Society for American Archaeology

Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication Experimentation and TechnologicalAnalysisAuthor(s): J. Jeffrey Flenniken and Anan W. RaymondSource: American Antiquity, Vol. 51, No. 3 (Jul., 1986), pp. 603-614Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/281755Accessed: 05/02/2010 07:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay 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 athttp://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 printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof 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 toAmerican 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 20:865-

872. 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 An- tiquity 48:277-289.

Thomas, David H. 1971 On Distinguishing Natural from Cultural Bone in Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 36:366-

371. 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

Morphological typologies of projectile points in North America have often been employed as time-sensitive prehistoric cultural markers. This article demonstrates that the contingencies of point manufacture, hafting, use, and rejuvenation create morphological changes that may render questionable use of these morphological typol- ogies as prehistoric cultural markers. Thirty projectile points were replicated according to the attributes of a commonly employed typological scheme for the Great Basin. Experiments with hafting, impact, and rejuvenation demonstrate that a single point-type may manifest more than one "time-sensitive" shape within its normal use- life.

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 morpho- logical 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 attri- butes 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. Jeffrey Flenniken and Anan W. Raymond, Laboratory of Lithic Technology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4910

American Antiquity, 51(3), 1986, pp. 603-614. Copyright ? 1986 by the Society for American Archaeology

604 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [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 de- position 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 morpho- logical 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 use- life.

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 defi- nitions. 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 11 0?-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 intra- quarry 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 popu- lations.

The 30 experimental points were weighed, measured, photographed, and typed according to

REPORTS 605

diesios an hatn mtos of our repicte foehat wer szimia ofrsateoee

in dimee (Fgr 3). ___ j 1

Duinguthe h.Rpiafting prkoes 73.3%e(22of30) pofecthle points. requirdsmlleation in the bons8%atalsale

Thomas's (1981) guide to Monitor Valley, Nevada, projectile points (Table 1). All 30 points fit~~~~~~J

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

(Cervus canadensis) and pine pitch (Pinus sp.) into willow (Salix sp.) foreshafts. The materials, dimensions, and hafting methods of our replicated foreshafts were similar to foreshafts recovered archaeologically in the Great Basin and the American Southwest (Aikens 1970: 159; Cosgrove 1947: 50-58; Guernsey 1931 :73; Guernsey and Kidder 1921 :83-87; Hattori 1982:113-118; Martin et al. 1952:376-382; Tuohy 1982:100). Our foreshafts measured 20 cm in length and 8 mm to 10 mm in diameter (Figure 3).

During the hafting process, 73.3% (22 of 30) of the points required some alteration in the basal

606 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 51, No. 3, 1986]

to ~~~~~r

1- C.:'

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

Figure 2. Replicated Elko Corner-notched projectile points. Population B. All points 85% actual size.

area to tailor them to the specific foreshaft notch (Figures 4 and 5). Five (1 6.6%) 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 straight alignment between the point, haft notch, and foreshaft is achieved. It requires less time and energy to alter the point by removing several pressure flakes from the base than it does to alter the foreshaft notch. Examples of this manufacturing behavior are present in both the archaeological (e.g., Minor and Toepel 1982:vi, 44-47) and the experimental (e.g., Spencer 1974:49) literature.

The 30 foreshafts, hafted with Elko corner-notched and Elko eared projectile points, were set into dart mainshafts. The experimental darts were replicated from descriptions of dart fragments re- covered archaeologically in western North America (Cosgrove 1947:50-58; Hattori 1982:113-118;

REPORTS 607

Figure 3. Example of replicated Elko Corner-notched projectile point hafted onto wiliow foreshaft. Popula- tion A, number 6.

Heizer 1938:69-7 1; Martin et al. 1952:376-382). The dart mainshafts, measuring 1.5 m long and 10- 15 mm in diameter, were constructed from cane. The darts tapered toward the proximal end, where feathers were attached with sinew to stabilize the weapon in flight. The proximal (non-hafted) ends of the foreshafts were tapered to fit snugly into the socketed distal ends of the dart mainshaft. The darts were designed for and thrown with a replicated western North American atlatl (e.g., Dalley and Peterson 1970:283; Guernsey 1931:71-72; Hester et al. 1974). At this time all 30 experimental tools were ready for use as hunting weapons.

Due to public pressure and misunderstanding, our simulated prehistoric hunting situation did not include the actual dispatching of live animals as in previous experiments (Flenniken 1985). However, three situations that might have occurred had the prehistoric hunter missed the prey were simulated. The darts were propelled by 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 concering impact and damage (Table 2; Figures 4-6). Once the 30 points had been subjected to our experimental hunting situation and used until noticeable damage occurred, they were collected and returned to the laboratory for analysis and rejuvenation. It is interesting to note, contrary to Thomas (1 981:15), that 70% of our projectile points sustained impact damage in the base or haft area (Figure 6C-E) while only 43.3% sustained some tip damage (Figure 6A, B). After each point was analyzed and photographed, the salvageable point fragments (24 or 80%) were rejuvenated into functional projectile points (Figures 4 and 5).

608 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 51, No. 3, 1986]

Table 1. Metric Data for Elko Projectile Points Prior to Experimental Use.

Pop- Point Thick- ulat- Num- Length Width ness Base Weight Point tion ber (cm) (cm) (cm) PSAa NOb (cm) (gr) Type

A 1 4.4 2.4 .50 1280 310 1.7 4.0 Elko A 2 5.5 2.7 .45 1310 300 1.8 6.0 Elko A 3 5.6 2.7 .50 1350 180 2.0 6.0 Elko A 4 4.4 2.4 .40 1230 250 1.5 3.5 Elko A 5 5.1 2.3 .50 1350 200 1.8 5.0 Elko A 6 5.2 2.7 .50 1340 200 2.1 5.0 Elko A 7 4.4 2.7 .50 1340 230 2.0 4.0 Elko A 8 5.3 2.9 .50 1320 280 2.0 6.0 Elko A 9 5.7 2.9 .50 1310 210 2.2 6.5 Elko A 10 4.0 2.8 .40 1340 200 1.8 3.0 Elko A 11 5.8 2.9 .55 1370 180 2.3 7.5 Elko A 12 5.9 2.6 .60 1300 280 2.0 6.5 Elko A 13 4.1 2.4 .45 1370 160 1.7 3.0 Elko A 14 5.1 2.5 .45 1320 250 1.8 5.0 Elko A 15 5.7 2.9 .60 1240 170 1.9 7.0 Elko B 1 4.8 2.9 .50 1200 200 1.9 5.0 Elko B 2 4.8 2.6 .50 1220 240 1.7 5.0 Elko B 3 4.3 2.3 .50 1250 280 1.8 4.0 Elko B 4 5.1 3.2 .50 1180 250 2.0 6.0 Elko B 5 5.3 2.9 .65 1190 280 1.8 7.0 Elko B 6 4.4 2.4 .50 1210 320 1.9 4.0 Elko B 7 4.5 2.0 .50 1240 390 1.7 4.0 Elko B 8 5.4 2.8 .55 1230 250 1.8 6.0 Elko B 9 4.4 2.6 .50 1220 240 1.7 4.5 Elko B 10 4.2 3.7 .60 1190 240 2.1 4.0 Elko B 11 3.7 2.3 .60 1200 290 1.5 3.5 Elko B 12 4.0 2.3 .50 1230 380 1.6 3.0 Elko B 13 3.1 2.4 .50 1400 200 1.9 3.0 Elko B 14 3.4 2.8 .50 1310 210 2.2 4.0 Elko B 15 3.7 2.2 .50 1280 300 1.8 3.5 Elko

a PSA, proximal shoulder angle (Thomas 1981:1 1). b 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 re- juvenation 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 "sal- vageable" 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

C C x

x C LOST c

Figure 4. Outline drawings of Population A before use and after rejuvenation. BLACK-material lost through hafting, use-damage, and rejuvenation. WHITE-artifact re-entering systemic context, or entering archaeolog- ical context. C-"changed point type;" X-not reusable due 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 chronologi- cal projectile point typologies.

Archaeologists cannot assume that patterns of morphological attributes have clear-cut chrono- logical significance when simple alteration of shape during use-life may change the temporal as- signment 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 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 51, No. 3, 1986]

x C

c c ~~~~~~~~LOST

Figure 5. Outline drawings of Population B before use and after rejuvenation. Black -material lost through hafting, use-damage, and rejuvenation. WHITE-artifact re-entering systemic context, or entering archaeolog- ical context. C-"changed point type;" X-not reusable due to damage. All points 70% actual size.

control. However, stratigraphic control does not always alleviate the problem of transforming mor- phological 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 frag- mentary (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 discrim- inates 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 Thick- Popu- Num- Length Width ness Base Weight lation ber (cm) (cm) (cm) PSAa N Ob (cm) (gr) Use Damage Point Type

A - - - - - - - - TREE TIP Not Rejuvenated A 2 4.1 2.7 .45 1260 240 1.8 3.8 TREE TIP Elko A 3 4.5 2.7 .50 1360 170 1.8 5.0 TREE TIP Elko A 4 2.1 1.9 .40 1080 850 1.2 0.9 TREE TIP/HAFT Anomalous Typec A 5 2.9 2.1 .45 1170 300 1.4 2.5 TREE TIP/HAFT Elko A 6 4.4 2.2 .45 800 1200 .8 3.9 GROUND HAFT Gatecliff A 7 3.3 2.1 .45 1170 390 1.4 2.0 GROUND HAFT Elko A 8 5.0 2.8 .50 1160 890 .85 5.0 GROUND HAFT Gatecliff A 9 4.5 2.5 .50 1240 140 1.8 4.3 GROUND HAFT Elko A 10 - - - - - - - GROUND HAFT Not Rejuvenated A 11 4.4 2.9 .55 1350 230 2.3 4.8 TREE TIP/HAFT Elko A 12 - - - - - - - GROUND HAFT Not Rejuvenated A 13 2.9 2.3 4.5 1050 540 .95 1.9 BRUSH TIP/HAFT Rosegate A 14 - - - - - - - BRUSH HAFT Lost A 15 4.2 2.9 .60 830 640 .7 4.2 BRUSH TIP Gatecliff B 1 3. 1 2.4 .50 1130 440 1.9 2.5 TREE TIP/HAFT Elko B 2 3.4 2.4 .50 950 850 1.1 2.9 GROUND TIP/HAFT Elko B 3 3.7 2.3 '.50 1310 540 1.6 3.0 GROUND TIP/HAFT Elko B 4 4.0 3.2 .50 1150 240 2.0 4.9 TREE TIP Elko B 5 5.0 2.7 .60 1110 690 1.8 6.2 TREE HAFT Elko B 6 - - - - - - - GROUND HAFT Not Rejuvenated B 7 4.3 1.9 .50 1310 890 1.7 3.3 GROUND HAFT Elko B 8 5.3 2.8 .50 810 520 .9 5.5 GROUND HAFT Gatecliff B 9 3.8 2.6 .50 1090 250 1.7 3.9 TREE TIP Elko B 10 3.7 2.8 .55 1300 300 2.1 3.9 BRUSH TIP Elko B 11 2.6 2.1 .50 1200 390 1.4 1.9 BRUSH TIP Elko B 12 3.7 2.1 .40 780 850 .7 2.5 TREE HAFT Rosegate B 13 3.1 2.0 .45 680 840 .85 2.0 GROUND HAFT Rosegate B 14 - - - - - - - TREE TIP Lost B 15 3.6 2.2 .50 1240 420 1.6 3.1 GROUND HAFT Elko

a 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]

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

are daag. Al points 75_cua ie

ansic tehooIca difeenes betwe heEk r-edutin eqene()an te osgaee duto seunes cant at thi tim,b discered.Althoug th lke tnerdcto ecnlg

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

*

^

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

flk-lak orpit rdcto;inrae count of diec frEe-an percusotinndbtg

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

...... . t. 0 1 ,

Fromute productions of danagelko pEfkor frometl aont fake-bank increaofse in pimlatfor prepng:Aration inmthe

area smeqn. mlor massiv sse

preistricll to prdc th Ekponmahaebedigotclyifrntrmtetcn- loia atrbtsoh Roegt rdcIo sequnce

Thomas *183 doe no dics h eiaefo aelf hle n,teeoeoetal digosi tehooia difrne bewe h lordcinsqec()adteRsgt e duto seunes cant at thstm,b icmd lhuhtelkdsoerdcintcnlg fro th boto to th o fGtcifSetrmyfr ehooia otnu, spcii

digosi difrne ma ocur Ths_pcfctcnlgcldffrne a nldagrEk

flk coe an difrn pltfr prprto_ehiussc sfctn n bain agrEk fae-bak oonrdcto;icesdcut of diec frehn pecsso thnigdbtg fro th prdcto of anEk rfr rmafaebak nraei ltompeaainih Elko seune moemsiepesr lks eie rmtepoutono h lopitagr

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 flint- knapping 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. 265- 276.

Flenniken, J. J., and A. Stanfill 1980 A Preliminary Technology: Examination of 20 Archaeological Sites Located During the Cultural Re-

source 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):69- 71.

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 4:301-

313. 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 Mu-

seum 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 Mu-

seum 1897, Part 1, pp. 811-988.