University of Nevada, Reno Evaluating the Antiquity And

University of Nevada, Reno

Evaluating the Antiquity and Morphology of Corner-notched Dart Points in the

Eastern Great Basin

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts in

Anthropology

Andrew J. Hoskins

Dr. Geoffrey M. Smith/Thesis Advisor

May, 2016

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by

ANDREW J. HOSKINS

Entitled

Evaluating The Antiquity And Morphology Of Corner-Notched Dart Points In The Eastern Great Basin

be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Geoffrey M. Smith, Ph.D.., Advisor

Bryan S. Hockett, Ph.D., Committee Member

Anna K. Panorska, Ph.D., Graduate School Representative

David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School

May, 2016

ABSTRACT

Researchers have long suggested that Elko points possess different age ranges in different parts of the Great Basin: (1) in the eastern Great Basin, they date to both the

Middle and Late Holocene; and (2) in the central Great Basin, they date to only the Late

Holocene. While it is possible that both age ranges are accurate, it is also possible that the

“long” Elko chronology in the eastern region is a function of problematic dating of key sites and/or point classification schemes based on non-metric data. I test a hypothesis concerning the antiquity and morphology of corner-notched dart points in the eastern

Great Basin to determine if they may be reliably classified as Elko. I critically evaluate methods used at eastern Great Basin sites with purported Middle Holocene Elkos.

Additionally, I analyze large notched points from two eastern Great Basin sites (Danger

Cave and Bonneville Estates Rockshelter) using objective classification methods. I compare the morphologies of Elko points from Middle and Late Holocene deposits in the eastern Great Basin to Elko points from Late Holocene contexts in the central Great

Basin. My results indicate that: (1) the radiocarbon sequences at most sites cited in support of the “long” Elko chronology are unreliable; (2) Middle Holocene corner- notched points classify as Elkos using multiple typological approaches; (3) radiocarbon dates on sinew attached to Elko points from Danger Cave provide unequivocal evidence that they date to the Middle Holocene; and (4) significant morphological differences exist between Middle and Late Holocene Elko points, which may indicate that a previously unrecognized Middle Holocene corner-notched point type in the eastern region is commonly misclassified as Elko. ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Various individuals and organizations assisted in developing and completing my

thesis. First, the Great Basin Paleoindian Research Unit, Nevada Archaeological

Association, AM-ARCS of Nevada, University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Graduate

Student Association, UNR Anthropology Department, and the Herbert E. Splatt

scholarship provided financial support during my research. Second, the University of

Utah (U of U) Anthropology Department and the Natural History Museum of Utah

(NHMU) granted me access to Danger Cave projectile points and excavation records, as well as permission to date hafting material attached to Danger Cave points. Dr. Lisbeth

Louderback (U of U) supported my research and requests for Danger Cave materials. The

U of U School of Dentistry x-rayed projectile points with hafting material. The

University of Georgia Center for Applied Isotope Studies and DirectAMS, Inc. AMS dated hafting material from Danger Cave points. Dr. Glenna Nielsen-Grimm (NHMU) and Michelle Knoll (NHMU) assisted me with museum collections and records. Erik

Martin (U of U) provided pictures of the Danger Cave points. Dr. Ted Goebel and Texas

A&M University allowed me to analyze the Bonneville Estates Rockshelter projectile points. Third, my committee members – Dr. Anna Panorska, Dr. Bryan Hockett, and Dr.

Geoffrey Smith – provided support and thoughtful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Dr. Panorska pushed me to develop an understanding of statistics, which is an invaluable skill set for which I am grateful. In addition to laying the groundwork for my research question, Dr. Hockett and Dr. Smith provided complementary perspectives on the topic and always pushed me to be critical and rigorous with my analysis and

iii interpretation of projectile point classifications. I am also deeply grateful for the countless hours that Dr. Smith has spent over the last two years developing my skills as a writer, researcher, and critical-thinker. Despite his demanding professional life, Dr. Smith always addressed me with a stoic level of attention and patience. Finally, my family have supported my career goals with genuine enthusiasm for the better part of a decade, as have the strong community of friends and colleagues I have met through anthropology.

Through their camaraderie, I continue to find love and inspiration for archaeology.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………… i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………………….. ii

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………… vi

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………. viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………... 1 Research Background………………………………………………………………... 4 Development of Great Basin Projectile Point Typologies……………………….. 4 Development and Evolution of the Elko Series………………………………… 10 Elko Points in Space and Time…………………………………………………. 15

CHAPTER 2: MATERIALS AND METHODS……………………………………….. 20 Materials……………………………………………………………………………. 20 Eastern Great Basin Sites……………………………………………………….. 21 Projectile Points from Danger Cave, Bonneville Estates Rockshelter, and Monitor Valley……………………………………………………………... 24 Methods…………………………………………………………………………...… 28 Directly Dated Dart Points……………………………………………………… 29 Assessing Radiocarbon Date Reliability………………………………………... 30 Point Analysis and Classification Procedure…………………………………… 35 Statistical Comparison of Elko Points………………………………………….. 41

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS……………………………………………………………….. 44 Directly Dated Points……………………………………………………………….. 44 Assessing Radiocarbon Reliability…………………………………………………. 47 Hogup Cave…………………………………………………………………….. 48

Sudden Shelter………………………………………………………………….. 50 O’Malley Shelter………………………………………………………………... 50 Cowboy Cave…………………………………………………………………… 53 Camels Back Cave……………………………………………………………… 54 Danger Cave…………………………………………………………………….. 58 Projectile Point Analysis……………………………………………………………. 66 Elko Sample Composition……………………………………………………… 66 Other Projectile Point Analysis…………………………………………………. 70 Comparison of Elko Point Samples……………..………………………………….. 80 Summary of Comparisons………………………………………………………. 85

CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………… 88 The “Long” Elko Chronology………………………………………………………. 88 Elko Point Morphology…………………………………………………………….. 92 Point Classification……………………………………………………………... 92 Classification Schemes…………………………………………………………. 94 Elko Points in the Eastern Great Basin…………………………………………. 97 Directly Dated Dart Points…………………………………………………….. 102 Comparing Elko Point Samples……………………………………………….. 104 Comparison of Eastern Great Basin PSA…………………………………………. 107

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION………………………………………………………... 111 Summary of Interpretations……………………………………………………….. 114

REFERENCES CITED…………………………………………………………….….. 116

NOTES………………………………………………………………………………… 123

APPENDIX 1………………………………………………………………………….. 125

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Possible Elko Series Points from Danger Cave Listed by Jennings’ (1957) Wendover Types……………………………………... 25

Table 2.2. Aikens’ (1970) Reclassification of Danger Cave Points Using the Berkeley Typology…………………………………………... 25

Table 2.3. Distribution of Elko Points from Danger Cave Classified by Hughes (2014)……………………………………………………….. 26

Table 2.4. Danger Cave Corner-notched and Side-notched Dart Points Analyzed in Fall 2015…………………………………………… 27

Table 2.5. Bonneville Estates Rockshelter Analyzed Points by Stratum…………... 28

Table 2.6. Monitor Valley Elko Assemblage by Location………………………… 29

Table 2.7. Radiocarbon Reliability Index Criteria and Scoring……………………. 33

Table 2.8. Monitor Valley Key Point Type Criteria……………………………….. 37

Table 2.9. Southern Great Basin Elko and Pinto Point Criteria……………………. 38

Table 3.1. Radiocarbon Analysis of Projectile Point Sinew from Danger Cave…………………………………………………………….. 45

Table 3.2. Comparison of 22993.4 Metric Attributes to Monitor Valley Elkos With Significant Differences Bolded…………………………….. 46

Table 3.3. Comparison of 23665.5 Metric Attributes to Monitor Valley Elkos…… 47

Table 3.4. Hogup Cave Radiocarbon Date Reliability Index Analysis……………. 49

Table 3.5. Sudden Shelter Radiocarbon Date Reliability Index Analysis…………. 51

Table 3.6. O’Malley Shelter Radiocarbon Date Reliability Index Analysis……….. 52

vii

Table 3.7. Cowboy Cave Radiocarbon Date Reliability Index Analysis…………... 55

Table 3.8. Camels Back Cave Radiocarbon Date Reliability Index Analysis……... 56

Table 3.9. Danger Cave (All Excavations) Radiocarbon Date Reliability Index Analysis…………………………………………………..……… 60

Table 3.10. Danger Cave (AMS Only) Radiocarbon Date Reliability Index Analysis………………………………………………………….. 64

Table 3.11. Summary of Metric Attributes of Elko Samples………………………... 81

Table 3.12. Results of Mean and Median Metric Attribute Comparisons for Elko Samples………………………………………………………... 82

Table 3.13. Results of Elko Assemblage Attribute Distribution Comparisons……... 82

Table 4.1. Sites that Reliably Support the ‘Long’ Elko Chronology………………. 89

Table 4.2. My Classification of Danger Cave Projectile Point Types by Layer…… 93

Table 4.3. My Classification of BER Projectile Point Types by Phase……………. 94

Table 4.4. Significant Differences Between Middle and Late Holocene Elko Points………………………………………………………………….. 104

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Map of the central and eastern Great Basin showing location of sites noted in this text…………………………………………………….. 3

Figure 1.2. Point types referred to in the text………………………………………… 8

Figure 2.1. Select projectile points from Danger Cave with hafting material………. 31

Figure 2.2. Thomas’ (1971) methods for recording various attributes……………... 36

Figure 2.3. Hockett et al.’s (2014) criteria for distinguishing side-notched and corner-notched points………………………………………………. 40

Figure 3.1. Elko points from Middle Holocene Deposits at Danger Cave………….. 67

Figure 3.2. Additional Elko points from Middle Holocene Deposits at Danger Cave…………………………………………………………….. 68

Figure 3.3. Elko points from Late Holocene deposits at Danger Cave……………... 69

Figure 3.4. Elko points from Late Holocene deposits at Bonneville Estates Rockshelter……………………………………………………………... 71

Figure 3.5. Large Side-notched points from Danger Cave………………………….. 72

Figure 3.6. Additional Large Side-notched points from Danger Cave……………... 73

Figure 3.7. Gatecliff/Pinto points from Danger Cave………………………………. 74

Figure 3.8. Out of key points and eccentric points from Danger Cave……………... 76

Figure 3.9. Elko points with no contextual information from Danger Cave………... 77

Figure 3.10. Large Side-notched points from Bonneville Estates Rockshelter………. 78

Figure 3.11. Additional Large Side-notched points from Bonneville Estates Rockshelter……………………………………………………………... 79

Figure 3.12. Additional points from Bonneville Estates Rockshelter: other point types, out of key points, Elko points with poor contextual information, and fragmentary Elko points……………………………… 80

Figure 3.13. DSA frequency for Danger Cave Middle Holocene and all eastern Great Basin Late Holocene Elko points………………………... 87

Figure 4.1. Camels Back Cave Middle Holocene and Late Holocene Elko Points…………………………………………………………………… 91

Figure 4.2. Select Elko Eared specimens from Middle Holocene Deposits at Danger Cave…………………………………………………………….. 99

Figure 4.3. Elko Eared specimens recovered from Gatecliff Shelter……………….. 99

Figure 4.4. Pinto Points recovered from the distal Old River Bed………………… 100

Figure 4.5. Select Elko Corner-notched specimens from Middle Holocene deposits at Danger Cave……………………………………………….. 101

Figure 4.6. Elko Corner-notched points recovered from Gatecliff Shelter………... 101

Figure 4.7. Point 23665.5 from layer DIII at Danger Cave………………………... 103

Figure 4.8. Point 22993.4 from layer DIII at Danger Cave………………………... 103

Figure 4.9. Differences in notch placement between Middle and Late Holocene Elko points………………………………………………….. 105

Figure 4.10. Butte Valley Corner-notched points identified as North Creek Stemmed Points……………………………………………………….. 107

Figure 4.11. PSA frequency for all Danger Cave and BER Elko and LSN points analyzed in this report………………………………………….. 109

Figure 4.12. PSA frequency for all Middle Holocene Elko and LSN points from Danger Cave and BER analyzed in this report…………………... 110

CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION

Great Basin projectile point typologies have largely focused on identifying morphological types that can also serve as temporal types. By recognizing that certain point types are restricted to particular time periods, researchers (e.g., Clewlow 1967;

Hester 1973; Hester and Heizer 1973; Holmer 1978; Thomas 1981) turned relatively common artifact types into index fossils capable of dating otherwise undatable near- surface lithic scatters through typological cross-dating. The utility of point types as temporal markers is directly related to researchers’ abilities to consistently and objectively classify them. Morphological attributes defined using metric data have been touted as the most reliable method for assigning points to morphological types (e.g.,

Thomas 1981), although researchers may still argue over some specimens even when using objective methods (e.g., Hockett et al. 2014; Smith et al. 2013, 2014).

It has also been clear for some time that morphologically akin point styles emerged asynchronously in different areas (Adovasio and Fry 1972; Beck 1995;

Bettinger and Taylor 1974). Elko points from the Great Basin provide an example of this problem. Two chronologies have been proposed for large corner-notched points in the

Great Basin: one in the eastern region in which points called Elkos emerged at the beginning of the Middle Holocene (Aikens 1970; Holmer 1986); and another in which

Elkos emerged in the central and western region at the beginning of the Late Holocene

(Elston and Budy 1990; Thomas 1981, 1985). It is unclear if this difference in timing

reflects researchers’ failure to detect subtle differences in superficially similar large

corner-notched points in the two regions, problematic age estimates in the eastern region

tied to excavation techniques and/or stratigraphic mixing, or the fact that Elko points

really did emerge at different times in adjacent regions.

In this study, I test the hypothesis that Elko points have been recovered from well-

dated reliable Middle Holocene deposits in the eastern Great Basin and that they are

morphologically indistinguishable from Elko points recovered from Late Holocene deposits in the eastern and central Great Basin. To test this hypothesis, I: (1) critically evaluate the sites from which large corner-notched points have been recovered in purported Middle Holocene contexts; (2) compare metric and non-metric attributes for large corner-notched points from Middle and Late Holocene deposits at Danger Cave

(Figure 1.1); (3) compare large corner-notched points from Middle Holocene deposits at

Danger Cave to large corner-notched points from Late Holocene deposits at Bonneville

Estates Rockshelter (BER) (see Figure 1.1); and (4) compare large corner-notched points

from Middle and Late Holocene deposits in the eastern Great Basin to Late Holocene

large corner-notched points from Monitor Valley in the central Great Basin. These

comparisons allow me to evaluate the current corner-notched point chronology and

typologies for the eastern Great Basin.

Figure 1.1. Map of the central and eastern Great Basin showing location of sites noted in this text.

Background

Development of Great Basin Projectile Point Typologies

Descriptive Typing. At the beginning of the twentieth century, researchers were unconcerned with assigning projectile points to different morphological types (Clewlow

1967); most simply tallied the numbers of points at sites. However, once the utility of seriation as a relative dating technique was recognized, researchers began to focus on the different forms of points and how those changed over time. At the same time, the shift from progressive social evolutionary theory to historical particularism led archaeologists to describe projectile points in greater detail (Trigger 2006).

Although the descriptive approach was widely adopted during the 1930s, researchers did not standardize the descriptive types they used (Clewlow 1967). Unlike the use of frequency seriation for pottery types, the stratigraphic distributions of descriptive point types were not compared or corroborated at multiple sites. Instead, projectile points were reduced to coded information that designated type classification and stratigraphic position. Most researchers continued to create site specific descriptive types until the late 1950s. There were two major issues with the descriptive approach: (1) various names were developed for a single point type, which created confusion rather than cohesion; and (2) researchers failed to compare point assemblages from different sites, which hindered the development of regional point chronologies.

The Berkeley Typology. To address these shortcomings, researchers from the

University of California, Berkeley set about creating a regional point chronology for the

Great Basin (Heizer et al. 1968). They incorporated previously established point types like Pinto (Campbell and Campbell 1935) and established new types such as Eastgate

(Elsasser and Prince 1961), Rose Spring (Lanning 1963), and Elko (Heizer and Baumhoff

1961) based on studies of projectile point assemblages recovered during their own excavations and collections in the region. Wagon Jack Shelter (see Figure 1.1) was the first site to feature point types initially defined at other sites (Heizer and Baumhoff 1961).

Researchers at other institutions followed the classification system used at Wagon Jack

Shelter, and that approach and the types it featured became known as the “Berkeley typology”.

Berkeley types were more useful than earlier descriptive types because researchers did not create an excessive number of types in an attempt to account for all stylistic variation. Instead, Berkeley researchers accounted for variability by grouping subtypes with similar stratigraphic distribution into broader series designations (Clewlow

1967) and labeled them using binomial nomenclature (e.g., Elko Corner-notched). Earlier descriptive approaches split points into different types based on small differences but

Berkeley researchers realized that these differences were not temporally significant. The widespread adoption of the Berkeley typology’s series and subtypes made it easier for researchers to compare point assemblages between sites.

As radiocarbon dating became common in the mid-twentieth century, Berkeley researchers worked to place morphological point types in an absolute temporal sequence in addition to the relative sequence provided by seriation (Hester and Heizer 1973). In most cases, researchers found that point types possessed similar age ranges across the

Great Basin. Establishing absolute age ranges for the various morphologies allowed

Berkeley point types to function as index fossils that could be used to date otherwise

undateable sites (Heizer and Hester 1978).

The Berkeley typology set standards for projectile point analysis and reporting in

the Great Basin including: (1) scale drawings or outlines of points; (2) metric data for

select attributes, and (3) analysis of point distribution in cultural phases within and

between sites; however, type determinations remained based on visual intuition, which

due to its subjective nature created issues with replicability. Berkeley researchers hoped

that drawings/outlines would resolve intuitive typing issues by allowing other researchers

to examine point shapes themselves (Heizer and Baumhoff 1961). However, Aikens

(1970) incorrectly applied the Berkeley methods and added additional, unwarranted

subtypes during his analysis of the Hogup Cave points (Thomas 1975) (see Figure 1.1),

indicating that despite having increased access to basic information about point shapes,

researchers’ assignments of individual specimens remained somewhat subjective.

Salvaging Intuitive Types. Issues with the Berkeley typology centered on the need for more objective classification methods. Two researchers attempted to resolve these issues in their subsequent studies of Great Basin projectile points. First, Thomas (1971) compiled a sample of 675 intuitively typed projectile points from stratified sites in the central and western Great Basin excavated by Berkeley researchers. He retained the

original classifications made by Berkeley researchers for the points and compiled metric

data for point attributes within these type samples (e.g., proximal shoulder angle [PSA],

basal width, weight, etc.). Thomas (1971) conceded that the sample was not randomly

derived but nevertheless determined maximum confidence intervals of various metric

attributes for each Berkeley type. He believed that those intervals encompassed the range

of variability in key attributes of projectile points in his study area. Thomas (1971)

established the Reese River Key I (RRK-I), which used attribute confidence intervals as objective criteria for the typology. When he classified the points using the key, he found

that some type determinations were different than those produced by the more subjective

visual classification methods. He suggested that his objective criteria were not precise

enough and sometimes overlapped between types due to the size of his study area or

inaccuracies in the second-hand metric data he used in his analysis.

Second, Holmer (1978) evaluated the utility of established projectile point types

in the eastern Great Basin by digitizing point outlines and using a computer program to

measure attributes based on defined coordinates. Coordinate-based measurements were

derived from intuitive typing attributes. His control group consisted of 160 intuitively

typed points, which established objective attribute criteria for each type. For control

types, Holmer (1978) used types specific to the eastern Great Basin (e.g., Sudden Side-

notched, San Rafael Side-notched, Gypsum) (Figure 1.2) in addition to the Berkeley

types. He then used discriminate function analysis for unclassified points to determine the

probability of membership to a control type. Holmer (1978) found that some unclassified

points could not be assigned a single control type. When he reanalyzed the original

control group, more than 5 percent of points fell into different types than their original

intuitive determinations (Holmer 1978). Like the RRK-I, the computer program’s

inability to classify some projectile points into discrete types was due to overlap in

attribute variability.

Figure 1.2. Point types referred to in the text: Elko Corner-notched (Justice 2002:Fig. 27); Elko Eared (Justice 2002:Fig. 27); Elko Contracting Stem (Heizer and Baumhoff 1961:Fig. 3); Elko Side- notched (Holmer 1978:Fig. 8); Elko Split Stem (Aikens 1970:Fig. 20); Humboldt (Justice 2002:Fig. 16); Pinto Split Stem (Justice 2002:Fig. 15); Gatecliff Contracting Stem/Gypsum (Justice 2002:Fig. 26); Gatecliff Split Stem (Justice 2002:Fig. 15); Northern Side-notched (Justice 2002:Fig. 17); Sudden Side-notched (Justice 2002:Fig. 17); San Rafael Side-notched (Holmer 1978:Fig. 18); Rocker Side- notched (Holmer 1978:Fig. 19); Rose Spring (Justice 2002:Fig. 28); Eastgate (Justice 2002:Fig. 28); and Desert Side-notched (Justice 2002:Fig. 35).

In sum, during the 1970s efforts to transition from subjective to objective methods

of assigning Great Basin projectile points to the Berkeley types fell short. Although

researchers moved towards a common way of naming points, how points were assigned

to particular types remained inconsistent. This limited the utility of projectile points as

index fossils in the region during a time when the rise of cultural resource management

archaeology increased the focus on open-air sites and the need for useful index fossils.

The Monitor Valley Key. Thomas (1981) believed that points could be classified

objectively using criteria based on metric attributes if he controlled for errors in the

earlier RRK-I. Towards that goal, he refined the RRK-I methods and only used data

collected firsthand from points recovered during his extensive survey and excavation

projects in Nevada’s Monitor Valley and adjacent areas. Using more than 60 radiocarbon

dates from stratified sites and nearly 1,000 projectile points, Thomas (1981) established

both a typology and chronology for central Great Basin point types that extended ~6000

calibrated years before present (cal. BP).

The Monitor Valley Key (MVK) was concerned with temporal types based on the

idea that their stylistic morphology remained relatively unchanged for long periods of

time. Some of the Berkeley series and subtype names were retained from the earlier

RRK-I while other new ones were developed. Strict metric cut-offs were established between unshouldered, side-notched, and corner-notched points and basal attributes, which were shown to be both resistant to change from breakage or resharpening and have changed over time based on data from stratified sites like Gatecliff Rockshelter (see

Figure 1.1). Thomas (1981) established temporal spans for five projectile point series: (1)

Desert; (2) Humboldt; (3) Rosegate; (4) Elko; and (5) Gatecliff (see Figure 1.2). In a few

10 cases, Thomas (1981) collapsed multiple Berkeley types (e.g., Rose Spring and Eastgate

[see Figure 1.2]) into broader points series (e.g., Rosegate) if they possessed similar temporal spans and attributes that graded into one another instead of showing clear bimodal distributions as would be expected if two discrete types existed. The MVK successfully discriminated over 95 percent of the points in the Monitor Valley sample.

The MVK represented the first objective and replicable projectile point typology in the Great Basin and it was immediately adopted by many researchers working in different parts of the regions despite Thomas’ (1981:37) warning that its applicability

“undoubtedly becomes fuzzy the further one travels from Monitor Valley.” Thomas

(1981) believed that chronological differences and attribute variability would be identified as the MVK was applied to new sites in different areas. Today, many Great

Basin researchers continue to unquestioningly use the MVK to classify points from open- air sites without comparing their assemblages to that from Monitor Valley. This has likely hindered additional refinements in our understanding of variation in the age ranges and morphology of the MVK types currently used to classify points in the region.

The Development and Evolution of the Elko Series

Elko points are large, corner-notched, triangular dart points. The Elko series was first established at Wagon Jack Shelter and consisted of three subtypes: (1) Elko Eared

(EE); (2) Elko Corner-notched (ECN); and (3) Elko Contracting Stem (ECS) (Heizer and

Baumhoff 1961). Later excavations at South Fork Shelter (see Figure 1.1) led Berkeley researchers to define a fourth subtype: Elko Side-notched (ESN) (Heizer et al. 1968). One

11 last subtype, Elko Split Stem (ESS), was defined by Aikens (1970) while analyzing points from Hogup Cave. These subtypes encompassed a range of hafting and notching variability that confounded typological analysis during the 1970s. Today, most researchers use the ECN and EE subtypes, as defined by Thomas’ (1981) MVK, while the ECS, ESN, and ESS subtypes were subsumed under other types (e.g., Large Side- notched, Gatecliff). In this section, I review the morphological attributes used to originally define the various Elko subtypes.

Elko Corner-notched. At Wagon Jack Shelter, ECN points (see Figure 1.2) were described as long and heavy, triangularly shaped, and possessing shoulders and stems that expand toward their bases (Heizer and Baumhoff 1961). The ECN subtype may have straight, concave, or convex basal margins (O’Connell 1967). Specimens with concave bases may be variations of EE points when basal indentation is not strongly developed.

Blade edges may be concave, straight, or convex. Blade cross-sections are relatively thin and flat while still being broad across the shoulders (Lanning 1963). Notching depth and narrowness vary but are initiated at basal corners and extend up and into the preform

(Heizer and Baumhoff 1961). At South Fork Shelter, ECN shoulder barbs were described as being acute (Heizer et al. 1968). A recent review of ECN points notes that shoulder barbs are wider than the base and extend past the start of the neck (Justice 2002).

In the MVK, basal widths >10 mm distinguish Elko series points from smaller

Rosegate points (Thomas 1981). Their expanded stems possess PSAs of 110-150°. ECN points with concave bases are distinguished from EE points by basal indentation ratios

(BIR) of >.93. Notching may appear to be on lateral margins when basal width is large

12 and rounded in shape, which may produce Elko points that look similar to Rocker Side- notched points (see Figure 1.2).

Elko Eared. At Wagon Jack Shelter, EE points (see Figure 1.2) were described as having similar form to ECN points (Heizer and Baumhoff 1961). Blade edges may be concave to convex and blade cross-sections are typically thin but wide. Like ECN, shoulder barbs expand wider than the bases and droop below the start of the necks

(Justice 2002); however, some specimens from Gatecliff Shelter (Thomas 1981:Figure 8) and Wagon Jack Shelter (Heizer and Baumhoff 1961:Figure 4) have barbless shoulders with distal shoulder angles (DSA) near 180°.

EE specimens have concave or indented bases that separate each edge into nubs or ears (Heizer and Baumhoff 1961). Ears can be large and prominent or small and narrow resembling barbs. Lanning (1963) described basal indentation ranging from deep

V-shaped notching to varying depths of concavity extending from corner to corner. Both basal indentations may produce prominently flared ears or barb-like corners. Variations in concavity width exemplify gradation into ECN points with concave bases (Heizer and

Baumhoff 1961). These two subtypes may be visually indistinguishable, which led

Thomas (1981) to distinguish EE points from ECN points from Monitor Valley using a

BIR of ≤.93. In the MVK, the cutoffs for basal width and PSA are the same as those for

ECN points.

Deep and narrow basal indentations may resemble split stem bases (Heizer et al.

1968), especially when PSA is low and ears are thin. Holmer (1986) found some EE points from the eastern Great Basin typed as Gatecliff Split Stem (see Figure 1.2) using discriminate function analysis. It is also possible to confuse EE points with Pinto Split

Stem points (see Figure 1.2) when ears are less expanding and more parallel (O’Connell

1967). Prominently flared ears can make EE points resemble side-notched types when notch placement is initiated above basal corners. EE points may also be confused with side-notched types when shoulders are barbless and have high DSAs.

Elko Contracting Stem. ECS points (see Figure 1.2) were defined as triangularly

shaped and shouldered similarly to ECN and EE but with stems that taper inward toward

the base (Heizer and Baumhoff 1961). Specimens from Wagon Jack Shelter (n=3) have

PSAs of ≤90° that meet to form a flat base, a concave base, or a point at their main axis.

Similar points recovered from Gypsum Cave in southern Nevada (see Figure 1.1) were

called Gypsum (Harrington 1933). Berkeley researchers did not adopt the Gypsum type

initially but it was included in a later review of projectile point types in which ECS was

dropped (Hester and Heizer 1973). Similar contracting stem points were found at

Gatecliff Shelter but they did not conform to the temporal ranges for either Elko or

Gypsum types, which led Thomas (1981) to reclassify them as Gatecliff Contracting

Stem (GCS) points (see Figure 1.2).

Elko Side-notched. At South Fork Shelter, ESN points (see Figure 1.2) were

defined as leaf-shaped with rounded bases and wide notches low on their lateral margins

(Heizer et al. 1968). ESN points were likened to other Elko subtypes due to similarities in

weight. When the ESN subtype was first developed, the Berkeley typology did not have a

classification for side-notched dart points. The Northern Side-notched (NSN) type (see

Figure 1.2) (Gruhn 1961) was included in a later review of the Berkeley typology and the

ESN subtype was dropped (Hester and Heizer 1973). Many other side-notched dart point

types have been defined for the northern and eastern Great Basin; these are distinguished

by minor differences in basal attributes (Holmer 1986).

Heizer et al. (1968) suggested that the Elko series developed from earlier corner-

notched subtypes to later side-notched subtypes because ESN points were found above

ECN points at South Fork Shelter. Holmer (1986) suggested that in the eastern Great

Basin, notching on dart points occurred along a continuum from corner to side. Holmer

(1986) suggested that ESN points have notching so low on the lateral margins that proximal shoulders form a point with the base, while NSN notching is high on margins, leaving a straight lateral edge below the notches. His analysis of points from the eastern

Great Basin revealed that notch placement had a tendency to become more side-oriented over time but with a coefficient of determination (r2 = .005) so low that distinct temporal

differences were not identifiable (Holmer 1978:64).

NSN basal indentation creates ears similar to those of EE points. It is possible that

the ESN subtype represented continuity between corner- and side-notching for Elko and

NSN series points found together in Middle Holocene deposits. Thomas (1981) reclassified side-notched dart types, including ESN, into a Large Side-notched (LSN)

type based on their similar age ranges. The LSN sample from Monitor Valley was small

(n=15), which may make Thomas’ (1981) criterion of PSA >150° to distinguish LSN and

Elko points imperfect. Researchers (e.g., Hockett et al. 2014; Smith et al. 2013; 2014)

continue to debate what constitutes side-notching and, at some point, new ways to

distinguish Elkos from LSN points may be developed.

Elko Split Stem. Aikens (1970) suggested that ESS points (see Figure 1.2) from

Hogup Cave were different from Pinto points despite the fact that both types possess

shoulder barbs. According to Aikens (1970:36, 39), the only difference between the two

types was that ESS bases were “bifurcated” while Pinto bases were “indented” – a

distinction that is difficult to quantify objectively. Aikens (1970:36) described ESS as being more slender relative to length than other Elko subtypes and having long basal nubs that are either parallel or expanding downward. Aikens (1970:36) also described ESS shoulder barbs as expanding downward similar to how Elko points were described at

Wagon Jack Shelter (Heizer and Baumhoff 1961). Thomas (1975) argued that the points from Hogup Cave that Aikens (1970) called ESS points were probably Pinto points; however, when Thomas (1981) encountered similar points in datable contexts in Monitor

Valley, their age ranges did not match either Elko or Pinto age ranges. Holmer (1978:17) demonstrated that ESS and Pinto points were misclassified >50 percent of the time.

Thomas (1981) reclassified ESS points as Gatecliff Split Stem (GSS) points due to their similar age range to GCS points. The MVK distinguishes Gatecliff points from Elko points using a PSA of ≤100°, which effectively separates parallel split stem GSS points from expanding split stem EE points (Thomas 1981). At this point, it remains unknown if the points from Hogup Cave originally classified by Aikens (1970) are actually GSS or

Pinto due to unresolved issues with stratigraphic mixing and anomalous radiocarbon dates at that site (Hockett 1995).

Elko Points in Space and Time

Elko points are found across the Intermountain West (Holmer 1986; O’Connell

1967). As the number of sites dated via radiocarbon dating grew in the 1960s and 1970s,

it became apparent that Elko points may have emerged at different times in different

places (Adovasio and Fry 1972; Thomas 1981, 1985). In the eastern Great Basin, many

researchers (e.g., Aikens 1970; Holmer 1986) argued that they emerged at the beginning

of the Middle Holocene. Conversely, other researchers (e.g., Elston and Budy 1990;

Thomas 1981) argued that in the western and central Great Basin they did not emerge

until the Late Holocene. The temporal ranges of Elkos in the two regions led to the

development of two point chronologies: (1) the “short” chronology, which was applied to

the central and western Great Basin; and (2) the “long” chronology, which was applied

primarily in the eastern Great Basin. Below, I review the sites with radiocarbon dates that

formed the basis for the development of these different chronologies.

The Central and Western Great Basin. The short chronology was first proposed at

South Fork Shelter which was dated via conventional radiocarbon dating. There, Elko

points first appeared after 3320±200 14C BP (4144-3062 cal. BP) and disappeared ~1375

cal. BP (Heizer et al. 1968; O’Connell 1967)1. At Gatecliff Shelter, accelerator mass

spectrometry (AMS) dating placed Elko series points between ~3600 and 1100 cal. BP

(Thomas 1983). AMS dates from James Creek Shelter (see Figure 1.1) placed Elko points between 3280±70 and 850±50 14C BP (3686-3371 and 908-682 cal. BP) (Elston and

Budy 1990). Excavations and additional radiocarbon dates at other western Great Basin

sites during the 1960s and 1970s generally supported the age range of Elko points

suggested at the sites noted above, which led Berkeley researchers to suggest that Elko

points were good Late Holocene markers throughout the Great Basin (Clewlow 1967;

O’Connell 1967).

The Eastern Great Basin. Work at sites in the eastern Great Basin suggested that a

longer Elko series chronology was warranted around the same time that Elko components

were being radiocarbon dated in the central and western Great Basin. At Hogup Cave,

Aikens (1970) suggested that Elko points first appeared ~8800±160 14C BP (10,229-9533

cal. BP) and persisted until ~1210±100 14C BP (1297-938 cal. BP). Aikens (1970) also

reclassified the projectile points from Danger Cave, replacing Jennings’ (1957) W-types

(Wendover types) with binomials established by Berkeley researchers. There, he also found evidence suggesting that Elko points first appeared during the initial Middle

Holocene or earlier. At Sudden Shelter (see Figure 1.1), ECN points first appeared after

7565±115 14C BP (8599-8073 cal. BP) and disappeared before 3535±95 14C BP (4085-

3588 cal. BP) (Jennings et al. 1980)1. O’Malley Shelter (see Figure 1.1) produced Elko

points in deposits dated to between 7100±190 and 870±100 14C BP (8320-7601 and 971-

656 cal. BP) (Fowler et al. 1973). At Cowboy Cave (see Figure 1.1) Elko points appeared

after 7215±75 14C BP (8183-7876 cal. BP) and continued to be used after 1494±60 14C

BP (1524-1301 cal. BP) (Jennings 1980). Finally, at Camels Back Cave (see Figure 1.1) –

arguably the most well-excavated and well-dated site among the group – Elko points first

appeared after 7230±160 14C BP (8375-7753 cal. BP) and disappeared ~1420±60 14C BP

(1517-1187 cal. BP) (Schmitt and Madsen 2005). Together, investigations at these sites

suggest at face value that Elko points in the eastern Great Basin have a temporal span

ranging from ~9000 to 1000 cal. BP.

As noted above, the discrepancy in the timing of Elko points’ emergence in the

eastern and central/western Great Basin was first recognized in the 1970s (Adovasio and

Fry 1972; Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Holmer 1978). One proposed explanation for the

18 difference was differing population densities in the two regions during the Middle

Holocene (~8400-5000 cal. BP) (Grayson 2011). Various lines of evidence suggest that

Altithermal conditions were harsher in the central and western Great Basin than the eastern Great Basin, which retained wetlands in many places in the Bonneville Basin

(Wriston 2009). Beck (1995) has argued that from east to west, progressively younger emergences of Elko points reflect population movements into the central Great Basin as conditions improved during the initial Late Holocene.

If the “long” Elko chronology developed for the eastern Great Basin is accurate, then Elko points possess limited utility as index fossils; that is, they cannot effectively be used to assign surface sites containing them to narrow windows of time. Alternatively, it is possible that the long chronology was developed using problematic data from sites excavated in ways that do not meet modern standards and dated using sampling techniques that encourage erroneous interpretations of site histories. If this is the case, then due to misinterpreted associations, unreliable radiocarbon dates, and/or unrecognized stratigraphic mixing, later Elko points may have been assigned to earlier components. Finally, it is possible that a previously unrecognized large corner-notched point style did first emerge during the initial Middle Holocene but such points are routinely assigned to the Elko series due to superficial morphological similarities. If either of these scenarios can be demonstrated to have occurred, then the idea of a “long”

Elko chronology for the eastern Great Basin may warrant reconsideration. In the remainder of this thesis, I evaluate these possibilities by critically assessing the contexts from which purported Middle Holocene Elko points have been found and by comparing

purported Middle Holocene Elko points to Elko points from well-dated Late Holocene contexts in the eastern and central Great Basin.

CHAPTER 2

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials

I used three sets of materials to test the hypothesis that Elko points occur in well- dated Middle Holocene deposits in the eastern Great Basin: (1) published information concerning radiocarbon sequences at select sites in that region; (2) large corner- and side- notched projectile points from Danger Cave and Bonneville Estates Rockshelter (BER);

and (3) published metric data for Elko points from Monitor Valley. I evaluated the radiocarbon sequence at select eastern Great Basin sites to determine if they provide

reliable age ranges for projectile point types in the region. I analyzed large corner- and

side-notched points from Danger Cave and BER to generate data that would allow me to

test the hypothesis that Elko points recovered from Middle Holocene deposits in the

eastern Great Basin are morphologically indistinguishable from Elko points recovered

from Late Holocene contexts in the central Great Basin. Finally, I used metric data

collected on Elko points from Monitor Valley to compare those points to purported Elko

points from Middle Holocene contexts in the eastern Great Basin. I detail each of these

materials below.

Eastern Great Basin Sites

Elko points have been reported from Middle Holocene deposits at six sites in the eastern Great Basin: (1) Hogup Cave; (2) Sudden Shelter; (3) O’Malley Shelter; (4)

Cowboy Cave; (5) Camels Back Cave; and (6) Danger Cave (see Figure 1.1). A seventh well-dated site in the eastern Great Basin – BER – has produced Elko points only in Late

Holocene deposits, thereby supporting the “short” chronology that is more well-accepted in the central and western region (Bryan Hockett, personal communication, 2016). Here, I report the general period(s) of occupation and cultural phases at those seven sites. I present their radiocarbon sequences in the following chapter.

Hogup Cave. Aikens (1970) excavated Hogup Cave in the northern Bonneville

Basin and identified four cultural layers (I-IV) encompassing 16 stratigraphic horizons.

Based on 23 radiocarbon dates on a variety of organic materials, Aikens (1970) suggested that the respective cultural layers dated as follows: (1) I: ~8400-3200 cal. BP; (2) II:

~3200-1500 cal. BP; (3) III: ~1500-700 cal. BP; and (4) IV: ~700 cal. BP until the historic period.

Sudden Shelter. Jennings et al. (1980) excavated Sudden Shelter in central Utah and reported 12 radiocarbon dates obtained on organic material from 22 strata. Based on radiocarbon dates and changes in artifact types and density, Jennings et al. (1980) defined three cultural components (Sudden Shelter [S.S.] I-III) and assigned the following age range to each: (1) S.S. I: ~9400-7200 cal. BP; (2) S.S. II: ~7200-5300 cal. BP; and (3)

S.S. III: ~5300-3500 cal. BP.

O’Malley Shelter. Fowler et al. (1973) excavated O’Malley Shelter in

southeastern Nevada and identified four cultural occupations based on artifact types and

densities within seven depositional units (I-VII): (1) Desert Archaic spanning units I-IV;

(2) Fremont-Anasazi in Unit V; (3) Shoshone-Paiute in Unit VI; and (4) Historic in Unit

VII. Fowler et al. (1973) reported nine radiocarbon dates from units I-V. Based on those dates, they assigned the following age ranges to each occupation: (1) Desert Archaic

~7200-6500 and ~4600-3000 cal. BP; (2) Fremont-Anasazi ~900-550 cal. BP; (3)

Shoshone-Paiute ~750-100 cal. BP; and (4) Historic.

Cowboy Cave. Jennings (1980) excavated Cowboy Cave in southcentral Utah, identified five depositional units (I-V), and reported cultural material in units II-V. Sterile layers of sandy sediment separated the cultural occupations. Jennings (1980) reported 22 radiocarbon dates obtained on a variety of isolated and composite organic samples. These dates led him to assign the following age ranges to the units: (1) I: ~16,000-12,700 cal.

BP; (2) II: ~9800-9000 cal. BP; (3) III: ~8100-7200 cal. BP; (4) IV: ~4100-3500 cal. BP; and (5) V: ~1900-1300 cal. BP.

Camels Back Cave. Schmitt and Madsen (2005) excavated Camels Back Cave in the southeastern Bonneville Basin, identified 18 strata, and reported 30 radiocarbon dates on isolated organic materials and cultural features. Schmitt and Madsen (2005) suggested that occupation of the site should be broken into the following periods: (1) Early Archaic,

~8400-6300 cal. BP; (2) Middle Archaic, ~6200-5300 cal. BP; (3) Late Archaic, ~4800-

2500 cal. BP; (4) Fremont, ~1500-800 cal. BP; and (5) Late Prehistoric, post-600 cal. BP.

Danger Cave. Jennings (1957) began excavating Danger Cave in the

northwestern Bonneville Basin in 1949, identified five cultural layers (DI-DV), and

reported 12 radiocarbon dates on a variety of organic materials. Jennings (1957:54) also

reported that another set of organic samples were awaiting analysis at the University of

Texas; those five dates were later reported by Tamers et al. (1964). In 1968, Harper and

Alder (1972) excavated a back-trench and reported eight additional radiocarbon-dated samples from layers DI-DIV. In 1986, Madsen and Rhode (1990) excavated an intact

column and reported 13 more radiocarbon dates from layers DI-DV. Rhode et al. (2006) also reopened portions of Jennings’ (1957) block and Harper and Alder’s (1972) back- trench, reporting nine more radiocarbon dates from features in exposed profiles. Based on the radiocarbon dates from the site, researchers (Madsen and Rhode 1990; Rhode et al.

2006; Rhode and Louderback 2007) now suggest that the Danger Cave layers span the following periods: (1) DI: ~12,100-11,500 cal. BP; (2) DII: ~11,500-8500 cal. BP; (3)

DIII: ~8500-6200 cal. BP; (4) DIV: ~6200-4000 cal. BP; and (5) DV: ~4000 cal. BP-

Historic period.

Bonneville Estates Rockshelter. Ted Goebel, Kelly Graf, and Bryan Hockett directed excavations at BER in the western Bonneville Basin between 2000 and 2010.

The site is a stratified dry cave with cultural components dated from the Late Pleistocene to the Historic Era (Goebel et al. 2011). The site has an impressive radiocarbon sequence featuring more than 100 AMS dates obtained on hearths and cultural features (Bryan

Hockett, personal communication, 2016). Most strata had multiple hearth features and excavators made an effort to map living surfaces, including artifact-feature associations.

Though many dates have been reported (Goebel and Keene 2014; Goebel et al. 2011;

Graf 2007), a complete list of radiocarbon sample information has not yet been published. As such, the “reliability” (see below) of BER’s radiocarbon sequence cannot

24 be assessed in the same way as the other sites presented above. Having said that, BER is universally considered one of the most well-dated sites in the Great Basin. Based on radiocarbon dates from the site, Goebel and colleagues developed the following cultural phases for the occupation of the site: (1) Izzenhood: pre-12,700 cal. BP; (2) Dry Gulch:

~12,700-8400 cal. BP; (3) Pie Creek: ~8400-5700 cal. BP; (4) South Fork: ~5700-3800 cal. BP; (7) James Creek: ~3800-1300 cal. BP; (6) Maggie Creek: ~1300-650 cal. BP; and (7) Eagle Rock: post-650 cal. BP (Bryan Hockett, personal communication 2016).

Projectile Points from Danger Cave, Bonneville Estates Rockshelter, and the Monitor

Valley

Danger Cave and BER produced numerous large notched dart points from which I collected data to compare the morphological attributes of such points from Middle and

Late Holocene deposits. Danger Cave purportedly produced corner-notched points from

Middle and Late Holocene deposits, whereas BER only produced large corner-notched points from Late Holocene deposits. I also used published data for Elko points from

Monitor Valley in the central Great Basin to compare the morphologies of large corner- notched points from the neighboring sub-regions.

Danger Cave. I classified the sample of large notched points from Danger Cave using descriptive and intuitive methods. Jennings (1957) first employed descriptive W- types (Wendover types), which were numbered sequentially as they were created.

O’Connell (1967) noted the similarity between some of Jennings’ (1957) W-types and

Elko subtypes established by Berkeley researchers. The stratigraphic distribution of these

Elko-like W-types is listed in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1. Possible Elko Series Points from Danger Cave Listed by Jennings’ (1957) Wendover

Types.

Possible Type W-Type DI DII DIII DIV DV Total Elko Corner-notched W18 - 4 14 - 8 26 W19 - - 4 - 11 15 W21 - - 3 - 2 5 Elko Eared W28 - 9 22 2 2 35 W29 - 4 14 2 1 21 W30 - 1 15 5 4 25 Total - 18 72 9 28 127

Aikens (1970) reclassified the Danger Cave points using the Berkeley typology.

His analysis included ECS and ESS subtypes but only the stratigraphic distributions of

ECN and EE points are listed in Table 2.2. These point counts differ from Table 2.1

because Aikens (1970) included more Elko-like W-types than O’Connell (1967) identified. Aikens (1970) also identified some W-types as conflating multiple Berkeley

types (e.g., W22 included both ECN and Pinto Sloping Shoulder types).

Table 2.2. Aikens’ (1970) Reclassification of Danger Cave Points Using the Berkeley Typology.

Type W-Types DI DII DIII DIV DV Total Elko Corner-notched 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 - 5 33 1 31 70 Elko Eared 28, 29, 30 - 7 54 9 7 77 Total - 12 87 10 38 147

Finally, Hughes (2014) recently presented geochemical data for a number of

obsidian points from Danger Cave. He assigned the points to different types developed by

Berkeley researchers (e.g., Elkos) and, later, Thomas (1981) (e.g., Gatecliff) based on a

visual (i.e., non-metric) assessment. The stratigraphic distribution of the points classified

by Hughes’ (2014) as Elko points is listed in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3. Distribution of Elko Points from Danger Cave Classified by Hughes (2014).

DI DII DIII DIV DV Surface Total Elko Series - 9 10 2 9 1 31

With permission from the Natural History Museum of Utah (NHMU), I analyzed

large notched projectile points from Danger Cave. My sample included W-types

identified by O’Connell (1967) and Aikens (1970) as Elko Corner-notched (ECN) and

Elko Eared (EE) as well as other W-types that were either corner- or side-notched dart

specimens. I chose side-notched dart points for two reasons: (1) to investigate Holmer’s

(1986) claim that continuity exists between corner-notched and side-notched Middle

Holocene dart points in the eastern Great Basin; and (2) to evaluate whether PSA alone effectively distinguishes Large Side-notched and Elko points, as Thomas (1981) suggested in his Monitor Valley Key. It is important to note that the Danger Cave point sample is not complete; some specimens have been lost over the last 60 years. Despite that fact, I was able to analyze 144 points that met my initial selection criteria (Table

2.4).

Table 2.4. Danger Cave Corner-notched and Side-notched Dart Points Analyzed in Fall 2015.

W Type DI DII DII/DIII DIII DIV DV Unknown Total W4 - 1 - - - - - 1 W5 - - - 1 - - - 1 W15 - 1 - - - - - 1 W16 - - 2 - 3 - - 5 W17 - - - 1 3 1 - 5 W18 - 2 - 1 - 2 2 7 W19 - - - - - 3 - 3 W22 - 1 - - 1 3 - 5 W24 - 3 - 1 - - - 4 W25 - 1 2 3 3 - 1 10 W26 - - 1 16 9 3 1 30 W28 - 3 2 10 1 - 1 17 W29 - 4 2 4 2 - 2 14 W30 - 1 - 6 2 1 3 13 W31 - 7 2 8 1 1 - 19 W32 - - 1 - - 1 - 2 W33 - - - - - 1 - 1 W34 - 2 - - - - - 2 W37 - - - 1 - - - 1 Unknown - 1 - - - 1 1 3 Total - 27 12 52 25 17 11 144

Bonneville Estates Rockshelter. Metric data for Middle and Late Holocene notched dart points were previously unpublished prior to my work. Ted Goebel (Texas

A&M University) generously loaned the points to me so that I could collect such information. From the large BER point assemblage, I selected corner- and side-notched dart points (n=90); these are listed by cultural phase designations in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5. Bonneville Estates Rockshelter Analyzed Points by Stratum.

Cultural Phase Total Historic 1 Eagle Rock 4 Eagle Rock/Maggie Creek 1 Maggie Creek 7 Maggie Creek/James Creek 5 James Creek 21 South Fork 29 South Fork/Pie Creek 1 Pie Creek 19 Unknown 2 Total 90

Monitor Valley. To provide a sample of unequivocal Late Holocene Elko points with which to compare large notched points from purported Middle Holocene contexts in the eastern Great Basin, I compiled published metric data for Elko series points from

Monitor Valley, Nevada, where Thomas (1981) developed the Monitor Valley Key. The

Monitor Valley Late Holocene sample (MV-LH) consists of 378 ECN and 123 EE specimens (Table 2.6).

Methods

Here, I outline the methods used to collect and analyze the data used in this study.

Specifically, I present the methods used to: (1) obtain direct AMS results on projectile points retaining some organic hafting material; (2) evaluate the reliability of radiocarbon sequences from eastern Great Basin sites; (3) collect metric data for projectile points; (4) classify projectile points; and (5) compare Elko samples using basic statistical methods.

Table 2.6. Monitor Valley Elko Assemblage by Location (Thomas 1983, 1988).

Location Elko Corner-notched Elko Eared Total Gatecliff Shelter 212 59 271 Triple T Shelter 31 17 48 Toquima Cave 3 3 6 Butler Ranch 5 - 5 Little Empire Shelter 1 1 2 NY1059 1 - 1 Jean Spring Shelter 3 1 4 Hunts Canyon Shelter 4 1 5 Table Mountain Rock Alignment 6 1 7 Box Spring Shelter 18 4 22 Hickson Summit 3 3 6 Northumberland Rock Art Catchment 3 1 4 Butler Ranch Cave Survey Catchment 10 1 11 East Bald Mountain Wash Catchment - 2 2 Non-Site Survey 78 29 107 Total 378 123 501

Directly Dating Dart Points

Using projectile point types as index fossils assumes that the ages of points from surface assemblages are roughly the same as ages of similar points at other well-dated sites. Smith et al. (2013) highlighted two issues with this assumption: (1) the established ages of point types are often based on only a few dated sites; and (2) radiocarbon dates from features or organic materials are not direct age measurements of points themselves, only the deposits from which the points were recovered. Stratigraphic mixing or insufficiently broad age estimates for particular deposits can obscure points’ true ages.

Building on efforts by Smith et al. (2013), I obtained AMS dates on hafting material (e.g., sinew) attached to three dart points from Danger Cave to add to our understanding of the ages of those types in the eastern Great Basin.

The University of Utah Anthropology Department and NHMU granted

permission to date one side-notched (23016.1) and two corner-notched (22993.4 and

23665.5) dart points recovered during Jennings’ (1957) excavations (Figure 2.1). Sinew samples were collected by Michelle Knoll (NHMU) and sent to radiocarbon labs: the corner-notched points were dated by the University of Georgia Center for Applied

Isotope Studies2 and the side-notched point was dated by DirectAMS, Inc3.

Assessing Radiocarbon Date Reliability

Prior to the 1980s, radiocarbon dating required large samples of organic material.

Researchers often provided composite samples of multiple materials collected from

different contexts and samples were sometimes unrelated to cultural activity.

Conventional results were averaged dates for composite samples, which produced high

standard deviations.

The development of AMS dating and the capability to date individual pieces of organic material (e.g., one charcoal fragment from a hearth) showed that conventional radiocarbon dating lacked the precision of AMS dating that is far more desirable to archaeologists (Goebel and Keene 2014). Due to the advent of the AMS method, the amount of radiocarbon dating conducted by archaeologists increased dramatically and standards for sampling improved. In turn, researchers became capable of more confidently and precisely establishing when sites were occupied. Despite these improvements, studies of projectile point age ranges in the region have continued to rely on conventional radiocarbon dates collected years ago; for example, such dates continue

Figure 2.1. Select projectile points from Danger Cave with hafting material: (A) 22993.4 (DIII); (B) 23665.5 (DIII); (C) 23016.1 (no provenience). X-rays obtained with assistance from the University of Utah School of Dentistry.

to form the basis of our understanding of Elko point chronology (e.g., Beck 1995). To

address this problem, I evaluated the radiocarbon sequences of six eastern Great Basin sites that support the “long” Elko chronology (Hogup Cave, Sudden Shelter, O’Malley

Shelter, Cowboy Cave, Camels Back Cave, and Danger Cave) using a reliability index established by researchers working in other regions (Graf 2009; Pettitt et al. 2003).

The radiocarbon reliability index rigorously addresses archaeological and

chronometric conditions of samples at a site. I compiled information about each sample’s provenience, feature association, radiocarbon age, 2σ calibrated age range, and material

composition for evaluation by seven criteria categories (Table 2.7). Categories score from

0 to 4 for how well the sample met the criteria. A percentage of confidence is produced

for each sample by dividing the sum of the seven criteria by 28. A percentage of

confidence is produced for a site’s radiocarbon sequence by dividing the sum of all

sample scores by the total number of points possible (i.e., sum of all sample scores/[28 x

number of samples]).

Individual samples and radiocarbon sequences can have one of three reliability

classifications: (1) unreliable, <40 percent confidence; (2) questionable, 40-59 percent

confidence; and (3) reliable, ≥60 percent confidence. For this study, I accepted reliable

dates and questionable dates when they presented a continuous 2σ age range at a site. I

did not reject unreliable dates or suggest that they are inherently problematic. Often, unreliable classifications were due to a dearth of radiocarbon samples for a cultural layer or stratum. For this study, when unreliable dates represent discontinuities in the radiocarbon sequence, I considered them unsuitable to substantiate the “long” Elko

Table 2.7. Radiocarbon Reliability Index Criteria and Scoring.

1. Sample Type Choicea(modified): 0. Composite organic sample of more than one material. 1. Composite organic sample of a single material (e.g., charcoal, bone, feces, etc.). 2. Isolated organic material without old carbon contamination sources identified (e.g., wood genus, bone amino acid). 3. Isolated organic material with possible old carbon contamination sources identified. 4. Identified hearth charcoal with ‘‘old wood’’ ruled out or cut-marked bone with specific amino acids identified. 2. Lab Reportinga(modified): 0. Conventional date with no lab methods reported. 1. Conventional date with some lab methods reported, but no pretreatment information. 2. Conventional date with all lab pretreatment and analysis methods reported. 3. AMS date with no lab methods reported, or some lab methods but no pretreatment information. 4. AMS date with all lab pretreatment and analysis methods reported. 3. Positive Association of Sample and Archaeologyb: 0. Association unlikely (e.g., paleontological setting). 1. Association possible due to presence of archaeology; however, materials diffusely distributed. 2. Association likely due to numbers and spatial patterning of cultural remains. 3. Association highly likely due to demonstrated functional relationship. 4. Full certainty of association due to direct assay on anthropogenic item. 4. Relevance of Dating Sample to a Specific Diagnostic Archaeological Phenomenonb: 0. Sample material unknown. 1. No traces of human manufacture or modification on sample or if charcoal, ‘‘old wood’’ cannot be ruled out. 2. Sample highly associated with diagnostic archaeology but, it is not diagnostic. 3. Association highly likely because sample was found in cultural feature such as hearth. 4. Sample diagnostic of cultural period or is a highly associated item showing clear signs of human modification. 5. Quantity and Character of Age Estimatesb: 1. Determination is 1 of only 2 for given cultural layer and overlaps at 2σ range. 0. Only determination for given cultural layer or 1 of several that fall outside of a 2σ range. 2. Determination is 1 of 3 in a given cultural layer that overlap at 2σ range. 3. Determination is 1 of 4 in a given cultural layer that overlap at 2σ range. 4. Determination is 1 of 5 in a given cultural layer that overlap at 2σ range. 6. Standard Deviationa(modified): 0. ≥300 1. 200-299 2. 100-199 3. 31-99 4. ≤30 7. Stratigraphic Context and Age of Samplea: 0. No obvious correlation between age and stratigraphic context or stratigraphic context unknown. 1. Age determination does not fit stratigraphic context but overlaps at 2σ with 1 or more other determinations in stratum or cultural layer. 2. Age determination is only date and fits stratigraphic context or does not overlap with other determinations at 2σ. 3. Age determination fits stratigraphic context and overlaps at 2σ with at least 1 other determination. 4. Age determination fits stratigraphic context and overlaps at 2σ with at least 2 other determinations. a From Graf (2009:Table 3). b From Pettitt et al. (2003:1687-1690).

chronology. I only considered reliable radiocarbon sequences with a continuous 2σ age

for the Middle Holocene to be supportive of the “long” Elko chronology. The seven

criteria categories represent information important for archaeological interpretation

(Pettitt et al. 2003). Optimal criteria scores are standards that should be followed in future

radiocarbon reporting when possible.

To the best of my knowledge, my application of the radiocarbon reliability index represents the first time that the approach has been used in the Great Basin. I modified three criteria categories to more appropriately fit Great Basin sites. Since Graf (2009) only considered bone or charcoal, I modified Sample Type Choice criterion to account for all organic material. Graf (2009) scored all conventional dates as 0 for the Laboratory

Reporting criterion. However, Kuzmin (2009) argued that conventional dating methods are not completely inaccurate when organic material is from a single source. I modified

the Laboratory Reporting criterion to assign points to conventional samples that are well reported. Graf (2009) applied the index to sample dates from the Late Pleistocene that had high standard deviations. I modified Standard Deviation criterion scores to reflect acceptable ranges for dates from the Holocene.

Obtaining Index Information. I compiled radiocarbon sample information from published monographs and articles about the six eastern Great Basin sites listed above. I

only included dates that have reported age and standard deviation, provenience, and

sample composition. Other dates have been reported for sites like Danger Cave (Rhode

and Madsen 1998) but I could not appropriately apply the index to them because of

insufficient information.

I also used site stratigraphy and geoarchaeology to score criteria when needed. I made an effort to clarify any unreported associations between samples and features when such information was not explicitly stated. I included sample dates rejected by site excavators in indices but scored these samples as 0 for Stratigraphic Context. I obtained

2σ calibrated age ranges for radiocarbon dates using the OxCal 4.2 online program with the IntCal13 calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2013).

Point Analysis and Classification Procedure

I analyzed and classified the projectile points from Danger Cave and BER to compare the morphologies of large corner-notched dart points from Middle and Late

Holocene contexts in the eastern Great Basin. I applied both metric-based and intuitive typological methods to analyze assemblages to exhaust possible discrepancies in morphological classification. Here, I discuss the laboratory methods used to collect metric data and typological methods used to classify projectile points.

Analyzed projectile points retain their site catalog numbers for identification;

Danger Cave points also include accession numbers assigned by NHMU. I analyzed

Danger Cave points at the NHMU and BER points at the University of Nevada, Reno. I photographed BER points, while Erik Martin (University of Utah) generously provided

Danger Cave point photographs. I recorded metric attributes including maximum length, axial length, maximum width, basal width, neck width, maximum thickness, and neck height to the nearest 0.1 mm using digital sliding calipers. Measurement procedures followed methods suggested by Andrefsky (2005). I recorded DSA, PSA, notch opening

(NO), and basal indentation ratio (BIR) following Thomas’ (1971) definitions for those

criteria (Figure 2.2). I measured DSA, PSA, and NO to the nearest 5º using a goniometer.

I recorded point weight to the nearest 0.1 g using a digital scale. I recorded data first in

Microsoft Excel 2013 and then entered them into SPSS Statistics version 22 software for statistical comparisons.

Figure 2.2. Thomas’ (1971) methods for recording various attributes.

Using the data I collected, I classified each specimen using three typological methods established for Great Basin projectile points: (1) the Monitor Valley Key (MVK)

(Thomas 1981); (2) criteria used to distinguish Elko and Pinto points (Basgall and Hall

2000); and (3) criteria developed by Hockett et al. (2014) to distinguish side- and corner- notched dart points. With the exception of Hockett et al.’s (2014) approach, these methods are objective and based on metric criteria; Hockett et al.’s (2014) approach is more intuitive.

The Monitor Valley Key. As outlined in Chapter 1, Thomas (1981) developed the

MVK to classify Middle and Late Holocene notched and un-notched dart and arrow points. Thomas (1981) focused on basal attributes such as PSA, basal width, and basal indentation for type distinctions because they are less susceptible to change during rejuvenation. Notched dart points in the MVK include Large Side-notched, Elko Corner- notched, Elko Eared, Gatecliff Contracting Stem, and Gatecliff Split Stem types while notched arrow points include Desert Side-notched and Rosegate Corner-notched types.

Table 2.8 summarizes the metric criteria of these types.

Table 2.8. Monitor Valley Key Point Type Criteria (Thomas 1981).

Point Type Metric Criteria Large Side-notched PSA’s >130 degrees and weight ≥1.5 g Elko Corner-notched PSA’s between 100 and 150 degrees, basal width >10 mm, and BIR’s >.93 Elko Eared PSA’s between 110 and 150 degrees, basal width >10 mm, and BIR’s ≤0.93 Gatecliff Contracting Stem PSA’s ≤100 degrees or NO ≥60 degrees, BIR’s >.97, and weight >1 g Gatecliff Split Stem PSA’s ≤100 degrees or NO ≥60 degrees, BIR’s ≤.97, and weight >1 g Desert Side-notched PSA’s >130 degrees, weight <1.5 g, and Bw/Mw >.90 PSA’s between 90 and 130 degrees, basal width ≤10 mm, and neck width ≤ [basal width Rosegate Corner-notched + .5 mm]

I did not include un-notched point types in Table 2.8 because I only analyzed

notched points from Danger Cave and BER. In assigning Danger Cave and BER points to

MVK types, following Thomas (1981) I placed specimens that could not be placed into

any of the types listed above into a residual “out of key” category.

Distinguishing Elko and Pinto Points. Basgall and Hall (2000) recognized issues

with distinguishing between Elko and Pinto points in the southern Great Basin using PSA alone. They suggested that because Pinto points generally possess greater DSAs, their

NOs are also often much higher than Elko points. They established metric criteria that more effectively distinguish those point types in the southern Great Basin including a NO distinction at 80º (Table 2.9). Basgall and Hall’s (2000) criteria for classifying Pinto points are similar to those used to classify Gatecliff points in the MVK; the major difference is that Pintos possess larger notch openings.

Although Gatecliff points are not recognized in the southern Great Basin, it is possible to distinguish them from Pinto series points when both PSA and NO are considered. I classified points that could not be placed into either the Elko or Pinto categories as “out of key.”

Table 2.9. Southern Great Basin Elko and Pinto Point Criteria (Basgall and Hall 2000).

Point Type Metric Criteria Pinto Series Basal width > 10 mm; PSA’s ≤100 degrees, or NO ≥80 Elko Series Basal width > 10 mm; PSA’s between 110 and 150 degrees, or NO <80 degrees

Distinguishing Side-notched and Corner-notched Points. Hockett et al. (2014) recently expressed concern with the effectiveness of using PSA alone to distinguish Elko and LSN points. As an alternative, they proposed two criteria for distinguishing side- notching from corner-notching. First, when notching is initiated at a triangular preform’s basal corners, pressure flaking removes part of the base, which makes the point’s basal width less than its width across the shoulders (Figure 2.3). When notching is instead initiated on a triangular preform’s lateral margins its base remains intact, which makes the point’s basal width greater than or equal to its shoulder width. This approach may be quantified by dividing the basal width (Bw) by the maximum width (Mw) (Bw/Mw).

When Bw/Mw is <1.0, the base is not the widest part of the point (making it a corner- notched point); when Bw/Mw = 1.0, the base is equal to the maximum width of the point

(making it a side-notched point). Second, according to Hockett et al. (2014) corner- notching is directed up and into a preform from the basal corners whereas side-notching is directed from lateral margins into the center of the preform perpendicular to its vertical axis. By drawing lines through both notches on a point researchers can determine if the notching is from the corner or the side by noting where the lines intersect (see Figure

2.3). Lines from corner-notching should intersect above the top of the notching, while lines from side-notching should intersect at or below the top of the notching. The second criterion cannot be quantified but it remains objective as long as it is applied correctly and not imposed on specimens missing ears or tangs. It is important to note that these criteria can only determine from where notching initiated and cannot classify specimens into point types alone.

Figure 2.3. Hockett et al.’s (2014) criteria for distinguishing side-notched and corner-notched points.

Summary of Classification Methods. Most Great Basin researchers consider the

MVK to be reliable for distinguishing point types because it has objective criteria aimed

at producing replicable results and is able to assign most points to a type. I used the MVK

as the primary classification scheme for identifying point type; however, as outlined

above some researchers (e.g., Basgall and Hall 2000; Hockett et al. 2014) suggest that

other methods are more effective at identifying certain points types (e.g., Pinto and Large

Side-notched) than the MVK alone. For this reason, I also used the Elko/Pinto criteria

(Basgall and Hall 2000) and the side-notched/corner-notched criteria (Hockett et al.

2014) to provide checks of my MVK determinations. I made final type determinations by considering the results from all three typological approaches as well as other evidence

(e.g., size, completeness, resharpening) for each point that I analyzed.

Statistical Comparison of Elko Points

During my analysis of Danger Cave and BER points, I placed specimens that classified as Elko into three sample groups: (1) Elko points from Middle Holocene deposits (layers DII and DIII) at Danger Cave (DC-MH); (2) Elko points from Late

Holocene deposits (layers IV and V) at Danger Cave (DC-LH); and (3) Elko points from

Late Holocene deposits (South Fork Phase and later deposits) at BER (BER-LH). To provide a larger sample of Elko points from Late Holocene deposits in the eastern Great

Basin, I grouped the DC-LH and BER-LH samples together into an eastern Great Basin

Late Holocene (EGB-LH) Elko point sample. These four samples, and the MV-LH Elko sample described above, allow me to test the hypothesis that Middle Holocene corner-

notched points from the eastern Great Basin are indistinguishable from Elko points

recovered from Late Holocene deposits in the eastern and central Great Basin. I outline

the composition of these samples in the following chapter.

Classification of Points in Elko Samples. Given the classification issues identified

above, it is possible that some points typed as Elkos using the MVK will not classify as

Elkos according to the Elko/Pinto criteria (Basgall and Hall 2000) or side- notched/corner-notched criteria (Hockett et al. 2014). To address this issue, I removed points from the Danger Cave and BER Elko samples that typed as Pinto or Large Side- notched using the latter two methods. I included some points in samples from Danger

Cave and BER if they were classified as Elkos using two or more approaches (e.g., they typed as Elko using the MVK and Elko/Pinto criteria but met only one of Hockett et al.’s

[2014] side-notched/corner-notched criteria). In doing so, my comparison of Middle and

Late Holocene Elko samples should be more reliable than if I used points that classified as Elkos using the MVK alone.

Statistical Comparison of Elko Samples. I compared the maximum width, neck width, basal width, Bw/Mw ratio, maximum thickness, PSA, DSA, NO, and neck height

attributes of the different Elko samples. I chose those attributes because they are less

affected by resharpening than attributes like maximum length and weight. I initially

tested the normality of sample attributes using a Shapiro-Wilk test. I used two-tailed t-

tests to compare mean Elko attributes for samples with normal distributions;

alternatively, I used Mann Whitney U tests to compare median Elko attributes when one

or both samples did not have normal distributions. I made mean or median attribute comparisons between the following samples: (1) DC-MH and DC-LH; (2) DC-MH and

BER-LH; (3) DC-LH and BER-LH; (4) DC-MH and EGB-LH; (5) DC-MH and MV-LH;

and (6) EGB-LH and MV-LH. I used two-sample K-S tests to compare attribute

distributions of the DC-MH and MV-LH samples and the EGB-LH and MV-LH samples.

The null hypothesis for my comparisons is that there are no significant differences between Middle and Late Holocene Elko samples, indicating that they are indistinguishable from each other. The alternative hypothesis is that there are consistent, significant differences between Middle and Late Holocene Elko samples that do not occur between Late Holocene Elko samples. I considered differences to be significant when p ≤ .05.

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

In this chapter, I present the results of my analysis of large, notched projectile

points from the eastern Great Basin. First, I present the AMS dates obtained on hafting

material attached to three points from Danger Cave and compare their morphological

attributes to those of Monitor Valley Key (MVK) types. Second, I present radiocarbon

reliability index results for the eastern Great Basin sites used to support the “long” Elko

chronology. Third, I present the results of my typological analysis of points from Danger

Cave and Bonneville Estates Rockshelter (BER). Fourth, I present the results of my

comparison of Elko points from the eastern Great Basin and Monitor Valley. Finally, I

present the results of my comparison of Elko and Large Side-notched (LSN) points from

the eastern Great Basin.

Directly Dated Points

I obtained dates on sinew attached to one side-notched (23106.1) and two corner-

notched (22993.4 and 23665.5) dart points from Danger Cave (Table 3.1). The side-

notched point (23106.1), which lacks contextual information but likely came from layer

DIII (~8500-6200 cal. BP), returned a date of 6791±28 (7675-7589 cal. BP). The point has distinct side-notched attributes including straight lateral margins below its notches and high PSAs and DSAs. The point types as an LSN point using the MVK and a side-

Table 3.1. Radiocarbon Analysis of Projectile Point Sinew from Danger Cave.

Fraction of modern 14C age, years δ(13C) Sample ID Point ID BP with 1σ error 2σ cal. BPa per mil pMC 1σ error D-AMS 014556 23106.1 6791±28 7675–7589 -14.9 42.94 0.15 UGAMS-21630 22993.4 7000±30 7933–7755 -19.2 41.81 0.14 UGAMS-21631 23665.5 7230±30 8159–7972 -20.3 40.67 0.14 a Calibrated using OxCal 4.2 with the IntCal13 calibration curve.

notched point using Hockett et al.’s (2014) criteria. Its age is consistent with current age

estimates for LSN points in the eastern Great Basin (~8300-4500 cal. BP) (Schmitt and

Madsen 2005). One corner-notched point (22993.4) returned a date of 7000±30 (7933-

7755 cal. BP) while the other (23665.5) returned a date of 7230±30 (8159-7972 cal. BP).

Both corner-notched points came from layer DIII and their ages fit within the accepted age estimate for that layer (~8500-6200 cal. BP) (Madsen and Rhode 1990). Both specimens classify as Elkos using the MVK and as Elkos using the Elko/Pinto criteria.

Point 23665.5 met both of Hockett et al.’s (2014) criteria for corner-notched points, while point 22993.4 met only the shoulder width/basal width criterion. Although 22993.4 has incomplete DSAs, the point’s x-ray (see Figure 2.1) suggests that its barbs would have dropped down below the start of the neck similar to ECN and EE points described in

Chapter 1. Despite incomplete length measurements, I classified both corner-notched points as ECN due to their very shallow basal indentations.

I compared the metric attributes of each corner-notched point to the sample of

Elko points from Monitor Valley (Thomas 1981, 1983) using single observation t-tests

(Table 3.2 and Table 3.3). While 22993.4 has a significantly greater basal width (t = 2.3, df = 325, p = .022) and PSA (t = 8.6, df = 493, p < .001) than the Monitor Valley Elko

46 sample, it still falls within the Elko type according to the MVK. Point 23665.5 does not differ significantly from the Monitor Valley Elko sample in any of the attributes used in the MVK. In short, both 22993.4 and 23665.5 are clearly corner-notched and their ages support the “long” Elko chronology in the eastern Great Basin.

Table 3.2. Comparison of 22993.4 Metric Attributes to Monitor Valley Elkos With Significant

Differences Bolded.

Attribute 22993.4 Monitor Valley Elkos x̄ = 22.9 s = 3.4 26.4 (incomplete) Maximum Width (mm) range = 14.8-31.5 n = 209 t = 1.03, df = 208, p = .304 x̄ = 11.8 s = 2.4 15.3 Neck Width (mm) range = 5.3-20.0 n = 480 t = 1.46, df = 479, p = .145 x̄ = 15.9 s = 3.0 22.8 Basal Width (mm) range = 10-25.1 n = 326 t = 2.3, df = 325, p = .022 x̄ = 4.6 s = 0.9 5.1 Maximum Thickness (mm) range = 2.3-8.4 n = 495 t = 0.56, df = 494, p = .576 x̄ = 126.4 s = 11.4 135 PSA (degrees) range = 80-155 n = 494 t = 8.6, df = 493, p < .001 x̄ = 158.5 s = 16.8 150 (incomplete) DSA (degrees) range = 120-210 n = 421 t = -0.51, df = 420, p = .610 x̄ = 33.5 s = 15.9 15 (incomplete) NO (degrees) range = 5-90 n = 415 t = -1.16, df = 414, p = .247

Table 3.3. Comparison of 23665.5 Metric Attributes to Monitor Valley Elkos.

Attribute 23665.5 Monitor Valley Elkos x̄ = 22.9 s = 3.4 18.8 Maximum Width (mm) range = 14.8-31.5 n = 209 t = -1.36, df = 208, p = .175 x̄ = 11.8 s = 2.4 11.7 Neck Width (mm) range = 5.3-20.0 n = 480 t = -0.04, df = 479, p = .968 x̄ = 15.9 s = 3.0 14.8 Basal Width (mm) range = 10-25.1 n = 326 t = -0.37, df = 325, p = .122 x̄ = 4.6 s = 0.9 5.7 Maximum Thickness (mm) range = 2.3-8.4 n = 495 t = 1.22, df = 494, p = .223 x̄ = 126.4 s = 11.4 125 PSA (degrees) range = 80-155 n = 494 t = -1.4, df = 493, p =.162 x̄ = 158.5 s = 16.8 150 DSA (degrees) range = 120-210 n = 421 t = -0.51, df = 420, p = .610 x̄ = 33.5 s = 15.9 25 NO (degrees) range = 5-90 n = 415 t = -0.53, df = 414, p = .596

Assessing Radiocarbon Reliability

Using the approach outlined in Chapter 2, I applied the radiocarbon reliability index to six sites to test the hypothesis that Elko points have been recovered from well- dated Middle Holocene deposits in the eastern Great Basin: (1) Hogup Cave; (2) Sudden

Shelter; (3) O’Malley Shelter; (4) Cowboy Cave; (5) Camels Back Cave; and (6) Danger

Cave.

Hogup Cave

Aikens (1970) reported 23 conventional radiocarbon dates from Hogup Cave

(Table 3.4). The reliability index results indicate that the radiocarbon sequence is

unreliable (30% confidence) and all dates classify as questionable or unreliable. Most

samples were comprised of non-cultural organic material and often included multiple

material types. Aikens (1970) rejected six samples (GX1286, GaK2076, GaK1560,

GaK2079, GaK1565, and GaK2077) because their age did not match their stratigraphic

context. Furthermore, Aikens (1970:26) reported that two samples (GaK1563 and

GaK1567) were possibly contaminated by carbonate-carrying water but did not reject those dates. The two samples from Stratum 8 show a reversal in age with the younger date coming from the bottom of the level and the older date coming from the top. There is little association between sample materials and cultural activity at the site.

Aikens (1970) intuitively applied Elko Corner-notched (ECN) (n=44), Elko Eared

(EE) (n=26), Elko Split Stem (ESS) (n=19), and Elko Side-notched (ESN) (n=40) subtypes. He reported that ECN points were distributed through strata 3-14, EE points through strata 1-8, and ESS and ESN points through strata 1-9. Due to intuitive typing, the inclusion of obsolete subtypes (ESS and ESN), and poor stratigraphic control, Hogup

Cave does not provide reliable support for the “long” Elko chronology.

Table 3.4. Hogup Cave Radiocarbon Date Reliability Index Analysis (Aikens 1970).

Sample ID Stratum/ Cultural Layer 14C BP 2σ cal. BPa Sample Material Composition Sample Type Choice Lab Reporting Archaeological Association Diagnostic Relevance Quantity and of age Character Standard Deviation Stratigraphic Context Total Reliability GaK1569 1/I 8350±160 9691–8799 Pulverized charcoal; composite 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 13 Q GaK2086 1/I 7860±160 9125–8378 Feces, fur; composite 0 1 0 1 2 2 4 10 U GaK1570 2/I 3970±100 4814–4149 Uncharred bone, rabbit?; composite 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 5 U GaK2083 3/I 8800±200 10385–9463 Sticks, dung; composite 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 6 U GX1286 3/I 6020±380 7659–6021 Pulverized charcoal, composite 1 1 1 1 3 0 0 7 U GX1287 4/I 7815±350 9517–8001 Sagebrush bark; isolate 3 1 1 1 4 0 4 14 Q GaK2082 5/I 7250±100 8317–7873 Sticks, bark; composite 0 1 0 1 1 2 3 8 U GX1288 5/I 5795±160 6999–6287 Sagebrush bark; isolate 3 1 1 1 2 2 4 14 Q GaK1563 6/I 6400±100 7555–7029 Charcoal; composite 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 13 Q GaK1567 6/I 5960±100 7155–6535 Charcoal; composite 1 1 1 1 4 2 4 14 Q GaK2084 7/I 6190±110 7324–6791 Feces; unknown composition 1 1 0 1 4 2 4 13 Q GaK1564 8/I 3200±140 3826–3062 Reeds; isolate 2 1 1 1 0 2 2 9 U GaK1568 8/I 4610±100 5584–4979 Sticks; composite 1 1 0 1 0 2 2 7 U GaK2081 10/II 2600±100 2918–2361 Sticks, bark; composite 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 6 U GaK2076 10/II 4490±100 5447–4858 Feces; unknown composition 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 5 U GaK1560 12/III 2920±80 3332–2860 Grass, sticks, shredded bark; composite 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 5 U GaK2079 12/III 2550±70 2774–2379 Sticks, bark, dung; composite 0 1 0 1 0 3 2 7 U GaK1561 12/III 1530±80 1594–1294 Grass, reeds; composite 0 1 0 1 1 3 3 9 U GaK2078 14/III 1210±100 1297–938 Sticks, bark, dung; composite 0 1 0 1 1 2 3 8 U GaK2080 14/III 620±70 679–522 Sticks, bark, dung; composite 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 5 U GaK1565 16/IV 1810±80 1920–1554 Grass; composite 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 6 U GaK2077 16/IV 2200±70 2346–2010 Sticks, bark, dung; composite 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 5 U GaK1566 16/IV 480±80 653–317 Sticks, grass, dung; composite 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 5 U

Site Total 17 23 7 23 30 48 46 194/644 (30%) U a Calibrated using OxCal Online 4.2 with the IntCal13 calibration curve. b U=Unreliable; Q=Questionably Reliable; R=Reliable.

Sudden Shelter

Jennings et al. (1980) reported 12 conventional dates from Sudden Shelter (Table

3.5). The reliability index results indicate that the radiocarbon sequence is unreliable

(27% confidence), as are all of the individual dates from the site. All samples were composite charcoal collections but because of the “amorphous nature of these burned areas” (Jennings et al. 1980:31), no feature information could be attributed to any samples. Samples were not designated by cultural components, which limited possibilities for 2σ overlap. The radiocarbon sample is small and was derived from less than half of the site’s strata.

Holmer (Jennings et al. 1980) classified the points from Sudden Shelter using discriminate function analysis. He reported ESN (n=124) and ECN (n=85) subtypes beginning in Stratum 3 and ending in Stratum 15 and 16, respectively. Neither Stratum 3 nor 16 has associated radiocarbon samples, which prevents establishing ECN bounding dates. Because the radiocarbon sequence is incomplete and has only unreliable dates,

Sudden Shelter does not provide reliable support for the “long” Elko chronology.

O’Malley Shelter

Fowler et al. (1973) reported nine conventional dates from O’Malley Shelter

(Table 3.6). The reliability index results indicate that the radiocarbon sequence is unreliable (29% confidence), as are all individual dates from the site. All samples were composite charcoal collections but no feature information was associated with the

Table 3.5. Sudden Shelter Radiocarbon Date Reliability Index Analysis (Jennings et al. 1980).

Standard Deviation Stratigraphic Context Total Reliability Sample ID Stratum 14C BP 2σ cal. BPa Sample Material Composition Sample Type Choice Lab Reporting Archaeological Association Diagnostic Relevance Quantity and of age Character RL-474 2, top 7840±330 9483–8039 Charcoal, composite 1 0 1 1 1 0 3 7 U UGa-903 2, top 7565±115 8599–8073 Charcoal, composite 1 0 1 1 1 2 3 9 U UGa-859 4, mid. 7090±85 8151–7702 Charcoal, composite 1 0 1 1 0 3 2 8 U RL-476 4, top 7900±190 9285–8375 Charcoal, composite 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 5 U RL-422 5, bot. 6670±180 7929–7253 Charcoal, composite 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 7 U UGa-906 8, bot. 6310±240 7655–6667 Charcoal, composite 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 6 U UGa-1261 10, top 4980 ±90 5916–5586 Charcoal, composite 1 0 1 1 0 3 2 8 U RL-475 14, mid. 4670±140 5698–4894 Charcoal, composite 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 7 U UGa-904 15, top 4425±85 5295–4858 Charcoal, composite 1 0 1 1 0 3 2 8 U UGa-1260 17, mid. 3535±95 5085–3588 Charcoal, composite 1 0 1 1 0 3 2 8 U UGa-905a 22, mid. 3375±200 4227–3083 Charcoal, composite 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 8 U UGa-905b 22, mid. 3360±85 3831–3407 Charcoal, composite 1 0 1 1 1 3 3 10 U

Site Total 12 0 12 12 4 25 126 91/336 (27%) U a Calibrated using OxCal Online 4.2 with the IntCal13 calibration curve. b U=Unreliable; Q=Questionably Reliable; R=Reliable.

Table 3.6. O’Malley Shelter Radiocarbon Date Reliability Index Analysis (Fowler et al. 1973).

Standard Deviation Standard Stratigraphic Context Total Reliability Sample ID Stratum/ Units Depositional 14C BP 2σ cal. BPa Sample Material Composition Sample Type Choice Lab Reporting Archaeological Association Diagnostic Relevance Quantity and of age Character RL-92 1/I, surface of sterile 7100±190 8320–7607 Large charcoal fragment 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 9 U RL-46 2/I, upper 1/3rd 6520±140 7660–7169 Composite charcoal 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 8 U RL-91 3/II, lower 1/4th 4630±170 5661–4856 Composite charcoal 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 7 U RL-106 4/II, upper 1/3rd 3920±170 4834–3921 Composite charcoal 1 0 1 1 1 2 3 9 U RL-45 4/II, upper 1/3rd 3940±120 4816–4010 Composite charcoal 1 0 1 1 1 2 3 9 U RL-93 9/III 3740±170 4573–3640 Composite charcoal 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 7 U RL-44 12/IV, middle 2970±100 3376–2877 Composite charcoal 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 7 U RL-43 17/V, lower 870±100 971–656 Composite charcoal 1 0 1 1 1 2 3 9 U RL-42 17V, upper 890±100 981–663 Composite charcoal 1 0 1 1 1 2 3 9 U

Site Total 10 0 9 9 6 18 22 175/252 (29%) U a Calibrated using OxCal Online 4.2 with the IntCal13 calibration curve. b U=Unreliable; Q=Questionably Reliable; R=Reliable.

samples. The radiocarbon sequence is small and was derived from only a third of the

site’s stratigraphic levels, which left several gaps in cultural layers that do not correspond

with proposed hiatuses in occupation (see Chapter 2) (Fowler et al. 1973).

Fowler et al. (1973) intuitively applied ECN (n=39), EE (n=26), and ESN (n=37)

subtypes. They reported Elko points from depositional units I-V but did not specify

stratigraphic distributions. Due to intuitive typing and an incomplete radiocarbon

sequence, O’Malley Shelter does not provide reliable support for the “long” Elko

chronology.

Cowboy Cave

Jennings (1980) reported 22 conventional dates from depositional units I-V at

Cowboy Cave. I excluded six radiocarbon dates obtained on organic material and dung from Depositional Unit I (~16,000-12,700 cal. BP) because it was sterile. I also excluded one radiocarbon date from a test trench because it had unknown provenience. The reliability index results for the remaining 15 dates indicate that the radiocarbon sequence is questionably reliable (54% confidence) with a mixture of reliable, questionable, and unreliable dates (Table 3.7). Many reliable samples were obtained on cultural material

(e.g., maize, grass matting, sandal fragment). Maize samples came from the same cache and had a 500 14C year difference between oldest and youngest dates; this translated to a

~1,000 year cal. BP range which reflects the limits in precision offered at that time by

conventional radiocarbon dating. Two composite charcoal samples were obtained on

hearth features. Jennings (1980) included laboratory information like 13C fractionation

and plant genus when available. Jennings (1980) did not precisely monitor where sample

were collected and he determined the provenience of those samples (e.g., depositional

unit or substrata) up to two years after excavations were finished. Overall, the

radiocarbon sequence at Cowboy Cave is well reported but not robust enough to warrant

reliability. Most reliable dates from the site came from Late Holocene deposits.

Holmer (Jennings 1980) classified the points from Cowboy Cave using

discriminate function analysis. He reported ECN (n=35), EE (n=3), and ESN (n=7)

subtypes from Depositional Unit III through surface deposits. The ECN distribution was

most continuous through substrata in Late Holocene units IV and V but was very

scattered in Depositional Unit III. No Elko points were found in the same sub-strata as

reliable radiocarbon samples with detailed provenience information. Due to questionable

sample provenience and a disproportionate number of reliable Late Holocene dates,

Cowboy Cave does not provide reliable support for the “long” Elko chronology.

Camels Back Cave

Schmitt and Madsen (2005) reported 30 AMS dates from Camels Back Cave. I

excluded one radiocarbon date obtained on an arrow shaft because it had unknown provenience. The reliability index results for the remaining 29 dates (Table 3.8) indicate

that the radiocarbon sequence at the site is reliable (64% confidence). Samples were not

designated by cultural layers, which limited possible 2σ overlap; however, 22 dates classify as reliable, six as questionable, and one as unreliable. Twenty-six samples were

Table 3.7. Cowboy Cave Radiocarbon Date Reliability Index Analysis (Jennings 1980).

Deviation

stratum

Stratigraphic Context Total Reliability Feature Standard Sample ID Unit Depositional Sub - 14C BP 2σ cal. BPa Sample Material Composition Sample Type Choice Lab Reporting Archaeological Association Diagnostic Relevance Quantity and of age Character SI2418 II/b, Feat. 41 8275±80 9456–9032 Charcoal composite 1 1 1 3 0 3 2 11 U SI2419 III/d 7215±75 8183–7876 Charcoal composite 1 1 1 1 0 3 2 9 U UGa637 III probd, test trench 6830±80 7844–7520 Charred wood 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 12 Q SI2420 III/i 6675±75 7660–7435 Sandal fragment (Yucca) 3 1 4 4 1 3 3 19 R SI2421 III or IV 6390±70 7430–7174 Charcoal composite 1 1 1 1 0 3 2 9 U SI2715 IV/c 3635±55 4145–3829 Charcoal composite 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 11 U SI2998 IV/d 3560±75 4083–3643 Wood 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 12 Q SI2495c IV/c probd 3330±80 3821–3385 Grass (Sporobolus) from skin pouch 1 1 3 4 1 3 3 16 Q SI2422 V probd 2075±70 2304–1881 Maize 2 1 4 4 2 3 4 20 R SI2423 c V probd 1840±65 1923–1610 Grass (Sporobolus) from mat 1 1 3 4 3 3 4 19 R SI3172 V probd 1855±70 1945–1615 Maize 2 1 4 4 3 3 4 21 R SI3012R c V probd 1670±70 1736–1395 Maize 2 1 4 4 4 3 4 22 R Juniper bark (Juniperus) and stalks of SI2426 V/c 1580±60 1605–1346 1 1 2 1 3 3 4 15 Q Artemisia dracunculus stalks UGa1548 V p probd 1555±70 1595–1308 Maize 2 1 4 4 3 3 4 21 R SI2425 V/a, Feat. 183 1495±60 1524–1301 Charcoal composite 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 16 Q

Site Total 24 16 36 41 27 48 48 233/420 (55%) Q a Calibrated using OxCal Online 4.2 with the IntCal13 calibration curve. b U=Unreliable; Q=Questionably Reliable; R=Reliable. c 13C fractionation measured but not reported. d Provenience probable, determination made after excavation.

Table 3.8. Camels Back Cave Radiocarbon Date Reliability Index Analysis (Schmitt and Madsen 2005).

Standard Deviation Standard Stratigraphic Context Total Reliability Sample ID Stratum Feature 14C BP 2σ cal. BPa Sample Material Composition Sample Type Choice Lab Reporting Archaeological Association Diagnostic Relevance Quantity and of age Character 1; Feat. 132 in Beta-118938 6500±50 7551–7370 Non-hearth charcoal 3 3 2 1 0 3 0 12 Q krotovina Beta-144431 1; Feat. 95 9560±40 11092– 10730 Fecal pellet (carnivore) 3 3 0 1 0 3 2 12 Q Beta-122767 2a; Feat. 20 8810±70 10162– 9614 Fecal pellet (artiodactyl) 3 3 0 1 0 3 2 12 Q Beta-122768 2b; Feat. 20 6970±60 7932–7685 Fecal pellet (artiodactyl) 3 3 0 1 0 3 0 10 U Beta-118937 3; Feat. 127 7530±50 8416–8203 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 0 3 2 18 R Beta-64369 4; Feat. 121 7350±220 8593–7725 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 0 1 2 16 Q Beta-122778 5; Feat. 124a 7230±160 8375–7753 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 0 2 2 17 R Beta-122777 5; Feat. 124g 6650 ±50 7594–7436 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 1 3 3 20 R Beta-122776 5; Feat. 117 6550±130 7671–7181 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 2 2 4 21 R Beta-122774 5; Feat. 105 6390±70 7430–7174 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 1 3 3 20 R Beta-122775 6; Feat. 113 6430±60 7440–7252 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 0 3 2 18 R Beta-63481 8; Feat. 18 6110±90 7244–6755 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 0 3 2 18 R Beta-106882 9; Feat. 93 5630±60 6548–6296 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 0 3 2 18 R Beta-106881 11a; Feat. 81 5180±90 6190–5725 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 2 3 4 22 R Beta-122773 11a; Feat. 88 4990±100 5938–5487 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 3 2 4 22 R Beta-122771 11c; Feat. 78 5520±190 6741–5911 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 2 2 4 21 R Beta-122772 11c; Feat. 82 4650±80 5587–5060 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 1 3 3 20 R Beta-106880 12b; Feat. 77 4650±40 5570–5305 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 0 3 2 18 R Beta-106878 13a; Feat. 57 4060±50 4810–4421 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 2 3 4 22 R Beta-122770 13a; Feat. 66 4020±70 4814–4291 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 2 3 4 22 R

Table 3.8, Continued.

Beta-69277 13c; Feat. 14 3950±70 4780–4155 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 2 3 4 22 R Beta-1227769 13c; Feat. 58 3650±50 4141–3843 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 0 3 2 18 R Beta-106879 14a; Feat. 72 3630±50 4090–3831 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 0 3 2 18 R Beta-94872 14c; Feat. 37 3160±60 3556–3217 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 0 3 2 18 R Beta-93440 15b; Feat. 10 2540±80 2764–2364 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 0 3 2 18 R Beta-94871 15b; Feat. 36 1610±60 1690–1363 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 0 3 2 18 R Non-hearth, charcoal only Beta-94870 17a; Feat. 29 1420±60 1517–1187 3 3 2 1 0 3 2 14 Q feature Beta-94197 17c; Feat. 26 790±50 891–658 Hearth charcoal 4 3 3 3 0 3 2 18 R Beta-94198 18; Feat. 27, lens 470±50 631–332 Non-hearth charcoal 3 3 2 1 0 3 2 14 Q

Site Total 110 87 75 75 18 81 71 517/812 (64%) R a Calibrated using OxCal Online 4.2 with the IntCal13 calibration curve. b U=Unreliable; Q=Questionably Reliable; R=Reliable.

obtained on charcoal from identified cultural features while three were obtained on

artiodactyl fecal pellets.

Schmitt and Madsen (2005) typed the projectile points using MVK criteria

(Thomas 1981). They reported 12 Elko points from strata 3-17. After omitting fecal pellet

samples, the radiocarbon sequence at Camels Back Cave overlaps continuously at 2σ

between Stratum 3 and Stratum 15b (~8400-2300 cal. BP). Although radiocarbon

samples are not unequivocally associated with Elko points, the site’s sequence is

primarily based on definitive cultural activity. Camels Back Cave offers reliable support

for the “long” Elko chronology but unfortunately it has a small assemblage of Elko points

(n=8) from Middle Holocene deposits.

Danger Cave

Collectively, researchers have reported 47 radiocarbon dates from four excavation

projects at Danger Cave (Table 3.9); 25 samples were conventionally dated (Harper and

Alder 1972; Jennings 1957; Tamers et al. 1964) and 22 samples were AMS dated

(Madsen and Rhode 1990; Rhode et al. 2006). The reliability index results indicate that

the radiocarbon sequence is questionably reliable (48% confidence). For 2σ overlap, I

considered samples from all excavations when they were designated by the same cultural

layer. When samples were identified at the contact point between two cultural layers, I

considered them for 2σ overlap with both layers.

Only one conventional date (M-202) obtained on a hearth feature classified as reliable. Nine conventional dates classify as questionable and 15 classify as unreliable.

Conventional dates were obtained on composite samples of non-cultural organic material

(e.g., twigs, leaves, dung) or cultural modified organics (e.g., charcoal, pickleweed

chaff). Madsen and Rhode’s (1990) 13 AMS dates classify as questionable or unreliable

because they were collected on dispersed charcoal or sheep dung. Rhode et al.’s (2006)

nine AMS dates classify as reliable and were collected on isolated pickleweed chaff or

from identified cultural features.

It is likely that conventional non-cultural samples negatively impacted the

reliability of the Danger Cave radiocarbon sequence. To assess this possibility, I applied

the reliability index to AMS samples of cultural significance (Table 3.10) including the

three new hafted point dates I reported earlier in this chapter. The reliability index results

for these 23 samples indicate that the radiocarbon sequence is reliable (60% confidence).

Rhode et al.’s (2006) nine dates and my three dates classify as reliable, while Madsen and

Rhode’s (1990) 11 dates classify as questionable or unreliable. The radiocarbon sequence

is nearly continuous from cultural layers DII-DIV (~9600-5300 cal. BP). Layer DV has

two gaps in its chronology because of a small number of dated samples. Likewise, there

is a gap between DI and DII spanning ~11,300-9600 cal. BP. The Danger Cave AMS

sequence offers reliable support for the “long” Elko chronology and serves as the

foundation for my morphological comparison of large corner-notched points from the eastern and central Great Basin.

Table 3.9. Danger Cave (All Excavations) Radiocarbon Date Reliability Index Analysis.

igraphic

Original Reference Original Stratum Cultural Layer Feature Deviation Standard Strat Context Total Reliability Sample ID 14C BP 2σ cal. BPa Sample Material Composition Sample Type Choice Lab Reporting Archaeological Association Diagnostic Relevance Quantity and of age Character M-204, Jennings Sand 1 surface/DI 10,270±650 13,473–10,235 Slightly charred sheep dung 1 1 0 1 4 0 4 11 U (1957) M-202, Jennings Sand 1 surface/DI/ 10,270±650 13,473–10,235 Charcoal 2 1 3 3 4 0 4 17 R (1957) Feat. 108 C-610, Jennings Sand 1/2 contact/DI 11,151±570 14,715– 11404 Plant stem 2 1 0 1 4 0 4 12 Q (1957) C-609, Jennings Sand 2/DI 11,450±600 15,350–11,979 Sheep dung, same as M-118 1 1 0 1 4 0 4 11 U (1957) M-118, Jennings Sand 2/DI 11,000±700 15,102–11,095 Sheep dung 1 1 0 1 4 0 4 11 U (1957) M-119, Jennings Sand 2/DI 10,400±700 13,816–10,227 Twigs and leaves 0 1 0 1 4 0 4 10 U (1957) C-611, Jennings Sand 2/DI/pit feat. 9787±630 12,898–9659 Charcoal 2 1 1 3 4 0 4 15 Q (1957) C-640, Jennings Sand 2/DI 8950±340 11,105–9305 Slightly charred rat dung 1 1 0 1 4 0 4 11 U (1957) C-636, Jennings Middle DIV 3819±160 4807–3731 Twigs 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 5 U (1957) M-203, Jennings Lower DV 4000±300 5310–3699 Twigs 1 1 0 1 1 0 3 7 U (1957) M-205, Jennings Lower DV 4800±350 6309–4615 Twigs 1 1 0 1 1 0 3 7 U (1957) C-635, Jennings Middle DV 1930±240 2465–1341 Twigs 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 6 U (1957) Tx-87, Tamers et al. Scattered charcoal and vegetal Sand 1 surface/DI 10,150±170 12,391–11,254 0 0 1 1 4 2 4 12 Q (1964) material

Table 3.9, Continued.

raphic

Context Total Reliability Original Reference Original Stratum Cultural Layer Feature Deviation Standard Stratig Sample ID 14C BP 2σ cal. BPa Sample Material Composition Sample Type Choice Lab Reporting Archaeological Association Diagnostic Relevance Quantity and of age Character Tx-86, Tamers et al. Sand 1 surface/DI/ 8970±150 10,487–9610 Charred dung and twigs 0 0 0 1 4 2 0 7 U (1964) below Feat. 108 Tx-85, Tamers et al. Sand 1 surface/DI/ 10,600±200 12,920–11,827 Twigs 1 0 0 1 4 1 4 11 U (1964) Feat. 108 Tx-89, Tamers et al. Sand 2 lower/DI/ Twigs 9740±210 11,945–10,521 1 0 0 1 4 1 4 11 U (1964) assoc. with Tx-88 Tx-88, Tamers et al. Sand 2 lower/DI/ 9050±180 10,660–9628 Sheep pellets 1 0 0 1 4 2 4 12 Q (1964) above Feat. 108 Gak-1899, Harper Lower DII/1968 10,130±250 12,609–11,141 Twigs, ash, dung 0 1 0 1 4 1 4 11 U and Alder (1972) trench Gak-1895, Harper Lower DII/1968 6960±210 8190–7435 Twigs and ash 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 4 U and Alder (1972) trench Gak-1900, Harper Upper DII 9900±200 12,097–10,740 Pickleweed chaff, composite 1 1 3 2 4 1 4 16 Q and Alder (1972) Gak-1896, Harper Upper DII 9590±160 11,312–10,435 Pickleweed chaff, composite 1 1 3 2 3 2 4 16 Q and Alder (1972) Gak-1997, Harper Middle DIII 7100±150 8280–7623 Bulk pickleweed chaff and dung 0 1 2 2 4 2 4 15 Q and Alder (1972) Gak-1901, Harper Middle DIII 6570±120 7661–7267 Bulk pickleweed chaff and twigs 0 1 2 2 2 2 4 13 Q and Alder (1972) Gak-1898, Harper Upper DIII 6560±120 7659–7261 Pickleweed chaff, composite 1 1 3 2 2 2 4 15 Q and Alder (1972) Gak-1902, Harper Middle DIV 5050±120 6175–5584 Twigs 1 1 0 1 2 2 4 11 U and Alder (1972) Beta-19336, Madsen Stratum 2/DI 9780±210 11,967–10,585 Sheep dung 1 3 0 1 4 1 4 14 Q and Rhode (1990)

Table 3.9, Continued.

raphic

Context Total Reliability Original Reference Original Stratum Cultural Layer Feature Deviation Standard Stratig Sample ID 14C BP 2σ cal. BPa Sample Material Composition Sample Type Choice Lab Reporting Archaeological Association Diagnostic Relevance Quantity and of age Character Beta-19611, Madsen Stratum 3/DI 9920 ±185 12,088–10,783 Sheep dung 1 3 0 1 4 2 4 15 Q and Rhode (1990) Beta-19333, Madsen Stratum 5/DI/DII 10,080±130 12,106–11,240 Disperse charcoal 1 3 1 1 4 2 4 16 Q and Rhode (1990) contact Beta-23653, Madsen Stratum. 9/upper 7920±80 9002–8584 Disperse charcoal 1 3 1 1 0 3 2 11 U and Rhode (1990) DII (F30) AA-3623, Madsen Stratum 10/DII/DIII 7410±120 8419–7983 Disperse charcoal 1 3 1 1 2 2 4 14 Q and Rhode (1990) contact (F30) Beta-23652, Madsen Stratum 11/lower 7490±120 8537–8037 Disperse charcoal 1 3 1 1 2 2 3 13 Q and Rhode (1990) DIII Beta-23651, Madsen Stratum 18/middle 6030±90 7157–6676 Disperse charcoal 1 3 1 1 0 3 2 11 U and Rhode (1990) DIII Beta-23650, Madsen Stratum 24/upper 5360±70 6290–5954 Disperse charcoal 1 3 1 1 0 3 2 11 U and Rhode (1990) DIII Beta-23649, Madsen Stratum 25/lower Disperse charcoal 5160±100 6184–5663 1 3 1 1 2 2 4 14 Q and Rhode (1990) DIV Beta-23648, Madsen Stratum 30/upper Disperse charcoal 4860±110 5891–5322 1 3 1 1 2 2 4 14 Q and Rhode (1990) DIV Beta-23647, Madsen Stratum 31/lower Disperse charcoal 2660±90 2992–2489 1 3 1 1 0 3 2 11 U and Rhode (1990) DV Beta-19335, Madsen Stratum 35/middle 880±110 1050–653 Bulrush (Scirpus olneyi) 3 3 1 1 0 2 2 12 Q and Rhode (1990) DV Beta-23646, Madsen Stratum 37/upper Disperse charcoal 330±100 542–pres. 1 3 1 1 0 2 2 10 U and Rhode (1990) DV Beta-168656, Rhode Sand 1 surface/DI/ 10,310±40 12,596–11,404 Charcoal 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 22 R et al. (2006) Feat. 111

Table 3.9, Continued.

Reference

raphic

Context Total Reliability Original Stratum Cultural Layer Feature Deviation Standard Stratig Sample ID 14C BP 2σ cal. BPa Sample Material Composition Sample Type Choice Lab Reporting Archaeological Association Diagnostic Relevance Quantity and of age Character Beta-158549, Rhode Sand 1 surface/DI/ 10,270±50 12,377–11,811 Charcoal 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 22 R et al. (2006) Feat. 112 Beta-169848, Rhode Lower DII (F31)/ 10,050±50 11,813–11,320 Pickleweed chaff, isolate 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 21 R et al. (2006) 143 Face Beta-193123, Rhode Mid DII (F12)c 8570±40 9600–9483 Pickleweed chaff, isolate 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 21 R et al. (2006) Beta-190887, Rhode Mid DII (F16 or 8440±50 9535–9317 Pickle-weed chaff, isolate 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 22 R et al. (2006) F30) Beta-193124, Rhode Mid DII (F12)c 8380±60 9525–9258 Pickle-weed chaff, isolate 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 22 R et al. (2006) Beta-190886, Rhode Mid DII (F30) 8200±50 9300–9015 Pickle-weed chaff, isolate 3 3 3 2 2 3 4 20 R et al. (2006) NSRL-11436, Rhode Upper DII (F30) 8410±50 9525–9305 Pickle-weed chaff, isolate 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 22 R et al. (2006) Beta-168857, Rhode Upper DII (F30)/ 8270±40 9415–9127 Pickle-weed chaff, isolate 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 22 R et al. (2006) 143 Face 637/1316 Site Total 61 86 56 67 128 80 159 Q (48%) a Calibrated using OxCal Online 4.2 with the IntCal13 calibration curve. b U=Unreliable; Q=Questionably Reliable; R=Reliable. c Equivalent to F16 (Rhode et al. 2006:332).

Table 3.10. Danger Cave (AMS Only) Radiocarbon Date Reliability Index Analysis.

Standard Deviation Standard Stratigraphic Context Total Reliability Sample ID Stratum Feature 14C BP 2σ cal. BPa Sample Material Composition Sample Type Choice Lab Reporting Archaeological Association Diagnostic Relevance Quantity and of age Character Beta-168656, Rhode Sand 1 surface/DI/ 10,310±40 12,596–11,404 Charcoal 2 3 3 3 2 3 4 20 R et al. (2006) Feat. 111 Beta-158549, Rhode Sand 1 surface/DI/ 10,270±50 12,377–11,811 Charcoal 2 3 3 3 2 3 4 20 R et al. (2006) Feat. 112 Beta-19333, Madsen Stratum 5/DI/DII 10,080±130 12,106–11,240 Disperse charcoal 1 3 1 1 3 2 4 15 Q and Rhode (1990) contact Beta-169848, Rhode Lower DII (F31) 10,050±50 11,813–11,320 Pickleweed chaff, isolate 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 18 R et al. (2006) Beta-193123, Rhode Mid DII (F12)c 8570±40 9600–9483 Pickleweed chaff, isolate 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 21 R et al. (2006) Beta-193124, Rhode Mid DII (F12)c 8380±60 9525–9258 Pickleweed chaff, isolate 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 22 R et al. (2006) Beta-190887, Rhode Mid DII (F16 or 8440±50 9535–9317 Pickleweed chaff, isolate 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 22 R et al. (2006) F30) Beta-190886, Rhode Mid DII (F30) 8200±50 9300–9015 Pickleweed chaff, isolate 3 3 3 2 2 3 4 20 R et al. (2006) NSRL-11436, Rhode Upper DII (F30) 8410±50 9525–9305 Pickleweed chaff, isolate 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 22 R et al. (2006) Beta-168857, Rhode Upper DII (F30) 8270±40 9415–9127 Pickleweed chaff, isolate 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 22 R et al. (2006) Beta-23653, Madsen Stratum. 9/upper DII 7920±80 9002–8584 Disperse charcoal 1 3 1 1 0 3 2 11 U and Rhode (1990) (F30) AA-3623, Madsen Stratum 10/DII/DIII 7410±120 8419–7983 Disperse charcoal 1 3 1 1 2 2 4 14 Q and Rhode (1990) contact (F30) Beta-23652, Madsen Stratum 11/lower 7490±120 8537–8037 Disperse charcoal 1 3 1 1 2 2 4 14 Q and Rhode (1990) DIII

Table 3.10, Continued.

Standard Deviation Standard Stratigraphic Context Total Reliability Sample ID Stratum Feature 14C BP 2σ cal. BPa Sample Material Composition Sample Type Choice Lab Reporting Archaeological Association Diagnostic Relevance Quantity and of age Character Sinew attached to projectile 23665.5 (this report) DIII 7230±30 8159–7972 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 26 R point Sinew attached to projectile 22993.4 (this report) DIII 7000±30 7933–7755 3 4 4 4 1 4 3 23 R point Unknown/DIII Sinew attached to projectile 23106.1 (this report) 6791±28 7675–7589 3 4 4 4 0 4 0 19 R probable point Beta-23651, Madsen Stratum 18/middle 6030±90 7157–6676 Disperse charcoal 1 3 1 1 0 3 2 11 U and Rhode (1990) DIII Beta-23650, Madsen Stratum 24/upper 5360±70 6290–5954 Disperse charcoal 1 3 1 1 0 3 2 11 U and Rhode (1990) DIII Beta-23649, Madsen Stratum 25/lower 5160±100 6184–5663 Disperse charcoal 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 12 Q and Rhode (1990) DIV Beta-23648, Madsen Stratum 30/upper 4860±110 5891–5322 Disperse charcoal 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 12 Q and Rhode (1990) DIV Beta-23647, Madsen Stratum 31/lower 2660±90 2992–2489 Disperse charcoal 1 3 1 1 0 3 2 11 U and Rhode (1990) DV Beta-19335, Madsen Stratum 35/middle 880±110 1050–653 Bulrush (Scirpus olneyi) 3 3 1 2 0 2 2 13 Q and Rhode (1990) DV Beta-23646, Madsen Stratum 37/upper Disperse charcoal 330±100 542–Present 1 3 1 1 0 2 2 10 U and Rhode (1990) DV 389/644 Site Total 46 69 49 43 39 63 70 R (60%) a Calibrated using OxCal Online 4.2 with the IntCal13 calibration curve. b U=Unreliable; Q=Questionably Reliable; R=Reliable. c Equivalent to F16 (Rhode et al. 2006:332).

Projectile Point Analysis

For projectile points from Danger Cave and BER, I obtained metric data on 10

different morphological attributes (see Chapter 2) and calculated two additional attribute

ratios from these measurements (basal indentation ratio and basal width/maximum width

ratio). Using the metric data, I classified points using the MVK (Thomas 1981), the

Elko/Pinto criteria (Basgall and Hall 2000), and the side-notched/corner-notched criteria

(Hockett et al. 2014) outlined in Chapter 2. Appendix 1 lists the metric data and classifications for each point.

Elko Sample Composition

Middle Holocene Elkos from Danger Cave. Forty-six points from Middle

Holocene deposits (layers DII and DIII) at Danger Cave typed as Elkos using the MVK

(Figure 3.1 and 3.2). Forty-three of those points typed as Elko using Basgall and Hall’s

(2000) approach to distinguishing Elkos and Pintos; three points have indeterminable

NOs due to breakage. Using Hockett et al.’s (2014) approach, 29 points met both criteria for corner-notched points, 16 met only the shoulder width/base width criterion, and one met only the notching intersection criterion.

Figure 3.1. Elko points from Middle Holocene Deposits at Danger Cave.

Figure 3.2. Additional Elko points from Middle Holocene Deposits at Danger Cave.

Late Holocene Elkos from Danger Cave. Seventeen points from Late Holocene deposits (layers DIV and DV) at Danger Cave typed as Elkos using the MVK (Figure

3.3). Fourteen of those points typed as Elkos using the Elko/Pinto distinction; three have indeterminable NOs. Using Hockett et al.’s (2014) approach, 11 points met both criteria

for corner-notched points, while five met only the shoulder width/basal width criterion.

One point was too fragmentary to determine if it met either side-notched/corner-notched criteria.

Figure 3.3. Elko points from Late Holocene deposits at Danger Cave.

Late Holocene Elkos from BER. All points that classified as Elkos using the MVK

came from the South Fork Phase (~5700-3800 cal. BP) or later deposits. Thirty-six points

from Late Holocene deposits typed as Elkos using the MVK (Figure 3.4). Thirty-two of those points typed as Elkos using the Elko/Pinto distinction; four have indeterminable

NOs. Using Hockett et al.’s (2014) approach, 25 points met both criteria for corner- notched points, ten met only the shoulder width/basal width criterion, and one met only the notching intersection criterion.

Other Projectile Point Analyses

Several points from both assemblages either classified as types other than Elko or are out of key using the MVK. Furthermore, I excluded some points because they were anomalously large, highly fragmented, lacked provenience information, or were not photographed. Here, I describe those points.

Large Side-notched Points from Danger Cave. I classified 56 of the points from

Danger Cave as LSN points (Figure 3.5 and 3.6); 28 came from Middle Holocene deposits (layers DII and DIII) and 22 came from Late Holocene deposits (layers DIV and

DV). Six LSN points have unknown proveniences. Forty-three points typed as LSN using the MVK. I reclassified 13 Elko points as LSN points because they met one or both of

Hockett et al.’s (2014) criteria for distinguishing side-notched and corner-notched points.

Figure 3.4. Elko points from Late Holocene deposits at Bonneville Estates Rockshelter.

Figure 3.5. Large Side-notched points from Danger Cave.

Figure 3.6. Additional Large Side-notched points from Danger Cave.

Gatecliff/Pinto Points from Danger Cave. I classified nine points from Middle and Late Holocene deposits at Danger Cave as Gatecliff points using the MVK and as

Pinto points using Basgall and Hall’s (2000) approach for distinguishing Elko and Pinto points (Figure 3.7). Seven of those points came from Middle Holocene deposits (layers

DII and DIII). Six points typed as Gatecliff Split Stem (GCSS), while three are unspecified Gatecliff series points because their BIRs are based on incomplete length measurements.

Figure 3.7. Gatecliff/Pinto points from Danger Cave.

Out of Key and Eccentric Points from Danger Cave. Four points from Middle and

Late Holocene deposits at Danger Cave fall out of key using the MVK and Basgall and

Hall’s (2000) Elko/Pinto distinction because they have PSAs of 105º and NOs of <60º

(Figure 3.8). These points could be Gatecliff, Elko, or an unidentified type but the gap in the MVK PSA criterion between Gatecliff and Elko prevents assignment to a particular type. I removed four eccentric points (see Figure 3.8) from my analysis because they are obviously outliers due to their very large size (all weigh >20 g). I removed another point

(see Figure 3.8) because its notching position was indeterminable, likely due to heavy resharpening.

Points with Insufficient Information from Danger Cave. I removed three Elko points (Figure 3.9) from my analysis because they lack contextual information and four other points because they were not photographed and cannot be evaluated reliably by future researchers.

Large Side-notched Points from BER. I classified 43 points from BER as LSN

(Figures 3.10 and 3.11); 18 came from Middle Holocene deposits (pre-South Fork Phase) and 25 came from Late Holocene deposits (South Fork Phase and later). Thirty-seven points typed as LSN and one as Desert Side-notched (DSN) using the MVK. The DSN came from South Fork Phase deposits (~5700-3800 cal. BP) and is almost certainly not a

Late Prehistoric arrow point. I reclassified five Elko points as LSN because they met one or both of Hockett et al.’s (2014) criteria for distinguishing side-notched from corner- notched points.

Figure 3.8. Out of key points (top row) and eccentric points (middle and bottom row) from Danger Cave.

Figure 3.9. Elko points with no contextual information from Danger Cave.

Other Types and Out of Key Points from BER. I excluded several other points from my sample (Figure 3.12). One typed as a Rosegate point using the MVK and came from Maggie Creek Phase (~1300-650 cal. BP) deposits. Another typed as a Gatecliff

Split Stem (GCSS) point using the MVK and lacked firm contextual information. One point fell out of key using the MVK and the Elko/Pinto criteria because it has a PSA of

105º and a NO of <60º; this point could either be a Gatecliff or an Elko. I removed one point from my analysis because it is notched on only one margin and removed another because its notching was indeterminate, likely due to resharpening.

Figure 3.10. Large Side-notched points from Bonneville Estates Rockshelter.

Figure 3.11. Additional Large Side-notched points from Bonneville Estates Rockshelter.

BER Elko Points Removed. Finally, I removed one Elko point that came from a looter’s pit and one Elko point found in Historic Phase deposits (Figure 3.12). I also removed four points that classified as Elko points using the MVK because only their bases and PSAs were intact; as such, they lack other critical attributes needed to classify them using Basgall and Hall’s (2000) and Hockett et al.’s (2014) approaches.

Figure 3.12. Additional points from Bonneville Estates Rockshelter: other point types (row 1, left), out of key points (row 1, right), Elko points with poor contextual information (row 3), and fragmentary Elko points (row 4).

Comparisons of Elko Point Samples

I compared Elko samples from Danger Cave, BER, and Monitor Valley to test the hypothesis that Middle Holocene corner-notched points from the eastern Great Basin are indistinguishable from Elko points recovered from Late Holocene deposits in the eastern and central Great Basin. As stated in Chapter 2, I compared maximum width, neck width, basal width, basal width/maximum width (Bw/Mw) ratio, maximum thickness, PSA,

DSA, NO, and neck height. Table 3.11 presents the descriptive statistics of these

81 attributes for five Elko samples: (1) Middle Holocene Danger Cave Elkos (DC-MH); (2)

Late Holocene Danger Cave Elkos (DC-LH); (3) Late Holocene BER Elkos (BER-LH);

(4) all eastern Great Basin Late Holocene Elkos (EGB-LH); and (5) Late Holocene

Monitor Valley Elkos (MV-LH). Tables 3.12 and 3.13 present the results of these comparisons.

Table 3.11. Summary of Metric Attributes of Elko Samples.

Danger Cave Danger Cave BER Late EGB Late Monitor Valley Attribute Middle Late Holocene Holocene Holocene Elkos Holocene x̄ = 22.1 x̄ = 24.3 x̄ = 19.2 x̄ = 20.5 x̄ = 22.9 s = 3.1 s = 2.2 s = 3.2 s = 3.7 s = 3.4 Maximum Width (mm) range = 17.2-29.5 range = 20.7-27.9 range = 14.4-23.8 range = 14.4-27.9 range = 14.8-31.5 n = 33 n = 7 n = 21 n = 28 n = 209 x̄ = 12.4 x̄ = 12.7 x̄ = 11.2 x̄ = 11.7 x̄ = 11.8 s = 2.0 s = 1.6 s = 2.5 s = 2.4 s = 2.4 Neck Width (mm) range = 8.2-18.5 range = 10.4-16.1 range = 7.8-18.0 range = 7.8-18.0 range = 5.3-20.0 n = 45 n = 15 n = 36 n = 51 n = 480 x̄ = 17.0 x̄ = 16.4 x̄ = 13.9 x̄ = 14.8 x̄ = 15.9 s = 3.1 s = 2.5 s = 3.4 s = 3.3 s = 3.0 Basal Width (mm) range = 10.6-23.0 range = 12.7-23.1 range = 10.5-24.0 range = 10.5-24.0 range = 10-25.1 n = 37 n = 14 n = 25 n = 39 n = 326 x̄ = .7918 x̄ = .7217 x̄ = .6918 x̄ = .6996 x̄ = .6886 Basal Width/Max Width s = .117 s = .113 s = .071 s = .082 s = .112 (ratio) range = .55-.99 range = .61-.94 range = .56-.78 range = .56-.94 range = .47-1.00 n = 28 n = 6 n = 17 n = 23 n = 146 x̄ = 5.1 x̄ =4.9 x̄ = 4.5 x̄ = 4.6 x̄ = 4.6 s = 0.7 s = 1.0 s = 0.9 s = 1.0 s = 0.9 Maximum Thickness (mm) range = 3.9-6.7 range = 3.9-8.1 range = 2.3-5.9 range = 2.3-8.1 range = 2.3-8.4 n = 45 n = 16 n = 30 n = 46 n = 495 x̄ = 121.25 x̄ = 121.3 x̄ = 122.4 x̄ =122.0 x̄ = 126.4 s = 11.2 s = 11.2 s = 11.3 s =11.2 s = 11.4 PSA (degrees) range = 105-150 range = 105-150 range = 100-150 range = 100-150 range = 80-155 n = 46 n = 16 n = 36 n = 52 n = 494 x̄ = 167.8 x̄ = 152.5 x̄ = 157.8 x̄ = 156.77 x̄ = 158.5 s = 15.9 s = 14.6 s = 15.0 s = 14.9 s = 16.8 DSA (degrees) range = 135-200 range = 125-180 range = 125-190 range = 125-190 range = 120-210 n = 43 n = 14 n = 32 n = 46 n = 421 x̄ = 39.1 x̄ = 31.79 x̄ = 37.3 x̄ = 35.7 x̄ = 33.5 s = 16.7 s = 14.8 s = 17.2 s = 16.6 s = 15.9 NO (degrees) range = 10-75 range = 10-65 range = 10-80 range = 10-80 range = 5-90 n = 43 n = 14 n = 32 n = 46 n = 407 x̄ = 7.3 x̄ = 7.9 x̄ = 6.6 x̄ = 7.0 s = 1.1 s = 1.2 s = 1.3 s = 1.4 Neck Height (mm) Not available range = 4.9-9.6 range = 6.5-10.8 range = 4.3-9.0 range = 4.3-10.8 n = 46 n = 17 n = 34 n = 51

Table 3.12. Results of Mean and Median Metric Attribute Comparisons for Elko Samples With Significant Differences Bolded.

Maximum Bw/Mw Maximum Groups Neck Width Basal Width PSA DSA NO Neck Height Width Ratio Thickness Danger Cave t = -1.724 t = -.654 t = .649 U = 48.0 U = 245.5 t = 2.323 t = 3.183 t = 1.456 t = -1.895 Middle vs. Danger df = 38 df = 58 df = 49 Z = -1.629 Z = -1.881 df = 60 df = 55 df = 55 df = 61 Cave Late p = .093 p = .516 p = .519 p = .110a p = .060 p = .024 p = .002 p = .151 p = .063

Danger Cave t = 3.294 U = 548.5 U = 196.5 U = 117.0 t = 3.525 t = 2.573 t = 2.756 t = .437 t = 2.702 Middle vs. BER df = 52 Z = -2.486 Z = -3.818 Z = -2.836 df = 73 df = 80 df = 73 df = 73 df = 78 Late p = .002 p = .013 p < .001 p = .005 p = .001 p = .012 p = .007 p = .664 p = .008

t = 3.809 U = 166.5 U = 71.5 U = 45.5 U = 209.0 t = -.328 t = -1.115 t = -1.049 t = 3.489 Danger Cave Late df = 26 Z = -2.141 Z = -3.031 Z = -.386 Z = -.716 df = 50 df = 44 df = 44 df = 49 vs. BER Late p = .001 p = .032 p = .002a p = .708a p = .474 p = .744 p = .271 p = .300 p = .001 Danger Cave t = 1.881 t = 1.525 U = 437.5 t = 3.179 t = 3.018 U = 786.5 t = 3.550 t = .969 t = 1.123 Middle vs. All df = 59 df = 94 Z = -2.952 df = 49 df = 89 Z = -2.945 df = 87 df = 87 df = 95 Eastern Great p = .065 p = .131 p = .003 p = .003 p = .003 p = .003 p = .001 p = .335 p = .264 Basin Late Danger Cave t = -1.148 U = 9019.0 U = 4968.5 t = 4.430 U = 7019.5 U = 10095.5 U = 6234.5 U = 7106.0 No Monitor Middle vs. df = 240 Z = -1.831 Z = -1.757 df = 172 Z = -4.112 Z = -1.279 Z = -3.40 Z = -2.049 Valley Neck Monitor Valley p = .252 p = .067 p = .079 p < .001 p < .001 p = .201 p = .001 p = .040 Height

All Eastern Great t = -3.439 U = 11893.0 U = 4772.5 t = .449 U = 11329.5 U = 9785.0 U = 9009.0 U = 8689 No Monitor Basin Late vs. df = 235 Z = -0.333 Z = -2.545 df = 167 Z = -.055 Z = -2.889 Z = -.784 Z = -.807 Valley Neck Monitor Valley p = .001 p = .739 p = .011 p = .654 p = .956 p = .004 p = .433 p = .420 Height a Exact value.

Table 3.13. Results of Elko Assemblage Attribute Distribution Comparisons With Significant Differences Bolded.

Maximum Bw/Mw Maximum Groups Neck Width Basal Width PSA DSA NO Width Ratio Thickness

ks = 0.199 ks = 0.206 ks = 0.208 ks = 0.374 ks = 0.346 ks = 0.157 ks = 0.230 ks = 0.176 Danger Cave Middle vs. Monitor Valley p = .154 p = .046 p = .086 p = .001 p < .001 p = .216 p = .032 p = .178

ks = 0.254 ks =0.118 ks = 0.257 ks = 0.212 ks = 0.091 ks = 0.266 ks = 0.163 ks = 0.122 All Eastern Great Basin Late vs. Monitor Valley p = .057 p = .489 p = .012 p = .271 p = .851 p = .001 p = .218 p = .573

Middle and Late Holocene Elkos from Danger Cave. DC-MH Elkos have

significantly greater PSAs (t = 2.323, df = 60, p = .024) and DSAs (t = 3.183, df = 55, p =

.002) than DC-LH Elkos (see Table 3.12), which indicates that notch placement is higher

on DC-MH Elkos.

Middle Holocene Elkos from Danger Cave and Late Holocene Elkos from BER.

DC-MH Elkos have significantly greater maximum widths (t = 3.294, df = 52, p = .002),

neck widths (U = 548.5, Z = -2.486, p = .013), maximum thicknesses (t = 3.525, df = 73,

p = .001), and neck heights (t = 2.702, df = 78, p = .008) than BER-LH Elkos (see Table

3.12). DC-MH Elkos also have significantly greater basal widths (U = 196.5, Z = -3.818, p < .001), Bw/Mw ratios (U = 117.0, Z = -2.836, p = .005), PSAs (t = 2.573, df = 80, p =

.012), and DSAs (t = 2.756, df = 73, p = .007) than BER-LH Elkos, which indicates that

notch placement is higher on DC-MH points.

Late Holocene Elkos from Danger Cave and BER. There are no significant differences in Bw/Mw ratios (U = 45.5, Z = -.386, p = .708), PSAs (t = -.328, df = 50, p =

.744), or DSAs (t = -1.115, df = 44, p = .271) between DC-LH and BER-LH Elkos, indicating that notch placement does not differ significantly in the two samples. There is also no significant difference in maximum thicknesses (U = 209.0, Z = -.716, p = .474)

between DC-LH and BER-LH Elko points. DC-LH Elkos do possess significantly greater maximum widths (t = 3.809, df = 26, p = .001), neck widths (U = 166.5, Z = -2.141, p =

.032), basal widths (U = 71.5, Z = -3.031, p = .002), and neck heights (t = 3.489, df = 49, p = .001) than BER-LH Elkos, indicating that DC-LH points are generally larger than

BER-LH Elkos.

Danger Cave Middle Holocene Elkos and All Eastern Great Basin Late Holocene

Elkos. DC-MH Elkos have significantly greater basal widths (U = 437.5, Z = -2.952, p =

.003), Bw/Mw ratios (t = 3.179, df = 49, p = .003), PSAs (U = 786.5, Z = -2.945, p =

.003), and DSAs (t = 3.550, df = 87, p = .001) than EGB-LH Elkos, indicating that notch

placement is higher on DC-MH Elkos. DC-MH Elkos also have significantly greater

maximum thicknesses (t = 3.018, df = 89, p = .003) than EGB-LH Elkos, suggesting that

Elko points from Middle Holocene deposits at Danger Cave may be more robust than their Late Holocene counterparts in the region.

Danger Cave Middle Holocene Elkos and Monitor Valley Late Holocene Elkos.

DC-MH Elkos have significantly greater Bw/Mw ratios (t = 4.430, df = 172, p < .001) and DSAs (U = 6234.5, Z = -3.40, p = .001) than MV-LH Elkos, which indicates that notch placement is higher on DC-MH Elkos. DC-MH Elkos also have significantly greater maximum thicknesses (U = 7019.5, Z = -4.112, p < .001) than MV-LH Elkos.

Table 3.13 shows that the distributions of the following attributes of the two samples are significantly different: (1) Bw/Mw ratio (ks = 0.374, p = .001); (2) maximum thickness

(ks = 0.346, p < .001); and (3) DSA (ks = 0.230, p = .032).

All Eastern Great Basin and Monitor Valley Late Holocene Elkos. There are no significant differences in the Bw/Mw ratios (t = .449, df = 167, p = .654) or DSAs (U =

9009.0, Z = -.784, p = .433) of EGB-LH and MV-LH Elkos, which indicates that notch placement on the two Late Holocene samples does not differ significantly. As outlined above, notch placement for both Late Holocene samples is different than the DC-MH sample. There is also no significant difference in maximum thickness (U = 11329.5, Z = -

.055, p = .956) between EGB-LH and MV-LH Elkos, again suggesting that the two Late

Holocene samples are similar. Table 3.13 shows that for Bw/Mw ratio (ks = 0.212, p =

.271), maximum thickness (ks = 0.091, p = .851), and DSA (ks = 0.163, p = .218) the two samples are derived from a population with similar distributions.

Summary of Comparisons

The comparisons of Middle and Late Holocene corner-notched point samples outlined above indicate that there are significant differences in four attributes: (1) PSA;

(2) DSA; (3) Bw/Mw ratio; and (4) maximum thickness. In most cases, the DC-MH

Elkos have greater PSAs than Late Holocene Elkos. Likewise, the PSAs of DC-LH and

BER-LH Elkos are similar. In all cases, the DC-MH Elkos have greater DSA than Late

Holocene Elko samples. Likewise, Late Holocene Elko samples have similar DSAs.

Finally, DC-MH Elkos have a different DSA distribution than MV-LH Elkos, while

EGB-LH and MV-LH Elkos have a similar DSA distribution. When I plotted DSA values for DC-MH and EGB-LH points, the two samples show different modes but do not display a clear break between their distributions (Figure 3.13). When examined alone, the

DC-MH sample displays a bimodal distribution with one mode at ~150-155° and another at ~180-185°. When examined alone, the EGB-LH sample has few specimens with high

DSAs. In most cases, the DC-MH Elkos have greater Bw/Mw ratios than Late Holocene

Elko samples. Likewise, Late Holocene Elko samples have similar Bw/Mw ratios. DC-

MH Elkos have a different Bw/Mw ratio distribution than MV-LH Elkos, while EGB-LH and MV-LH Elkos have a similar Bw/Mw ratio distribution. In most cases, the DC-MH

Elkos have greater maximum thicknesses than Late Holocene Elko samples. Likewise,

Late Holocene Elko samples have similar maximum thicknesses. Finally, DC-MH Elkos have a different maximum thickness distribution than MV-LH Elkos, while EGB-LH and

MV-LH Elkos have a similar maximum thickness distribution.

n 6 DC-MH 5 EGB-LH

0 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 DSA, 5° increments

Figure 3.13. DSA frequency for Danger Cave Middle Holocene and all eastern Great Basin Late Holocene Elko points.

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

In this chapter, I synthesize the results presented in Chapter 3 and use them to

evaluate the hypothesis that large corner-notched points recovered from well-dated, reliable Middle Holocene deposits in the eastern Great Basin are morphologically indistinguishable from Elko points recovered from Late Holocene contexts in the eastern and central Great Basin. I tested the hypothesis in two ways: (1) I critically evaluated radiocarbon sequences and the methods used to classify points from eastern Great Basin sites that have been cited as support for the “long” Elko chronology; and (2) I compared morphology of Middle Holocene Elko points from Danger Cave to Late Holocene Elko points from Danger Cave, Bonneville Estates Rockshelter (BER), and Monitor Valley.

The “Long” Elko Chronology

As outlined above, part of my hypothesis is that Elko points have been recovered from well-dated, reliable Middle Holocene deposits in the eastern Great Basin. I applied the reliability index to the radiocarbon sequences of six eastern Great Basin sites – Hogup

Cave, Sudden Shelter, O’Malley Shelter, Cowboy Cave, Camels Back Cave, and Danger

Cave – cited in support of the “long” Elko chronology. Additionally, I outlined the

methods that I used to analyze points from those six sites. Table 4.1 summarizes the

results of these analyses.

Table 4.1. Sites that Reliably Support the ‘Long’ Elko Chronology.

Sites Radiocarbon Sequence Typological Methods Supports the ‘Long’ Elko Hogup Cave Unreliable Intuitive typing No

Sudden Shelter Unreliable Discriminate function analysis No

O’Malley Shelter Unreliable Intuitive typing No

Cowboy Cave Questionably Reliable Discriminate function analysis No

Camels Back Cave Reliable Monitor Valley Key Yes

Danger Cave Reliable Monitor Valley Key, Elko/Pinto criteria, Yes Side-notched/Corner-notched criteria

Hogup Cave and O’Malley Shelter have unreliable radiocarbon sequences and

researchers (Aikens 1970; Fowler et al. 1973) intuitively typed points from those sites.

Holmer (Jennings 1980; Jennings et al. 1980) used discriminate function analysis to type

points from Sudden Shelter and Cowboy Cave, which is more reliable than intuitive

typing; however, Sudden Shelter has an unreliable radiocarbon sequence and Cowboy

Cave only has a reliable sequence for its Late Holocene deposits. Many of the

radiocarbon samples from those sites lack clear associations with cultural activity. Today,

many researchers only accept radiocarbon dates directly associated with human activity

(e.g., textiles, hearth charcoal, cordage, etc.) as reliable (Goebel and Keene 2014; Pettitt et al. 2003). As methods improve we must be critical of past interpretations made using outdated standards. Without complete reanalysis of the materials, it is difficult to say with any confidence that points from those four sites are morphologically akin to Elkos, or the

age ranges over which they were deposited. As such, they cannot be used to support the

hypothesis that Elko points have been recovered from well-dated Middle Holocene deposits in the eastern Great Basin.

Camels Back Cave is a good example of how standards for radiocarbon sampling and reporting have improved. Not only is the radiocarbon sequence at Camels Back Cave reliable and nearly continuous, but most samples were obtained from identified hearth features as well. Camels Back Cave contains well-dated Middle Holocene deposits from the eastern Great Basin; however, issues persist with the small Elko sample from the site.

Although the points were typed using the MVK, which is objective and replicable, I am not confident that several of the points from Middle Holocene deposits are actually Elkos

– a fact that may reflect shortcomings of the MVK, which emphasizes PSA and downplays other attributes. Specifically, points f., j., and l. (Figure 4.1) classify as Large

Side-notched (LSN) using the notching intersection criterion (Hockett et al. 2014).

Additionally, points a. and d. have fragmented bases that prevent confident measurement of PSAs and basal widths – two attributes critical to making Elko assignments using the

MVK. Finally, point i. has fragmented shoulders that obscure the orientation of its notch placement. Only points b. and c. from Middle Holocene deposits could classify as Elko points using the MVK and as corner-notched points using Hockett et al.’s (2014) criteria.

Although Camels Back Cave is well-dated and contains a reliable radiocarbon sequence, the two points provide limited evidence for Middle Holocene Elko points in the eastern

Great Basin.

Lastly, the AMS radiocarbon date sequence at Danger Cave is reliable and continuous for Middle Holocene deposits. There is a much larger sample of Elko points from Danger Cave than from Camels Back Cave and the points have been typed using

several classification schemes. The two corner-notched points from Danger Cave with

dated hafting material also classified as Elko using the MVK and as corner-notched using

Hockett et al.’s (2014) criteria. Thus, Danger Cave represents the most reliable support

for the hypothesis that Elko points have been recovered from well-dated Middle

Holocene deposits in the eastern Great Basin.

Figure 4.1. Camels Back Cave Middle Holocene (a-d., f., i-j., l.) and Late Holocene (e., g-h., k.) Elko points depicted by Schmitt and Madsen (2005:Figure 5.15).

Elko Point Morphology

The second part of the hypothesis is that Middle Holocene Elko points in the eastern Great Basin are indistinguishable from Late Holocene Elko points in the eastern and central Great Basin. I evaluated this possibility by collecting metric and non-metric data and typing large, notched points from Danger Cave and BER in the eastern Great

Basin, and comparing data for those points to similar data for Middle and Late Holocene

Elko samples from the eastern and central Great Basin.

Point Classification

I used the MVK (Thomas 1981), Elko/Pinto criteria (Basgall and Hall 2000), and the side-notched/corner-notched criteria (Hockett et al. 2014) to classify large notched points from Danger Cave and BER. Table 4.2 (Danger Cave) and Table 4.3 (BER) summarize the results of my classifications by stratigraphic distribution.

Elko Points. More points from Middle Holocene deposits at Danger Cave (n=46) classified as Elko than from Late Holocene deposits at Danger Cave (n=17) or BER

(n=36). Elko points were more abundant in layer DIII (n=26) than layer DII (n=14) at

Danger Cave. Six Elko points came from the interface of DII and DIII. Even if the Elko points from DII came from the upper most portion of that layer, it suggests that Elko points were first deposited in Danger Cave during the early Middle Holocene (~8500 cal.

BP). More Elko points came from layer DV (post-4000 cal. BP) (n=13) than from layer

Table 4.2. My Classification of Danger Cave Projectile Point Types by Layer.

Layer ECN EE LSN Gatecliff/Pinto DII 7 7 3 4 DII/III 1 5 4 1 DIII 17 9 21 2 DIV 3 1 19 1 DV 12 1 3 1 Unknown - 3 6 - Total 40 26 56 9

DIV (n=4) at Danger Cave; however, the Late Holocene deposits at Danger Cave have not been well dated and it is unknown when Elko points fell out of use at the site.

No points from BER classified as EE using the MVK. Thirteen ECN points came

from South Fork Phase deposits (~5700-3800 cal. BP), which marks the end of the

Middle Holocene. This fact suggests that Elko points in the eastern Great Basin are older

than Elko points in the central Great Basin by at least a millennium. Only four ECN

points were recovered from Maggie Creek Phase deposits (~1300-650 cal. BP), which

corresponds with regional disappearance of Elko points following the introduction of the

bow-and-arrow.

Large Side-notched Points. Numerous points from both Danger Cave (n=56) and

BER (n=43) classified as LSN. There was not a substantial difference in the number of

LSN points from Middle Holocene deposits (Danger, n=28; BER, n=18) and Late

Holocene deposits (Danger, n=22; BER, n=25) at either site. At Danger Cave, LSN

points are most abundant (n=40) in layers DIII-DIV (~8500-4000 cal. BP), while only six

Table 4.3. My Classification of BER Projectile Point Types by Phase.

Layer ECN EE LSN Gatecliff/Pinto Pie Creek - - 18 - Pie Creek/South Fork 1 - - - South Fork 12 - 17 - South Fork/James Creek - - - - James Creek 15 - 1 - James Creek/Maggie Creek 4 - - - Maggie Creek 3 - 4 - Maggie Creek/Eagle Rock - - 1 - Eagle Rock 1 - 2 - Unknown/Other 2 - - 1 Total 38 0 43 1

LSN points came from DII and DV total. Six LSN points from Danger Cave had unknown provenience. At BER, LSN points were most abundant (n=35) in Pie Creek and

South Fork Phase deposits (~8400-3800 cal. BP), while only eight LSN points came from

James Creek and later phase deposits (post-3800 cal. BP). These facts suggest that the use of LSN points may have begun slightly earlier and ended later than current age estimates for the Bonneville Basin (~8300-4500 cal. BP) (Schmitt and Madsen 2005).

Classification Schemes

Distinguishing Elko and Pinto Points. The criteria for distinguishing between

Elko and Pinto points (Basgall and Hall 2000) were not very useful. They did not identify any points classified as Elko using the MVK as Pinto points. This is partially due to the fact that Basgall and Hall’s (2000) Elko criteria are the same as those used for Elko points in the MVK. Likewise, the criteria used for Pintos are similar to those used for

Gatecliff points in the MVK. While Basgall and Hall’s (2000) criteria may be useful in

regions where Gatecliff points are absent, when used in combination with the MVK the

only utility of the criteria is distinguishing between Pinto and Gatecliff points based on

their notch opening (Pinto >80°; Gatecliff 60-80°). I discuss further issues with the Pinto

type below.

Distinguishing Side-notched and Corner-notched Points. Thirteen Elko points

from Danger Cave and five points from BER classified as LSN points using Hockett et

al.’s (2014) side-notched/corner-notched criteria. These criteria are excellent methods

that can be used in addition to the MVK to distinguish Elko from LSN points; however,

they can be modified slightly to make them more objective and replicable. First, Hockett

et al. (2014) suggest that corner-notching removes part of a point’s base while side- notching usually does not, thus making shoulders the widest part of corner-notched points and bases the widest part of side-notched points. Earlier, I suggested that this could be quantified using the basal width/maximum width (Bw/Mw) ratio: corner-notching produces ratios <1.0 and side-notching produces ratios of 1.0. Observing the results of my point classifications (Appendix 1), 84 percent of all corner-notched Elko points with complete basal widths and maximum widths (n=51) have Bw/Mw ratios of <.90 while 94 percent of LSN points (n=54) have Bw/Mw ratios of ≥.90. The three LSN points with

Bw/Mw ratios of <.90 classified as LSN using the MVK PSA criterion. This suggests that in addition to PSA, Bw/Mw ratio may help to distinguish LSN (≥.90) from Elko

(<.90) points. Thomas (1981) suggested that this sort of criterion is appropriate for identifying Desert Side-notched points (Bw/Mw >.90) but did not extend it to LSN points.

Second, Hockett et al. (2014) suggest that side-notching can be distinguished

from corner-notching by drawing lines through notches and observing where they

intersect (see Figure 2.3). This criterion was consistent for both LSN and Elko points;

however, its application is not intrinsically replicable. I did not analyze several points

using this criterion because they had broken or reworked shoulders and bases that

obscure original notch placement. Determining if a point is complete enough to apply this

criterion remains somewhat subjective, and the notching intersection criterion should not

be applied to points when damage or rejuvenation to basal attributes prevents confidently

evaluating notching orientation.

The Monitor Valley Key. Many points from Middle Holocene deposits at Danger

Cave classified as Elko using the MVK; however, there are some issues with the MVK

criteria and their application that may lead to some points being erroneously called Elkos.

First, classification of large notched points in the MVK is primarily based on PSA

measurements; that attribute distinguishes the LSN (PSA >150°) and Elko (PSA 110-

150°) types. Unfortunately, haft element angles are less objective and replicable metrics

for classifying hafted bifaces (Andrefsky 2005; see also Benfer and Benfer 1981; Gunn

1981). While measurements like width and thickness can be taken to the nearest 0.1 mm, most researchers measure shoulder angles and notch openings to the nearest 5° – a range that can easily encompass arbitrary, single-degree cutoffs used to distinguish point types

(e.g., LSN and Elko). Additionally, PSA is measured from an intuitively placed line perpendicular to a point’s vertical axis (see Figure 2.2). When PSA is recorded using a goniometer, which is common practice, the replicability of such data decreases substantially. The Monitor Valley LSN sample was small (n=15) and many Elko points

from that study area may be reclassified as LSN points if they were evaluated using

Hockett et al.’s (2014) criteria in addition to PSA alone.

Second, the MVK provides more than one criteria for classifying some point

types (e.g., Gatecliff: PSA ≤90° or NO >60°) without explaining how and when to favor

one criterion over another (Thomas 1981). For instance, the Monitor Valley Elko sample

(Thomas 1983, 1988) used in this study had EE points with PSAs of 100°, BIRs of ≤.93,

and NOs of >60°. At what point is PSA ignored in favor of NO for classifying an EE

point as a Gatecliff Split Stem (GSS) point? Additionally, NO cannot be used to classify

Gatecliff points if PSA is not already available. The only use of NO is to classify points as out of key when they have a PSA of ≤90° and a NO of <60°.

These criticisms suggest that while the MVK is based on objective criteria,

applying it is still somewhat subjective and point determinations may differ between

researchers. The MVK clearly remains the most comprehensive and reliable point

typology for the Great Basin; however, researchers employing it should acknowledge its

limitations and not rely on it exclusively to classify points (sensu Hockett et al. 2014).

Elko Points in the Eastern Great Basin

Distinguishing Pinto Points from Elko Eared Points. Issues with Elko/Pinto criteria (Basgall and Hall 2000) and the MVK (Thomas 1981) reflect general problems with classifying Pinto points in the Great Basin. When Thomas (1981) established the

MVK, the Elko Split Stem and Pinto types were absorbed into the EE and GSS types.

Thomas (1981) found that the age ranges of EE and GSS subtypes at Gatecliff Shelter

were younger than the typical Early to Middle Holocene age ranges proposed for Pinto

points (Haynes 2004; see also Duke 2011 and Duke et al. 2007). Regardless of this

reclassification, the Pinto type has remained relevant to researchers working in the

eastern Great Basin because of its association with Great Basin Stemmed points in places

such as the Old River Bed (see Figure 1.1) (Beck and Jones 1994, 2009; Duke 2011;

Duke et al. 2007).

It is possible that the Middle Holocene points from Danger Cave that I classified

as EE are actually Pinto points. In fact, Holmer (1986) used points from Danger Cave to

argue that Pinto dates between 9300-7100 cal. BP in the eastern Great Basin. Only two

objective classification schemes offer criteria to distinguish Pinto points: (1) Basgall and

Hall’s (2000) criteria, which distinguish Elko from Pinto points; and (2) Vaughan and

Warren’s (1987) suggestion that Pinto (≥6.4 mm) and Elko/Gatecliff (<6.4 mm) points

differ in thickness.

All points from my Danger Cave Middle Holocene sample classified as Elko

using the Elko/Pinto criteria (Basgall and Hall 2000) because they have PSAs >110° and

NOs <80° (see Appendix 1). Only two of those points (23318.3 and 23681.4; see Figures

3.1 and 3.2) had maximum thicknesses ≥6.4 mm and as such could type as Pintos using

Vaughan and Warren’s (1987) criterion. Likewise, the mean maximum thickness for

Danger Cave Middle Holocene Elko points is 5.1 mm (see Table 3.11), which is lower

than the mean maximum thickness (6.4 mm) of Pinto points recovered from the distal

Old River Bed (Duke 2011). Finally, Middle Holocene EE points from Danger Cave

(Figure 4.2) are more similar in general morphology to Late Holocene EE points from

Gatecliff Shelter (Figure 4.3) than they are to Pinto points from the Old River Bed

Figure 4.2. Select Elko Eared specimens from Middle Holocene deposits at Danger Cave.

Figure 4.3. Elko Eared specimens recovered from Gatecliff Shelter (Thomas 1983:Figure 75).

100

(Figure 4.4). There are clearly Pinto points within the eastern Great Basin (Beck and

Jones 1994, 2009; Duke 2011); however, until there is a better way to classify Pinto points I think it is appropriate to classify the points from Danger Cave as EE using the

MVK.

Figure 4.4. Pinto points recovered from the distal Old River Bed (Duke 2011:Figure 41b).

Elko Corner-notched Points. I classified 25 points from Middle Holocene deposits at Danger Cave as ECN using the MVK and Hockett et al.’s (2014) corner- notched criteria (Figure 4.5). These points have similar general morphologies to ECN points from Late Holocene deposits at Gatecliff Shelter (Figure 4.6). I double-checked their proveniences using Jennings’ (1957) artifact catalog and many specimens came

101

Figure 4.5. Select Elko Corner-notched specimens from Middle Holocene deposits at Danger Cave.

Figure 4.6. Elko Corner-notched points recovered from Gatecliff Shelter (Thomas 1983:Figure 74).

102

from the 143 Face that was well-dated by Rhode et al. (2006). Those points represent the

most reliable support for the hypothesis that Elko points first emerged during the Middle

Holocene in the eastern Great Basin. Although the statistical comparisons I discuss below

show that there are differences in some attributes, these points are not objectively

distinguishable from Late Holocene Elko points in the central Great Basin.

Directly Dated Dart Points

In most cases, our knowledge of the age ranges of respective point types is not

based on direct age measurements of the points themselves, but rather the ages of the

deposits in which points have been recovered. Following Smith et al. (2013), I dated

hafting material from three projectile points (23016.1, 23665.5, and 22993.4) recovered

during Jennings’ (1957) excavation of Danger Cave to provide unequivocal ages for

those specimens. Point 23016.1 dated to 7675-7589 cal. BP and is the oldest directly

dated LSN point from the Bonneville Basin. It also has a Bw/Mw ratio of .91 which

meets the criterion I suggested above for distinguishing between corner- and side-notched points. Point 23665.5’s morphology (Figure 4.7) is more similar to Pinto points recovered from the distal Old River Bed (see Figure 4.4) than other Elko points from Danger Cave; however, its maximum width (5.7 mm) does not meet Vaughan and Warren’s (1987) criterion for Pinto points. This point is the oldest dated Elko in the eastern Great Basin

(8159-7972 cal. BP) but its classification may change if a more reliable scheme is established for Pinto points. Elko point 22993.4 dated to 7933-7755 cal. BP and has attributes (Figure 4.8) similar to the ECN subtype (see Chapter 3). With its complete base

103

and incomplete shoulders, the point has a Bw/Mw ratio of .86, which is below the

criterion I suggested above for distinguishing between corner- and side-notched points.

Point 22993.4 represents the most reliable evidence for Middle Holocene Elko points in the Eastern Great Basin.

Figure 4.7. Point 23665.5 from layer DIII at Danger Cave.

Figure 4.8. Point 22993.4 from layer DIII at Danger Cave.

104

Comparing Elko Point Samples

As outlined in Chapter 3, there are significant differences in four attributes

between Middle and Late Holocene Elko points: (1) PSA; (2) DSA; (3) Bw/Mw ratio;

and (4) maximum thickness (Table 4.4). Two diachronic changes are apparent: (1) notch

placement, which was higher during the Middle Holocene, shifted downward during the

Late Holocene, producing more distinct corner-notching; and (2) projectile points became thinner over time.

Table 4.4. Significant Differences Between Middle and Late Holocene Elko Points.

Groups PSA DSA Mw/Bw Ratio Maximum Thickness Danger Cave Middle DC-MH Greater DC-MH Greater No Difference No Difference vs. Danger Cave Danger Cave Middle DC-MH Greater DC-MH Greater DC-MH Greater DC-MH Greater vs. BER Late Danger Cave Late No Difference No Difference No Difference No Difference vs. BER Late Danger Cave Middle vs. All Eastern Great DC-MH Greater DC-MH Greater DC-MH Greater DC-MH Greater Basin Late Danger Cave Middle No Difference DC-MH Greater DC-MH Greater DC-MH Greater vs. Monitor Valley All Eastern Great Basin Late vs. Monitor Valley Greater No Difference No Difference No Difference Monitor Valley

Notch Placement. The shift in notch placement is reflected by significant

differences in the DSAs, PSAs, and Bw/Mw ratios of the Middle and Late Holocene

point samples. Notch placement farther down on a point’s base should produce lower

DSAs and barbed shoulders characteristic of corner-notched points (Figure 4.9). Rotating

a point’s notches towards its base should also result in lower PSAs. Finally, when

notching is closer to the base of a triangular point preform it decreases basal width

105

because more of the preform’s corners are removed. In turn, this produces a lower

Bw/Mw ratio. A move towards lower Bw/Mw ratios across time probably signals a shift

from Middle Holocene points that appear more side-notched to Late Holocene points that are distinctly corner-notched. These Middle Holocene points that appear to be in-between side- and corner-notching may be an unidentified type of their own. Recent excavations near the Pequop Mountains in northeast Nevada have produced several Middle Holocene points that fall into this in-between category with notches that are initiated from lateral margins but PSAs that are directed up and into the center of the point (Bryan Hockett, personal communication, 2016). Holmer (1986) suggested that a continuum exists between side- and corner-notching for Middle Holocene eastern Great Basin points; it is possible that this continuum actually represents this in-between point type that had high notching variability.

Figure 4.9. Differences in notch placement between Middle and Late Holocene Elko points.

106

DSA was the most consistent difference between Middle and Late Holocene Elko

samples; however, when I plotted the DSAs of both groups (see Figure 3.13) there is

clearly no definitive break between distributions that would warrant creating a new type

for Middle Holocene specimens. The difference in notch placement reflected by DSA, as

well as PSA and Bw/Mw ratios discussed above, supports Beck’s (1995) assertion that

corner-notching became more prevalent over time, possibly because it was more

functionally adaptive than side-notching.

Thickness. In general, Elko points from Middle Holocene deposits at Danger Cave

are thicker than the BER Elko sample, the grouped eastern Great Basin Late Holocene

(EGB-LH) sample, and the Monitor Valley Late Holocene (MV-LH) sample; however,

the range of maximum thicknesses for the EGB-LH (2.3-8.1 mm) and MV-LH (2.3-8.4 mm) samples both encompass the range of maximum thicknesses for the DC-MH sample

(3.9-6.8 mm). Although the DC-MH sample is on average thicker, there is no way to distinguish Middle and Late Holocene corner-notched points based on thickness alone.

While the change in point thickness from the Middle Holocene to the Late Holocene may support the notion that some EE points are actually Pintos, these results also follow a general trend among Great Basin projectiles to become smaller over time (Thomas 1981).

Possible Unidentified Type. Significant differences identified by my comparisons may indicate the existence of a previously unrecognized large, corner-notched point type dating to the Middle Holocene. As groups transitioned from Early Holocene stemmed and shouldered points to Middle Holocene notched points in the Great Basin, variability amongst notching attributes was probably initially high. The Butte Valley Corner- notched (BVCN) point type (Figure 4.10), which exhibits both notched and stemmed

107

Figure 4.10. Butte Valley Corner-notched points identified as North Creek Stemmed Points (Janetski 2012:Figure 10; Madsen et al. 2015).

attributes (Beck and Jones 2009), may reflect this transition. BVCN points co-occur with

Windust and Pinto points in Early Holocene contexts, suggesting that they are roughly

coeval with those types (Madsen et al. 2015). The Middle Holocene corner-notched points that I identified from Danger Cave may also represent a sort of transitional type between Pinto Split Stem and later distinctively corner-notched types (e.g., Elko or

Gatecliff); however, at this time, the size of my Middle Holocene sample is too small to

confidently identify a new type.

Comparison of Eastern Great Basin PSA

Many researchers (e.g., Beck 1995; Smith et al. 2014; Thomas 1981) suggest that

PSA can be used to distinguish corner- and side-notched points. In the MVK, Thomas

108

(1981) defined the break between corner-notched Elko points and LSN points using a

PSA of 150°. Beck (1995:Figure 2) provided additional support for this distinction by

creating a histogram of PSAs of large points from Steens Mountain in southeastern

Oregon (see Figure 1.1). In that sample, there was a clear bimodal distribution in PSAs.

Following her approach, I created a histogram showing the PSAs of Elko and LSN points

from Danger Cave and BER (Figure 4.11). As is the case with Beck’s (1995) Steens

Mountain sample, the distribution of PSAs for the Bonneville Basin points is bimodal but

the break is closer to 140º than 150º. As such, in the Bonneville Basin large corner-

notched points primarily have PSAs of <145º while large side-notched points have PSAs

of ≥145º. Researchers in other regions of the Great Basin have also suggested that the

PSA break between corner- and side-notched dart points falls at ~145º (Hildebrandt et al.

2016).

Holmer (1986) suggested that a continuum existed between corner- and side-

notching among Middle Holocene dart points in the eastern Great Basin. To evaluate this

possibility, I created a histogram showing PSAs for Middle Holocene Elko and LSN

points from Danger Cave and BER (Figure 4.12). The distribution for Middle Holocene points is bimodal but does have some examples at the low point of 140-145°. This

suggests that in general, Middle Holocene corner-notched and side-notched points may be distinguished by PSA but there will be specimens that will be difficult to distinguish based on PSA alone.

109

24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13

n 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 PSA, 5° increments

Figure 4.11. PSA frequency for all Danger Cave and BER Elko and LSN points analyzed.

110

25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14

13 n 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 PSA, 5° increments

Figure 4.12. PSA frequency for all Middle Holocene Elko and LSN points from Danger Cave and BER analyzed.

111

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, I tested a hypothesis about the chronology and typology of large, corner-notched points in the eastern Great Basin. While researchers have made great strides in using projectile points as index fossils to date near-surface lithic scatters, it is unclear whether the “long” Elko chronology in the eastern Great Basin reflects: (1) difficulties in distinguishing Elko points from other Middle Holocene point types (e.g.,

Pinto, LSN, or a previously unrecognized large corner-notched type that researchers have lumped together with Elkos); (2) unreliable associations between points and dated materials; or (3) the fact that Elko points really did emerge in the eastern Great Basin near the beginning of the Middle Holocene. I evaluated these possibilities by evaluating the radiocarbon sequences and point classification methods from eastern Great Basin sites used in support of the “long” chronology as well as collecting morphological and chronometric data for Elko points from later securely-dated contexts. I analyzed projectile points from Danger Cave and BER to test the hypothesis that Elko points have been recovered from well-dated, reliable Middle Holocene deposits in the eastern Great

Basin and that they are morphologically indistinguishable from Elko points from Late

Holocene contexts in the eastern and central Great Basin.

In Chapter 1, I outlined how Great Basin point typologies developed from simple descriptions to intuitive types based on morphology and, later, objective types based on replicable metric criteria. Additionally, I discussed the development of the Elko series

112

including: (1) ECN and EE subtypes, which remain in use today, and ECS, ESN, and

ESS subtypes, which have fallen out of use; (2) the criteria used to classify Elko subtypes

in the MVK and Elko points’ morphological similarities to other types; and (3) evidence

suggesting that Elko points date to the Late Holocene in the central Great Basin to the

Middle and Late Holocene in the eastern Great Basin. Finally, I discussed how this

apparent discrepancy in the age range of Elkos between regions has limited its utility as

an index fossil in the eastern Great Basin.

In Chapter 2, I presented the materials and methods used in this study. First, I presented information about six eastern Great Basin sites – Hogup Cave, Sudden Shelter,

O’Malley Shelter, Cowboy Cave, Camels Back Cave, and Danger Cave – cited in support

of the “long” Elko chronology. I used a reliability index to evaluate the radiocarbon

sequences at those sites. Additionally, I discussed how recent excavations at BER have

produced a reliable radiocarbon sequence in the eastern Great Basin and a robust sample

of Elko points from Late Holocene deposits. Second, I described the steps I took to date

organic hafting material attached to three notched points recovered from Danger Cave.

Third, I presented information about large notched points from Danger Cave and BER

and the methods that I used to analyze those points. I also outlined the several

classification schemes that I used to type those points, while highlighting issues with

using the MVK without considering other attributes not included in that approach.

Finally, I described how I compared Elko points from Middle Holocene contexts at

Danger Cave to Elkos from Late Holocene contexts at Danger Cave, BER, and Monitor

Valley (Thomas 1983, 1988) to determine if they are morphologically indistinguishable

from one another.

113

I presented the results of my analyses in Chapter 3. My critical review of the radiocarbon sequences from eastern Great Basin sites indicated that Hogup Cave, Sudden

Shelter, O’Malley Shelter, and Cowboy Cave do not have reliable sequences for Middle

Holocene deposits. Only Camels Back Cave and Danger Cave have reliable sequences for Middle Holocene deposits that could support the “long” Elko chronology. The AMS dates on the hafting material attached to two corner-notched points from Danger Cave indicate that they are both unequivocally early Middle Holocene in age. Both points type as Elko using multiple classification schemes and fall within the proposed age range for the deposits from which they were recovered (Layer DIII, ~8500-6200 cal. BP).

My classification of large notched points from Danger Cave shows that Elko points – identified as such using multiple approaches – have been recovered from both

Middle and Late Holocene deposits at that site. Some of those points were recovered from Layer DII suggesting that their age is ~9600-8500 cal. BP, while most of were recovered from Layer DIII (~8500-6200 cal. BP). Exactly when Elkos fell out of use at

Danger Cave is unknown due to a poor Late Holocene radiocarbon sequence. At BER,

Elko points were recovered from unequivocal Late Holocene deposits and their widespread occurrence in South Fork Phase deposits (~5700-3800 cal. BP) suggest that they are at least a millennium older than in the central Great Basin.

My comparisons of Middle Holocene Elko points from Danger Cave to Late

Holocene Elko points from Danger Cave, BER, and Monitor Valley indicated that there are significant differences in four attributes – DSA, PSA, Bw/Mw ratio, and maximum thickness. Middle Holocene Elko points generally possess significantly greater DSAs,

PSAs, Bw/Mw ratios, and thicknesses than Late Holocene Elkos. There are generally no

114 significant differences in those attributes between the various samples of Late Holocene

Elko points.

Summary of Interpretations

Results from my analyses support the hypothesis that Elko points have been recovered from well-dated Middle Holocene deposits in the eastern Great Basin.

Radiocarbon sequences from Camels Back Cave and Danger Cave met criteria for well- dated sites using the reliability index and points from these sites were typed using objective, replicable classification methods. Although only two points from Camels Back

Cave may classify as Elkos using methods other than the MVK, several dozen points from Danger Cave typed as Elkos using multiple approaches. Additionally, the directly dated corner-notched points from Danger Cave provide the earliest unequivocal evidence for Elko points in the eastern Great Basin. These sites reliably indicate that corner- notched points occur in Middle Holocene contexts in the eastern Great Basin and that they type as Elkos using current classification schemes.

My comparisons of Elko attributes provide support for the hypothesis that Middle

Holocene Elko points from the eastern Great Basin are indistinguishable from Late

Holocene Elko points from the eastern and central Great Basin when current typological approaches (e.g., the MVK) are used; however, as noted above there are significant differences in some attributes. Differences for DSA, PSA, and Bw/Mw ratio suggest that notch-placement was higher on point preforms during the Middle Holocene and shifted downward towards preforms’ bases during the Late Holocene. Likewise, Elko points

115

became thinner over time. Unfortunately, these differences are only identifiable through

statistical analyses, meaning that the mean or median of the Middle and Late Holocene

Elko samples are not the same. When the ranges of DSA, PSA, Bw/Mw ratio, and

maximum thickness for each sample are examined (see Table 3.11) it is clear that they

overlap each other to a large degree. None of these differences are substantial enough to

establish new objective criteria capable of distinguishing Middle Holocene and Late

Holocene Elko points at this time. It is possible that the small sample of Middle Holocene

Elko points from reliable and well-dated contexts in the eastern Great Basin made it difficult to identify clear breaks in the ranges of those attributes. Moving forward, more specimens from unequivocal Middle Holocene contexts in the Bonneville Basin and surrounding areas should be included in studies similar to this one to determine if a previously unrecognized Middle Holocene corner-notched type exists and which attribute(s) best distinguish(es) it from Late Holocene Elko points.

116

REFERENCES CITED

Adovasio, J. M., and G. F. Fry 1972 Equilibrium Model for Cultural Change in the Great Basin. In Great Basin Cultural Ecology: A Symposium, edited by D. D. Fowler, pp. 67-72. Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences No. 8, Reno.

Aikens, C. M. 1970 Hogup Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 93, Salt Lake City.

Andrefsky, W., Jr. 2005 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Basgall, M. E., and M. C. Hall 2000 Morphological and Temporal Variations in Bifurcate-Stemmed Dart Points of the Western Great Basin. Journal of California and Great Basin Archaeology 22(2):237-276.

Beck, C. 1995 Functional Attributes and the Differential Persistence of Great Basin Dart Forms. Journal of California and Great Basin Archaeology 17(2):222- 243.

Beck, C., and G. T. Jones 1994 Dating Surface Assemblages using Obsidian Hydration. In Dating in Exposed and surface Contexts, edited by C. Beck, pp. 47-76. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

2009 The Archaeology of the Eastern Nevada Paleoarchaic, Part I: The Sunshine Locality. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 126, Salt Lake City.

Benfer, R. A., and A. N. Benfer 1981 Automatic Classification of Inspectional Categories: Multivariate Theories of Archaeological Data. American Antiquity 46(2):381-396.

Bettinger, R. L., and R. E. Taylor 1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Sequences of the Great Basin in Interior Southern California. Nevada Archaeological Survey Research Papers 5:1-26.

117

Campbell, E. W. C., and W. H. Campbell 1935 The Pinto Basin Site: An Ancient Aboriginal Camping Ground in the California Desert. Southwest Museum Papers No. 9, Los Angeles.

Clewlow, C. W., Jr. 1967 Time and Space Relations of Some Great Basin Projectile Point Types. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 73:1-94.

Duke, D. 2011 If the Desert Blooms: A Technological Perspective on Paleoindian Ecology in the Great Basin from the Old River Bed, Utah. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

Duke, D., T. Carpenter, and D. Page 2007 New Obsidian Hydration Findings Suggest the Use of Split-Stem Points by Great Basin Paleoindians. Current Research in the Pleistocene 24:80- 82.

Elsasser, A. B., and E. R. Prince 1961 The Archaeology of Two Sites at Eastgate, Churchill County, Nevada; II. Eastgate Cave. University of California Anthropology Records 20(4):139- 149.

Elston, R. G., and E. E. Budy 1990 The Archaeology of James Creek Shelter. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 115, Salt Lake City.

Fowler, D. D., D. B. Madsen, and E. M. Hattori 1973 Prehistory of Southeastern Nevada. Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences No. 6, Reno.

Goebel, T., B. S. Hockett, K. D. Adams, D. Rhode, and K. E. Graf 2011 Climate, environment, and humans in North America’s Great Basin during the Younger Dryas, 12,900-11,600 calendar years ago. Quaternary International 242:479-501.

Goebel, T., and J. L. Keene 2014 Are Great Basin Stemmed Points as Old as Clovis in the Intermountain West? A Review of the Geochronological Evidence. In Archaeology in the Great Basin: Papers in Honor of Don Fowler, edited by N. J. Parezo and J. C. Janetski, pp. 35-60. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

118

Graf, K. E. 2007 Stratigraphy and Chronology of the Pleistocene to Holocene Transition at Bonneville Estates Rockshelter, Eastern Great Basin. In Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic? Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition, edited by K. E. Graf and D. N. Schmitt, pp. 82-104. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

2009 “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”: evaluating the radiocarbon chronology of the middle and late Upper Paleolithic in the Enisei River valley, south-central Siberia. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(3):694-707.

Grayson, D. K. 2011 The Great Basin: A Natural Prehistory. University of California Press, Oakland.

Gruhn, R. 1961 The Archaeology of Wilson Butte Cave, South Central Idaho. Idaho State College Museum Occasional Papers No. 6, Pocatello.

Gunn, J. 1981 Response to Benfer and Benfer. American Antiquity 46(2):397.

Harper, K. T., and G. M. Alder 1972 Paleoclimactic Inferences Concerning the Last 10,000 Years from a Resampling of Danger Cave, Utah. In Great Basin Cultural Ecology: A Symposium, edited by D. D. Fowler, pp. 13-24. Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences no. 8, Reno.

Harrington, M. R. 1933 Gypsum Cave, Nevada. Southwest Museum Papers No. 8, Los Angeles.

Haynes, G. M. 2004 Assemblage Richness and Composition at Paleoarchaic Sites Near Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

Heizer, R. F., and M. A. Baumhoff 1961 The Archaeology of Two Sites at Eastgate, Churchill County, Nevada; I. Wagon Jack Shelter. University of California Anthropology Records 20(4):119-138.

Heizer, R. F., M. A. Baumhoff, and C. W. Clewlow, Jr. 1968 Archaeology of South Fork Shelter (NVEL-11), Elko County, Nevada. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports No. 71:1-58.

119

Heizer, R. F., and T. R. Hester 1978 Great Basin. In Chronologies in New World Archaeology, edited by R. E. Taylor and C. W. Meighan, pp. 147-199. Academic Press, New York.

Hester, T. R. 1973 Chronological Ordering of Great Basin Prehistory. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 17, Berkeley.

Hester, T. R., and R. F. Heizer 1973 Review and Discussion of Great Basin Projectile Points: Forms and Chronology. Publications of the Archaeological Research Facility, University of California, Berkeley.

Hildebrandt, W., K. McGuire, J. King, A. Ruby, and D. C. Young 2016 Prehistory of Nevada’s Northern Tier: Archaeological Investigation along the Ruby Pipeline. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 101, New York.

Hockett, B. S. 1995 Chronology of Elko Series and Split Stemmed Points from Northeastern Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 17(1):41-53.

Hockett, B. S., W. R. Hildebrandt, and J. H. King 2014 Identifying Dart and Arrow Points in the Great Basin: Comment on Smith et al.’s “Points in Time: Direct Radiocarbon Dates on Great Basin Projectile Points.” American Antiquity 79(3):561-565.

Holmer, R. N. 1978 A Mathematical Typology for Archaic Projectile Points of the Eastern Great Basin. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah.

1986 Common Projectile Points of the Intermountain West. In Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, edited by C. Condie and D. D. Fowler, pp. 89-116. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 110, Salt Lake City.

Hughes, R. E. 2014 Long-Term Continuity and Change in Obsidian Conveyance at Danger Cave. In: Archaeology in the Great Basin and Southwest: Papers in Honor of Don Fowler, edited by N. J. Parezo and J. C. Janetski, pp. 210-225. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

120

Janetski, J. C., M. L. Bodily, B. A. Newbold, and D. T. Yoder 2012 The Paleoarchaic to Early Archaic Transition on the Colorado Plateau: The Archaeology of North Creek Shelter. American Antiquity 77(1):125- 159.

Jennings, J. D. 1957 Danger Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 27, Salt Lake City.

1980 Cowboy Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 104, Salt Lake City.

Jennings, J. D., A. R. Schroedl, and R. N. Holmer 1980 Sudden Shelter. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 103, Salt Lake City.

Justice, N. D. 2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points, of California and the Great Basin. Indiana University Press, Indianapolis.

Kuzmin, Y. V. 2009 Comments on Graf, Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2009 “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”: evaluating the radiocarbon chronology of the middle and late upper Paleolithic in the Enisei River valley, southcentral Siberia.” Journal of Archaeological Science 36(12):2730-2733.

Lanning, E. P. 1963 Archaeology of the Rose Spring Site INY-372. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(3):237-336.

Madsen, D. B., and D. Rhode 1990 Early Holocene Pinyon(Pinus monophylla) in the Northeastern Great Basin. Quaternary Research 33:94-101.

Madsen, D. B., D. N. Schmitt, and D. Page 2015 The Paleoarchaic Occupation of the Old River Bed Delta. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 128, Salt Lake City.

O’Connell, J. F. 1967 Elko Eared/Elko Corner-Notched Projectile Points as Time Markers in The Great Basin. In University of California Archaeological Survey Reports, No. 70, pp. 129-140.

121

Pettitt, P. B., W. Davies, C. S. Gamble, and M. B. Richards 2003 Paleolithic radiocarbon chronology: quantifying our confidence beyond two half-lives. Journal of Archeological Science 30(12):1685-1693.

Reimer, P., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. Beck, P. Blackwell, C. B. Ramsey, C. Buck, H. Cheng, R. Edwards, M. Friedrich, P. Grootes, T. Guilderson, H. Haflidason, I. Hajdas, C. Hatté, T. Heaton, D. Hoffmann, A. Hogg, K. Hughen, K. Kaiser, B. Kromer, S. Manning, M. Niu, R. Reimer, D. Richards, E. Scott, J. Southon, R. Staff, C. Turney, and J. van der Plicht 2013 IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0-50,000 Years cal B.P. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869-1887.

Rhode, D., and L. Louderback 2007 Dietary Plant Use in the Bonneville Basin during the Terminal Pleistocene-Early Holocene Transition. In Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic? Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition, edited by K. E. Graf and D. N. Schmitt, pp. 231-247. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Rhode, D., and D. B. Madsen 1998 Pine Nut Use in the Early Holocene and Beyond: The Danger Cave Archaeobotanical Record. Journal of Archaeological Science 25(12):1199-1210.

Rhode, D., D. B. Madsen, and K. T. Jones 2006 Antiquity of early Holocene small-seed consumption and processing at Danger Cave. Antiquity 80(308):328-339.

Schmitt, D. N., and D. B. Madsen 2005 Camels Back Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 125, Salt Lake City.

Smith, G. M., P. Barker, E. M. Hattori, A. Raymond, and T. Goebel 2013 Points in Time: Direct Radiocarbon Dates on Great Basin Projectile Points. American Antiquity 78(3):580-594.

2014 Identifying Dart and Arrow Points in the Great Basin: A Reply to Hockett et al. American Antiquity 79(3):566-569.

Tamers, M. A., F. J. Pearson, Jr., and E. Mott Davis 1964 University of Texas Radiocarbon Dates II. Radiocarbon 6:138-159.

122

Thomas, D. H. 1971 Prehistoric Subsistence-Settlement Patterns of the Reese River Valley, Central Nevada. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

1975 Hogup Cave: Review. American Antiquity 40(4):501-502.

1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):7-43.

1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley: 2. Gatecliff Shelter. Anthropological Papers Vol. 59, Pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

1985 The Archaeology of Hidden Cave, Nevada. Anthropological Papers Vol. 61, Pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

1988 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley: 3. Survey and Additional Excavations. Anthropological Papers Vol. 66, Pt. 2. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Trigger, B. 2006 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Vaughan, S. J., and C.N. Warren 1987 Towards a Definition of Pinto Points. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 9(2):199-213.

Vogel, J. S., J. R. Southon, D. E. Nelson, and T. A. Brown 1984 Performance of catalytically condensed carbon for use in accelerator mass spectrometry. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 5(2):289-293.

Wriston, T. 2009 The Middle Holocene Period and Great Basin Archaeology: Past Ideas, Current Trends, and Future Research. In Past, Present, and Future Issues in Great Basin Archaeology: Papers in Honor of Don D. Fowler, edited by B. S. Hockett, pp. 218-241. Nevada Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Series No. 20, Carson City.

123

NOTES

1. All calibrated age ranges are listed at 2σ and were calibrated using OxCal online version 4.2 with the IntCal13 calibration curve.

2. University of Georgia Center for Applied Isotope Studies (CAIS) laboratory methods for sinew samples 22993.4, and 23665.5: “The sinew sample was treated with organic solvent to remove any fat contamination from handling and dried at 60°C. Then sample was treated with 5% HCl at the temperature 80ºC for 1 hour to remove any carbonates, after that it was washed and with deionized water on the fiberglass filter and finally dried at 60°C. For accelerator mass spectrometry analysis the cleaned sample was combusted at 900°C in evacuated / sealed ampoules in the presence of CuO. The resulting carbon dioxide was cryogenically purified from the other reaction products and catalytically converted to graphite using the method of Vogel et al. (1984) Nuclear

Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B5, 289-293. Graphite 14C/13C ratios were measured using the CAIS 0.5 MeV accelerator mass spectrometer. The sample ratios were compared to the ratio measured from the Oxalic Acid I (NBS SRM 4990). The sample 13C/12C ratios were measured separately using a stable isotope ratio mass spectrometer and expressed as δ13C with respect to PDB, with an error of less than 0.1‰.

The quoted uncalibrated dates have been given in radiocarbon years before 1950 (years

B.P.), using the 14C half-life of 5568 years. The error is quoted as one standard deviation and reflects both statistical and experimental errors. The date has been corrected for isotope fractionation.”

124

3. Direct AMS, Inc. laboratory methods for sinew sample 23016.1: The sinew

sample was washed in deionized (DI) water to remove dirt then treated with 6M HCl for

12 minutes at room temperature to remove absorbed humic acid from interred context.

Then the sample was treated three times with 1g/kg KOH for 12 minutes at 65ºC and was

washed with DI water and a 0.05M HCl solution in-between each treatment. Finally, the sample was washed three times with a 0.05M HCl solution before being freeze-dried and prepared for AMS analysis. The sample was combusted in a muffle furnace, reduced to graphite, and analyzed on the labs accelerator mass spectrometer. Both the 14C/13C and

13C/12C ratios were measured on the same graphite sample using the labs AMS instrument. The reported uncalibrated date has been given in radiocarbon years before

1950 (years B.P.), using the 14C half-life of 5568 years. The error is quoted as one

standard deviation and reflects both statistical and experimental errors. The date has been

corrected for isotope fractionation.

125

APPENDIX 1

Danger Cave Middle Holocene Elko Points.

Length

Type 42TO13 #) Acc. (Site NHMU.AR. (Museum #) W - Stratum Max Length Axial BIR Max Width Neck Width Base Width Bw/Mw Ratio Max Thickness Weight PSA DSA NO Neck Height MVK Elko/Pinto Shoulder vs. Base Width Notching Intersection Final

23235.2 18979 22 2 34.8 32.8 0.94 17.2 9.6 12.7 0.74 5.9 2.7 150 185 35 7.1 ECN Elko Elko - ECN 23240.3 42025 18 2 (16.0) (15.0) 0.94 19.5 9.6 13.6 0.70 5.1 (1.4) 120 150 30 7.5 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23142.3 18935 24 2 (34.1) (34.1) 1.00 22.4 12.5 15.0 0.67 4.4 (3.1) 120 160 40 7.0 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23031.5 18826 29 2 43.9 41.7 0.95 23.6 12.9 (14.6) - 5.4 3.8 115 170 55 5.8 ECN Elko Elko Elko EE 23038.2 18831 28 2 30.9 28.8 0.93 (18.4) 10.3 14.9 - 4.9 1.9 130 180 50 6.7 EE Elko Elko - EE 23233.9 18975 31 2 (30.1) (27.7) 0.92 19.5 12.4 14.2 0.73 5.3 2.6 130 180 50 5.2 Elko Elko Elko Elko EE 23093.1 42089 31 2 37.1 34.1 0.92 27.8 14.4 15.5 0.56 5.5 3.5 110 150 50 8.5 EE Elko Elko Elko EE 23321.6 42027 18 2 (31.8) (31.6) 0.99 (19.5) (10.6) (12.2) - 4.3 (2.9) 120 - - 4.9 ECN - Elko - ECN 23049.1 18840 29 2 39.8 38.3 0.96 (21.1) 10.8 13.9 - 4.1 3 120 185 65 6.5 ECN Elko Elko Elko EE 23074.3 18867 30 2 42.4 38.5 0.91 22.8 11.7 18.4 0.81 5.2 4 135 180 45 9.5 EE Elko Elko Elko EE 23093.4 18882 29 2 (36.8) (35.1) 0.95 23.3 12.6 15.8 0.68 4.5 (3.9) 115 165 50 8.8 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23228.3 89082 - 2 42.4 42.4 1.00 23.1 11.7 15.6 0.68 5.6 4.2 120 175 55 9.6 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23051.4 85720 29 2 50.1 48.8 0.97 20.7 15.0 18.8 0.91 6.3 5 130 190 60 7.6 ECN Elko Elko Elko EE 23038.7 18833 28 2 27.8 25.4 0.91 (19.5) 8.9 (12.7) - 4.5 1.7 140 155 15 7.3 EE Elko Elko Elko ECN 23054.2 18851 29 2/3 41.4 40.0 0.97 18.3 11.7 14.5 0.79 5.1 3.2 150 180 30 7.2 ECN Elko Elko - EE 23229.5 61889 29 2/3 (31.2) (28.1) 0.90 26.9 12.5 (16.6) - 3.9 (3.2) 135 150 15 6.0 Elko Elko Elko Elko EE 23310.2 19097 31 2/3 (36.9) (35.8) 0.97 (21.3) 12.6 15.6 - 5.6 (3.6) 120 185 65 8.8 ECN Elko Elko - ECN 23310.1B 19096 25 2/3 39.9 37.0 0.93 21.0 14.2 20.1 0.96 5.2 3.1 125 200 75 8.3 EE Elko Elko LSN EE 23054.1 18850 16 2/3 63.9 61.7 0.97 18.5 11.2 15.0 0.81 4.1 4.4 125 185 60 7.0 ECN Elko Elko Elko EE 23160.1 18958 16 2/3 52.1 49.5 0.95 19.2 12.2 16.2 0.84 4.4 3 115 135 20 5.6 ECN Elko Elko Elko EE 23318.2 19110 30 3 42.5 39.1 0.92 27.3 14.1 20.6 0.75 5.2 4.1 130 160 30 7.4 EE Elko Elko Elko ECN 23318.3 19111 28 3 45.0 42.4 0.94 22.9 12.7 21.5 0.94 6.4 5.4 145 180 35 9.5 ECN Elko Elko Elko EE 22993.5 18796 29 3 51.4 48.7 0.95 22.7 13.1 19.1 0.84 4.7 4.3 135 160 25 6.3 ECN Elko Elko - EE 23665.5 42104 30 3 (23.4) (21.7) 0.93 18.8 11.7 14.8 0.79 5.7 (2.8) 125 150 25 9.1 Elko Elko Elko Elko ECN 23710.4 19347 30 3 50.5 47.8 0.95 23.5 18.5 22.0 0.94 5.7 5.4 130 165 35 7.2 ECN Elko Elko - EE 23144.2 18939 28 3 28.5 25.7 0.90 (24.8) 11.3 (15.7) - 4.8 (2.3) 125 155 30 7.8 EE Elko Elko Elko EE

126

Danger Cave Middle Holocene Elko Points Continued.

Type 42TO13 #) Acc. (Site NHMU.AR. (Museum #) W - Stratum Length Max Length Axial BIR Max Width Neck Width Base Width Bw/Mw Ratio Max Thickness Weight PSA DSA NO Neck Height MVK Elko/Pinto Shoulder vs. Base Width Notching Intersection Final

23148.1 18943 24 3 31.2 29.9 0.96 (22.2) 11.4 16.3 - 4.1 2.2 135 155 20 5.3 ECN Elko Elko - ECN 23710.6 19348 29 3 (41.2) (40.4) 0.98 23.3 13.1 19.5 0.84 6.1 (5.0) 150 180 30 8.3 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23136.21 18928 28 3 (38.1) (34.7) 0.91 20.2 12.5 19.7 0.98 5.9 (4.1) 145 170 25 8.5 Elko Elko LSN Elko EE 23340.4B 19175 26 3 44.6 44.1 0.99 19.9 10.4 19.9 0.99 4.5 2.8 125 150 25 7.3 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23713.9 19352 31 3 22.3 21.1 0.95 19.2 8.2 10.6 0.55 3.9 1.2 115 150 35 6.3 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23136.17 18926 28 3 45.4 42.2 0.93 25.1 16.6 23.0 0.92 5.1 4.3 150 185 35 7.3 EE Elko Elko LSN EE 23665.4 19272 18 3 39.8 39.4 0.99 20.4 9.7 14.6 0.72 5.4 3.0 120 160 40 7.1 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 22993.4 18795 28 3 (34.3) (32.0) 0.93 (26.4) 13.2 22.8 - 5.1 (5.0) 135 - - 7.6 Elko - Elko - ECN 23662.5 19269 29 3 (54.0) (50.8) 0.94 24.7 13.1 (15.9) - 5.9 (5.8) 135 165 30 8.1 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23061.16 18861 28 3 (34.2) (31.7) 0.93 (23.6) 14.1 19.7 - (5.7) (3.8) 135 155 20 6.8 Elko Elko Elko Elko EE 23730.11 19374 30 3 (39.9) (38.0) 0.95 29.5 16.4 21.7 0.74 5.4 (4.7) 140 150 10 7.4 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23340.5 42102 31 3 (20.3) (17.5) 0.86 (22.3) 11.9 15.4 - 5.1 (2.5) 120 - - 7.6 Elko - Elko - EE 23318.1 58638 30 3 36.0 34.2 0.95 20.5 10.2 14.1 0.69 5.2 (3.1) 130 170 40 7.7 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23662.4 19268 29 3 40.5 38.1 0.94 (24.8) 12.3 (15.4) - 4.5 (3.2) 135 155 20 7.9 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23681.3 89075 31 3 34.9 31.9 0.91 19.8 13.2 15.8 0.80 5.5 2.7 120 185 65 7.4 EE Elko Elko - EE 23681.5 19290 28 3 30.0 28.6 0.95 (19.9) 13.8 16.9 - 6.1 2.9 125 200 75 7.0 ECN Elko Elko - ECN 23681.4 19289 30 3 36.4 34.2 0.94 27.1 13.6 (16.5) - 6.7 4.8 140 170 30 7.5 ECN Elko Elko - ECN 23382.2 19234 28 3 39.9 38.6 0.97 22.5 11.0 18.0 0.80 5.2 (3.7) 135 180 45 6.9 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23231.1 18970 37 3 27.9 27.3 0.98 (20.6) 12.6 13.8 - 4.0 1.7 110 140 35 6.9 ECN Elko Elko - ECN 23661.4 19263 31 3 (41.8) (39.7) 0.95 19.4 11.0 (12.0) - 6.2 (3.5) 110 165 55 7.1 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN ECN = Elko Corner-notched. EE = Elko Eared. LSN = Large Side-notched. Parentheses indicate incomplete measurements. Dashes indicate indeterminable attribute.

127

Danger Cave Late Holocene Elko Points.

23018.1 18819 22 4 45.5 45.4 1.00 27.9 13.6 (17.2) - 5.2 5.7 125 160 35 6.5 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 22880.1 18708 30 4 (35.1) (31.8) 0.91 (26.5) 11.5 (19.3) - 5.5 4.1 150 160 10 9.1 Elko Elko Elko Elko EE 23337.16 19164 29 4 (38.8) (36.6) 0.94 (24.8) 12.0 16.7 - 3.9 3.1 120 145 25 7.8 ECN Elko Elko Elko EE 23337.1 19158 29 4 40.0 37.2 0.93 (24.3) 14.1 18.4 - 3.9 (3.7) 130 - - 6.8 EE - Elko - EE 23334.16 19359 26 5 (38.2) (36.6) 0.96 (26.4) 13.4 17.4 - 5.5 (5.8) 120 140 20 7.2 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23287.12 42198 19 5 (31) (30.8) 0.99 (26.4) 10.9 13.9 - 5.2 (3.5) 110 125 15 7.4 ECN Elko Elko - ECN 23691.29 89071 30 5 (39.7) (38.4) 0.97 (21.0) 10.4 (11.5) - 4.7 3.2 (120) - - 6.8 ECN - Elko - ECN 23284.15 42196 19 5 (24.6) (24.2) 0.98 (19.0) (12.1) 15.3 - (5.5) (3.2) 115 145 30 7.8 ECN Elko - - ECN 23334.30 19150 18 5 (45.3) (45.1) 1.00 25.1 13.7 17.1 0.68 4.9 4.2 135 180 45 8.7 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23334.32 19151 19 5 (27.4) (26.1) 0.95 (23.5) 13.3 17.7 - 4 (2.7) 130 150 20 7.2 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 22811.204 42199 32 5 (37.2) (34.3) 0.92 24.7 16.1 23.1 0.94 4.3 (4.4) 120 - - 9.9 Elko - Elko - ECN 22811.206 18673 - 5 65.8 65.8 1.00 23.6 14.7 16.2 0.68 8.1 6.9 105 170 65 10.8 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23333.3 19138 31 5 28.9 26.9 0.93 (21.4) 11.1 12.7 - 4.1 1.8 110 145 35 7.0 EE Elko Elko - EE 23257.6 18989 22 5 40.3 40.3 1.00 (23.4) (12.1) 15.1 - 4.8 4.0 115 165 50 7.9 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23118.7 18905 22 5 (27.6) (27.1) 0.98 20.7 10.9 14.6 0.71 4.2 (1.9) 125 165 40 8.1 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23109.2 18900 18 5 44.3 44.3 1.00 25.1 13.3 15.3 0.61 4.9 4.3 115 145 30 7.3 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 23098.23 89074 22 5 32.5 32.5 1.00 22.9 12.1 16.3 0.71 4.5 2.9 115 140 25 8.2 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN ECN = Elko Corner-notched. EE = Elko Eared. Parentheses indicate incomplete measurements. Dashes indicate indeterminable attribute.

128

Bonneville Estates Rockshelter Elko Points.

Height

Accession # Accession Stratum Cultural Phase Block Length Max Length Axial BIR Max Width Neck Width Base Width Bw/Mw Ratio Max Thickness Weight PSA DSA NO Neck MVK Elko/Pinto Shoulder vs. Base Width Notching Intersection Final

858 A13-16 PC/SF W (25.4) (24.6) 0.97 (25.9) 16.4 22.4 - 5.2 (3.1) 130 - - 6.7 ECN - Elko - ECN 18502 13 SF W 21.9 21.9 1.00 18.2 11.3 12.5 0.69 3.7 1.2 120 170 50 5.5 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 12640 A12 SF W (32.8) (31.0) 0.95 20.8 8.9 (14.8) - 5.1 (3.1) 150 140 10 8.2 ECN Elko Elko - ECN 12656 11 SF W (20.8) (20.6) 0.99 (12.8) 8.2 (10.6) - 3.5 (0.9) 130 145 15 4.5 Elko Elko Elko Elko ECN 15606 11 SF W 29.1 28.8 0.99 15.1 9.4 11.8 0.78 2.3 0.9 120 165 45 5.4 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 15645 11 SF W 18.6 16.7 0.90 14.4 8.4 10.5 0.73 3.5 1.0 130 165 35 4.5 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 15647 11 SF W (13.1) (12.9) 0.98 (12.5) 8.6 11.3 - 3.0 (0.6) 125 190 65 4.7 ECN Elko Elko - ECN 11226 10/11 SF W 20.5 20.0 0.98 17.1 9.1 11.7 0.68 3.3 1.0 120 130 10 4.3 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 15585 10/11 SF W 19.7 19.7 1.00 15.1 9.9 11.4 0.75 3.1 0.8 115 145 30 4.6 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 12655 A10 SF W (23.4) (22.3) 0.95 (19.8) 9.7 (10.2) - 3.3 (1.3) 110 150 40 6.9 ECN Elko Elko - ECN 18757 9 SF E 59.1 58.2 0.98 20.7 9.4 11.6 0.56 5 4.0 115 150 35 6.5 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 6012 8 SF E (35.2) (34.3) 0.97 21.2 12.3 (14.2) - 5.2 (3.5) 130 160 30 5.1 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 10744 6 SF E (26.3) (25.1) 0.95 (15.3) 7.8 12.4 - 3.8 (1.5) 135 160 25 7.5 ECN Elko Elko - ECN 23697 9 JC W 31.3 30.5 0.97 (16.6) 8.9 (12.1) - 4.6 (2.0) 120 180 60 6.6 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 12662 9/6 JC W 25.7 25.4 0.99 14.5 8.8 10.6 0.73 3.9 1.2 120 155 35 4.7 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 12007 A9 JC W 38.6 37.5 0.97 23.4 11.1 15.0 0.64 5.1 3.2 120 140 20 6.6 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 12008 A8 JC W (17.6) (16.7) 0.95 (27.9) 18.0 24.0 - (5.3) (2.7) 145 - - 8.1 ECN - Elko - ECN 17963 7/8 JC W 31.8 31.5 0.99 (20.1) 8.8 10.8 - 4.0 (1.9) 125 165 40 6.5 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 17902 7 JC W (16.3) (16.3) 1.00 (22.5) 14.2 (13.8) - (4.8) (2.1) 120 160 40 (4.7) ECN Elko - Elko ECN 2011 7 JC W (14.7) (14.7) 1.00 (24.9) 15.4 (18.4) - (4.6) (1.7) 125 170 45 (7.5) ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 2496 A7 JC W 26.3 24.6 0.94 16.1 9.5 (10.8) - 4.4 (1.3) 115 140 25 6.4 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 2498 A7 JC W (13.3) (13.0) 0.98 (17.4) 11.4 15.1 - (4.3) (0.8) 125 145 20 7.5 ECN Elko Elko - ECN 8541 A7 JC W (27.5) (26.8) 0.97 19.1 12.2 (13.3) - 4.8 (2.9) 125 165 40 8.4 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 9307 A7 JC W (24.8) (24.8) 1.00 (18.7) 13.4 (15.7) - 5.2 (2.2) 125 165 40 7.2 ECN Elko Elko - ECN 686 A7 JC W 25.6 25.6 1.00 (18.7) 11 (12.9) - 5.1 (2.2) 115 - - 8.2 ECN - Elko - ECN 744 A7 JC W (16.5) (16.5) 1.00 18.0 9.5 13.6 0.76 (4.2) (1.2) 140 165 25 7.9 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 5629 6 JC E (31.1) (30.4) 0.98 22.1 11.6 12.5 0.57 5.2 (3.4) 100 125 25 6.7 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 17065 5 JC W (20.9) (20.9) 1.00 20.5 13.4 15.0 0.73 5.6 (3.0) 110 190 80 6.5 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 8424 A3b/7 MC/JC W (20.2) (19.6) 0.97 (19.5) 11.9 14.8 - 4.9 1.8 125 - - 5.9 ECN - Elko - ECN 8858 A3b/7 MC/JC W 34.5 34.5 1.00 21.1 11.4 12.8 0.61 5.9 3.8 100 170 70 8.6 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN

129

Bonneville Estates Rockshelter Elko Points Continued.

Accession # Accession Stratum Cultural Phase Block Length Max Length Axial BIR Max Width Neck Width Base Width Bw/Mw Ratio Max Thickness Weight PSA DSA NO Neck Height MVK Elko/Pinto Shoulder vs. Base Width Notching Intersection Final

5923 6 MC/JC E (20.1) (19.4) 0.97 14.9 8.8 10.8 0.72 4.4 (1.3) 115 155 40 5.4 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 6899 T3-5(?) MC/JC W (14.2) (14.2) 1.00 21.5 12.3 15.4 0.72 (3.7) (1.2) 120 165 45 7.2 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 5323 6 MC E (23.2) (23.2) 1.00 22.9 14.0 17.5 0.76 5.6 (2.8) 120 165 45 9 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 5163 3/4 MC E (30.7) (30.6) 0.99 23.3 13.6 13.8 0.59 5.9 (3.9) 110 155 60 7.5 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 2493 A3b MC W (39.7) (39.1) 0.98 23.8 13.7 17.5 0.74 4.7 (4.9) 110 150 40 6.9 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN 4614 1b ER W 34.9 34.3 0.98 (24.8) 12.3 13.4 - 4.8 (3.3) 145 155 10 7.7 ECN Elko Elko Elko ECN ECN = Elko Corner-notched. EE = Elko Eared. Cultural Phases: Pie Creek (PC); South Fork (SF); James Creek (JC); Maggie Creek (MC); Eagle Rock (ER). Parentheses indicate incomplete measurements. Dashes indicate indeterminable attribute.

130

Danger Cave Large Side-notched Points.

Type 42TO13 #) Acc. (Site NHMU.AR. (Museum #) W - Stratum Length Max Length Axial BIR Max Width Neck Width Base Width Bw/Mw Ratio Max Thickness Weight PSA DSA NO Neck Height MVK Shoulder vs. Base Width Notching Intersection Final

23093.2 18880 28 2 (50.7) (49.7) 0.98 21.6 10.9 20.3 0.94 4.7 4.5 175 180 5 10.5 LSN Elko LSN LSN 23307.1 19090 4 2 32.4 32.4 1.00 13.7 8.1 12.5 0.91 3.6 1.3 150 190 40 6.3 ECN Elko LSN LSN 23309.4 42098 25 2 (20.7) (20.2) 0.98 17.3 7.7 (11.7) - (3.7) (1.4) 180 190 10 9.6 LSN - LSN LSN 23310.1A 19096 25 2/3 28.9 27.6 0.96 23.5 14 23.5 1.00 5.2 3.2 165 190 25 12.9 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23133.2 18917 28 2/3 36.4 34.5 0.95 19.7 12.9 18.0 0.91 6.3 3.8 130 195 65 9.9 ECN LSN LSN LSN 23229.3 18968 26 2/3 64.8 63.3 0.98 33.1 16.8 (20.1) - 5.7 (11.3) 160 175 15 9.6 LSN Elko - LSN 22921.2 18740 32 2/3 (37.1) (37.1) 1.00 31.2 17.8 26.4 0.85 7.2 (7.6) 165 190 25 10.9 LSN Elko LSN LSN 22993.3 18794 25 3 (40.1) (35.1) 0.88 21.3 14.1 20.9 0.98 5.8 (4.7) 160 190 30 12.6 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23364.2 19213 26 3 (39.9) (38.9) 0.97 (24.1) 15.3 21.6 - 5.3 (5.3) 160 180 20 13.5 LSN Elko LSN LSN 23061.2 18858 17 3 38.0 35.3 0.93 18.3 12.3 18.3 1.00 5.2 3 145 200 55 13.0 Elko LSN LSN LSN 22363.1 18469 26 3 46.1 44.0 0.95 17.4 7.8 17.4 1.00 3.6 2.5 180 180 0 11.0 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23136.18 42090 26 3 (42.1) (39.8) 0.95 21.5 11.0 20.8 0.97 4.2 (4.8) 170 185 15 10.8 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23364.8 19252 26 3 46.9 46.6 0.99 22.6 16.3 20.9 0.92 4.6 4.2 155 175 20 9.8 LSN Elko LSN LSN 23707.16 19252 26 3 43.7 41.1 0.94 21.6 10.6 21.6 1.00 5.6 4.4 170 160 9.5 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23297.9 19068 26 3 50.0 48.4 0.97 22.1 16.7 21.9 0.99 6.4 6.0 160 190 30 12.5 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23158.1 18954 26 3 38.6 37.7 0.98 21.1 13.2 21.1 1.00 5.9 3.9 150 180 30 7.2 ECN LSN LSN LSN 23671 19273 28 3 (38.0) (36.6) 0.96 23.6 13.7 22.4 0.95 6.0 4.2 170 180 10 11.8 LSN Elko LSN LSN 23338.4 19167 26 3 49.8 48.8 0.98 23.2 12.2 (20.8) - 5.1 (5.0) 170 180 10 12.1 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23340.4A 19175 26 3 36.0 (35.5) 0.99 19.1 11.6 19.1 1.00 4.9 2.7 165 180 15 9.6 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23062.4 42086 25 3 34.5 30.1 0.87 (19.5) 10.8 (17.2) - 5.5 2.6 160 195 35 13.4 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23364.7 19214 26 3 29.2 27.9 0.96 18.5 10.9 18.5 1.00 4.1 1.9 160 175 15 10.3 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23297.4 42096 26 3 (34.0) (31.9) 0.94 20.1 (11.3) (13.5) - 5.7 (3.9) 165 225 60 13.8 LSN - - LSN 23338.1 19166 28 3 42.2 38.5 0.91 (20.3) 13.3 19.2 - 5.3 (3.4) 125 200 75 8.8 Elko Elko LSN LSN 23338.2 42101 26 3 (33.5) (33.5) 1.00 (16.7) (8.7) (9.3) - (5.4) (2.1) 190 190 0 (10.8) LSN - - LSN 23061.1 53815 26 3 51.8 48.8 0.94 25.9 14.4 25.1 0.97 5.2 5.7 165 190 25 13.7 LSN Elko LSN LSN 23297.2 19066 26 3 (34.4) (32.5) 0.94 18.6 12.5 18.6 1.00 5.7 (3.9) 135 200 65 10.7 ECN LSN LSN LSN 23297.1 19065 26 3 42.1 41.6 0.99 23.9 12.2 23.9 1.00 4.4 3.9 155 180 25 12.1 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23136.20 18927 25 3 (34.4) (34.4) 1.00 (20.1) 12.1 (15.9) - 4.8 (3.2) 175 195 20 8.8 LSN LSN - LSN 23361.1 19207 26 4 (30.1) (29.6) 0.98 18.1 6.7 18.1 1.00 4.7 2.0 185 200 15 13.8 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23053.2 18845 26 4 48.9 45.9 0.94 25.5 13.3 25.5 1.00 5.5 4.9 175 185 10 10.4 LSN LSN LSN LSN 22351.1 18461 16 4 (45.0) (45.0) 1.00 24.5 18.0 24.5 1.00 4.7 (4.5) 165 190 25 8.9 LSN LSN LSN LSN

131

Danger Cave Large Side-notched Points Continued.

23290.3 19040 26 4 (33.2) (31.7) 0.95 (16.9) 11.0 (15.7) - 4.3 (2.0) 160 190 30 10.2 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23657.1 19255 26 4 32.3 30.7 0.95 18.6 12.2 18.1 0.97 4.7 2.6 160 195 35 6.7 LSN Elko LSN LSN 22579.11 18515 17 4 (31.7) (29.4) 0.93 17.4 13.5 16.8 0.97 4.3 (2.3) 135 195 60 8.0 Elko - LSN LSN 22579.10 18514 16 4 44.9 44.0 0.98 14.5 10.2 14.1 0.97 3.3 2.1 125 185 60 6.5 ECN LSN LSN LSN 23294.1 19056 25 4 36.4 36.0 0.99 (21.0) 12.7 19.8 - 5.0 3.2 160 200 40 12.0 LSN Elko LSN LSN 22353.1 42150 16 4 (25.8) (21.5) 0.83 (17.7) 11.8 15.6 - 3.5 (1.8) 135 190 55 6.7 Elko Elko LSN LSN 23290.1 19038 26 4 (20.1) (18.0) 0.90 15.6 8.5 15.6 1.00 4.1 (1.1) 180 180 0 10.6 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23290.2 19039 26 4 (40.2) (35.8) 0.89 (18.5) 11.0 (16.5) - 5.3 (4.3) 170 190 20 11.7 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23053.1 18844 26 4 (61.6) (59.3) 0.96 20.5 11.9 20.5 1.00 5.2 5.5 165 195 30 15.6 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23259.4 18995 17 4 (24.9) (22.4) 0.90 16.2 10.7 16.2 1.00 4.6 (2.0) 175 190 15 10.1 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23706.12 19334 26 4 55.5 54.4 0.98 17.9 8.4 17.3 0.97 4.6 3.5 170 180 10 13.3 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23006.1 18810 30 4 35.2 31.5 0.89 (24.5) 13.0 (22.7) - 6.0 (4.3) 160 180 20 9.3 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23053.7 18849 26 4 25.9 25.9 1.00 22.3 20.1 (22.3) - 7.9 4.7 165 180 15 10.4 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23676.23 19280 28 4 40.4 37 0.92 17.9 10.0 17.9 1.00 4.9 2.5 170 190 20 10.8 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23053.4 18847 25 4 37.8 35.7 0.94 20.1 10.7 20.1 1.00 4.8 3.3 165 180 15 4.8 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23290.4 19041 25 4 (34.3) 32.6 0.95 18.8 12.3 (16.2) - 5.0 (3.4) 150 195 45 10.9 ECN LSN - LSN 22945.4 18760 17 5 45.8 45.4 0.99 16.3 9.9 16.3 1.00 4.2 2.2 140 200 60 10.8 ECN LSN LSN LSN 22851.1 18690 26 5 56.3 50.8 0.90 20.8 9.9 20.8 1.00 5.6 5.0 155 170 15 12.4 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23359 89079 26 5 (20.5) (15.7) 0.77 (19.6) (9.3) (12.2) - (5.3) (1.5) 185 180 5 13.5 LSN LSN - LSN 23059.1 18853 25 Unk (31.6) (30.5) 0.97 (17.6) 11.3 (18.0) - 5.3 (3.0) 180 190 10 10.5 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23301.4 19082 26 Unk 50.8 50.8 0 23.4 13.7 22.2 0.95 7.5 7.6 170 190 20 15.4 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23081.15 29284 - Unk 63.2 62.2 0.98 21.8 14.2 21.8 1.00 5.3 5.8 160 195 35 13.4 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23106.1 18896 28 Unk (25.9) (23.6) 0.91 22.7 14.1 20.7 0.91 4.1 (2.1) 160 180 20 10.2 LSN Elko LSN LSN 22579.13 18654 30 Unk 46.6 43.0 0.92 24.7 16.7 24.7 1.00 4.7 4.3 130 195 65 11.5 Elko LSN LSN LSN 23300.10 19080 30 Unk 33.8 30.9 0.91 (20.0) 13.2 (20.0) - 3.7 2.1 150 215 65 9.2 Elko LSN LSN LSN ECN = Elko Corner-notched. LSN = Large Side-notched. Unk = unknown information. Parentheses indicate incomplete measurements. Dashes indicate indeterminable attribute.

132

Danger Cave Gatecliff/Pinto Points.

Type 42TO13 #) Acc. (Site NHMU.AR. (Museum #) W - Stratum Length Max Length Axial BIR Max Width Neck Width Base Width Bw/Mw Ratio Max Thickness Weight PSA DSA NO Neck Height MVK Elko/Pinto Final

23390.1 19248 31 2 (34.0) (31.3) 0.92 20.1 11.2 13.3 0.66 4.4 (3.2) 100 160 60 8.1 Gatecliff Pinto Pinto 23069.1A 18865 31 2 42.2 39.9 0.95 23.0 11.8 13.5 0.59 6.2 4.2 100 190 90 6.9 GSS Pinto Pinto 23227.1 18965 31 2 (41.3) (38.9) 0.94 23.6 13.6 14.2 0.60 7.1 5.8 100 180 80 6.5 Gatecliff Pinto Pinto 23352.1 19192 31 2 47.1 45.9 0.97 22.7 12.3 11.9 0.52 5.4 4.4 100 180 80 7.7 GSS Pinto Pinto 23310.3 89143 31 2/3 (38.8) (36.1) 0.93 (24.1) 14.1 16.2 - 5.5 4.6 105 165 60 7.5 Gatecliff Pinto Pinto 23372.12 19230 31 3 45.8 43.4 0.95 23.7 12.2 (11.5) - 4.7 (3.5) 95 160 65 6.4 GSS Pinto Pinto 23681.6 19288 31 3 (24.5) (21.3) 0.87 22.1 11.9 13.3 0.60 4.6 2.7 100 150 50 6.8 GSS Pinto Pinto 22863.15 18702 31 4 42.9 41.1 0.96 18.5 7.9 8.2 0.44 5.3 3.0 95 160 65 7.9 GSS Pinto GSS 22809.5 18669 33 5 (46.0) (43.2) 0.94 (27.9) 13.7 16.4 - 5.5 (5.9) 100 - - 11.1 GSS Pinto Pinto GSS = Gatecliff Split Stem Parenthesis indicate incomplete measurement Dashes indicate indeterminable attribute.

133

Danger Cave Out/Eccentric/No Picture Points.

Width

Type 42TO13 #) Acc. (Site NHMU.AR. (Museum #) W - Stratum Length Max Length Axial BIR Max Neck Width Base Width Bw/Mw Ratio Max Thickness Weight PSA DSA NO Neck Height MVK Final

23142.4 18937 24 2 31.1 30.2 0.97 18.6 14.5 16.1 0.87 6.7 3.5 105 205 100 7.2 Out Unknown 23343.2 19188 24 2 (35.7) (35.1) 0.98 19.2 12.8 14.0 0.73 6.8 (4.3) 105 - - (7.2) Out Unknown 23318.6 19112 31 3 32.5 31.4 0.97 (17.1) 9.4 11.8 - 4.6 (2.2) 105 - - 7.1 Out Unknown 23734.31 19377 18 Unk (47.7) (47.2) 0.99 (24.0) 12.3 14.1 - 5.0 (4.7) 105 - - 6.3 Out Unknown

23028.1 18824 34 2 (78.3) (76.0) 0.97 52.7 14.9 19.1 0.36 (8.7) (40.2) 95 135 40 15.9 GCS Eccentric 23031.2 42011 34 2 (51.0) (51.0) 1.00 (35.8) 14.1 17.1 - 10.7 (22.1) 120 150 30 7.5 ECN Eccentric 23386.1 19243 15 2 (81.6) (79.1) 0.97 36.9 25 22.4 0.61 11.4 (22.9) 75 195 120 21.1 GCS Eccentric 23340.6 19177 31 3 (59.4) (53.1) 0.89 46.7 23.6 27.8 0.60 7.6 (21.7) 115 145 30 16.3 EE Eccentric 22579.2 18414 17 4 (53.4) (48.0) 0.90 20.3 15.8 20.3 1.00 5.7 (3.4) - - - 12.0 Out Heavy Resharpening

23069.1B 18865 31 2 43.7 40.5 0.93 22 9.9 13.4 0.61 5.5 3.6 100 165 65 8.0 - No picture 23054.5 42085 28 2/3 (35.2) (32.0) 0.91 (23.7) (15.1) (19.7) - 5.6 (4.2) 120 205 85 (9.7) - No picture 23338.5 19168 5 3 (48.1) (47.7) 0.99 (15.3) 8.1 - - 3.9 (2.6) - 170 - - - No picture 23601.3 18859 30 Unk 29.4 28.0 0.95 23.5 11.4 23.5 1.00 4.8 2.5 165 190 25 10.3 - No picture ECN = Elko Corner-notched. EE = Elko Eared. GCS = Gatecliff Contracting Stem. Parentheses indicate incomplete measurements. Dashes indicate indeterminable attribute.

134

Danger Cave Late Holocene Elko Points Without Provenience.

23137.1 18929 29 Unk 49.9 46.8 0.93 (22.1) 12.5 16.7 - 5.5 5.0 130 150 20 6.5 EE Elko Elko Elko EE 23301.5 19083 29 Unk (41.2) (38.5) 0.93 (23.1) 12.5 (17.6) - 4.6 (4.0) 140 185 45 8.0 Elko Elko - - EE 23313.1 19105 18 Unk 44.1 41.2 0.93 (24.7) 15.0 19.2 - 7.2 4.5 135 155 20 6.7 EE Elko Elko - EE EE = Elko Eared. Parentheses indicate incomplete measurements. Dashes indicate indeterminable attribute.

135

Bonneville Estates Rockshelter Large Side-notched Points.

Accession # Accession Stratum Cultural Phase Block Length Max Length Axial BIR Max Width Neck Width Base Width Bw/Mw Ratio Max Thickness Weight PSA DSA NO Neck Height MVK Shoulder vs. Base Width Notching Intersection Final

26985 A14 PC W (13.3) (11.9) 0.89 (19.1) 11.6 (19.1) - (3.9) (0.9) 170 - - (13.3) LSN - - LSN 2508 A14 PC W (22.4) (21.0) 0.94 20.7 13.7 (19.9) - 6.1 (2.4) 160 190 30 11.0 LSN LSN LSN LSN 26085 A14 PC W 28.9 28.3 0.98 20.2 12.3 19.9 0.99 3.5 2.3 175 190 15 10.7 LSN LSN LSN LSN 22854 14 PC W 30.3 27.7 0.91 25.5 16.3 25.5 1.00 4.5 2.9 155 195 40 9.7 LSN LSN LSN LSN 22855 14 PC W (11.7) (11.2) 0.95 (20.5) 10.3 20.5 - (4.4) (0.8) 180 - - (11.7) LSN - - LSN 22993 14 PC W (26.2) - - (16.8) (11.6) (13.6) - 3.9 (1.9) 180 190 10 9.9 LSN - - LSN 19887 14 PC W (10.9) (7.9) 0.72 (20.0) 11.5 20.0 - (3.2) (0.7) 160 - - (10.9) LSN - - LSN 22636 14 PC W 34.1 31.9 0.94 20.2 12.9 (14.5) - 4.2 2.5 120 190 70 11.3 Elko - LSN LSN 22154 14 PC W 33.1 30.8 0.93 21.4 12.9 21.4 1.00 5.1 3.1 140 190 50 14.8 EE LSN LSN LSN 21249 14 PC W (14.3) (12.5) 0.87 (20.8) 12.8 20.8 - (4.1) (1.3) 180 185 5 11.3 LSN - LSN LSN 19948 14 PC W 34.1 31.5 0.92 24.2 11.3 24.2 1.00 5.4 3.0 170 190 20 12.8 LSN LSN LSN LSN 19556 14 PC W (41.8) (39.8) 0.95 21.8 13.7 (17.7) - 5.2 5.6) 135 220 85 12.6 Elko LSN LSN LSN 19892 14 PC W (12.3) (10.6) 0.86 (18.7) 11.1 18.7 - (3.3) (0.9) 180 - - (12.3) LSN - - LSN 10653 10 PC E (24.7) (17.1) 0.69 20.1 10.4 20.1 1.00 (5.5) (2.0) 185 190 5 14.8 LSN LSN LSN LSN 10828 9 PC E (11.5) (9.1) 0.79 (26.5) 13.0 26.5 - (4.0) (1.1) 175 - - (11.5) LSN - - LSN 19335 8 PC E (10.4) (9.0) 0.86 (16.2) (8.6) 16.2 - (3.5) (0.5) 160 - - (10.4) LSN - - LSN 10931 8 PC E 67.0 66.3 0.99 21.7 11.6 19.1 0.88 5.8 7.9 170 195 25 11.2 LSN - LSN LSN 19052 8 PC E (26.3) (23.1) 0.88 19.7 10.2 19.7 1.00 5.0 (2.3) 160 195 35 10.2 LSN LSN LSN LSN 12648 A13 SF W 35.0 33.4 0.95 13.7 7.1 13.7 1.00 3.6 1.3 165 190 25 9.1 LSN LSN LSN LSN 12659 A13 SF W (32.0) (31.6) 0.99 (19.6) (10.9) (13.5) - 4.0 2.5) 165 195 30 9.0 LSN - LSN LSN 12660 A13 SF W 40.8 38.8 0.95 17.4 11.2 16.5 0.95 4.7 3.2 155 185 30 10.3 LSN Elko LSN LSN 2064 A13 SF W 51.1 48.2 0.94 22.6 11.9 (18.6) - 4.6 (4.6) 165 190 25 15.5 LSN - LSN LSN 12637 13 SF W (14.2) (13.0) 0.92 (20.6) 12.7 20.6 - (5.3) (1.5) 160 - - (14.2) LSN - - LSN 21460 13 SF W 33.6 30.3 0.90 21.0 11.4 19.4 0.92 5.4 3.3 170 180 10 10.2 LSN LSN LSN LSN 26023 13 SF W 26.7 25.4 0.95 12.8 7.0 12.8 1.00 4.2 1.2 170 195 25 8.4 DSN LSN LSN LSN 21424 12/13 SF W (16.8) (16.0) 0.95 (17.9) 12.1 17.9 - 4.5 (1.5) 160 180 20 9.7 LSN LSN LSN LSN 21402 12 SF W (25.2) (23.4) 0.93 (21.1) 14.0 (18.7) - 4.5 2.3) 170 195 25 13.6 LSN LSN - LSN 2509 12 SF W (14.6) (11.6) 0.79 (19.4) 13.2 19.4 - (4.7) (1.0) 150 - - (14.6) ECN - - LSN 4039 A12 SF W 39.6 38.6 0.97 16.6 11.4 (14.4) - 5.2 (3.1) 170 200 30 7.4 LSN LSN LSN LSN 12445 A12 SF W (13.5) (10.8) 0.80 (20.3) 12.8 20.3 - (4.9) (1.0) 160 - - (13.5) LSN - - LSN 23657 11/12 SF W 29.6 27.7 0.94 17.9 14.3 17.9 1.00 5.3 2.9 145 210 65 11.5 Elko LSN LSN LSN

136

Bonneville Estates Rockshelter Large Side-notched Points Continued.

22236 11/12 SF W (41.4) (40.2) 0.97 16.9 9.6 16.9 1.00 5.8 3.4) 155 190 35 8.4 LSN LSN LSN LSN 23196 11 SF W (10.6) (10.4) 0.98 (15.2) 11.0 15.2 - (3.0) (0.4) 155 - - (10.6) LSN - - LSN 12016 A10 SF W (16.2) (13.8) 0.85 (27.7) (17.8) 27.7 - (3.8) (1.7) 160 - - (16.2) LSN - - LSN 11014 9 SF E (11.9) (11.9) 1.00 (18.5) 10.2 (18.5) - (4.4) (0.9) 180 - - (11.9) LSN - - LSN 12639 9 JC W 35.6 34.6 0.97 18.4 8.1 14.4 0.78 4.3 2.2 155 170 15 8.0 LSN Elko LSN LSN 5680 6 MC E (27.0) (26.4) 0.98 19.5 11.3 (14.4) - (6.0) (3.2) 160 175 15 7.4 LSN - - LSN 5935 6 MC E 42.3 39.2 0.93 16.5 7.8 16.5 1.00 5.3 2.5 160 170 10 12.7 LSN LSN LSN LSN 5997 6 MC E (12.2) (12.2) 1.00 (17.0) (10.7) (12.7) - (4.1) (0.8) 190 - - (12.2) LSN - - LSN 5998 6 MC E 35.0 33.9 0.97 21.0 9.0 21.0 1.00 4.5 2.3 160 180 20 10.0 LSN LSN LSN LSN 2524 2 or 3 ER/MC W (12.9) (10.7) 0.82 (18.2) 9.0 18.2 - (3.3) (0.8) 170 - - (12.9) LSN - - LSN 7891 2/1 ER W 27.8 24.5 0.88 23.9 15.5 23.9 1.00 5.6 3.1 155 195 40 11.9 LSN LSN LSN LSN 24598 C2 ER W 31.5 30.1 0.96 (14.6) 8.7 (14.6) - 3.7 (1.3) 170 195 25 10.1 LSN LSN LSN LSN LSN = Large Side-notched ECN = Elko Corner-notched. EE = Elko Eared. Cultural Phases: Pie Creek (PC); South Fork (SF); James Creek (JC); Maggie Creek (MC); Eagle Rock (ER). Parentheses indicate incomplete measurements. Dashes indicate indeterminable attribute.

137

Bonneville Estates Rockshelter Other/Out-of-Key/No Provenience/Fragmentary Points.

on #

Accessi Stratum Cultural Phase Block Max Length Max Length Axial BIR Max Width Neck Width Base Width Bw/Mw Ratio Max Thickness Weight PSA DSA NO Neck Height MVK Elko/Pinto Final

5911 6 MC/JC E (15.6) (15.2) - 11.7 10 8.2 0.88 3.4 (0.4) 120 170 50 4.2 Rosegate - Rosegate 24010 M2a Unk W (38.7) (37.1) - 23.7 15.9 14.6 0.67 4.7 (3.6) 100 200 100 10.6 GSS Pinto Pinto(?)

23383 9 JC W (23.7) - - (19.8) 13 (14.3) - (4.3) (2.0) 105 130 25 (7.5) Out - Out 12018 9 JC W (24.2) (22.6) - 21.6 (9.5) 9.7 - 4.2 1.8 105 155 50 5.6 Out - Out 4539 2 ER W (20.5) (19.6) - 16.1 16.1 13.9 1.00 4.6 (1.8) - - - 7.0 Out - Out a looters pit GSS = Gatecliff Split Stem. Cultural Phases: Pie Creek (PC); South Fork (SF); James Creek (JC); Maggie Creek (MC); Eagle Rock (ER); Unknown (Unk). Parentheses indicate incomplete measurements. Dashes indicate indeterminable attribute.

Bonneville Estates Rockshelter Elko Points Removed from Analysis.

Axial Length Axial Final Accession # Accession Stratum Cultural Phase Block Length Max BIR Max Width Neck Width Base Width PSA DSA NO Neck Height MVK Elko/Pinto Bw/Mw Ratio Max Thickness Weight

24347 M2a Unk W (31.1) (29.3) - 24.2 (19.4) 15.3 4.5 (2.8) 130 185 55 8.3 ECN Elko ECN 7910 A1 Historic W (26.7) (26.4) - 18.9 17 13.7 0.90 5.5 (2.4) 130 190 60 6.7 ECN Elko ECN

10614 10 PC E (23.4) (21.3) 0.91 (21.2) 13.7 (16.0) - 4.7 (2.3) 145 165 20 (9.6) Elko Elko Frag. 2499 A7 JC W (12.5) (12.5) - (15.9) 15.9 10 - (3.7) (0.5) 120 - - 8.9 Elko - Frag. 17905 7 JC W (13.3) (13.3) 1.00 (17.6) 15 17.6 - (4.9) (1.2) 125 - - (13.3) ECN - Frag. 727 A5 JC W (10.5) (10.5) 1.00 (17.4) (13.7) 17.4 - 4.8 (0.8) 145 - - (10.5) ECN - Frag. a looters pit ECN = Elko Corner-notched. Cultural Phases: Pie Creek (PC); James Creek (JC); Unknown (Unk). Parentheses indicate incomplete measurements. Dashes indicate indeterminable attribute.