Bryce East Meets West.Pdf (9.562Mb)

Home , Ancient DNA, Basketmaker culture, Disjointed

ABSTRACT

EAST MEETS WEST: AN ANALYSIS OF STYLE IN BASKETMAKER II FLAKED STONE TECHNOLOGY

William D. Bryce

Flaked stone artifacts commonly dominate the material culture of archaeological sites because of the non-perishable nature of stone. Early Agricultural sites on the

Colorado Plateau of the northern Southwestern United States (northern Southwest) follow this pattern because of the adoption of agriculture before ceramic technology.

Accordingly, studies of Early Agricultural mobility and tools focus on flaked stone.

Recent studies consider flaked stone as one avenue of inquiry in considering Early

Agricultural origins in the northern Southwest. The latter inquiry functions as the basis of the current study. In the current study, I examine flaked stone manufacturing methods through debitage analysis and the corresponding stylistic variability displayed by flaked stone bifacial tools of early farming groups within the northern Southwest.

Longstanding debates encompass the origins of agricultural groups in the northern

Southwest, commonly referred to as the Basketmakers. Some archaeologists (Morris and

Burgh 1954; Haury 1962) suggest that Basketmaker II consists of an agricultural population moving into the Four Corners area. Other researchers posit the Basketmaker origins as in situ hunter-gatherers who adopted domesticated plants to further expand the diet breadth (Irwin-Williams 1973, 1979). A more recent model suggests immigrant agriculturalist groups from the south occupied the western portion of the Basketmaker territory. With the arrival of domesticates, indigenous hunter-gatherers to the east adopted the cultivars (Geib 2002; Matson 1991).

This study examines the style of specific flaked stone artifacts in assemblages

recovered from the Durango area, the Rainbow Plateau, and Cedar Mesa, regions

spanning the Eastern and Western Basketmaker territories. If the Basketmakers were a population of both immigrants and in situ groups, then I expect variability in flaked stone tool production methods to result in stylistic differences in bifacial tools and flake debris.

Accordingly, my research examines the stylistic differences between Eastern and

Western Basketmaker II flaked stone technologies on the physiographic regional scale as evidence of social identification. I also compare my findings with Archaic flaked stone data. I conclude that the East/West territorial dichotomy oversimplifies the data, that further analyses need to consider the Basketmakers on a regional scale, and that both

Early Agricultural and Archaic flaked stone approaches are present within the

Basketmaker assemblages.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project entailed considerably more time and effort than originally anticipated. The network of exceptional individuals expanded as time commenced and complexities developed with changes in the thesis. Accordingly, I am indebted to many people and institutions. First, I thank my committee, Drs. Francis Smiley, Christian

Downum, Walter Vannette, and John Whittaker. Dr. Smiley has provided continual and

constant support and guidance throughout the process of writing this thesis and my

graduate experience. His efforts have greatly contributed to making me a better

archaeologist, writer, and researcher. I thank Dr. Downum and Dr. Vannette for their

welcomed critiques and advice.

I also thank the many institutions and people at the core of the institutional inter-

workings providing access to, and information of, the various assemblages analyzed for

my project. The institutions include the Museum of Northern Arizona (MNA),

Washington State University (WSU), Fort Lewis College (FLC), Navajo Nation

Archaeological Department (NNAD), the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation

Department (NNHPD), and EcoPlan Associates. I particularly thank Beth Hickey, Elaine

Hughes, and Kathleen Dougherty of MNA for providing assemblage access and a place

to work during the major move into the new Easton Collection Center. I thank Bill Lipe

at WSU for accommodating my many inquiries, my visit to WSU to analyze three of the

Cedar Mesa assemblages, and for taking time out of his busy schedule to discuss the

Basketmaker phenomenon with me. Diane Curewitz made available the Cedar Mesa

assemblages, accommodated my visit, provided a workspace, and made sure my analysis

went smoothly. I would not have been able to complete the analysis in a timely manner

without Dr. Curewitz’s help. Bill Andrefsky took time out of his busy schedule to

discuss my thesis, flaked stone analytical techniques, and introduced me to Cultural

Transmission theory. I greatly benefited from my meeting with Dr. Andrefsky. Mona

Charles at Fort Lewis College welcomed my project, taking time to provide access to the

Darkmold assemblage, Darkmold data, literature regarding Eastern Basketmaker II

archaeology, and fruitful discussion. Ms. Charles’ main concern was that Fort Lewis

College received the deserved credit. I thank Mona and Fort Lewis College for the opportunity. I thank Neomie Tsosie and Davina Two Bears of NNAD for providing access to and information on Kin Kahuna. Neomie, you are a champion. I thank Ron

Maldonado of NNHPD for allowing me to analyze the Kin Kahuna assemblage. I also

thank Ora Marek-Martinez of NNHPD for her help and permission to use the Kin Kahuna

images. Kin Kahuna greatly contributed to my thesis. Thank you for the opportunity. I

also thank George Ruffner, J. Simon Bruder, and my colleagues at EcoPlan Associates.

Dr. Ruffner and Dr. Bruder patiently supported me throughout my graduate experience,

accommodating my schedule and long awaited thesis. I acknowledge the matter-of-fact support and positive feedback Dr. Bruder provided, which I greatly appreciate. I thank my colleagues at EcoPlan, who also showed the same patience, accommodating circumstances, encouragement, and positive feedback.

In addition to the institutions and individuals affording access to the assemblages,

a multitude of people provided invaluable information, connections, suggestions,

insights, and support. Phil Geib tops the list. Phil’s seminal work establishing

Basketmaker indirect percussion biface reduction functions as the basis of this thesis. He

vi provided invaluable information, insights, and network connections without knowing me, and continued to respond afterwards! Dr. R.G. Matson also patiently provided insights, information, and networking advice. In addition, Dr. Matson and Jesse Morin provided a draft of a collaborative paper that greatly contributed to and provided data for this thesis.

I thank R.G. and Jesse Morin for their interest and support. I thank John Wehausen of

White Mountain Research Center for the bighorn sheep horn used to produce punches for the experimental portion of my thesis, as well as a better understanding of bighorn sheep horn characteristics. No bighorn sheep were hurt during the composition of my thesis.

I sincerely thank Dr. Kathy Kamp and Dr. John Whittaker. They provided the base of archaeological knowledge and respect for southwestern archaeology I enjoy.

Kathy has provided much welcomed critique and support. John introduced me to the joys of flaked stone that led to the composition of this thesis. He has provided continued critique, insight, knowledge, lively fieldwork, and entertained my incessant inquiries for the better part of a decade. He has made me a better archaeologist and a better person. I also thank Dan, Lynn, and Olivia Sorrell for their friendship, support, consideration, and kindness. I thank Dan for his insights, edits, and tutelage; you are a statistics demi-god in my eyes my friend, regardless of your humility.

Friends and colleagues have supported and encouraged me, played the role of sounding board, offered edits, accommodated literature requests, entertained me with patience, and provided the necessary push to see me through to the end. I thank my consigliere Leszek Pawlowicz and very good friends Jason Sperinck, Josh Kleinman, and

Dubh, true friends if there ever were ones; Chuck LaRue, Mick Robins, Kelly Jones, Matt

Peeples, Jason Nez, Ted Roberts, Ted Tsouras, Lindsey Smith, Chris Duran, Jason

vii

McInteer, Liz Lane, Neil Weintraub, Mike Lyndon, Dan Garcia, Micheal O’Hara, Mike

“Dubh” Wells and Ariel Rubin, Alex and Tamara Woods, Dana Parsons, Randy Haas,

Sabrina Kleinman, Reese Cook, Michael Terlep, Simone Schinsing, Matt Marques, Eric

Keith, Andre and Gina Marcom, Chris and Brandy Hill, and Jett Pryor. I thank Ashlee

Bailey for her understanding, encouragement, and support at a time when she should have been stressed out, sleep deprived, and irrational, all mandatory parts of “Smiley’s boot camp.” Last, but certainly not least, I thank my family. They have supported and encouraged me throughout my life and graduate career, whether or not they understood my seemingly aimless wanderings and incoherent ramblings.

A thousand blessings on all of your houses.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... v

LIST OF TABLES ...... xiii

TABLE OF FIGURES ...... xvii

DEDICATION...... xviii

CHAPTER 1: BASKETMAKER II FLAKED STONE: AN AVENUE OF INQUIRY IN THE PURSUIT OF BASKETMAKER ORIGINS ...... 1

CHAPTER 2: THE BASKETMAKERS OF BASKETMAKER II: A BRIEF HISTORY OF BASKETMAKER RESEARCH ...... 7

The Basketmakers Through Time ...... 7 “Basketmaker II” or “Early Agriculturalists?”...... 13 Basketmaker Origins – Up for Debate ...... 14 The Models ...... 15 CHAPTER 3: WEST TO EAST: RECENT RESEARCH ON BASKETMAKER DISTINCTIONS AND ORIGINS ...... 19

Language ...... 20 DNA ...... 21 Perishables – Cordage, Basketry, and Textiles ...... 22 Rock Art ...... 24 Basketmaker Flaked Stone ...... 27 A Flaked Stone Epiphany (and Me) ...... 36 Hypothesis Testing ...... 38 The Status of Recent Basketmaker Research ...... 40

CHAPTER 4: A WORD ON FLINTKNAPPING ...... 44

A Middle Range: Experimentation in Basketmaker Flaked Stone ...... 49 Experimentation, a Flintknapper’s Delight ...... 52

CHAPTER 5: BASKETMAKER STYLE ...... 55

Information Exchange Theory, Establishment and Evolution ...... 56 Social Interaction Theory, an Alternative ...... 58 An Evolutionary Compromise of Stylistic Theory ...... 59

Carr and the Complexities of Style ...... 60 Hierarchies within UMRTAD ...... 63

CHAPTER 6: BASKETMAKER II SITES AND THE METHODS BEHIND THE MADNESS ...... 67

Basketmaker Sites and Flaked Stone ...... 69 Analysis ...... 74 A Few Early Agricultural Basketmaker Sites ...... 80 Eastern Basketmaker – Durango Area ...... 81 The Darkmold Site (5LP4991) ...... 88 Western Basketmaker – Rainbow Plateau ...... 88 The Sand Dune Cave Site (NA7523 (MNA)) ...... 88 The Kin Kahuna Site (AZ-J-3-8 (NNHPD)) ...... 95 Western Basketmaker – Cedar Mesa ...... 98 The Leicht Site (42SA3645) ...... 100 The Pittman Site (42SA3646) ...... 112 The Veres Site (42SA3650) ...... 112 Conclusions ...... 112

CHAPTER 7: MULTIFACETED COMPARISONS OF BASKETMAKER II FLAKED STONE ...... 113

Fun with Debitage, Experimental and Archaeological biface thinning flakes ...... 117 My Experimental Assemblage...... 122 Territorial and Experimental Assemblage Comparisons ...... 122 Regional and Experimental Assemblage Comparisons ...... 128 Bifacial Tools ...... 138 Eastern and Western Assemblages ...... 142 Darkmold, Rainbow Plateau, and Cedar Mesa Assemblages ...... 153 Durango and Rainbow Plateau ...... 157 Durango and Cedar Mesa ...... 164 Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa ...... 172 The Parts of the Sum ...... 180 The Biface Thinning Flake Component ...... 180

The Bifacial Tool Component ...... 180 The Sum of the Parts ...... 180 CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF BASKETMAKER II FLAKED STONE ...... 191

Basketmaker Thinning Debitage and Experimentation ...... 180 Biface Thinning Flake Analysis ...... 180 A Comparison of Territorial and Experimental Biface Thinning Flake Assemblages ...... 180 A Comparison of Regional and Experimental Biface Thinning Flake Assemblages ...... 180 Results of Basketmaker and Experimental Biface Thinning Flake Assemblages ... 180 Concluding Biface Thinning Flake Assemblage Comparisons ...... 180 Basketmaker Bifacial tools...... 199 From Debitage to Tools...... 204 Style in Basketmaker Flaked Stone ...... 207 Base Form ...... 208 Surface Patterning ...... 209 Form and Pattern ...... 212 A Point-by-Point Summary ...... 226 The Biface Thinning Flake Conclusions, My Experimental Database ...... 214 The Biface Thinning Flake Conclusions, Experimental and Archaeological Databases ...... 209 Bifacial Tool Conclusions, the Morphology Data ...... 226 Bifacial Tool Conclusions, the Surface Patterning Data ...... 226 A Territorial Summary ...... 217 A Region-to-Region Summary: the Complexity of Basketmaker Flaked Stone ...... 219 What’s with the Waste?...... 220 Is a Tool just a Tool? ...... 221 The Tale of Basketmaker Flaked Stone ...... 223 Homogeneous or Heterogeneous, Inclusive or Exclusive, Considerations for Future Research ...... 226 Basketmaker Origins, Still up for Debate?...... 227

REFERENCES CITED ...... 229

APPENDIX I: STATISTICAL DATA ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

APPENDIX II: ANALYSIS DATA SHEETS ...... 247

APPENDIX III: COLOR PLATES OF BIFACE THINNING FLAKES AND BIFACIAL TOOLS FROM THE RAINBOW PLATEAU, DURANGO, AND CEDAR MESA ...... 247

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 ...... 32

Table 3.2 ...... 39

Table 4.1 ...... 45

Table 6.1 ...... 71

Table 6.2 ...... 72

Table 6.3 ...... 87

Table 6.4 ...... 94

Table 6.5 ...... 94

Table 6.6 ...... 98

Table 6.7 ...... 103

Table 6.8 ...... 107

Table 6.9 ...... 111

Table 7.1 ...... 114

Table 7.2 ...... 115

Table 7.3 ...... 119

Table 7.4 ...... 120-121

Table 7.5 ...... 126

Table 7.6 ...... 129

Table 7.7 ...... 130

Table 7.8 ...... 141

Table 7.9 ...... 143

Table 7.10 ...... 144

xiii

Table 7.11 ...... 145

Table 7.12 ...... 146

Table 7.13 ...... 147

Table 7.14 ...... 148

Table 7.15 ...... 149

Table 7.16 ...... 150

Table 7.17 ...... 154

Table 7.18 ...... 154-156

Table 7.19 ...... 156

Table 7.20 ...... 158

Table 7.21 ...... 159

Table 7.22 ...... 160

Table 7.23 ...... 161

Table 7.24 ...... 166

Table 7.25 ...... 167

Table 7.26 ...... 168

Table 7.27 ...... 168

Table 7.28 ...... 169

Table 7.29 ...... 170

Table 7.30 ...... 173

Table 7.31 ...... 174

Table 7.32 ...... 175

Table 7.33 ...... 175

xiv

Table 7.34 ...... 177

Table 7.35 ...... 178

Table 7.36 ...... 178

Table 7.37 ...... 178

Table 7.38 ...... 178

Table 8.1 ...... 202

Table 8.2 ...... 203

Table 8.3 ...... 203

Table 8.4 ...... 205

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Regional map ...... 2

Figure 1.2. Exapmles of Z- and S-plied twists...... 4

Figure 3.1. Hafting forms...... 29

Figure 3.2. Geib’s experimental biface ...... 38

Figure 4.1a. Direct percussion method...... 47

Figure 4.1b. Indirect percussion method...... 47

Figure 4.2. Pressure flaking method...... 48

Figure 4.3. Experimental toolkit ...... 51

Figure 4.4a. Direct percussion experimentation ...... 51

Figure 4.4b. Close-up of direct percussion experimentation ...... 51

Figure 4.5a. Indirect percussion experimentation ...... 51

Figure 4.5b. Close-up of indirect percussion experimentation ...... 51

Figure 4.6a. Pressure flake experimentation ...... 51

Figure 4.6b. Close-up of pressure flake experimentation ...... 51

Figure 6.1. Regional map showing sites analyzed, sites mentioned in text, and the proposed transition zone ...... 68

Figure 6.2. Biface thinning flake attributes...... 77

Figure 6.3. Illustrations of flake pattern and cross section types ...... 78

Figure 6.4. Quantitative data measurements...... 78

Figure 6.5. Regional map of sites analyzed and the physiographic regions ...... 81

Figure 6.6. Partial Planview of the Darkmold Site ...... 86

Figure 6.7. Sand Dune Cave Planview ...... 93

Figure 6.8. Planviews of the Main Area of SDC ...... 93

xvi

Figure 6.9. Planview of the main site area of Kin Kahuna...... 97

Figure 6.10. Planview of the pithouse at the Leicht Site ...... 102

Figure 6.11. Planview of the Pitmann Site ...... 105

Figure 6.12. Planview of the Pitmann Site pithouse ...... 106

Figure 6.13. Planview of the Veres Site ...... 109

Figure 6.14. Planview of the Veres Site pithouse ...... 110

Figure 7.1. Boxplots of PLW by territory and experimental assemblage ...... 123

Figure 7.2. Boxplots of platform width by territory and experimental assemblage ...... 124

Figure 7.3. Boxplots of platform thickness by territory and experimental assemblage ...... 124

Figure 7.4. Diagrams of experimental and Basketmaker debitage attribute statistical outcomes ...... 133

Figure 7.4. Diagrams of debitage attribute statistical outcomes ...... 135

Figure 7.6. Notching variations ...... 139

Figure 7.7. Flake scar patterning types ...... 145

Figure 7.8. Base forms ...... 149

Figure 7.9. Cross sections ...... 150

Figure 7.10. Boxplots of width/thickness by territory ...... 151

Figure 7.11. Boxplots of width/thickness by region ...... 157

Figure 7.12. Diagrams of bifacial tool attribute statistical outcomes ...... 186

Figure 8.1. Archetypal Basketmaker bifacial tool forms ...... 200

Figure 8.2. Basketmaker base forms ...... 209

Figure 8.3. Flake scar patterns and cross section types ...... 210

Figure 8.4. Boxplotis of width/thickness ratios by territory ...... 218

xvii

DEDICATION

For family, who has provided continual support and encouragement, I dedicate this work:

Lynn Bryce, LaDonna and Allen Howard, Kim and Robert Kelly, Jamey and Melissa

Bryce, Jason Bryce, Kt and Matt Lowe, Mabel Bryce, Rusty and Susan Bryce, Kathi and

Jack Rowe… and of course, all my wonderful nieces, nephews, and cousins…

Ad Memoriam William A. Bryce, William E. Bryce, Mildred and David S. Peterson, and

Randall Bryce.

xviii

CHAPTER 1

BASKETMAKER II FLAKED STONE: AN AVENUE OF INQUIRY IN THE

PURSUIT OF BASKETMAKER ORIGINS

“Tools used in the fabrication of projectile points are an example of a class of material remains that is unlikely to change because of increasing sedentism or intensified social interaction and the need to actively display social identity” (Geib 2002:273).

My research examines the stylistic differences between Eastern and Western

Basketmaker II flaked stone tool manufacturing technologies as evidence of cultural identification and differentiation. I analyze the stone tool manufacturing technology of early farming groups across the northern Southwestern United States to determine whether significant differences exist in the styles of manufacture and in the finished tools.

The study stems from perceived variation in artifact styles between early farming groups known as Basketmakers, specifically Basketmaker II groups. This thesis focuses on

Basketmaker II and does not address Basketmaker III. I refer to Basketmaker II as BMII,

Basketmaker II peoples, and Basketmakers throughout the thesis.

The earliest archaeological manifestation of the Basketmakers occurs during the

Basketmaker II period. Some investigators (Morris and Burgh 1954; Matson 1991; Geib

2002) suggest that Basketmaker II groups from west of the confluence of Chinle Wash and the San Juan River have different ethnic origins from groups to the East of the confluence (Figure 1.1). Other archaeologists adamantly defend the position of

Basketmaker roots within the indigenous Archaic hunter-gatherer populations of the Four

Corners region (Kidder 1962; Irwin-Williams 1973; Charles and Cole 2006). The two theoretical stances perpetuate decades of debates over the origins of southwestern agriculture (Guernsey and Kidder 1921; Morris and Burgh 1954; Berry and Berry 1986;

Figure 1.1. Regional map depicting the approximate transition zone. 2

Matson 1991; Geib 2002; Matson and Cole 2002; Charles and Cole 2006). The current

study considers flaked stone manufacturing method as one avenue of inquiry to infer

group ethnicity among the first farmers in the northern Southwest. Based on the work of

Eriksen (2010), I define ethnicity as a social identity formed through relationships

between groups whose members consider themselves distinctive.

The shift in food procurement from hunting and gathering to food production

occurred in the northern Southwestern United States tentatively around 4,000 BP1

(Smiley 1994, 2002; Merrill et al. 2009). Early explorers recognized the presence of a maize growing population occupying the northern southwest before the well known

“Cliff Dwellers” and named the groups Basket Makers (Pepper 1902; Blackburn and

Williamson 1997). Guernsey and Kidder (1919; Kidder and Guernsey 1921) established the Basket Makers as the first farmers of the northern Southwest manifested in the archaeological record by plant cultivation derived from Mesoamerican domesticates, the use of storage facilities within rockshelters, and a lack of ceramics (Smiley 2002).

Later research determined that the Basketmakers occupied rockshelters and open-

air sites (Lipe 1967; Matson 1991; Smiley 1994, 2002) and manufactured baskets using

the 2-rod-and-bundle construction technique (Webster and Hays-Gilpin). In addition, the

Basketmakers created cordage using the 2s-Z twist (Haas 2003) (Figure 1.2) and employed indirect percussion in the production of flaked stone (Geib 2002). Basketmaker

II populations occupied the modern-day Four Corners region of the northern Southwest over an approximately 2,500 year period. Excavations from the early to middle 1900s recovered material culture exhibiting stylistic differences suggesting an ethnic split

1 Throughout the thesis I give BP dates in reference to 14C dates, i.e., time before 1950 CE.

Figure 1.2. Examples of Z- and S-plied cordages. 2s-Z (left) and 2z-S (right) (reprinted, with permission, from Haas 2003). between Basketmakers in the East and in the West (Morris and Burgh 1954). The aforementioned debate on the origins of the Basketmakers began with the noted discrepancies in the recovered material culture and perceived ethnic divisions inferred from the material culture variability across the Basketmaker II territory.

This study examines the style of specific flaked stone artifacts between assemblages recovered from Eastern (the Darkmold site) and Western (Sand Dune Cave,

Kin Kahuna, Leicht, Pitmann, and Veres) sites. In addition to the general East/West division, Matson (1991) suggests that the Basketmaker groups occupying Cedar Mesa differ culturally from the San Juan (Western) Basketmakers and the Durango (Eastern)

Basketmakers. Further comparison examines additional divisions into physiographic regions, the Durango area (Darkmold), the Rainbow Plateau (Sand Dune Cave and Kin

Kahuna), and Cedar Mesa (Leicht, Pitmann, and Veres). Finally, an experimental dataset created through indirect percussion using a replicated horn punch, an antler billet, and an antler tine pressure flaker function as a control sample for debitage comparison.

Differences in flaked stone tool manufacture reflect social differentiation when

isochrestic variants reflecting enculturated backgrounds define flintknapping methods.

Isochrestic variants refer to the multiple ways of accomplishing an activity. If, as some

authors assert, the Western Basketmakers were migrants from the south and the Eastern

Basketmakers developed from in situ hunter-gatherers, then I expect any variability in flaked stone tool production methods to result in stylistic differences in bifacial tools and flake debris. Accordingly, the stylistic examination focuses on morphological and visual attributes of debitage and bifacial tools.

First, I analyze the experimental dataset and Basketmaker biface thinning debitage, focusing on quantitative data obtained from measurements of proximal end attributes. Second, I record quantitative and qualitative data from bifacial tools, such as projectile points, knives, preforms, and bifaces. I perform statistical tests based on data type (interval, ordinal, nominal) and distribution. In addition, statistical effect size measures determining the strength of association between the compared datasets follow

testing, when applicable.

The statistical outcomes are then interpreted in terms of archaeological/

anthropological significance, resulting in the recognition of the Basketmaker populace

being far more complex than the hypothesized Eastern and Western branches. I conclude

that groups subscribing to three different isochrestic variants of bifacial tool manufacture

corresponding with the three physiographic regions subscribed to manufacturing a pan-

regional tool form. Furthermore, the Durango isochrestic variant resembles the earlier

Archaic bifacial tool manufacturing approach. Finally, I infer that the Basketmaker

population is an amalgamation of multiple ethnic groups occupying adjacent

physiographic regions and subscribing to a pan-regional phenomenon.

This pilot study includes eight chapters. The current introduction comprises

Chapter 1. Chapter 2 introduces the Basketmakers as an archaeological culture based on the material remains of the groups occupying the Four Corners area circa 4,000-1,500

BP. In addition, Chapter 2 discusses the intertwining and ensuing complications of the

Basketmaker and Early Agricultural periods, providing the definitions of the two used in this study. Finally, the chapter provides an overview of the competing origins theories of the Basketmakers. Chapter 3 synthesizes recent research of material culture, genetics, linguistics, and rock art pursued to provide insights into Basketmaker origins. Chapter 4 explains flintknapping, the process of creating a flaked stone tool, and the experimental methods employed to create a control sample of biface thinning flakes. Chapter 5 introduces stylistic theory, providing a historic overview and explains the Unified

Middle-Range Theory of Artifact Design (UMRTAD) which functions as the theoretical framework of this study. Chapter 6 delineates the methods used to analyze the debitage and bifacial tool assemblages. In addition, Chapter 6 provides site descriptions and assemblage composition. Chapter 7 reports the statistical methods employed to examine the assemblage data and reports the statistical outcomes. An archaeological summary of the statistical results concludes the chapter. Chapter 8 reports the conclusions of the project, and demonstrates that the East/West territorial dichotomy oversimplifies the

Basketmakers and fails to accurately characterize Basketmaker flintknapping approaches and techniques. I bring the thesis to a close with considerations for further study formed in hindsight and in light of my conclusions.

CHAPTER 2

THE BASKETMAKERS OF BASKETMAKER II: A BRIEF HISTORY OF

BASKETMAKER RESEARCH

“We are trapped by a combination of our terminology and underlying beliefs about the origin of the Basketmakers into conflicting criteria for the identification of Basketmaker II” (Matson 2006:158).

This chapter provides a brief history of Basketmaker II research beginning with

the early discovery and establishment of the Basketmaker tradition as a cultural phase

within the Anasazi developmental sequence. The overview considers large projects that

have substantially contributed to our understanding of the Basketmaker II cultural

manifestation. I do not provide an exhaustive synthesis of all Basketmaker II research to date. Rather, I offer basic information as a background for the types and variations of material culture used to define the Basketmaker II in space and time.

The Basketmakers Through Time

The existence of the “Basket Makers” was first reported in the late nineteenth century (Prudden 1897; Pepper 1902, 1905). During the 1890s the Wetherill brothers, cattlemen and ranchers from southwestern Colorado, ventured into Grand Gulch, Utah to recover prehistoric remains. The Wetherills targeted cliff dwellings, prehistoric masonry structures positioned within alcoves and rockshelters naturally carved out of canyon walls. During the Hyde Expedition, the Wetherills noted the existence of archaeological expressions subsequently termed “Basket Maker” by Talbot Hyde, the venture capitalist funding the expedition (Blackburn and Williamson 1997). The adventurers encountered the Basketmaker manifestations under the Cliff Dweller remains. The findings lead to the Wetherill’s proposing that occupation of the region extended deeper into the

prehistoric past than the “Cliff Dwellers” whose remains were targeted by many

explorers of the time. In general, the Hyde Expedition found that deposits under the

masonry structures contained no pottery, but finely crafted baskets, the atlatl and dart,

and burials with non-deformed skulls. In 1902, Pepper introduced Hyde’s term “Basket

Maker” into archaeological parlance with his publication of “The Ancient Basket Makers

of Southeastern Utah.” The publication (Pepper 1902) focused on defining the Basket

Makers through the material remains found within rockshelters. Pepper’s early definition

included a list of attributes, including skull shape, a lack of masonry houses and

ceramics, the presence of finely crafted baskets, the use of the atlatl and dart, square-toed yucca sandals, and burials within “pot-holes” (Pepper 1902:7). In addition, maize was commonly found with Basketmaker remains, typically within storage cists (Pepper 1902).

In 1914 the Peabody Museum of Harvard University sent A.V. Kidder and

Samuel Guernsey to the Southwest to study the “cliff-houses” of northeastern Arizona and southeastern Utah (Kidder and Guernsey 1919; Guernsey and Kidder 1921). The expedition resulted in the discovery of Basketmaker sites in northeastern Arizona. The discovery extended the previously known Basketmaker territory of the Grand Gulch area to the south, which led Kidder and Guernsey to redirect their research. Between 1914 and 1916, they excavated sixteen rockshelters containing Basketmaker remains, firmly establishing the Basketmakers as an archaeological culture. The seminal work of

Guernsey and Kidder (1921) established the Basketmakers as a pre-pottery, maize and squash growing people who used caves for storage of crops and burial of the dead. In addition, the Basketmakers made a distinct form of sandal, a variety of well-crafted baskets, and employed the atlatl and dart in hunting and war (Guernsey and Kidder

1921). Guernsey and Kidder did not recognize Basketmaker habitation architecture.

Instead, they hypothesized that Basketmaker domiciles consisted of open-air, perishable

structures with associated slab-lined features, interpreted as storage cists. Through their work, Guernsey and Kidder, “proved… that the Basket-makers were a people culturally

distinct from the Cliff-dwellers; and also that they antedated the latter” (1921:115).

In 1927, Kidder hosted an informal gathering of regional archaeologists and

established the Pecos Classification. Within the Pecos Classification, Kidder divided the

Basketmaker2 culture into three stages, Basket Maker I, Basket Maker II, and Basket

Maker III. Basket Maker II, or simply Basket Maker (Roberts 1935, in Lipe 1999), encompassed the pre-pottery, atlatl using, maize farmers who occupied southeastern Utah and northeastern Arizona.

Twenty years later Morris and Burgh (1954) excavated two rockshelters and an

open-air site near present-day Durango, Colorado. The excavations recovered a variety

of finely woven baskets, cordage, string bags, sandals, storage cists, burials, and the atlatl and dart. The findings lead Morris and Burgh to compare the “diagnostic features” of the

“classic Basket Makers” established by Guernsey and Kidder to the recently discovered

“Durango Basket Makers” (1954:74). The comparison indicated the “classic” and

“Durango” Basket Makers shared 66 of 93, approximately 71%, of the “diagnostic features” (1954:79) originally reported for the Basket Makers by Guernsey and Kidder

(1921). The work of Morris and Burgh in southwestern Colorado provided further

2 The term Basketmaker includes multiple spelling variants through time. The early publications referred to the archaeological culture as Basket Maker. Guernsey and Kidder added a hyphen, Basket-Maker, in 1919. By the mid-1900s archaeologists introduced the current spelling, Basketmaker. I present the terms within the chronological context, adopting the current term, Basketmaker, throughout the thesis.

understanding of the Basketmaker II cultural manifestation and expanded the territory

occupied by the Basketmakers.

By the mid-late twentieth century, large scale projects greatly expanded our chronological, spatial, and material culture understanding of Basketmaker II archaeology.

Museum of Northern Arizona (MNA) archaeologists surveyed and excavated sites in the

upland environment of the San Juan River corridor along the Arizona/Utah border

(Lindsay et al. 1968). The work of Lindsay and others identified two sites containing

Basketmaker remains. Sand Dune Cave, located near Navajo Mountain, was the only site

to contain stratified Basketmaker deposits (Lindsay et al. 1968). The Basketmaker

component of Sand Dune Cave exhibits similar attributes to those reported by Guernsey

and Kidder that are considered typical of classic, or Western, Basketmaker sites.

Throughout the majority of the 20th century, archaeologists placed Basketmaker II sites

within an A.D. 1 to 500 date range. Dendrochronological dating indicated the

Basketmaker component of Sand Dune Cave falls within this date range.

Lipe (1969) worked in the Grand Gulch area of Cedar Mesa northeast of the

MNA research area. The research included survey in Grand Gulch and its tributaries as

well as survey of a sample of areas on Cedar Mesa. Excavation in various capacities

followed the survey work, including the Leicht and Veres sites. Within Grand Gulch,

Lipe identified many of the rockshelters dug by Richard Wetherill in the 1890s. On

Cedar Mesa, Lipe determined the Basketmakers occupied open-air sites, commonly

containing one pithouse with a slab-lined entryway and cists as well as associated artifacts. Lipe’s (1969) work established that Basketmaker occupations included high elevation open air locations near canyon systems and introduced the “White Dog Phase.”

In addition, the open air habitation sites differ from Basketmaker architecture in

the Durango area, the Navajo Reservoir area, and on the southern Colorado Plateau (Lipe

1969). A consideration of architectural styles in combination with flaked and ground

stone assemblages led Matson et al. (1990) to propose the Cedar Mesa Basketmaker II as

a third variant of the Basketmaker II phenomenon. Matson et al. identify the three

variants as the Los Pinos in the Durango-Los Pinos region, the White Dog in the Marsh

Pass region, and the Grand Gulch of the Cedar Mesa region (1990).

To the East, Eddy (1961, 1966) directed archaeological fieldwork in advance of

construction of the impending Navajo Reservoir, located within the San Juan Basin in

northwestern New Mexico. The project consisted of archaeological survey and

excavation of sites threatened by the construction of Navajo Dam and the inundation of

Navajo Reservoir. The survey located 22 sites containing "cobble ring pavements in

association with smaller, non-ring structures" (Eddy 1961:2) in association with

Basketmaker material culture. Eddy (1961, 1966) excavated two cobble ring pavement

sites, the Power Pole site and Valentine Village. Dendrochronological samples from

Valentine Village provided dates indicating a fourth to fifth century A.D. occupation,

while 14C dates suggest a 2nd to 3rd century occupation of the Power Pole site. Eddy

(1961, 1966) considered the sites to be a local variant of Basketmaker II, referring to the phase as “Los Pinos.” The Navajo Reservoir project provided new data on late, open-air

Basketmaker II sites containing habitation structures and expanded the Basketmaker territory southeast of the previously understood Basketmaker world.

In the 1970s, Matson and Lipe (1975) surveyed a stratified sample of the southern portion of Cedar Mesa in southeast Utah. The Cedar Mesa Project identified three

occupational time periods within a small sample of the 780 km² geological formation

(Matson 1991). The occupations include late Basketmaker II, late Basketmaker III, and

Pueblo II-III. The work of the Cedar Mesa Project focused on settlement patterns of the

Anasazi through time, and found that Cedar Mesa contains a variety of site types dispersed across the landscape. Excavated Basketmaker II sites on Cedar Mesa occur as open-air sites falling within the Grand Gulch phase, dating A.D. 200-400 (Dohm 1988;

Matson et al. 1988; Pollock 2001).

A few years later, archaeologists Robert C. Euler and George J. Gumerman,

associated with Prescott College, began a multi-decade archaeological project in the

Peabody Lease area on Black Mesa in northeastern Arizona (Powell and Smiley 2002).

After decades of survey and excavation, Black Mesa researchers pieced together the

Early Agricultural period for the area. Smiley (2002) discusses the temporal span and site types of Basketmaker II, dividing the period into the White Dog and Lolomai phases.

Research on Black Mesa established Basketmaker occupation as early as 4000 BP

(Smiley 1994), with groups using rockshelters as primary habitation and storage, a diagnostic feature of the White Dog phase (Smiley 2002). The later Lolomai phase, starting at approximately 2000 BP, consists of open-air habitations, small settlements, and rockshelters (Smiley 2002).

The aforementioned projects furthered our understanding of Basketmaker chronology and spatial distribution by providing a wide range of data on site type and distribution, as well as Basketmaker lifeways and material culture. The Basketmaker II

period is currently understood as a cultural phase and a temporal period within the

Anasazi cultural sequence (Kidder 1927). To date, Basketmaker II territory encompasses

the Four Corners region of the southwestern United States, spanning the Colorado

Plateau from the Continental Divide in the east to Southern Nevada in the west, and from

Canyonlands, Utah in the north to the Mogollon Rim in the south. The Basketmakers were agriculturalists who grew maize and squash during an Early Agricultural period dating circa 2000 BC to AD 500. They occupied caves and open-air sites as habitations, practiced flood water and subirrigation farming (Robins 1997) and stored their food reserves in a variety of cists. The preserved material culture consists of skillfully crafted baskets, sandals, and clothing. Basketmaker II peoples employed atlatls and darts in both hunting and conflict. The darts included hafted projectile points, skillfully manufactured with morphologies varying from corner-notched to side-notched and excurvate-based to straight-based.

“Basketmaker II” or “Early Agriculturalists?”

In the early twentieth century Kidder and Guernsey set out to determine if the material culture attributed to the Basketmakers represented a distinct culture or a manifestation of the Cliff-dweller phenomenon (Kidder and Guernsey 1919). After years of excavation, Guernsey and Kidder determined the Basketmakers to be a legitimate prehistoric culture (Guernsey and Kidder 1921), and later placed them within the Anasazi developmental sequence (Kidder 1927). Over the decades since, the term Basketmaker II has become synonymous with early agriculturalists on the Colorado Plateau. Geib (1996) provides a discussion of Basketmaker II on the Rainbow Plateau, opting to use the more neutral term of Early Agricultural. Geib discusses the current status of “Basketmaker II” as an archaeological term carrying different meanings for different people. To by-pass any possible confusion resulting from different meanings Geib uses Huckell’s proposed

“Early Agricultural” schema rather than “Basketmaker.” I follow Huckell (1995) and

Geib (1996) in referring to “the interval during which agriculture was first practiced but ceramics were not in use” (Geib 1996:54) as the Early Agricultural period, a chronological marker within the development of Formative cultures. I use the term

Basketmaker II in following Guernsey and Kidder (1921), Morris and Burgh (1954),

Eddy (1963, 1966), Matson (1991), Smiley (2002), Geib (2007), and other researchers who define the Basketmakers as early agriculturalists with distinctive material culture and architecture occupying the territory encompassing the Four Corners region.

Basketmaker Origins – Up for Debate

Current debates over the origins of agriculture in the northern Southwest feature three major competing models, “in situ” (Kidder 1927; Irwin-Williams 1973, 1979), “in- migration,” (Berry and Berry 1986; Haury 1967), and “two-source” (Matson 1991).

However, Merrill et al. (2009) recently proposed a fourth, diffusionist model. The in situ model, originally proposed by Kidder (1927, in Matson 1991:34), suggests that the

Basketmaker II period represents the adoption of maize by in situ Archaic populations as a strategy to diversify the subsistence base (see also Irwin-Williams 1973, 1979). In contrast, the in-migration model suggests maize agriculture was introduced to the

Colorado Plateau by immigrant farmers from the south (Morris and Burgh 1954; Berry and Berry 1986). After extensive work on Basketmaker sites in southeast Utah, Matson

(1991) proposed the two-source model. The two source model proposes various possible methods and routes that may have been used to introduce maize to the Southwest. In part, Matson’s model provides a synthesis of the in situ and migration models, suggesting farmers from the south may have migrated onto the Colorado Plateau, with indigenous

Archaic populations adopting farming practices after the arrival of maize. The most recent diffusion model postulates that the dispersal of groups comprising a speech community created a dialect chain spanning from the Great Basin to Mesoamerica. Maize then diffused through group-to-group interaction along the chain from Mesoamerica and eventually arrived in the Southwest.

The Models

The available evidence currently lends support to all three models (Matson 1991).

The in situ model proposed by Kidder is based on Basketmaker II research in northeastern Arizona. Kidder acknowledges the introduction of maize from

Mesoamerica, but does not credit any outside source with influence over Southwestern cultural development. Kidder states, “the Southwest owes to outside sources little more than the germs of its culture, and that its development from those germs has been a local and almost wholly an independent one” (Kidder 1962, in Matson 1991:33). Irwin-

Williams (1973, 1979) later championed the in situ model, proposing the Oshara

Tradition, postulated with data from northwestern New Mexico. Irwin-Williams (1973,

1979), working in the Arroyo Cuervo region of northwestern New Mexico, found occupational succession from the early Archaic into the Formative era. She therefore interprets the occupational succession as in situ growth of agricultural practices from the earlier Archaic hunter/gatherer populations.

The migration model also has a lengthy history. Morris and Burgh (1954) suggested the introduction of Basketmaker II maize horticulture from the south after excavations conducted in southwestern Colorado. Morris and Burgh (1954) found that the Basketmaker II materials in the Durango area contained elements both similar and

different to the Basketmaker II sites located in the West. The findings led the researchers

to suggest that the Basketmakers of the Durango area may have developed from the San

Pedro stage of the Cochise culture development in the southern Basin and Range

(1954:85). Haury (1962) supported the migration model, hypothesizing that migrant

maize farmers moved from the southern Basin and Range to the Mogollon area within the mountainous area between the Basin and Range and the Colorado Plateau. From the

Mogollon area the technology diffused in multiple directions. Later, Berry and Berry

(1986) argued for in-migration of maize agriculturalists, grouping the San Pedro Cochise

and Basketmaker II into the San Pedro/Basketmaker II complex on the basis of projectile

point form. Berry and Berry suggest the early agriculturalists of the Basin and Range and

the Colorado Plateau consist of “an influx of people from some external source area”

(1986:319).

Recent human DNA evidence, utilizing western Basketmaker quids and aprons,

supports the in-migration theory for the Western portion of the Basketmaker II territory

(LeBlanc et al. 2007). Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) also supports in-migration, although Merrill et al. (2009) suggest the influx of horticulturalists originated from the

Great Basin to the northwest rather than the southern Basin and Range. Data from the

Cedar Mesa Project also supports the in-migration supposition. Survey and excavation located 132 Basketmaker II components and no Archaic components (Matson 1991).

Morin and Matson (2009) report only seven Archaic points from Cedar Mesa in their comparison of Basketmaker II and Archaic points. Archaic manifestations vary in northern Arizona. Black Mesa mirrors Cedar Mesa, with very few Archaic sites, but a considerable number of Basketmaker sites located during the Black Mesa Project

(Francis E. Smiley, personal communication). To the west, across Marsh Pass, Geib et al.

(2007) report 15 Archaic sites on the Rainbow Plateau. The late Archaic period, however, marking the hunting and gathering subsistence pattern prior to the advent of agriculture, is not well defined or understood in northern Arizona (Parry and Smiley

1990). As Geib et al. note, “prior to the N16 excavations the number of Archaic age sites excavated within the Kayenta region was in the single digits” (2007:1). In addition, where Archaic remains do occur in a stratified context below Basketmaker II occupations, a hiatus commonly exists between the occupations (see Geib and Davidson

1994, as an example).

Matson (1991) synthesizes the two models. Matson’s research on Basketmaker II material culture from various geographic locations indicated social group distinctions based on region. These distinctions provided the underpinnings of the development of the two-source model and led Matson to distinguish between the Eastern and Western

Basketmakers. The distinction between Eastern and Western Basketmakers is accepted by many researchers, but far from officially established. If Matson (1991) is correct, and the Eastern and Western Basketmaker concept reflects different ethnicities, differing cultural processes, such as enculturation, should be reflected in the material culture, specifically in the stylistic attributes of technology.

In the next chapter, I discuss recent research into the Basketmaker II phenomenon. The chapter begins with a consideration of the various avenues of contemporary research, including material culture, linguistics, and DNA. After that discussion, I provide a background for the study of Basketmaker II flaked stone assemblages, including projectile point studies, debitage analyses, and the theoretical

17 underpinnings of previous flaked stone research. Following this review, I present hypotheses driving the current research. I argue that flaked stone analysis offers opportunities to test theories on Basketmaker origins.

CHAPTER 3

WEST TO EAST: RECENT RESEARCH ON BASKETMAKER DISTINCTIONS

AND ORIGINS

The turn of the millennium brought renewed interest in research on the east/west division and the origin(s) of the Basketmakers. Recent research involving linguistic evidence (Hill 2002; Merrill et al. 2009), DNA evidence (LeBlanc et al. 2007; Merrill et al 2009), style theory on both artifacts (Geib 2002; Haas 2003; Webster and Hays-Gilpin

1994) and rock art (Robins 1997a) have produced influential and original ideas on

Basketmaker origins, social identity, and social relations. Linguistic and DNA analyses provide data crucial for developing theoretical models and interpretations of the origins, possible migration routes, and types of migration potentially influencing Basketmaker origins. Moreover, contemporary work with DNA has produced innovations in genetic recovery methods (LeBlanc et al. 2007). The application of new theoretical models and analytical strategies affords the opportunity to further understand the intricacies of the

Basketmaker phenomenon. This chapter summarizes recent research on Basketmaker archaeology, synthesizes previous flaked stone analysis work, and introduces the groundwork of my project.

A variety of analytical topics currently employ theories of style in considering social identity and relationships, including studies of cordage (Haas 2003), basketry and textiles (Webster and Hays-Gilpin 1994), rock art (Robins 1997), and flaked stone (Geib

2002). Webster and Hays-Gilpin (1994) considered the technological and stylistic attributes of basketry and textiles recovered from a variety of Basketmaker sites throughout the region. A decade later, Haas (2003) compared Eastern and Western

Basketmaker II and Archaic cordage styles. Robins (1997), focusing on Western

Basketmaker II foraging territories, examined the variability of headdress form as

depicted in Basketmaker II rock art in association with foraging and farming resource

potential. Geib’s (2002) seminal work on flaked stone manufacturing methods provides insight into various prehistoric flintknapping techniques and renewed hopes of solving age-old discrepancies in typology. Furthermore, research into manufacturing techniques introduces the application of additional theoretical frameworks concerning group affiliation and movement.

Language

Hill (2002) provides an exhaustive review of southwestern United States linguistic studies, followed by a critique of the earlier work of Whorf and Trager (1937) concerning the relationship between Uto-Aztecan and Tanoan languages. Uto-Aztecan speakers in the northern Southwest include the Hopi, while the Tanoan speakers include the various branches of the modern-day Eastern Puebloans such as the Kiowa, Towa,

Tiwa, and Rio Grande pueblos. Hill’s work indicates that the earlier interpretation suggesting the two language groups descend from a common ancestor misrepresents the data. Hill (2002) provides two important conclusions: 1) when taken into consideration with the archaeological data, the fragmentation of the major Southwestern linguistic groups strongly coincides with the arrival of cultivation, and 2) the linguistic evidence previously interpreted as common descent actually represents social interaction between separate groups through loan words revolving around maize.

Merrill et al. (2009) provide an analysis of the current linguistic evidence in a newly hypothesized maize diffusion model. They critique Hill’s hypothesized Proto-Uto-

Aztecan (PUA) speech community homeland in Mesoamerica, proposing instead that the

PUA language developed within the Great Basin. Merrill et al. (2009) base the alternative homeland on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data. In the new model, the PUA-speaking population rapidly dispersed into bands migrating east and south out of the Great Basin with PUA language developing into Northern (NUA) and Southern (SUA) Uto-Aztecan variants. SUA speakers spread out across Mexico and into Mesoamerica while the NUA speakers occupied the U.S. Southwest, the Great Basin, and California. The dispersed speech-related groups later provided a dialect chain that encouraged maize diffusion from

Mesoamerica to the Great Basin and U.S. Southwest.

DNA

Genetic studies with modern-day Puebloan DNA and prehistoric Basketmaker

DNA suggest Mesoamerican connections. Malhi et al. (2003) illustrate that Northern

Uto-Aztecans exhibit a rare mutation, referred to as “Albumin* Mexico,” which is diagnostically Mesoamerican (Malhi et al. 2003). However, Malhi et al. (2003) state that this mutation, when considered with additional DNA data,

Suggest[s] that the spread of Uto-Aztecan was not the result of a population expansion northward caused by the development of maize cultivation in Mesoamerica. A population expansion caused by the development of agriculture would have likely involved the movement of women; therefore, the distribution of Uto-Aztecan was caused either by the language/culture spread that did not involve the movement of people, or by the migration of predominantly males, perhaps merchants engaged in trade activity along the Tepiman corridor (2003:120).

Additional studies expand on Malhi et al.’s findings (Kohler et al. 2008; Merrill et al.

2009). Kohler et al. report that mtDNA comparisons provide, “no support for close genetic connections between southwestern and Mesoamerican Uto-Aztecan populations”

(2008:661). Kohler et al. stress that this conclusion, however, is not a rejection of the

hypothesized northward spread of “the Uto-Aztecan language family and maize

agriculture” (2008:661), but rather the expansion could not have been a major population

expansion.

Merrill et al. (2009) build on Kohler et al.’s (2008) supposition, stating that

Albumin* Mexico mtDNA mutation occurs rarely within NUA speaking populations

while occurring commonly within Yuman-speaking groups. In addition, Merrill et al.

(2009) indicate Y-chromosome variation does not support Mesoamerican – American

Southwest population connections. The Y-chromosome proposition requires additional

testing, due to the paucity of Y-chromosome variation distribution data. Merrill et al.

(2009) suggest the rare mutation began with Yuman-speakers and was transferred to other groups through interaction. Interactions of neighboring groups resulted in the mutation diffusing to Mesoamerica.

In contrast, LeBlanc et al. (2007) examined Basketmaker DNA removed from garments and quids (wads of fiber left after chewing yucca and agave). The study examined DNA recovered from three Basketmaker rockshelters located in northeast

Arizona and southeast Utah. LeBlanc et al. (2007) argue that quids from two of the

Western Basketmaker sites, Boomerang Shelter and Cave 7 in southeast Utah, exhibited

DNA signatures supporting the theory of Uto-Aztecan farmers migrating north.

Perishables – Cordage, Basketry, and Textiles

Webster and Hays-Gilpin (1994) considered the technologies employed in the

manufacture of perishable materials such as baskets and textiles within a decorative style

theoretical framework. The study examined data published from fifteen Basketmaker II

sites, comparing and contrasting the data based on site placement within specific regions.

Webster and Hays-Gilpin consider the San Juan-Kayenta region in northeastern Arizona as the core area of Basketmaker II. The core area encompasses the Marsh Pass and

Monument Valley regions. Webster and Hays-Gilpin (1994) base the core area determination on the location of the first in-depth study defining the Basketmakers

(Kidder and Guernsey 1919, Guernsey and Kidder 1921). The additional sites contributing to Webster’s and Hays-Gilpin’s research lie to the north, east, and west of the core area.

Webster’s and Hays-Gilpin’s (1994) analysis showed a homogenous basketry trend of 2-rod-and-bundle wall construction technique within the Kayenta-San Juan region. All of the BMII sites outside the Kayenta-San Juan region contained 2-rod-and- bundle technology as well as 1- or ½-rod-and-bundle, with less common frequencies of

1-rod and 1-rod-sifter technologies. Moreover, comparisons with Early Agricultural components to the north and south of the Basketmaker cultural area indicate that 2-rod- and-bundle dominates the basketry technology to the South, but rarely occurs to the

North.

The textile data exhibit a much more complicated pattern. Sites in the San Juan-

Kayenta region contain 1) weft-twined bags, 2) looped bags and leggings, 3) warp-twined bands, and 4) weft-faced plain weave cloth and bands. The BMII sites outside of the

“core area” contain Types 1, 2, and 3 textiles listed above. In addition, textiles recovered from non-Basketmaker Early Agricultural sites to the south exhibited Types 1, 2, and 3.

The authors conclude, “technological evidence suggests to us that the White Dog phase sites in the Kayenta region share affinities with Mogollon and Cochise populations to the

south, whereas Basketmaker II populations outside this area derive in part from proto-

Fremont/Great Basin Archaic traditions” (Webster and Hays-Gilpin 1994:319).

In complementary work, Haas (2003) researched Basketmaker cordage across the

Four Corners region. Haas’ analysis includes six rockshelters spanning the Basketmaker

region from the Rainbow Plateau in northeastern Arizona to the Animas Valley of

southwestern Colorado. The analysis indicated Basketmaker groups employed the same

cordage creation and repair techniques using similar materials. This led Haas to

conclude, “the data suggest that the Basketmaker II peoples, eastern and western,

participated in a pan-regional marriage network that spanned the known Basketmaker II

territory” (2003:118). Haas reports, however, that comparisons between Basketmaker II

and earlier Archaic cordage show that the earlier Archaic groups employed different cordage creation techniques utilizing a variety of materials. Cordage data, therefore,

support interaction between Basketmaker groups across the known BMII world and

establish a clear distinction between Basketmaker II and earlier Archaic cordage

techniques.

Rock Art

Focusing mainly on areas of southeastern Utah and northeastern Arizona, Robins

(1997a, 1997b) considers the use of rock art as a tool to study social differentiation

among Basketmaker groups occupying various foraging territories in the region. Robins

(1997a, 1997b) argues that social integration is linked to the uneven distribution of bulk

resources, such as pinion nuts, and land conducive to subirrigation agriculture. “This

strong association between the production of rock art and specific agricultural localities

implies a special relationship between rock art and food production, that, in turn, may

reveal aspects of the Basketmaker social environment” (Robins 1997:88). Robins

concludes that Basketmaker rock art, designated San Juan Anthropomorphic (SJA),

“appears after the Basketmakers had arrived, or developed in the region, and … [that] the classic style is common throughout the region” (1997b:115). In addition, the headdresses present within SJA vary in frequency and correlate with spatial placement. The spatial placement, or lack thereof, of the various headdresses within foraging territories suggests integration between some Basketmaker groups, but not others in the Western

Basketmaker region.

Robins briefly contrasts Western Basketmaker II rock art with Eastern

Basketmaker II rock art, designated Durango-Los Pinos phase style. Robins indicates that a “lack of unequivocal early Basketmaker rock art [occurs] in the [eastern] area”

(1997b:77, emphasis added). Morris and Burgh (1954), however, find generalities present between the Durango Basketmakers and the Western Basketmakers. In general, both Eastern and Western Basketmakers use the same spectrum of colors and similar figures, (e.g., mountain sheep, ducks, and anthropomorphs). However, multiple researchers observe that Eastern Basketmaker rock art does not contain the “very large, square-shouldered, heavily decorated anthropomorphic features” (Morris and Burgh

1954:88) present in the West (Webster and Hays-Gilpin 1994; Robins 1997).

In addition, the headdresses central to Robins’ (1997a, 1997b) argument rarely occur in Eastern Basketmaker rock art, with occurrence on Cannonball Mesa in southwest Colorado (Kitchell 2010) and a possible headdress site abstractly represented by circles and ovals from Falls Creek rockshelters (Morris and Burgh 1954). Robins’ brief review suggests that if the Eastern Basketmakers were socially integrated based on

foraging resources and agricultural potential, they did not use the social structure

proposed as present in the West. Furthermore, the paucity of headdress rock art in the

East indicates an absence of social integration between Eastern and Western Basketmaker populations based on buffering resource procurement.

A more recent study reinterprets the SJA rock art within a cognitive theoretical model (Kitchell 2010). Kitchell (2010) analyzes the data from a “sacred canopy” cultural

construction. Within the sacred canopy construction, “there is no intrinsically religious

meaning in anything. Any object, person, time, or place may become imbued with

holiness and thus gain religious meaning” (Kitchell 2010:821). Kitchell (2010) examines

a sample of 194 anthropomorphic figures from 29 sites spanning Arizona, Utah, and

Colorado. Utah encompasses the majority of the sites, with only one physiographic

region of Colorado reported, specifically Cannonball Mesa.

Based on the considerable dataset, Kitchell suggests the large, square-shouldered

anthropomorphs to be visual representations of supramundane figures, or otherworldly –

greater than simply human figures, which, when visually represented are referred to as

nimbates. In addition, she also notes a lack of headdresses recovered from Basketmaker

sites, commonly rich in perishable materials. Accordingly, Kitchell states,

These visual aspects of the anthropomorphic head feature are not images of material headdresses adorning costumed humans shamanic or not; nor do they represent a headdress in any functional sense. Rather, they represent a nimbus-like depiction providing further visual perception that these figures are supramundane. That these paleoimages cover a broad range of geographic territory suggests both oral and visual means of shared communication. (2010:825)

Robins (1997) examines spatial distribution and visual variation of the large,

square-shouldered Basketmaker anthropomorphs with head décor from an environmental

perspective. In juxtaposition, Kitchell (2010) analyzes similar rock art imagery from a

cognitive model. Regardless of the theoretical stance, the studies present two conclusions

relevant to my research: 1) the substantial spatial variability occurs mainly within the

Western Basketmaker territory, with rare occurrences within the Eastern Basketmaker

territory and 2) the spatial context of SJA rock art indicates inter-group communication.

Basketmaker Flaked Stone

Not until relatively recently have researchers understood the data potential within

whole flaked stone assemblages, including debitage and cores, as well as bifacial tools.

Early analyses within the New World focused on bifacially flaked projectile points and

knives, and ignored debitage, the waste product of the flaked stone tool making process.

The bias toward bifacial tools resulted in discarded debitage and the data the

flintknapping refuse afforded. The pioneering flintknapping work of Don Crabtree and

François Bordes (Whittaker 1994, 2004) in the mid-late 1900s illustrated the utility of

analyzing complete flaked stone assemblages (Jelinek 1965), rather than focusing only on

tools (Crabtree 1976). Crabtree and Bordes implored archaeologists to consider the

patterns present on flaked stone artifacts resulting from the technology employed to

produce the tools. This section provides a thumbnail history of BMII flaked stone analysis, concluding with our current understanding of Basketmaker flaked stone assemblages and the underpinnings of my thesis.

The early normative approach to archaeology centered on collection and description. Description typically focused on morphology (Eddy 1961, 1966; Guernsey and Kidder 1921; Kidder and Guernsey 1919; Morris and Burgh 1954), with occasional comments on the process of manufacturing bifacial tools (Guernsey and Kidder 1921).

The analyses ignored the debitage which comprised the majority of the flaked stone

artifacts in the assemblages. The bifacial tools considered herein include Basketmaker II

preforms, dart points, and knives. Preforms are well made, un-notched bifaces. Dart points refer to bifaces with proximal end modification through notching for the purposes of hafting. The definition of BMII flaked stone knives varies with the researcher. In general, knives are much larger than projectile points, with the knives of the Marsh Pass area exhibiting corner notches (Guernsey and Kidder 1921). In addition, the type of hafting played a large role in classifying a bifacial tool as a knife or a dart point

(Guernsey and Kidder 1921; Nusbaum 1922).

The early Basketmaker II researchers found intra- and inter-regional similarities and divergences in Basketmaker flaked stone tool assemblages. Guernsey and Kidder

(1921) and Morris and Burgh (1954) recovered multiple triangular and ovate preforms.

The plan views of preforms exhibit edges varying from straight to excurvate with commonly rounded basal edges. The preforms range from 4 to 8 cm in maximum length and 2 to 3 cm in width. The forms occur throughout the Basketmaker territory, including the Durango area (Morris and Burgh 1954), the Prayer Rock District (Morris 1980), the

Marsh Pass area (Guernsey and Kidder 1921), and on the Rainbow Plateau (Lindsay et al.1968; Geib and Warburton 2007). The preforms were modified into haftable tools through notching at either the sides or the corners.

Basketmaker II projectile points and knives exhibit notable variation within two overarching notch forms, side-notching and corner-notching (Figure 3.1). The style of the notching varies both intra- and inter-regionally. Projectile point forms in the Marsh Pass and Black Mesa areas of northeastern Arizona commonly exhibit a rather gracile form

with deep side notches (Figure 3.1). Guernsey and Kidder originally reported this

projectile point form from the Marsh Pass area, stating that the majority of dart points

contain deep side notches, “a depth equal to about one-third of the total width of the base” (1921:87). This form seems to be the most spatially restricted, recovered from

Basketmaker II sites within areas of northeastern Arizona (Guernsey and Kidder 1921;

Morris 1980; Parry and Christenson 1987; Geib 2007) and reaching into the southernmost areas of Utah (Geib and Warburton 2007). The corner-notched archetype seems to be the most spatially dispersed. Morris and Burgh (1954) found that the typical dart point form in the Durango area consisted of a corner-notched variety exhibiting narrow to wide notches and straight to excurvate bases. Similar forms were recovered from the Navajo

Reservoir District (Eddy 1961, 1966), the upper San Juan Basin (Kearns 1992), the

Prayer Rock District (Morris 1980), Sand Dune Cave (Lindsay et al. 1968), the Rainbow

Plateau and Piute Mesa (Geib and Warburton 2007), Cedar Mesa (Matson et al. 1990), and Kane County, Utah (Nusbaum 1922).

Figure 3.1. Overarching Basketmaker hafting forms.

Comparatively, the various morphologies overlap inter-regionally. Morris and Burgh compared the Durango area projectile point assemblage to the points recovered by

Guernsey and Kidder in the Marsh Pass area, observing,

Most of the dartpoints from the Western sites differ from the Durango form in having straight to rounding bases and notches chipped in from the sides… In the meager representation of chipped knives and points from the classic [Western] sites viewed as a whole, the three major types at Durango – expanding stem, corner-notched; erect or contracted stem, corner-notched; and convex to straight base, side-notched – are to be found among them (1954:56-57).

Matson et al. (1990) provide a further comparison of dart points from Cedar Mesa with the assemblages from the Marsh Pass and Durango areas. Matson et al. conclude,

The Cedar Mesa projectile points are neither ‘San Juan Basketmaker dart points’… [n]or the broadly notched corner-notched found at Durango and in the Los Pinos phase… If we consider all notched bifaces as points, the quadrat survey produced 52 large, clearly corner-notched ones, and seven medium sized corner-notched from Basketmaker II component[s]… In addition we found 10 points in Basketmaker contexts that were side- notched and some of these do approach the ‘San Juan Basketmaker’ style (1990:V-31-32).

While Matson et al. (1990) illustrate variations between the Cedar Mesa projectile points and those of other regions, all regions contain the two archetypal forms, with variations commonly intergrading with other regions. Therefore, similar forms are found in both

Eastern and Western BMII territories although the preferred dart point form varied by region.

The inter-regional variability may be the result of socially distinct groups formed from the branching of a larger populace. Interaction between separate social groups could also result in the production of similar projectile point forms. Wiessner’s (1983) work among the San of the Kalahari Desert, however, suggests projectile point forms function

to provide information on social identity and territoriality. Wiessner’s conclusions suggest separate, interacting social groups consciously maintain different projectile point forms.

Further causes of variability include the quality of the tool stone, individual variation based on flintknapping knowledge, and conscious and/or unconscious artistic expression. The presence of two archetypal forms with variations intergrading inter- regionally suggests that deciphering further indications of social differentiation through flaked stone will require more than a study of projectile point form.

After the theoretical shift from culture-history to processualism, researchers began to view culture as an adaptive, changing system (Binford 1962). The paradigm shift combined with the seminal experimental work of Crabtree and Bordes led researchers to consider debitage as well as tools. Flaked stone assemblage analyses transitioned to applying the variability within flaked stone assemblages in combination with architecture to determine site types (Parry and Christenson 1987; Matson et al. 1990). A second concern focused on analyzing flaked stone assemblages to determine the relationship between mobility strategies and stone tool technology (Binford 1979; Parry and

Christenson 1987; Parry and Kelly 1987; Kelly 1988; Berg 2000). Parry and Kelly

(1987) formalized the latter concept into the Expedient Core Technology Model (Parry and Kelly 1987).

In general, the Expedient Core Technology Model dichotomizes flaked stone strategies into bifacial tool production and expedient reduction techniques. Highly mobile groups employed bifacial tool production to manufacture light, sturdy, portable tools used for multiple purposes. In contrast, expedient reduction consists of flake removal from

objective pieces to produce edges suitable for the immediate task at hand. Viewed from

the Expedient Core Technology framework, Basketmaker II flaked stone assemblages

afforded an opportunity to examine how flaked stone technology changed with the

adoption of domesticated foodstuffs as the early agriculturalists presumably shifted from

a forager to a collector subsistence procurement strategy (Binford 1980). Debitage

analysis combines technological and application load methods (Table 3.1) (Cotterell and

Kamminga 1987; Andrefsky 2005). The methods afforded comparisons between tool

production debitage (biface thinning flakes) and flake production debitage, (e.g. non-

marginal flakes) (Ahler 1989) or large flakes with unprepared platforms. In addition, core

types, counts, and ratios of cores to flakes provided additional data.

Table 3.1 Flaked Stone Analyses Descriptions Method Description The method consists of creating objective criteria used to analyze an assemblage in a replicable manner. The criteria may have nothing to do Free-standing with any concluding interpretations. This method may be combined with additional analysis for further evaluation, i.e. flakes may be classified by size and amount of cortex. Flake classification based on the method believed to be used to produce a type of flake, i.e. hard hammer percussion (rock), soft hammer percussion Application load (billet of antler, wood, bone), or pressure (bone, antler, copper), determined through specific characteristics present on a flake. The method relies on flake classification reflecting the type of flaked stone Technological artifact being created, i.e. channel flakes indicate bifaces were fluted at the site. A free-standing analysis based on size and/or weight gradation of flaked Mass aggregate stone debitage.

During the late 20th-early 21st centuries, the Expedient Core Technology Model

was applied widely to Basketmaker assemblages from Black Mesa, Arizona (Parry and

Christenson 1987), Cedar Mesa, Utah (Nelson 1995), southeastern Utah (North 2000), northeastern Arizona (Dawson 2003), and southwestern Colorado (Lizotte, 1995; Berg

2000). Basketmaker flaked stone researchers drew various conclusions. Parry and

Christenson (1987) report a shift from curated to expedient technologies in relation to the

transition from the Archaic to Ceramic periods on Black Mesa. Biface manufacture,

retouched tools, and flake production employing mainly local materials, with some non-

local material exploitation, characterizes the Basketmaker assemblages (Parry and

Christenson 1987). Nelson (1995) analyzed and compared both expedient and bifacial

tools as well as standardized and unstandardized cores to hypothesize about Cedar Mesa

Basketmaker group mobility. Nelson cautiously concludes that the comparisons “support the notion that Basketmaker II adaptation was more similar to later sedentary Puebloan adaptations than previously recognized” (1995:91). Lizotte (1995) applied Parry and

Kelly’s model to BMII flaked stone assemblages from Black Mesa, Arizona and Ridges

Basin, Colorado, concluding that distinguishing shifts in core technology require distinctive differences in subsistence patterns.

The Expedient Core Technology Model continued to function as the basis of diachronic flaked stone analysis into the 21st century. North (2000), working in

southeastern Utah, determined the Butler Wash BMII assemblages represented a

continuation of bifacial tool technologies. North (2000) contends Basketmaker

populations in the Butler Wash area continued high residential mobility strategies after

the adoption of maize. Dawson (2003) continued the examination of the subsistence

strategy transition through diachronic analysis of flaked stone assemblages, spanning the

early and late Archaic as well as Basketmaker II periods and including both rockshelter

and open air sites. The assemblages originated from sites in southeastern Utah and

northeastern Arizona. Dawson’s work with the Bent Oak shelter assemblage concurs

with North’s (2000) interpretation, concluding that the Basketmakers occupying the

33 shelter remained residentially mobile after the adoption of agriculture. Dawson finds a contradictory trend in northeastern Arizona, however, where Basketmaker populations seemingly adopted a more sedentary lifestyle along with agriculture. All of the summarized analyses, however, do not consider the implications that the transition from hunting and gathering to farming may have had on where flaked stone activities took place, how the flaked stone assemblages were created, or who engaged in flaked stone activities at the various site types.

The aforementioned projects illustrate the substantial attention previously paid to

Basketmaker II flaked stone assemblages. The brief review above considers analyses of multiple Basketmaker II flaked stone assemblages from three regional areas within a twenty-year period. Unfortunately, all five studies relied on one simplified theoretical model focusing on diachronic changes possibly correlating with group mobility. In addition,

The extent to which we can correlate the degree of mobility and technological organization is questionable. Moreover, the ability of this potential relationship to provide a meaningful understanding of all the conditioners of technological organization is limited (Nelson 1995:90).

I do not intend to disparage previous analysts or analyses. All of the mentioned works provide valuable information and data on Basketmaker II flaked stone. The focus on diachronic changes within a simplified model, however, fails to allow for considerations of gender, specialization, craft production, site activities, or manufacturing methods.

After years of data recovery along highway Navajo 16 traversing the Marsh Pass and Monument Valley areas, Geib and Warburton reported on the “patterns in stone tool raw materials, production, and use” (2007:V.5.1) of seventeen sites comprised partially or completely of Basketmaker II manifestations. Geib and Warburton (2007) applied a

technological typology, based on inferred reduction technique, to each individual flaked

stone artifact. The debitage analysis included direct free-hand percussion core reduction,

percussion biface reduction, pressure, edge preparation, tool rejuvenation, and bipolar

categories. The basis of the analysis includes the stance that, “technology is not directly related to mobility, but to the subsistence and foraging strategies that, in turn, affect mobility” (Vierra 1995:23, in Geib and Warburton 2007:V.5.12). Moreover,

Variability in lithic artifacts results from the complex interaction of a host of factors including production technology, raw material constraints, functional requirements, stylistic considerations or historic traditions of tool producers, situational constraints, and settlement and technological organization. Then there is morphological change during artifact life history, as tools are used, rejuvenated, broken, and recycled (Geib and Warburton 2007:V.5.2-3).

Based on this multifaceted and complex understanding of lithic technology, Geib

and Warburton (2007) provide a number of conclusions. First, percussion biface

reduction was an important part of Basketmaker II culture and was employed to thin and

shape both large dart points and larger hafted knives. Geib and Warburton observe that,

“despite heavy maize reliance and what appears to have been substantial residential

stability, bifacial reduction continued to be a central aspect of Basketmaker technology”

(2007:V.5.14). Second, the minimal number of pressure flakes may be the result of a

preference by Basketmaker artisans for percussion thinning, as opposed to the use of

pressure flaking for both manufacturing and finishing projectile points employed by

Archaic flintknappers. In addition, the logistical forays required because of groups being

tethered to agricultural areas,

led to an increase in the size and bulk of female tool kits… At the same time, male reduction activity, especially that focused on the production of dart points and large knives, increasingly might have occurred away from

habitation sites, happening instead at hunting camps or specialized reduction loci near raw materials sources (Geib and Warburton 2007:V.5.15).

Finally, Geib and Warburton note a shift from bifacial tools and debitage to

unstandardized cores and core flakes, in support of the Parry and Kelly model, but

postulate that, “when considering how reduced residential mobility affected lithic

assemblages it is also worth considering which gender accounts for the majority of lithic

reduction of debris at settlements and how this aspect might have changed through time

or at the types of sites that are routinely sampled and compared” (2007:V.5.46).

A Flaked Stone Epiphany (and Me)

Through the experimental work of Crabtree, Bordes, and Whittaker, the high-end

analytical methods of Geib (Geib 2002, Geib and Warburton 2007), and a decade of my

own flintknapping experimentation, I realize that flake stone assemblages provide much

more data potential than where a tool was made and the end product. The assemblages

indicate the reduction sequence, the approach a flintknapper used to create a tool, the

method of flake detachment, the dimensions of the implements employed during

flintknapping, and potential errors made resulting in failed flake detachments and bifacial

tools, to mention a few examples. Recent flaked stone analyses consider morphological

and technological characteristics of assemblages, commonly performed concurrently with

experimental archaeology. Detailed analysis and analogous experimentation affords in-

depth considerations of the role of stone within prehistoric societies. Through

experimentation, analysts may examine technological approaches used in manufacturing

flaked stone, toolkits and methods used in flaked stone production, and provide

inferences into social interaction.

Recent work by Geib (2002) consists of the analysis of small rods created from mountain sheep horn recovered from Basketmaker rockshelters located in northeastern

Arizona and southeastern Utah. Geib used scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and experimental archaeology in his analysis, determining that the horn rods are punches used in indirect percussion. In contrast to the BMII horn punches, Archaic flintknapping toolkits include antler tine and worked bone pressure flakers with narrow tips. In addition to the differing knapping toolkits, Geib compared the Western Basketmaker II dart points to middle Archaic projectile points. He found marked differences in flake scar attributes; i.e., BMII and Archaic projectile point manufacture resulted in different surface patterns

(Geib 2002:291).

Geib explains the differences as isochrestic variation suggesting flintknapping methods reflect local learning and enculturation. In an experimental study, Geib (2002) created a comparative biface using horn punches to pressure flake one edge and an antler tine to pressure flake the opposite edge. The experiment produced a biface exhibiting flake patterns with distinctive flake scar attributes (Figure 3.2). Figure 3.2 illustrates the differences in flake scar widths, with the pattern produced with the horn punches defining the left side of the biface and the antler tine pressure flaker producing the flaking pattern on the right. Geib (2002) notes, however, that variability exists within Basketmaker dart points, with flake scar attribute similarities occurring between Archaic points and some

Eastern Basketmaker points. Building on the work of Geib, I suggest that Eastern and

Western Basketmaker II populations employed two different methods of flintknapping. I believe the methods reflect isochrestic variates resulting from the first farmers of the

37 northern Southwest being a heterogeneous population of at least two distinct social groups.

Morin and Matson (2009) recently tested

Geib’s research with the analysis of 38 projectile points and knives collected from Cedar Mesa. The analysis includes all of the Archaic points collected during the Cedar Mesa project in combination with Basketmaker points and knives collected during excavation of the Rock Island site as well as from the Cedar Mesa project.

Morin and Matson (2009) statistically tested six attributes Geib notes as indicative of Basketmaker points that correlate with the punch technique Figure 3.2. Geib’s experimental biface – horn punch pattern on (Table 3.2). The testing resulted in all six left, antler tine pressure flaking on right (adapted, with permission, attributes showing statistical significance, with from Geib 2002). flake scar width at five millimeters from the blade margin as the most significant. Morin and Matson (2009) note, however, the difficulty in finding points with an adequate number of flake scars for measurement.

Hypothesis Testing

To investigate my hypothesis I examine flaked stone assemblages from BMII sites located within the Eastern and Western territories of the known Basketmaker world.

The assumptions in assemblage selection include: 1) the greatest variability between

Table 3.2 Attributes and Outcomes of Morin’s and Matson’s Testing Statistical Archaeological Degree of Attribute Notes Significance Significance Significance width/thick some overlap of thicker BMII 0.001 Yes High value and Archaic values flake scar some overlap at small end of 0.005 Yes High initiation width BMII scar widths flake scar no overlap of BMII/Archaic width 5 mm 0.001 Yes Very high values; BMII ~50% larger than from margin Archaic no overlap of BMII/Archaic flake scar <0.001 Yes Very high values; wider average distance distances on BMII points BMII points/knives exhibit sinuousity 0.0049 Yes Moderate highly variable sinuousity, Archaic index is very low BMII points occasionally serration 0.0045 Yes High slightly serrated, Archaic points typically serrated

assemblages will occur at the greatest distance between the presumed eastern and western

groups; 2) the boundary (transition zone) of social distinctions occurs roughly at the

juncture of Chinle Wash and the San Juan River; and 3) the greatest variability in

assemblages will occur during the early phase of the Basketmaker cultural manifestation, before any presumed acculturation occurred. In addition, in depth analysis of various artifact categories from the same sites provide a robust dataset to support or refute current theoretical models. In an ideal situation, assemblages from early sites at the edges of the

Basketmaker territories and at the transition zone would comprise the flaked stone

assemblages to account for the assumptions listed above. Moreover, the sites would have

undergone previous studies of different material culture providing a more robust database

for comparison. The archaeological reality, however, dictates the use of accessible, well-

dated BMII sites positioned firmly within the Eastern and Western territories. In addition,

the sites must include flaked stone assemblages of adequate size. Accordingly, I analyzed

flaked stone assemblages from excavated sites on Cedar Mesa, Utah, on the Rainbow

Plateau within northeastern Arizona and southeastern Utah, and within the Animas

Valley of Colorado. The sites include Leicht, Pittman, and Veres on Cedar Mesa (Dohm

1988; Lipe 1969; Matson 1991; Pollock 2001), Sand Dune Cave (Geib 1996; Lindsay et

al. 1968) and Kin Kahuna on the Rainbow Plateau (Geib and Warburton 2007), and

Darkmold in the Animas Valley (Charles 2002) (Figure 1.1). The sites occur within three

physiographic regions within the Eastern and Western territories, well beyond the

transition zone.

The Status of Recent Basketmaker II Research

In the past two decades, the renewed interest in Basketmaker origins resulted in a multifaceted approach to various avenues of evidence including perishable material artifacts, rock art, linguistic evidence, DNA evidence, and flaked stone artifacts. Based on style theory and hypothetical models, the data underwent inter- and intra-regional, as well as synchronic and diachronic studies, resulting in various conclusions.

The perishable materials recovered from the Basketmaker core area of the of the

Marsh Pass/Kayenta area differ from the surrounding Basketmaker and Archaic materials. Webster’s and Hays-Gilpin’s (1994) findings suggest an in-migration into the core area by peoples from the Mogollon and San Pedro areas to the south, with the surrounding Basketmakers developing from proto-Fremont and Great Basin Archaic groups. Haas’ (2003) study found that the Eastern and Western Basketmakers approached cordage manufacture and repair with similar techniques using similar materials. In addition, Basketmaker cordage manufacture and repair differed from Archaic cordage in both style and material. The studies suggest a heterogeneous composition of the

Basketmaker population that conformed to an inclusive cordage manufacturing method

that Haas’ (2003) concludes is an indication of a pan-regional marriage network.

Rock art studies also indicate similarities and differences. Morris and Burgh

(1954) note general similarities between the Eastern and Western Basketmakers, such as the same spectrum of colors in pictographs and similar figures. Regardless of the general similarities, enough difference occurs between the two territories to warrant different stylistic naming conventions, San Juan Anthropomorphic in the West and Durango-Los

Pinos in the East. Most of the reviewed rock art literature agrees that the Eastern

Basketmakers did not create the large, square shouldered, decorated anthropomorphs common within the Western Basketmaker territory. One recent study (Kitchell 2010), however, reports the presence of the anthropomorphs on Cannonball Mesa in Colorado.

Robins’ (1997) research suggests that the aforementioned anthropomorphs correspond with social integration based on natural resources and agricultural land. The divergence in rock art forms likely arises from a form of social integration within the

Western territory not practiced, or at least manifested in rock art, within the Eastern territory. Kitchell (2010) suggests the anthropomorphs represent supramundane, or otherworldly, individuals demonstrating inter-group communication. The inter-group communication ties together physiographic regions. Kitchell (2010), however, does not address the spatial correlation between nimbate forms (headdresses) or the differential occurrence of the figures within the two territories.

The current status of the linguistic and DNA evidence perpetuate the origins debate. Hill’s (2002) research indicates that the Uto-Aztecan speech language present in the Western territory and the Tanoan speech language in the Eastern territory did not

descend from Proto-Uto-Aztecan (PUA), but rather show commonality in loan words

revolving around maize. Merrill et al.’s (2009) work argues that the PUA speech

community quickly divided into Northern Uto-Aztecan (NUA) and Southern Uto-

Aztecan (SUA) due to out-migration from the PUA homeland.

The PUA homeland Merrill et al. (2009) place in the Great Basin based on three

conclusions. First, the Albumin* Mexico genetic mutation of mtDNA is common within

Yuman speaking populations. Second, Uto-Aztecan speakers rarely exhibit the Albumin*

Mexico. Third, the little Y-chromosome data available suggests Y-chromosome variation distributions differ between Mesoamerican and American Southwest Uto-Aztecan speakers. Merrill et al. (2009) hypothesize that the out-migration created a corridor of speech related groups spreading from Mesoamerica to the American Great Basin. After the domestication of maize, agriculture diffused from Mesoamerica along the corridor to the American Southwest.

In contrast, LeBlanc et al. (2007) suggest the DNA signatures recovered from

Boomerang Shelter and Cave 7 within the Western Basketmaker territory support an Uto-

Aztecan migration into the U.S. Southwest from Mesoamerica. To date, the data suggest that if Uto-Aztecan speakers migrated into the U.S. Southwest, small groups, rather than a large population, undertook the in-migration (Malhi et al. 2003; Kohler et al. 2008;

Merrill et al. 2009). Our ability to conclude where the PUA homeland began, how NUA groups entered into the U.S. Southwest, and the relationship between maize, the Uto-

Aztecans, and the U.S. Southwest requires substantial additional DNA data.

Basketmaker flaked stone is no stranger to analysis. Until recently, Basketmaker flaked stone analysis concentrated on morphology, mobility, and technological changes

between the earlier highly mobile hunter-gatherer and the later sedentary agricultural lifeways. The decades of analysis resulted in variable conclusions. First, Eastern

Basketmaker projectile point and knife forms encompass some of the forms present within the classic Western Basketmaker assemblages (Morris and Burgh 1954). Second,

Cedar Mesa morphologies do not completely conform to the Classic or Eastern forms, suggesting a third Basketmaker variant (Matson et al. 1990). Third, some Basketmaker assemblages resemble the later expedient Puebloan assemblages while other Basketmaker sites exhibited flaked stone similar to the earlier bifacial tool production assemblages.

More recent analysis focuses on flaked stone in the framework of style theory (Geib

2002; Morin and Matson 2009). The framework of style theory affords higher end analysis on the basis of technological, social, and individual processes and constraints

(Carr 2002). Building on the work of Geib (2002) and Morin and Matson (2009) I apply

stylistic theory to Basketmaker flaked stone, focusing on a synchronic comparison of

assemblages recovered from three physiographic regions of both the Eastern and Western

territories.

CHAPTER 4

A WORD ON FLINTKNAPPING

“Most knappers learn through experience and flake by feel, and we always have” (Whittaker 1994:11).

Stone tool analysis offers one avenue of stylistic examination worthy of

consideration. A number of researchers have argued for experimentation and replication

to understand the processes involved in creating a piece of craftsmanship, in this case flaked stone tools (Cushing 1895; Crabtree 1976; Whittaker 1994). Analysis of prehistoric assemblages has shown flaked stone tool facial variation in flake scar pattering results from individual variation (Whittaker 1984), the presence of cultural

constructs defining tool forms (Wiessner 1983), or lack thereof (Whittaker and Kaldahl

2001), and manufacturing method (Geib 2002; Morin and Matson 2009). In addition,

projectile point form functions as a social and territorial marker (Wiessner 1983). Both

tool form and facial patterning depend on the skill of the artisan, the method of

manufacture, and the toolkit used in production. I employ flintknapping experimentation

in an effort to provide comparative data for the debitage analyzed for the current research

project. This chapter provides a brief overview of flintknapping, the forces involved in

flaked stone manufacture, and the manufacturing methods pertinent to the study. The

chapter concludes with a description of my experimentation.

Flintknapping, or the process of manufacturing flaked stone tools, entails a variety

of methods and tools (Waldorf 1993; Whittaker 1994, 2004; Andrefsky 2005).

Flintknapping requires the procurement of conchoidally fracturing material and the

successful reduction of the procured objective piece (Whittaker 1994; Odell 2003) using

a percussor, punch, or pressure flaker. A percussor refers to the implement used in direct

percussion to remove a flake by hitting the objective piece. Percussors encompass both

hard- and soft hammers (see further discussion). Experience and skill allow an artisan to

deftly manipulate a piece of stone into a diverse array of forms. A number of methods

exist to create flaked stone tools. All methods, however, depend on three initiation

methods: conchoidal, bending, and compression (Cotterell and Kamminga 1987) (Table

4.1). My study concerns three approaches to thinning a tool, softhammer direct

percussion, indirect percussion, and pressure flaking. In general, softhammer direct

percussion and indirect percussion typically create flakes through bending initiation,

while pressure flakes rely on both bending and conchoidal initiation.

Direct percussion consists of hardhammer and softhammer percussion.

Hardhammer percussion describes hitting the objective piece with a hard, inelastic material comprised of rock or mineral, termed a hammerstone. Softhammer percussion refers to impacting the objective piece with a billet, constructed from a more elastic material, such as antler, bone, or wood. Contact between the objective piece and the hammerstone or billet initiates flake detachment through a percussive force, hence the terminology direct percussion (Figure 4.1a). During hardhammer percussion, the force of impact is transferred into the objective piece at the point of initiation, typically creating a conchoidal flake. With softhammer percussion the softer, elastic material absorbs some of the energy created through the percussive force, initiating the flake away from the contact point of the implement and the objective piece, commonly resulting in bending initiations. Indirect percussion also includes a softer, elastic material but requires both a hammerstone and an intermediary, termed a punch.

Table 4.1 Initiation Methods (definitions adapted from Cotterell and Kamminga 1987) Initiation Method Illustration

Bending Flakes: Bending flakes exhibit “lipping,” a ridge on the ventral side of the platform. The ridge is the remnant of the edge of the objective piece, created by the initiation of the flake occurring away from the point of contact. The force causing the initiation travels perpendicular to the objective piece and then curves to follow the shape of the objective piece. The curving occurs at what Cotterell and Kamminga (1987) call the transition between initiation and propagation. Essentially, the ridge forms because of the differential area between the point of contact and the initiation of the flake.

Conchoidal Flakes: Conchoidal flakes form through hertzian initiation. Hertzian initiation means an objective piece, a core, was hit with a hard percussor causing the partial formation of a hertzian cone. The hertzian cone initiates a crack which continues through the objective piece because of the force of the blow. Conchoidal flakes exhibit bulbs of percussion, the partial hertzian cone, which form below the point of contact between the percussor and the objective piece.

Compression Flakes: Compression flakes are, “initiated by microscopic wedging and the fracture path is controlled by compression” (Cotterell and Kamminga 1987). Wedging occurs when the flintknapper applies substantial force to the objective piece from directly above, splitting the hertzian cone during formation. Wedging splits the objective piece into multiple compression flakes rather than reduction through individual flake removal. The use of compression in concert with an anvil is commonly termed bipolar reduction, with flakes initiated from both ends of the core because of two points of contact with hard, unyielding surfaces. The resulting flakes typically display distinctive impact ripples radiating from both ends of the objective piece (Whittaker 1994). If the objective piece rested on a yielding surface rather than an anvil, initiation, crushing, and rippling occur and radiate only from the point of contact. The latter method is termed the split cone technique (Crabtree 1982; Whittaker 1994).

Prehistoric flintknappers created punches from antler, horn, or bone. The

elasticity of the materials allows the punch to absorb a portion of the force of percussion

that travels through the objective piece. In addition, the utilization of a soft, elastic

material rather than a hard, inelastic material allows the energy created through the force

of the blow to disseminate into the objective piece rather than simply crushing the

platform. In indirect percussion, the artisan places the punch at a location along the

platform edge and hits the punch with a percussor to remove the desired flake (Figure

4.1b). Both direct and indirect methods afford the artisan the ability to determine the

resulting flake’s form and dimension through the manipulation of the point of initiation,

angle of impact, and force of the blow (Whittaker 2004).

Figure 4.1b. François Bordes Figure 4.1a. William Bryce demonstrating demonstrating indirect percussion direct percussion. (adapted from photo negative with permission from photographer, John Whittaker).

Indirect percussion provides much more control over where the force of impact

occurs (Whittaker 2004) and may create a distinctive type of flake. The concept of using

an intermediary, the punch, between the objective piece and the hammerstone is not

intuitive, requires additional effort to fashion the punches, and entails a considerable

amount of coordination. For example, with direct percussion the artisan holds the

objective piece steady in one hand while the other hand controls the percussor, either a

hammerstone or billet. In an arcing swing, the percussor impacts the objective piece, removing a flake. In contrast, with indirect percussion, the objective piece must be steadied and the punch held at a specific angle along the platform at the point of initiation. The correct amount of force must then be applied to the punch via a percussor to successfully remove the desired flake.

Pressure flaking entails a much different process, where “the force is applied by pressing instead of striking” (Whittaker

2004:23). The flintknapper removes a flake by applying pressure with a sturdy implement, termed a pressure flaker, to the edge of the objective piece, commonly a flake or biface

(Figure 4.2). Antler tines (Guernsey and Kidder

1921), bone (Morris and Burgh 1954), horn

(Geib 2002), and copper (Whittaker and

Romano 1996) comprise recovered prehistoric Figure 4.2. John Whittaker pressure flakers. The process creates small demonstrating pressure flaking.

flakes through both bending and conchoidal forces (Cotterell and Kamminga 1987). Proper

angles of force, initiation, and leverage allow an artisan to manipulate the length and width of the

flake. For an in-depth discussion and explanation of flintknapping see Whittaker (1994).

A Middle Range: Experimentation in Basketmaker Flaked Stone

To arrive at the dynamic cultural system from the static archaeological record requires a

method rather than supposition. “Middle Range Theory” functions to bridge the material culture remains recovered from archaeological deposits to the cultural processes that created the artifacts through hypothesis testing employing analogy (Binford 1967, 1978).

A relational analogy may be created through the production of a flaked stone assemblage using the known tools of prehistoric flaked stone artisans. A relational analogy refers to the cultural or natural connections between two contexts (Johnson 2000). Accordingly, by creating an experimental debitage assemblage with the tools used prehistorically, the experimental assemblage may be analyzed as a method to create a strong inference (Platt

1964) illustrating the connections with prehistoric assemblages. The experimental assemblage provides a baseline of data for comparison.

A variety of material types constitute the prehistoric assemblages analyzed for my pilot study. Microcrystalline quartz (Luedtke 1992) in the form of chert and chalcedony compose the majority of the flakes and bifacial tools analyzed. Additional materials include metamorphosed siltstone, quartz, obsidian, and petrified wood. Basketmaker groups exploited locally available materials, which typically consisted of tightly packed, fine grained microcrystallines; however, a minority of the materials exhibit loose granularity. Overall, the Basketmaker flintknappers at all six sites employed locally available homogenous materials of good to high quality.

I did not use any of the materials present within the assemblages for the experiment.

I conducted the experiment using Knife River Flint from North Dakota, Mount Flintmore chert from Texas, and obsidian from Lookout Mountain in California. Knife River Flint is a very fine grained, homogenous material, although white inclusions do occur.

Homogeneous, highly tractable microcrystalline quartz constitutes Mount Flintmore chert. Both materials exhibit ideal flaking characteristics, fracturing conchoidally without requiring the force necessary to flake some of the harder microcrystalline quartz materials, while requiring more than the necessary force to work obsidian. Lookout

Mountain obsidian is a homogeneous glass occasionally containing phenocrist inclusions.

The sparse amount of phenocrists does not hinder the tractability of the material. All of these materials exhibit characteristics similar enough to the prehistoric materials to sufficiently serve the purpose of experimentation.

The experiment consisted of producing both percussion and pressure flakes using similar tools and replicas of various prehistoric flintknapping toolkits. The tools include a billet, a horn punch, and an antler tine pressure flaker (Figure 4.3). I used a moderate sized whitetail deer antler billet to accomplish direct softhammer percussion. Indirect percussion experimentation entailed the use of a horn punch manufactured to the dimensions of one punch recovered from Sand Dune Cave (Lindsay et al. 1968; Geib

2002, 2004). I created three punches with a dremel and rasp using horn procured from a

Bighorn sheep, Ovis canadensis nelsoni (Wehausen, personal communication), a sub- species of Ovis canadensis, which occupies northern Arizona. The need for a punch with specific dimensions rather than the method of prehistoric punch production in

combination with a small amount of horn dictated my method of manufacture. I

employed punch 1 in experimentation (Figure 4.3, far left).

Geib (2002) based his hypothesis

largely on a comparison of finishing

techniques, with Western BMII points

finished through indirect percussion,

and retouch seemingly used for edge

rejuvenation. In contrast, Eastern

BMII points exhibit pressure flaking

as a finishing technique. Accordingly,

I manufactured an experimental

debitage assemblage through indirect Figure 4.3. Experimental Toolkit: Antler billet (top); horn punches (bottom, left); antler tine percussion using a horn punch, with a pressure flaker (bottom, right)

second assemblage produced through direct percussion using an antler billet for additional comparison. Pressure flake production included the use of a whitetail deer antler tine. I manufactured all of the flakes from a sitting position on a chair. Direct percussion entailed holding the flake blank, and later biface, in my right hand with the platform edge slightly elevated, less than 20 degrees, above the horizontal plane of the modern ground surface (figures 4.4a and 4.4b). During indirect percussion I steadied the objective piece with my thighs at approximately 60-75 degrees relative to the horizontal plane using a piece of leather for support and protection. The punch I placed at approximately 60-75 degrees to the platform edge, as I found this angle to be the most productive (figures 4.5a and 4.5b). Pressure flake manufacture entailed holding the

Figure 4.4b. Close-up of direct percussion experimentation.

Figure 4.4a. Direct percussion experimentation.

Figure 4.5a. Indirect percussion 4.5b. Close-up of indirect percussion experimentation. experimentation.

objective piece in the palm of my hand on a leather pad with the back of my hand resting against the inside of one knee. I supported the opposite hand and base of the pressure

flaker against the inside of the opposite thigh, pressing against the edge of the objective

piece with the antler tine using both my wrist and thigh to remove each flake (figure 4.6a

and 4.6b). Through the aforementioned methods, I manufactured an experimental biface thinning flake assemblage of 95 flakes, consisting of 32 billet flakes, 32 punch flakes, and 31 pressure flakes.

Figure 4.6b. Close-up of pressure flake experimentation

Figure 4.6a. Pressure flake experimentation

Experimentation, a Flintknapper’s Delight

Flintknapping, the manufacture of flaked stone assemblages, requires the proper

type of material and an understanding of fracture mechanics. Flaked stone manufacture

requires stone that fractures conchoidally, with quality determined by the homogeneity of

the material. Flaked stone artisans sought out homogeneous, conchoidally fracturing

materials to create flaked stone tools. Through conchoidal, bending, and compression

initiations, prehistoric flintknappers detached flakes from procured toolstone. The current

53 project focuses on bending and conchoidal initiations, formed through the thinning practices of direct softhammer percussion, indirect percussion, and pressure flaking. I created an experimental assemblage employing the three aforementioned thinning methods. The experimental assemblage functions to compare dimensional differences between the thinning methods as well as a baseline of data for comparison with the

Basketmaker assemblages reported herein.

CHAPTER 5

BASKETMAKER STYLE

“Since… this indirect percussion technique fits the ‘enculturation’ class of attributes … it should track biological populations. If Eastern BM II peoples were ethnically distinct from Western BM II peoples, then it would be unlikely that they also employed the apparently unusual indirect punch technique in biface manufacture.” (Morin and Matson 2009:29)

The concept of style and how style contributes to the archaeological record has spurred considerable debated in archaeological theory for the past forty years.

Contemporary debates on stylistic theory can be traced to Wobst (1977) and Sackett

(1977). Wobst and Sackett examined the archaeological implications of stylistic attributes within artifacts employing two different theories concerning the role of style in material culture. Wobst believes people use style to convey social information. Social information exchange occurs through formal variability and depends on an item’s visibility and social context. Wobst’s concepts form the basis of Information Exchange theory. Wiessner (1983, 1985) further championed the theory applying the concepts to ethnoarchaeological research among the San. In contrast, Sackett considered style as the latent, or incidental, attributes of an artifact resulting from the chosen method of manufacture. Sackett’s definition suggests style is enculturated, resulting from isochrestic variation. Sackett developed the Social Interaction theory based on his definition of style and the associated concept of isochrestic variation.

Bettinger and Eerkens (1999) combine aspects of the Information Exchange and

Social Interaction theories within the Cultural Transmission theory. Cultural

Transmission considers how an individual acquires a behavior, positing that learning a behavior may occur either through guided variation or indirect bias. Guided variation

refers to an individual copying the methods of a knowledgeable tutor followed by

personal modifications. Indirect bias, in contrast, pertains to learning behavior through a

single source. Although the Cultural Transmission theory differs in terminology, guided

variation is akin to the concept of assertive style within the Information Exchange

paradigm while indirect bias corresponds with the concept of isochrestic variation within

the Social Interaction theory.

Carr (1995) later developed the Unified Middle-Range Theory of Artifact Design

(UMRTAD), incorporating all previous stylistic theories and reconciling many of the previous debates through considering each theory with the same definition of style rather than the lenses of the previously disjointed definitions. Carr (1995) places style within a hierarchy of formal attributes based on behavioral, cultural, and interactive considerations. Carr views the design attributes hierarchy through a deliberation of possible causal processes and constraints, which provides etic meanings. Etic refers to the meaning of the attributes to the archaeologist rather than the significance of the stylistic design for the individual practitioners. This chapter provides a brief history and description of the theories mentioned above, ending with a discussion of UMRTAD.

Carr’s (1995) theory provides the theoretical framework for my study.

Information Exchange Theory, Establishment and Evolution

Wobst (1977) introduced the theory of Information Exchange out of discontent

with earlier stylistic analyses dichotomizing function and style. Wobst (1977) focused on

the human abilities of learned behavior and symboling. He argued that the use of learned

behavior and symboling through artifacts greatly increases human interaction with the

environment. The concept led Wobst to define style as “that part of the formal variability

56 in material culture that can be related to the participation of artifacts in processes of information exchange” (1977: 321). In addition, Wobst defined information exchange as

“all those communication events in which a message is emitted or in which a message is received” (1977:322). Employing this definition in the context of information exchange,

Wobst considered artifact visibility and artifact presence in social contexts to provide the greatest opportunity to transmit information. Therefore, the style of highly visible items will convey social information.

Wiessner (1983, 1985) continued developing the Information Exchange theory, advancing the proposition that iconological variations comprise style and introducing the concepts of emblematic and assertive styles. Building on Wobst, Wiessner defined emblematic style as “ formal variation in material culture that has a distinct referent and transmits a clear message to a defined target population (Wobst 1977) about conscious affiliation or identity, such as an emblem or a flag” (Wiessner 1983:257, emphasis in original). Wiessner defined assertive style as “formal variation in material culture which is personally based and which carries information supporting individual identity, by separating persons from similar others as well as by giving personal translations of membership in various groups” (1983:258). Moreover, items commonly seen by a large number of people, high visibility items, provide information about the group (emblematic style) and the individual (assertive style). In Wiessner’s view, style is conscious, a method to convey specific meaning where language falls short.

Plog (1990) furthered the Information Exchange theory with the introduction of symbolic variation. In Plog’s view, symbolic variation “has a ‘behavioral basis in the fundamental human cognitive process of personal and social identification through

stylistic and social comparison” (1990:62). Plog defined iconological variation as “a

more specific case of symbolic variation in which ‘stylistic statements conform to certain

spoken ones, containing clear, purposeful, conscious messages aimed at a specific target

population” (1990:62).

Social Interaction Theory, an Alternative

During Wobst’s development of Information Exchange theory, Sackett (1977)

developed the Social Interaction theory. In Sackett’s view, function and style explain all

formal variability of an item. Function refers to the use of an item, while style describes

the latent, or incidental, attributes of the chosen method of craft manufacture. As an

example, when looking at a projectile point, the flaking pattern created through the

process of flintknapping defines the style of the point. Moreover, style is not necessarily

conscious, but enculturated, in that, the method of production depends on how one was

taught. Sackett (1985) stated that perceived isochrestic variation defines style, isochrestic

variation being a range of equivalent, viable alternatives existing in craft manufacture. In

the example above, the choice of flintknapping method, how an artisan creates a tool

from a piece of stone, exemplifies isochrestic variation. In addition, the choice from the

range of alternatives, or the method, reflects an enculturated craft tradition. In other

words, you do what you know, and you know what you’ve been taught.

Both Information Exchange and Social Interaction theories acknowledge the concept of isochrestic variation. During an exchange between Sackett (1985) and

Wiessner (1985) over the stylistic interpretations of San arrow points, Wiessner defined isochrestic variation as formal variability produced through “rote learning and imitation and is employed automatically” (Wiessner 1985:161). Moreover, Plog (1990), working

in the Information Exchange framework of Wiessner and Wobst, also recognized isochrestic variation and employed Wiessner’s (1985) definition. While Wiessner conceded to the idea of isochrestic variation, she conceptualized isochrestic variation as “ the result of choosing specific lines of procedure and sticking to them” (1985:162).

Wiessner’s view misconstrued Sackett’s isochrestic variation, which Sackett defined as an enculturative process. This does not negate the possibility of change through contact, but instead explained why formal variations existed without the need to rely on external cultural influences or other factors.

I employ isochrestic variation to explain flintknapping methods. As the last chapter points out, a considerable number of equivalent flintknapping methods exist. In general, no one method is superior to another. In addition, flintknapping requires a degree of knowledge regarding the type of material being worked and the sequence necessary to create the desired tool. Moreover, some methods of flintknapping are fairly complex, non-intuitive, and require extraordinary degrees of hand-eye coordination.

An Evolutionary Compromise of Stylistic Theory

Bettinger and Eerkens (1999) consider the evolutionary theory of Cultural

Transmission, a theoretical model built on the concepts of guided variation and indirect bias. Bettinger and Eerkens define guided variation as the acquisition of “new behaviors by directly copying other social models and subsequently modifying these behaviors to suit their own needs by individual trial-and-error experiments” (Bettinger and Eerkens

1999: 236). In contrast, indirect bias concerns the acquisition of “complex behaviors by choosing a single social model on the basis of a trait that is deemed to index general proficiency in the activity to which the desired behavior is related” (Bettinger and

Eerkens 1999: 236). In other words, an individual acquires a suite of behaviors from a

single mentor. I suggest that guided variation and indirect bias bridge the Information

Exchange and Social Interaction schools of stylistic theory.

The definition of guided variation fits well with Wiessner’s concept of assertive

style while indirect bias encompasses the basis of isochrestic variation. In guided

variation, behaviors are copied from a model and then personalized based on the

idiosyncrasies of the individual copying the model. This corresponds with the personally

based variation of material culture forming the foundation of assertive style. The concept

of indirect bias consists of learned behavior based on a single social model, while isochrestic variation basically entails an individual approaching an activity through what is known, and that individual knows what he/she was taught. While isochrestic variation likely involves multiple teachers, the concept developed from the hypothesis of acculturative learning, which, in its basic form, involves a parent teaching a child.

Therefore, in Cultural Transmission, we see a dichotomized transference of learning that incorporates both the Information Exchange and Social Interaction schools of stylistic theory. However, Cultural Transmission, being an evolutionary theory, views methods of learning through a diachronic lens, whereas stylistic theory may be used synchronically.

The present study approaches Basketmaker II flaked stone synchronically, although further studies should consider Basketmaker flaked stone diachronically, focusing on the extensive temporal range of the Basketmakers within the Early Agricultural period.

Carr and the Complexities of Style

Carr (1995a) reviews earlier theories, concluding that the definition of “style” commonly varies with the theorist, which greatly decreases the efficacy and contribution

of the debates. To reconcile the definitions and theories of style, as well as to bridge

theory with practice, Carr developed the Unified Middle-Range Theory of Artifact

Design (UMRTAD) (1995a, 1995b). The UMRTAD consists of an exhaustive

hierarchical cohesion of individual, social, and technological considerations into an

overarching and complex theoretical design. The method within the UMRTAD, “aims at

‘identifying’ the formal attributes of an artifact by assigning to each a single or several

potential etic meanings” (1995b:171). This section provides a brief overview of Carr’s

review and definition of style, summarizing the UMRTAD, and concluding with a focus

on the theoretical considerations underpinning the study.

Carr recognizes that the earlier schools of stylistic theory, namely Social

Interaction and Information Exchange, were initially viewed as a dichotomy, simplifying form and process rather than realizing that each theory is confined by boundary conditions. The boundary conditions include isochrestic variation of social interaction theory, as well as conscious decision making and adaptive response mechanisms in information exchange. The boundaries in each stylistic school, however, are complementary rather than contradictory. In reconciling the two theories, Carr notes, “the

appropriate question is not which theory of style is ‘right’ but, rather, which kinds of

formal attributes can reflect which kinds of processes – enculturation, communication, or

other processes” (1995a:153, italics in original). The simplified form and processes,

boundary conditions, lack of operational definitions, and tendency to combine “causal

processes with resultant forms” (Carr 1995a:156) of earlier theories lead Carr to consider

artifact form in light of additional boundaries, processes, and constraints, as well as a

definition of style that can be “translated into terms of archaeological observables”

(1995a:156).

The UMRTAD provides a stratified, hierarchical approach to stylistic theory in an effort to bridge theory with practice and exhaust all possible effectual attributes, or processes and constraints that relate to style. Carr’s all-inclusive approach requires a multifaceted definition of style. In general, “material style is a material pattern” created by causal factors and shared by an entire population. Style, however, may be manifested by a single artifact showing a subset of the total design variation. In other words, a single artifact cannot define style, but may define a portion of the variation within style. Since an artifact does not constitute a style, a single artifact may encompass expressions of multiple styles, e.g., personal and regional causes manifested in varying degrees of visibility.

The presence of multiple styles is not restricted to a single scale, but may pertain to any scalar unit, such as the level of society, community, or individual, and may derive from any of the possible causal processes within a scale that result in material style.

While considering artifact design, a technologically restricted attribute confined to a single feasible state, or form, is not stylistic, e.g., raw material used to create the tool. The design of an artifact consists of a hierarchical arrangement of attributes discussed later in the chapter. Finally, stylistic attributes and utilitarian function are not always distinct from one another. Based on these criteria, Carr states, “a material style is that subset of

the total design variation of a population of artifacts which is comprised of isochrestic

variates of material attributes that are hierarchically organized and that are restricted in

their forms, relationships among forms, part-whole relationships, Gestalt-perceptual

qualities [i.e. the whole is greater than the sum of the parts], and, to some extent, their

distribution in time-space and among contexts” (1995a:167, italics in original).

Hierarchies within UMRTAD

Carr bases the UMRTAD on a hierarchy of artifact attributes. He defines

attributes as “either the content or structure of an artifact” (1995b:172). The hierarchy

includes four objective criteria: attribute visibility, manufacturing decisions, production

order, and distribution. Attribute visibility describes the visibility of artifact content or

structure relative to one another. In other words, the parts that define the sum reflect attribute visibility. Manufacturing decision encompasses a hierarchy of decision order for planning the artifact’s design, i.e., planning the design and attributes of an artifact, which determines the relative planning order of attributes. Production order consists of artifact manufacture and the manifestation of the attributes. Production order determines the relative order of the attributes within the production sequence. For example, the necessity to thin a flake blank to create a bifacial tool before retouch results in a tool with percussion flaking followed by pressure flaking. These three characteristics are not mutually exclusive, but “covary positively or negatively, with each other” (1995b:173).

The forth attribute is distribution. Distribution refers to the geographic expanse of an attribute and the alternative states of that attribute. Distribution parallels the three artifact attributes of visibility, manufacturing decision, and production order when, 1) a uniformity of raw materials exist over the research universe and, 2) the research universe

lacks artifact exchange.

Carr divides visibility into four types, absolute physical (AP), absolute contextual

(AC), relative physical (RP), and relative perceived physical (RPP) visibilities. Dividing

63 visibility into the four types provides the resolution necessary to determine the

“systematic relationships between form and process” (Carr 1995b:185). AP visibility refers to the viewing and social situations where an attribute can or cannot be seen, copied, convey messages, etc. AC visibility refers to the visual effectiveness of the attribute’s combined form and context, with the context determining the viewing distance. RP visibility pertains to the degree of an attribute’s visibility that is not compromised by the viewing distance. RPP visibility includes a comparison of the attributes dependent on the physical variables through the lens of cognitive perception.

The four types of visibility correlate positively with the manufacturing decision, in that the visibility consciously affects the abstract idea defining the manufacturing decision.

A manufacturing decision equates to planning the steps necessary to create an artifact from an abstract idea. Moreover, the process involves a decision order, which reflects the logical relationships of decision making dependence. Decision making dependence results from one decision framing successive decisions. For example, a failed flake removal attempt resulting in a plateau on the surface of a biface leads to a following attempt to remove the plateau. Framing constraints may be technological, logical-formal, syntactic, or semantic. Carr provides an example of technological and logical-formal constraints.

For example, the quality of chert used to make a projectile technologically limits or permits the fineness with which its edges can be pressure-flaked. Early decisions about the kind of chert to be used technologically constrain later ones about pressure flaking. Similarly, whether a projectile has barbs logically and formally constrains whether the shape of barbs is relevant to consider. Early decisions about the general form of the projectile logically determine the relevance of later ones about the details of its form. (Carr 1995b:216)

Thus, technological and logical-formal constraints are basic, fundamental to the artifact,

as opposed to syntactic and semantic constraints. Syntactic and semantic constraints

pertain to the effect of early decisions on how messages, meanings, forms, and symbols

are encoded by and on later decisions. Cultural, social, and individual patterning,

perceptions, iconography, etc. determine syntactic and semantic constraints.

If the manufacturing decision is the planning phase of artifact design, production

order consists of the sequence of steps undertaken to bring the design to fruition.

Production order may correlate positively or negatively with visibility and decision

orders. Positive and negative correlations equate to additive or subtractive technologies.

The type of correlation depends on the material employed in the artifact design. The

material dictates whether or not the general form is manufactured first, followed by the

details, in which case the production order positively correlates with the visibility and

manufacturing hierarchies, or if the details are defined first, followed by the creation of the overall form, where production negatively correlates with visibility and manufacturing. An example of a positive correlation concerns the flintknapping process.

When creating a projectile point, an artisan creates a general form followed by the details

of formalizing the edges and manufacturing the hafting element. In contrast, basket

making requires first the creation of the details which are built up into an overall form.

In addition to the hierarchy of artifact attributes, a hierarchy of processes and constraints also contribute to artifact design. The hierarchy of processes and constraints include a top level of technological processes and constraints underlain by social processes and constraints, with a bottom level of individual processes and constraints.

The lower the level within the hierarchy the more the process, or sub-process, occurs

within the overall processes and constraints and the more it becomes the realm of style.

As an example, individual variation, being a hierarchical structure within the individual process, exists within the higher processes of the hierarchy, while a technological process cannot exist within an individual process or constraint. Each process contains embedded sub-processes. Sub-processes may be active to passive and conscious to unconscious.

Carr indicates that, “active and passive processes are distinguished by the amount of

‘control’ that the artisan has over them” (1995:184). Control refers to the ability of the artisan, the constraints of the raw materials, as well as underlying cultural factors such as proper methods and materials. In addition, “conscious and unconscious processes are distinguished by the level of ‘awareness’ that the artisan has of them” (1995:184).

Whereas, the level to which an artisan actively and intentionally instills individual, social, and/or metaphorical messages into an artifact defines awareness.

To summarize, the Unified Middle Range Theory of Artifact Design (UMRTAD) consists of a comprehensive hierarchical construction of technological, social, and individual processes and constraints defining the framework of artifact design. Isochrestic variates and material attributes directly affect the framework. The framework encompasses a hierarchy of attributes, e.g., attribute visibility, decision order, and production order. The attribute hierarchy determines the artifact’s visibility. In particular, the contexts, social situations, viewing distance, attributes, and cognitive processes determining the visibility of an artifact and the artifacts’ attributes leads to an overall

perception of artifact style.

CHAPTER 6

BASKETMAKER II SITES AND FLAKED STONE ANALYTICAL METHODS

“When researchers grapple with incommensurable theories… they must exploit ‘multiple strands and diverse types of evidence, data, hunches, and arguments to support a scientific hypotheses or theory’ (Wylie 2002:162).

Minimal flaked stone assemblages or a lack of availability rendered most of the previously identified and analyzed assemblages, including Atlatl Rock Cave, Talus

Village, and the Durango Rock Shelters inadequate for the current study. In addition, the minimal size of the Sand Dune Cave (SDC) flaked stone assemblage decreased the statistical viability of the assemblage, requiring additional flaked stone assemblages from alternate Western Basketmaker II sites. Accordingly, I sought out available sites with adequate flaked stone assemblages, analyzing five additional sites from three physiographic regions within the Basketmaker world (Figure 6.1). The current study includes the flaked stone assemblage recovered from Kin Kahuna, a large, open air habitation site located on the Rainbow Plateau southeast of SDC. Darkmold, a large, open air habitation site located within the Animas River Drainage near Durango, between the

Falls Creek Rockshelters and Talus Village constitutes the Eastern Basketmaker assemblage. In addition, I analyzed assemblages from three open air habitation sites on

Cedar Mesa, Utah to increase the sample size and add further spatial data. All of the open air habitation sites contained flaked stone assemblages with adequate amounts of biface thinning flakes as well as projectile points. The sixth site, SDC, is a rockshelter reported as a habitation and storage site (Lindsay et al. 1968). Eight of the horn punches analyzed by Geib (2002) and measured for punch replication originated from SDC. Accordingly,

Figure 6.1. Regional map depicting sites analyzed, sites mentioned in text, and the approximate transition zone.

68 the artifacts recovered from SDC and the subsequent analyses provide a convincing dataset of flaked stone produced through indirect percussion (Geib 2002).

I analyzed the six flaked stone assemblages focusing on tool production debitage and flaked stone tools, particularly projectile points. Statistical analyses are threefold.

First, I provide an intra-assemblage comparison of the experimentally manufactured biface thinning debitage. Comparisons between the Basketmaker and experimental biface thinning flake assemblages follow the intra-experimental assemblage comparison.

Second, I compare the debitage data obtained from the Basketmaker sites. Third, I compare quantitative and qualitative data obtained from the Basketmaker bifacial tools.

Statistical analysis includes comparisons between the data on a territorial scale, Eastern and Western, and a regional scale, Durango, Rainbow Plateau, and Cedar Mesa. The multiple scalar comparisons nullifies the presumed sampling bias presented by the use of five Western Basketmaker sites and one Eastern Basketmaker site because of the comparable sizes of the datasets. In addition, my dataset includes comparable frequencies obtained from three sites on Cedar Mesa, two sites on the Rainbow Plateau, and one site near Durango to investigate the presumed differentiation between the Cedar Mesa,

Classic (Kayenta), and Durango Basketmaker groups noted by Matson (1991). This chapter contains two sections. Section one describes the analytical and statistical methods used in the study. Section two provides descriptions of the six sites analyzed for the project.

Basketmaker Sites and Flaked Stone

The current study considers tool production debitage and bifacial tools from six

Basketmaker sites within the Four Corners region. Artifact analysis focused on flaked

stone from secure Basketmaker contexts with a preference on absolute or

chronometrically dated deposits. The sites include one Durango Eastern Basketmaker

site, two Rainbow Plateau Western Basketmaker sites, and three Cedar Mesa

Basketmaker sites. All six sites are habitations, varying from single use to multicomponent occupations. Sand Dune Cave (SDC), interpreted as a storage and habitation site, is the only rockshelter within the analysis (Lindsay et al. 1968). Archaic,

Basketmaker II, and later Formative groups occupied SDC to varying degrees, with the

densest amount of material culture recovered from the Basketmaker II strata.

Basketmaker groups occupied the multicomponent sites of Darkmold and Kin Kahuna for

centuries, with Pueblo groups later reoccupying both sites. All three of the Cedar Mesa

sites, Leicht, Pittman, and Veres, consist of small habitations likely occupied for no more

than 20 years (Dohm 1988). Superimposed features at the Veres Site, however, indicate

at least a minimal reoccupation of the site.

The analysis encompassed 341 biface thinning flakes and 122 bifacial tools from

the six sites (Table 6.1), in addition to my experimental assemblage (Chapter 4). The

Darkmold Site assemblage includes 113 biface thinning flakes and 22 bifacial tools. The

analyzed flaked stone from Sand Dune Cave and Kin Kahuna, located on the Rainbow

Plateau, resulted in a combined 122 biface thinning flakes and 62 bifacial tools. Debitage

from the Leicht and Pittman sites, totaling 106 biface thinning flakes, constitute the

debitage analyzed from the Cedar Mesa sites. I added bifacial tools from the Veres Site to

increase the Cedar Mesa sample size to 38.

None of the analyzed assemblages result from standard random sampling. I

analyzed biface thinning flakes exhibiting complete platforms within the chosen contexts

Table 6.1 Assemblage Composition by Site and Region Debitage Bifacial Tools Projectile Points Biface Corner/ Corner- Side- Bifacial Overall Site thinning Biface Knife Preform Side- Indeterminate notched notched Tool Total Total Flakes notched Darkmold 113 n/a n/a n/a 18 n/a 4 n/a 22 135

Durango 113 n/a n/a n/a 18 n/a 4 n/a 22 135 Area Totals Sand Dune 28 12 1 13 8 n/a 1 n/a 35 63 Cave

Kin Kahuna 94 9 n/a 2 7 1 5 3 27 121 Rainbow Plateau 122 21 n/a 15 15 1 6 3 62 184 Totals Leicht 58 4 n/a 1 5 n/a 2 2 14 72

Pittman 48 3 1 1 5 2 1 2 15 63

Veres 0 n/a 1 1 6 n/a n/a 1 9 9

Cedar Mesa 106 7 2 3 16 2 3 5 38 144 Totals

Total 341 28 3 18 49 3 13 8 122 463

Table 6.2 Projectile Point Morphology by Site and Region Site Corner-notched Side-notched Corner/ Side-notched Base

Initiation Angle Width Depth Width Depth Width Depth Basal Edge* (degrees) excurvate, narrow to shallow to wide, Darkmold 75-90 shallow n/a n/a straight, wide, rounded deep rounded incurvate excurvate, Durango Area narrow to shallow to wide, 75-90 shallow n/a n/a straight, Totals wide, rounded deep rounded incurvate Sand Dune shallow to wide, excurvate, wide, rounded 45 shallow to deep n/a n/a Cave deep rounded straight shallow to wide, wide, excurvate, Kin Kahuna wide, rounded 45 shallow shallow deep rounded rounded straight Rainbow shallow to wide, shallow; wide, excurvate, wide, rounded 45 shallow Plateau Totals deep rounded shallow to deep rounded straight excurvate, shallow to wide, Leicht wide, rounded 45-75 shallow n/a n/a straight, deep rounded incurvate excurvate, narrow to shallow to wide, wide, Pittman 45-60 shallow shallow straight, wide, rounded deep rounded rounded incurvate shallow to Veres wide, rounded 45 n/a n/a n/a n/a straight deep excurvate, Cedar Mesa narrow to shallow to wide, wide, 45-75 shallow shallow straight, Totals wide, rounded deep rounded rounded incurvate * in order of descending frequency

72 until exhausting the available debitage assemblage and/or the timeframe of access to the assemblages. This type of analysis did not provide a representative sample from all of the possible contexts at the larger sites of Kin Kahuna and Darkmold. The extensive occupations of Kin Kahuna and Darkmold created a substantial number of features and debitage assemblages numbering in the tens of thousands. Accordingly, I followed the aforementioned method of targeting secure Basketmaker features, preferably dated through absolute or chronometric methods. In contrast to the debitage samples, all

Basketmaker II projectile points underwent analysis, with flake scar observations recorded and metric data collected. The analyzed Basketmaker II points vary from side- to corner-notched types, with varying notch widths, depths, and initiation angles (Table

6.2). In addition to projectile points, the analysis included performs, bifaces, and knives recovered from secure Basketmaker II contexts.

Few excavations and analyses report the presence and types of flintknapping toolkits. The lack of known prehistoric flintknapping toolkits may reflect an ignorance of what a flaked stone manufacturing toolkit may look like. In addition, the perishable nature of parts of the toolkits, particularly billets, pressure flakers, and indirect punches also influence toolkit recovery during excavation. Geib (2002) established the presence of horn punches through SEM analysis and experimentation using the material culture recovered from SDC, Atlatl Rock Cave, Obelisk Cave (Figure 1.1), and from unknown sites in southeast Utah. In addition, Morris and Burgh (1954) note the recovery of bone and antler pressure flakers from excavations in the Durango area as well as three antler flakers from Broken Roof Cave (Morris 1980). I analyzed the punches from SDC, using the measurements to replicate three punches for my experiment (see chapter 4). In

addition, excavations at Darkmold recovered one possible tool, a piece of antler modified

into a flattened, spatulate form and analyzed herein.

Basketmaker flaked stone artisans employed a variety of toolstone, including

sedimentary, metamorphic, and extrusive igneous materials. Local availability of material

greatly influenced toolstone selection. Regardless, the flaked stone artisans located and

exploited highly tractable materials, with homogeneous smooth to slightly grainy

textured varieties of microcrystalline quartz constituting the majority of the assemblages.

Metamorphic materials including metamorphosed siltstone and quartzite follow in

frequency, with obsidian comprising a small amount of analyzed assemblages. The

influence of local material availability resulted in the exploitation of tractable materials

created through and dependent on the formation processes constituting the local geology

of the site areas. Accordingly, inter-regional assemblage composition includes tractable

materials of differing formation processes, but exhibiting homogeneity and high

tractability.

Analysis

This analysis does not involve entire lithic assemblages, but does include both debitage and bifacial tool examination. I originally intended to analyze both biface thinning and pressure flakes. In addition, the original bifacial tool analysis included

quantitative data obtained from flake scars as well as overall dimensions. Some

concessions, however, had to be made due to the composition of the assemblages and

resolution of the analysis, dictated mainly by time constraints and projectile point surface

flake scar patterning affected by use and rejuvenation.

Unfortunately, even with the exceptional recovery methods employed at both

Darkmold and Kin Kahuna, the necessary attributes in combination with the restricted timeframe of my analysis limited the number of recorded pressure flakes, as identified through my application load-technological typology (see Table 3.1 for typology definitions). The resolution of my typology may not have been high enough to distinguish between smaller percussion biface reduction and larger pressure flakes. Accordingly, the current analysis considers biface thinning flakes, which consist of percussion biface reduction flakes and perhaps some pressure flakes.

Identification of biface thinning flakes involved platform, dorsal surface, and ventral surface attributes, with the platform morphology functioning as the primary determinant. In particular, thin flakes with prepared and/or faceted platforms initiated through bending forces and exhibiting complex dorsal surfaces showing multiple flake scars define the ideal type (Figure 6.1). Flakes displaying a combination of these attributes, rather than the complete gamut, distinguish biface thinning flakes, with the determination of flake categorization weighted primarily by the platform and initiation method.

Geib states, “Because a strong linear relationship exists between platform width and maximum flake width, wide platforms translate into wide flake scars, especially because most flake scars on Basketmaker points expand terminally” (2002:290).

Therefore, analysis of biface thinning flakes provides evidence of the size of the tool at the point of force, be it percussion or pressure. In addition, both direct and indirect methods to thin a tool produce flakes through bending forces while pressure flaking produces flakes through both conchoidal and bending forces (Cotterell and Kamminga

1987). Further analysis involving presence/absence and general degree of platform

lipping resulting from fractures caused by bending forces may reflect specific

flintknapping methods.

The current debitage analysis examines both qualitative and quantitative

attributes. Qualitative attributes include the presence/absence and relative amount of

platform lipping and the estimated degree of the lateral edges. The highly visible wide, horizontal percussion flake scars defining the surfaces of many preforms indicates flake initiation perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the point. Therefore, I noted the angle of the lateral edges of biface thinning flakes relative to the platform. Biface thinning

flakes, in general, tend to expand with length; however, when the force that detaches the

flake moves through the objective piece, inconsistencies in the material such as

differential thickness, inclusions, flaws, and heterogeneous transitions in the material

affect the transference of the force resulting in highly variable edges. Accordingly, the

lateral edges may exhibit highly differential angles. Moreover, the qualitative

measurement refers to the major angle of the lateral edge of the flake’s proximal portion.

Quantitative data encompasses platform width and thickness, the width of the flake approximately three millimeters below the platform, and maximum dimensions of length, width, thickness, and weight (Figure 6.2). The three millimeter measurement

below the platform, referred to as the proximal lateral width measurement (PLW)

originates from the idea of flake width correlating with flaking tool width. Morin’s and

Matson’s (2009) finding of significance of flake scar width measurements five

millimeters from the tool margin corroborates this idea.

Figure 6.2. Biface thinning flake attributes.

The debitage analysis includes all of the aforementioned measurements. Statistical testing, however, focuses on three attributes, platform width, platform thickness, and

PLW. I examine these three quantitative measurements because of the intuitive and logical importance of the attributes regarding correlation with the implements used to detach flakes and the manufacturing method.

I collected both qualitative and quantitative data of bifacial tool attributes.

Qualitative data include scar patterning, base form, notch location, and cross section

(Figure 6.3), while quantitative data focuses on maximum dimensions, hafting element dimensions, and blade dimensions (Figure 6.4). Maximum dimensions entail length, width, thickness, and weight. I measured the length and width dimensions 90 degrees to the longitudinal and transverse axes. Blade, stem, axial (when applicable), and maximum measurements comprise the length dimensions. I define axial length as the longitudinal measurement from the distal tip to the highest point on the arc of an incurvate base

Figure 6.3. Illustrations of flake pattern and cross section types )adapted from Cambron and Hulse 1975), chevron pattern added by author.

Figure 6.4. Bifacial tool quantitative data measurements.

(Figure 6.4). Neck, shoulder, base, and maximum measurements constitute the width dimensions. In addition, I measured the notch opening, width, and depth. Notching provides another attribute influenced by the width of the tool used to craft the projectile point. Wide tipped tools produce wide, commonly crescent-shaped, notches, whereas narrow tips afford the ability to produce narrow notches, but may be used to manufacture wide notches.

Statistical tests provide a method to infer archaeological significance of the

collected data. By examining the statistical outcomes and the corresponding data a

researcher can infer whether or not the statistical results correspond with archaeological/

anthropological phenomena. For example, a statistical comparison of widths between two

projectile point samples resulting in a p-value of 0.03 indicates the null hypothesis may

be rejected at the 95% confidence interval. An evaluation of the data, however, may show

that the mean width difference between the two assemblages is 5 millimeters. In addition,

the analysis of the points found substantial blade rejuvenation within one of the samples,

which decreases the width of the projectile point. Accordingly, while statistically

significant, archaeologically/anthropologically width likely is not significantly different

between the two samples.

I compare the data on two scalar units: 1) territory, Eastern and Western

Basketmaker sites, and 2) region, the Rainbow Plateau, Cedar Mesa, and Durango area sites. The evaluation of qualitative and quantitative data requires the use of parametric and non-parametric statistical tests. T-tests provide conclusions of the symmetrically

distributed data. Qualitative and asymmetrical quantitative data undergo Mann-Whitney

U, Chi Square, and Fisher’s Exact tests. In addition, I apply effect size measures to the

statistical test results to determine the strength of association between the tested datasets.

In addition to statistical testing, I implemented effect size measures to test the

strength of association within the compared data. Olejnik and Algina define effect size

measure as, “a standardized index and estimates a parameter that is independent of

sample size and quantifies the magnitude of the difference between populations or the

relationship between explanatory and response variables” (2003:434). Null Hypothesis

Statistical Testing (NHST) simply provides the probability of the observed data

supporting or failing to support the null hypothesis (Nakagawa and Cuthill 2007). As

Nakagawa and Cuthill note, NHST does not provide “the magnitude of an effect of

interest… [nor]… the precision of that estimate” (2007:592). Additional testing to

address the inadequacies of NHST should be incorporated into statistical methods, similar

to other social sciences, as Sorrell (in preparation) notes. In addition, Sorrell states “that the strength of association measures are best considered within particular tests and not across tests” (in preparation). Accordingly, I apply effect size measures which provide strength of association for each test.

A Few Early Agricultural Basketmaker Sites

As mentioned above, this project includes six Basketmaker sites of the Early

Agricultural Period within three physiographic regions of the Basketmaker territory. The

six sites are Darkmold, Sand Dune Cave, Kin Kahuna, Leicht, Pittman, and Veres. Three

regions encompass the sites, the Durango area of southwest Colorado, the Rainbow

Plateau in northeastern Arizona and southeastern Utah, and Cedar Mesa in southeast Utah

(Figure 6.5). This section provides a brief description of each site, including geographic

location, site type, composition, and temporal occupation. The site descriptions are

followed by an explanation of the flaked stone assemblage and the level of analysis

applied to each assemblage.

Figure 6.5. Regional map depicting sites analyzed and the physiographic regions.

Eastern Basketmaker – Durango Area

In 1954, Earl Morris and Robert Burgh reported on the excavation of three

Basketmaker II sites located in the Animas Valley of the upper San Juan drainage in southwestern Colorado. The Animas Valley “was some 120 km. east of the known

Basket Maker range” (Morris and Burgh 1954:1) at the time of their excavations. Morris and Burgh excavated one open-air habitation, Talus Village (Ignacio 7:101), and two rockshelters, the North Shelter (Ignacio 7:2A) and the South Shelter (Ignacio 7:2). Morris and Burgh (1954) demonstrated that the remains of Eastern Durango Basketmakers, defined by their findings in the Animas Valley, and the “classic” Basketmakers within the

Marsh Pass Area of northeastern Arizona showed both similarities and differences in artifactual remains and architectural methods. Additional work in the area (Eddy 1961,

1966; Smiley and Robins 1997; Charles 2000) has shown that the San Juan drainage contains ample Early Agricultural remains classified as Eastern Basketmaker II.

Unfortunately, only one Eastern Basketmaker assemblage was accessible for my project.

Fortunately, the Darkmold site contains a rich flaked stone assemblage recovered with thorough proveniencing and meticulous excavation procedures.

In addition to the flaked stone assemblage, the Darkmold excavation recovered one piece of modified antler exhibiting morphology similar to flintknapping punches and pressure flakers. The antler modification resulted in spatulate ends with a plano-convex cross section. The excurvate edges form a rounded end. Continuous pitting and flattening usewear parallel to the surfaces define one end. Diagonal striations, pitting, and polish characterize the opposite end. In addition, longitudinal beveling to an acute angle typifies one edge. In comparison to Geib’s (2002) SEM examination of experimental pressure

82 flaking usage and the usewear on the analyzed prehistoric horn rods, none of the usewear patterns noted on the antler rod indicate use in flintknapping. Therefore, I do not consider the antler rod as a flintknapping punch or pressure flaker. My examination of the antler rod relied on low power magnification, in which case, higher power magnification, such as SEM, may provide more definitive conclusions, particularly of the pitted, flattened end. Regardless, the diagonal striations and polish present on one end and the beveled, polished edge are not produced through use as a flaked stone manufacturing implement.

The Eastern Basketmaker flaked stone artisans occupying Darkmold employed a variety of locally available materials. The majority of the analyzed flaked stone consists of microcrystalline quartz (chert, jasper, chalcedony, and petrified wood) (Luedtke 1992), followed by metamorphosed siltstone (Charles and Gillam 2003) and quartzite, with a small amount of obsidian present. The Leadville Limestone formation comprising much of southwestern Colorado contains three types of microcrystalline quartz, two cherts and a hydrothermal jasperoid (Banks 1970). In addition, alluvial terrace gravels composed of various conchoidally fracturing materials including chert, chalcedony, and quartzite occur within the Animas Valley. The geoarchaeology of the Darkmold Site identified a fine grained gray to black material as metamorphosed siltstone (Charles and Gillam 2003).

Metamorphosed siltstone comprises the second most common material within the analyzed assemblage and is locally available. The assemblage also contained a small amount of obsidian that likely originates from the Jemez source in northwestern New

Mexico. All of the materials exhibit high tractability, shown by smooth or slightly grainy conchoidal fracture and homogeneity indicating high quality toolstone.

The Darkmold Site (5LP4991)

Site 5LP4991, the Darkmold Site, is located on a glacial kame terrace at an

elevation of 2,042 meters (6,700 feet) above sea level, situated approximately 50 meters

above the western edge of the Animas River floodplain (Charles 2002). The Eastern

Basketmakers apparently preferred the area, with Darkmold located between the Falls

Creek Rockshelters and Talus Village, the type sites of the Eastern Basketmakers (Morris and Burgh 1954). Darkmold consists of an open-air, primary habitation site containing two components, Basketmaker II followed by a Pueblo I phase occupation.

Only a portion of the Darkmold site was properly excavated and curated. Private land encompasses the site, in which case the owner inadvertently uncovered multiple burials while preparing the area for a house foundation. The foundation excavation resulted in the removal of up to two meters of fill in some areas of the site (Charles 2000). The burial findings resulted in the property owner granting Fort Lewis College permission to excavate the site as a field school.

Fort Lewis personnel excavated the remaining portion of the site within the construction area over three field seasons, 1999-2002. The excavated portion of the extensive Basketmaker II component includes two pit structures, a third possible small structure, 5 hearths, 9 roasting pits, 38 pits – including bell-shaped, slab-lined, round, oval, refuse, storage, and burial types, 20 cists – including bell-shaped, slab-lined, and round varieties, 3 rock features, 1 use surface, 1 plaster floor, 1 possible bench, 3 postholes, and 7 identified but unexcavated features. Figure 6.6 partially illustrates the planview of the Darkmold site. In addition, Fort Lewis College personnel exhumed

84 thirty-one burials from a variety of features including round, oval, bell-shaped, and burial pits, storage cists, Pit Structure 2, and a large roasting pit (Darkmold Feature Database).

Excavation between 1999 and 2002 recovered a substantial amount of material culture, architectural data, datable materials, and burials.

The material culture includes some perishables, but predominately durable materials resistant to decomposition. The large flaked stone assemblage contains a substantial amount debitage as well as flaked stone tools. The debitage encompasses the entire range of the flaked stone process, from initial core reduction to tool production and edge rejuvenation activities. Utilized and retouched flakes as well as projectile points and drills constitute the tool assemblage. The excavation recovered flaked stone debitage and tools from the pit structures, pits, cists, hearths, roasting pits, burials, and non-feature contexts. Excavation recovered a notable number of datable materials from structures, extramural features, and hearths, including annual plants (maize), organics, wood charcoal, and wood samples sufficient for dendrochronology.

Figure 6.6. Partial Planview of the Darkmold Site. Data Courtesy of Mona Charles and Fort Lewis College.

The biface thinning flakes analyzed for this project originated from three features as well as non-feature contexts within the Basketmaker II strata (Table 6.3). The features include a large roasting pit (Feature 98), pit structure 2 (Feature 60), and a bell shaped pit

(Feature 10). I selected debitage from the features because of the secure Basketmaker

context and the recovery of high quality datable materials. My analysis included

Basketmaker II projectile points regardless of context. The excavated burials did not

include any points, however, one biface recovered from feature 19 was not analyzed

because of context. Projectile points originated from eight feature and non-feature

contexts (Table 6.3). A variety of pits (Features 4, 10, 15, 23, 25, 33, and 52) contained

the majority of the points, with one point recovered from pit structure 2.

Three of the features contained datable materials that produced 14C dates. Wood

from Feature 98 provided a calibrated 2-sigma date range of AD 3-137. Feature 60

contained maize with a calibrated 2-sigma date range of AD 82-266. Two maize samples from Feature 10 provided overlapping calibrated 2-sigma date ranges of AD 130-260 and

AD 59-179.

Table 6.3 Feature Contexts of analyzed flaked stone from the Darkmold Site Bifacial Feature No. Feature Type Date Range Debitage Tools 4 Refuse pit n/a no yes 10 Bell-shaped pit AD 130-260/ AD 59-179 yes yes 15 Oval pit n/a no yes 23 Bell-shaped pit n/a no yes 25 Bell-shaped pit n/a no yes 33 Bell-shaped pit n/a no yes 52 Shallow oval pit n/a no yes 60 Pit Structure 2 AD 82-266 yes no 98 Roasting Pit AD 3-137 yes no n/a non-feature n/a yes no

Western Basketmaker – Rainbow Plateau

The Rainbow Plateau of northeastern Arizona and southeastern Utah encompasses

a substantial amount of archaeological remains at the center of decades of archaeological

work (Lindsay et al. 1968; Geib and Spurr 2007a). Two sites, Sand Dune Cave and Kin

Kahuna, that I analyzed are located on the Rainbow Plateau. Sand Dune Cave, the only rockshelter assemblage examined, formed through erosion within a sandstone uplift at the

base of Navajo Mountain. Navajo Mountain rises from the northern end of the Rainbow

Plateau, east of Glen Canyon. Sand Dune Cave has received a substantial amount of analytical attention because of the rich perishable artifact assemblage recovered in 1961

(Lindsay et al. 1968). Kin Kahuna, a large open-air multi-component site, occupies a ridge at the confluence of two drainages in the southeast portion of the Rainbow Plateau

(Geib and Spurr 2007). Kin Kahuna was first recorded in 1991 (Geib and Spurr 2007b) during survey for the realignment of Navajo Route 16 (N16). The realignment traversed the northern half of Kin Kahuna, requiring partial site excavation to mitigate the effects of the realignment (Geib 2007a).

The excavation of SDC recovered eight horn rods tentatively defined as gaming sticks in the original report (Lindsay et al. 1968). The SDC “gaming sticks” comprised a portion of the horn rods Geib determined to be punches used in indirect percussion. Geib describes the usewear present on the punches,

The use wear consists of pits and linear gouges on the ends… Often these wear traces are concentrated toward the outer edges of the ends, with the central portions exhibiting few use traces. (2002:275)

In addition, the rods, or punches, commonly hold “minute silica fragments embedded in their worn ends” (Geib 2002:275). I analyzed the eight bighorn sheep horn punches

previously examined and reported by Geib (2002). All eight punches exhibit rectangular

planviews and cross sections with flat, rounded ends. My examination corroborated

Geib’s statements.

The Western Basketmaker flaked stone artisans occupying the Rainbow Plateau employed a variety of locally available materials developed through sedimentary and metamorphic processes. The majority of the analyzed flaked stone consists of microcrystalline quartz (chert, chalcedony, and jasper) (Luedtke 1992), with a small amount of quartzite present. The geological strata and drainages comprising the regions of southeastern Utah and northeastern Arizona hold a substantial number of primary and secondary sourcing areas. Geib, Warburton, Robins, and others have compiled an exhaustive comparative collection of materials utilized as prehistoric tool stone within the region and on the Rainbow Plateau. The areas near Navajo Mountain and Sand Dune

Cave include alluvial terraces within the canyon system of Glen Canyon, the Chinle,

Cedar Mesa, Honaker, Morrison, Shinarump, and Navajo geological formations, and bench terraces created by the erosion of formations, such as the Shinarump Formation

(NNAD Comparative Collection).

Further south, in the area of Kin Kahuna, local materials include chert from the

Chinle, Navajo, Cedar Mesa, and Shinarump formations, chalcedony and petrified wood from the Chinle formation and alluvial terraces, as well as jasper and quartzite from alluvial terraces. The small amount of extrusive igneous material does not conform macroscopically to the northern Arizona types, although materials from both the San

Francisco Mountain and Round Mountain volcanic fields dominated the sampled volcanic glass recovered during the N16 project (Hughes 2007). The one obsidian biface

fragment exhibits translucence with brown banding, which may originate from the Wild

Horse Canyon locality in Utah. All of the materials within the analyzed assemblage

exhibit high tractability shown by smooth or slightly grainy conchoidal fracture and

homogeneity indicating high quality tool stone.

The Sand Dune Cave Site (NA7523 (MNA))

Site NA7523, Sand Dune Cave (SDC), marks the only rockshelter site examined for this project. SDC is situated at the northeastern base of Navajo Mountain in southeast

Utah, located at an elevation of 1,780 meters (5,840 feet) above sea level. Erosion within the Navajo sandstone defining the east side of a small box canyon resulted in a deep

west-southwest-facing cave. The cave occupies a position approximately 15 meters (50

feet) above a small stream feeding Cottonwood Creek (Lindsay et al. 1968). This cave

functioned as a rockshelter habitation and storage area. Multicomponent prehistoric

occupation of the site stretched from the Archaic Desha complex into Pueblo III, with a

hiatus during the Basketmaker III period. The most intensive use of the site occurred

during the Basketmaker II period (Lindsay et al. 1968).

Museum of Northern Arizona (MNA) archaeologists excavated SDC in 1961 as

part of the Glen Canyon Project. The excavation resulted in a rich assemblage of material

culture recovered from features and burials. The material culture includes an impressive

array of perishable and non-perishable artifacts. Basketmaker II features include 5

hearths, 6 to 15 slab-lined cists, 4, possibly 5 “beds,” 2 caches, and 1 burial. The feature

types present vary considerably from the features excavated at the Darkmold site and

other Durango area Basketmaker II sites.

The Eastern Basketmakers of the Durango area built cribbed roofed pithouses within the Falls Creek rockshelters (Morris and Burgh 1954), in contrast to SDC, which lacked pit structure habitations. Further comparison indicates all of the SDC cists are slab-lined while slab-lining constitutes only 25% of the Darkmold cists. The open air location of Darkmold resulting in a lack of perishable material preservation negates comparison with SDC regarding caches and beds. Cache 1 at SDC, however, contained

18 flaked stone preforms, which are non-perishable. Therefore, if a similar cache existed at Darkmold, the excavators likely would have located it.

Sand Dune Cave contained an exceptional artifact assemblage of perishable and non-perishable materials. The perishable materials relevant here consist of eight horn rods, six hafted dart points, and one intact atlatl. The horn rods comprised a portion of cache 1, which also contained eighteen dart point preforms and six hafted corner-notched dart points. The SDC horn rods constitute a portion of the sample Geib (2002) examined, concluding that the rods functioned as flintknapping implements in indirect percussion as well as pressure flakers. The direct association between the punches, the preforms, and the hafted points provides profoundly convincing evidence that Basketmaker flaked stone artisans employed indirect percussion to create bifacial tools. The presence of the hafted projectile points and the associated atlatl further establish Basketmaker II usage of the atlatl and dart. In addition, differential usewear along a blade edge of one of the hafted points (Geib, personal communication) exemplifies the multifunctional use of hafted projectile points.

Unfortunately, the collected flaked stone assemblage recovered from SDC does not exhibit the same amount of richness. MNA archaeologists recovered a minor amount

of flaked stone debitage. The debitage assemblage contains both core reduction and

percussion biface reduction debitage.

Much of the artifact assemblage from SDC was not recorded with the same level

of provenience data as Darkmold. Lindsay et al. (1968) were able to determine that SDC

contained six stratagraphic layers (Figure 6.7). The natural layers, however, were

excavated in arbitrary levels within rectangular grid units (Figure 6.7). A mixture of

Pueblo I, II, III, and Basketmaker II material culture constituted stratum VI and the top of

Stratum V. Stratum V was purely BMII material (Figure 6.8). A mixture of early

Basketmaker II and Desha Complex artifacts comprised the bottom of Stratum V and top of Stratum IV (Figure 6.6). Strata III, II, and I refer to Desha Complex material culture.

Lacking access to the excavation notes, feature provenience data is also minimal.

The feature provenience data presented here, with the exception of the Cache 1 artifacts, originates from cross-referencing the information provided in the Sand Dune Cave report

(Lindsay et al. 1968:32-44) (Table 6.4). All of the projectile points originate from non- feature contexts, with the exception of the Cache 1 contents.

A minimal amount of temporal data exists. The excavation recovered 28 pieces of charcoal as well as multiple sandals among the perishable materials. Two open twined sandal fragments from the bottom of Stratum V were radiocarbon dated (Lindsay et al.

1968). Later corrections for laboratory isotopic fractionation (Geib 1996) provided dates of 7150 +/- 130 BP (7280-7020 BC) and 7740 +/- 120 BP (7860-7620 BC), placing the sandals within the Archaic Desha Complex in both form and temporal affiliation. All twenty-eight pieces of charcoal submitted for dendrochronological dating resulted in non- cutting dates. Geib later obtained AMS 14C dates on three of the artifacts from cache 1.

Figure 6.7. Sand Dune Cave Planview Illustrating Excavation Grid and Profile Displaying Strata (adapted from Lindsay et al. 1968).

Figure 6.8. Planviews of the Main Area of SDC illustrating the Basketmaker II and Basketmaker Desha Strata (adapted from Lindsay et al. 1968).

Table 6.4 Feature Contexts of Analyzed Flaked Stone from Sand Dune Cave Feature Type Date Range Debitage Bifacial tools

unknown n/a yes yes

non-feature n/a yes yes

Cache 1 AD 80-330 no yes

Table 6.5 SDC Strata Association of Flaked Stone Assemblage Puebloan/ BM II/ Desha Flaked Stone BM II Desha Unknown Total BM II Complex Biface thinning 6 13 6 3 0 28 flakes Bifaces 1 9 2 1 2 15

Preforms 0 13 0 0 0 13 Corner-notched 2 4 2 1 0 9 projectile points Side-notched 1 0 0 0 0 1 projectile points

Total 10 39 10 7 2 66

The AMS dating resulted in a calibrated AD 80-330 two-sigma date range on the average (Geib 2004). The date range of AD 80-330 currently provides the only SDC

Basketmaker II temporal association. AD 80-330 places the examined SDC and

Darkmold sub-assemblages into contemporaneous time ranges.

The SDC projectile points Lindsay et al. (1968) report as recovered from

Basketmaker contexts include small triangular (n=2), oval and leaf shaped (n=4), stemmed, shouldered (n=3), stemmed, barbed (n=1), and stemmed, unidentifiable (n=1).

Most of these must be associated with burial 1, as I had access to only two unhafted projectile points from the Basketmaker II contexts for analysis. Both of these points exhibit corner-notches, a form Lindsay et al. (1968) report as stemmed, shouldered. In addition to the two projectile points, two of the hafted points within Cache 1 were

94 available for analysis. Lindsay et al. (1968) also report ten knives from Basketmaker contexts, including square base (n=2), round base (n=3), crude (n=1), and unidentifiable

(n=4) (Table 6.5).

The Kin Kahuna Site (AZ-J-3-8 (NNHPD))

Site AZ-J-3-8, Kin Kahuna, denotes a multi-component, open-air site occupied for 800 years, with a long Basketmaker II duration. Kin Kahuna is situated on a sandy, rocky bedrock ridge at the southeastern portion of the Rainbow Plateau. This location, at an elevation of 1957 m (6508 ft), overlooks the confluence of two small drainages, containing potential ample farmland (Geib and Spurr 2007b). The site functioned as a habitation area during the Basketmaker II period, followed by a small Pueblo III occupation. The most intensive use of the site occurred during the Basketmaker II period

(Geib and Spurr 2007b). Geib and Spurr (2007b) note that the unexcavated, southern portion of the site likely contains over half of the total Basketmaker component because of the observed trends of the Basketmaker stratum and feature concentration.

Accordingly, the flaked stone artifacts analyzed for this project originated from a sample of less that 50% of the complete Basketmaker II occupation.

Survey in 1991 recorded the site as a Pueblo III habitation. Testing efforts the following year revealed a buried aceramic component. Carbonized maize, abundant lithic debris, and the absence of ceramics recovered during testing confirmed the buried deposits resulted from habitation by Basketmaker II peoples (Geib and Spurr 2007b). The research design dictating the mitigation efforts called for a focus on the agricultural transition, including Kin Kahuna and 16 additional Basketmaker sites within the N16

Right-of-way (ROW) (Geib 2007b). “Data recovery was directed toward… recovering a

sample of stone artifacts and other remains from the buried Basketmaker II

component…documenting and fully excavating any features associated with that

component” (Geib and Spurr 2007b: III.2.2)

Accordingly, Navajo Nation Archaeology Department (NNAD) archaeologists

excavated the northern half of the site as part of the N16 cultural resource management

project. The portion of the site within the ROW contained 85 Basketmaker features

including, “7 pithouses, 58 pits of various type, 17 hearths, an extensive midden and 2

separate burials” (Geib and Spurr 2007b: III.2.5) (Figure 6.9). Mitigation resulted in the

excavation of all of these features with the exception of Structure 6 and Pit 54. These two

features occur outside of and at the limits of the ROW. Therefore, a narrow east-west hand trench was excavated to section the house. The features occurred in isolated, crowded, and superimposed contexts. These features contained a substantial amount of flaked stone debris, flaked stone tools, ground stone, miscellaneous stone artifacts, minerals and pigments, worked bone, and high quality datable materials.

I analyzed flaked stone originating from feature and non-feature contexts within the Basketmaker II strata. Structures 3, 5, and 6, an unspecialized small pit, and non- feature contexts contained the analyzed biface thinning flakes (Table 6.6). I targeted the selected features on account of the secure Basketmaker context, presence of flaked stone with the required attributes, and the recovery of high quality datable materials. My analysis included all of the recovered Basketmaker II projectile points, regardless of context, with the exception of materials from burials. Pit houses, storage pits, and the midden contained the projectile points (Table 6.6). Three of the features contained datable materials that produced 14C dates. Maize cupules from the floor fill of Structure 3

Figure 6.9. Planview of the main site area of Kin Kahuna excavated by NNAD. All features are Basketmaker with the exception of the features labeled Puebloan (adapted from Geib and Spurr 2007b).

Table 6.6 Feature Contexts of Analyzed Flaked Stone from Kin Kahuna Date Range (calibrated Bifacial Feature Type Debitage 2 σ Range) tools Structure 3 AD 130-430 yes yes

Structure 3 hearth n/a no yes Structure 3 bell-shaped floor n/a no yes pit Structure 4 110 BC - AD 220 yes yes fill between Structures 4 and n/a no yes 5 Structure 5 400-110 BC yes yes

Midden n/a yes yes

clay-lined storage pit n/a no yes

non-feature n/a yes yes

provided a calibrated 2-sigma date range of AD 13-430. Maize cupules were recovered

from the floor and trashy fill of Structure 4. The cupules on the floor have a calibrated 2-

sigma date range of 110 BC- AD 220. Structure 5 contained maize cupules on the floor,

within the lower fill, pit 1, and in hearth 6. The sample from the floor of Structure 5

produced a calibrated 2-sigma date range of 400-110 BC.

Western Basketmaker – Cedar Mesa

The Glen Canyon project of the late 1950s and early 1960s lead William Lipe to work on the developmental phases of the Anasazi on the Red Rock Plateau (Lipe 1967).

Lipe’s work on the Red Rock Plateau found minimal occupation of the area during the

latter part of the Basketmaker II Period. The Basketmaker II sites I examined were

concentrated within two canyon systems Lipe labeled as the Moqui Canyon and Castle

Wash clusters (Lipe 1967; Matson 1991). Lipe’s initial research stimulated decades of

additional work on Cedar Mesa, a geological formation located east of the Red Rock

Plateau (Camilli 1983; Dohm 1988; Matson et al. 1990; Matson 1991; Matson and Brand

1995; Pollock 2001). On Cedar Mesa, Lipe, Matson, and later researchers continued to

focus on Anasazi development over time. Research involved both survey (Lipe 1978;

Matson 1991) and excavation (Lipe 1978; Dohm 1988).

Decades of research indicate that the Basketmakers occupied the canyons of

Cedar Mesa during the White Dog Phase of the Early Agricultural period, circa 500 BC

(Matson 1995), followed by a later mesa top Basketmaker occupation during the Grand

Gulch Phase, circa AD 200-400 (Lipe 1978; Dohm 1988; Matson 1991, 1995). Matson et

al. denoted the Cedar Mesa mesa-top Basketmaker II occupation of AD 200-400 the

Grand Gulch phase (1988), a variant of the overall Basketmaker II Period (Matson 1991,

1995). After the excavation of four sites during the 1969 field season, Lipe noted that the

mesa top pithouses consisted of shallow structures with long, narrow, slab-lined

entryways (1978; Matson et al. 1988), which differ considerably from the Basketmaker II

pithouses in Durango, the Navajo Reservoir, and the Little Colorado Valley (Lipe 1978).

The architectural data and spatial location suggest that the Cedar Mesa Basketmakers of

the Early Agricultural Period are Western Basketmakers occupying areas with arable land

northeast of the Marsh Pass area.

Later, Matson (1991) indicated a divergence in projectile point styles between the

Cedar Mesa assemblages and the projectile points found within the Marsh Pass area as well as the Durango area. To increase the overall sample size as well as to consider projectile point styles within and between the Western and Eastern Basketmaker areas as generally understood, I analyzed flaked stone from three excavated Cedar Mesa sites, the

Leicht Site, the Pittman Site, and the Veres Site. All three sites are clustered on the mesa

top south of Sheiks Wash and east of Grand Gulch. Lipe excavated all three sites in 1969-

1970 (Lipe 1978), with additional analyses comprising portions of dissertations (Camilli

1983; Dohm 1988) and one thesis (Pollock 2001).

The Basketmaker flaked stone artisans occupying the Leicht, Pittman, and Veres

sites exploited locally available and non-local smooth to grainy textured, homogenous

sedimentary, metamorphic, and extrusive igneous materials. The majority of the analyzed

flaked stone consists of microcrystalline quartz (chert and chalcedony) (Luedtke 1992),

followed by minor amounts of obsidian and quartzite. The local materials within the

Cedar Mesa Project area have been documented by Keller (1982; Pollock 2001). In

addition, the comparative collection compiled by Geib, Warburton, Robins, and others

from NNAD applies to the Cedar Mesa sites because of the shared geological formations

and drainages between the areas of Cedar Mesa and the Rainbow Plateau. Materials occur

in primary and secondary sourcing contexts and include chert from the Cedar Mesa,

Honaker Trail, and Moenkopi formations, chalcedony from the Chinle and Halgaito

Shale formations, as well as alluvial terraces (Keller 1982; NNAD Comparative

Collection Notes; Longpré 2001; Pollock 2001). The quartzite may originate from any of

these sourcing areas as well. Low power magnification suggests at least three types of

obsidian, translucent and black, translucent clouded gray, and translucent with black

bands. The varieties may originate from Utah, northern Arizona, and/or northern New

Mexico obsidian sources.

The Leicht Site (42SA3645)

Site 42SA3645, the Leicht Site, includes a small Basketmaker II habitation within a multicomponent site on the mesa top near the Western edge of Cedar Mesa. The Leicht

100

site is situated on a sandy ridge within the pinion-juniper woodland between Sheiks Wash and Coyote Wash (Pollock 2001). This location falls within an undissected, relatively flat area of eolian formed hummocks (Dohm 1988), an area adequate for dry-farming

(Matson et al. 1988). The site functioned as a small habitation during the Grand Gulch

Phase of the Basketmaker II period. Limited excavation in 1969 and the presence of additional, unexcavated features lead Dohm (1988) to note that the unexcavated portion of the site likely contains additional Basketmaker II features not observed during the survey and excavation. Accordingly, I analyzed flaked stone artifacts originating from a

small sample of the site which includes the modern ground surface and the excavated

contexts of one pithouse, an associated midden, and non-feature locations in the vicinity

of the pithouse.

Survey during the 1969 field season located and recorded the site. The survey

observed twelve features and an associated scatter of flaked stone artifacts. The features

include one pithouse, three hearths, one midden, one possible storage feature, and three

unknown features (Figure 6.10). Excavation followed survey of the site during the same

field season. Data recovery included surface collection and limited excavation. The

limited excavation resulted in one long trench, expanded to determine the extent of the

pithouse (Dohm 1988), the excavation of a small pit northwest of the pithouse, and a

small trench placed through a hearth and associated artifact scatter of flaked stone and

burnt rock (Pollock 2001). The excavation revealed a substantial amount of flaked stone

debris, flaked stone tools, ground stone, and miscellaneous stone artifacts. In addition,

excavation efforts recovered one 14C sample (Dohm 1988).

101

Figure 6.10. Planview of the pithouse at the Leicht Site excavated by Lipe (1978). The midden is located south of the pithouse and the trench (adapted from Dohm 1988).

102

The flaked stone analyzed for this project originated from the pithouse, associated

midden, hearth and associated scatter, as well as non-feature contexts within the

Basketmaker II strata. Seventy-one percent of the lithic assemblage originated from the

pithouse and midden. The analyzed biface thinning flakes originated from the pithouse,

midden, and non-feature contexts spatially associated with the two aforementioned

features (Table 6.7). The analysis included all of the recovered Basketmaker II projectile

points, regardless of context. Limited excavation did not encounter any burials. Bifacial

tools were recovered from four features and non-feature contexts (Table 6.7). The

pithouse contained the majority of the bifacial tools, with minimal counts recovered from

the midden, isolated hearth, artifact scatter, and non-feature contexts. The pithouse

contained one 14C sample. The sample produced a 14C date of AD 295 ± 85 (Camilli

1983). Camilli does not report the type and quality of the sample, the sigma range, nor

whether or not the resulting date is calibrated. Based solely on the reported date the

Leicht Site occupation occurred during the Grand Gulch Phase, AD 200-400, which is consistent with the other Basketmaker II sites on Cedar Mesa.

Table 6.7 Feature Contexts of Analyzed Flaked Stone from the Leicht Site Feature Type Date Range Debitage Bifacial tools pithouse 295 ± 85 yes yes midden n/a yes yes hearth n/a no yes artifact scatter n/a no yes non-feature n/a yes yes

103

The Pittman Site (42SA3646)

A small Basketmaker II habitation site on the mesa top near the western edge of

Cedar Mesa comprises Site 42SA3646, the Pittman Site. The Pittman site is positioned on a dissected gentle slope within the pinion-juniper woodland south of the Sheiks Wash entrenchment (Dohm 1988: 174). The location, at an elevation of 1847 m (6060 ft), falls within an area of eolian deposits adequate for dry-farming (Matson et al. 1988). Eolian erosion and wash entrenchment have heavily eroded the site (Dohm 1988). The site functioned as a small habitation during the Grand Gulch Phase of the Basketmaker II period, followed by a brief Puebloan occupation (Dohm 1988; Pollock 2001).

Limited excavation in 1969 and 1970 noted site reoccupation interpreted by the presence of superimposed features. The excavation focused on the pithouse and two 5 meter long trenches (Dohm 1988). Accordingly, the flaked stone artifacts analyzed for this project originated from a small sample of the site recovered from the eroded modern ground surface as well as the excavation of one pithouse and the surrounding vicinity.

Survey during the 1969 field season located and recorded the site. The survey observed nine features and an associated scatter of flaked stone artifacts. The features include one pithouse, four hearths, two middens, and one sandstone concentration

(Figures 6.11 and 6.12). Excavation followed the survey in 1969, extending into the 1970 field season (Dohm 1988). Data recovery included limited surface collection and limited excavation. The limited excavation included three trenches placed over Areas A, B, and

D (Pollock 2001). The archaeologists fully explored the pithouse through additional excavation units placed in a grid. The excavation recovered a substantial amount of flaked stone debris, flaked stone tools, ground stone, and miscellaneous stone artifacts.

104

Figure 6.11. Planview of the Pitmann Site excavated by Lipe (1978). Grids delineate excavation areas. Area A denotes the pithouse, Area B the midden, and Area D a “hot spot,” or concentration of lithic artifacts (adapted from Pollock 2001). 105

Figure 6.12. Planview of the Pitmann Site pithouse excavated by Lipe (1978) (adapted from Pollock 2001).

In addition, excavation efforts recovered three 14C samples (Camilli 1983) and

fifteen potential dendrochronological samples (Dohm 1988; Matson 1991).

I analyzed flaked stone artifacts originating from feature and non-feature contexts

within the Basketmaker II strata. The pithouse, associated midden, and non-feature

contexts contained the analyzed biface thinning flakes (Table 6.8). The pithouse and

106

midden contained the majority of the flaked stone. My sample was thus from secure

Basketmaker contexts. The analysis included all of the recovered Basketmaker II

projectile points, regardless of context. No burials were encountered during the limited

excavation. Projectile point provenience included the pithouse and non-feature contexts.

The pithouse contained the majority of the bifacial tools, with one projectile point

recovered from the modern ground surface above the pithouse, and one biface located

outside of the features.

Table 6.8 Feature Contexts of Analyzed Flaked Stone from the Pittman Site Feature Type Date Range Debitage Bifacial tools pithouse post AD 250* yes yes

midden n/a yes no

non-feature n/a yes yes * see discussion

The pithouse contained one 14C sample and the one dendrochronological sample. Two

hearths, one within the pithouse and one isolated sixty-four meters to the east also

produced 14C samples. Unfortunately, none of the dendrochronological samples produced

cutting or near cutting dates. In addition, one of the 14C samples provides an aberrant date

range. Regardless, comparison between the non-cutting dendrochronological dates and two of the three 14C samples leads Matson to suggest occupation of the pithouse shortly after AD 250 (Matson 1991). This date places the Pittman Site within the Grand Gulch

Phase, AD 200-400.

107

Veres (42SA3650)

Site 42SA3650, the Veres Site, consists of a small Basketmaker II habitation site

on the mesa top near the western edge of Cedar Mesa. The Veres site is positioned

between a series of drainages on a gentle slope in the pinion-juniper woodland north of

Sheiks Wash (Dohm 1988). The location, at an elevation of 1914 and 1926 m (6280 to

6320 ft), falls within an area of eolian deposits adequate for dry-farming (Matson et al.

1988). The site functioned as a small habitation during the Grand Gulch Phase of the

Basketmaker II period (Dohm 1988; Pollock 2001). Excavation, carried out during the

1969 and 1970 field seasons, targeted the pithouse and midden areas. The excavation

focused on determining the limits of the pithouse and testing the midden area (Dohm

1988; Pollock 2001). Accordingly, the flaked stone artifacts I analyzed originated from a

small sample of the site which included the modern ground surface, the pithouse, and a

portion of the midden.

Lipe located the Veres site during a large survey of judgementally chosen areas

on the mesa top in 1967 (Dohm 1988). Archaeological work in the area during 1969 and

1970 included the excavation of the Veres site. The small site consists of one pithouse

(Area A), an associated midden (Area B), and a concentration of broken rock and ashy

soil interpreted as a cooking area or possible storage feature (Area C) (Figures 6.13 and

6.14). Data recovery included limited surface collection and limited excavation. The

limited excavation encompassed two trenches placed through Areas A and B with

additional excavation units placed within a grid over the pithouse to fully explore the

feature (Pollock 2001). The excavation recovered a substantial amount of flaked stone

debris, flaked stone tools, and miscellaneous stone artifacts. In addition, excavation

108

Figure 6.13. Planview of the Veres Site excavated by Lipe (Dohm 1988; Pollock 2001). Grids delineate excavation areas. Area A denotes the pithouse and Area B denotes the midden (adapted from Pollock 2001).

109

Figure 6.14. Planview of the Veres Site pithouse excavated by Lipe (Dohm 1988; Pollock 2001) (adapted from Pollock 2001).

110

efforts recovered one 14C sample (Camilli 1983; Dohm 1988) and six

dendrochronological samples (Dohm 1988; Matson 1991).

I analyzed bifacial tools originating from feature and non-feature contexts, focusing only the bifacial tools because of time constraints in combination with the adequate sample of tool production debitage analyzed from the Leicht and Pittman sites.

Nine tools consisting of 7 projectile points, 1 preform, and 1 “small knife” (Pollock 2001) comprise the analyzed tools. The pithouse and non-feature contexts contained all of the tools (Table 6.9). The majority of the bifacial tools were recovered from the pithouse, with two corner-notched projectile points recovered from the modern ground surface and

one corner-notched point located outside of the features. The limited excavation

encountered no burials. Excavators recovered one 14C sample and all six

dendrochronological samples from the pithouse.

Unfortunately, none of the dendrochronological samples produced cutting or near

cutting dates, providing only vv dates ranging from AD 111 to AD 309. The one 14C

sample produced an uncalibrated date of AD 295±80. Comparison between the non-

cutting dendrochronological dates and the 14C sample led Matson to suggest occupation of the pithouse shortly after AD 309 (Matson 1991). The date places the Veres Site within the Grand Gulch Phase, AD 200-400.

Table 6.9 Feature Contexts of Analyzed Flaked Stone from the Veres Site Bifacial Feature Type Date Range Debitage tools pithouse post AD 290* no yes

non-feature n/a no yes * see discussion

111

Conclusions

This chapter provides an overview of the six sites and flaked stone assemblages

employed in the study. The sites occur in three physiographic regions, the Durango area

of southwestern Colorado, the Rainbow Plateau in northeastern Arizona and southeastern

Utah, and Cedar Mesa in southeastern Utah. The analyzed flaked stone assemblages originate from one extensive Eastern Basketmaker II habitation site within the Animas

River drainage, one extensive Basketmaker II habitation site and one rockshelter on the

Rainbow Plateau, and three small open-air habitation sites on Cedar Mesa. The analysis

examines both biface thinning flakes and bifacial tools. The variety of bifacial tools

includes projectile points, knives, and preforms. I collected qualitative and quantitative

data from the biface thinning flakes, focusing on quantitatively measured attributes that

correlate with the size of the flintknapping implement, namely, platform width and

thickness as well as proximal lateral width (PLW). I also collected quantitative and

qualitative data from bifacial tools. The data examined focuses on notching, flake scar

patterning, base form, cross sections, and width/thickness ratios. Parametric and non-

parametric tests followed by effect size measures for each test provide statistical

outcomes for archaeological inference. I expect the examined attributes to reflect

territorial and regional stone-working traditions.

112

CHAPTER 7

MULTIFACETED COMPARISONS OF BASKETMAKER II FLAKED STONE

The previous chapters introduced three overarching origins theories for the

Basketmaker groups on the Colorado Plateau, considering the differences in material culture as a reflection of Eastern and Western origins. Early archaeologists noted differences and similarities in projectile point and knife forms. Later work by Geib

(2002) provided evidence of Basketmaker lithic artisans within the Western territory employing indirect percussion using horn punches. Morin and Matson (2009) furthered

Geib’s work by comparing flake scar patterns present on Basketmaker II and Archaic projectile points from Cedar Mesa. Morin’s and Matson’s work supported Geib’s hypotheses and established that, at the 95% confidence interval, all six attributes Geib indicated as directly influenced by the flintknapping method and toolkit differ between

Basketmaker II and Archaic projectile points.

Building on the work of Geib (2002) and Morin and Matson (2009), I analyzed debitage and bifacial tool assemblages from Eastern and Western Basketmaker II sites from three regions. In addition, I manufactured and analyzed experimental debitage assemblages to examine the potential of different percussion methods creating different flake dimensions and for further comparison with the Basketmaker debitage assemblages.

This chapter provides the results of the statistical tests comparing the analyzed assemblages, reporting the outcomes in two sections, debitage and bifacial tools, with sub-sections labeling the attribute being discussed.

I analyzed the data using SPSS and Simple Interactive Statistical Analysis (SISA) software. I base Null Hypothesis Statistical Testing (NHST) significance, or lack thereof,

113 on a 95% confidence interval, or .05 p-value. Statistical testing included effect size measures to test the strength of association (SoA) between tested assemblage attributes.

Asymmetrical data do not include strength of association tests because of the asymmetry of the data rendering this measure unreliable. Determination of effect size measure and the corresponding strength of association follow the synthetical work of Sorrell (in preparation) (Table 7.1). Table 7.2 provides the statistical tests and effect size measures applied to the dataset. As Sorrell notes, a “negligible” SoA indicates the NHST outcome

“should be viewed warily” (in preparation).

Table 7.1 Synthesis of Effect Size Measurements, Tests, and Strength of Association; adapted from Sorrell (in preparation) Strength of Association Effect Size Measure Applicable Tests Scheme* 0.000 – 0.049: Negligible 0.050 – 0.099: Weak Cramer’s V - Chi - square (Cramér 1946) 0.100 – 0.149: Moderate 0.150 – 0.249: Strong 0.250 or higher: Very strong 0.000 – 0.049: Negligible Theil’s U 0.050 – 0.099: Weak (Theil 1972; -Exact tests (nominal) Goodman and 0.100 – 0.149: Moderate Kruskal (1972) 0.150 – 0.249: Strong 0.250 or higher: Very strong 0.000 – 0.199: Negligible 0.200 – 0.299: Weak Cohen’s d -T-test (Cohen 1988) 0.300 – 0.699: Moderate 0.700 – 0.999: Strong 1.000 or higher: Very Strong *Values are absolute.

114

Table 7.2 Data Types, Statistical Tests, and Effect Size Measures Data Statistical test Statistical test Effect Size Measurement Data Type Normality Normalization Category by Territory by Region Measure Debitage Proximal 5% trim mean, interval Quantitative normalized T-test T-test Cohen's d Lateral Width square root Platform Width interval Quantitative non-normal n/a Mann-Whitney U Mann-Whitney U n/a Platform interval Quantitative non-normal n/a Mann-Whitney U Mann-Whitney U n/a Thickness Bifacial tools maximum interval Quantitative non-normal n/a Mann-Whitney U Mann-Whitney U n/a notch opening minimum notch interval Quantitative non-normal n/a Mann-Whitney U Mann-Whitney U n/a opening average notch interval Quantitative non-normal n/a Mann-Whitney U Mann-Whitney U n/a opening percussion nominal Qualitative n/a n/a Chi Square Chi Square Cramer's V flaking pressure nominal Qualitative n/a n/a Fischer's Exact Fischer's Exact Theil's U flaking pressure nominal Qualitative n/a n/a Chi Square Chi Square Cramer's V flaking depth notch location nominal Qualitative n/a n/a Fischer's Exact Fischer's Exact Theil's U

base nominal Qualitative n/a n/a Fischer's Exact Fischer's Exact Theil's U

cross section nominal Qualitative n/a n/a Fischer's Exact Fischer's Exact Theil's U Width/thickness Interval Quantitative Non-normal n/a Mann-Whitney U Mann-Whitney U n/a ratio

115

I statistically tested three debitage attributes, quantitative measurements of

proximal end dimensions, namely platform width, platform thickness, and proximal

lateral widths (PLWs). Statistical testing of the debitage included dichotomous

comparisons between all of the assemblages, including the experimentally manufactured

and prehistoric debitage. Analyses of the Basketmaker debitage include comparisons

based on three scales, 1) Experimental, 2) Territorial – Eastern and Western assemblages,

and 3) Regional – Durango, Rainbow Plateau, and Cedar Mesa assemblages. Statistical

tests indicated all of the debitage attributes exhibit skewed distributions. All debitage data

underwent statistical tests based on the means. Attempts to normalize the data included

trimming the mean by 5%, followed by square root and Log10 transformations (Drennan

1996). The attempts successfully normalized the Proximal Lateral Width (PLW) measurement through a 5% trimmed mean, followed by a square root transformation.

Manipulation of the platform width and thickness data included trimming the mean by

5% and square root transformation, followed by removing outliers. The modifications, however, failed to normalize the platform width and platform thickness data.

Accordingly, I performed non-parametric tests of the data.

Two deficiencies mark the bifacial tool dataset used in the project. First, only one site, Darkmold, represents both the Eastern and the Durango BMII manifestations. This is problematic for the territorial comparisons because of the high comparatively larger number of sites within the Western territory. The foreseen problem is not present for the regional comparisons for two reasons. First, the archaeological manifestation of

Darkmold results from an extensive occupation. In addition, no evidence suggests specialization during Basketmaker II. Based on the extensive occupation and lack of

116

specialization, multiple artisans likely created the assemblage. Second, the sample size

of the quantitative data obtained from the tool assemblage is small. Regardless,

archaeological data are seldom ideal, with the present assemblage providing adequate

data for my pilot study.

The bifacial tool analysis does not include an experimental component, consisting

of statistical testing and effect size measures of the archaeological data divided by

territory and region. I performed statistical tests on ten bifacial tool attributes. Four

attributes provided quantitative data and include maximum, minimum, and average notch

opening measurements as well as width/thickness ratios. Qualitative data represent six

bifacial tool attributes, namely percussion and pressure flake scar patterning, pressure

flake scar depth, notch location, base form, and cross section. As a corollary to the flake

scar discussions, the lack of statistical difference at the 95% confidence interval between

the punch and experimental billet assemblages suggest archaeological similarity between

the biface thinning flakes. Accordingly, I cannot distinguish between direct and indirect

percussion flake scars. Since I cannot distinguish between thinning methods, I use the

generic term percussion flaking. The experimental assemblages do, however, distinguish

between pressure and percussion flake dimensions, demarcating percussion and pressure

flake scar patterning.

Fun with Debitage, Experimental and Archaeological Biface Thinning Flakes

Debitage analysis focused on three attributes. The proximal lateral width (PLW)

defines the width of the flake three millimeters distal to the platform. The measure originates from a consideration of the effects of the platform on the width of the flake at the proximal end, which should correspond with the size of the percussor. In addition,

117

Morin and Matson (2009) found that measuring flake scars on bifacial tools 5mm from

the margin produced statistically significant results indicating the attribute deserves

further consideration. PLW corresponds with Morin’s and Matson’s (2009) observation.

Consideration of the platform width measurement originates from Geib’s (2002)

observation that the width of the platform should correlate with the width of the

percussor. I examined platform thickness because of the substantial differences in thinning methods, angles of flake detachment initiation, and potential to provide further resolution in deciphering thinning methods through debitage attributes. In addition, I tested platform thickness to determine if the method of flake detachment affects the platform size.

To provide a control sample I manufactured an experimental assemblage through three methods of flake detachment, direct softhammer percussion with an antler billet, indirect percussion with a replica horn punch, and pressure with an antler tine. Statistical testing of the debitage includes three parts 1) comparing the experimental assemblages,

2) comparing the experimental assemblages to the Basketmaker assemblages, and 3)

comparing the Basketmaker assemblages.

The Experimental Assemblage

The statistical tests between the experimental punch and experimental billet

assemblages resulted in no difference at the .05 level for platform width, platform

thickness, and PLW, indicating similarities of all three debitage attributes. The strength

of association measure for the PLW measurement establishes a strong association

between the two experimental assemblages (Table 7.3). Archaeologically, the data

118

Table 7.3 Experimental Assemblage Statistical Significance and Strength of Association Measurements Debitage Billet Punch Tine (pressure) Debitage Assemblage p-value Cohen's d p-value Cohen's d p-value Cohen's d Attribute 0.840 3.34 0.059 0.000 PLW (strong) (very strong) Platform Billet 0.773 n/a 0.000 n/a Width Platform 0.814 n/a 0.000 n/a Thickness 0.840 3.95 0.059 0.000 PLW (strong) (very strong) Platform Punch 0.773 n/a 0.000 n/a Width Platform 0.814 n/a 0.000 n/a Thickness 3.34 3.95 0.000 0.000 PLW (very strong) (very strong) Tine Platform 0.000 n/a 0.000 n/a (pressure) Width Platform 0.000 n/a 0.000 n/a Thickness

indicate more similarity than difference between the platform attributes of direct

percussion billet and indirect percussion punch debitage assemblages (Table 7.4).

The NHST results of the platform width provide some interesting inferences. The

percussion biface reduction experiment resulted in biface thinning flakes produced

through two distinctly different manufacturing methods, direct and indirect percussion.

119

Table 7.4 Assemblage Comparisons, Statistical Results, and Statistical Outcomes Compared Strength of Attribute Significance Outcome Assemblages Association The statistical significance and strong strength of association indicate differences in PLW yes Strong the proximal lateral widths between Experimental Billet and Punch assemblages. Billet v. Platform The lack of statistical significance suggests similarities in the platform widths between no n/a Punch Width Experimental Billet and Punch assemblages. Platform The lack of statistical significance suggests similarities in the platform thicknesses no n/a Thickness between Experimental Billet and Punch assemblages. The statistical significance and strong strength of association indicate differences in PLW yes Strong the platform widths between Eastern and Experimental Billet assemblages. Billet v. Platform The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform widths between yes n/a Eastern Width Eastern and Experimental Billet assemblages. Platform The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform thickness between yes n/a Thickness Eastern and Experimental Billet assemblages. The lack of statistical significance indicates similarities in the proximal lateral widths. PLW no Negligible The negligible SoA suggests minimal to no relationship between these attribute data. Punch v. Platform The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform widths between yes n/a Eastern Width Eastern and Experimental Punch assemblages. Platform The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform thickness between yes n/a Thickness Eastern and Experimental Punch assemblages.

120

Table 7.4 (continued) Assemblage Comparisons, Statistical Results, and Statistical Outcomes, continued Compared Strength of Attribute Significance Outcome Assemblages Association The statistical significance and strong strength of association indicate differences in PLW yes Strong the proximal lateral widths between Western and Experimental Billet assemblages. Platform The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform widths between yes n/a Billet v. Width Western and Experimental Billet assemblages. Western Platform The negligible strength suggests similarities between the datasets. Accordingly, the no n/a Thick statistical outcome of these data is inconclusive. The statistical significance indicates similarities in the proximal lateral widths. The PLW no negligible negligible SoA suggests minimal to no relationship between these attribute data. Platform The statistical significance indicates differences in the platform widths between Punch v. yes n/a Width Western and Experimental Punch assemblages. Western Platform The lack of statistical significance indicates similarities in the platform widths between no n/a Thick Western and Experimental Punch assemblages.

121

The approach to thinning the biface also differed in regards to the angle in which the objective piece was held and the angle of the implement detaching the flake (refer to

Chapter 4). Yet, NHST suggests similarity between the platform thicknesses of the two assemblages at the .05 level. Archaeologically, the NHST outcome suggests the angle of the objective piece and the angle of the implement at flake detachment do not affect platform width or thickness. Moreover, the location of the point of impact at the platform margin, e.g. at the platform edge versus 2 mm above the platform edge, and perhaps the degree of platform preparation, likely determine platform thickness.

The flakes produced through pressure flaking differ statistically with a 100% confidence interval in comparison to both direct and indirect percussion flake assemblages. The exceptionally low p-value and very high SoA support the claim that differences exists in platform width, thickness, and PLWs between the pressure flake assemblage and both methods of percussion biface reduction. Statistical Testing between the pressure flake assemblage and all of the Basketmaker assemblages reflect the same difference at the .000 level (Table 7.5; Figures 7.1-7.3). Accordingly, I removed the pressure flake assemblage from the remainder of the discussion.

122

Table 7.5 Statistical Significance and Strength of Association Measurements for Pressure Flaking Experimental Assemblage Compared to Basketmaker Assemblages Biface Thinning Flakes Experimental Pressure Flakes (tine) Cohen's d Basketmaker Flake Attribute p-value Strength of Assemblage Association 3.300 PLW 0.000 (very strong)

Durango Platform Width 0.000 n/a

Platform Thickness 0.000 n/a

2.670 PLW 0.000 (very strong)

Rainbow Plateau Platform Width 0.000 n/a

Platform Thickness 0.000 n/a

4.160 PLW 0.000 (very strong)

Cedar Mesa Platform Width 0.000 n/a

Platform Thickness 0.000 n/a

Figure 7.1. Boxplots illustrating distribution of PLW by territory and experimental assemblage.

123

Figure 7.2. Boxplots illustrating distribution of platform width by territory and experimental assemblage.

Figure 7.3. Boxplots illustrating distribution of platform thickness by territory and experimental assemblage.

124

Territorial and Experimental Assemblage Comparisons

The comparisons between the experimental and territorial assemblages do not provide the as much resolute data as expected (Table 7.6). In addition, inter-territorial comparisons suggest more similarities than differences. This section provides a summary of the Null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST) and strength of association (SoA) results followed by the archaeological interpretation of the data.

Eastern Basketmaker and Experimental Thinning Flake Comparisons

Null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST) and strength of association (SoA) suggest differences at the .05 level between the Eastern Basketmaker and the experimental billet assemblages for all three dimensions. In addition, the Eastern and punch assemblages also exhibit different platform widths and thicknesses. NHST of the punch and Eastern PLW measurements resulted in no difference within the 95% confidence interval, suggesting similar dimensions. The negligible SoA, however, suggests the NHST outcome should be viewed warily. Archaeologically, the statistical outcomes indicate the Eastern assemblage displays different platforms in both thickness and width when compared to both experimental assemblages. The different widths likely correspond with the dimensions of the percussor whereas the different thicknesses may be the result of the location of the point of impact initiating flake detachment.

Western Basketmaker and Experimental Thinning Flake Comparisons

The Western and experimental assemblage comparisons do not provide much

resolution either. A lack of statistical difference at the .05 level for platform thickness

exists between the Western assemblage and both experimental percussion assemblages.

Platform width, however, differs within the 95% confidence interval between the

125

Table 7.6 Statistical Significance and Strength of Association Measurements for Experimental and Territorial Assemblages Experimental Assemblages Territory Assemblages DEBITAGE ATTRIBUTES Billet Punch Eastern Western Debitage Cohen's p- Cohen's d p- Cohen's d p- Cohen's d Assemblage p-value Attribute d SoA value SoA value SoA value SoA 0.840 0.990 0.910 PLW 0.003 0.002 0.003 (strong) (strong) (strong) Platform Billet 0.773 n/a 0.002 n/a 0.027 n/a Width

Platform 0.814 n/a 0.018 n/a 0.224 n/a Thick 0.840 0.010 0.108 PLW 0.003 0.956 0.624 (strong) (negligible) (negligible) Experimental Platform Punch 0.773 n/a 0.000 n/a 0.029 n/a Width Platform 0.814 n/a 0.028 n/a 0.337 n/a Thick 0.990 0.010 0.110 PLW 0.002 0.956 0.368 (strong) (negligible) (negligible) Platform Eastern 0.002 n/a 0 n/a 0.033 n/a Width

Platform 0.018 n/a 0.028 n/a 0.073 n/a Thick 0.910 0.108 0.110 Territory PLW 0.003 0.624 0.368 (strong) (negligible) (negligible) Platform Western 0.027 n/a 0.029 n/a 0.033 n/a Width Platform 0.224 n/a 0.337 n/a 0.073 n/a Thick

126

Western and both experimental percussion assemblages. Only the PLW measurement displays a NHST difference when comparing the Western assemblage to the experimental assemblage. The billet assemblage PLWs differ at the .05 level from the Western assemblage with a strong SoA supporting the statistical outcome. The punch assemblage

PLWs are not statistically different from the Western debitage dimensions within the

95% confidence interval. The negligible SoA suggests the NHST outcome should be interpreted with skepticism. Archaeologically, the statistical outcomes indicate the

Western assemblage exhibits platforms with thicknesses similar to, but platform widths different from both directly and indirectly produced biface thinning flakes. Based on the archaeological significance, the Western Basketmakers used implements with different dimensions, and either initiated flakes from a similar location on the platform, or modified the platform edge in comparable ways.

East to West, Comparisons of Basketmaker and Experimental Biface Thinning Flakes

The Eastern and Western attribute comparisons display more similarity than difference. PLW and platform thicknesses are not statistically different at the .05 level, whereas platform widths are different. The SoA for the Eastern and Western PLW comparison, however, is negligible. The statistical outcomes suggest the Eastern and

Western Basketmakers employed percussion implements exhibiting distal end dimensions differing dimensions that differed between the two territories as well as in comparison to the experimental punch and billet. The Basketmaker biface thinning flakes, however, exhibit similar platform thicknesses between the two territories. Taken into account with the experimental data and the comparisons between the territories and the experimental assemblages, the similarity in platform thickness between the Eastern

127

and Western assemblages suggests a thickness range with Eastern thinning flake

platforms on one end, the experimental flakes on the opposite, and Western biface

thinning flakes in the middle, overlapping the Eastern and experimental assemblages.

The data indicate that platform width is highly influenced and that platform thickness may provide additional insight into flintknapping methods.

Regional and Experimental Assemblage Comparisons

Biface thinning flake proximal end attribute comparisons on the regional level provide additional insight into the flaked stone manufacturing methods of three areas within the grand territorial scheme. The two regions representing the Western territory, interestingly, exhibit significant differences in thinning flake attributes (Table 7.7). This section provides a summary of the regional NHST and SoA results compared with the experimental assemblage and inter-regionally, followed by the archaeological interpretation of the data.

Durango Basketmaker and Experimental Thinning Flake Comparisons

The Durango debitage differs statistically at the .05 level from the billet

assemblage in all three categories and from the punch assemblage in two categories

(Table 7.8) (Figure 7.4). The PLW measurement comparison between the Durango and

punch assemblages is not different within the 95% confidence interval, however, the

negligible SoA does not afford confident archaeological inference of the PLW

comparison. The statistical outcomes indicate that the Durango assemblage displays

different platforms in both thickness and width than both the direct and indirect

experimental assemblages.

128

Table 7.7 Statistical Significance and Strength of Association Measurements for Experimental and Regional Assemblages Region DEBITAGE ATTRIBUTES Durango Rainbow Plateau Cedar Mesa Debitage Assemblage p-value Cohen's d p-value Cohen's d p-value Cohen's d Attribute 0.990 0.990 0.720 0.002 0.001 0.023 Billet PLW (strong) (strong) (strong) (percussion) Platform Width 0.002 n/a 0.003 n/a 0.242 n/a

Platform Thick 0.018 n/a 0.046 n/a 0.828 n/a 0.011 0.120 0.400 0.956 0.564 0.069 Punch PLW (negligible) (negligible) (moderate) (percussion) Platform Width 0.000 n/a 0.001 n/a 0.446 n/a Platform Thick 0.028 n/a 0.007 n/a 0.932 n/a Experimental 3.300 2.670 4.160 0.000 0.000 0.000 Tine PLW (very strong) (very strong) (very strong) (pressure) Platform Width 0.000 n/a 0.000 n/a 0.000 n/a Platform Thick 0.000 n/a 0.000 n/a 0.000 n/a 0.330 0.300 0.010 0.036 PLW (moderate) (moderate) Durango Platform Width 0.969 n/a 0.000 n/a Platform Thick 0.954 n/a 0.001 n/a

0.330 0.720 0.010 0.000 Rainbow PLW (moderate) (strong)

Plateau Platform Width 0.969 n/a 0.000 n/a Region Platform Thick 0.954 n/a 0.005 n/a 0.300 0.720 0.036 0.000 PLW (moderate) (strong) Cedar Mesa Platform Width 0.000 n/a 0.000 n/a Platform Thick 0.001 n/a 0.005 n/a

129

Table 7.8 Assemblage Comparisons, Statistical Results, and Statistical Outcomes Compared Strength of Attribute Significance Outcome Assemblages Association The statistical significance and strong strength of association yes strong indicate differences in the proximal lateral widths between Durango PLW and Experimental Billet assemblages. The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform Durango v. Billet Platform yes n/a Width widths between the Durango and Experimental Billet assemblages. The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform Platform yes n/a thicknesses between the Durango and Experimental Billet Thick assemblages. The lack of statistical significance indicates similarities in the no negligible proximal lateral widths. The negligible SoA suggests minimal to no PLW relationship between these attribute data. The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform Durango v. Punch Platform yes n/a Width widths between Eastern and Experimental Punch assemblages. The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform Platform no n/a Thick thickness between Eastern and Experimental Punch assemblages. The statistical significance and strong strength of association yes strong indicate differences in the proximal lateral widths between Rainbow PLW Plateau and Experimental Billet assemblages. The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform Rainbow Plateau v. Platform yes n/a widths between the Rainbow Plateau and Experimental Billet Billet Width assemblages. The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform Platform yes n/a thicknesses between the Rainbow Plateau and Experimental Billet Thick assemblages.

130

Table 7.8 (continued) Assemblage Comparisons, Statistical Results, and Statistical Outcomes, continued Compared Strength of Attribute Significance Outcome Assemblages Association The lack of statistical significance indicates similarities in the proximal lateral widths between the Rainbow Plateau and no Negligible Experimental Punch assemblages. The negligible SoA suggests PLW minimal to no relationship between these attribute data. Rainbow Plateau v. The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform Punch Platform yes n/a widths between the Rainbow Plateau and Experimental Punch Width assemblages. The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform Platform yes n/a thicknesses between the Rainbow Plateau and Experimental Thick Punch assemblages. The lack of statistical significance and moderate strength of no Moderate association indicate similarities in the proximal lateral widths PLW between the Cedar Mesa and Experimental Billet assemblages. The lack of statistical significance suggests similarities in the Cedar Mesa v. Billet Platform no n/a platform widths between the Cedar Mesa and Experimental Billet Width assemblages. The lack of statistical significance suggests similarities in the Platform no n/a platform thickness measurements between the Cedar Mesa and Thick Experimental Billet assemblages. The lack of statistical significance and moderate strength of no Moderate association indicate similarities in the proximal lateral widths PLW between the Cedar Mesa and Experimental Punch assemblages. Cedar Mesa v. The lack of statistical suggests similarities in platform widths Platform no n/a Punch Width between the Cedar Mesa and Experimental Punch assemblages. The lack of statistical significance suggests similarities in the Platform no n/a platform thicknesses between the Cedar Mesa and Experimental Thick Punch assemblages.

131

Table 7.8 (continued) Assemblage Comparisons, Statistical Results, and Statistical Outcomes, continued Compared Strength of Attribute Significance Outcome Assemblages Association The statistical significance and moderate strength of association yes Moderate indicate differences in the proximal lateral widths between Durango PLW and Rainbow Plateau assemblages. The lack of statistical significance suggests similarities in the Durango v. Rainbow Platform no n/a platform widths between the Durango and Rainbow Plateau Plateau Width assemblages. The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform Platform yes n/a thicknesses between the Durango and Rainbow Plateau Thick assemblages. The statistical significance and strong strength of association yes Moderate indicate differences in the proximal lateral widths between Durango PLW and Cedar Mesa assemblages. Durango v. Cedar Platform The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform Mesa yes n/a Width widths between the Durango and Cedar Mesa assemblages. The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform Platform yes n/a Thick thicknesses between the Durango and Cedar Mesa assemblages. The statistical significance and strong strength of association yes strong indicate differences in the proximal lateral widths between Rainbow PLW Plateau and Cedar Mesa assemblages. The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform Rainbow Plateau v. Platform yes n/a widths between the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa Cedar Mesa Width assemblages. The statistical significance suggests differences in the platform Platform yes n/a thicknesses between the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa Thick assemblages.

132

Figure 7.4. Diagrams of debitage attribute statistical testing outcomes between my experimental assemblage and the Basketmaker assemblages.

133

Rainbow Plateau Basketmaker and Experimental Thinning Flake Comparisons

The Rainbow Plateau assemblage exhibits differences within the 95% confidence

interval with both experimental assemblages for all attributes except when compared with

the indirect PLW measurement. The Rainbow Plateau PLW attribute is not different from

the punch PLW at the .05 level. The negligible SoA, however, suggests the statistical

outcome has little archaeological significance. The statistical outcomes indicate the

Rainbow Plateau artisans employed flintknapping implements of different distal end

dimensions than either the experimental billet or punch. In addition, the different thicknesses may be the result of the location of the point of impact initiating flake detachment.

Cedar Mesa Basketmaker and Experimental Thinning Flake Comparisons

Cedar Mesa displays the opposite trend. The Cedar Mesa assemblage is not

statistically different at the .05 level from either the billet or punch assemblages for all

attributes except the billet PLW. NHST of the Cedar Mesa and billet assemblage PLW

measurements resulted in statistical difference at the .05 level with a strong SoA. The

outcomes suggest the Cedar Mesa artisans used percussion tools similar in dimension to

both the experimental billet and punch. The archaeological implication of the statistical

difference between the Cedar Mesa and billet PLW is currently unknown. Based on the

statistical outcomes, the Cedar Mesa assemblage resembles the experimental punch

assemblage more than the experimental billet assemblage, however, statistically the

Cedar Mesa assemblage coincides with both the indirect and direct experimental

assemblages.

134

Region to Region, Comparisons of Basketmaker Biface Thinning Flakes

Within the inter-regional scale, the Durango and Rainbow Plateau assemblage comparisons indicate similarities in platform width and thickness, with differences in

PLW. In contrast, Cedar Mesa exhibits differences at the .05 level for all three attributes when compared to both the Durango and Rainbow Plateau assemblages (Figure 7.5).

Figure 7.5. Diagrams of debitage attribute statistical testing outcomes.

Comparisons of the assemblages on the regional scale and with the experimental data indicate that neither the Durango nor Rainbow Plateau assemblages were produced with tools comparable to the experimental billet or punch. In contrast, the statistical comparisons suggest the Cedar Mesa assemblage was created with tools comparable to both the billet and punch. The latter finding indicates a difference in tools between Cedar

Mesa and the other two regions. Moreover, the data also suggest overlap between debitage manufactured between the two experimental methods. In addition, PLW may function as an adequate indicator of percussor dimension, or flintknapping method,

135

however the current study does not provide any conclusive results on the utility of the

measure.

Unfortunately, statistical comparisons of prehistoric and experimental debitage

provide little insight into the prehistoric flaked stone manufacturing methods of

Basketmaker groups occupying the Durango, Rainbow Plateau, and Cedar Mesa regions

of the Eastern and Western territories. First, the data obtained from the billet assemblage

do not appear similar to either the Rainbow Plateau or Durango assemblages. Second, the

punch data are different as well, however, we know the punch technique was used at

SDC on the Rainbow Plateau. Third, only the Cedar Mesa assemblage exhibits similarity with the punch assemblage in platform attributes. Unfortunately, the same attributes are similar between Cedar Mesa and the billet assemblage as well. Fourth, the experimental data indicate some overlap in proximal end thinning flake measurements, regardless of manufacturing method. Comparisons between the experimental assemblages and with the

Cedar Mesa assemblage illustrate the overlap. Fifth, statistical tests and corresponding strengths of association indicate differences between Cedar Mesa and Durango, as well as

Cedar Mesa and the Rainbow Plateau. Sixth, the same tests and measures suggest similarity between the Durango and Rainbow Plateau assemblages.

The comparisons of three thinning flake attributes through Null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST) and strength of association (SoA) do not provide a straightforward method of distinguishing between indirect punch and direct billet percussion biface reduction methods. Geib (2002) established indirect punch thinning on the Rainbow Plateau while Morin and Matson (2009) provide a case for the same thinning method on Cedar Mesa. The outcomes indicating a difference between the

136

experimental punch assemblage and the Rainbow Plateau suggests platform width is

highly susceptible to the distal end dimensions of the percussion implement. If platform

width is as susceptible to the implement’s distal end dimensions as suggested, then the

Durango and Rainbow Plateau artisans employed tools of comparable size. A second

possibility questions the experimental assemblage. Perhaps the method of flintknapping

affects the platform attributes more than the current data illustrate and my indirect

percussion method differs from the Basketmaker method. Regardless, while previous

research has established indirect punch flintknapping in the Western Territory, my

experiment remains inclusive in determining the thinning method employed in the

Durango area. The flakes produced, however, exhibit platform dimensions similar to the

Rainbow Plateau.

The difference in platform attributes between the experimental, Durango and

Rainbow Plateau assemblages when compared to Cedar Mesa has multiple implications.

The differences may indicate the use of different sized percussors or may reflect the

material comprising the percussor. Soft, somewhat elastic materials compose the billet and punch. The use of a harder material, such as a soft stone, may explain the differences in platform attributes. Regardless, the current data indicate that flaked stone artisans in the Durango area and on the Rainbow Plateau employed similar percussors, at least in dimension, to thin bifacial tools. In contrast, the Cedar Mesa Basketmakers employed different percussors. In addition, the experimental assemblages indicate that initiation angle does not correspond with platform width or platform thickness. Platform thickness, however, differs between Cedar Mesa and the other two regions while displaying similarity between Durango and the Rainbow Plateau. Based on the aforementioned

137 outcomes, platform thickness may correspond with the location of the point of impact on the platform edge. Cedar Mesa shows similarity to both of the experimental methods, which produced flakes from the platform edge. Both the Rainbow Plateau and Durango platforms differ from the experimental assemblage. Base on the findings, the flaked stone artisans may have initiated flakes from higher up on the margin than the edge. If so, one possible explanation is minimal to no platform preparation requiring flake initiation above the edge for successful flake detachment.

Bifacial Tools

In addition to debitage, I examined flake scar patterning and morphological attributes that are considered to be the products of the flintknapping method, and hence reflect style (refer to Chapter 5). The analyzed assemblages include complete and fragmented bifacial tools. I included fragmented tools that exhibited any of the attributes pertinent to the analysis. Because of fragmentation, bifacial tool frequencies vary depending on the attribute tested.

The analyzed bifacial tools exhibit a fair amount of variability in manufacturing methods and overall morphology, including forms created through percussion flaking, pressure flaking, and a combination of both. The lithic artisans typically created bifacial tools through percussion flaking, followed, in varying frequencies, by pressure flaking.

Four of the corner-notched projectile points, Eastern (n=1) and Western (n=3), display ventral surfaces of the flake blank, having been manipulated into form and modified completely by pressure flaking. The lack of percussion flaking to create the general morphology could be because of the use of small flake blanks or may represent a somewhat expedient manufacture of a sturdy tool needed for sustained use at the time of

138 manufacture. In contrast, all of the analyzed blanks and knives evince percussion flaking.

Based on the observations, the most common pattern of tool production included the manufacture of preforms from flake blanks into sub-triangular forms through percussion flaking. Notching to create a specific hafting form followed at a later time. Notching varieties include side-notched, corner-notched, and a combination of side and corner- notched forms, with notches commonly exhibiting asymmetry (Figure 7.6). I suspect the corner and side-notched form results from shoulder fragmentation during notch manufacture, in which case the artisan reworked the fragmented shoulder, altering the intended corner notch into a side notch.

Figure 7.6. Projectile point outlines illustrating notching variation

Pressure flaking is ubiquitous within the Eastern assemblage, being present on all of the analyzed tools. In contrast, 68% of the existing blade edges within the Western assemblage exhibit pressure flaking. Rejuvenation is common within the overall assemblage, evident by the asymmetrical blades, the presence of substantial retouch, commonly occurring at steep angles, and rounded, retouched tips. Based on the aforementioned condition of the Western assemblage, pressure flaking functions as a

139

rejuvenation method, indicating a contrast exists between Eastern and Western finishing

techniques.

Bifacial tool analysis focused on ten attributes. I chose the attributes based on

Geib’s (2002) observations, Morin’s and Matson’s (2009) findings, and my own

experience in flintknapping when considering how the artisan’s toolkit and flintknapping method may affect biface morphology. The attributes include the size of the notch openings, flake scar patterning (Geib 2002), general depth of pressure flake scars, location of the notches, the form of the base, cross section (Geib 2002; Morin and Matson

2009), and width/thickness ratio (Morin and Matson 2009) (Table 7.9). Notch opening and width/thickness ratio constitute the quantitative measurements. Variability in the maximum and minimum notch measurements bordering on an asymmetrical appearance dictated averaging the measurements for further comparison. Unfortunately, the commonly fragmented nature of the overall bifacial tool assemblage negated measurements based on Geib’s (2002) observations and tested by Morin and Matson

(2009).

The small assemblage analyzed from the Eastern territory and heavy rejuvenation on the bifacial tools from the Western Territory in combination with fragmentation nullified the use of flake scar measurements, sinuosity indices, and serration (Geib 2002;

Morin and Matson 2009). Instead, I noted surface patterning created by flake removals through both percussion and pressure flaking methods (Figure 6.2). The lack of resolution in thinning methods resulted in the use of “percussion” rather than “direct percussion” or

“indirect percussion” when discussing percussion flake scar patterning. In addition, I

140

Table 7.9 Bifacial tool Attributes Bifacial tools Definition Examples Notes If only one notch is Maximum The width of the wider notch complete, measurement notch opening at tool margin considered the maximum Minimum notch The width of the narrower

opening notch at tool margin maximum and minimum Average notch average of the maximum measurements averaged

opening and minimum because of the notable asymmetry flake scar pattern created by random, Percussion determination Percussion the angle of flake horizontal, based on wide initiations flaking detachment initiation and collateral and wide flake scars longitudinal axis of flake flake scar pattern created by Pressure determination random, Pressure the angle of flake based on narrow initiation horizontal, flaking detachment initiation and and flake scar widths chevron length of flake relative to larger flake scars whether or not the flake scar Pressure length of the pressure flake invasive v. travels past the blade flaking depth scar non-invasive margin side, corner, location of notch relative to Notch location side and base and lateral edges corner base form observed from excurvate, Base the juncture of the lateral straight, and basal edges incurvate flattened, the form of the surfaces Cross section plano-convex, from a coronal view biconvex significant between Width/thickness Maximum width divided by Basketmaker and Archaic

ratio maximum thickness points on Cedar Mesa (Morin and Matson 2009) considered the relative depth of pressure flake scars based on personal observations of rejuvenation occurring as non-invasive retouch. I tested the notch location to examine any inter-regional hafting preference. Base form also provides an avenue of further inquiry assuming that the hypothetical origins influence morphology. The analysis also tested Geib’s (2002) observation of flattened cross sections exhibited by the well crafted

BMII preforms and Morin’s and Matson’s (2009) finding of width/thickness ratio differences between Cedar Mesa Basketmaker and Archaic projectile points.

141

Eastern and Western Assemblages

Statistical tests and effect size measures provide associative results for six of the

ten attributes (Tables 7.10 and 7.11). The notch opening measurements have

asymmetrical distributions, requiring Mann-Whitney tests that cannot be confidently tested for strength of association. Width/thickness ratios display a symmetrical distribution, but the Eastern assemblage includes a small sample size. Because of the sample size, I performed both t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests.

Flake Scar Patterning Comparisons

The Basketmaker flintknappers’ approach to thinning a biface relative to the

longitudinal axis of the flake blank or biface in both percussion and pressure flaking

techniques differ, with some overlap, between the Eastern and Western assemblages

(Tables 7.10 and 7.11). In other words, Western Basketmakers commonly thinned bifaces

from the lateral margins at orientations near 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis. The

technique resulted in horizontal flake scar patterning. Eastern Basketmakers typically

thinned bifaces from all margins at varying orientations relative to the longitudinal axis.

The technique resulted in random flake scar patterning. Western Basketmakers, however,

also created bifaces through randomly oriented flake detachments while Eastern

Basketmakers occasionally thinned bifacial tools through horizontal flake detachments.

Accordingly, the patterning created by the orientation of flake detachment defining the

surfaces of the bifacial tools differs between Eastern and Western territories, regardless

of the technique used to detach the flakes, percussion or pressure (Figure 7.7).

142

Table 7.10 Statistical Testing of Eastern v. Western Assemblages Bifacial tools Eastern v. Western Strength of Attributes Statistics p-value Association Maximum Mann- n/a 0.354 n/a notch opening Whitney Minimum notch Mann- n/a n/a 0.372 opening Whitney Average notch Mann- n/a n/a 0.560 opening Whitney 0.283 Percussion Chi Cramer’s 0.002 pattern Square V (very strong) 0.103 Pressure Fisher’s Theil’s U 0.001 pattern Exact (moderate) 0.119 Pressure flake Chi Cramer’s 0.286 depth Square V (moderate) 0.030 Fisher’s Notch location Theil’s U 0.695 Exact (negligible) 0.069 Fisher’s Base form Theil’s U 0.024 Exact (weak) 0.118 Chi Cramer’s Cross section 0.432 Square V (moderate) Width/thickness Mann- n/a n/a 0.003 ratio Whitney

143

Table 7.11 Eastern and Western Inter-territorial Assemblage Comparisons, Statistical Results, and Statistical Outcomes Compared Strength of Attribute Significant Outcome Assemblages Association The statistical outcome indicates similarity between the two territories. The maximum no negligible negligible strength of association, however, suggests minimal to no notch open relationship between the datasets. The statistical outcome indicates similarity between the two territories. The Minimum notch no negligible negligible strength of association, however, suggests minimal to no open relationship between the datasets. The statistical outcome indicates similarity between the two territories. The Average notch no negligible negligible strength of association, however, suggests minimal to no open relationship between the datasets. The statistical significance and strong strength of association indicate Percussion yes very strong differences in percussion flake scar patterning between the Eastern and pattern Western datasets The statistical significance and moderate strength of association indicate Eastern v. pressure yes moderate differences in pressure flake scar patterning between the Eastern and Western pattern Western datasets The lack of statistical significance and moderate strength of association press flake no moderate indicate no difference in the general length of pressure flake scars between depth Eastern and Western datasets The statistical outcome indicates similarity between the two territories. The notch location no negligible negligible strength of association, however, suggests minimal to no relationship between the datasets. The statistical significance and presence of, albeit weak, strength of Base form yes weak association indicates differences in the base form between the Eastern and Western datasets. The statistical significance and moderate strength of association indicate Cross section no Moderate similarities in the cross sections between the Eastern and Western datasets. Width/thickness The statistical significance indicates differences between the width to Yes n/a ratio thickness ratio between Eastern and Western assemblages.

144

Figure 7.7. Flake scar patterning types; Adapted from Cambron and Hulse (1975), chevron pattern added by author.

Percussion Thinning Flake Scar Patterning Comparisons

The differences in biface surface patterning resulting from flake detachment

orientation, however, are not straightforward. Both Eastern and Western flaked stone

artisans employed the same restricted percussion thinning orientations, namely horizontal

and random (Table 7.12). Random softhammer percussion flaking dominates both

assemblages, with horizontal percussion flaking prevalent in the Western assemblage in

contrast to the Eastern assemblage. The high frequencies of two orientations, particularly

in the Western assemblage, suggests the percussion flake scar patterning results from the

flintknapper’s chosen approach to thinning the tool rather than creating surfaces with

specific visual patterning. Regardless, Western Basketmakers commonly initiated

percussion biface thinning flakes from the lateral margins perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. In contrast, Eastern Basketmakers initiated flake detachment from various orientations relative to the longitudinal axis creating a random flake scar pattern.

Table 7.12 Frequencies of Percussion Flaking Pattern by Territory Assemblage Percussion flaking Eastern Western Pattern Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage random 17 81 53 55.8 horizontal 4 19 42 44.2 Total 21 100 95 100

145

Pressure Thinning Flake Scar Patterning and Depth Comparisons

Pressure flaking patterns display more variability (Table 7.13). Randomly

oriented pressure flake scar patterning dominates both the Eastern and Western

assemblages. Within the Western assemblage, horizontal pressure flaking created the second most common flake scar pattern, followed by a minor frequency of oblique flaking. The Eastern assemblage displays very different pressure flake scar patterning.

Random pressure flake scar patterning dominates the Eastern assemblage as well as the

Western assemblage. Variations of diagonally oriented flaking, namely oblique and

chevron, follows randomly oriented flake scar patterning in frequency (Figure 7.5).

Horizontal pressure flaking, which is common in the Western assemblage, occurs on a

minor amount of the Eastern Basketmaker projectile points. In sum, random flaking

patterns, which dominate both the Eastern and the Western assemblages, constitutes the

only pressure flaking commonality. Horizontal pressure flaking commonly occurs on

Western Basketmaker bifacial tools while being atypical within the Eastern assemblage.

In addition, diagonally oriented pressure flaking patterns, namely oblique and chevron,

commonly characterize Eastern Basketmaker bifacial tools, while rarely present, if at all,

within the Western assemblage.

Table 7.13 Frequencies of Pressure Flaking Pattern by Territory Assemblage Pressure flaking Eastern Western Pattern Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage random 12 54.5 35 59.3 horizontal 2 9.1 21 35.6 oblique 5 22.7 3 5.1 chevron 3 13.6 0 0 Total 22 100 59 100

146

Pressure flake scars travel to non-invasive and invasive depths on tools from both territories. Invasive depths dominate the Eastern assemblage, with flake scars extending past the blade margin and approaching the longitudinal medial axis. In contrast, non- invasive pressure flake depths define the majority in the Western assemblage (Table

7.14). NHST and the corresponding SoA, however, indicate no difference within a 95% confidence interval.

Table 7.14 Frequencies of Pressure Flaking Depths by Territory Assemblage Pressure flaking Eastern Western Depth Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage invasive 13 59.1 27 45.8 non-invasive 9 40.9 32 54.2 Total 22 100 59 100

Notch Attribute Comparisons

NHST indicate no statistical difference at the .05 level when comparing

maximum, minimum, and averaged notch opening dimensions between the Eastern and

Western assemblages. Notch location varies from the side to the corner of the proximal

end. The two territorial assemblages evidence inter-territorially comparable percentages

of side and corner-notched varieties, with corner notching dominating both assemblages

(Table 7.15). The Western assemblage, however, also includes a minor frequency (n=3)

of tools exhibiting a combination of side and corner notches. Both Eastern and Western

artisans preferred corner-notched hafting areas, while the combined side and corner-

notched form occurs exclusively within the Western BMII assemblage. As discussed at

the beginning of the chapter, tools exhibiting corner and side notches may be the product

of haft form reworking after shoulder breakage. Accordingly, the side and corner-notched

morphology may indicate a difference in the toolkits, with pressure implement

147

Table 7.15 Frequencies of Notch Location by Territory Assemblage Notch Eastern Western Location Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage corner 18 81.8 32 72.7 side 4 18.2 9 20.5 side and corner 0 0 3 6.8 Total 22 100 44 100 dimensions prone to causing breakage, or may represent differing approaches to notching relative to the angle and placement of corner notches relative to the basal edge.

Base Form Comparisons

Base forms differ within the 95% confidence interval between the Eastern and

Western territories, but reflect frequencies more than form preference (Table 7.16). Both assemblages include the four observed forms (Figure 7.8). Excurvate basal edges vastly dominate the Eastern assemblage, while occurring in comparable frequency with straight bases within the Western assemblage. Both Eastern and Western assemblages include incurvate and informal bases in minor numbers. In general, Eastern flintknappers typically manufactured bifacial tools with excurvate bases, while Western flintknappers created bifacial tools with much more variability in base form. Excurvate and straight- based tools dominate, occurring in similar frequencies, but both incurvate and informal forms are not uncommon. The difference in basal form frequencies, however, may be the result of sampling variability. The tools constituting the Western assemblage originate from five sites in two different topographical locations compared to the Eastern assemblage comprised of tools from only one site.

148

Table 7.16 Frequencies of Base Form by Territory Assemblage Base Eastern Western Form Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Excurvate 17 81 29 39.7 Straight 2 9.5 25 34.2 Incurvate 1 4.8 9 12.3 Informal 1 4.8 10 13.7 Total 21 100 73 100

Figure 7.8. Base forms variation observed within bifacial tool assemblages.

Cross Sections and Thickness Comparisons

The Eastern and Western bifacial tools exhibit similar, variable cross section

forms. The three main cross sections within the assemblages include flattened, plano-

convex, and biconvex (Figure 7.9). In addition, one knife within the Western assemblage

exhibits heavy rejuvenation retouch creating a rhomboidal cross section. I removed this

knife from statistical tests as an outlier. NHST and SoA indicate no difference at the .05 level in cross section comparisons of the Eastern and Western bifacial tools. While not

statistically different, comparing the cross section percentages inter-territorially does suggest differences (Table 7.17). Plano-convex cross sections dominate the Eastern assemblage, followed by flattened and biconvex, respectively. In contrast, flattened cross sections dominate the Western assemblage, followed by plano-convex and biconvex

149

Figure 7.9. Cross section types; Adapted from Cambron and Hulse (1975).

Table 7.17 Frequencies of Cross Section Types by Territory Assemblage Eastern Western Cross Section Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage flattened 7 31.8 45 45.5 plano-convex 10 45.5 32 32.3 biconvex 5 22.7 21 21.2 rhomboidal 0 0 1 1 Total 22 100 99 100

cross sections. The width-to-thickness measure indicates differences between the two territories regardless of cross section form. A comparison between the two territories illustrates a lower width-to-thickness ratio within the Eastern assemblage (Figure

7.10).The ratio comparison and statistical outcome shows that Western Basketmaker

artisans typically created thinner tools with greater widths than Eastern Basketmaker

artisans.

150

Figure 7.10. Boxplots illustrating distribution of Width/Thickness Ratios by Territory.

East to West, Comparisons of Basketmaker Bifacial Tools

Statistical tests confirmed by effect size measures indicate the Eastern and Western bifacial tools possess four statistically different attributes with a 95% confidence interval and six attributes that are not statistically different. The territories differ in percussion flake scar patterning, pressure flake scar patterning, base form, and width/thickness ratio.

The similar attributes include the notch opening measurements, pressure flake depth, notch location and cross section

East and West Similarities

The Eastern and Western Basketmaker bifacial tools exhibit similar notch opening sizes typically initiated from the corners of the proximal end. Flintknappers from both territories employed percussion flaking to thin bifacial tools. Unfortunately, any

151 similarities or differences in the percussion method employed to thin the bifacial tools remains elusive. Regardless, the methods commonly created plano-convex cross sections.

Moreover, while the impetus, frequency, and patterning of pressure flaking differs, both invasive and non-invasive pressure flaking depths occur in high proportions of both assemblages.

East and West Differences

The Eastern and Western bifacial tools differ in both percussion and pressure flake scar patterning. The differences suggest the abstract idea determining the decision order and affecting the manufacturing decisions dictated different approaches to tool thinning by the Eastern and Western artisans. The manufacturing decisions commonly resulted in randomly oriented percussion flake scars followed by randomly oriented or diagonally oriented pressure flake scar patterning characterizing the Eastern bifacial tools. In the west, the thinning technique commonly resulted in horizontally oriented percussion and pressure flake scar patterning. The ubiquity of pressure flaking in the

Eastern assemblage indicates pressure functioned as a finishing technique. In contrast,

Western Basketmaker flintknappers used percussion thinning as a finishing technique, with the 68% of the assemblage exhibiting pressure flaking commonly creating rejuvenated edges. In addition, the majority of Western pressure flaking is non-invasive, whereas the Eastern assemblage exhibits more invasive flake scars. While the differing approaches illustrated by the flake scar patterning created similar cross sections, the approaches resulted in different width/thickness ratios. The Western technique produced tools with higher ratios than the East, indicating thinner, wider tools within the Western assemblage. Finally, the vast majority of the Eastern assemblage exhibit excurvate bases

152 as opposed to the Western assemblage which includes comparable frequencies of excurvate and straight bases.

In sum, the typical Eastern Basketmaker bifacial tool is corner-notched and excurvate in form, thinned through randomly oriented percussion flaking, and finished with randomly oriented or diagonally oriented pressure flaking resulting in a low width/thickness ratio. The typical Western Basketmaker bifacial tool is corner-notched with either an excurvate or straight base, thinned and finished through horizontal or random percussion flaking resulting in a high width/thickness ratio indicating wide, thin tools.

Darkmold, Rainbow Plateau, and Cedar Mesa Assemblages

Statistical tests and effect size measures show both differences and similarities when comparing the attributes on a regional basis (Tables 7.18). Statistical comparisons between the Durango and Rainbow Plateau bifacial tools follow the trend of the Eastern and Western comparisons. Notch opening dimensions, flake scar patterning, pressure flake scar depth, base form, and cross section all provide statistical results supported by strengths of association. In addition, the width/thickness ratio (Figure 7.11) suggests statistical differences with 95% confidence intervals. The asymmetry of the distribution does not afford strength of association tests of the NHST. Accordingly, the comparisons are interpreted based on the NHST results. Effect size measures of the NHST outcomes for the Durango and Cedar Mesa comparison strength of associations supporting the statistical testing results. Effect size measures of the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa comparisons resulted in strength of associations supporting the statistical outcomes of four attributes, the notch opening measurements, flake scar patterning, pressure flake scar

153

Table 7.18 Statistical Significance and Strength of Association Measurements for Durango v. Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa Bifacial Tool Attributes Statistics Rainbow Plateau Cedar Mesa Effect Size Strength of Strength of Assemblage Attribute Test p-value p-value Measure Association Association Mann-Whitney n/a 0.025 n/a 0.532 n/a maximum notch opening

Mann-Whitney n/a 0.041 n/a 0.392 n/a minimum notch opening

Mann-Whitney n/a 0.054 n/a 0.213 n/a average notch opening

0.435 0.163 percussion pattern Chi Square Cramer's V 0.000 0.222 (very strong) (strong)

0.084 0.184 pressure pattern Fischer's Exact Theil's U 0.031 0.001 Durango (weak) (strong)

0.075 0.216 pressure flake depth Chi Square Cramer's V 0.572 0.143 (weak) (strong)

0.033 0.056 notch location Fischer's Exact Theil's U 0.603 0.458 (negligible) (very strong)

0.061 0.097 base form Fischer's Exact Theil's U 0.002 0.002 (weak) (weak)

0.086 0.229 cross section Chi Square Cramer's V 0.736 0.076 (weak) (very strong) width/thickness ratio Mann-Whitney n/a 0.001 n/a 0.034 n/a

154

Table 7.18 (continued) Statistical Significance and Strength of Association Measurements for Rainbow Plateau v. Durango and Cedar Mesa Bifacial Tool Attributes Statistics Durango Cedar Mesa

Effect Size Strength of Strength of Assemblage Attribute Test p-value p-value Measure Association Association Mann-Whitney n/a 0.025 n/a 0.005 n/a maximum notch opening

Mann-Whitney n/a 0.041 n/a 0.091 n/a minimum notch opening

Mann-Whitney n/a 0.054 n/a 0.016 n/a average notch opening

0.435 0.331 percussion pattern Chi Square Cramer's V 0.000 0.001 (very strong) (very strong)

Rainbow 0.084 0.076 pressure pattern Fischer's Exact Theil's U 0.031 0.011 Plateau (weak) (weak)

0.075 0.137 pressure flake depth Chi Square Cramer's V 0.572 0.291 (weak) (moderate) 0.033 0.019 notch location Fischer's Exact Theil's U 0.603 0.586 (negligible) (negligible)

0.061 0.005 base form Fischer's Exact Theil's U 0.002 0.908 (weak) (negligible)

0.086 0.290 cross section Chi Square Cramer's V 0.736 0.084 (weak) (very strong) width/thickness ratio Mann-Whitney n/a 0.001 n/a 0.819 n/a

155

Table 7.15 (continued) Statistical Significance and Strength of Association Measurements for Cedar Mesa v. Durango and Rainbow Plateau Bifacial Tool Attribute Statistics Durango Rainbow Plateau

Effect Size Strength of Strength of Assemblage Attribute Test p-value p-value Measure Association Association Mann-Whitney n/a 0.532 n/a 0.005 n/a maximum notch opening

Mann-Whitney n/a 0.392 n/a 0.091 n/a minimum notch opening

Mann-Whitney n/a 0.213 n/a 0.016 n/a average notch opening

0.163 0.331 percussion pattern Chi Square Cramer's V 0.222 0.001 (strong) (very strong) 0.184 0.076 pressure pattern Fischer's Exact Theil's U 0.001 0.011 Cedar Mesa (strong) (weak)

0.216 0.137 pressure flake depth Chi Square Cramer's V 0.143 0.291 (strong) (moderate)

0.056 0.019 notch location Fischer's Exact Theil's U 0.458 0.586 (very strong) (negligible) 0.097 0.005 base form Fischer's Exact Theil's U 0.002 0.908 (weak) (negligible) 0.290 0.229 cross section Chi Square Cramer's V 0.084 0.076 (very strong) (very strong) width/thickness ratio Mann-Whitney n/a 0.034 n/a 0.819 n/a

156

Figure 7.11. Boxplots illustrating distribution of width/thickness ratio by Region.

depth, and cross section. Notch location and base form effect size measures resulted in

negligible association between the two regions, rendering the statistical outcomes

suggestive rather than indicative. In addition, width/thickness comparisons exhibit an

asymmetrical distribution requiring non-parametric testing not conducive to effect size

measurement. I consider site to site comparisons below, rather than a synthetical

reporting scheme because of the variability in strength of association measures affecting

the interpretation of the statistical tests.

Durango and Rainbow Plateau

The regional comparison between the Durango and Rainbow Plateau assemblages

resulted in more differences than similarities at the 95% confidence interval (Table 7.19).

Percussion and pressure flake scar patterning, width/thickness ratios, base form, and notch

157

Table 7.19 Durango and Rainbow Plateau Inter-regional Assemblage Comparisons, Statistical Results, and Statistical Outcomes Compared Attribute Significant Association Outcome Assemblages maximum The statistical outcome indicates different notch opening dimensions between yes n/a notch opening the Durango and Rainbow Plateau regions.

minimum notch The statistical outcome indicates different notch opening dimensions between yes n/a opening the Durango and Rainbow Plateau regions.

average notch The statistical outcome indicates similarity in the average notch opening no n/a opening dimensions between the Durango and Rainbow Plateau regions.

The statistical significance and strong strength of association indicate percussion yes very strong differences in percussion flake scar patterning between the Durango and pattern Rainbow Plateau datasets. The statistical significance and presence of, albeit weak, strength of pressure yes weak association indicates differences in the pressure flake scar patterning pattern Durango v. between the Durango and Rainbow Plateau datasets. Rainbow The statistical significance and presence of, albeit weak, strength of press flake Plateau no weak association indicate no differences in the general length of pressure flake depth scars between the Durango and Rainbow Plateau datasets. The statistical outcome indicates similarity between the Durango and notch location no negligible Rainbow Plateau regions. The negligible strength of association, however, suggests minimal to no relationship between the datasets. The statistical significance and presence of, albeit weak, strength of base form yes weak association indicates differences in the base form between the Durango and Rainbow Plateau datasets. The statistical outcome indicates similarity between the Durango and cross section no negligible Rainbow Plateau regions. The negligible strength of association, however, suggests minimal to no relationship between the datasets.

Width/thickness The statistical significance indicates differences in the width/thickness ratio yes n/a ratio between the Durango and Rainbow Plateau datasets.

158 opening measurements differ between the two regions. Depth of pressure flaking and cross section tests indicates no difference at the .05 level between bifacial tools attributes of the two regions. Notch location does not show any difference either, however, the negligible effect size measure in a lack of association between the datasets.

Percussion Thinning Flake Scar Patterning Comparisons

Percussion flake scar patterning statistically differs between Durango and the Rainbow

Plateau (Table 7.20). The majority of the Durango assemblage exhibits random percussion flake scar patterning, with approximately one fifth of the tools displaying horizontal patterning. Bifacial tools from the Rainbow Plateau typically maintain a horizontal percussion flake scar pattern, with random flaking orientation comprising approximately one third of the assemblage.

Table 7.20 Frequencies of Percussion Flaking Pattern by Regional Assemblage Percussion Durango Rainbow Plateau flake pattern Pattern Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage random 17 81 19 31.7 horizontal 4 19 41 68.3 oblique 0 0 0 0 Total 21 100 60 100

Pressure Thinning Flake Scar Patterning and Depth Comparisons

Bifacial tools from the two regions exhibit different pressure flake patterning with a

95% confidence interval, differing in frequencies and orientations. The ubiquity of pressure flaking within the Durango bifacial tool assemblage is not present within the

Rainbow Plateau assemblage. Only 63% percent of the bifacial tools with blade edges within the Rainbow Plateau assemblage exhibit pressure flaking. Regardless, the majority of the pressure flaked tools in both assemblages display random flake scar patterning

(Table 7.21). Diagonally oriented flake scars in the form of oblique and chevron

159

Table 7.21 Frequencies of Pressure Flaking Pattern by Regional Assemblage Pressure Durango Rainbow Plateau flake pattern Pattern Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage random 12 54.5 23 65.7 horizontal 2 9.1 9 25.7 oblique 5 22.7 3 8.6 chevron 3 13.6 0 0 Total 22 100 35 100

patterning follows randomly oriented flake scars in frequency within the Durango

assemblage, with horizontal pressure flaking patterns present in minimal frequencies. In

contrast, horizontal flake scar patterning follows randomly oriented scars within the

Rainbow Plateau assemblage, comprising approximately one fourth of the pressure flake

patterning. Oblique patterning also infrequently occurs, with chevron flake patterning

absent.

Regardless of pressure flaking pattern, the Durango and Rainbow Plateau

assemblages do not differ statistically at the .05 level in pressure flake scar depths, or

length of retouch. Both assemblages display non-invasive and invasive pressure flaking

depths (Table 7.22). Invasive depths dominate the assemblages, constituting a slightly

greater percentage of the Durango assemblage than the Rainbow Plateau assemblage.

Table 7.22 Frequencies of Pressure Flaking Depth by Regional Assemblage Pressure Durango Rainbow Plateau flaking Length Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage invasive 13 59.1 18 51.4 non-invasive 9 40.9 17 48.6 Total 22 100 35 100

Notch Attribute Comparisons

NHST of notch openings indicate differences between the two regions when comparing individual notch openings, but similarity when comparing the average notch

160

opening. Rainbow Plateau notches exhibit narrower notch openings than Durango points.

NHST of notch location between the two regions resulted in no difference at the .05

level, however, the negligible outcome of the effect size measure suggests minimal to no

strength of association for the test. The notch location frequencies, however, provide

some insights. Corner notching characterizes the majority of the hafting modifications on tools from both Durango and the Rainbow Plateau. Side notching occurs in greater

frequency and percentage within the Rainbow Plateau assemblage. In addition, one side

and corner-notched point (Figure 7.4) originated from the Rainbow Plateau, a form not present within the Durango assemblage.

Base Form Comparisons

Base form types and frequencies also follow the territorial patterns (Table 7.23).

Excurvate bases vastly dominate the Durango assemblage, where straight, incurvate, and

informal forms rarely occur. Much more variability defines the basal edges of the

Rainbow Plateau tools. Excurvate bases comprise less than half of the assemblage, while

straight bases characterize approximately one third of the tools. Informal and incurvate

bases also occur at greater percentages. The higher count of informal bases likely reflects

the greater number of bifaces within the Rainbow Plateau assemblage compared to

projectile points in the Durango assemblage.

Table 7.23 Frequencies of Pressure Flaking Pattern by Regional Assemblage Base Durango Rainbow Plateau Form Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Excurvate 17 81 19 42.2 Straight 2 9.5 14 31.1 Incurvate 1 4.8 5 11.1 Informal 1 4.8 7 15.6 Total 21 100 45 100

161

Cross Section and Thickness Comparisons

The various thinning approaches resulted in a variety of cross sections not

statistically different at the .05 level. Durango tools typically exhibit plano-convex cross sections, followed by flattened forms, with biconvex cross sections also present (Table

7.24). Equal frequencies of flattened and plano-convex cross sections define the Rainbow

Plateau tools. Biconvex forms characterize less than 20% of the Rainbow Plateau tools

while constituting approximately 25% of the Durango assemblage. Regardless of cross

section form, the width-to-thickness ratio comparison indicates a difference between the two regions, with points from the Rainbow Plateau exhibiting a higher ratio than the

Durango assemblage (Figure 7.9). The higher ratio signifies thinner, wider bifacial tools within the Rainbow Plateau assemblage.

Table 7.24 Frequencies of Cross Sections by Regional Assemblage Cross Durango Rainbow Plateau Section Location Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage flattened 7 31.8 25 41 plano-convex 10 45.5 25 41 biconvex 5 22.7 11 18 rhomboidal 0 0 0 0 Total 22 100 61 100

Comparisons of Durango and Rainbow Plateau Basketmaker Bifacial Tools

The Durango and Rainbow Plateau assemblage comparison reflects the outcomes

found within the Eastern and Western comparison, with slight variations including

greater statistical differences. Statistical testing resulted in differences with a 95% confidence interval for six of the ten attributes. The two regions differ in maximum and minimum notch openings, percussion flake scar patterning, pressure flake scar patterning,

162

base form, and width/thickness ratio. The similar attributes include the average notch

opening, pressure flake depth, notch location and cross section.

Durango and Rainbow Plateau Similarities

The Durango and Rainbow Plateau Basketmaker bifacial tool similarities

correlate with the territorial comparison findings. Bifacial tools from both regions exhibit

similar average notch opening sizes typically initiated from the corners of the proximal

end. The majority of the projectile points exhibit corner-notched, excurvate based forms.

Flintknappers from both territories employed percussion flaking to thin bifacial tools

commonly resulting in plano-convex and flattened cross sections. Moreover, while the impetus, frequency, and patterning of pressure flaking differs, both invasive and non- invasive pressure flaking depths occur in high proportions of both assemblages.

Durango and Rainbow Plateau Differences

The Durango and Rainbow Plateau bifacial tools differ more than the grand

territorial comparison. Statistical tests resulting in differences at the .05 level include the

maximum and minimum notch openings, both percussion and pressure flake scar

patterning, base form, and width/thickness ratio. Similar to the territorial comparison, the

differences suggest decision order affecting the manufacturing decisions dictated

different approaches by the Durango and Rainbow Plateau artisans to tool thinning. The

Durango flintknappers’ manufacturing decisions commonly resulted in randomly oriented

percussion flake scars followed by randomly oriented or diagonally oriented pressure

flake scar patterning. On the Rainbow Plateau, the thinning technique commonly resulted

in horizontally oriented percussion and randomly oriented pressure flake scar patterning.

The ubiquity of pressure flaking in the Durango assemblage indicates pressure functioned

163

as a finishing technique. In contrast, Western Basketmaker flintknappers used percussion

thinning as a finishing technique, modifying blade edges using pressure flaking in only

63% of the cases. The different thinning techniques resulted in different width/thickness

ratios. The Rainbow Plateau technique produced tools with higher ratios, and hence,

thinner tools than the Durango technique. Finally, the vast majority of the Durango

assemblage exhibit excurvate bases as opposed to the Rainbow Plateau assemblage which

includes comparable frequencies of excurvate and straight bases as well as higher

percentages of informal and incurvate base forms.

To summarize, the common Durango BMII bifacial tools consist of wide corner-

notched, excurvate-based morphologies. The Durango Basketmaker flintknappers typically thinned the tools through randomly oriented percussion flaking and finished with randomly oriented or diagonally oriented pressure flaking resulting in relatively thick tools when compared to maximum width. The common Rainbow Plateau BMII bifacial tool includes excurvate or straight-based forms with corner notches exhibiting

narrower openings than the Durango forms. The Rainbow Plateau Basketmaker

flintknappers thinned and finished bifacial tools using horizontal or random percussion

resulting in relatively thin tools when compared to the maximum width. Pressure flaking

occurs, being used for rejuvenation rather than finishing.

Durango and Cedar Mesa

The Durango and Cedar Mesa assemblage comparisons resulted in the greatest

statistical success (Table 7.25). Effect size measures indicate associations for all of the applicable NHST. In addition, all but one of the tests exhibit strong or very strong strengths of association. I found no statistical difference between the Durango and Cedar

164

Mesa assemblages in seven of the ten attributes examined, including the maximum, minimum, and average notch openings, percussion flake scar patterning, pressure flake scar depth, notch location, and cross section. I did find differences in pressure flake scar patterning, base form, and the width/thickness ratio.

165

Table 7.25 Durango and Cedar Mesa Inter-regional Assemblage Comparisons, Statistical Results, and Statistical Outcomes Compared Attribute Significant Association Outcome Assemblages

max notch The lack of statistical significance suggests similarity in the maximum notch no n/a open opening between the Durango and Cedar Mesa datasets. The lack of statistical significance suggests similarity in the minimum notch min notch open no n/a opening between the Durango and Cedar Mesa datasets. average notch The lack of statistical significance suggests similarity in the average notch no n/a open opening between the Durango and Cedar Mesa datasets. The lack of statistical significance and strong strength of association indicate percussion no strong similarity in the percussion flake scar patterning between the Durango and pattern Cedar Mesa datasets. The statistical significance and strong strength of association indicate pressure yes strong differences in the pressure flake scar patterning between the Durango and pattern Cedar Mesa datasets. The lack of statistical significance and strong strength of association indicate Durango v. press flake no strong similarity in the general length of pressure flake scars between the Durango Cedar Mesa depth and Cedar Mesa datasets. The statistical outcome indicates similarity between the two regions. The notch location no negligible negligible strength of association, however, suggests minimal to no relationship between the datasets. The statistical significance and presence of, albeit weak, strength of base form yes weak association indicate differences in the base form between the Durango and Cedar Mesa datasets The statistical outcome indicates similarity between the two regions. The cross section no negligible negligible strength of association, however, suggests minimal to no relationship between the datasets.

Width/thickness The statistical significance indicates differences in the width/thickness ratio yes n/a ratio between the Durango and Rainbow Plateau datasets.

166

Percussion Thinning Flake Scar Patterning Comparisons

Randomly oriented percussion flake scars dominate surface patterning from both

regions (Table 7.26). Although no statistically significant differences exist at the 95%

confidence interval in percussion flake scar patterning between Durango and Cedar Mesa,

horizontal percussion flaking occurs more often within the Cedar Mesa assemblage. In

addition, oblique percussion flaking is present on the surface of one knife. I removed this

knife from NHST on the basis of the single occurrence being an outlier.

Table 7.26 Frequencies of Percussion Flaking Pattern by Regional Assemblage Percussion Durango Cedar Mesa flake pattern Pattern Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage random 17 81 23 63.9 horizontal 4 19 12 33.3 oblique 0 0 1* 2.8 Total 21 100 36 100 * removed from statistical analysis as an outlier

Pressure Thinning Flake Scar Patterning Comparisons

Similar to the Rainbow Plateau comparison, Durango and Cedar Mesa bifacial tools

exhibit different pressure flake scar patterning (Table 7.27). The ubiquity of pressure flaking within the Durango assemblage is not present in the Cedar Mesa assemblage either. Approximately three quarters, 77%, of the Cedar Mesa assemblage shows pressure flaking. While the percentage seems high, the Cedar Mesa assemblage is heavily rejuvenated, in which case an assemblage of tools subjected to enough utilization to require edge rejuvenation does not display the ubiquity of pressure flaking present within the Durango assemblage. Random pressure flake patterning dominates the surfaces of the

Durango bifacial tools, although notable variability in pattering occurs, including oblique, chevron, and horizontal orientations. In contrast, a restricted range of random and

167

Table 7.27 Frequencies of Pressure Flaking Patterns by Regional Assemblage Pressure Durango Cedar Mesa flake pattern Pattern Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage random 12 54.5 12 50 horizontal 2 9.1 12 50 oblique 5 22.7 0 0 chevron 3 13.6 0 0 Total 22 100 24 100

horizontal pressure flake patterning characterizes the Cedar Mesa tools. The two patterns

comprise equal proportions of the assemblage.

Pressure flake scar depth does not statistically differ at the .05 level between

Durango and Cedar Mesa. Invasive versus non-invasive percentage composition of the

two regions illustrate differences. Invasive pressure flaking dominates the Durango

assemblage, 59%, while constituting a minority, 38%, of the Cedar Mesa assemblage

(Table 7.28). Accordingly, Durango Basketmakers typically manufactured tools with invasive pressure flaking while the Cedar Mesa flintknappers produced non-invasive pressure flake scars.

Table 7.28 Frequencies of Pressure Flaking Depth by Regional Assemblage Pressure Durango Cedar Mesa flaking Length Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage invasive 13 59.1 9 37.5 non-invasive 9 40.9 15 62.5 Total 22 100 24 100

Notch Attribute Comparisons

The lack of statistical significance at the .05 level and moderate strength of

association indicate the Durango and Cedar Mesa assemblages include tools with similar

sized notch openings. Notching occurs most frequently at the corners, although both

168

regional assemblages include a small number of side-notched tools. In addition, the greatest number, though minimal (n=2), of side and corner-notched points (Figure 7.4)

originate from Cedar Mesa.

Base Form Comparisons

Base form types follow the overall territorial patterns, with differences in

frequency (Table 7.29). Excurvate bases vastly dominate the Durango assemblage, with

minor counts of straight, incurvate, and informal forms. The Cedar Mesa tools exhibit all

four basal edge forms as well, with straight bases slightly dominating. Excurvate bases

follow, occurring slightly less than straight bases. Incurvate and informal bases comprise

one quarter of the tool assemblage.

Table 7.26 Frequencies of Base Forms by Regional Assemblage Base Durango Cedar Mesa Form Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Excurvate 17 81 10 35.7 Straight 2 9.5 11 39.3 Incurvate 1 4.8 4 14.3 Informal 1 4.8 3 10.7 Total 21 100 28 100

Cross Sections and Thickness

Statistical testing indicates no difference with a 95% confidence interval between

the Durango and Cedar Mesa cross sections. Frequency comparisons, however, show

discrepancies between the two assemblages (Table 7.30). Plano-convex cross sections

dominate the Durango assemblage followed by flattened and biconvex. In contrast,

flattened cross sections characterize over half of the Cedar Mesa tools, with plano-convex forms being the least common of the three major cross section types. The only instance of a rhomboidal cross section occurs within the Cedar Mesa assemblage, created through

169

Table 7.30 Frequencies of Cross Sections by Regional Assemblage Cross Durango Cedar Mesa Section Location Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage flattened 7 31.8 20 52.6 plano-convex 10 45.5 7 18.4 biconvex 5 22.7 10 26.3 rhomboidal 0 0 1* 2.6 Total 22 100 38 100 * removed from statistical analysis as an outlier

substantial rejuvenation which reduced the blade and altered the original cross section

type. Regardless of the statistical outcome of the cross section comparison, NHST of the

width/thickness ratio resulted in statistical difference at the .05 level. Similar to the

Rainbow Plateau comparison, Cedar Mesa tools exhibit a higher width/thickness ratio than the Durango tools. The comparison indicates that tools from Cedar Mesa tend to be thinner with width than Durango tools.

Comparisons of Durango and Cedar Mesa Basketmaker Bifacial Tools

The Durango and Cedar Mesa comparisons differ from the previous comparisons.

Null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST) and the corresponding strengths of associations

indicated no differences within the 95% confidence interval for seven of the ten attributes

I examined. Bifacial tools from the two regions show similarities in maximum, minimum,

and average notch opening measurements, percussion flake scar patterning, pressure flake

scar depth, notch location, and cross section. Pressure flake patterning, base form, and

width/thickness ratio differ between the two regions.

Durango and Cedar Mesa Similarities

The flintknappers of both regions typically manufactured bifacial tools through

random percussion flaking resulting in flattened, plano-convex, and biconvex cross

sections. Tools from both regions exhibit invasive and non-invasive pressure flaking,

170 regardless of the impetus, frequency, and patterning. In addition, flintknappers from both regions commonly altered the hafting area with corner notches exhibiting similar notch opening dimensions.

Durango and Cedar Mesa Differences

Only three of the dimensions differ statistically between Durango and Cedar

Mesa. The flaked stone artisans from the two regions approached pressure flaking differently. The Durango flintknappers used pressure flaking as a finishing method, typically creating randomly or diagonally oriented pressure flake patterns. Cedar Mesa flintknappers employed pressure flaking as a rejuvenation method, manufacturing randomly or horizontally oriented flake scar patterning, commonly not extending pats the margin. Excurvate bases comprise the vast majority of the Durango assemblage, whereas straight bases dominate the Cedar Mesa base forms, occurring slightly more often than excurvate bases. Finally, the Cedar Mesa assemblage exhibits higher width/thickness ratios than Durango. The statistically different width/thickness ratios are of interest considering the approaches to percussion flaking are not different. Moreover, the outcome suggests the width/thickness ratio may reflect a dimensional preference rather than a result of the artisans’ approach.

In sum, the common Durango BMII bifacial tools consist of wide corner-notched, excurvate-based morphologies. The Durango Basketmaker flintknappers typically thinned the tools through randomly oriented percussion flaking and finished with randomly oriented or diagonally oriented pressure flaking resulting in relatively thick tools when compared to maximum width. The common Cedar Mesa Basketmaker bifacial tool resembles the Durango tools in many ways. Cedar Mesa tools consist of wide corner-

171 notched tools with straight or excurvate bases. The artisans commonly thinned bifaces through randomly or horizontally oriented percussion flaking. In addition, Cedar Mesa flintknappers used pressure flaking to rejuvenate edges, commonly creating non-invasive random and horizontal flake scar patterns. The thinning approaches typically resulted in flattened cross sections with high width-to-thickness ratios indicative with thin tools relative to the width.

Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa

Comparisons between the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa assemblages, both regions within the grand Western Basketmaker territory, show inter-regional similarities and differences (Table 7.31). Null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST) resulted in differences with 95% confidence intervals for four of the ten attributes while showing no difference for the other six attributes. Effect size measures providing strengths of association (SoA) for the data being tested are appropriate for six of the tests and indicate four of the six tests included datasets with associations supporting the NHST outcomes

(Table 7.31). Effect size measurements are not appropriate for the asymmetrically distributed interval data comprising the notch measurements and width/thickness ratio. I found no statistical difference between the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa assemblages in six of the ten attributes examined, including the minimum notch opening, pressure flake scar depth, notch location, base form, cross section, and width/thickness ratio. I found statistical difference at the 95% confidence interval for maximum and average notch openings, as well as both percussion and pressure flake scar patterning.

172

Table 7.31 Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa Inter-regional Assemblage Comparisons, Statistical Results, and Statistical Outcomes Compared Attribute Significant Association Outcome Assemblages max notch The l statistical significance suggests differences in the maximum notch yes n/a open opening between the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa datasets. The lack of statistical significance suggests similarity in the minimum notch min notch open no n/a opening between the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa datasets. The statistical significance suggests differences in the average notch opening average notch yes n/a between the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa datasets; further suggesting open large variation in notch opening dimensions. The statistical significance and strong strength of association indicate percussion yes very strong differences in percussion flake scar patterning between the Rainbow Plateau pattern and Cedar Mesa datasets. The statistical significance and presence of, albeit weak, strength of pressure yes weak association indicate differences in the pressure flake scar patterning between Rainbow Plat. pattern the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa datasets V. Cedar Mesa The lack of statistical significance and moderate strength of association press flake no moderate indicate no difference in the general length of pressure flake scars between depth the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa datasets. The statistical outcome indicates similarity in notch locations between the notch location no negligible Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa regions. The negligible strength of association indicates minimal to no relationship between the datasets. The statistical outcome indicates similarity in base form between the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa regions. The negligible strength of association base form no negligible indicates minimal to no relationship between the datasets. Accordingly, the statistical outcome of these data is inconclusive. The lack of statistical significance and strong strength of association indicate cross section no Very strong similarities in the cross section types between the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa datasets.

Width/thickness The lack of statistical significance suggests similarity in the width/thickness no n/a ratio ratio between the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa datasets.

173

Percussion Thinning Flake Scar Patterning Comparisons

Two major approaches to percussion flaking resulted in horizontal and random

percussion flake scar patterning (Table 7.32). Horizontal patterning dominates the

Rainbow Plateau assemblage, with less than a third of the bifacial tools displaying randomly oriented flake scars. In contrast, random percussion flake scar patterning constitutes the major portion the Cedar Mesa assemblage, with horizontal patterning present on one-third of the tools. In addition, one tool from Cedar Mesa exhibits an

oblique percussion pattern, which is atypical for Basketmaker percussion thinning

approaches.

Table 7.32 Frequencies of Percussion Flaking Patterns by Regional Assemblage Percussion Rainbow Plateau Cedar Mesa flake pattern Pattern Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage random 19 31.7 23 63.9 horizontal 41 68.3 12 33.3 oblique 0 0 1* 2.8 Total 60 100 36 100 * removed from statistical analysis as an outlier

Pressure Thinning Flake Scar Patterning Comparisons

Neither Rainbow Plateau nor Cedar Mesa flintknappers used pressure flaking as a

common method to finish tool, employing pressure to rejuvenate, or retouch, blades

instead. Sixty-three percent of the Rainbow Plateau tools exhibit pressure flaking

compared to 77% of the Cedar Mesa tools. Pressure flaking patterns differ statistically at

the .05 level between the two regions. The patterning shows the opposite trend of the

percussion thinning flake scar patterning (Table 7.33). Random pressure flake patterning

vastly dominates the Rainbow Plateau, with horizontal pressure flaking constituting only

174

26% of the pressure flaked tools. In contrast, the Cedar Mesa tools exhibit equal counts of random and horizontal pressure flake patterns.

Table 7.33 Frequencies of Pressure Flaking Patterns by Regional Assemblage Pressure Rainbow Plateau Cedar Mesa flake pattern Pattern Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage random 23 65.7 12 50 horizontal 9 25.7 12 50 oblique 3 8.6 0 0 Total 35 100 24 100

Although the pressure flaking patterns differ statistically, I found no statistical difference at the .05 level for pressure flake scar depth. Both assemblages include points with non-invasive and invasive pressure flaking. Invasiveness defines slightly more than half, 51%, of the pressure flaking on tools from the Rainbow Plateau compared to 38% from Cedar Mesa (Table 7.34). In contrast, slightly more than one third of the Cedar

Mesa tools evidence invasive pressure flaking.

Table 7.34 Frequencies of Pressure Flaking Depth by Regional Assemblage Pressure Rainbow Plateau Cedar Mesa flaking Length Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage invasive 18 51.4 9 37.5 non-invasive 17 48.6 15 62.5 Total 35 100 24 100

Notch Attribute Comparisons

Statistical comparisons between notch opening measurements give mixed results.

Maximum and average notch opening measurements differ between the two regions at the .05 level indicating different notch sizes. The comparison of the minimum notch openings, however, does not differ at the .05 level suggesting similarities of notch sizes

175

Table 7.35 T-test Results Attribute Region N Mean (cm) Std. Deviation Rainbow Plateau 15 0.55 0.11 Maximum Notch Opening Cedar Mesa 15 0.75 0.21 Rainbow Plateau 11 0.52 0.09 Minimum Notch Opening Cedar Mesa 8 0.67 0.20 Rainbow Plateau 11 0.55 0.10 Average Notch Opening Cedar Mesa 8 0.77 0.19

between the two regions. An examination of the means illustrates that smaller maximum

and minimum notch openings occur on tools from the Rainbow Plateau (Table 7.35). The

inter-regional differences within the maximum and minimum notch opening dimensions

are not great enough to be statistically significant. The averages, however, differ enough

to indicate a statistically significant difference between the two regions (Table 7.33). The

sample size is small, with less than ten examples of minimum and average notch opening

measurements from Cedar Mesa. Therefore, I suggest the assemblages are statistically

different based on the results of the maximum notch opening, which includes the largest

sample.

The notch location NHST resulted in no difference at the .05 level. The effect size

measure, however, indicates negligible SoA between the notch location datasets.

Accordingly, the NHST results must be considered warily. Regardless, the frequencies

illustrate complementary base forms between the two assemblages (Table 7.36). Corner notching dominates, defining the hafting elements of approximately three quarters of each assemblage, followed by side notching and side and corner notching. Side notching

is the main difference, occurring twice as often within the Rainbow Plateau assemblage.

176

Table 7.36 Frequencies of Notch Locations by Regional Assemblage Notch Rainbow Plateau Cedar Mesa Location Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

corner 16 69.6 16 76.2

side 6 26.1 3 14.3 side and 1 4.3 2 9.5 corner Total 23 100 21 100

Base Form Comparisons

Base form NHST resulted in no difference at the .05 level. The effect size

measure, however, indicates negligible SoA between the notch location datasets.

Accordingly, the NHST results must be considered warily. Regardless, the frequencies

illustrate similar base forms between the two assemblages, with minimal differences

(Table 7.37). The majority of the tools from the Rainbow Plateau exhibit excurvate basal

edges, with straight, informal, and incurvate forms following in frequency, respectively.

In contrast, straight bases dominate the Cedar Mesa assemblage, with slightly fewer

excurvate bases. In addition, one-quarter of the Cedar Mesa points exhibit either incurvate or informal bases.

Table 7.37 Frequencies of Base Forms by Regional Assemblage Base Rainbow Plateau Cedar Mesa Form Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Excurvate 19 42.2 10 35.7 Straight 14 31.1 11 39.3 Incurvate 5 11.1 4 14.3 Informal 7 15.6 3 10.7 Total 45 100 28 100

177

Cross Sections and Thickness

The cross section NHST resulted in no difference at the .05 level with a very strong SoA Flattened cross sections dominate the Cedar Mesa assemblage and occur in equal frequency with plano-convex forms within the Rainbow Plateau assemblage (Table

7.38). The Cedar Mesa tools exhibit a higher frequency of biconvex cross sections.

Plano-convex forms also vary in frequency between the two regions. Plano-convex forms constitute less than 20% of the Cedar Mesa assemblage as opposed to 41% of the

Rainbow Plateau tools.

Table 7.38 Frequencies of Cross Sections by Regional Assemblage Cross Rainbow Plateau Cedar Mesa Section Location Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage flattened 25 41 20 52.6 plano-convex 25 41 7 18.4 biconvex 11 18 10 26.3 rhomboidal 0 0 1* 2.6 Total 61 100 38 100 * removed from statistical analysis as an outlier

In addition to the comparable cross sections, NHST of width/thickness ratios also show no difference at the .05 level. High width/thickness ratios constitute the assemblages, indicating both the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa artisans created thin tools relative to the maximum width.

Comparisons of Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa Basketmaker Bifacial Tools

Null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST) resulted in more similarities than differences between the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa assemblages. The corresponding effect size measures give mixed outcomes, resulting in negligible strengths of associations for two of the comparisons. With the negligible associations in mind, the

NHST outcomes and frequency comparisons suggest no difference between the two

178

regions. Bifacial tools from the two regions show similarities in pressure flake scar depth, minimum notch opening, notch location, base form, cross section, and width/thickness ratio. Maximum and average notch opening measurements, as well as percussion and pressure flake scar patterning differ between the two regions.

Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa Similarities

The flaked stone artisans of both regions typically created bifacial tools with

similar morphologies, including hafting elements, cross section, and width thickness

ratios. Corner-notched, excurvate and straight-based forms describe the typical

morphology produced by artisans in both regions. Flattened cross sections are typical

within both assemblages, however, plano-convex forms occur in equal frequency within

the Rainbow Plateau assemblage. Regardless of cross section, bifacial tools from both

regions exhibit high width/thickness ratios indicative of thin tools. Finally, I found no

statistical difference between the relative depths of pressure flake scars when

flintknappers employed pressure flaking.

Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa Differences

Only four of the dimensions differ statistically between Rainbow Plateau and

Cedar Mesa. Maximum and average notch openings differ, suggesting smaller notch

opening dimensions within the Rainbow Plateau assemblage. Differences in decision

order and thus the flintknappers’ approach to biface manufacture mark the major

differences. The flaked stone artisans from the two regions approached both percussion

and pressure flaking differently. For instance, Rainbow Plateau Basketmakers typically

thinned the tools through horizontally oriented percussion flaking, with randomly

oriented pressure flaking patterns resulting from pressure flaking. In contrast, the Cedar

179

Mesa artisans typically percussion thinned through random flaking with equal

frequencies of random and horizontal pressure flaking.

To summarize, the common Rainbow Plateau BMII bifacial tools consist of

corner-notched, excurvate to straight-based hafting elements. The Rainbow Plateau

Basketmaker flintknappers typically thinned bifacial tools through horizontally oriented

percussion flaking. The thinning method created flattened and plano-convex cross

sections, thin relative to the maximum width. When pressure flaking occurs, the resulting

pattern is randomly oriented. The common Cedar Mesa Basketmaker bifacial tool

consists of wide corner-notched tools with straight to excurvate-based hafting elements.

The artisans commonly thinned bifaces through randomly or horizontally oriented

percussion flaking. In addition, Cedar Mesa flintknappers used pressure flaking to

rejuvenate edges, commonly creating non-invasive random and horizontal flake scar patterns. The thinning approaches typically resulted in flattened cross sections with high width-to-thickness ratios indicative of thin tools relative to the width.

The Parts of the Sum

I analyzed debitage from five sites and bifacial tools from six sites spanning three regions of the Eastern and Western territories comprising the Basketmaker II world. In addition, I examined experimental assemblages manufactured through direct freehand

percussion with an antler billet, indirect percussion with a horn punch replica, and

pressure with an antler tine. Statistical tests and effect size measures compared the

debitage assemblages with the experimental data by territory and by region. Bifacial tools

underwent the same tests and effect size measures, compared by territory and region.

180

Statistical tests included t-tests of symmetrically distributed interval data, Mann-

Whitney U tests of asymmetrically distributed interval data, and Chi Square as well as

Fisher’s Exact tests of nominal data. Corresponding effect size measures include Cohen’s d, Cramer’s V, and Theil’s U. All measures resulting in strength of association greater than negligible are considered as associated datasets providing reliable statistical outcomes. Any statistical tests with negligible strength of association I report as tenuous, with additional considerations of frequencies, as the test results carry more weight than the effect size measures (Sorrell, personal communication). Debitage testing focused on the proximal ends of flakes and included proximal lateral width (PLW), platform width, and platform thickness. Examined bifacial tool attributes include the measurements of maximum, minimum, and average notch openings, percussion flake scar patterning, pressure flake scar patterning, general depth of pressure flake scars, base form, notch location, cross section, and width/thickness ratio.

The Biface Thinning Flake Component

Initial comparisons of the archaeological and experimental datasets indicated that the pressure flake assemblage exhibits substantial difference in distribution and midspread compared to all other assemblages. Accordingly, I removed the pressure flake assemblage from the analysis, concluding corresponding antler tine pressure flake scars exhibit substantially smaller negative bulbs of percussion and narrower scar patterns than the percussion biface thinning flakes and the analyzed Basketmaker II assemblages.

Territorial and Experimental Conclusions

Comparisons between the experimental punch and billet assemblages resulted in

similar platform measurements and different proximal lateral widths. Platform width

181 comparisons indicate the Eastern and Western debitage assemblages differ from both billet and punch assemblages. Both billet and punch assemblages include platform thicknesses similar to the Western assemblage but different from the Eastern debitage. In addition, the platform widths of the Eastern assemblage differ from the Western assemblage. In contrast, the debitage of both Eastern and Western sites include similar

PLWs and platform thicknesses. The billet assemblage exhibits the greatest differences, being similar only in PLW with the punch assemblage and platform thickness with the

Western assemblage. Debitage produced with the punch exhibits the greatest variability in similarity between assemblages, with platform thicknesses similar to both the billet and Western assemblage, platform width similar to the billet produced debitage, and

PLWs comparable to both Eastern and Western debitage.

Regional and Experimental Conclusions

Regional-experimental comparisons resulted in mixed conclusions. The Durango and Rainbow Plateau comparisons with the experimental data indicate differences in platform widths and thicknesses between all four assemblages. Billet-produced PLWs also differ from the Durango and Rainbow Plateau debitage, while the punch-produced

PLWs are similar to both assemblages. The Cedar Mesa assemblage illustrates a very different comparison trend. The Cedar Mesa debitage is similar to the punch produced debitage in all three measurements and similar to the billet assemblage in platform width and thickness. The data from this study provide mixed results. Accordingly, the usefulness of PLW, if any, has not yet been established.

182

Biface Thinning Flake Conclusions

Various conclusions may be drawn, in light of equifinality, 1. the flintknapping

implement used to thin a biface creates percussion biface reduction debitage with a range

of platform widths, as illustrated by the skewed datasets. The statistically significant

outcomes resulting from comparisons with the experimental percussion assemblages in

combination with the experimental pressure flake debitage indicate the range of platform

widths correspond with the working (percussive) surface of the implement used to thin

the biface. In addition, the percussor material (horn, bone, wood, antler, or stone) may

affect platform size. 2. based on the former statement, the finding of no statistical

significance within the 95% confidence interval when comparing platform widths

between the Eastern and Western assemblages suggests the use of flintknapping

implements with similar distal end dimensions, although the precise flintknapping

method remains unknown. 3. the similarities between Cedar Mesa and both experimental

assemblages suggest overlap between the two tool production methods, which may be

because of overlap of the ranges created by the different tools and manufacturing

methods, percussor material, or the dynamics involved in flake removal, such as the

potential for platform dimension variability to be influenced by point of contact creating

flake initiation. 4. the most likely reason is the use of tools with differing working end dimensions similar to the dimensions of the experimental billet and punch. Assuming the flintknapping implement and not the method of manufacture determines the platform dimensions, then flintknappers within the Durango and Rainbow Plateau employed similar sized tools, which were very different from the tools used on Cedar Mesa. 5. the finding of no significance at the .05 level in the experimental platform thickness

183

comparison suggest that the angle of the objective piece and the angle of the implement

at flake detachment do not affect platform width or thickness. Moreover, the location of

the point of impact at the platform margin, e.g. at the platform edge versus 2 mm above

the platform edge, and perhaps the degree of platform preparation, likely determine

platform thickness.

The Bifacial Tool Component

Inter-territorial and inter-regional comparisons of bifacial tool attributes also

provided mixed results. Comparisons between the Eastern and Western territories

resulted in similarities for six of the attributes and differences in four. The outcomes of the regional comparisons are much more complex with the greatest differences between the Rainbow Plateau and Durango and the greatest similarity between Durango and Cedar

Mesa. The degree of statistical similarity, however, does not equate archaeological/ anthropological significance in regards to the stylistic conclusions.

Territorial Comparison Conclusions

Inter-territorial bifacial tool comparisons indicate more similarities than

differences between the Eastern and Western territories. Flake scar patterning, which

influences surface appearance, notably varies. In contrast, both Eastern and Western

Basketmakers subscribed to an inclusive bifacial tool form while showing inter-

assemblage variability.

Percussion and pressure flake scar patterning differ between territories. Eastern

Basketmaker flintknappers typically manufactured bifacial tools through randomly

oriented percussion flaking followed by randomly oriented pressure flaking. The thinning

method produced a variety of cross sections, but typically resulted in plano-convex

184 forms. Horizontal percussion and pressure as well as oblique and chevron pressure flaking also define flaking patterns on bifacial tools. Haft forms typically exhibit corner notches and excurvate bases. Notch opening measurements indicate similarities between the Eastern and Western territories. In contrast, Western Basketmaker flintknappers employed randomly and horizontally oriented percussion flaking to manufacture bifacial tools. This method typically resulted in flattened cross sections, with plano-convex and biconvex forms also present.

Width/thickness ratio comparisons indicate differences on the territorial scale.

Tools from the Western territory and the regions within the territory exhibit higher ratios than the tools from the Eastern territory represented by the Durango region. Pressure flaking occurs far less often on bifacial tools from the Western assemblage. The bifacial tools with pressure flaking exhibit random and horizontal flake scar patterning, with oblique patterning occurring in minor frequency. Hafting elements of Eastern bifacial tools typically include excurvate bases and corner notches. Variations of the hafting element occur in minor frequencies and include straight, incurvate, and informal bases as well as side notching. Western bifacial tool hafting elements commonly include excurvate to straight bases and corner notches. Variations of the hafting element are more common within the Western assemblage and include incurvate and informal bases as well as side notches and a combination of side and corner notches.

Regional Comparison Conclusions

Inter-regional bifacial tool comparisons indicate similarities and differences between the three regions (Figure 7.12). Flake scar patterning, which influences surface

185

Figure 7.12. Diagrams of bifacial tool attribute statistical testing outcomes. appearance, notably varies. The Basketmakers between the three regions subscribed to an inclusive bifacial tool form while showing inter-assemblage variability.

186

Bifacial Tool Surface Appearance across Regions

Random orientation describes the majority of percussion flake scar patterning on

Durango and Cedar Mesa bifacial tool surfaces, whereas horizontal patterning dominates the Rainbow Plateau assemblage. The thinning methods resulted in varying proportions of flattened, plano-convex, and biconvex cross sections. The Durango tools typically exhibit plano-convex cross sections. Tools with flattened cross sections are more common from the Rainbow Plateau, but occur in equal proportion with plano-convex forms. Flattened cross sections dominate the Cedar Mesa tools, which includes the smallest count of plano-convex forms. Pressure flaking occurs on all Durango points as a

variety of forms, dominated by random orientation, but diagonal varieties are common. In

contrast, pressure flaking occurs much less frequently on the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar

Mesa tools, even within this rejuvenated assemblage. Pressure flaking on Rainbow

Plateau tools typically occurs as randomly oriented scars, with a notable number of

horizontal flaking.

The same patterns, random and horizontal, define equal numbers of pressure flake

patterning on Cedar Mesa tools. Hafting elements of Durango tools typically include

excurvate bases and corner notches, with minimal variations of side notches and straight,

incurvate, and informal bases. Excurvate and straight-based, corner-notched forms dominate the Rainbow Plateau tools, with greater variation and higher frequencies of side notches, a combination of side and corner notching, and incurvate and informal bases.

Bifacial Tool Morphology across Regions

Hafting elements indicative of Cedar Mesa tools include flat and excurvate bases

with corner notches. Side notches are not as common compared to the Durango and

187

Rainbow Plateau assemblages, but the combined side and corner-notched forms occur more often. Notch opening measurements also indicate differences between regions.

Notched tools from the Rainbow Plateau exhibit smaller, statistically different notch openings than both Durango and Cedar Mesa. In contrast, Cedar Mesa and Durango include statistically similar notch openings, although Cedar Mesa notches display a larger distribution than Durango.

The Sum of the Parts

This chapter reported the statistical results and observations between debitage and bifacial tools originating from six sites spanning three regions and the Eastern and

Western Basketmaker territories. The datasets are not perfect, with more data from the

Western territory than the Eastern. In addition, the data originate from a wide variety of tools, including projectile points, knives, and bifaces. With that said, archaeological samples are seldom, if ever, ideal and the current analysis provides adequate data that contribute to our understanding of Basketmaker II flaked stone.

Experimenting with the Basketmakers

Experimentation with differing percussion thinning methods indicates substantial differences between Cedar Mesa and the Durango and Rainbow Plateau assemblages. In addition, the current analysis suggests comparability between Durango and Rainbow

Plateau percussion biface thinning flakes. My experiment indicates that simple platform measurements of biface thinning flakes do not differentiate punch produced debitage from billet produced debitage, and therefore do not provide a simple method of determining between thinning methods. The comparisons between the experimental and archaeological assemblages, however, indicate variability in platform width and thickness

188

may be statistically differentiated. Accordingly, additional experimental work should be

pursued.

Basketmaker Bifacial Tools

Basketmaker tool forms exhibit a great deal of variability. The major similarities

include a restricted percussion biface reduction approach indicated by the percussion

flake scar patterning, prevalence for corner notches, and a commonality of excurvate

basal edges. The frequency of form variability defines the major theme of dictating

differences between the assemblages. Horizontal flake scar patterning, flattened cross sections, straight bases, and side notches are far more common in the Western

assemblages. In addition, pressure flaking is far less common among the Western

assemblages than the Eastern assemblage. When pressure flaking occurs, the scar patterns

indicate random and horizontal flake detachments whereas Eastern pressure flaking is

typically random or a variation of a diagonal orientation to the longitudinal axis. Rainbow

Plateau and Cedar Mesa width/thickness ratios are much higher than the Durango tools,

indicating thinner tools with maximum width within the Western territory.

To Mix and Mingle

The results of this study do not contradict Geib’s (2002) research, which observed

differences of flake scar measures on bifacial tools. My study examined biface thinning

flakes for discrepancies in attribute measurements. The experimental portion established

differences between pressure and percussion flake measurements but similarities between

percussion biface reduction flakes produced with an antler billet and a horn punch. The

bifacial tool analysis included flake scar patterning examination, establishing pressure

flaking as ubiquitous within the Durango assemblage, whereas it functioned primarily as

189

a rejuvenation method within the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa assemblages.

Therefore, Geib’s observation is correct, in that percussion flake scars typically define the

surfaces of Western BMII tools and pressure flake scars define Eastern BMII tools.

Accordingly, the flake scars present on Eastern and Western tools exhibit different

measurements. In addition, the study illustrated the flaking pattern and flattened cross section type noted by Geib dominates the Rainbow Plateau assemblage. Morin’s and

Matson’s width/thickness ratio measure also showed promise, differentiating the

Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa width-to-thickness measures from the Durango tools.

190

CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF BASKETMAKER II FLAKED

STONE

In previous chapters I described four theories of BMII origins as well as the

perceived differences in material culture between so called Eastern and Western

Basketmakers from the perspective of a detailed analysis of Basketmaker biface

manufacturing technology. The origins include immigrant farmers, agricultural adoption

by indigenous hunter-gatherer groups, and a combination of immigrant farmers

introducing domesticates to indigenous hunter-gatherers. Accordingly, the material

culture should support one theory more than the opposing theories.

In particular, if the Basketmaker phenomenon is a cultural evolutionary process of indigenous hunter-gatherers becoming farmers, then we should see continuity in material culture. If the Basketmakers are migrant farmers then we should see material culture not present at the indigenous hunter-gatherer sites. If the Basketmaker phenomenon is an inter-mixing of migrants and indigenous populations, then the material culture should exhibit attributes of both earlier indigenous populations and previously absent attributes.

In addition, the material culture should demonstrate acculturation through either attribute amalgamation or conformity across the Basketmaker world. In this chapter I report the conclusions of my analysis and show that Basketmaker flaked stone is quite complex and requires in-depth consideration on a physiographic regional scale rather than the simplified East/West territorial dichotomy.

Early archaeologists noted differences and similarities in Basketmaker projectile point and knife forms. Geib (2002) conclusively demonstrated the use of horn punches

191

employed in indirect percussion by the Western Basketmakers to manufacture projectile

points. Geib suggested indirect percussion may constitute an isochrestic variant resulting

from enculturation. Morin and Matson (2009) used Basketmaker and Archaic projectile

points from Cedar Mesa to test six bifacial tool attributes, five of which Geib suggested

are indicators of the indirect thinning method. Morin and Matson found statistically

significant differences between Cedar Mesa and Archaic flaked stone technologies in six

attributes, including flake scar width measurements, width at the point of initiation, width at five millimeters from the margin, width/thickness ratios, sinuosity, and serration.

To further the study of Basketmaker flaked stone I examined both biface thinning debitage and bifacial tools. In addition, I manufactured an experimental thinning flake assemblage for comparison with the Basketmaker debitage. My thinning debitage analysis focused on proximal end dimensions within a threefold comparison. The threefold comparison includes: 1) inter-assemblage analysis of my experimental assemblage, 2) comparisons of my experimental and Basketmaker assemblages, and 3) inter-assemblage analysis of the Basketmaker biface thinning debitage. Bifacial tool analysis consists of morphological and surface patterning attributes directly or indirectly derived from the studies of Geib (2002) and Morin and Matson (2009). I asked four major questions: 1) Do proximal end thinning flake measurements correlate with the manufacturing method? 2) What are the similarities and differences between Eastern and

Western Basketmaker tool production debitage and bifacial tools? 3) Building on the previous question, do multiple “Basketmaker styles” exist that distinguish Eastern

Basketmaker flaked stone from Western Basketmaker flaked stone? 4) Does the regional

192 data support the East/West dichotomy? This chapter reports the conclusions drawn from the results of the debitage and bifacial tool analyses.

Basketmaker Biface Thinning Debitage and Experimentation

Geib’s (2002) study discovered and strongly advanced the idea of the use of horn punches by Western Basketmaker flaked stone artisans in indirect percussion thinning to create bifacial tools. In addition, Geib (2002) examined the pressure flaking on Middle

Archaic projectile points and noted that Eastern Basketmakers tended to finish bifacial tools with pressure flaking, a practice not commonly employed by Western

Basketmakers. In more recent diachronic research Morin and Matson (2009) demonstrated differences between the flake scar width measurements and width-to- thickness ratios of Basketmaker and Archaic projectile points.

Based on the findings of Geib (2002), Morin and Matson (2009), and in light of the origins debate, I created an experimental dataset of biface thinning flakes manufactured through percussion and pressure flaking. I focused on the proximal end attributes of biface thinning flakes, namely platform dimensions and the width of the flake three millimeters distal to the platform, or proximal lateral width (PLW). My experimental research design asks, first, do pressure flake measurements overlap with percussion flake measurements? And second, do different thinning methods result in biface thinning flakes with different platform measurements? Third is the PLW a viable measurement for distinguishing among flaking methods? The PLW measurement originated as a possible alternative to platform width because of the susceptibility of platforms to break during flake detachment. In addition, Morin’s and Matson’s (2009)

193 study indicates flake scar width at five millimeters from the margin is a statistically significant measure worthy of further consideration.

Biface Thinning Flake Analysis

The production of a bifacial tool includes a sequence, or multiple stages (Callahan

1979) of flake removals to thin and shape the tool. The bifacial tools may be finished through two methods, pressure flaking or percussion flaking, accomplished through three techniques, pressure, direct percussion, or indirect percussion. The finishing techniques correspond with the experimental thinning techniques, in particular, pressure flaking with an antler tine, direct percussion with a billet, and indirect percussion with a horn punch.

Analysis of my experimental assemblage resulted in three conclusions and a variety of additional questions. First, the platform dimensions of both direct and indirect percussion flakes clearly differ from antler tine pressure flakes. The pressure flakes exhibit platform widths and thicknesses distinctively smaller than both types of percussion flakes. Although the difference is clear, I did observe overlapping between the pressure flake platform width and thickness measurements at the lower end, below the midspread, when compared with both the billet and the punch platform measurement distributions. Second, both the billet and punch employed in the experiment produced similar platform widths and thicknesses. Accordingly, simple platform width and thickness measurements do not vary between manufacturing methods and cannot provide a diagnostic approach to determine bifacial tool production processes. Third, my experiment does not show a direct correlation between platform width and PLW for any of the three thinning methods. If the results of my experiment withstand scrutiny, then the

194

width of the flake three millimeters distal to the platform edge cannot be used as a proxy

for platform width.

The statistical similarity between the experimental billet and punch percussion

biface thinning flakes means that I cannot use my experimental data to distinguish the

thinning methods used by the various Basketmaker groups. Stated differently, the current

experimental data do not allow us to differentiate Basketmaker percussion thinning methods based on statistical comparison with my experimental assemblage. Although I

cannot infer flintknapping method by comparing my experimental and the archaeological

assemblages, comparisons do provide an avenue of inquiry. In particular, platform

measurement comparisons between my experimental data and the Basketmaker data, as

well as the Basketmaker data allow us to examine if statistical differences may occur

within biface thinning flake assemblages. Stated differently, regardless of being able to

determine the exact manufacturing method with the data at hand, can biface thinning

flake assemblages be differentiated, or do all percussion biface reduction approaches

result in statistically similar biface thinning flakes? Based on this question, I compare the

biface thinning flake assemblages. Statistical difference, when archaeologically/

anthropologically relevant, gives support to different isochrestic variants, although the method behind the isochrestic variants remains unknown.

A Comparison of Territorial and Experimental Flake Assemblages

Initially, I compared biface thinning flakes on a territorial scale, using the long-

held East/West dichotomy posited by Morris and Burgh (1954). When I compared the

Basketmaker biface thinning flakes from the West and East, i.e., on a territorial scale with

my experimental billet assemblage, I found statistical differences in platform width,

195

platform thickness, and PLW measurements. Both Eastern and Western biface thinning flake assemblages differ from my experimental billet assemblage in all attributes, with one exception. The exception is the biface thinning flake platform thickness measurement does not differ between the experimental billet and Western assemblages. Comparisons

of biface thinning flake platform width, platform thickness, and PLW measurements

between my experimental punch assemblage and the two territorial assemblages resulted

in more complex outcomes. The PLW measurements obtained from my experimental

punch assemblage are similar to the biface thinning flake PLWs in both the Eastern and the Western assemblages. In contrast, my experimental punch platform widths differ from both the Eastern and the Western assemblages. My experimental punch biface

thinning flakes exhibit platform thicknesses statistically different from the Eastern

assemblage, but similar to the Western biface thinning flakes.

A Comparison of Regional and Experimental Thinning Flake Assemblages

Following the territorial comparisons, I separated the Basketmaker biface thinning

flakes into three assemblages based on the physiographic region encompassing the sites

examined in my study. I then compared my experimental data to the regional biface

thinning flake assemblages. Comparing the proximal end measurements of the biface

thinning flakes from each region to my experimental assemblage shows more differences

than similarities. My experimental billet biface thinning flake measurements differ from

both the Durango and Rainbow Plateau assemblages in all three measurements, namely

platform width, platform thickness, and PLW. In addition, my experimental punch biface

thinning flakes also differ from both the Durango and Rainbow Plateau assemblages in

196

the three dimensions. In contrast, both the experimental billet and the experimental punch

assemblages are similar to the Cedar Mesa assemblage.

Results of Basketmaker and Experimental Biface Thinning Flake Assemblage Comparisons

The basic finding is that biface thinning assemblages may be statistically

differentiated, e.g., thinning flake proximal end dimensions may be used as a research

method to separate biface thinning assemblages for archaeological inference. If percussor

distal (working) end width (see Chapters 3 or 4 for a detailed explanation) is the main

predictor of thinning flake platform width, the Cedar Mesa assemblage resulted from

thinning with implements similar to my experimental billet and punch while the Durango

and Rainbow Plateau artisans employed smaller percussors in bifacial tool manufacture.

Based on my results, the width of the working end of the percussor likely dictates the

platform width of the detached thinning flake, as Geib (2002) suggests.

In addition, platform thickness provides a useful measurement for statistically differentiating percussion biface reduction assemblages. The precise meaning, however, of the platform thickness, remains problematic. My experimental assemblage included two different percussion biface reduction methods which entailed using different angles of both the percussor and the objective piece to initiate flake detachment (see Chapter 4).

The analysis, however, shows that both experimental punch and billet methods produce similar platform thicknesses, regardless of the two very different approaches. This finding suggests that the method of thinning (e.g., direct or indirect percussion) and angle of both the objective piece and the flintknapping implement (e.g. billet or punch) at flake initiation do not determine platform thickness. Moreover, I prepared platforms in the

197 same manner and initiated flake detachment from the biface edge, rather than above the edge, for both thinning methods. Accordingly, future research should consider the location of flake initiation relative to the biface edge as well as the amount of platform preparation.

A Comparison of Basketmaker Biface Thinning Flake Assemblages

Comparisons between the archaeological biface thinning flake datasets provide some interesting conclusions. Eastern and Western assemblages differ in platform width, but show similarities in platform thickness and PLW. Examining the assemblages on a regional basis, however, shows more variability than the territorial comparison suggests.

The Durango and Rainbow Plateau assemblages display strong similarity in platform attributes, suggesting similar percussion tool working end dimensions, if not manufacturing methods. The Cedar Mesa assemblage differs from both the Durango and

Rainbow Plateau assemblages. Accordingly, the Cedar Mesa biface thinning flake assemblage is the determining factor of the Eastern and Western territorial differences. In other words, if I compare the Eastern and Western Basketmaker assemblages without the

Cedar Mesa biface thinning flakes, then the territorial comparison shows similarity in biface thinning flake attributes between the Eastern and Western assemblages.

Essentially, by lumping multiple physiographic regions into the East/West territorial dichotomy we oversimplify the data and thus the results. Based on the regional comparisons, thinning flake assemblages do not conform to a grand territorial schema, but require higher resolution analysis at the local regional, rather than the grand territorial scale.

198

Concluding Biface Thinning Flake Assemblage Comparisons

To summarize, comparisons of experimental, territorial, and regional biface

thinning flake platform dimensions show useful differences, in which case the measurements have the potential to discriminate between assemblage manufacture methods. Interpreting the cause of the discrimination is problematic. The differences may simply correlate with the dimensions of the percussor or may possibly be the result of more complex interactions, such as the manufacturing method in combination with the percussor dimensions. Platform thickness also provides an avenue for differentiating thinning flake assemblages, although problems with equifinality obscure the causal affect of platform thickness. The experimental assemblage illustrates that neither the angle of the percussor nor the angle of the objective piece at flake initiation determine platform thickness. The significant difference between the experimental direct and indirect percussion flakes when compared to the experimental pressure flake assemblage support the hypothesized relationship between the width of the percussor and width of the platform. We will need substantial additional research to provide the data necessary to determine the applicability of these measures in discerning manufacturing method.

Basketmaker Bifacial Tools

In this section I summarize the results of the bifacial tool comparisons. The

Basketmakers manufactured a variety of bifacial tools including excurvate, straight, and

incurvate bases in combination with either side- or corner notches. The majority of

bifacial tools are corner-notched projectile points and knives with either excurvate or

straight bases (Figure 8.1). A cursory glance reveals one dominant form on the territorial

scale of analysis. Across the Basketmaker territories we see corner-notched, excurvate-

199

Figure 8.1. Archetypal Basketmaker projectile point forms.

based forms. Further analysis at the regional scale shows that straight-based forms

dominate the Cedar Mesa assemblage and constitute a large share of the Rainbow Plateau

assemblage. The excurvate-based form also comprises a substantial share of the Cedar

Mesa assemblage and dominates the Rainbow Plateau assemblage. The variability in

base form between the regions indicates a divergence in bifacial tool morphology.

Corner-notched, excurvate-based forms dominate the Durango assemblage of the East

while the Western regions of the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa include corner-

notched bifacial tools with high frequencies of both excurvate and straight bases.

Based on these observations, the corner-notched, excurvate-based morphology appears to function at the level of absolute physical visibility of artifact style (Carr 1995a,

1995b), possibly as a visual cue tying together the far ranging groups and demonstrating a pan-regional Basketmaker Culture. I suggest that BMII peoples adopted the corner- notched, excurvate form as a visual cue used to associate groups (e.g., Wiessner 1983), which explains the comparable frequencies of excurvate and straight bases within the regional assemblages of the West. Based on Carr’s (1995) theory, morphology is achieved through manufacturing decisions. The production sequence necessary to

200

manifest the decision order reflects the flintknapping approach employed to successfully create the desired form. The surface patterning and width/thickness ratio reflects the production sequence, which is isochrestic variation.

With respect to the Rainbow Plateau bifacial tools, flintknappers typically approached the production sequence through horizontal percussion flaking that resulted in bifaces with a high width/thickness ratio (i.e., thinner bifaces relative to width). Cedar

Mesa tool manufacture displays a similar production method and a comparable high

width/thickness ratio. The random percussion flaking approach, however, occurs more

often than horizontal percussion flaking on Cedar Mesa bifaces.

The Durango assemblage shows a different production method: random

percussion flaking followed by random or diagonally oriented pressure flaking to finish

the biface. The latter production method results in a lower width/thickness ratio (thicker

biface relative to width) with some overlap between the higher Durango width/ thicknesses and lower Cedar Mesa width/thicknesses.

I cannot definitively state that the horizontal approach to percussion biface reduction results in thinner, wider bifaces, based on the production sequence relative to the width/thickness ratio comparisons. Although, the greater range of the Cedar Mesa ratio trending lower than the Rainbow Plateau bifaces and the prevalence of random percussion flake scar patterning in the Cedar Mesa assemblage does suggest that the horizontal approach is more successful than the random approach in achieving higher width/thickness ratios. Regardless, the Basketmakers occupying the Rainbow Plateau and

Cedar Mesa regions intentionally manufactured thin bifacial tools relative to width, which are ultimately thinner than the Durango bifacial tools.

201

Comparing the width/thickness ratio distributions between the data Morin and

Matson (2009) obtained from Cedar Mesa Archaic and Basketmaker projectile points

(Table 8.1) and the three Basketmaker regions within my study (Table 8.2) places the

Durango assemblage firmly within the Archaic projectile point width/ thickness ratio and the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa assemblages within the Basketmaker distribution, as is expected for the Cedar Mesa assemblage (Table 8.3). Based on my findings and

Geib’s (2002) observations of Archaic projectile point surface patterning defined by narrow pressure flake scars, I conclude that the Durango assemblage correlates with

Archaic projectile point production methods whereas the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar

Mesa assemblages resemble the surface patterning created through the indirect punch technique. With that said, the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa assemblages are not stylistically identical.

Table 8.1 Statistical Distributions of Projectile Points from Cedar Mesa (adapted from Morin and Matson 2009:37) Assemblage Statistical distributions Width/Thickness Range 2.723 - 4.348 Archaic Midspread 3.94 - 3.797 (n=7) Median 3.5 Mean 3.465

Range 2.674 - 7.717 BM II Midspread 4.121 - 5.247 (n=30) Median 4.676 Mean 4.824

202

Table 8.2 Statistical Distributions of Projectile Points within the Current Study by Region Assemblage Statistical distributions Width/Thickness Range 2.29 - 4.8 Midspread 3.28 - 3.79 1 Durango Median 3.48 Mean 3.53

Range 2.29 - 7.77 Midspread 4.01 - 4.53 Rainbow Plateau2 Median 4.21 Mean 4.27

Range 0.67 - 4.71 Midspread 3.75 - 4.56 Cedar Mesa Median 4.3 Mean 4.16 1 Removed low distant outlier 2 Removed high distant outlier

Table 8.3 Statistical Outcomes of Width/Thickness Ratio Comparisons for Morin’s and Matson’s (2009) Research and the Current Project Morin and Matson (2009:37)

Comparison Statistical Test p-value

Cedar Mesa BMII v. T-Test n/a Archaic Mann-Whitney U 0.001

Current Project

Durango v. T-Test 0.000 Rainbow Plateau Mann-Whitney U 0.001

Durango v. T-Test 0.010 Cedar Mesa Mann-Whitney U 0.026

Rainbow Plateau v. T-Test 0.624 Cedar Mesa Mann-Whitney U 0.687

203

From Debitage to Tools

I find the results of the debitage comparisons in light of the bifacial tool

comparisons to be one of the more interesting outcomes. Regional comparisons of biface

thinning flake proximal end attributes show similarity between the Rainbow Plateau and

Durango. Cedar Mesa biface thinning flake measurements, however, differ from both the

Rainbow Plateau and Durango assemblages. The similarities and differences in tool

attributes do not reflect the biface thinning flake comparison outcomes. When compared

on a regional scale, the greatest similarity (70%) in the compared bifacial tool attributes occurs among the Durango and Cedar Mesa regions. The Rainbow Plateau and Cedar

Mesa bifacial tools, however, also exhibit a substantial amount of similarity (60%)

among the compared attributes. Durango and Rainbow Plateau bifacial tools exhibit more

difference than similarity. Hence, the two regions with the greatest similarity in biface

thinning flake measurements, Durango and the Rainbow Plateau, show the greatest

difference in bifacial tool attributes (Table 8.4).

Table 8.4 reports the relationship between flaked stone assemblages through

counts of similarity and difference for debitage and bifacial tools by regional comparison.

In addition, Table 8.4 provides a ratio representing the similarity between regions for

each flaked stone category. The totals provide counts of statistical similarity, statistical

difference, and a ratio representing the amount of overall similarity in both biface

thinning flake and bifacial tool attributes. Restated, the totals report counts of similarity

and difference in the flaked stone assemblages by regional comparison. The ratio is

simply the count of similarity divided by the count of difference, which produces a

204

Table 8.4 Inter-regional Similarities and Differences of Flaked Stone Attributes by Artifact Category Durango Rainbow Plateau Cedar Mesa Regional Flaked Stone 3 3 3 Assemblage Category Count of Count of Ratio Count of Count of Ratio Count of Count of Ratio Similarity¹ Difference² (S/D) 4 Similarity¹ Difference² (S/D) 4 Similarity¹ Difference² (S/D) 4 Debitage 2 1 2 0 3 0 Bifacial Durango 4 6 0.67 7 3 2.3 Tools Total 6 7 2.67 7 6 2.3

Debitage 2 1 2 0 3 0 Rainbow Bifacial 4 6 0.67 6 4 1.5 Plateau Tools Total 6 7 2.67 6 7 1.5

Debitage 0 3 0 0 3 0 Bifacial Cedar Mesa 7 3 2.3 6 4 1.5 Tools Total 7 6 2.3 6 7 1.5 ¹ Count of Similarity equals the number of similar attributes between the two regions, e.g. similar platform thicknesses and PLWs = a Count of Similarity of 2. ² Count of Difference equals the number of different attributes between the two regions, e.g. different platform widths and thicknesses = a Count of Difference of 2. 3 The higher the value, the greater the similarity in overall attributes 4 S/D = Similarity divided by Difference e.g., The Durango and Cedar Mesa debitage ratio of 0 means there is no similarity in the two biface thinning flake assemblages, opposed to the Durango and Rainbow Plateau debitage ratio of 2 equating to a high amount of similarity. In addition, the Durango and Cedar Mesa bifacial tool ratio of 2.3 equates to substantial similarity, opposed to the Durango and Rainbow Plateau bifacial tool ratio of 0.67 which refers to minimal similarity. The total ratio illustrates the overall amount of similarity between the two regions being compared. Based on the total similarity/difference ratio, or sum of the flaked stone category S/D ratios, the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa assemblages are more similar to the Durango assemblage than to each other.

205

number reflecting how similar the flaked stone assemblages are between the two regions

being compared, with higher ratios reflecting greater similarity.

Table 8.4 also shows flaked stone comparisons by cross category, or a

combination of the biface thinning flakes and bifacial tool outcomes. In general, the cross

category comparison illustrates the dynamic and flexible nature of flintknapping. For

example, the Durango and the Rainbow Plateau flintknappers produced biface thinning

flakes with similar measurements while manufacturing bifacial tools with the greatest

difference in attributes. The flexible nature of flintknapping is also shown in the different

approaches to bifacial tool manufacture, as illustrated by the biface thinning flake

measurements, the varying flake scar patterning, and the bifacial tool finishing techniques. Regardless of the different approaches, the resulting bifacial tools exhibit similar morphology.

The flintknapping approaches resulted in bifacial tools with similar morphology and variable flake scar surface patterns. Accordingly, Basketmaker flaked stone may not provide a straightforward approach to distinguishing ethnic differences, but does show

important, if complex, regional and territorial differences. My study shows a regional difference in flintknapping approaches to the crafting of similar bifacial tools.

Stylistically, the morphologies function as an absolute visibility attribute while the flintknapping approach reflects the production order determined by the manufacturing decision (Carr 1995a, 1995b) suggesting enculturative variants (see following discussion).

206

Style in Basketmaker Flaked Stone

Chapter 5 introduces Carr’s Unified Middle-Range Theory of Artifact Design

(UMRTAD) (Carr 1995a, 1995b). Carr approaches style by developing hierarchical

structures within the UMRTAD based on artifact attributes confined by processes and

constraints. The four artifact attributes (Carr 1995b) include visibility, manufacturing

decisions, production order, and geographic distribution. Personal, social, and

technological processes and constraints bound the artifact attributes (Carr 1995b).

I examined morphological and surface flake scar patterning attributes of

Basketmaker bifacial tools. In addition, I compared my Basketmaker bifacial tool data to

Archaic projectile point data from Cedar Mesa. The morphological attributes I analyzed

are notch opening, notch location, base form, cross section, and width-to-thickness ratios.

The surface patterning variable refers to percussion and pressure flake scar patterning as well as pressure flake scar depth.

I found both similarities and differences between the three regions, suggesting a

complex interplay of technological constraints and social boundaries invariably affected

by individual variation. In other words, the complexity of Basketmaker flintknapping methods, approaches, and the resulting flaked stone assemblages dictate that we cannot engage in candid discussion of Basketmaker flaked stone variability and the enculturative, ethnical, and/or communicative implications of that variability by simply dividing the Basketmaker culture into Eastern and Western branches. In short, the

Basketmaker phenomenon is not simple. My analysis suggests that the Basketmaker world is the result of multiple groups, and probably ethnicities, within various

207

physiographic regions creating bifacial tools through different means while conforming

to some pan-regional bifacial tool morphology criteria.

Biface morphology is likely to carry the greatest weight in the range of factors

that contribute to artifact visibility. Within Carr’s (1995) schema, the overall form, or

morphology of the tool, determines all four types of visibility, namely, absolute physical,

absolute contextual, relative physical, and relative perceived physical. I argue that

morphology plays the greatest role in demonstrating social cohesion in BMII societies. If

Wiessner’s (1983) finding that projectile point morphology functions as a territorial

boundary marker is applied to the Basketmaker world, then we should expect pan-

regional groups to conform to an overarching biface form to show affiliation with the

overall population. My examination of bifacial tools from three regions reveals widely opened corner-notched, excurvate-based projectile points as the dominant inter-regional

form. With that said, the overall Basketmaker bifacial tool assemblage shows substantial

variation of the notch location and base form. The widely opened corner-notched,

excurvate-based form, however, dominates two of the three regional assemblages while

comprising a frequency approximately equal to the widely opened corner-notched,

straight-based form dominant in the third region. Accordingly, I focus on the major forms

and I think that the remaining variability in morphology, e.g., incurvate bases, is likely

the result of individual variation (Carr 1995b).

Base Form

Bifacial tool base form exhibits substantial variability, with excurvate, straight,

incurvate, and informal forms all present (Figure 8.2). Two forms, excurvate and straight,

are the most common. Straight-based forms commonly occur within the regions of the

208

Western territory, but are rare in the Durango assemblage of the Eastern territory. The

distribution and frequencies of straight-based forms suggest those forms are socially

acceptable variants within the regions of the Western territory. Widely opened corner-

notched excurvate-based bifacial tools are the most typical form in the Durango assemblage, but comprise one of two major forms within the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar

Mesa regions. My results suggest differing social constraints between regions, while

Basketmaker flintknappers adhere to a general pan-regionally accepted morphology.

Figure 8.2. Basketmaker base forms.

Surface Appearance

Surface scar patterning refers to the ridges left on the surface of the bifacial tool

after the detachment of a flake. Accordingly, the scar patterning determines the

appearance of bifacial tool surfaces (Figure 8.3), which refers to visibility, particularly

for other flintknappers. As a flintknapper, I find that surface patterning is one attribute of

a bifacial tool that clearly reflects the skill of the artisan. When viewing a bifacial tool I

look for surface appearance devoid of step fractures (flake detachment mistakes) and

preferably displaying standardized scar patterning (e.g., collateral flaking), flattened, or at

least a symmetrical cross section (Figure 8.3), and a biface that is thin relative to width

(width/thickness ratio).

209

Figure 8.3. Flake scar patterning and cross section types.

The surface appearance dictated by flake scar patterning illustrates an artisan’s

skill in successfully detaching a flake. The cross section shows how deftly the

flintknapper can thin the biface without breaking it while also displaying surface

symmetry. In addition, the width/thickness ratio, commonly used by modern

flintknappers as a measure of skill, measures how well a flintknapper can successfully

detach flakes to thin the bifacial tool while sustaining a large width. To create a thin,

wide biface (high width/thickness ratio) the artisan must successfully remove long

thinning flakes that travel to, or past the midline of the longitudinal axis. To successfully

and continually remove long thinning flakes, the flintknapper must properly prepare the

platforms and initiate flake detachment with the proper angle of initiation and percussive

force, which is no easy feat.

While appeal is somewhat relative, in that I may find certain surface flake scar patterns visually stunning that may not be as appealing to the next person, thinning and

manufacturing a projectile point requires a skill set. Surface patterning created by flake

scars reflects an artisan’s skill set by visually representing the flintknapper’s approach to

210

the manufacturing decision (Carr 1995a, 1995b) and success in the production order

(Carr 1995a, 1995b). While I approach flintknapping as a professional analytical process

and a professional skill set in contrast to Basketmaker knappers who flintknapped as a

means of creating a functional tool, stone functioned as an important material in the

everyday lives of Basketmaker peoples. For Basketmakers, the ability to properly and

successfully fashion a tool out of a piece of stone directly influenced day-to-day activities. Through flake scar patterning, flintknappers may demonstrate that they can make the necessary tools, craft the tools well, and be able to successfully manifest the

abstract form defining the manufacturing decision (Carr 1995b). Accordingly, flake scar

patterning also functions as an important characteristic within the artifact’s visibility as a

social group boundary attribute.

The manufacturing decision dictating the production order and reflected in the

flake scar patterning is a result of isochrestic variation. The isochrestic variant of thinning

a biface from the lateral edges at a 90 degree angle to the longitudinal axis results in

horizontal percussion flake scar patterning. Another isochrestic variant of thinning a

biface from the available platforms regardless of the angle relative to the longitudinal

axis creates a random percussion flake scar pattern. In addition, the use of and motivation

behind pressure flaking also reflects isochrestic variation, in that pressure flaking is not

necessary to finish forming a point. The ubiquity of pressure flaking within the Durango

assemblage suggests the artisans viewed pressure flaking as a necessary step in creating a

finished bifacial tool. Accordingly, I interpret the pervasiveness of pressure finishing as

a clear isochrestic phenomenon.

211

Based on flake scar patterning and biface thinning flake platform dimensions, flintknappers from the three regions adhered to different isochrestic variants when manufacturing bifacial tools. Isochrestic variation results from the enculturative process.

Based on enculturation, isochrestic variation may indicate ethnicity, in which case differing isochrestic variants suggest different ethnic backgrounds. Different ethnic backgrounds could explain the presence of the multiple isochrestic variants, however, the variants may also be explained by intra-regional development, that is, the degree of isolation of one region from the others. The Durango production method and decision orders, however, clearly differs from the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa methods while showing similarities to earlier Archaic methods. Accordingly, the Durango assemblage does suggest a different ethnic background from the Rainbow Plateau and

Cedar Mesa Basketmakers.

Form and Pattern

My analysis shows complexity in Basketmaker bifacial tools as illustrated by the substantial variability in morphology and flake scar patterning. The variability occurs within all three regions. The intra-regional variability overlaps inter-regionally, resulting in specific pan-regional morphology and flake scar patterns. The overlap in morphological and surface patterning styles suggests inter-regional interaction of

Basketmaker groups. The distinctive differences, however, indicate intra-regional stylistic trends based on manufacturing approaches defining surface patterns and morphology. However, the intra-regional trends could also be the result of interaction with neighboring populations, either Basketmaker or groups continuing to practice an

Archaic lifeway. Regardless, the inter-regional variability and near absence of the

212

traditionally recognized San Juan side-notched projectile point indicate differentiation based on regional rather than the grand Eastern/Western territorial scales.

The assemblages employed in this study included very few of the projectile point styles traditionally recognized as Basketmaker, the deeply side-notched form (Figure 3.1, far right) initially reported by Kidder and Guernsey (1919; Guernsey and Kidder 1921)

and to which I refer to as San Juan side-notched. The few San Juan side-notched points present originate from the Rainbow Plateau, adjacent to the Marsh Pass area which was

Kidder’s and Guernsey’s main project area. Projectile points from Black Mesa and Comb

Ridge also exhibit the San Juan side-notched form, which suggests a focal point in northeastern Arizona and southeastern Utah (see the Black Mesa Cluster in Justice 2002).

The current study suggests the presence of different enculturative backgrounds

defining isochrestic variants used to manufacture bifacial tools conforming to a pan-

regionally accepted morphology. In other words, I view surface patterning, including

both orientation and finishing method, as isochrestic variants resulting from basic ethnic

differences among the groups in the regions. In addition, the similar bifacial tool

morphology results from the differing ethnic groups adopting a pan-regional association

using the widely opened, corner-notched, excurvate-based form as an inclusive stylistic

marker. Finally, the regional differences I detected in my analyses show a more complex

flaked stone, and probably ethnic, picture than currently painted by the simplistic

East/West dichotomy.

213

A Point-by-Point Summary

To sum up the findings presented herein, I separate the various analyses and state

my conclusions point by point. I separate the analyses by flaked stone category, biface

thinning flakes and bifacial tools, numbering each point within each category

successively.

Biface Thinning Flake Conclusions, the Experimental Database

1) Simple platform width and thickness measurements cannot distinguish between

indirect and direct percussion methods. 2) The width of the percussor’s working end

likely determines the range of platform widths. 3) The angle of the percussor and angle of

the objective piece at the point of initiation for flake detachment does not directly affect

platform thickness.

The presence of statistical differences, however, supports the use of platform

thickness as a potentially useful measure to distinguish flintknapping techniques, if not

methods. 4) The utility, if any, of the proximal lateral width (PLW) remains unknown, however, the common divergence in statistical outcomes between PLW and platform width comparisons suggests the two attributes do not directly correlate. 5) Percussion biface thinning and pressure biface thinning produce thinning flakes with statistically different mean platform and width dimensions.

Biface Thinning Flake Conclusions, the Experimental and Archaeological Databases

6) Basketmaker flintknappers from the Rainbow Plateau and Durango employed, at the very least, flintknapping implements with working end dimensions differing from my experimental assemblage, which used a whitetail deer antler billet and bighorn sheep

214

horn punch conforming to one of the Sand Dune Cave punches. 7) The Cedar Mesa

flintknappers employed implements with working ends similar to my experimental toolkit

resulting in platforms statistically similar to both my experimental billet and punch biface

thinning flakes. 8) The Cedar Mesa artisans manufactured biface thinning flakes with

different mean platform thicknesses compared to the Rainbow Plateau or Durango

assemblages. 9) Based on points 7 and 8 above, the Cedar Mesa debitage resulted from different flintknapping techniques, if not methods, from either the Rainbow Plateau or

Durango assemblages.

Bifacial Tool Conclusions, the Morphology Data

1) Basketmaker bifacial tools exhibit notable variability in base form and notching. 2) All three regions show an overarching form: projectile points and knives with widely opened corner notches and excurvate bases. 3) In addition to the aforementioned form, corner- notched, straight-based projectile points and knives commonly occur within the Rainbow

Plateau and Cedar Mesa assemblages, but not in the Durango assemblage. 4) The corner-

notched, straight-based form dominates the Cedar Mesa bifacial tools, with excurvate-

based bifaces nearly equal in frequency. 5) The corner-notched, excurvate-based form is

an intra-regional morphology used to show affiliation between Basketmaker groups. 6)

The corner-notched, straight-based form shows a Western Basketmaker divergence in

base morphology, which may reflect form preference before the development of pan-

regional Basketmaker association. In other words, the groups occupying the

physiographic regions of the Western territory may have manufactured corner-notched,

straight-based bifacial tools as a group association marker before affiliating with the

group occupying the Durango area. Essentially, group association extended to include

215

Eastern regions resulting in the adoption of the excurvate base over the straight base

form. The restricted range of the San Juan side-notched points fits well with this

hypothesis.

Bifacial Tool Conclusions, the Surface Appearance Data

7) Basketmakers from all regions approached percussion thinning flake detachment in

two ways, horizontally, or perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, and randomly, from any

adequate platform, regardless of orientation to the lateral axis. 8) Rainbow Plateau

knappers typically employed horizontal percussion flaking, while Durango and Cedar

Mesa artisans commonly thinned through random percussion. 9) Pressure flaking

functioned as a finishing method within the Durango assemblage, while percussion

flaking finished Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa bifacial tools, with pressure flaking

used as a rejuvenation technique in the Western Basketmaker regions. 10) Durango

flintknappers commonly pressure-flaked diagonally to the longitudinal axis creating

oblique and chevron flake scar patterns. 11) The projectile points and knives within the

Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa assemblages seldom exhibit oblique pressure flaking

and do not show chevron patterns. 12) Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa bifacial tools

are thin relative to width, as illustrated by the high width/thickness ratio, compared to the

Durango projectile points which are thick relative to width when compared to the

Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa assemblages. 13) My data do not correlate percussion

thinning approach with width/thickness, i.e., I cannot definitively state that horizontal

percussion thinning results in thinner, wider bifaces. The data do, however, suggest the

approach may affect the width-to-thickness ratio. 14) Comparing the width/thickness ratios obtained from my analysis to the data presented by Morin and Matson (2009)

216 places the Durango projectile points within the range of Archaic projectile points while the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa bifacial tools fall within the Basketmaker range.

15) Based on the flake scar types and patterns in combination with the width/thickness ratios, the Durango projectile points differ from the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa points. 16) The attributes mentioned in 15 suggest the Durango Basketmaker points resemble Archaic projectile points.

A Territorial Summary

Archaeologists commonly dichotomize the Basketmaker Culture into Eastern and

Western branches. Examination of my data on the basis of the Eastern and Western dichotomy suggests more similarity than difference in both biface thinning flakes and bifacial tool assemblages. A more in-depth consideration of the data on the regional scale suggests differing isochrestic variants used to manufacture an overarching bifacial tool form.

The debitage measurements differ only in platform width between the two territories. The statistical means of platform thickness and proximal lateral width (PLW) are similar between the territories. The biface thinning flake findings suggest Eastern and

Western Basketmaker groups used implements with differing working end dimensions to detach flakes from similar points of initiation along similarly prepared platforms.

Out of the ten bifacial tool attributes I analyzed, six are similar and four are different on the territorial scale. Notch location and opening, cross section, and pressure flake depth are similar between the two territories. The four different attributes determine visibility and thickness preference reflecting isochrestic variants. In particular, flake scar patterning, base form, and width/thickness ratios differ between the two territories.

217

Western Basketmakers commonly crafted bifacial tools with high width/thickness

ratios through horizontal flake scar patterning. The finished forms typically exhibit excurvate or straight bases with wide corner notches. Pressure flaking, when present,

commonly resulted from blade edge rejuvenation.

Eastern Basketmakers approached bifacial tool manufacture by removing flakes from any available platform, resulting in randomly oriented flake scar patterns which were followed by a variety of pressure flaking orientations to finish the tool. The use of

pressure flaking, and the random to diagonal pressure flake scar patterns are similar to

Archaic projectile points. The width/thickness ratio of the finished tool is lower than the

Western Basketmaker bifacial tools (Figure 8.4) and is comparable to Archaic points

from Cedar Mesa. The finished forms typically exhibit excurvate bases with widely

opened corner notches.

Figure 8.4. Boxplots illustrating width/thickness ratio distributions of the Eastern and Western territories.

218

The flaked stone observations on the territorial scale show Eastern and Western

Basketmakers created morphologically similar bifacial tools manufactured through

distinctively different production methods and decision orders. Based on the territorial

scale comparisons, the data support Morris’ and Burgh’s (1954) astute observation of

Classic and Durango Basketmaker branches and Matson’s (1991) East/West dichotomy.

In addition, the Western bifacial tools exhibit more variability in base form, with straight

bases nearly as common as excurvate bases. The territorial outcomes demonstrate two

isochrestic variants. The Western Basketmaker flintknapping approach and technique

distinctively differs from that of the Eastern Basketmaker. In addition, the Eastern

Basketmaker approach and technique produces bifacial tools that resemble earlier

Archaic projectile points. The comparability in Eastern Basketmaker and Archaic

flintknapping production order and manufacturing decisions support the earlier work of

Geib (2002). To conclude the territorial scale comparisons, the similar morphology but

differing flintknapping approaches and techniques suggest different ethnic groups

conforming to a visual design in an effort to show group association, if not cohesion. The

East/West dichotomy, does not adequately describe the complexity of Basketmaker

flaked stone. Comparisons at the local regional scale show substantial complexity that

does not always conform to the East/West dichotomy.

A Region-to-Region Summary: The Complexity of Basketmaker Flaked Stone

The Basketmaker flaked stone I analyzed originated from three physiographic regions. The spatial variability of the regions afforded a more in-depth examination of

Basketmaker flaked stone at the regional level rather than the much larger East/West

territorial dichotomy. Two regions within the Western territory, the Rainbow Plateau

219

(RP) and Cedar Mesa (CM), and one region within the Eastern territory, the Durango area

(DR), comprise the regional comparison. The regional analysis demonstrates that

Basketmaker flaked stone paints a much more complex picture of the Basketmaker

phenomenon than the simplistic East/West dichotomy.

What’s with the Waste?

Debitage comparisons between regions resulted in similarities between the proximal end measurements of biface thinning flakes examined from the Rainbow

Plateau, a Western territorial region, and Durango, the Eastern territorial region. In addition, biface thinning flakes from Cedar Mesa, the second Western territorial region, differ from both the Rainbow Plateau and Durango thinning flake assemblages.

While I cannot determine the methods employed by the Basketmaker flintknappers by region, I can say that the CM Basketmakers approached flintknapping differently than the RP and DR Basketmakers. The different statistical means suggest the

Cedar Mesa thinning flakes were produced with implements exhibiting working end dimensions different from the implements employed in the RP and DR regions. In addition, the CM biface thinning flake platform thickness distribution differs from both

RP and DR suggesting the approach to flake initiation differed. How the approach differed, however, I cannot infer from the current data.

To summarize the debitage data, the RP and DR Basketmakers used implements with similar working end dimensions and approached flake initiation in similar ways. The

CM Basketmakers used implements with different working end dimensions and approached flake initiation different from RP and DR. Hence, flintknapping implements

220 and approaches do not conform to the East/West territorial dichotomy. Accordingly, the territorial dichotomy fails to accurately characterize Basketmaker groups.

The bifacial tool data comparisons resulted in similar complexity. Out of the ten attributes I analyzed, DR and RP show the greatest difference while the greatest similarity occurs between DR and CM. The RP and CM comparisons resulted in more similarity than difference.

Is a Tool just a Tool?

The bifacial tools from all three regions exhibit statistical similarities in four attributes: notch location, average notch opening, cross section, and pressure flake depth.

Wide openings describe all of the notches, which typically occur at the corners of bifacial tool proximal ends (figure 8.1). While the average notch openings of all three regions are statistically similar, the minimum and maximum RP notches are not as wide as DR or

CM. The DR notches exhibit the widest notches and CM bifacial tool notches overlap the smaller openings of RP and the larger openings of DR.

While the cross sections do not statistically differ, the RP and CM assemblages include notably more flattened cross sections than DR, with plano-convex cross sections being the most common form in the DR assemblage. More importantly, the interval data provided by the width/thickness ratio should be considered a more effective measure than the qualitative cross section attribute. The width/thickness measure is an objective measure adequate for high powered quantitative statistical testing and more accurately reflects cross section, as opposed to the subjective cross section determinations of flattened, plano-convex, and biconvex.

221

The statistical testing of pressure flake depth suggests similarity between all three

regions, although, the majority of pressure flake scars on the DR bifacial tools are

invasive whereas non-invasiveness dominates the RP and CM assemblages. In addition,

the ubiquitous pressure flaking in the DR assemblage is opposed to the typical use of

pressure flaking for rejuvenation in the RP and CM assemblages. Accordingly, the

statistical results of the pressure flaking attributes do not reflect anthropological

significance.

Bifacial tool differences center on flake scar patterning, base form, and

width/thickness ratios. The Basketmakers from all three regions created morphologically

similar bifacial tools manufactured through distinctively different production methods and decision orders. The RP and CM bifacial tools were created and finished through percussion flaking, with RP tools exhibiting a high frequency of horizontally oriented flake scars opposed to the typically random orientation of the CM flake scar patterning.

Random percussion flake patterns also describe the DR flintknapping approach, although

DR Basketmakers employed pressure flaking as a finishing technique. The DR

production order and manufacturing decisions resulted in bifacial tools resembling the

earlier Archaic projectile points. The various approaches illustrated by the flake scar

patterns and different techniques demonstrated by the debitage comparisons suggest three

isochrestic variants corresponding with the three physiographic regions.

The flintknapping approaches of the RP and CM flintknappers created

comparably high width/thickness ratios. The DR flintknapping approach resulted in lower

width/thickness ratios than the RP and CM bifacial tools. Hence, DR projectile points

tend to be thicker relative to width than the RP or CM bifacial tools. Comparisons with

222

Archaic point width/thickness ratios from Cedar Mesa demonstrate that the DR points fall within the range manufactured by Archaic hunter-gatherers occupying the Colorado

Plateau.

The statistical comparisons of base form suggest differences between DR and both RP and CM. The statistical outcome, however, likely results from the presence of informal bases within the RP and CM assemblages. Frequency comparisons demonstrate that flintknappers from all three regions commonly created excurvate bases, with straight bases also common in the RP and CM assemblages. Therefore, I do not think the statistical outcomes reflect archaeological/anthropological significance.

Rather, I interpret the prevalence of excurvate bases in combination with the typical placement of notches at the corners as a standardized pan-regional form referencing group association through the high visibility of bifacial tool morphology. In other words, I infer from the data that the similar morphology but differing flintknapping approaches and techniques suggest different ethnic groups based on physiographic regions conformed to a visual design in an effort to show group association, if not cohesion.

The Tale of Basketmaker Flaked Stone

The multifaceted approach to flaked stone analysis presented herein considers both bifacial tools and the thinning flakes resulting from tool manufacture. The purpose of the approach was to 1) test the proposition of differing flintknapping methods resulting in biface thinning flakes with different proximal end attributes, 2) attempt to correlate biface thinning flakes with bifacial tools, 3) analyze the spatially separated bifacial tools for potential differences in manufacturing approaches, 4) discern the similarities and

223

differences of bifacial tools from various regions, 5) examine the data within a style

theory framework to provide information on the on-going Basketmaker origins debate.

Although Geib (2002) shows that Basketmaker II groups throughout the Western territory subscribed to indirect percussion thinning methods, I was not able to distinguish between indirect and direct percussion methods with my experimental data. My experimentation does show that pressure flakes differ substantially in dimension from percussion thinning flakes. Accordingly, Geib’s (2002) observations of differential flake width and the correlation between the working end of the percussor and platform width are supported by the data herein.

The Basketmaker debitage data do not necessarily correspond with the bifacial tool data. At least, I cannot infer bifacial tool similarity from biface thinning flake similarity. As an example, the Rainbow Plateau and Durango biface thinning flake platform dimensions exhibit substantial similarity. The bifacial tools, however, show the greatest amount of difference in the regional comparisons. In addition, the Cedar Mesa and Durango biface thinning flake platform dimensions are substantially different. The bifacial tool comparisons show that the tools are similar in 70% of the examined attributes.

I examined ten attributes affecting bifacial tool morphology and surface appearance. On the territorial scale, bifacial tools exhibit similar wide corner notches and cross sections, while differing in base form, surface appearance, and width/thickness ratios. Hence, while similarities occur, both the morphology and surface appearance differs.

224

Further examination on the regional scale provides much more resolution and indicates that while the East/West dichotomy may be accurate in some measures, the simplicity of the dichotomy misconstrues the complexity of the Basketmaker phenomenon. The regional comparisons demonstrated that each region encompasses different flintknapping approaches, techniques, and finishing methods. Regardless of how the Basketmakers manufactured biface tools, they commonly crafted widely corner- notched, excurvate-based forms.

Based on the data, I posit that the different flintknapping approaches, techniques, and finishing methods reflect isochrestic variants. In addition, I argue that the widely corner-notched, excurvate-based morphology functions as a high visibility form used to show inter-regional association. The commonality of widely corner-notched, straight- based forms from the Rainbow Plateau and Cedar Mesa likely also represents inter-group association, possibly established before the pan-regional association.

The isochrestic variations, at the least, indicate that a heterogeneous population comprises the Basketmaker phenomenon. The culturally different groups could have developed within their respective physiographic regions, however, if that were the case I would not expect to see the adoption of a pan-regional form. Accordingly, isochrestic variants in combination with the pan-regional morphology suggest that multiple ethnic groups comprise the Basketmaker phenomenon.

My data suggest three isochrestic variants, and presumably three ethnic groups.

This demonstrates that we can move beyond the East/West dichotomy, although it retains some validity, and begin to understand the anthropological reality of the Basketmakers.

We should move past the dichotomy and consider multiple branches, or variants, of the

225

Basketmakers on the physiographic regional basis. Moreover, if the aforementioned

hypothesis stands under scrutiny, then the agricultural transition in the northern

Southwest was likely more of a revolution than a transition, with multiple ethnic groups

moving into and occupying spatially connected physiographic regions and subscribing to

a pan-regional associative construct.

Homogeneous or Heterogeneous, Inclusive or Exclusive, Considerations for Future Research

I provide evidence supporting the presence of different enculturative processes

indicative of separate ethnic groups comprising the Basketmaker phenomenon. In addition, I propose the possibility of more than two ethnic groups. This section provides ideas for future research stemming from the current project.

Experimentation in Furthering an Understanding of Basketmaker Flintknapping

The experimental assemblage reported for this project introduced a variety of complications autochthonous to the dynamic process of flintknapping. My experiment concludes that the manufacturing methods of direct percussion with a billet and indirect percussion with a punch do not create diagnostic platforms in regards to simple width or thickness measurements. The experiment is cursory, in that the complexities of percussor type, percussor dimension, manufacturing method, flake initiation point of impact, and platform preparation all deserve individual attention to fully understand the dynamics involved.

Additional flintknapping experiments should test the effect the dimensions of the percussor’s working end has on the platform width. What range in measurement of

226

platform width corresponds with the percussor width? Various initiation angles and

flintknapping techniques also need to be examined. Does the location of the point of

impact initiating flake detachment influence platform thickness? Does the angle of the

percussor and/or objective piece affect the platform width or thickness, contrary to my

findings? Does indirect percussion involving striking the punch directly into the biface

create different platforms from the rocker punch technique? Finally, additional work

should consider the proximal lateral width measurement and its efficacy in debitage

analysis as well as any correlation with manufacturing methods.

Basketmaker Origins, Still up for Debate?

Based on the inter-regional similarities and differences, future research should

consider the possibility that the Basketmaker phenomenon may be the result of

populations from different geographic areas practicing agriculture within physiographic

regions expanded out from the focal point of cultigen introduction. An example includes

the introduction of maize into the Marsh Pass area followed by various ethnic populations

adopting domesticates while occupying nearby locations. In this hypothetical scenario, a

migrant population represented by the material culture of the Classic, or San Juan,

Basketmakers, and hence the spatially constricted San Juan side-notched projectile

points, introduced maize onto the Colorado Plateau where indigenous hunter-gatherers from the Colorado Plateau and adjacent geographic areas, such as the Great Basin, adopted and adapted the agricultural practices within applicable surrounding territories.

This is a minor variant of Matson’s Two Source Model (1991) which continues to recognize the possibility of an immigrant population from the southern Basin and Range.

227

I suggest five major topics for future consideration based on my findings. First, as

always, larger assemblages are needed. Second, assemblages restricted to a small

temporal span, preferably near the beginning of the Early Agricultural Period need to be

targeted for analysis. In addition, comparisons should consider assemblages from the core

of the Basketmaker world and expand out, rather than from the peripheries. Third,

attention needs to be paid to additional bifacial tool attributes. In particular, notch

location relative to the juncture of the lateral and basal edges (Geib 1996:63) and flake

scar measurements as operationalized by Morin and Matson (2009). Fourth, restrict the

analysis to one bifacial tool form, i.e. projectile point, biface, knife, or preform. Preforms

provide the ideal bifacial form for flake scar measurements. Fifth, compare Basketmaker

bifacial tools to contemporaneous surrounding hunter-gatherer assemblages. These suggestions refine the work presented here and may provide the data necessary in determining flaked stone applicability in the pursuit of Basketmaker origins.

228

REFERENCES CITED

Ahler, Stan 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather than the Trees. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by Donald O. Henry and George H. Odell, pp. 85-118. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 1.

Andrefsky, William Jr. 2005 Lithics Macroscopic approaches to Analysis. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Banks, Norman G. 1970 Nature and Origin of Early and Late Cherts in the Leadville Limestone, Colorado. Geological Society of America Bulletin 81(10): 3033-3048

Berry, Claudia F., and Michael S. Berry 1986 Chronological and Conceptual Models of the Southwestern Archaic. In Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, edited by C. J. Condie and D. D. Fowler, p. 253-327. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 110.

Bettinger, Robert L. and Jelmer Eerkens 1999 Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-and-Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64(2): 231-242.

Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-225. 1967 Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. American Antiquity 32(1):1-12. 1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an Eskimo Hunting Stand. American Antiquity 43(3):330-361. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255-273. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1): 4-20.

Blackburn, Fred M. and Ray A. Williamson 1997 Cowboys & Cave Dwellers Basketmaker Archaeology in Utah’s Grand Gulch. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Callahan, Errett 2000 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition A Manual for Flintknappers and Lithic Analysts. Fourth edition, reprinted from Archaeology of Eastern North America 7. Piltdown Productions, Lynchburg, Virginia.

229

Cambron, James, W. and David C. Hulse 1975 Handbook of Alabama Archaeology, Part I Point Types, edited by David L. DeJarnette. The Archaeological Research Association of Alabama Inc.

Camilli, Eileen Lois 1983 Site Occupational History and Lithic Assemblage Structure: An Example from Southeastern Utah. PhD. dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Carr, Christopher 1995a Building a Unified Middle-Range Theory of Artifact Design Historical Perspectives and Tactics. In Style, society, and person; archaeological and ethnological perspectives, edited by Christopher Carr and Jill E. Neitzel, pages 151- 168. Plenum Press, New York. 1995b A Unified Middle-Range Theory of Artifact Design. In Style, society, and person; archaeological and ethnological perspectives, edited by Christopher Carr and Jill E. Neitzel, pages 151-168. Plenum Press, New York.

Charles, Mona C. (editor) 2000 Emergency Excavation of Eleven Human Burials from Archaeological Site 5LP4991 The Darkmold Site, La Plata County, Colorado. Report to the Colorado Historical Society, Denver, Colorado. 2002 Durango Basketmakers Revisited. Paper presented at the 75th annual Pecos Conference. Pecos, New Mexico.

Charles, Mona C. and M. L. Gillam 2003 The Geoarchaeology of the Darkmold Site 5LP4991: A Basketmaker II and Pueblo I Site in the North Animas Valley Near Durango, Colorado, Ms. On file, Fort Lewis College, Durango.

Charles, Mona C. and Sally J. Cole 2006 Chronology and Cultural Variation in Basketmaker II. Kiva 72:167-216.

Cotterell, Brian and Johan Kamminga 1987 The Formation of Flakes. American Antiquity 52(4): 675-708.

Crabtree, Donald E. 1976 The Potential of Lithic Technology. First Published in Primitive Art and Technology, edited by J. S. Raymond et. al., pp. 1-6, Archaeological Association, University of Calgary. Compiled by E. S. Lohse in Don Crabtree: A Reader in Stone. Idaho Museum of Natural History

Dawson, Maria M. 2003 Changing Lithic Technologies and Residential Mobility during the Archaic- Basketmaker II Transition. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

230

Dohm, Karen 1988 The Household in Transition: Spatial Organization of Early Anasazi Residential- Domestic Units, Southeastern Utah. PhD. dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman.

Drennan, Robert D. 1996 Statistics for Archaeologists A Commonsense Approach. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Kluwer Academic, Plenum Press, New York.

Eddy, Frank W. 1961 Excavations at Los Pinos Phase Sites in the Navajo Reservoir District. Museum of New Mexico Papers in Anthropology, no. 4. Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe. 1966 Prehistory in the Navajo Reservoir District Northwestern New Mexico. Museum of New Mexico Papers in Anthropology, no. 15, part II. Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe.

Eriksen, Thomas Hylland 2010 Ethnicity and Nationalism Anthropological Perspectives, third edition. Pluto Press, London, United Kingdom.

Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 1981 Replicative Systems Analysis: A Model Applied to the Vein Quartz Artifacts from the Hoko River Site. PhD. dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Frison, George C. 1968 A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools. American Antiquity 33:149-155.

Geib, Phil R. 1996 Glen Canyon Revisited. University of Utah Anthropological Papers Number 119. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City 2002 Basketmaker II horn flaking tools and dart point production: technological change at the agricultural transition. In Traditions, transitions, and technologies: themes in Southwestern archaeology: proceedings of the 2000 Southwest Symposium, pp. 272- 306. 2004 AMS dating of Basketmaker II hunter’s bag (Cache 1) from Sand Dune Cave, Utah. Kiva 69(3):271-282. 2007a Project Overview. In Prehistory of the Northern Kayenta Anasazi Region: Archaeological Excavations along the Navajo Mountain Road, Volume V Analyses and Interpretation, edited by Phil R. Geib and Kimberly Spurr. Navajo Nation Archaeology Department Report No. 48. 2007b The First Kayenta Farmers: Summary and Interpretation of Basketmaker II. In Prehistory of the Northern Kayenta Anasazi Region: Archaeological Excavations along the Navajo Mountain Road, Volume V Analyses and Interpretation, edited by

231

Phil R. Geib and Kimberly Spurr. Navajo Nation Archaeology Department Report No. 48.

Geib, Phil R. and Dale Davidson 1994 Anasazi Origins: A Perspective from Preliminary Work at Old Man Cave. Kiva 60(2):191-202.

Geib, Phil R. and Miranda Warburton 2007 Chapter 5. Patterns in Stone Tool Raw Materials, Production, and Use: Analysis of N16 Lithic Artifacts. In Prehistory of the Northern Kayenta Anasazi Region: Archaeological Excavations along the Navajo Mountain Road, Volume V Analyses and Interpretation, edited by Phil R. Geib and Kimberly Spurr. Navajo Nation Archaeology Department Report No. 02-48.

Geib, Phil R. and Kimberly Spurr 2007a Prehistory of the Northern Kayenta Anasazi Region: Archaeological Excavations along the Navajo Mountain Road, Volume V Analyses and Interpretation, edited by Phil R. Geib and Kimberly Spurr. Navajo Nation Archaeology Department Report No. 02-48. 2007b Chapter 2 AZ-J-3-8 (Kin Kahuna). In Prehistory of the Northern Kayenta Anasazi Region: Archaeological Excavations along the Navajo Mountain Road, Volume V Analyses and Interpretation, edited by Phil R. Geib and Kimberly Spurr. Navajo Nation Archaeology Department Report No. 02-48.

Geib, Phil R., Kimberly Spurr, and Jim Collette 2007 Prehistory of the Northern Kayenta Anasazi Region: Archaeological Excavations along the Navajo Mountain Road, Volume II Archaic Site Descriptions, edited by Phil R. Geib and Kimberly Spurr. Navajo Nation Archaeology Department Report No. 02-48.

Guernsey, Samuel J. and Alfred V. Kidder 1921 Basket-maker Caves of Northeastern Arizona Report on the Explorations, 1916- 17. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University Vol. VIII, No. 2. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Haas, William Randall, Jr. 2003 The Social Implications of Basketmaker II Cordage Style Distribution. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

Haury, Emil W. 1962 The Greater American Southwest. In Courses Toward Urban Life, edited by Robert J. Braidwood and Gordon R. Willey, pp. 106-131. Aldine, Chicago, Illinois.

232

Hill, Jane H. 2002 Toward a Linguistic Prehistory of the Southwest: “Azteco-Tanoan” and the Arrival of Maize Cultivation. Journal of Anthropological Research 58(4):457-475.

Huckell, Bruce B. 1995 Of Marshes and Maize Preceramic Agricultural Settlements in the Cienega Valley, Southeastern Arizona. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, Number 59. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Hughes, Richard E. 2007 Appendix A: Source Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from Archaeological Sites in the Navajo Mountain Road Archaeological Project, Northeastern Arizona. In Prehistory of the Northern Kayenta Anasazi Region: Archaeological Excavations along the Navajo Mountain Road, Volume V Analyses and Interpretation, edited by Phil R. Geib and Kimberly Spurr. Navajo Nation Archaeology Department Report No. 48.

Irwin-Williams, Cynthia 1973 The Oshara Tradition: Origins of the Anasazi Culture. Contributions in Anthropology 1-19. 1979 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 7000-2000 B.C. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9: Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 31-42. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Jelinek, Arthur J. 1965 Lithic Technology Conference, Les Eyzies, France. American Antiquity 31(2):277-279.

Johnson, Matthew 2000 Archaeological Theory An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford, United Kingdom.

Justice, Noel D. 2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Southwestern United States. University of Indiana Press, Bloomington.

Kamp, Kathryn and John C. Whittaker 1999 Surviving Adversity: The Sinagua of Lizard Man Village. University of Utah Press. Anthropological Papers No. 120.

Kearns, Timothy M. 1992 The Preceramic Archaeology of the Upper San Juan River in Northwest New Mexico and Southwest Colorado. In Cultural Variability & Adaptation The Archaic, Anasazi, & Navajo Occupation Of the Upper San Juan Basin, edited by Lori

233

Stephens Reed & Paul F. Reed. Cultural Resources Series No. 9, 1992. Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Keeley, Lawrence 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: a Microwear Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Kelly, Robert L. 1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53(4): 717-734.

Kidder, Alfred V. 1927 Southwestern Archaeological Conference. El Palacio23:554-561.

Kitchell, Jennifer A. 2010 Basketmaker and Archaic Rock Art of the Colorado Plateau: A Reinterpretation of Paleoimagery. American Antiquity 75(4):819-840.

LeBlanc, Steven A., Lori S. Cobb Kreisman, Brian M. Kemp, Francis E. Smiley, Anna N. Dhody, and Thomas Benjamin 2007 Quids and Aprons: Ancient DNA from Artifacts from the American Southwest. Journal of Field Archaeology 32:161-175.

Lindsay, Jr., Alexander J., J. Richard Ambler, Mary Anne Stein, and Philip M. Hobler 1968 Survey and excavations North and East of Navajo Mountain, Utah, 1959-1962. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 45, Glen Canyon Series No. 8. Then Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Inc., Flagstaff, Arizona.

Lipe, William D. 1967 Anasazi Culture and its Relationship to the Environment in the Red Rock Plateau Region, Southeastern Utah. PhD. dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1978 Archaeological Work in the Grand Gulch Region, Southeastern Utah, 1969. In Research Reports – National Geographic Society, 1969 Projects: 389-397 1999 Basketmaker II (1000 B.C.-A.D. 500). In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin, edited by William D. Lipe, Mark D. Varien, and Richard H. Wilshusen. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver, Colorado.

Lizotte, Christopher Michael 1995a Change Through Time in the Lithic Technology of Ridges Basin, Colorado and Black Mesa, Arizona. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. 1995b Changes in Early Agricultural Group Mobility and Lithic Technology: Comparing Ridges Basin and Black Mesa Assemblages. In Studies in Ridges Basin Archaeology Animas-La Plata Archaeological Project 1992-1993 Investigations in Ridges Basin, Colorado, edited by Susan A. Gregg and Francis E. Smiley. Animas- La Plata Archaeological Project Research Paper No. 4.

234

Longpré, Claire I. 2001 Surficial Geology of Lower Comb Wash, San Juan County, Utah. Open-File Report 01-424. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Tacoma, Washington.

Luedtke, Barbara E. 1992 An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint. Institute or Archaeology, Los Angeles Archaeological Research Tools 7. University of California, Los Angeles.

Mabry, Jonathan B. 1998 Paleoindian and Archaic Sites in Arizona. Center for Desert Archaeology. Tucson, Arizona.

Matson, Richard G. 1991 The Origins of Southwestern Agriculture. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1995 Anomalous Basketmaker II Sites on Cedar Mesa: Not so Anomalous After All. In Exploring Anasazi Origins: The Cedar Mesa Basketmaker II. Report on the 1991/2 Fieldwork, edited by R. G. Matson and Michael Brand. Online http://www.anth.ubc.ca/about-us/laboratory-of-archaeology-loa/loa-publications- library.html 2006 What is Basketmaker II. Kiva 72:149-166

Matson, Richard G. and Sally J. Cole 2002 Ethnicity and Conflict Among the Basketmaker II of the U.S. Southwest. In Chacmool, The Archaeology of Contact: Processes and Consequences. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, edited by K. Lesick, B. Kulle, C. Cluney, and M. Peuramaki- Brown, pp. 206-217. Canada.

Matson, Richard G. and William D. Lipe 1975 Regional Sampling: A Case Study of Cedar Mesa, Utah. In Sampling in Archaeology, edited by James W. Mueller, pp. 33-41. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Matson, Richard G., William D. Lipe, and William R. Haase, IV 1988 Adaptational Continuities and Occupational Discontinuities: The Cedar Mesa Anasazi. Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 245-264. 1991 Human Adaptations on Cedar Mesa, Southeastern Utah. Electronic document, http://www.anth.ubc.ca/about-us/laboratory-of-archaeology-loa/loa-publications- library.html, accessed February 13, 2010. Laboratory of Archaeology, University of British Columbia.

Morin, Jesse and R. G. Matson 2009 Differentiating Archaic and Basketmaker II Projectile Point Manufacturing Techniques on the Colorado Plateau. Manuscript of file, Laboratory of Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

235

Morris, Earl H. and Robert F. Burgh 1954 Basket Maker II Sites near Durango, Colorado. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 604.

Morris, Elizabeth Ann 1980 Basketmaker Caves in the Prayer Rock District, Northeastern Arizona. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, no. 35. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

North, Chris 2000 Basketmaker II Lithic Technology and Residential Mobility: An Example from Southeastern Utah. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

Nusbaum, Jesse L. 1922 A Basket-maker Cave in Kane County, Utah. Indian Notes and Monographs, edited by F. W. Hodge. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.

Odell, George H. 2003 Lithic Analysis. Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory, and Technique, Springer.

Parry, William J. and Andrew L. Christenson 1987 Prehistoric Stone Technology on Northern Black Mesa, Arizona. Occasional Paper No. 12 Center for Archaeological Investigations Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Parry, W. J., and R. L. Kelly 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, pp. 285-304.

Parry, William J., and Francis E. Smiley 1990 Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in Northeastern Arizona and Southeastern Utah. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, pages 47-56, edited by Paul E. Minnis and Charles L. Redman. Investigations in American Archaeology, Westview Press.

Pepper, George H. 1902 The Ancient Basket Makers of Southeastern Utah. Supplement to American Museum Journal Vol. II, No. 4, April, 1902, Guide Leaflet No. 6. 1905 The Throwing-stick of a Prehistoric People of the Southwest. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Americanists, 13th Session, New York, 1902, pages 107-130. Eschenbach Printing Company, Easton, Pennsylvania

Platt, John R. 1964 Strong Inference. Science 146(3642):347-353.

236

Plog, Stephen 1990 Sociopolitical implications of stylistic variation in the American Southwest. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by Margaret Conkey and Christine Hastorf, pp. 61-72. Cambridge University Press.

Pollock, Katherine Heather 2001 Pits without Pots: Basketmaker II Houses and Lithics of Southeastern Utah. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Washington State University.

Robins, Michael 1997a Modeling the San Juan Basketmaker Socio-Economic Organization: A Preliminary Study in Rock Art and Social Dynamics. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. 1997b Modeling the San Juan Basketmaker Socio-Economic Organization: A Preliminary Study in Rock Art and Social Dynamics. In Early Farmers in the Northern Southwest: Papers on Chronometry, Social Dynamics, and Ecology, edited by Francis E. Smiley and Michael R. Robins. Animas-La Plata Archaeological Project Research Paper No. 7. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region.

Sackett, James R. 1977 The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model. American Antiquity 42(3):369-380. 1985 Style and Ethnicity in the Kalahari: A Reply to Wiessner. American Antiquity 50(1): 154-159. 1986 Style, Function, and Assemblage Variability: A Reply to Binford. American Antiquity 51(3):628-234.

Sinclair, Anthony 1995 The Technique as a Symbol in Late Glacial Europe. World Archaeology 27(1):50-62.

Smiley, Francis E. 1994 The Agricultural Transition in the Northern Southwest: Patterns in the Current Chronometric Data. Kiva 60(2):165-189. 2002 The First Black Mesa Farmers: The White Dog and Lolomai Phases. In Prehistoric Culture Change on the Colorado Plateau Ten Thousand Years on Black Mesa, edited by Shirley Powell and Francis E. Smiley, pp. 37-65. University of Arizona Press, Tucson

Smiley, Francis E. and Michael R. Robins 1997 Early Farmers in the Northern Southwest: Papers on Chronometry, Social Dynamics, and Ecology. Animas-La Plata Archaeological Project Research Paper No. 7. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region.

237

Sorrell, Daniel H. In prep. Far From Home, Excavations at Antler House Village, Site AZ N:12:64(ASM), a Pioneer to Sedentary Period Hohokam Farmstead near Cordes Junction, AZ (working title). Cultural Resource Research Report No. 07-046. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., Mesa, AZ.

Sullivan, Alan P. and Kenneth C. Rozen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50:755-779.

Waldorf, D. C. 1993 The Art of Flint Knapping, fourth edition. Mound Builder books.

Wiessner, Polly 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48(2):253-276. 1985 Style or Isochrestic Variation? A Reply to Sackett. American Antiquity 50(1):160-166.

Whittaker, John C. 1984 Arrowheads and Artisans: Stone Tool manufacture and Individual Variation at Grasshopper Pueblo. PhD. dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1994 Flintknapping Making & Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2004 American flintknappers. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Whittaker, John C. and Eric J. Kaldahl 2001 Where the Waste Went: A Knappers’ Dump at Grasshopper Pueblo. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, and Meaning, edited by William Andrefsky Jr.. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Whittaker, John C. and Anthony d. Romano 1996 Some Prehistoric copper Flaking Tools in Minnesota. In The Wisconsin Archeologist 77(1):3-10.

Wobst, Martin H. 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In Papers for the Director: Research Essays in Honour of James B. Griffin, edited by Charles E. Cleland. Anthropology Papers 61:317-342. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Wylie, Alison 2002 Archaeological Cables and Tacking: Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, In Thinking from Things Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology, pages 161-167. University of California Press, Berkeley.

238

APPENDIX I

STATISTICAL DATA

239

Biface Thinning Flake Descriptive Statistics

Rainbow Punch Billet Tine Platform Thickness Descriptives Durango Cedar Mesa Plateau (percussion) (percussion) (pressure) Frequency 110 117 106 32 32 31 Mean 0.156 0.161 0.173 0.165 0.178 0.086 95% Confidence Lower Bound 0.138 0.143 0.160 0.147 0.150 0.077 Interval for Mean Upper Bound 0.174 0.180 0.186 0.183 0.206 0.095 5% Trimmed 0.142 0.147 0.167 0.163 0.172 0.085 Mean Median 0.130 0.140 0.160 0.150 0.165 0.080 Variance 0.009 0.010 0.005 0.002 0.006 0.001 Std. Deviation 0.095 0.101 0.068 0.049 0.077 0.024 Minimum 0.010 0.050 0.080 0.090 0.060 0.050 Maximum 0.740 0.630 0.430 0.270 0.430 0.150 Range 0.730 0.580 0.350 0.180 0.370 0.100 Interquartile 0.050 0.080 0.073 0.078 0.080 0.040 Range Skewness 3.673 2.442 1.431 0.462 1.468 0.700 Kurtosis 17.222 7.207 2.415 -0.748 2.742 0.130

240

Rainbow Punch Billet Tine Platform Width Descriptives Durango Cedar Mesa Plateau (percussion) (percussion) (pressure) Frequency 110 117 106 32 32 31 Mean 0.439 0.484 0.541 0.562 0.647 0.279 95% Confidence Lower Bound 0.409 0.433 0.504 0.500 0.528 0.254 Interval for Mean Upper Bound 0.470 0.536 0.578 0.623 0.765 0.304 5% Trimmed 0.436 0.450 0.534 0.557 0.618 0.279 Mean Median 0.430 0.420 0.530 0.570 0.535 0.270 Variance 0.026 0.080 0.036 0.029 0.108 0.005 Std. Deviation 0.162 0.283 0.191 0.171 0.329 0.069 Minimum 0.090 0.100 0.180 0.230 0.240 0.150 Maximum 0.970 1.980 1.100 1.040 1.630 0.410 Range 0.880 1.880 0.920 0.810 1.390 0.260 Interquartile 0.193 0.220 0.263 0.213 0.438 0.090 Range Skewness 0.432 2.747 0.560 0.566 1.239 0.116 Kurtosis 0.613 10.217 -0.003 0.736 1.402 -0.613

241

Rainbow Punch Billet Tine PLW Descriptive Durango Cedar Mesa Plateau (percussion) (percussion) (pressure) Frequency 110 117 106 32 32 31 Mean 0.958 0.964 1.028 0.967 1.187 0.492 95% Confidence Lower Bound 0.917 0.908 0.987 0.885 1.021 0.462 Interval for Mean Upper Bound 0.998 1.020 1.069 1.048 1.353 0.522 5% Trimmed 0.955 0.937 1.020 0.959 1.189 0.493 Mean Median 0.975 0.920 1.015 0.935 1.130 0.490 Variance 0.046 0.094 0.045 0.051 0.212 0.007 Std. Deviation 0.213 0.306 0.213 0.225 0.461 0.083 Minimum 0.550 0.500 0.600 0.540 0.090 0.300 Maximum 1.490 2.130 1.750 1.530 2.110 0.640 Range 0.940 1.630 1.150 0.990 2.020 0.340 Interquartile 0.298 0.370 0.275 0.303 0.658 0.110 Range Skewness 0.087 1.550 0.554 0.650 0.192 -0.173 Kurtosis -0.492 3.587 0.528 0.235 0.361 -0.195

242

T-Tests PLW Measurement Normalized Regional Comparisons Assemblage Sig. Frequency Mean Std. Deviation df Comparison (2-tailed) Durango 98 0.973 0.090 295 0.368 Rainbow Plateau 199 0.984 0.0969 Durango 98 0.973 0.090 124 0.956 Cedar Mesa 28 0.974 0.087 Rainbow Plateau 199 0.984 0.096 225 0.624 Cedar Mesa 28 0.974 0.087

T-Tests PLW Measurement Normalized Regional v. Punch Comparisons Assemblage Std. Sig. Frequency Mean df Comparison Deviation (2-tailed) Durango 98 0.973 0.090 32.5 0.002 Punch 28 1.079 0.154 Rainbow Plateau 199 0.984 0.096 30 0.003 Punch 28 1.079 0.154 Cedar Mesa 28 0.974 0.087 42.7 0.003 Punch 28 1.079 0.154

T-Tests PLW Measurement Normalized Regional v. Billet Comparisons Assemblage Std. Sig. Frequency Mean df Comparison Deviation (2-tailed) Durango 110 0.9715 0.111 35.2 0.033 Billet 32 1.065 0.232 Rainbow Plateau 117 0.971 0.147 38 0.034 Billet 32 1.065 0.232 Cedar Mesa 28 0.974 0.087 41.4 0.000 Billet 27 0.701 0.046

T-Tests PLW Measurement Normalized Regional v. Tine Comparisons Assemblage Std. Sig. Frequency Mean df Comparison Deviation (2-tailed) Durango 110 0.972 0.111 92 0.000 Tine 31 0.698 0.060 Rainbow Plateau 117 0.971 0.1471 121.4 0.000 Tine 31 0.698 0.060 Cedar Mesa 106 1.008 0.104 86.7 0.000 Tine 31 0.698 0.060

T-Tests PLW Measurement Normalized Regional Comparisons Assemblage Sig. Frequency Mean Std. Deviation df Comparison (2-tailed) Punch 28 1.079 0.154 32 0.000 Billet 27 0.701 0.046 Punch 32 0.976 0.114 47.3 0.000 Tine 31 0.698 0.060 Billet 32 1.065 0.232 35.3 0.000 Tine 31 0.698 0.060

243

Bifacial Tool Descriptive Statistics

Region Attribute N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Maximum Notch 17 0.38 1.01 0.6894 0.1860 Opening Minimum Notch 14 0.43 0.91 0.6250 0.1346 Opening Average Notch 14 0.44 0.93 0.6646 0.1489 Opening Width/Thickness 20 2.29 4.8 3.5335 0.5495 Ratio Percussion 20 1 3 2.6000 0.8208 Code Pressure Durango 20 1 4 3.3000 1.0311 Code Pressure flake 20 1 2 1.4500 0.5104 depth code Notch location 20 1 3 1.3000 0.7327 code Base form 19 1 4 1.3684 0.8951 code Cross section 20 1 3 2.2500 0.8507 code Valid N 14 (listwise)

244

Region Attribute N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Maximum Notch 15 0.39 0.81 0.5527 0.1145 Opening Minimum Notch 11 0.37 0.62 0.5227 0.0861 Opening Average Notch 11 0.38 0.7 0.5523 0.0998 Opening Width/Thickness 58 2.29 7.77 4.2707 0.9733 Ratio Percussion 59 1 3 1.6102 0.9288 Code Rainbow Plateau Pressure 35 2 4 3.4000 0.8812 Code Pressure flake 35 1 2 1.4857 0.5071 depth code Notch location 43 1 4 2.7674 1.3773 code Base form 44 1 4 2.2273 1.1587 code Cross section 60 1 3 2.2167 0.7386 code Valid N (listwise) 8

245

Region Attribute N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Maximum Notch 15 0.43 1.16 0.7487 0.2149 Opening Minimum Notch 8 0.35 0.99 0.6738 0.1958 Opening Average Notch 8 0.45 1 0.7669 0.1944 Opening Width/Thickness 38 0.67 6.71 4.1595 1.2318 Ratio Percussion 35 1 3 2.3143 0.9632 Code Cedar Mesa Pressure 24 2 4 3.0000 1.0215 Code Pressure flake 24 1 2 1.6250 0.4945 depth code Notch location 30 1 4 2.1667 1.3667 code Base form code 28 1 4 2.2500 1.0758 Cross section 37 1 3 1.9189 0.6823 code Valid N (listwise) 4

246

APPENDIX II

ANALYSIS DATA SHEETS

247

Flaked Stone Codes

Category Attribute Code Category Attribute Code Eastern 1 chert 1 Western 2 chalcedony 2 Indirect Percussion 3 jasper 3 (experimental) Territory Direct Percussion 4 petrified wood 4 (experimental) Tine Pressure Material 5 orthoquartzite 5 (experimental) metamorphosed 6 sediment Category Attribute Code quartzite 7 fine grained Durango 1 8 volcanic Rainbow Plateau 2 obsidian 9 Cedar Mesa 3 Indirect Region Percussion 4 (experimental) Direct Percussion 5 Category Attribute Code (experimental) Tine Pressure 6 very fine 1 (experimental) Texture fine 2 Category Attribute Code fine-medium 3 Artifact complete 1 medium 4 Condition fragmented 2

248

Bifacial Tool Codes

Category Attribute Code Category Attribute Code corner-notched 1 invasive 1 corner and 2 non-invasive 2 side-notched Pressure flake depth side-notched 3 n/a 3 Bifacial knife 4 indeterminate 4 Tool Type preform 5 biface 6 Category Attribute Code indeterminate 7 corner 1 corner and unknown 7 2 side Notch side 3 location Category Attribute Code none 4 horizontal 1 n/a 5 percussion oblique 2 indeterminate 6 flaking random 3 n/a 4 Category Attribute Code excurvate 1 incurvate 2 Category Attribute Code Base form straight 3 chevron 1 informal 4 horizontal 2 indeterminate 5 Pressure oblique 3 flaking random 4 Category Attribute Code n/a 5 biconvex 1 indeterminate 6 Cross flattened 2 section plano-convex 3 rhomboidal 4 Category Attribute Code Artifact complete 1 Condition fragmented 2

249

Biface Thinning Flake Datasheet Artifact Max Max Max PLW Platform Platform Territory Region Site Feature Material Texture PLW Weight Condition Type Length Width Thick Transform Thick Width 1 1 1 n/a 1 2 2 .94 1.32 .19 .88 .94 .11 .27 .10 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 2.04 1.48 .26 .79 .89 .11 .38 .60 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 1.31 1.45 .15 .98 .99 .06 .29 .30 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 1.78 .78 .16 .70 .84 .15 .41 .10 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 1.25 .88 .15 .70 .84 .11 .32 .10 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 1.62 1.06 .14 .74 .86 .06 .22 .20 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 1.05 .88 .15 .81 .90 .12 .37 .10 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 2.27 1.55 .24 .94 .97 .11 .42 .70 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 2.33 1.27 .26 1.00 1.00 .39 .12 1.10 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 1.95 1.40 .22 1.14 1.07 .58 .17 .50 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 2.65 2.18 .26 1.24 1.11 .74 .17 1.00 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 2.70 2.03 .25 1.26 1.12 .23 .58 1.20 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 6 2 1.75 1.52 .23 .84 .92 .11 .44 .60 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 6 2 1.92 1.21 .17 .94 .97 .48 .09 .40 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 3 2 1.23 .61 .17 .55 .74 .12 .25 .10 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! .64 .11 .57 .75 .09 .23 .10 2 1 1 1 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! 1.04 .16 .95 .97 .11 .44 .10 2 1 1 1 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! #NULL! .29 1.01 1.00 .13 .29 .40 2 1 1 1 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! #NULL! .37 1.23 1.11 .32 .97 .90 2 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.62 .39 .72 .85 .14 .34 1.30 2 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 .99 #NULL! .16 .79 .89 .38 .09 .10 2 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.37 .26 1.00 1.00 .15 .48 .50 2 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.75 .25 1.18 1.09 .17 .59 .90 2 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! 2.53 .38 1.29 1.14 .24 .69 3.10 2 1 1 1 n/a 1 6 2 #NULL! 1.15 .21 .87 .93 .15 .37 .40 2

250

Artifact Max Max Max PLW Platform Platform Territory Region Site Feature Material Texture PLW Weight Condition Type Length Width Thick Transform Thick Width 1 1 1 n/a 1 6 2 #NULL! 1.69 .29 .88 .94 .16 .75 1.10 2 1 1 1 n/a 1 9 1 #NULL! 1.72 .27 1.06 1.03 .14 .36 .70 2 1 1 1 roast pit 1 2 2 1.15 .98 .15 .73 .85 .11 .31 .30 1 1 1 1 roast pit 1 2 2 2.69 2.10 .33 1.15 1.07 .15 .50 2.00 1 1 1 1 roast pit 1 1 2 3.03 1.92 .36 1.22 1.10 .20 .40 2.10 1 1 1 1 roast pit 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.18 .20 .74 .86 .09 .48 .30 1 1 1 1 roast pit 1 1 2 1.18 .79 .14 .77 .88 .07 .25 .10 1 1 1 1 roast pit 1 1 2 2.57 1.07 .29 .81 .90 .10 .23 .80 1 1 1 1 roast pit 1 1 2 1.34 1.11 .23 .84 .92 .10 .23 .20 1 1 1 1 roast pit 1 1 2 3.98 2.02 .46 1.20 1.10 .20 .59 3.00 1 1 1 1 roast pit 1 9 4 1.01 1.15 .14 1.02 1.01 .28 .09 .20 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 .91 .79 .18 .72 .85 .11 .51 .10 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 3.58 2.05 .47 .85 .92 .18 .52 2.70 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 2.37 1.56 .29 .86 .93 .13 .31 .90 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 2.43 1.64 .24 .97 .98 .19 .51 .90 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 1.81 1.46 .24 .98 .99 .11 .49 .60 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 1.62 1.33 .21 1.01 1.00 .01 .45 .40 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 2.14 2.20 .27 1.08 1.04 .12 .38 1.00 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 1.94 1.80 .24 1.08 1.04 .20 .81 .80 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 2.88 2.77 .38 1.49 1.22 .19 .56 2.30 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 1.21 1.07 .12 .60 .77 .13 .39 .10 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 .92 .92 .11 .81 .90 .09 .35 .10 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 1.68 1.34 .21 .83 .91 .14 .54 .50 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 2.90 1.67 .27 .97 .98 .12 .44 1.20 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 4 2 .90 .60 .12 .57 .75 .10 .31 .10 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 6 2 1.39 .91 .11 .57 .75 .11 .31 .10 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 6 2 2.32 2.16 .31 1.13 1.06 .17 .59 1.10 1

251

Artifact Max Max Max PLW Platform Platform Territory Region Site Feature Material Texture PLW Weight Condition Type Length Width Thick Transform Thick Width 1 1 1 bell pit 1 6 2 2.86 3.50 .28 1.20 1.10 .13 .40 2.50 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 6 2 2.43 2.63 .23 1.33 1.15 .15 .69 1.20 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 6 2 3.60 3.32 .31 1.42 1.19 .14 .67 2.90 1 1 1 1 bell pit 1 2 2 #NULL! 1.17 .13 .92 .96 .10 .32 .10 2 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 #NULL! .83 .11 .64 .80 .11 .31 .10 2 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 #NULL! .85 .21 .66 .81 .10 .28 .20 2 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 #NULL! #NULL! .17 .79 .89 .13 .50 .10 2 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.51 .21 .82 .91 .14 .59 .80 2 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.62 .32 .92 .96 .13 .45 .80 2 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 #NULL! 2.36 .32 .99 .99 .15 .36 1.50 2 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 #NULL! #NULL! .18 1.02 1.01 .12 .48 .30 2 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.64 .22 1.15 1.07 .11 .45 .60 2 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 #NULL! 3.12 .39 1.31 1.14 .24 .62 3.30 2 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.50 .19 .58 .76 .13 .36 .40 2 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 #NULL! .78 .13 .64 .80 .12 .39 .10 2 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 1.38 1.19 .20 .95 .97 .12 .39 .30 2 1 1 1 bell pit 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.67 .28 1.25 1.12 .13 .45 .70 2 1 1 1 bell pit 1 6 2 #NULL! 2.92 .42 1.10 1.05 .16 .46 2.80 2 1 1 1 bell pit 1 6 2 #NULL! 1.90 .31 1.42 1.19 .16 .78 1.30 2 1 1 1 bell pit 1 6 2 #NULL! 1.53 .41 1.05 1.02 .16 .50 1.20 2 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 1 2 2.07 1.53 .26 .75 .87 .11 .37 .50 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 1 2 1.97 2.10 .25 .98 .99 .14 .69 .80 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 1 2 2.05 2.29 .28 .79 .89 .15 .28 1.00 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 2.37 #NULL! .30 1.31 1.14 .20 .76 1.80 2 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 9 1 #NULL! 1.72 .28 1.03 1.01 .13 .31 .70 2 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 2 2 1.05 1.00 .14 .72 .85 .14 .34 .20 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 2 2 1.40 1.14 .18 .87 .93 .08 .31 .40 1

252

Artifact Max Max Max PLW Platform Platform Territory Region Site Feature Material Texture PLW Weight Condition Type Length Width Thick Transform Thick Width 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 2 2 2.34 1.51 .26 1.02 1.01 .11 .40 .90 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 1 2 2.42 1.54 .23 .84 .92 .11 .42 .70 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 1 2 2.38 1.72 .42 1.02 1.01 .20 .52 1.20 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 1 2 2.58 1.72 .21 1.22 1.10 .11 .44 1.00 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 1.57 1.52 .17 .92 .96 .14 .47 .30 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 3.30 2.20 .47 .99 .99 .15 .67 3.00 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 2.56 1.71 .33 .86 .93 .19 .56 1.20 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 2.03 2.04 .25 1.08 1.04 .16 .44 .90 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 3.34 1.57 .26 1.14 1.07 .14 .61 1.40 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 2.01 1.30 .22 1.16 1.08 .11 .35 .60 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 2.20 2.41 .27 1.17 1.08 .15 .45 1.30 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 3.19 2.11 .29 1.20 1.10 .14 .61 1.60 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 1.87 .90 .15 .57 .75 .13 .40 .30 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 1.46 .87 .12 .60 .77 .11 .38 .10 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 2.36 1.28 .22 .71 .84 .13 .54 .60 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 2.73 1.08 .16 .85 .92 .13 .48 .60 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 1.56 2.58 .25 .91 .95 .13 .55 .70 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 1.06 1.47 .22 .98 .99 .14 .56 .30 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 3.73 2.62 .49 1.04 1.02 .24 .47 3.60 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 1.45 1.41 .17 1.06 1.03 .17 .53 .20 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 2.29 2.13 .28 1.16 1.08 .20 .81 1.00 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 2.99 1.72 .33 1.30 1.14 .14 .61 2.00 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 9 1 2.91 2.43 .25 .97 .98 .12 .37 1.30 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 9 1 3.28 2.40 .44 1.05 1.02 .21 .34 2.60 1 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 2 2 #NULL! 1.06 .15 .69 .83 .09 .42 .10 2 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 2 2 #NULL! 1.56 .23 1.05 1.02 .11 .42 .50 2 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 1 2 2.60 #NULL! .33 1.05 1.02 .12 .72 1.50 2

253

Artifact Max Max Max PLW Platform Platform Territory Region Site Feature Material Texture PLW Weight Condition Type Length Width Thick Transform Thick Width 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 #NULL! 1.15 .21 .89 .94 .15 .34 .40 2 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 #NULL! 1.23 .16 1.11 1.05 .11 .48 .30 2 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 #NULL! 1.97 .29 1.02 1.01 .17 .45 1.50 2 1 1 1 pit struc 2 1 6 2 #NULL! 1.49 .21 1.03 1.01 .10 .37 .50 2 2 2 2 n/a 1 2 2 3.81 1.70 .41 .95 .97 .14 .49 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 n/a 1 2 2 3.51 2.35 .48 1.18 1.09 .23 .64 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 n/a 1 1 2 2.81 1.53 .80 .99 .99 .15 .38 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 n/a 1 4 2 3.17 2.59 .59 1.38 1.17 .21 .75 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 n/a 1 9 4 3.44 1.97 .66 .92 .96 .27 .65 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! 2.50 .33 1.44 1.20 .22 .76 #NULL! 2 2 2 2 n/a 1 4 2 #NULL! 1.90 .57 1.14 1.07 .25 .91 #NULL! 2 2 2 2 n/a 1 9 2 #NULL! 1.65 .36 1.20 1.10 .15 .49 #NULL! 2 2 2 2 n/a 1 9 4 #NULL! 2.17 .85 1.15 1.07 .29 .91 #NULL! 2 2 2 2 pos. cist 12 1 2 2 1.87 1.52 .23 .66 .81 .22 .57 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 pos. hearth 2 1 1 2 #NULL! 2.04 .44 1.28 1.13 .14 .48 #NULL! 2 2 2 2 pos. bed 4 1 1 2 5.18 3.04 .59 1.57 1.25 .33 1.45 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 pos. cist 12 1 1 2 3.80 2.87 .49 1.06 1.03 .24 .56 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 pos. cist 7 1 4 2 2.65 2.41 .36 1.42 1.19 .21 .49 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 pos. cist 8 1 1 2 3.14 2.00 .38 1.08 1.04 .19 .51 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 pos. cist 8 1 1 2 4.55 3.39 .75 2.12 1.46 .58 1.98 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 pos. cist 8 1 9 4 3.20 1.99 .65 1.84 1.36 .46 1.78 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 unknown 1 1 3 3.35 2.95 .61 .94 .97 .16 .49 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 unknown 1 2 2 2.45 1.90 .36 1.34 1.16 .12 .46 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 unknown 1 2 2 1.41 1.20 .23 1.00 1.00 .19 .69 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 unknown 1 2 2 3.03 2.45 .52 1.37 1.17 .43 .86 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 unknown 1 1 2 3.39 2.87 .54 1.13 1.06 .23 .59 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 unknown 1 1 2 3.31 2.71 .66 2.13 1.46 .18 .50 #NULL! 1

254

Artifact Max Max Max PLW Platform Platform Territory Region Site Feature Material Texture PLW Weight Condition Type Length Width Thick Transform Thick Width 2 2 2 unknown 1 4 2 3.22 2.30 .25 1.01 1.00 .23 .79 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 unknown 1 4 2 6.86 2.40 1.02 1.31 1.14 .25 .97 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 unknown 1 1 4 4.91 4.95 1.25 2.06 1.44 .48 1.20 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 unknown 1 2 2 #NULL! 2.21 .34 1.15 1.07 .16 .50 #NULL! 2 2 2 2 unknown 1 9 2 #NULL! 1.35 .25 .70 .84 .15 .42 #NULL! 2 2 2 3 midden 1 2 2 #NULL! 1.15 .25 .81 .90 .47 .20 .50 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 .80 1.10 .12 1.08 1.04 .05 .42 .20 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 .81 .59 .07 .53 .73 .07 .25 .10 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 2.12 1.48 .21 .87 .93 .13 .32 .50 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 .98 1.27 .10 .77 .88 .05 .24 .10 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 1.28 .92 .12 .68 .82 .08 .31 .20 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 1.28 .82 .15 .67 .82 .14 .55 .10 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 2.09 1.39 .26 1.12 1.06 .17 .52 .70 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 1.44 1.09 .16 .68 .82 .16 .38 .20 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 2.21 1.62 .48 1.17 1.08 .15 .41 .70 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 1.88 1.53 .29 .88 .94 .10 .38 .50 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 1.90 1.22 .21 .89 .94 .15 .31 .20 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 .81 1.10 .23 1.05 1.02 .08 .33 .30 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 1.55 1.23 .25 1.03 1.01 .14 .43 .70 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 2.67 2.64 .38 1.01 1.00 .15 .51 1.90 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 .90 1.12 .13 1.04 1.02 .12 .44 .20 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 1.92 1.68 .26 .99 .99 .15 .45 .90 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 .88 1.07 .23 .96 .98 .16 .34 .20 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 .80 .65 .12 .63 .79 .12 .46 .10 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 3.06 2.11 .27 1.15 1.07 .20 .57 1.70 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 4 2 1.47 1.35 .20 1.04 1.02 .13 .37 .60 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 4 2 1.67 .89 .15 .61 .78 .09 .12 .20 1

255

Artifact Max Max Max PLW Platform Platform Territory Region Site Feature Material Texture PLW Weight Condition Type Length Width Thick Transform Thick Width 2 2 3 n/a 1 4 2 1.76 1.28 .16 .86 .93 .19 .45 .40 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 4 2 1.29 .90 .14 .83 .91 .10 .31 .30 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 4 2 1.40 1.11 .14 .84 .92 .11 .34 .20 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 4 2 2.15 1.30 .21 1.16 1.08 .15 .74 .70 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 4 2 1.08 .91 .14 .82 .91 .09 .37 .10 1 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 3 #NULL! .95 .17 .72 .85 .10 .28 .20 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 3 #NULL! 1.47 .19 1.02 1.01 .15 .37 .20 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! .94 .15 .76 .87 .10 .45 .30 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! .92 .11 .75 .87 .11 .36 .10 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! 1.39 .17 1.04 1.02 .11 .54 .30 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! .89 .14 .88 .94 .11 .48 .40 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 1.65 .92 .20 .71 .84 .16 .37 .20 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! 1.11 .37 .75 .87 .17 .36 .50 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! .30 .14 .80 .89 .14 .31 .10 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! 2.09 .37 1.18 1.09 .18 .59 1.00 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! 1.42 .27 .91 .95 .13 .39 .40 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! 1.67 .20 1.36 1.17 .13 .43 .30 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! .99 .10 .80 .89 .08 .34 .10 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! 1.44 .26 1.00 1.00 .18 .39 .60 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.49 .20 1.23 1.11 .14 .44 .40 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.06 .15 .93 .96 .10 .29 .10 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.32 .31 1.05 1.02 .17 .42 .70 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! .78 .10 .70 .84 .07 .28 .10 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.06 .17 .78 .88 .13 .43 .50 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 1.06 1.10 .16 .81 .90 .14 .38 .20 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.47 .25 1.34 1.16 .18 .67 .20 2 2 2 3 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! #NULL! .23 .94 .97 .63 .17 .30 2

256

Artifact Max Max Max PLW Platform Platform Territory Region Site Feature Material Texture PLW Weight Condition Type Length Width Thick Transform Thick Width 2 2 3 structure 3 1 2 2 1.55 1.01 .16 .64 .80 .13 .32 .20 1 2 2 3 structure 3 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.57 .12 .83 .91 .09 .27 .20 2 2 2 3 structure 4 1 1 2 .73 .90 .14 .85 .92 .07 .26 .10 1 2 2 3 structure 4 1 1 2 1.04 .77 .15 .75 .87 .11 .41 .20 1 2 2 3 structure 4 1 1 2 .89 .84 .11 .61 .78 .11 .32 .10 1 2 2 3 structure 4 1 1 2 1.57 1.66 .33 .99 .99 .18 .53 .80 1 2 2 3 structure 4 1 1 2 1.37 1.39 .31 .87 .93 .11 .37 .60 1 2 2 3 structure 4 1 1 2 .64 .77 .10 .73 .85 .11 .35 .10 1 2 2 3 structure 4 1 6 2 1.51 .98 .17 .73 .85 .11 .37 .30 1 2 2 3 structure 4 1 2 2 #NULL! .86 .09 .78 .88 .09 .22 .10 2 2 2 3 structure 4 1 1 2 #NULL! .90 .16 .75 .87 .11 .29 .10 2 2 2 3 structure 4 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.17 .16 1.02 1.01 .17 .60 .10 2 2 2 3 structure 4 1 1 2 #NULL! 2.02 .29 1.12 1.06 .28 .78 .90 2 2 2 3 structure 4 1 1 2 #NULL! .63 .12 .61 .78 .10 .35 .10 2 2 2 3 structure 4 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.22 .34 1.19 1.09 .31 .98 .20 2 2 2 3 structure 4 1 3 2 1.17 #NULL! .14 1.03 1.01 .11 .54 .20 2 2 2 3 structure 5 1 2 2 .68 .96 .15 .92 .96 .15 .42 .10 1 2 2 3 structure 5 1 2 2 1.94 1.05 .25 .79 .89 .14 .51 .40 1 2 2 3 structure 5 1 1 2 1.28 1.12 .12 .75 .87 .07 .28 .20 1 2 2 3 structure 5 1 1 2 .91 1.12 .15 .84 .92 .15 .10 .20 1 2 2 3 structure 5 1 1 2 1.36 1.22 .18 .63 .79 .09 .33 .20 1 2 2 3 structure 5 1 1 2 .83 .94 .11 .74 .86 .10 .38 .10 1 2 2 3 structure 5 1 1 2 .78 1.00 .10 .79 .89 .08 .22 .10 1 2 2 3 structure 5 1 1 2 1.94 .87 .15 .58 .76 .07 .27 .20 1 2 2 3 structure 5 1 1 2 1.54 1.59 .21 1.16 1.08 .19 .73 .40 1 2 2 3 structure 5 1 4 2 1.15 1.00 .14 .71 .84 .07 .30 .10 1 2 2 3 structure 5 1 4 2 .88 .79 .10 .62 .79 .12 .40 .20 1

257

Artifact Max Max Max PLW Platform Platform Territory Region Site Feature Material Texture PLW Weight Condition Type Length Width Thick Transform Thick Width 2 2 3 structure 5 1 3 2 2.34 1.46 .21 1.04 1.02 .18 .38 .70 1 2 2 3 structure 5 1 2 2 #NULL! .66 .11 .61 .78 .07 .25 .10 2 2 2 3 structure 5 1 2 2 #NULL! .53 .10 .53 .73 .09 .27 .10 2 2 2 3 structure 5 1 2 2 #NULL! #NULL! .21 .93 .96 .13 .46 .40 2 2 2 3 structure 5 1 1 2 #NULL! .61 .10 .50 .71 .05 .28 .10 2 2 2 3 structure 5 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.25 .21 .63 .79 .09 .28 .40 2 2 2 3 structure 5 1 1 2 #NULL! .93 .14 .68 .82 .07 .27 .20 2 2 2 3 structure 5 1 1 2 #NULL! .79 .11 .69 .83 .08 .32 .10 2 2 2 3 structure 5 1 1 2 #NULL! .93 .12 .86 .93 .08 .28 .10 2 2 2 3 structure 5 1 1 2 #NULL! .94 .14 .94 .97 .10 .41 .10 2 2 2 3 structure 5 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.11 .13 .87 .93 .12 .45 .20 2 2 2 3 structure 5 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.91 .32 1.44 1.20 .27 1.02 1.00 2 2 2 3 structure 5 1 9 4 #NULL! 1.64 .19 .93 .96 .13 .58 .50 2 2 3 4 hearth 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.01 .29 .81 .90 .11 .36 .50 2 2 3 4 midden 1 2 2 1.62 1.04 .14 .86 .93 .10 .39 .30 1 2 3 4 midden 1 2 2 2.13 1.70 .35 1.06 1.03 .14 .38 1.10 1 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 1.51 1.21 .24 .96 .98 .09 .29 .40 1 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 1.87 1.63 .45 1.02 1.01 .15 .37 .90 1 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 3.02 3.57 .71 1.44 1.20 .18 .99 6.70 1 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 1.06 1.14 .13 1.03 1.01 .16 .47 .10 1 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 2.62 2.15 .46 1.08 1.04 .20 .54 2.30 1 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 3.23 2.33 .37 1.30 1.14 .20 .92 2.60 1 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 1.71 1.23 .30 .95 .97 .14 .40 .80 1 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 1.36 1.71 .17 1.10 1.05 .17 .57 .40 1 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 2.01 1.64 .26 .97 .98 .16 .61 .80 1 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 3.07 1.83 .22 1.17 1.08 .19 .68 1.20 1 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.45 .24 .99 .99 .10 .32 .60 2

258

Artifact Max Max Max PLW Platform Platform Territory Region Site Feature Material Texture PLW Weight Condition Type Length Width Thick Transform Thick Width 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 #NULL! #NULL! .35 .99 .99 .19 .48 1.10 2 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 #NULL! .84 .15 .70 .84 .16 .52 .10 2 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.48 .18 .77 .88 .09 .22 .30 2 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.59 .22 1.08 1.04 .12 .41 .70 2 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.05 .18 .78 .88 .11 .25 .10 2 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.28 .21 .86 .93 .13 .33 .40 2 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.51 .24 1.00 1.00 .14 .65 .70 2 2 3 4 midden 1 1 2 1.26 #NULL! .28 1.20 1.10 .28 .94 .40 2 2 3 4 n/a 1 1 2 2.20 2.29 .29 1.33 1.15 .18 .63 1.30 1 2 3 4 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! 1.12 .27 .94 .97 .12 .32 .50 2 2 3 4 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! 2.30 .34 1.14 1.07 .21 .60 1.30 2 2 3 4 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.04 .21 .82 .91 .14 .53 .30 2 2 3 4 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.68 .20 .96 .98 .11 .35 .80 2 2 3 4 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.15 .19 .88 .94 .17 .52 .40 2 2 3 4 pithouse 1 2 2 1.69 1.35 .32 .71 .84 .13 .27 .70 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 2 2 1.99 1.69 .22 .79 .89 .14 .38 .70 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 1.31 .87 .12 .60 .77 .08 .26 .10 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 1.48 #NULL! .17 .76 .87 .15 .34 .40 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 1.43 1.59 .25 1.09 1.04 .15 .60 .50 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 3.53 3.39 .44 1.51 1.23 .22 .79 5.20 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 2.04 1.95 .28 1.05 1.02 .17 .57 1.10 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 1.07 1.27 .14 .77 .88 .08 .26 .20 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 1.98 1.97 .42 1.01 1.00 .13 .30 1.30 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 1.28 1.31 .21 1.03 1.01 .13 .49 .30 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 1.75 1.48 .25 1.10 1.05 .22 .89 .70 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 1.37 1.76 .28 1.16 1.08 .13 .61 .70 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 1.94 1.25 .22 .91 .95 .11 .36 .60 1

259

Artifact Max Max Max PLW Platform Platform Territory Region Site Feature Material Texture PLW Weight Condition Type Length Width Thick Transform Thick Width 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 3.24 2.27 .44 1.04 1.02 .15 .57 2.80 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 3.17 1.81 .38 .98 .99 .16 .67 2.00 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 1.17 1.00 .18 .93 .96 .18 .66 .30 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 2.63 1.89 .26 .96 .98 .22 .69 1.10 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 2 2 #NULL! 1.67 .21 1.30 1.14 .18 .70 .40 2 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 1.04 #NULL! .19 .94 .97 .10 .37 .30 2 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! .96 .12 .74 .86 .10 .40 .20 2 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.75 .18 1.09 1.04 .20 .54 .50 2 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! .96 .11 .77 .88 .10 .33 .10 2 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.23 .23 .80 .89 .20 .63 .50 2 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.17 .18 .91 .95 .09 .30 .30 2 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! #NULL! .17 .96 .98 .12 .41 .40 2 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.26 .24 .82 .91 .26 .45 .40 2 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! .86 .17 .65 .81 .13 .36 .20 2 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.31 .19 .89 .94 .12 .47 .30 2 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.74 .33 1.49 1.22 .35 .96 1.20 2 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.71 .41 .75 .87 .31 .52 2.30 2 2 3 5 midden 1 1 2 1.35 .90 .15 .63 .79 .12 .35 .10 1 2 3 5 midden 1 1 2 2.20 1.29 .28 .72 .85 .18 .34 .60 1 2 3 5 midden 1 1 2 4.15 2.09 .56 1.10 1.05 .37 .71 4.30 1 2 3 5 midden 1 1 2 1.19 1.67 .18 1.11 1.05 .13 .32 .30 1 2 3 5 midden 1 1 2 3.15 2.36 .40 1.29 1.14 .25 .71 2.70 1 2 3 5 midden 1 1 2 #NULL! .97 .12 .85 .92 .12 .32 .20 2 2 3 5 midden 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.14 .15 .90 .95 .14 .48 .10 2 2 3 5 midden 1 1 2 #NULL! #NULL! .31 .93 .96 .21 .57 .50 2 2 3 5 midden 1 1 2 #NULL! #NULL! .20 1.14 1.07 .20 .87 .20 2 2 3 5 n/a 1 1 3 2.82 2.25 .56 1.20 1.10 .23 .61 3.00 1

260

Artifact Max Max Max PLW Platform Platform Territory Region Site Feature Material Texture PLW Weight Condition Type Length Width Thick Transform Thick Width 2 3 5 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! 1.45 .32 .91 .95 .14 .54 1.00 2 2 3 5 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.62 .24 .96 .98 .12 .40 .60 2 2 3 5 n/a 1 1 2 #NULL! 2.65 .60 1.40 1.18 .34 .94 2.70 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 2 2 3.22 3.43 .52 1.20 1.10 .26 .81 5.10 1 2 3 5 pithouse 1 2 2 1.95 1.80 .25 1.04 1.02 .14 .49 .80 1 2 3 5 pithouse 1 2 2 2.32 1.25 .48 .92 .96 .16 .31 1.10 1 2 3 5 pithouse 1 2 2 2.72 2.25 .41 1.20 1.10 .25 .78 2.50 1 2 3 5 pithouse 1 2 2 2.15 1.53 .36 1.28 1.13 .34 .88 1.00 1 2 3 5 pithouse 1 2 2 1.90 1.37 .30 .82 .91 .15 .49 .70 1 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 2.21 2.07 2.28 1.18 1.09 .15 .53 1.80 1 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 2.26 1.73 .32 1.28 1.13 .16 .61 1.40 1 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 2.20 2.04 2.90 1.14 1.07 .16 .50 1.20 1 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 3.71 2.32 .46 .86 .93 .20 .39 2.20 1 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 1.24 .98 .20 .81 .90 .19 .62 .20 1 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 1.63 2.12 .48 1.36 1.17 .29 .73 1.60 1 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 3 #NULL! 2.30 .52 1.55 1.24 .17 .64 3.00 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 2 2 #NULL! 2.58 .45 1.28 1.13 .37 .85 3.70 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 2 2 #NULL! 1.04 .33 .90 .95 .21 .53 .60 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 2 2 #NULL! 1.63 .40 1.03 1.01 .43 .18 1.40 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 2 2 #NULL! 2.07 .30 1.08 1.04 .16 .64 1.60 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 2 2 #NULL! 1.49 .29 .90 .95 .13 .54 .70 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 2 2 #NULL! 2.85 .50 1.26 1.12 .20 .62 2.50 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.45 .27 1.11 1.05 .11 .73 .50 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.59 .17 1.00 1.00 .11 .46 1.00 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.91 .24 1.23 1.11 .08 .61 .90 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! #NULL! .19 1.10 1.05 .10 .70 .40 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.42 .32 1.23 1.11 .24 .52 .70 2

261

Artifact Max Max Max PLW Platform Platform Territory Region Site Feature Material Texture PLW Weight Condition Type Length Width Thick Transform Thick Width 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.41 .44 1.08 1.04 .16 .49 .80 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.09 .20 .91 .95 .20 .50 .30 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 2.06 .38 1.22 1.10 .12 .48 1.40 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 1.40 .92 .22 .74 .86 .15 .58 .10 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.62 .32 1.10 1.05 .19 .70 .90 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.46 .35 1.01 1.00 .17 .55 1.20 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 3.30 #NULL! .46 1.30 1.14 .19 .53 3.60 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.89 .44 1.02 1.01 .16 .77 1.70 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 1.45 .35 1.07 1.03 .21 .57 .90 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 1.40 #NULL! .42 1.75 1.32 .20 1.10 1.00 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! 2.12 .28 1.19 1.09 .20 .58 .90 2 3 4 7 n/a 2 1 2 1.55 1.09 .15 .68 .82 .15 .48 .20 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 1 2 2.43 1.16 .20 .78 .88 .14 .65 .30 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 1 2 1.69 1.56 .27 .93 .96 .21 .42 .40 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 1 2 1.12 1.28 .26 .98 .99 .27 .71 .30 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 1 2 1.77 1.36 .23 1.03 1.01 .17 .57 .30 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 1 2 2.18 1.95 .26 1.09 1.04 .15 .60 .80 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 1 2 1.77 .59 .18 .54 .73 .19 .31 .10 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 1 2 1.39 .87 .22 .71 .84 .22 .63 .10 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 1 2 .87 .93 .25 .81 .90 .23 .79 .20 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 1.06 1.26 .16 .73 .85 .13 .40 .10 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 1.26 1.81 .22 1.00 1.00 .11 .39 .40 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 1.13 1.08 .15 .88 .94 .12 .50 .10 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 2.44 2.21 .19 .98 .99 .11 .36 .80 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 2.28 1.90 .31 1.12 1.06 .11 .59 .90 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 1.22 1.69 .16 1.53 1.24 .16 .64 .20 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 1.35 1.40 .10 .86 .93 .10 .38 .10 1

262

Artifact Max Max Max PLW Platform Platform Territory Region Site Feature Material Texture PLW Weight Condition Type Length Width Thick Transform Thick Width 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 1.32 .97 .12 .86 .93 .09 .48 .10 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 1.29 1.24 .17 .94 .97 .11 .63 .10 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 2.41 2.30 .22 .80 .89 .22 .53 .70 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 1.17 1.85 .20 .88 .94 .20 .63 .20 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 1.06 1.26 .18 1.08 1.04 .19 .61 .10 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 1.59 1.50 .24 1.11 1.05 .20 .82 .40 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 1.69 1.42 .15 1.20 1.10 .14 .57 .30 1 3 4 7 n/a 2 1 2 #NULL! .89 .28 .74 .86 .14 .41 .20 2 3 4 7 n/a 2 1 2 #NULL! 1.54 .28 1.39 1.18 .23 .64 .20 2 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 #NULL! 1.44 .25 1.18 1.09 .13 .48 .40 2 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 1.16 #NULL! .15 .84 .92 .13 .45 .20 2 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 #NULL! 1.11 .19 .89 .94 .14 .47 .10 2 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 #NULL! 1.12 .19 .95 .97 .17 .75 .10 2 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 #NULL! 1.57 .19 1.28 1.13 .15 .82 .30 2 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 #NULL! 1.12 .22 .76 .87 .21 .23 .10 2 3 4 7 n/a 2 9 1 #NULL! 1.49 .28 1.38 1.17 .26 1.04 .10 2 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 1.76 1.47 .23 .79 .89 .12 .39 .50 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 1.45 1.32 .21 .84 .92 .19 .33 .30 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 1.82 1.69 .27 .86 .93 .16 .37 .60 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 1.32 1.28 .12 .88 .94 .11 .36 .10 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 1.65 3.07 .30 1.47 1.21 .19 .79 1.00 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 1.07 1.81 .24 1.54 1.24 .21 1.03 .30 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 2.48 2.64 .44 2.10 1.45 .43 1.63 2.00 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 2.16 1.69 .22 .09 .31 .13 .37 .40 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 1.61 1.16 .13 .45 .67 .13 .38 .30 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 2.29 1.44 .17 .72 .85 .06 .24 .50 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 1.66 1.41 .23 1.00 1.00 .17 .52 .50 1

263

Artifact Max Max Max PLW Platform Platform Territory Region Site Feature Material Texture PLW Weight Condition Type Length Width Thick Transform Thick Width 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 2.23 1.54 .20 1.02 1.01 .13 .40 .60 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 2.02 1.52 .27 1.28 1.13 .26 1.16 .70 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 4.65 2.93 .46 2.06 1.44 .34 .72 3.90 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 3.29 2.46 .28 1.60 1.26 .12 .43 2.20 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 3.70 2.36 .43 1.02 1.01 .17 .45 2.70 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 3.22 2.99 .28 1.56 1.25 .12 .92 2.90 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 3.06 2.53 .41 1.85 1.36 .24 .77 2.10 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 2.01 1.54 .26 1.17 1.08 .18 .44 .50 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 3.28 2.48 .32 1.05 1.02 .14 .58 1.50 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 2.43 1.86 .32 1.25 1.12 .21 .85 1.20 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 2.86 2.66 .31 1.06 1.03 .29 .82 1.10 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 2.45 1.31 .16 .66 .81 .10 .44 .40 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 2.35 5.13 .21 1.21 1.10 .13 .67 1.40 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 1.32 2.12 .19 1.23 1.11 .18 .82 .40 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 1.20 1.17 .32 1.09 1.04 .14 .35 .30 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 2.11 1.96 .26 1.07 1.03 .13 .37 .60 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 2.03 3.11 .26 2.11 1.45 .18 1.37 1.50 1 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 #NULL! 1.43 .23 .82 .91 .21 .55 .30 2 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 #NULL! 2.37 .37 1.29 1.14 .28 .95 1.10 2 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 #NULL! 2.53 .35 1.57 1.25 .15 .81 1.90 2 4 5 6 n/a 2 1 2 #NULL! 1.62 .21 1.27 1.13 .10 .41 .50 2 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .41 .36 .07 .36 .60 .06 .27 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .54 .37 .07 .37 .61 .06 .18 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .55 .48 .07 .42 .65 .07 .25 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .55 .44 .07 .45 .67 .06 .28 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .53 .46 1.30 .46 .68 .09 .27 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .43 .47 .11 .47 .69 .11 .37 .10 1

264

Artifact Max Max Max PLW Platform Platform Territory Region Site Feature Material Texture PLW Weight Condition Type Length Width Thick Transform Thick Width 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .52 .54 .10 .48 .69 .08 .29 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .48 .45 .09 .49 .70 .08 .22 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .56 .51 .13 .50 .71 .12 .41 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .53 .51 .11 .51 .71 .10 .37 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .51 .55 .10 .52 .72 .08 .35 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .49 .53 .10 .53 .73 .10 .26 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .53 .52 .18 .54 .73 .15 .35 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .35 .56 .09 .55 .74 .09 .30 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .61 .55 .12 .56 .75 .12 .41 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .72 .56 .14 .56 .75 .10 .31 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .64 .59 .13 .58 .76 .10 .33 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .36 .65 .14 .64 .80 .13 .33 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .77 .39 .10 .39 .62 .08 .22 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .67 .47 .10 .40 .63 .05 .15 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .50 .44 .08 .41 .64 .06 .24 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .45 .44 .08 .44 .66 .07 .27 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .43 .46 .07 .45 .67 .06 .20 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .48 .50 .09 .49 .70 .08 .27 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .50 .52 .10 .51 .71 .08 .25 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .68 .78 .08 .61 .78 .06 .17 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .47 .62 .11 .61 .78 .07 .35 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .44 .67 .08 .64 .80 .06 .19 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .49 .52 .11 .49 .70 .11 .32 .10 1 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 .54 #NULL! .10 .52 .72 .10 .24 .10 2 5 6 8 n/a 3 1 2 #NULL! .31 .09 .30 .55 .09 .24 .10 2

265

Bifacial Tool Dimensions Worksheet TerritRegi Typol Mate Max Neck Shoulder Stem Base Max Min Avg Axial Max Max Max Widt/Thic Site Feature Weight ory on ogy rial Blade Width Width Length Width Notch Notch Notch Length Length Width Thick Ratio artifact 2 3 4 1 2 #NULL! 1.35 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.41 2.56 .53 4.83 2.40 conc 1 1 1 Bell pit 1 2 .24 1.35 2.70 .97 1.80 .76 .54 .65 #NULL! 2.79 2.69 .56 4.80 3.60 1 1 1 Bell pit 1 1 2.06 1.55 2.05 #NULL! #NULL! .74 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.86 2.05 .59 3.47 3.80 1 1 1 Bell pit 1 5 2.24 .85 1.83 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.75 1.84 .50 3.68 2.20 1 1 1 Bell pit 1 7 1.84 1.25 1.73 #NULL! 1.88 .80 .62 .71 #NULL! 2.91 1.90 .58 4.24 2.90 1 1 1 Bell pit 1 9 3.13 1.30 2.22 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.66 2.20 .36 6.11 2.80 bell pit 2 2 3 1 1 3.52 1.34 1.99 #NULL! 1.49 .57 .57 .57 #NULL! 3.99 1.99 .47 4.23 3.90 struc 3 btwn 2 2 3 6 1 1.94 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.80 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.03 2.20 .50 4.40 2.90 struc 4/5 btwn 2 2 3 1 2 #NULL! 1.26 #NULL! #NULL! 2.25 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.18 2.25 .43 5.23 1.10 struc 4/5 btwn 2 2 3 1 1 2.64 1.14 1.79 #NULL! 1.24 .67 .59 .63 #NULL! 3.79 1.85 .46 4.02 3.50 struc 4/5 2 2 2 cache 1 5 2 6.58 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.03 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 6.75 2.33 .57 4.27 #NULL! 2 2 2 cache 1 5 2 4.75 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.81 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 5.52 2.43 .52 5.22 #NULL! 2 2 2 cache 1 5 1 5.99 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.88 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 6.16 2.44 .53 4.09 #NULL! 2 2 2 cache 1 5 1 5.56 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.93 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 5.92 2.22 .52 4.19 #NULL! 2 2 2 cache 1 5 1 6.25 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.95 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 6.79 2.57 .60 4.28 #NULL! 2 2 2 cache 1 5 1 5.38 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.28 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 5.57 2.42 .46 4.93 #NULL! 2 2 2 cache 1 5 1 6.62 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! .75 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 6.64 2.26 .54 5.26 #NULL! 2 2 2 cache 1 5 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.41 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 5.27 2.59 .51 5.08 #NULL! 2 2 2 cache 1 5 1 5.54 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.11 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 5.78 2.66 .54 6.35 #NULL! 2 2 2 cache 1 5 3 5.17 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.25 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 5.10 2.34 .49 4.78 #NULL! 2 2 2 cache 1 5 1 5.50 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.94 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 6.33 2.37 .56 3.37 #NULL!

266

TerritRegi Typol Mate Max Neck Shoulder Stem Base Max Min Avg Axial Max Max Max Widt/Thic Site Feature Weight ory on ogy rial Blade Width Width Length Width Notch Notch Notch Length Length Width Thick Ratio 2 2 2 cache 1 5 1 5.13 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.92 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 5.62 2.31 .49 4.60 #NULL! 2 2 2 cache 1 5 1 4.97 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.82 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 5.47 1.99 .59 4.71 #NULL! 2 3 4 hearth 1 2 2.07 1.21 2.08 #NULL! #NULL! .70 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.04 2.13 .66 3.23 4.10 2 3 4 midden 6 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.43 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.00 2.33 .79 2.95 .80 2 3 4 midden 6 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.59 1.98 .54 3.67 3.50 2 2 3 midden 3 1 2.05 .84 1.61 #NULL! 1.51 .54 .51 .53 #NULL! 2.94 1.62 .32 5.06 1.50 2 3 4 midden 3 1 #NULL! 1.71 #NULL! #NULL! 2.07 .46 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.46 2.18 .50 4.36 2.00 2 2 2 n/a 6 2 4.81 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.80 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 5.38 3.23 1.17 2.76 #NULL! 2 2 2 n/a 6 2 4.33 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.10 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 4.60 2.28 .49 4.65 #NULL! 2 2 2 n/a 6 1 3.84 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.23 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 4.03 1.91 .51 3.75 #NULL! 2 2 2 n/a 6 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.55 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.35 2.07 .54 3.83 #NULL! 2 3 4 n/a 6 2 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.61 2.02 .47 4.30 1.70 2 2 2 n/a 6 2 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.24 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 4.04 2.63 .92 2.86 #NULL! 2 2 2 n/a 6 2 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.82 3.73 .48 7.77 #NULL! 2 2 3 n/a 6 1 4.33 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.52 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 4.38 1.79 .54 3.31 4.70 2 2 3 n/a 6 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.80 2.54 .67 3.79 5.40 2 2 3 n/a 6 1 1.91 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.24 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.22 2.06 .64 3.22 3.40 2 2 2 n/a 6 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.18 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 4.56 3.63 1.06 3.42 #NULL! 2 2 2 n/a 6 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 5.22 3.05 .76 4.01 #NULL! 2 2 2 n/a 6 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 4.04 1.79 .44 4.07 #NULL! 2 2 2 n/a 6 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 6.36 3.05 .48 4.67 #NULL! 2 2 2 n/a 6 3 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.29 4.08 .87 4.69 #NULL! 2 2 3 n/a 6 4 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.82 1.93 .50 3.86 2.80 2 2 2 n/a 6 7 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.52 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 4.77 2.73 1.19 2.29 #NULL! 1 1 1 n/a 1 2 2.14 1.49 2.11 #NULL! 1.70 .55 .48 .52 #NULL! 2.91 2.12 .50 3.28 3.40 2 2 2 n/a 1 2 #NULL! .87 #NULL! #NULL! 1.44 .45 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.57 1.93 .44 4.39 #NULL! 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2.20 1.73 2.42 #NULL! 2.17 .95 .91 .93 #NULL! 3.32 2.42 .68 3.56 5.30

267

TerritRegi Typol Mate Max Neck Shoulder Stem Base Max Min Avg Axial Max Max Max Widt/Thic Site Feature Weight ory on ogy rial Blade Width Width Length Width Notch Notch Notch Length Length Width Thick Ratio 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2.91 .94 2.06 #NULL! 1.36 .56 .51 .54 #NULL! 3.56 2.04 .52 3.92 3.80 #NUL 2 2 2 n/a 1 1 2.87 1.31 2.09 .78 1.70 .39 .38 .39 #NULL! 3.65 2.09 #NULL! #NULL! L! 2 2 2 n/a 1 1 3.05 1.01 1.77 .66 1.35 .53 .46 .50 #NULL! 3.46 1.76 .42 4.19 #NULL! 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 #NULL! 1.22 #NULL! #NULL! 1.48 .44 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.04 2.10 .68 3.09 3.60 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 #NULL! 1.19 #NULL! #NULL! 1.57 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.07 2.20 .56 3.93 3.40 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2.52 1.68 2.55 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.35 2.54 .62 4.10 4.70 2 3 6 n/a 1 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! .79 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.68 1.44 .47 3.06 1.30 2 3 6 n/a 1 1 3.79 1.55 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 4.93 2.52 .67 3.76 8.10 2 3 4 n/a 1 1 #NULL! 1.85 2.49 #NULL! 2.15 .70 .56 .63 #NULL! 2.43 2.55 .55 4.64 3.20 2 3 6 n/a 1 1 #NULL! 1.05 2.58 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.13 2.58 .47 5.49 4.90 #NUL 2 2 2 n/a 1 1 #NULL! 1.30 2.29 .88 1.84 .62 .51 .57 #NULL! 3.24 2.29 #NULL! #NULL! L! 2 2 2 n/a 1 1 3.88 1.13 1.94 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 4.18 1.93 .51 3.78 #NULL! 2 2 2 n/a 1 1 5.28 #NULL! 2.61 #NULL! #NULL! .52 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 5.75 2.61 .50 4.23 #NULL! 2 2 2 n/a 1 1 #NULL! 1.34 #NULL! .74 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.69 2.54 .51 4.98 #NULL! 1 1 1 n/a 1 4 #NULL! 1.30 #NULL! .92 1.40 .68 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.65 1.92 .62 3.10 2.70 1 1 1 n/a 1 4 #NULL! 1.47 2.50 #NULL! #NULL! 1.01 .69 .85 #NULL! 5.66 2.62 .66 3.97 9.80 2 2 2 n/a 1 1 #NULL! 1.33 2.43 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.52 2.47 .68 3.63 #NULL! 2 3 5 n/a 2 9 2.73 1.74 #NULL! #NULL! 1.96 .43 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.75 2.02 .64 3.16 6.00 #NUL 2 2 2 n/a 4 9 #NULL! 2.33 4.89 1.62 2.57 1.30 .91 1.11 #NULL! 3.24 4.89 #NULL! #NULL! L! 2 2 2 n/a 3 2 2.88 1.80 1.59 #NULL! 1.62 .63 .58 .61 #NULL! 3.61 1.62 .48 3.38 #NULL! 2 2 3 n/a 3 2 #NULL! 1.51 2.43 #NULL! 2.11 .62 .62 .62 #NULL! 3.02 2.43 .45 5.40 4.00 1 1 1 n/a 3 1 #NULL! 1.20 #NULL! 1.11 1.91 .38 .68 .53 #NULL! 3.12 1.93 .62 3.11 4.20 1 1 1 n/a 3 7 #NULL! 1.30 1.58 #NULL! 1.50 .45 .43 .44 #NULL! 3.67 1.58 .69 3.16 4.40 2 3 5 n/a 8 9 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.75 2.24 .58 3.86 3.40

268

TerritRegi Typol Mate Max Neck Shoulder Stem Base Max Min Avg Axial Max Max Max Widt/Thic Site Feature Weight ory on ogy rial Blade Width Width Length Width Notch Notch Notch Length Length Width Thick Ratio 1 1 1 oval pit 1 1 1.27 1.36 1.74 #NULL! 1.60 .68 .64 .66 #NULL! 2.11 1.75 .55 3.18 2.40 1 1 1 oval pit 1 6 2.59 1.48 2.15 #NULL! 1.68 .70 .64 .67 #NULL! 3.44 2.15 .66 3.26 5.10 1 1 1 oval pit 1 9 2.32 1.06 2.06 #NULL! 1.61 .50 .46 .48 #NULL! 3.00 2.06 .53 3.89 2.40 pit struc 1 1 1 3 9 2.61 1.88 2.20 #NULL! 2.27 .66 .58 .62 #NULL! 3.60 2.28 4.60 .50 4.60 2 2 3 5 pithouse 6 2 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.20 2.35 .51 4.61 3.30 2 3 5 pithouse 6 2 2.80 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.72 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.52 3.16 .68 4.65 6.80 2 3 5 pithouse 6 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.48 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.74 2.48 3.70 .67 2.00 2 3 4 pithouse 6 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.72 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.48 2.16 .99 2.18 6.80 2 3 6 pithouse 1 2 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! .66 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.64 1.55 .44 3.52 .90 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 2.43 1.31 1.68 #NULL! 1.40 .55 .35 .45 #NULL! 3.21 1.68 .59 2.85 3.30 2 3 6 pithouse 1 1 4.17 1.64 #NULL! #NULL! 2.43 .54 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 5.08 2.58 .60 4.30 8.90 2 3 4 pithouse 1 1 3.70 1.40 2.62 #NULL! 1.63 1.01 .99 1.00 #NULL! 4.64 2.61 .57 4.58 7.90 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 #NULL! .85 #NULL! #NULL! 1.19 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.30 1.29 .35 3.69 .70 2 3 5 pithouse 1 1 #NULL! 1.34 2.33 #NULL! 1.44 1.02 .72 .87 #NULL! 2.74 2.37 .49 4.84 3.40 2 3 6 pithouse 1 1 #NULL! 1.39 2.68 #NULL! #NULL! .77 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 4.02 2.68 .53 5.06 6.60 2 3 4 pithouse 1 9 2.37 .85 1.78 #NULL! 1.11 1.16 .80 .98 3.22 3.31 1.78 .47 3.79 2.20 2 3 5 pithouse 1 9 .97 .64 1.10 #NULL! 1.07 .65 .54 .60 #NULL! 1.59 1.10 .23 4.78 .30 2 3 5 pithouse 1 9 2.08 .80 2.03 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.19 2.05 .43 4.77 2.10 2 3 5 pithouse 2 1 #NULL! 1.56 #NULL! #NULL! 1.90 .90 .64 .77 #NULL! 1.48 1.91 .55 3.47 1.60 2 3 6 pithouse 4 1 2.16 #NULL! #NULL! 2.10 .32 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 4.07 1.21 .41 2.95 2.80 2 3 5 pithouse 4 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.39 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.92 3.27 .60 5.45 9.50 2 3 6 pithouse 5 2 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.21 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.44 2.41 .69 3.49 5.30 2 3 5 pithouse 5 1 6.28 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.16 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 6.00 6.21 2.44 .47 5.19 8.10 2 3 4 pithouse 5 1 5.02 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.83 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 4.67 4.90 3.23 .49 6.59 8.20 2 3 4 pithouse 3 2 3.51 1.42 1.72 #NULL! 1.68 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 4.39 1.72 .75 2.29 6.20 2 3 5 pithouse 3 7 3.65 1.87 2.63 #NULL! 2.54 .89 .79 .84 #NULL! 5.12 2.61 .70 3.73 10.30

269

TerritRegi Typol Mate Max Neck Shoulder Stem Base Max Min Avg Axial Max Max Max Widt/Thic Site Feature Weight ory on ogy rial Blade Width Width Length Width Notch Notch Notch Length Length Width Thick Ratio 2 3 6 pithouse 8 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.97 2.24 .44 5.09 3.00 2 3 4 pithouse 8 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.97 1.84 .34 5.41 1.90 2 3 5 pithouse 8 1 2.63 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.43 2.07 .34 6.09 2.30 2 3 4 pithouse 8 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.39 2.28 .34 6.71 2.40 1 1 1 refuse pit 1 4 2.76 1.19 1.85 #NULL! 1.54 .78 .78 .78 #NULL! 3.67 1.83 .58 2.29 3.40 1 1 1 refuse pit 1 6 3.46 1.48 2.37 #NULL! 1.83 .84 .75 .80 #NULL! 4.37 2.37 .68 3.49 5.70 1 1 1 refuse pit 3 1 2.28 1.44 #NULL! #NULL! 1.79 .90 .62 .76 #NULL! 3.62 1.92 .61 3.15 4.10 storage 2 2 3 3 1 #NULL! 1.79 2.30 #NULL! 2.07 .39 .37 .38 #NULL! 1.27 2.30 .55 4.18 1.50 pit 2 2 3 struc 3 6 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.63 1.32 .48 2.75 1.90 2 2 3 struc 3 6 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.32 1.58 .39 4.05 1.70 2 2 3 struc 3 6 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.83 2.22 .42 5.29 2.70 2 2 3 struc 3 6 4 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.32 1.36 .47 2.89 1.40 2 2 3 struc 3 5 1 7.98 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.13 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 7.88 3.43 .54 6.35 13.70 2 2 3 struc 4 1 1 2.80 .86 1.72 #NULL! .94 .63 .57 .60 #NULL! 3.46 1.72 .47 3.66 2.40 2 2 3 struc 4 1 1 #NULL! .80 #NULL! #NULL! .99 .46 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1.08 1.37 .38 3.61 .60 2 2 3 struc 4 1 1 #NULL! 1.47 #NULL! #NULL! 1.96 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! .95 1.96 .41 4.78 .80 2 2 3 struc 4 1 4 4.32 .95 2.20 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 4.65 2.20 .43 5.12 4.10 2 2 3 struc 4 2 8 #NULL! 1.29 #NULL! #NULL! 1.61 .46 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.40 1.69 .51 3.31 2.30 2 2 3 struc 5 7 1 #NULL! 1.00 2.07 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.97 2.26 .63 3.59 6.20 2 2 3 struc 5 7 3 #NULL! .99 2.08 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.86 2.08 .44 4.73 3.00 2 2 3 struc 5 5 2 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2.23 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3.87 2.70 .58 4.66 5.60 2 2 3 struc 5 3 1 2.14 .92 1.28 #NULL! 1.36 .81 .59 .70 #NULL! 3.32 1.37 .49 2.80 2.20 2 2 3 struc 5 3 1 #NULL! 1.40 #NULL! #NULL! 2.07 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! .89 2.07 .42 4.93 .80

270

Bifacial Tool Attributes Worksheet Percus Press Pres Fl Cross Territory Region Site Feature Typology Material Texture Notching Base Condition Flake Flake Depth Section artifact 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 conc 1 1 1 Bell pit 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Bell pit 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 Bell pit 1 8 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 Bell pit 1 9 4 3 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 Bell pit 1 6 1 #NULL! 3 1 1 2 2 2 bell pit 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 4 2 1 4 3 1 struc 3 btwn 2 2 3 6 2 2 1 2 1 4 3 3 2 struc 4/5 btwn 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 #NULL! #NULL! 1 3 3 2 struc 4/5 btwn 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 4 2 1 1 3 1 struc 4/5 2 2 2 cache 1 5 1 2 3 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1 2 1 2 2 2 cache 1 5 1 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 4 2 1 2 2 2 cache 1 5 2 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1 2 1 2 2 2 cache 1 5 2 2 1 4 2 #NULL! 1 2 1 2 2 2 cache 1 5 2 2 1 2 1 #NULL! 4 3 1 2 2 2 cache 1 5 2 2 1 4 1 #NULL! 3 2 1 2 2 2 cache 1 5 2 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3 2 1 2 2 2 cache 1 5 2 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3 2 2 2 2 2 cache 1 5 2 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2 2 1 2 2 2 cache 1 5 3 2 1 4 1 #NULL! 2 2 2 2 2 2 cache 1 5 2 3 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1 2 1

271

Percus Press Pres Fl Cross Territory Region Site Feature Typology Material Texture Notching Base Condition Flake Flake Depth Section 2 2 2 cache 1 5 2 3 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3 2 1 2 2 2 cache 1 5 2 3 3 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 4 1 1 2 3 4 hearth 1 1 2 3 4 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 4 midden 6 2 2 3 2 1 4 1 3 2 2 3 4 midden 6 2 2 3 4 1 4 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 3 midden 3 2 2 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 4 midden 3 2 2 3 #NULL! #NULL! 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 n/a 6 1 2 3 #NULL! #NULL! 4 4 1 1 2 2 2 n/a 6 1 2 3 4 1 4 1 2 1 2 2 2 n/a 6 2 2 1 2 2 4 1 3 1 2 2 2 n/a 6 2 2 1 4 1 4 1 2 2 2 3 4 n/a 6 1 2 3 #NULL! #NULL! 4 #NULL! 2 2 2 2 2 n/a 6 1 2 3 #NULL! #NULL! 4 1 1 2 2 2 2 n/a 6 1 2 3 #NULL! #NULL! 4 #NULL! 2 2 2 2 3 n/a 6 2 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! 4 3 3 2 2 2 3 n/a 6 2 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! 4 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 3 n/a 6 2 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! 4 1 3 2 2 2 2 n/a 6 2 2 3 #NULL! #NULL! 4 #NULL! 3 2 2 2 2 n/a 6 2 2 3 4 2 4 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 2 n/a 6 2 2 1 3 1 4 #NULL! 3 2 2 2 2 n/a 6 2 2 3 #NULL! #NULL! 4 #NULL! 2 2 2 2 2 n/a 6 3 2 3 #NULL! #NULL! 4 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 3 n/a 6 4 2 1 4 1 4 #NULL! 3 2 2 2 2 n/a 6 9 4 3 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 2 3 4 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 n/a 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 n/a 1 2 2 3 4 2 1 1 1 1

272

Percus Press Pres Fl Cross Territory Region Site Feature Typology Material Texture Notching Base Condition Flake Flake Depth Section 1 1 1 n/a 1 2 2 3 4 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 n/a 1 2 2 3 4 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 n/a 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 2 2 3 4 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 n/a 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 n/a 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 #NULL! 3 2 2 3 6 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1 3 2 2 2 3 6 n/a 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 4 n/a 1 2 2 3 #NULL! #NULL! 1 1 3 2 2 3 6 n/a 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 n/a 1 2 2 1 4 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 n/a 1 2 2 #NULL! 4 1 1 #NULL! 3 2 2 2 2 n/a 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 n/a 1 2 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 n/a 1 4 2 3 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 n/a 1 4 2 3 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 n/a 1 2 3 1 #NULL! #NULL! 1 4 1 2 2 3 5 n/a 2 6 1 3 4 1 2 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 2 n/a 4 6 1 3 #NULL! #NULL! 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 n/a 3 1 2 1 4 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 n/a 3 1 2 1 4 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 n/a 3 2 2 3 4 1 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 n/a 3 9 2 1 4 1 3 4 3 2 2 3 5 n/a 8 6 1 3 4 1 #NULL! #NULL! 2 2 1 1 1 oval pit 1 2 2 3 4 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 oval pit 1 7 2 3 4 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 oval pit 1 6 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 1

273

Percus Press Pres Fl Cross Territory Region Site Feature Typology Material Texture Notching Base Condition Flake Flake Depth Section pit struc 1 1 1 3 6 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 5 pithouse 6 1 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! 4 4 2 2 2 3 5 pithouse 6 1 2 3 4 2 4 4 1 2 2 3 5 pithouse 6 2 2 3 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 3 4 pithouse 6 2 2 3 #NULL! #NULL! 4 #NULL! 3 2 2 3 6 pithouse 1 1 2 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1 3 2 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 2 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6 pithouse 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 4 pithouse 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 5 pithouse 1 2 2 3 #NULL! #NULL! 1 3 2 2 2 3 5 pithouse 1 2 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! 1 3 1 2 2 3 6 pithouse 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 4 pithouse 1 6 1 1 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 5 pithouse 1 6 1 3 #NULL! #NULL! 1 4 2 1 2 3 5 pithouse 1 6 1 3 4 1 1 #NULL! 3 2 2 3 5 pithouse 2 2 2 3 #NULL! #NULL! 2 1 1 2 2 3 6 pithouse 4 2 2 #NULL! 2 2 4 1 #NULL! 1 2 3 5 pithouse 4 2 2 3 2 2 4 1 3 2 2 3 6 pithouse 5 1 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2 2 2 2 3 5 pithouse 5 2 2 1 4 2 #NULL! 2 2 1 2 3 4 pithouse 5 2 2 3 4 2 #NULL! 2 2 1 2 3 4 pithouse 3 1 2 3 4 1 3 1 1 2 2 3 5 pithouse 3 9 4 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 6 pithouse 8 2 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2 2 2 3 4 pithouse 8 2 2 3 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! 2 2 2 3 5 pithouse 8 2 2 1 4 2 #NULL! #NULL! 2 2

274

Percus Press Pres Fl Cross Territory Region Site Feature Typology Material Texture Notching Base Condition Flake Flake Depth Section 2 3 4 pithouse 8 2 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 2 2 refuse 1 1 1 1 4 2 3 4 2 1 1 3 1 pit refuse 1 1 1 1 7 4 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 pit refuse 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 3 3 1 2 pit storage 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! 3 3 3 2 pit 2 2 3 struc 3 6 2 2 1 2 2 4 #NULL! 1 2 2 2 3 struc 3 6 2 2 1 3 1 4 #NULL! 3 2 2 2 3 struc 3 6 2 2 1 4 2 4 #NULL! 2 2 2 2 3 struc 3 6 4 2 1 4 1 4 #NULL! 3 2 2 2 3 struc 3 5 2 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 3 2 1 2 2 3 struc 4 1 2 2 3 4 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 struc 4 1 2 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 struc 4 1 2 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 struc 4 1 4 2 1 4 1 1 #NULL! 2 2 2 2 3 struc 4 2 5 2 3 4 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 struc 5 7 2 2 1 4 2 #NULL! #NULL! 3 2 2 2 3 struc 5 7 3 2 3 2 2 #NULL! #NULL! 2 2 2 2 3 struc 5 5 1 2 1 #NULL! #NULL! #NULL! 1 2 2 2 2 3 struc 5 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 4 3 1 2 2 3 struc 5 3 2 2 1 4 2 3 3 3 2

275

APPENDIX III

COLOR PLATES OF BIFACE THINNING FLAKES AND BIFACIAL TOOLS

FROM THE RAINBOW PLATEAU, DURANGO, AND CEDAR MESA

276

DURANGO REGION

DARKMOLD BIFACIAL TOOLS

277

278

279

RAINBOW PLATEAU REGION

SAND DUNE CAVE BIFACIAL TOOLS

280

281

282

283

RAINBOW PLATEAU REGION

KIN KAHUNA BIFACIAL TOOLS

284

285

286

CEDAR MESA REGION

THE LEICHT SITE BIFACIAL TOOLS

287

288

CEDAR MESA REGION

THE PITTMAN SITE BIFACIAL TOOLS

289

290

CEDAR MESA REGION

THE VERES SITE BIFACIAL TOOLS

291

292