You are on page 1of 13

Society for American Archaeology

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 support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

REPORTS

603

Rick, John W. 1976 Downslope Movement and Archaeological Intrasite Spatial Analysis. American Antiquity 41:133-144. Scheffer, T. H. 1931 Habits and Economic Status of the Pocket Gophers. USDA Technical Bulletin 224. Schiffer, Michael B. 1983 Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48:675-706. Springett, J. A. 1983 Effects of Five Species of Earthworm on Some Soil Properties. Journal of Applied Ecology 20:865872. Stahl, Peter W. 1982 On Small Mammal Remains in Archaeological Contexts. American Antiquity 47:822-829. Stein, Julie K. 1983 Earthworm Activity: A Source of Potential Disturbance of Archaeological Sediments. American Antiquity 48:277-289. Thomas, David H. 1971 On Distinguishing Natural from Cultural Bone in Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 36:366371. Thorp, J. 1949 Effects of Certain Animals that Live in the Soil. Science Monthly 68:180-191. Wood, W. Raymond, and Donald L. Johnson 1978 A Survey of Disturbance Processes in Archaeological Site Formation. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 1, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 315-318. Academic Press, New York.

MORPHOLOGICAL PROJECTILE POINT TYPOLOGY: REPLICATION EXPERIMENTATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS


J. Jeffrey Flenniken and Anan W. Raymond
Morphologicaltypologiesof projectilepoints in North America have often been employedas time-sensitive prehistoric culturalmarkers.This articledemonstrates that the contingencies of point manufacture, hafting,use, and rejuvenation create morphological use of these morphological changes that may renderquestionable typologies as prehistoriccultural markers. Thirtyprojectilepoints were replicatedaccordingto the attributesof a commonlyemployedtypological schemefor the GreatBasin. Experimentswithhafting,impact,and rejuvenation demonstrate that a singlepoint-typemay manifestmore than one "time-sensitive" shape withinits normaluselife. Viable, systematic methods of flaked stone tool classification have concerned archaeologists since the late 1800s (e.g., Wilson 1899). By the 1960s, most of these methods of classification either became extinct (e.g., McKern 1939) or culminated in techniques to delimit patterns of morphological attributes, i.e., "types," of stone tools that temporally assume prehistoric manufacture and use (cf. Deetz 1967; Ford 1954; Kreiger 1944; Rouse 1960; Spaulding 1953). Kreiger (1944:272), a pioneer who set the stage for a long debate concerning morphological typology, was concerned with types that would have "demonstrable historical meaning" and "represent a unit of cultural practice." Spaulding (1953) advocated the use of statistical procedures to discover clusters of attributes that define an artifact type. The artifact type reflects conscious preferences and norms on the part of the prehistoric people making and using the artifacts. Ford (1954) maintained that an artifact type may have historical meaning but it is an arbitrary device that serves to chronicle cultures over J. JeffreyFlennikenand Anan W. Raymond,Laboratory of Lithic Technology,Washington State University, Pullman, WA99164-4910
American Antiquity, 51(3), 1986, pp. 603-614. Copyright ? 1986 by the Society for American Archaeology

604

AMERICANANTIQUITY

[Vol. 51, No. 3, 1986]

time. From the distribution of variation that composes a cultural trait, the archaeologist abstracts a mean or central theme embodied in a group of artifacts (Ford 1954:42). This central theme becomes the artifact type. In an attempt to clarify some of these problems, Rouse (1960) defined seven objectives of artifact classification. However, 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." Rouse (1960:318) defines "two kinds of modes: (1) conceptual modes, consisting of ideas and standards that the artisans expressed in the artifacts; and (2) procedural modes, consisting of customs followed by the artisans in making and using the artifacts." We contend that typologies based upon morphological attributes of end products, especially projectile points, do not adequately reflect the "conceptual modes" and the "procedural modes" that contributed to the prehistoric production and use of archaeologically recovered artifacts. 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. In particular, 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. Therefore, what archaeologists perceive as a pattern of similarity in morphology, i.e., a temporal type, may have little reality in the prehistoric context. In spite of this, many archaeologists use the shape of projectile points to determine the presence, distribution, and demise of prehistoric cultures. Our experiments indicate that morphological projectile point typologies are not consistently reliable temporal or cultural markers. EXPERIMENTATION The design of this experiment developed from an earlier one that addressed, from a general perspective, morphological change in projectile points used in a simulated prehistoric hunting situation (Flenniken 1985). This present experiment addresses morphological change within a single projectile point type as a result of hafting, use, breakage, and rejuvenation during simulated uselife. After studying the various projectile point typologies employed in American archaeology, we followed Thomas's (1981, 1983) typology because it provides a straightforward dichotomous key to aid in sorting projectile points into specific time categories with objective morphological definitions. 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 selected this point type because of its distinctive shape among Great Basin projectile points and its apparent temporal significance. Using Thomas's (1981, 1983) key (base width > 1 cm; proximal shoulder angle 110?-1 500) as our guide, we fabricated 30 Elko corner-notched projectile points, using replication as an analytical method (Flenniken 1978, 1981; Figures 1 and 2 here). Fifteen points were replicated by each author creating two different populations of the same morphological type. 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. Population A, Figure 1, was manufactured from flakes derived from a single nodule of Glass Butte, Oregon, obsidian. Population B, Figure 2, was manufactured from flakes derived from seven different nodules of Glass Butte, Oregon, obsidian. Both populations were produced by the same flintknapping techniques applied in the same reduction sequence. Slight variations in morphology between the populations of Elko corner-notched points resulted from different skill levels or intraquarry lithic material variation. Manufacturing errors did occur and usually resulted in the production of functional projectile points that varied greatly in shape. These points might be assigned by archaeologists to different morphological types representing different temporal types. However, for purposes of control in this experiment, we rejected these points (6 out of 36 attempts, 16.6%) from our experimental populations. The 30 experimental points were weighed, measured, photographed, and typed according to

REPORTS

605

diesios
Thomas's

an hatn
(1981) guide

mtos
to Monitor

of our repicte
Valley, Nevada,

foehat
projectile

wer

szimia

ofrsateoee
All 30

in dimee (Fgr

3).

___

points

fit~~~~~~J (Table 1).

points

All weehnafe comfortably Rpiaothed Elko corner-notched poetilepoit.Ppeto. 30points

acusigalksize.

(Cervuscanadensis) and pine pitch (Pinus sp.) into willow (Salix sp.) foreshafts. The materials, bons8%atalsale points. requirdsmlleation inrecovered the pofecthle foreshafts prkoes 73.3%e(22of30) Duinguthe h.Rpiafting foreshafts were similar to of our replicated methods and hafting dimensions, in the Great Basin and the AmericanSouthwest(Aikens 1970:159;Cosgrove 1947: archaeologically 50-58; Guernsey 1931:73; Guernseyand Kidder 1921:83-87; Hattori 1982:113-118; Martinet al. 1952:376-382; Tuohy 1982:100). Our foreshaftsmeasured20 cm in length and 8 mm to 10 mm in diameter(Figure3). During the hafting process, 73.3% (22 of 30) of the points requiredsome alterationin the basal

606

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 51, No. 3, 1986]

1-

C.:'

to

~~~~~r

AM~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

Figure 2.

Replicated

Elko Corner-notched

projectile

points. Population

B. All points 85% actual size.

area to tailor them to the specific foreshaftnotch (Figures4 and 5). Five (16.6%)points changed
sub-types from Elko corer-notched to Elko eared. Based upon our experimentation, we suggest

that Thomas's (1981:21, 1983:180) morphological distinction between the two "Elko" varieties
resulted from the prehistoric hafting process. During projectile point manufacture, final preparation

of the base is not completed until a straightalignmentbetween the point, haft notch, and foreshaft is achieved. It requiresless time and energy to alter the point by removing several pressureflakes behavior from the base than it does to alter the foreshaftnotch. Examples of this manufacturing are presentin both the archaeological (e.g., Minor and Toepel 1982:vi, 44-47) and the experimental (e.g., Spencer 1974:49) literature. and Elko earedprojectilepoints, were set into The 30 foreshafts,hafted with Elko corner-notched dart mainshafts. The experimentaldarts were replicated from descriptions of dart fragmentsrein westernNorth America (Cosgrove 1947:50-58; Hattori 1982:113-118; covered archaeologically

REPORTS

607

ontowiliow foreshaft. ElkoCorner-notched 3. Example of replicated Populapointhafted projectile Figure tionA, number 6.

Heizer 1938:69-7 1; Martin et al. 1952:376-382). The dart mainshafts,measuring1.5 m long and 10- 15 mm in diameter, were constructedfrom cane. The darts taperedtoward the proximal end, where featherswere attachedwith sinew to stabilizethe weapon in flight.The proximal(non-hafted) ends of the foreshaftswere taperedto fit snuglyinto the socketed distal ends of the dart mainshaft. The dartsweredesignedfor and thrownwith a replicatedwesternNorth Americanatlatl(e.g., Dalley and Peterson 1970:283;Guernsey 1931:71-72; Hesteret al. 1974). At this time all 30 experimental tools were ready for use as hunting weapons. Due to public pressureand misunderstanding,our simulated prehistorichunting situation did not include the actual dispatching of live animals as in previous experiments (Flenniken 1985). However, three situationsthat might have occurredhad the prehistorichuntermissed the preywere simulated. The darts were propelledby the atlatl into trees, soft loamy soil, and thick underbrush, each target 12 meters away. During the use of these 30 projectile points, we documented by notes and photos specific data conceringimpact and damage(Table 2; Figures4-6). Once the 30 points had been subjectedto our experimentalhunting situation and used until noticeabledamageoccurred,they were collected and returnedto the laboratoryfor analysisand rejuvenation.It is interestingto note, contraryto Thomas (1981:15), that 70%of our projectilepoints sustainedimpact damagein the base or haft area(Figure 6C-E) while only 43.3% sustained some tip damage (Figure6A, B). After each point was analyzed and photographed,the salvageablepoint fragments(24 or 80%)were rejuvenatedinto functional projectilepoints (Figures4 and 5).

608

AMERICANANTIQUITY

[Vol. 51, No. 3, 1986]

Table 1. Metric Data for Elko Projectile Points Prior to Experimental Use. Pop- Point Thickulat- Num- 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 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.2 1.8 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.7 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.2 1.8 4.0 6.0 6.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.5 3.0 7.5 6.5 3.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 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

4.4 5.5 5.6 4.4 5.1 5.2 4.4 5.3 5.7 4.0 5.8 5.9 4.1 5.1 5.7 4.8 4.8 4.3 5.1 5.3 4.4 4.5 5.4 4.4 4.2 3.7 4.0 3.1 3.4 3.7

2.4 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.3 3.2 2.9 2.4 2.0 2.8 2.6 3.7 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.8 2.2

.50 .45 .50 .40 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .40 .55 .60 .45 .45 .60 .50 .50 .50 .50 .65 .50 .50 .55 .50 .60 .60 .50 .50 .50 .50

1210
1240

1230 1220
1190

1200 1230 1400 1310 1280

250 240 240 290 380

200
210 300

PSA, proximal shoulder angle (Thomas 1981:1 1). NO, notch opening index (Thomas 1981:14).

Rejuvenation of broken projectile points occurred prehistorically (cf. Frison et al. 1976:28-57; Goodyear 1974:28-32; Miller 1980:107-111). Based upon our experimental data, we believe rejuvenation of projectile point fragments to have been an economical measure. 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. Each salvageable point fragment was reworked by pressure flaking employing the same flintknapping technique as originally used to produce both populations of Elko points. A point fragment was deemed "salvageable" if enough mass remained intact to support a potentially new, but slightly smaller, Elko corner-notched point. Every attempt was made to reproduce the same morphological type (Elko) while exerting the least amount of energy to produce a functional point. As a result, 8 of the 24 (33.3%) salvageable projectile point fragments changed morphological (temporal) types (Table 2; Figures 4 and 5). Most morphological variation occurred while reworking the damaged bases (70%) of the broken points. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This experiment has demonstrated a simple concept often ignored by advocates of morphological projectile point typologies as temporal or cultural markers. Frequently, prehistoric projectile points

REPORTS

609

LOST

A beforeuse and afterrejuvenation. Figure4. Outlinedrawingsof Population BLACK-material lost through WHITE-artifact re-enteringsystemic context, or enteringarchaeologhafting,use-damage,and rejuvenation. ical context.C-"changed point type;"X-not reusabledue to damage.All points 70% actual size. employed as hunting tools broke, and when rejuvenated may have changed morphological (temporal) types. Specifically, when an Elko corner-notched point broke due to impact, it may have been rejuvenated into an Elko, Gatecliff, or Rosegate temporal type, or an "anomalous type" rejected by Thomas's (1981, 1983) key. Although in this experiment we were concerned with a single point type in a single typology, we believe our results and conclusions are generally applicable to chronological projectile point typologies. 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. Therefore, in prehistory, projectile point shape may have resulted from technological and economical constraints rather than stylistic reasons, and may not represent accurate temporal types, particularly when found in archaeological situations such as surface lithic scatters, single component sites, or potential multicomponent sites with no stratigraphic

610

AMERICANANTIQUITY

[Vol. 51, No. 3, 1986]

~~~~~~~~LOST

Black -material lost through Figure5. Outlinedrawingsof PopulationB beforeuse and after rejuvenation. WHITE-artifact re-enteringsystemiccontext, or enteringarchaeologhafting,use-damage,and rejuvenation. ical context.C-"changed point type;"X-not reusabledue to damage.All points 70% actual size.

control. However, stratigraphic control does not always alleviate the problem of transforming morphological types into true temporal or culturally relevant point types. For example, Thomas's (1981, 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. He maintains, based upon basal width measurements, that there is less than "3% overlap" between the Elko series and the younger Rosegate series projectile points (Thomas 1983:180). Thomas, however, uses the stratigraphic interpretation at Gatecliff Shelter to "type" his 408 "typable" points as opposed to employing his own metric system; 29.3% of his Elko series points and 22.2% of his Rosegate series points are, in fact, not typable because they are too fragmentary (Thomas 1983:197-208; note estimated basal widths). Nonetheless, Thomas types these points on the basis of "dotted lines" and stratigraphic levels, not strict morphology. These same points, found in other archaeological situations, would either not be typed or would be typed as something different from Elko or Rosegate points. Unfortunately, many archaeologists do not have the luxury of close stratigraphic control to take care of their morphological problems. Therefore, Thomas's (1981:24) statement that his temporal (morphological) typology ". . . adequately discriminates over 95% of the points" seems a bit misleading, at least for the Elko and Rosegate point
series.

The process of typing projectile points and fragments recovered from surface lithic scatters, single component sites, or non-stratified, multi-component sites on the basis of morphology is dangerous. 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

REPORTS

611

Table 2.

Metric data for experimental projectile points after use and rejuvenation.

Point ThickPopu- Num- 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

4.1 4.5 2.1 2.9 4.4 3.3 5.0 4.5


-

2.7 2.7 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.8 2.5


-

.45 .50 .40 .45 .45 .45 .50 .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

4.4
2.9 -

2.9
2.3 -

.55
4.5 -

240 170 850 300 1200 390 890 140 230 540

1.8 1.8 1.2 1.4 .8 1.4 .85 1.8


-

3.8 5.0 0.9 2.5 3.9 2.0 5.0 4.3


-

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

2.3
.95 -

4.8
1.9 -

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 3. 1 3.4
3.7

2.9 2.4 2.4


2.3

.60 .50 .50


'.50

640 440 850


540

.7 1.9 1.1
1.6

4.2 2.5 2.9


3.0

BRUSH TREE GROUND


GROUND

TIP TIP/HAFT TIP/HAFT


TIP/HAFT

Gatecliff Elko Elko


Elko

B B
B

4 5
6

4.0 5.0
-

3.2 2.7
-

.50 .60
-

B B B B B B B
B

7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14

4.3 5.3 3.8 3.7 2.6 3.7 3.1


-

1.9 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.0


-

.50 .50 .50 .55 .50 .40 .45


-

1200
780 680 1240

B
a

15

3.6

2.2

.50

240 690 890 520 250 300 390 850 840 420

2.0 1.8
-

4.9 6.2
-

TREE TREE
GROUND

TIP HAFT
HAFT

Elko Elko
Not Rejuvenated

1.7 .9 1.7 2.1 1.4 .7 .85


-

3.3 5.5 3.9 3.9 1.9 2.5 2.0


-

GROUND GROUND TREE BRUSH BRUSH TREE GROUND


TREE

HAFT HAFT TIP TIP TIP HAFT HAFT


TIP

Elko Gatecliff Elko Elko Elko Rosegate Rosegate


Lost

1.6

3.1

GROUND

HAFT

Elko

PSA-proximal shoulder angle (Thomas 1981:1 1). b N 0-notch opening index (Thomas 1981:14). c Anomalous Type-morphological projectile point types "judged to be out of the Monitor Valley, Nevada Key" (Thomas 1981:24).

alterations that occurred prior to deposition. Thus, it is often the case that morphological typologies do not accurately reflect prehistoric technology, or other relevant behavior, and the site formation processes that actually influenced the final shapes of chipped stone tools. Like a single frame among the thousand of frames in a movie, projectile points provide only a fractional glimpse of the whole story. The remainder of the movie-raw material acquisition, stone reduction, tool manufacture, hafting, use, reuse, and discard-must be investigated through debitage analysis; and all the processes listed certainly influenced the shapes of projectile points we study today. We do not advocate totally abandoning morphological typologies, but rather we stress systematic collection and technological analysis of the entire lithic reduction and projectile point manufacturing sequence. Projectile points represent a single stage in a reduction sequence of material selection, reduction, use, and reuse. This sequence, including the debitage, has more cultural and temporal significance than projectile point morphology alone. As this experiment has demonstrated, use of morphology as the single criterion may not adequately or precisely mark time. If archaeologists want to construct cultural chronologies based upon flaked stone artifacts, perhaps it would be more accurate to record the entire reduction sequence, which is bound unaltered in time (Flenniken and Stanfill 1980:23-30). For example, aside from variation due to different skill levels and material quality (both of which are definable), the technological attributes of the reduction sequence employed

612

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 51, No. 3, 1986]

_j i ~& -e2^~wbe ,oxf~ ~ ~~~2

WfWse''1..........

^ *

'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r@A .1 .......

.... .:.'g;....___

...... . are daag. Al points75_cua


t.
0

ie

ansic tehooIca difeenes betwe heEk r-edutin eqene()an te duto seunes cant at thi tim,b discered.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;inrae difrne
at thstm,b
ocur

Roegt no dics

sequnce eiaefo
icmd

n,teeoeoetal count of diec frEe-an percusotinndbtg h lordcinsqec()adteRsgt


lhuhtelkdsoerdcintcnlg

aelf

hle

area fro smeqn. th boto mlor to massiv th o


difrne ma Ths_pcfctcnlgcldffrne

fGtcifSetrmyfr

sse

ehooia otnu,
a nldagrEk

spcii

flk coe
fae-bak

difrn
oonrdcto;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

REPORTS

613

less controlled, Elko "notch" flakes; different flake removal sequences; and an overall increase in Elko debitage counts. Concerning "stage" analysis, for the Rosegate sequence, pressure flaking may have occurred directly after flake-blank production, totally omitting the direct, free-hand percussion, thinning "stage" of the flake-blank in the Elko sequence. In addition, higher frequencies of bipolar reduction may occur in the Rosegate sequence. These technological attribute differences between the Elko and Rosegate reduction sequence are speculations, but quite plausible ones, and there may be other diagnostic attributes as well. If the diagnostic technological attributes of the two reduction sequences could be identified, they would be more adequate to separate Elko from Rosegate than mere morphology of a potentially altered projectile point. In conclusion, we note that, according to this experiment, potentially one out of every three (33.3%) aboriginal projectile points changed "temporal types" (morphological types) while still in their prehistoric context due to damage sustained during use as hunting tools. In this experiment we controlled for (but were not concerned with) morphological variation created by different flintknapping skill levels or raw material types. Furthermore, each projectile point was removed from experimental use upon the first evidence of damage regardless of the minimal extent of that damage. We maintain that if varying levels of flintknapping skill, variation in quality of raw material, and extended duration of use were tested, morphological variability would be increased.
Acknowledgments. We would like to thank Robert Elston of Intermountain Research for "typing" our experimental projectile points before use and after rejuvenation. REFERENCES CITED

Aikens, C. M. 1970 Hogup Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Paper No. 93. Salt Lake City. Cosgrove, C. B. 1947 Caves of the Upper Gila and Hueco Areas in New Mexico and Texas. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 24(2). Dalley, F., and K. L. Peterson 1970 Appendix X, Additional Artifacts from Hogup Cave. In Hogup Cave, edited by C. M. Aikens, pp. 283-286. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 93. Salt Lake City. Deetz, J. 1967 Invitation to Archaeology. The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. Flenniken, J. J. 1978 Reevaluation of the Lindenmeier Folsom: A Replication Experiment in Lithic Technology. American Antiquity 43:473-480. 1981 Replication Systems Analysis: A Model Applied to the Vein Quartz Artifacts from the Hoko River Site. Washington State University Laboratory of Anthropology, Reports of Investigations No. 59. Pullman. 1985 Reduction Techniques as Cultural Markers. In Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by Mark Plew, Jim Woods, and Max Pavesic. University of New Mexico Press, pp. 265276. Flenniken, J. J., and A. Stanfill 1980 A Preliminary Technology: Examination of 20 Archaeological Sites Located During the Cultural Resource Survey of the Whitehorse Ranch Public Land Exchange. Contract Abstracts and CRM Archaeology 1(1):23-30. Ford, J. A. 1954 The Type Concept Revisited. American Anthropologist 56:42-53. Frison, G. C., M. Wilson, and D. J. Wilson 1976 Fossil Bison and Artifacts from an Early Altithermal Period Arroyo Trap in Wyoming. American Antiquity 41:28-57. Goodyear, A. 1974 The Brand Site: A Techno-functional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeastern Arkansas. Arkansas Archeology Survey Research Series No. 7. Fayetteville. Guernsey, S. J. 1931 Explorations in Northeastern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 8(2). Guernsey, S. J., and A. V. Kidder 1921 Basketmaker Caves of Northeastern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 8(8).

614

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 51, No. 3, 1986]

Hattori, M. 1982 The Archaeology of Falcon Hill, Winnemuca Lake, Washoe County, Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers, No. 18. Reno. Heizer, R. F. 1938 A Complete AtlatI Dart from Pershing County, Nevada. New Mexico Anthropologist 11(4 and 5):6971. Hester, T. R., M. P. Mildner, and L. Spencer 1974 Great Basin Atlati Studies. Ballena Press Publications in Archaeology, Ethnology, and History No. 2. Ramona, California. Kreiger, A. D. 1944 The Typological Concept. American Antiquity 9:271-288. Martin, P. S., J. B. Rinaldo, E. Bluhm, H. C. Cutler, and R. Grange, Jr. 1952 Mogollon Cultural Continuity and Change: The Stratigraphic Analysis of Tularosa and Cordova Caves. Fieldiana: Anthropology, vol. 40. McKern, W. C. 1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Study. American Antiquity 4:301313. Miller, P. A. 1980 Archaic Lithics from the Coffey Site. In Archaic Prehistory on the Prairie-Plains Border, edited by A. C. Johnson, pp. 107-111. University of Kansas Publication in Anthropology No. 12. Minor, R., and K. A. Toepel 1982 Lava Island Rockshelter: An Early Hunting Camp in Central Oregon. Heritage Research Associates Report No. 11. Eugene. Rouse, I. 1960 The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. American Antiquity 25:313-323. Spaulding, A. C. 1953 Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity 18:305-313. Spencer, L. 1974 Replicative Experiments in the Manufacture and Use of a Great Basin Atlatl. In Great Basin Atlatl Studies, edited by T. R. Hester, M. P. Mildner, and L. Spencer, pp. 37-60. Ballena Press Publications in Archaeology, Ethnology, and History No. 2. Ramona, California. Thomas, D. H. 1981 How to Classify Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):7-43. 1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 2. Gatecliff Shelter. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. 59, Part 1. Tuohy, D. R. 1982 Another Great Basin Atlatl with Dart Foreshafts and Other Artifacts: Implications and Ramifications. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4(1):80-106. Wilson, T. 1899 Arrowpoints, Spearheads, and Knives of Prehistoric Times. Report of the United States National Museum 1897, Part 1, pp. 811-988.