in the artifacts. 51. Rouse (1960) defined seven objectives of artifact classification. Figures 1 and 2 here).. Population A. Fifteen points were replicated by each author creating two different populations of the same morphological type. our experiments suggest that the shape of a projectile point does not always disclose the numerous modes of manufacture and use that occurred in the prehistoric context before deposition and recovery in the archaeological context. 1983) typology because it provides a straightforward dichotomous key to aid in sorting projectile points into specific time categories with objective morphological definitions. using replication as an analytical method (Flenniken 1978. Therefore. Using Thomas's (1981. may have little reality in the prehistoric context. from a general perspective. However.6%) from our experimental populations. Both populations were produced by the same flintknapping techniques applied in the same reduction sequence. After studying the various projectile point typologies employed in American archaeology. obsidian. A morphological typology of projectile points is based primarily upon the last "mode" or activity to which the artifacts comprising any given type were subjected. photographed. Figure 2. This central theme becomes the artifact type. do not adequately reflect the "conceptual modes" and the "procedural modes" that contributed to the prehistoric production and use of archaeologically recovered artifacts. In spite of this. 1983) key (base width > 1 cm.e. was manufactured from flakes derived from a single nodule of Glass Butte. 1981. In an attempt to clarify some of these problems. morphological change in projectile points used in a simulated prehistoric hunting situation (Flenniken 1985). breakage. The 30 experimental points were weighed. After reviewing the possible projectile point types available in Thomas's key we selected the type "Elko corner-notched" as our model or temporal type. we followed Thomas's (1981. distribution. Oregon. especially projectile points. was manufactured from flakes derived from seven different nodules of Glass Butte." Rouse (1960:318) defines "two kinds of modes: (1) conceptual modes. for purposes of control in this experiment. many archaeologists use the shape of projectile points to determine the presence. proximal shoulder angle 110?-1 500) as our guide. These points might be assigned by archaeologists to different morphological types representing different temporal types. Our experiments indicate that morphological projectile point typologies are not consistently reliable temporal or cultural markers. However. Manufacturing errors did occur and usually resulted in the production of functional projectile points that varied greatly in shape. what archaeologists perceive as a pattern of similarity in morphology. 16. the archaeologist abstracts a mean or central theme embodied in a group of artifacts (Ford 1954:42). these seven objectives demand that the archaeologist have an intimate understanding of flaked stone tool manufacture and use as well as inherent knowledge of a specific "cultural type. 3. we fabricated 30 Elko corner-notched projectile points. measured. Population B. i.
Tuohy 1982:100).Cosgrove 1947: archaeologically 50-58.) foreshafts. (Cervuscanadensis) and pine pitch (Pinus sp. 73.3%e(22of30) Duinguthe h. bons8%atalsale points. During the hafting process. Guernsey 1931:73. Guernseyand Kidder 1921:83-87. j points 1 All weehnafe comfortably Rpiaothed Elko corner-notched poetilepoit. Our foreshaftsmeasured20 cm in length and 8 mm to 10 mm in diameter(Figure3).) into willow (Salix sp. ___ points fit~~~~~~J (Table 1). 1952:376-382. Martinet al. in the Great Basin and the AmericanSouthwest(Aikens 1970:159. requirdsmlleation inrecovered the pofecthle foreshafts prkoes 73. The materials. foehat projectile wer szimia ofrsateoee All 30 in dimee (Fgr 3).REPORTS 605 diesios Thomas's an hatn (1981) guide mtos to Monitor of our repicte Valley.3% (22 of 30) of the points requiredsome alterationin the basal . 30points acusigalksize. Nevada.Rpiafting foreshafts were similar to of our replicated methods and hafting dimensions. Hattori 1982:113-118.Ppeto.
Hattori 1982:113-118. Minor and Toepel 1982:vi.:' to ~~~~~r AM~~~~~~~~~~~~~C Figure 2.g.606 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. covered archaeologically . 51. we suggest that Thomas's (1981:21. 3. It requiresless time and energy to alter the point by removing several pressureflakes behavior from the base than it does to alter the foreshaftnotch. Spencer 1974:49) literature. During projectile point manufacture..hafted with Elko corner-notched dart mainshafts. haft notch. Replicated Elko Corner-notched projectile points. 1986] 1- C.6%)points changed sub-types from Elko corer-notched to Elko eared. final preparation of the base is not completed until a straightalignmentbetween the point. area to tailor them to the specific foreshaftnotch (Figures4 and 5). No. were set into The 30 foreshafts. and foreshaft is achieved. Based upon our experimentation. Examples of this manufacturing are presentin both the archaeological (e. 1983:180) morphological distinction between the two "Elko" varieties resulted from the prehistoric hafting process. 44-47) and the experimental (e. The experimentaldarts were replicated from descriptions of dart fragmentsrein westernNorth America (Cosgrove 1947:50-58. and Elko earedprojectilepoints.. Five (16.g. All points 85% actual size. Population B.
The darts were propelledby the atlatl into trees. Figures4-6).measuring1.the salvageablepoint fragments(24 or 80%)were rejuvenatedinto functional projectilepoints (Figures4 and 5).The proximal(non-hafted) ends of the foreshaftswere taperedto fit snuglyinto the socketed distal ends of the dart mainshaft. During the use of these 30 projectile points. At this time all 30 experimental tools were ready for use as hunting weapons. were constructedfrom cane. Martin et al. .5 m long and 10. each target 12 meters away. However. 1952:376-382).REPORTS 607 ontowiliow foreshaft. Hesteret al. that 70%of our projectilepoints sustainedimpact damagein the base or haft area(Figure 6C-E) while only 43. number 6.g. The dartsweredesignedfor and thrownwith a replicatedwesternNorth Americanatlatl(e.our simulated prehistorichunting situation did not include the actual dispatching of live animals as in previous experiments (Flenniken 1985). ElkoCorner-notched 3.15 mm in diameter. contraryto Thomas (1981:15). B). The darts taperedtoward the proximal end. Heizer 1938:69-7 1. soft loamy soil..Guernsey 1931:71-72.It is interestingto note. and thick underbrush. Due to public pressureand misunderstanding. 1974). three situationsthat might have occurredhad the prehistorichuntermissed the preywere simulated. where featherswere attachedwith sinew to stabilizethe weapon in flight. we documented by notes and photos specific data conceringimpact and damage(Table 2. Dalley and Peterson 1970:283.they were collected and returnedto the laboratoryfor analysisand rejuvenation.3% sustained some tip damage (Figure6A. The dart mainshafts. After each point was analyzed and photographed. Once the 30 points had been subjectedto our experimentalhunting situation and used until noticeabledamageoccurred. Example of replicated Populapointhafted projectile Figure tionA.
50 .50 .Num.4 4.6 2.5 3.7 2. Frison et al.3 5.50 .45 .7 1. Figures 4 and 5). Goodyear 1974:28-32.5 Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko Elko 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 4.2 1. Frequently.1 1.4 2.8 4.4 4.5 1.50 .50 .6 3.0 7.7 2.0 6. Rejuvenation of broken projectile points occurred prehistorically (cf.8 1.8 2. 1986] Table 1.3%) salvageable projectile point fragments changed morphological (temporal) types (Table 2.50 .0 6.7 4.9 1.0 7.65 .60 .0 6.0 5.4 4. Most morphological variation occurred while reworking the damaged bases (70%) of the broken points.5 6.608 AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol.5 2.8 5.50 .0 5.0 2.8 1.0 3.45 . Every attempt was made to reproduce the same morphological type (Elko) while exerting the least amount of energy to produce a functional point.50 . 1976:28-57.8 4.1 2.0 1.Length Width ness tion ber (cm) (cm) (cm) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B a b PSAa 1280 1310 1350 1230 1350 1340 1340 1320 1310 1340 1370 1300 1370 1320 1240 1200 1220 1250 1180 1190 NOb 310 300 180 250 200 200 230 280 210 200 180 280 160 250 170 200 240 280 250 280 320 390 Base Weight Point (cm) (gr) Type 1.7 2.60 .2 4.0 1.7 2.5 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.4 2.9 2. Each salvageable point fragment was reworked by pressure flaking employing the same flintknapping technique as originally used to produce both populations of Elko points.2 3. notch opening index (Thomas 1981:14).4 2.9 1.0 4.3 2.5 5. Metric Data for Elko Projectile Points Prior to Experimental Use.0 4.9 2.7 1.50 .4 3.1 5.50 .0 4.50 .50 .3 2.8 2.8 1.1 5.0 6. we believe rejuvenation of projectile point fragments to have been an economical measure.5 5. 8 of the 24 (33.4 2.5 4.8 2. NO. A mean time of 40 minutes was employed to manufacture one Elko corner-notched point while a mean time of only three minutes was needed to rework a broken Elko point into a functional tool.50 1210 1240 1230 1220 1190 1200 1230 1400 1310 1280 250 240 240 290 380 200 210 300 PSA.4 5.Point Thickulat.0 3.4 5.55 .55 .1 5.7 4.1 3.0 4.2 .0 5.6 4.50 .7 1.0 4.0 7.0 6.9 2.50 .9 1.9 2.7 2.45 . Miller 1980:107-111).5 1.6 2.8 2.8 2.7 4. 51.8 2.40 .6 1. No.8 2. Pop. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This experiment has demonstrated a simple concept often ignored by advocates of morphological projectile point typologies as temporal or cultural markers. 3. proximal shoulder angle (Thomas 1981:1 1).0 2.7 2.3 4.3 5.40 .60 .0 3.0 5.3 3.7 2.50 .9 2.0 4.5 3.9 2. As a result.9 2.50 .3 2. Elko corner-notched point.8 4.2 1.7 1.60 .1 5.3 2. but slightly smaller. prehistoric projectile points .5 5.2 2.4 2.4 5. Based upon our experimental data.9 4. A point fragment was deemed "salvageable" if enough mass remained intact to support a potentially new.0 1.50 .0 6.0 2.
Outlinedrawingsof Population BLACK-material lost through WHITE-artifact re-enteringsystemic context.C-"changed point type.and rejuvenation. Specifically."X-not reusabledue to damage. or an "anomalous type" rejected by Thomas's (1981. and may not represent accurate temporal types. in prehistory. and when rejuvenated may have changed morphological (temporal) types. Figure4. Therefore.use-damage. or enteringarchaeologhafting. Although in this experiment we were concerned with a single point type in a single typology. single component sites. employed as hunting tools broke. we believe our results and conclusions are generally applicable to chronological projectile point typologies. 1983) key.All points 70% actual size.REPORTS 609 C C x x C LOST c A beforeuse and afterrejuvenation. particularly when found in archaeological situations such as surface lithic scatters. Gatecliff. or potential multicomponent sites with no stratigraphic . Archaeologists cannot assume that patterns of morphological attributes have clear-cut chronological significance when simple alteration of shape during use-life may change the temporal assignment of that point by thousands of years. it may have been rejuvenated into an Elko. projectile point shape may have resulted from technological and economical constraints rather than stylistic reasons. or Rosegate temporal type. when an Elko corner-notched point broke due to impact. ical context.
1983) morphological projectile point typology seems to function extremely well as a temporal marker for the Elko projectile point series horizons (3-9) at Gatecliff Shelter in Nevada. at least for the Elko and Rosegate point series. based upon basal width measurements. or enteringarchaeologhafting. not typable because they are too fragmentary (Thomas 1983:197-208. not strict morphology. WHITE-artifact re-enteringsystemiccontext. However. The archaeologist has little or no information as to whether or not the pattern of morphological attributes forming his or her temporal type is one of valid prehistoric attributes or represents . single component sites. Thomas's (1981:24) statement that his temporal (morphological) typology ".All points 70% actual size. The process of typing projectile points and fragments recovered from surface lithic scatters. many archaeologists do not have the luxury of close stratigraphic control to take care of their morphological problems. control. Therefore.use-damage. .3% of his Elko series points and 22. These same points. 29. however. uses the stratigraphic interpretation at Gatecliff Shelter to "type" his 408 "typable" points as opposed to employing his own metric system. He maintains. or non-stratified. Thomas. 3. would either not be typed or would be typed as something different from Elko or Rosegate points.610 AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. found in other archaeological situations. note estimated basal widths). .2% of his Rosegate series points are. No. 1986] x C c c ~~~~~~~~LOST Black -material lost through Figure5. Nonetheless. ical context. multi-component sites on the basis of morphology is dangerous.and rejuvenation. 51. Thomas's (1981. that there is less than "3% overlap" between the Elko series and the younger Rosegate series projectile points (Thomas 1983:180). in fact."X-not reusabledue to damage. For example. adequately discriminates over 95% of the points" seems a bit misleading. Unfortunately.C-"changed point type. stratigraphic control does not always alleviate the problem of transforming morphological types into true temporal or culturally relevant point types. Outlinedrawingsof PopulationB beforeuse and after rejuvenation. Thomas types these points on the basis of "dotted lines" and stratigraphic levels.
45 - 1200 780 680 1240 B a 15 3. Projectile points represent a single stage in a reduction sequence of material selection.50 .1 - 1.7 1.5 2.3 5.2 2.1 2.5 - 240 170 850 300 1200 390 890 140 230 540 1.85 1.2 - TREE TREE GROUND TIP HAFT HAFT Elko Elko Not Rejuvenated 1.5 3.45 . For example.6 3.9 2.7 3.7 2.0 4.6 3.60 .9 3. and all the processes listed certainly influenced the shapes of projectile points we study today.REPORTS 611 Table 2.5 2. b N 0-notch opening index (Thomas 1981:14).9 4. Nevada Key" (Thomas 1981:24). use. use.9 1.3 5.8 5. the technological attributes of the reduction sequence employed . and discard-must be investigated through debitage analysis.0 - . This sequence.0 - GROUND GROUND TREE BRUSH BRUSH TREE GROUND TREE HAFT HAFT TIP TIP TIP HAFT HAFT TIP Elko Gatecliff Elko Elko Elko Rosegate Rosegate Lost 1.50 .7 - .4 3.4 .50 .9 2.9 1.1 2.4 .0 5.8 1.4 2. alterations that occurred prior to deposition.9 2.40 . aside from variation due to different skill levels and material quality (both of which are definable).8 1.1 1.3 3.50 640 440 850 540 .2 2.1 2.8 2. or other relevant behavior.8 2. use of morphology as the single criterion may not adequately or precisely mark time.7 2.6 2. The remainder of the movie-raw material acquisition.8 2. which is bound unaltered in time (Flenniken and Stanfill 1980:23-30). As this experiment has demonstrated. Metric data for experimental projectile points after use and rejuvenation.7 . c Anomalous Type-morphological projectile point types "judged to be out of the Monitor Valley.5 - . 1 3.4 2.9 3.1 GROUND HAFT Elko PSA-proximal shoulder angle (Thomas 1981:1 1).6 4.8 - 3. reduction.4 2. perhaps it would be more accurate to record the entire reduction sequence.8 3. hafting.1 2. stone reduction.1 1.50 .1 4.8 1.45 .50 .40 .9 2.7 1. has more cultural and temporal significance than projectile point morphology alone. it is often the case that morphological typologies do not accurately reflect prehistoric technology. projectile points provide only a fractional glimpse of the whole story.Length Width ness lation ber (cm) (cm) (cm) PSAa N A - Ob Base Weight (cm) (gr) - Use TREE Damage TIP Point Type Not Rejuvenated A A A A A A A A A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4.50 .7 .50 240 690 890 520 250 300 390 850 840 420 2.4 .45 . but rather we stress systematic collection and technological analysis of the entire lithic reduction and projectile point manufacturing sequence. including the debitage.3 . and the site formation processes that actually influenced the final shapes of chipped stone tools.0 1.50 '. Point ThickPopu.2 3.8 - 4.55 4.0 5.0 - 3. and reuse.5 2.50 .9 - TREE GROUND BRUSH BRUSH TIP/HAFT HAFT TIP/HAFT HAFT Elko Not Rejuvenated Rosegate Lost A B B B 15 1 2 3 4.2 1.3 5. We do not advocate totally abandoning morphological typologies.2 . tool manufacture. Thus. reuse.0 4.5 - 2.9 6.3 - .50 .1 2.9 2.85 - 3.4 3.5 3.95 - 4.2 2.3 . If archaeologists want to construct cultural chronologies based upon flaked stone artifacts.0 0.9 2.0 BRUSH TREE GROUND GROUND TIP TIP/HAFT TIP/HAFT TIP/HAFT Gatecliff Elko Elko Elko B B B 4 5 6 4.50 - 1260 1360 1080 1170 800 1170 1160 1240 1350 1050 830 1130 950 1310 1150 1110 1310 810 1090 1300 A A A A 11 12 13 14 4.9 - 2.8 1.7 2.60 - B B B B B B B B 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 4.55 .6 2.9 2. Like a single frame among the thousand of frames in a movie.45 .Num.9 1.7 2.3 - TREE TREE TREE TREE GROUND GROUND GROUND GROUND GROUND TIP TIP TIP/HAFT TIP/HAFT HAFT HAFT HAFT HAFT HAFT Elko Elko Anomalous Typec Elko Gatecliff Elko Gatecliff Elko Not Rejuvenated 2.
^ * '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r@A . th boto mlor to massiv th o difrne ma Ths_pcfctcnlgcldffrne fGtcifSetrmyfr sse ehooia otnu.Althoug th lke tnerdcto osgaee ecnlg preistricll loia to prdc th EkponmahaebedigotclyifrntrmtetcnrdcIo h bewe flk-lak digosi duto digosi atrbtsoh Thomas *183 seunes orpit tehooia an doe cant rdcto.....teeoeoetal count of diec frEe-an percusotinndbtg h lordcinsqec()adteRsgt lhuhtelkdsoerdcintcnlg aelf hle e area fro smeqn... a nldagrEk spcii flk coe fae-bak difrn oonrdcto.oxf~ ~ ~~~2 i WfWse''1.... 51.b discered.1 ..'g.___ .inrae difrne at thstm...icesdcut pltfr of anEk prprto_ehiussc of diec frehn sfctn pecsso n h bain thnigdbtg lopitagr agrEk fro th Elko seune prdcto rfr lks rmafaebak eie rmtepoutono nraei ltompeaainih moemsiepesr Fromute productions of danagelko pEfkor frometl aont fake-bank increaofse in pimlatfor prepng:Aration inmthe ...:.. Al points75_cua t.... ... No.. are daag. ... 1986] _j i ~& -e2^~wbe .612 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol..b ocur Roegt no dics sequnce eiaefo icmd n. . .. 0 1 ie ansic tehooIca difeenes betwe heEk r-edutin eqene()an te duto seunes cant at thi tim... 3.
L. we note that. Kidder 1921 Basketmaker Caves of Northeastern Arizona. edited by C.REPORTS 613 less controlled. S. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology. C. J. Flenniken. for the Rosegate sequence. If the diagnostic technological attributes of the two reduction sequences could be identified. Crabtree. different flake removal sequences. free-hand percussion. 1970 Hogup Cave. and D. 8(8). We maintain that if varying levels of flintknapping skill. pressure flaking may have occurred directly after flake-blank production. 93. Reports of Investigations No. The Natural History Press. J. Cosgrove. and Max Pavesic.. These technological attribute differences between the Elko and Rosegate reduction sequence are speculations. J. and extended duration of use were tested. Washington State University Laboratory of Anthropology. but quite plausible ones. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. M. Guernsey. 1931 Explorations in Northeastern Arizona. and A. New York. variation in quality of raw material. Furthermore. Wilson. they would be more adequate to separate Elko from Rosegate than mere morphology of a potentially altered projectile point. 1967 Invitation to Archaeology. Contract Abstracts and CRM Archaeology 1(1):23-30.. each projectile point was removed from experimental use upon the first evidence of damage regardless of the minimal extent of that damage. In Hogup Cave. 1981 Replication Systems Analysis: A Model Applied to the Vein Quartz Artifacts from the Hoko River Site. and there may be other diagnostic attributes as well. 1954 The Type Concept Revisited. Ford.. and A. 7. In Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E.3%) aboriginal projectile points changed "temporal types" (morphological types) while still in their prehistoric context due to damage sustained during use as hunting tools. 265276. American Anthropologist 56:42-53. B. Elko "notch" flakes. Jim Woods. pp. Aikens. S. 93. potentially one out of every three (33. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology. and K. 1985 Reduction Techniques as Cultural Markers.. edited by Mark Plew. J. J. 8(2). Wilson 1976 Fossil Bison and Artifacts from an Early Altithermal Period Arroyo Trap in Wyoming. 1974 The Brand Site: A Techno-functional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeastern Arkansas. Pullman. M. G. vol. M. according to this experiment. Arkansas Archeology Survey Research Series No. Goodyear. vol. . totally omitting the direct. 1947 Caves of the Upper Gila and Hueco Areas in New Mexico and Texas. American Antiquity 41:28-57. morphological variability would be increased. J. REFERENCES CITED Aikens. Acknowledgments. C. Salt Lake City. In this experiment we controlled for (but were not concerned with) morphological variation created by different flintknapping skill levels or raw material types. J. vol. V. Frison. American Antiquity 43:473-480. C. University of New Mexico Press. Flenniken. Concerning "stage" analysis. and an overall increase in Elko debitage counts. F. We would like to thank Robert Elston of Intermountain Research for "typing" our experimental projectile points before use and after rejuvenation. Guernsey. Fayetteville. University of Utah Anthropological Paper No. 24(2). Salt Lake City. pp. Additional Artifacts from Hogup Cave. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology. In conclusion. Stanfill 1980 A Preliminary Technology: Examination of 20 Archaeological Sites Located During the Cultural Resource Survey of the Whitehorse Ranch Public Land Exchange. In addition. A. Peterson 1970 Appendix X. J. 59. Deetz. 283-286. A. J. 1978 Reevaluation of the Lindenmeier Folsom: A Replication Experiment in Lithic Technology. Garden City. thinning "stage" of the flake-blank in the Elko sequence. Dalley. higher frequencies of bipolar reduction may occur in the Rosegate sequence.
Minor. 1986] Hattori. 1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Study. 1982 The Archaeology of Falcon Hill. pp. Johnson. New Mexico Anthropologist 11(4 and 5):6971. vol. Spencer. Hester. 51. Heizer. Tuohy. Thomas. In Great Basin Atlatl Studies. Ballena Press Publications in Archaeology. and Knives of Prehistoric Times. W. 1899 Arrowpoints. Winnemuca Lake. Fieldiana: Anthropology. California. C. Miller. Jr. Heritage Research Associates Report No. Bluhm. . 18. Part 1. R. 107-111. 811-988. and L. 1952 Mogollon Cultural Continuity and Change: The Stratigraphic Analysis of Tularosa and Cordova Caves. R. 59. Mildner. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers. Toepel 1982 Lava Island Rockshelter: An Early Hunting Camp in Central Oregon. 2. Ethnology. Spencer. Eugene. Wilson. 1980 Archaic Lithics from the Coffey Site. C. Grange. A. 11. P. Reno. No. Spearheads. Rinaldo. L. edited by A. D. S. H. and History No. and History No. Gatecliff Shelter. 40. Spaulding. 1938 A Complete AtlatI Dart from Pershing County. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History. J. California. and L. P. American Antiquity 4:301313. Nevada. 3. Kreiger. Cutler. Hester. Ramona.. 1944 The Typological Concept.. M. Spencer 1974 Great Basin Atlati Studies. Martin. Washoe County.. T. R. American Antiquity 25:313-323. edited by T. P. pp. R.614 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 1960 The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. R. D. F. B. A. Ballena Press Publications in Archaeology. 1981 How to Classify Projectile Points from Monitor Valley. M. 1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 2. 1982 Another Great Basin Atlatl with Dart Foreshafts and Other Artifacts: Implications and Ramifications. Nevada. No. Ethnology. H. Report of the United States National Museum 1897. P. University of Kansas Publication in Anthropology No. and K. D. vol. Rouse. 12. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):7-43. Ramona. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4(1):80-106. 1953 Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. In Archaic Prehistory on the Prairie-Plains Border. Part 1. Nevada. A. American Antiquity 9:271-288. 37-60. and R. M. I. T. C. American Antiquity 18:305-313. 1974 Replicative Experiments in the Manufacture and Use of a Great Basin Atlatl. 2. C. A. E. pp. Mildner. McKern.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.