University of Nevada, Reno
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Anthropology
By
Amanda J. Hartman
Dr. Geoffrey M. Smith/Thesis Advisor
May 2019
© by Amanda J. Hartman 2019 All Rights Reserved
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by
Entitled
be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
, Advisor
, Committee Member
, Graduate School Representative
David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School
i
Migrations and interactions between early populations are a major focus of
Paleoindian research. Because there is a paucity of genetic data, researchers use distinctive projectile point styles to infer temporal and spatial diffusion of ideas between in situ populations or population migrations. However, archaeologists often study culture areas defined by physiographic features, which may preclude observation of stylistic continuity. Stemmed points occur at least as early as 13,500 cal BP (Davis et al. 2014) in the Intermountain West and continue throughout the Paleoindian Period ( 14,500-
8000 cal BP). Stemmed forms occur during both the Middle and Late Paleoindian periods
( 11,500-8000 cal BP) in the northern Great Plains. Prior research has identified a likeness between Late Paleoindian points from these two regions: Windust in the
Intermountain West and Cody on the Great Plains. In this thesis, I test the hypothesis that
Windust and Cody projectile points bear enough morphological similarity to imply transmontane movement of people and/or ideas during the Early Holocene. The results of classification techniques performed on non-standard interlandmark distances support the hypothesis that some Windust and Cody projectile points are morphologically similar and may be considered within the same class. ii
This undertaking would not have been possible without the generous help and support of many people. My thesis advisor Dr. Geoffrey Smith encouraged me to follow this line of inquiry, develop my writing, and maintain scope and focus throughout this process. Dr. Kyra Stull led me by the hand through the frightening wilds of Rstudio and statistics. Dr. Caitlin Early helped me to contextuali e the theoretical framework that I applied to this research. Richard Rosencrance shared tons of resources and knowledge.
My coworkers at Far Western Anthropological Research, Inc., have been unbelievably patient, helpful and supportive. Andrew Hoskins participated in this research. Chelsea Karthauser made the maps for this document and is the best office mate in the world. D. Craig Young helped me to develop my hypothesis and allowed me time to pursue my education. Last but certainly not least, a thanks is due to Vickie Clay, the patron saint of women archaeologists, for turning her light, support, and belief upon me.
I also could not have done this without the LeBlanc Family. Chris cooked for me, cleaned up after me, and put up with me. Lena and Desmond provided me with laughter, hugs, and perspective.
Thank you all so very, very much. iii
Abstract ...... i
Acknowledgements ...... ii
List of Tables ...... v
List of Figures ...... vi
Chapter 1 : Introduction ...... 1
The TP/EH Intermountain West ...... 2
Windust ...... 5
The TP/EH Great Plains...... 11
Cody ...... 12
Cultural Transmission Theory and Morphometrics ...... 17
Cultural Transmission Theory ...... 18
Morphometrics ...... 21
Summary ...... 23
Chapter 2 : Methods and Materials ...... 24
Materials ...... 24
Columbia Plateau Sites ...... 24
Great Plains Sites ...... 33
The Snake River Plain, Owyhee Uplands, and Northern Great Basin Sites ...... 37
Methods...... 45 iv
Expectations ...... 49
Chapter 3 : Results ...... 51
K-means Analysis ...... 51
Discriminant Function Analysis ...... 64
Synthesis ...... 66
Chapter 4 : Discussion ...... 77
Hypothesis...... 77
Expectations and Cultural Transmission ...... 78
The Age of Cody and Windust Projectile Points ...... 83
The Early Holocene Cultural and Natural Context ...... 86
Cody in the Intermountain West ...... 89
Summary ...... 93
Chapter 5 : Conclusion...... 95
Evaluation of Methods ...... 97
Future Research Directions ...... 98
Notes ...... 101
References Cited ...... 102
v
Table 1.1. Regional Cultural Chronologies with Periods and Corresponding Diagnostic
Artifacts...... 4
Table 1.2. Dated Windust Sites...... 6
Table 1.3. Dated Cody Sites ...... 13
Table 2.1. The Columbia Plateau Sample ...... 25
Table 2.2. The Great Plains Sample...... 33
Table 2.4. The Snake River Plain, Owyhee Uplands, and Northern Great Basin
Sample...... 38
Table 3.1. Summary of Results ...... 52
Table 3.2. Projectile Point Type and Subtype Cross-Validation Comparison ...... 75
Table 3.3. Summary of Results and Expectations ...... 76
Table 4.1. Windust and Cody Radiocarbon Dates in Chronological Order...... 84
vi
Figure 1.1. Map of Dated Windust and Cody Sites ...... 3
Figure 1.2. Proposed Windust Phase Chronology ...... 10
Figure 2.1. Sites in this Study ...... 26
Figure 2.2. Windust Cave Points ...... 27
Figure 2.3. Marmes Rockshelter Points ...... 28
Figure 2.4. Granite Point Points ...... 30
Figure 2.5. Paulina Lake Points ...... 31
Figure 2.6. Horner I Points ...... 34
Figure 2.7. Horner II Points ...... 35
Figure 2.8. Hell Gap Points...... 36
Figure 2.9 Buhl Biface ...... 39
Figure 2.10 Dirty Shame Rockshelter Points ...... 40
Figure 2.11. The Wallman Bison and Wallman Square-Base Points ...... 41
Figure 2.12. Guano Valley, Hawksy Walksy Valley, and Warner Valley Points ...... 43
Figure 2.13. Landmark Locations...... 46
Figure 3.1a K-means Analysis 1 ...... 56
Figure 3.1b. K-means Analysis 2 ...... 57
Figure 3.1c. K-means Analysis 3 ...... 57
Figure 3.1d. K-means Analysis 4...... 58
Figure 3.1e. K-means Analysis 5 ...... 58
Figure 3.1f. K-means Analysis 6 ...... 59 vii
Figure 3.1g. K-means Analysis 7...... 59
Figure 3.1h. K-means Analysis 8...... 60
Figure 3.1i. K-means Analysis 9...... 60
Figure 3.1j. K-means Analysis 10...... 61
Figure 3.1k. K-means Analysis 11...... 61
Figure 3.1l. K-means Analysis 12...... 62
Figure 3.1m. K-means Analysis 13...... 62
Figure 3.1n. K-means Analysis 14/16...... 63
Figure 3.1o. K-means Analysis 15 ...... 63
Figure 3.2a. DFA Analysis 1 ...... 67
Figure 3.2b. DFA Analysis 2 ...... 67
Figure 3.2c. DFA Analysis 3 ...... 68
Figure 3.2d. DFA Analysis 4 ...... 68
Figure 3.2e. DFA Analysis 5 ...... 69
Figure 3.2f. DFA. Analysis 6 ...... 69
Figure 3.2g. DFA Analysis 7 ...... 70
Figure 3.2h. DFA Analysis 8 ...... 70
Figure 3.2i. DFA Analysis 9 ...... 71
Figure 3.2j. DFA Analysis 10 ...... 71
Figure 3.2k. DFA Analysis 11 ...... 72
Figure 3.2l. DFA Analysis 12 ...... 72
Figure 3.2m. DFA Analysis 13 ...... 73
Figure 3.2n. DFA Analyses 14/16...... 73 viii
Figure 3.2o. DFA Analysis 15 ...... 74
Figure 4.1. Comparison of Analyses 5 and 6 DFA ...... 79
Figure 4.2. Summed Probability Distribution of Windust and Cody
Radiocarbon Dates ...... 86 1
This thesis addresses migrations and interactions between groups living on either side of the Rocky Mountains during the terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene (TP/EH)
( 16,000-8300 cal BP). Wormington (1957) characteri ed these groups as Paleo-eastern and Paleo-western (Figure 1.1). Paleo-eastern groups hunted big game with large finely- flaked, lanceolate-shaped projectile points. Paleo-western assemblages included stemmed or notched points and crescents for pursuing a variety of prey. To better understand the interactions between those groups and how such interactions may have resulted in the spread of technology, I focus on two types of Paleoindian projectile points from the Great
Plains and Intermountain West—Windust and Cody. I hypothesi e that Windust and
Cody projectile points are sufficiently similar in shape and si e to indicate ties between
Late Paleoindian groups in the American West.
Windust projectile points are considered to be a constituent of the Western
Stemmed Tradition (WST). These assemblages occur throughout the Intermountain West, an area that encompasses the Great Basin, Snake River Plain, and Columbia Plateau.
Cody technology is identified throughout much of temperate North America but is mostly associated with groups who lived on the Great Plains, including the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains, and the Wyoming and Bighorn basins. Several projectile point forms comprise the Cody Complex including Alberta, Alberta/Cody, Eden, and
Scottsbluff (Jepsen 1951; Wormington 1957). Both Windust and Cody points have 2 distinct shoulders and while there is variation in the stem and base shape of each type, a parallel stem with a square base is an element of both (Table 1.1).
Like much of North America, the Intermountain West was cooler and wetter during the TP/EH than it is today. The Great Basin held vast pluvial lake and marsh systems, while the Columbia Plateau contained woody parklands (Chatters 2012;
Grayson 2011; Madsen 2007). A plethora of research has focused on the relationship between TP/EH groups and marshy environments in the Great Basin. Paleoindians were probably broad-spectrum foragers who mapped onto wetland resources (Adams et al.
2008; Duke 2007; Jones et al. 2003; Mohr 2018; Smith and Barker 2017; Willig 1988).
Anadromous fish were not yet abundant in the Columbia and Snake river systems and intensive riverine adaptations had not developed yet (Chatters 2012; Plew 2008).
Subsistence strategies in the Columbia Plateau and Snake River Plain were likely very similar to those of groups in the Great Basin. Faunal assemblages throughout the
Intermountain West suggest a mammalian focus and include bison, elk, and deer in addition to smaller taxa (Beck and Jones 1997; Lyman 2013).
The archaeological record of the TP/EH in the Intermountain West is dominated by large, bifacial stemmed points. Understanding and interpretations of WST assemblages have changed over the course of decades of research. Bedwell (1970) posited that the earliest human occupation of the intermountain west was characteri ed by homogenous lifeways in response to the abundance of water on the landscape. As 3
Bonneville Estates Rockshelter; Bunny Pits; Buhl; Cooper’s Ferry; Cougar Mountain Cave; Dirty Shame Rockshelter; Fort Rock Cave; Hatwai; Hetrick; Kelly Forks; Marmes Rockshelter; Paulina Lake; Road Cut Site; Wallman Bison; Wallman Square-Base; Wildcat Canyon; Ben ; Blue Point; Dirty Shame Rockshelter; DjPm-16; EgPn-480; EkPU-8; Finley; Fletcher; Frasca; Hell Gap, Loc I; Hell Gap, Loc V; Heron Eden; Horner I; Horner II; Hudson-Meng; Jerry Craig; Jim Pitts; Lamb Spring; Lindenmeier; MacHaffie; Mammoth Meadow; Medicine Lodge Creek; Nelson; Osprey Beach; Red Rock Canyon; Scottsbluff; Swan Landing.
Figure 1.1. Map of Dated Windust and Cody Sites. 4
Table 1.1. Regional Cultural Chronologies with Periods and Corresponding Diagnostic Artifacts.
7000 Early Archaic: Cascade: Cascade Post-Ma ama: Northern Side- Early Archaic: Late Plano Early Plains Archaic 7250 Cascade, Large Side- notched, Humboldt, Large 7500 notched Corner-notched 7750 Late Paleoindian: Alberta, Cody, 8000 Paleoarchaic: Western Angostura, Pryor, Lovell, James 8250 Paleoarchaic: Western Windust: Windust Stemmed Allen, Fredrick, Lusk, Blackwater 8500 Fluted, Western Stemmed, Plano: Haskett, Early Plano Side-notched 8750 Crescents (possibly some Cody and 9000 some WST) 9250 9500 9750 Middle Paleoindian: Folsom, 10,000 Midland, Agate Basin, Hell Gap 10,250 Folsom: Folsom 10,500 10,750 Early Paleoindian: Goshen, Clovis, 11,000 Pre-Clovis 11,500 Clovis: Clovis 11,750 12,000 12,250 12,500 12,750 13,000 Paleoindian: Clovis and Great 13,250 Basin Concave Base with 13,500 Some Great Basin Stemmed 13,750 14,000 Paleoindian Pre-Clovis 14,250 14,500 Adapted from 1Andrefsky (2004), 2Rice (1972), 3Hildebrandt et al. (2016), 4Plew (2008), and 5Kornfeld et al. (2010).
5 temperatures rose and water became scarcer, groups on the Columbia Plateau adopted a riverine adaptation while occupants of the Fort Rock Basin became more heavily dependent on marshes. Bedwell (1970) recogni ed continuity in artifact forms from the
Fort Rock Basin to the margins of Lake Lahontan in western Nevada and eastern
California. He deduced that a Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition arose in the Great Basin in response to the same increasingly arid conditions that prompted change to a riverine focus on the Columbia Plateau (Bedwell 1970; H. Rice 1965; D. Rice 1972). Tuohy and
Layton (1977) recogni ed the technological similarities between several stemmed projectile point forms (e.g., Lake Mohave, Cougar Mountain, Haskett, Lind Coulee,
Parman, and Windust) and suggested they be incorporated into a Great Basin Stemmed
Series. Bryan (1980) proposed that what he recogni ed as the Stemmed Point Tradition originated in the Great Basin during the terminal Pleistocene and spread eastward via diffusion. With the exception of Windust, stemmed points were probably hafted to clothespin-style or socketed foreshafts and used as multifunctional tools (Beck and Jones
1997, 2009, 2012; Galm and Gough 2008; Lafayette 2006; Musil 1988). Here, I consider the morphological attributes as well as chronological and spatial distribution of Windust points (Table 1.2).
Windust
Windust may be the most poorly understood projectile point form associated with
WST technology, possibly because the term “Windust” is used to indicate several different ideas. For example, the Windust Phase (D. Rice 1972) includes several 6
Table 1.2. Dated Windust Sites.
W1 Bonneville Estates Rockshelter Windust 9430 50 11,060-10,515 hearth charcoal AA-58588 Graf 2007 Windust 9440 50 11,065-10,520 hearth charcoal AA-58589 Graf 2007 W2 Bunny Pits Windust 8780 120 10,165-9550 feature charcoal Beta-22580 Oetting 1994 Windust 8870 200 10,485-9520 feature charcoal Beta-26026 Oetting 1994 scattered Windust 9130 130 10,655-9915 charcoal Beta-23593 Oetting 1994 W4 Cooper's Ferry Windust 8430 70 9540-9290 charcoal Beta-114952 Davis and Schweger 2004 Ferguson and Libby 1962 W5 Cougar Mountain Cave Windust 8510 250 10,645-9405 sandal UCLA-1122 W6 Dirty Shame Rockshelter Windust 8850 75 10,190-9680 uncharred twigs SI-2268 Aikens et al. 1977 Windust 8865 95 10,220-9630 isolated charcoal SI-2265 Aikens et al. 1977 Windust 8905 75 10,225-9740 isolated charcoal SI-1775 Aikens et al. 1977 Windust 7925 80 uncharred twigs SI-1768 Aikens et al. 1977 W7 Fort Rock Cave Windust 8280 55 9440-9090 textile AA-99757 Connolly and Cannon 1999 Windust 8365 25 9470-9300 textile UCIAMS-127300 Connolly et al. 2016 Windust 8385 50 9505-9285 textile AA-101454 Connolly et al. 2016 Windust 8445 50 9540-9320 textile AA-101455 Connolly et al. 2016 Windust 8450 25 9525-9440 textile UCIAMS-127301 Connolly et al. 2016 Windust 8460 40 9535-9430 textile Beta-221343 Connolly et al. 2016 Windust 8480 30 9535-9460 textile UCIAMS-87419 Connolly et al. 2016 composite W8 Hatwai Windust 8800 1300 14,095-7325 charcoal Tx-3265 Ames et al. 2010 wood and Windust 10,800 150 13,045-12,420 charcoal Tx-3159 Ames et al. 2010 composite Windust 7950 90 9025-8560 charcoal WSU-1840 Ames et al. 2010 composite Windust 8600 500 11,090-8450 charcoal Tx-3082 Ames et al. 2010 composite Windust 9300 1800 17,515-7160 charcoal Tx-3081 Ames et al. 2010 composite Windust 9890 110 11,815-11,100 charcoal WSU-2440 Ames et al. 2010 composite Windust 10,100 700 13,455-9895 charcoal Tx-3160 Ames et al. 2010 W9 Hetrick Windust 9730 60 11,250-10,800 bone collagen Beta-78722 Rudolph 1995 Windust 9830 30 11,270-11,200 bone collagen UCIAMS-87907 Manning 2011 Windust 9835 35 11,295-11,195 bone collagen UCIAMS-87908 Manning 2011 Windust 9850 110 11,760-10,825 bone collagen Beta-78880 Rudolph 1995 W10 Kelly Forks Windust 7730 40 8590-8425 isolated charcoal Beta-336972 Longstaff 2013:339 Windust 7940 40 8985-8635 isolated charcoal Beta-313686 Longstaff 2013:339 7
Windust 8120 40 9245-8990 isolated charcoal Beta-313690 Longstaff 2013:339 W13 Road Cut Site Windust 8090 90 9285-8650 charcoal Beta-70586 Butler and Connor 2004 Windust 9785 220 12,005-10,570 composite soil Y-340 Cressman et al. 1960 W16 Wildcat Canyon Windust 8100 130 9405-8630 organic material Gak-1324 Dumond and Minor 1983 Windust 9860 510 12,785-9950 organic material Gak-1325 Dumond and Minor 1983 Note: Dates compiled and evaluated by Richard Rosencrance. Sites presented in bold are included in this analysis. Grey highlighting indicates that the site does not contribute to the Summed Probability Distribution (SPD) presented later in Figure 4.11.
8 projectile point forms, only one of which is the “Windust Type” (H. Rice 1965). The
Windust Phase was proposed by H. Rice to discuss the period during which the points were in use (1965). D. Rice (1972) defined the Windust Phase partially based on the work of H. Rice (1965). Windust points are an element of the Windust Phase along with a broad diet, milling equipment, and relatively stable settlement patterns. The phase is therefore sometimes characteri ed as an Archaic adaptation (Plew 2008; D. Rice 1972).
Windust Projectile Points. Windust Cave is located in a cliff face above the
Palouse River in southeastern Washington. The cave held evidence of occupation during all four of the culture historical periods that early researchers recogni ed on the Columbia
Plateau. Windust materials were recovered from strata attributed to Period I ( 12,900-
8300 cal BP)II. Windust Cave did not contain any material appropriate for radiocarbon dating, nor was Ma ama ash present. H. Rice (1965) approximated the age of the cave’s deposits based on comparable radiocarbon-dated strata at nearby Marmes Rockshelter.
Similar materials dated to 12,000-10,600 cal BP were recovered from the Roadcut Site near The Dalles, Oregon, corroborating the estimated age for the Windust Cave occupation (H. Rice 1965).
H. Rice (1965) identified two related assemblages within the Period I strata.
Tradition 1 ( 11,500-10,200 cal BP) contained the “Windust Type”, Style 1, and Style 2 points. He (1965:72) described the Windust Type as “[b]road lanceolate blade with shoulders approximately one-third the distance from the base to the tip. Stem expands immediately below the shoulders giving the specimen a ‘waisted’ appearance. Lenticular in cross section. Concave base” with oblique flaking. Style 1 has a lanceolate blade, a short square base, and is pressure flaked at right angles from the margin. Style 2 is 9 lanceolate-shaped and is also pressure flaked at a right angle from the margin. Style 1 and
2 points are sometimes slightly indented at the base.
Tradition 2 ( 10,200-8300 cal BP) contained the Farrington Base-notched and styles 3-13. Points in this tradition are generally thicker than those in Tradition 1 and exhibit narrower and less carefully placed flake scars. Tradition 2 projectile points are diverse in form but consistently exhibit a lanceolate blade and edge grinding on the base and stem. Styles 6, 7, and 11 are square-based while other styles look more like the
Windust Type with straight stems, shoulders, and concave bases (H. Rice 1965).
Archaeologists have applied the Windust moniker to all of the projectile point forms described above.
The Windust Phase. Windust Caves, Marmes Rockshelter, and Granite Point provided the assemblages that D. Rice (1972) used to define the cultural sequence for the
Lower Snake River. As previously stated, no dates were available from Windust Cave and the only date from Granite Point was considered impossibly old. The assemblages from the three sites are dated by comparative stratigraphy and radiocarbon dates from
Marmes Rockshelter. The earliest dates from Marmes are 10,800 275 14C BP (13,300-
12,000 cal BP) and 11,230 5014C BP (13,200-13,005 cal BP) (Hicks 2004), but these dates may be representative of a pre-Windust occupation. The most accurate date for
Windust occupation at Marmes is likely 9870 50 14C BP (11,400-11,200 cal BP) (Hicks
2004).
D. Rice (1972) observed 24 point styles in the Windust Phase and collapsed them into seven groups based on their style and stratigraphic position (Figure 1.2). He wrote
“the outline of Windust Phase projectile points is either stemmed with a pronounced 10 shoulder and basal notch/concave base or non-stemmed with a basal notch/concave base”
(D. Rice 1972:130). D. Rice (1972) identified Early and Late Windust sub-phases. The
Early Windust sub-phase is characteri ed by stemmed and basally-notched lanceolate projectile points made on various cryptocrystalline silicates. The Late sub-phase is dominated by leaf-shaped projectile points made on basalt.
Figure 1.2. Proposed Windust Phase Chronology. Adapted from D. Rice’s (1972) Figure 37.
Further Development. Windust groups 1 and 2 (D. Rice 1972) are identical except that stems in the second group may be slightly expanding to slightly contracting while the first group have parallel stems. Beck and Jones (2009) collapsed these types into the
Windust A category. By their definition, Windust A points are convex-sided with acute tips, small and well-defined shoulders, stems that may be parallel, slightly contracting, or 11 slightly expanding, straight bases and stems that are ground, lenticular cross sections, and finished with well controlled percussion and pressure flaking (Beck and Jones 2009; D.
Rice 1972). They observed these square-based projectile points at Sunshine Locality in eastern Nevada, significantly broadening the range of the point type. Like previous researchers in the area who recorded Scottsbluff points (Hutchinson 1988), Beck and
Jones (2009) noted a striking resemblance between Windust and Cody points from the
Great Plains.
Lohse and Schou (2008) focused on creating a simpler definition of Windust.
They conducted a computer-assisted analysis of Windust points that identified three styles: (1) Windust A are shouldered, lanceolate points with straight bases; (2) Windust B are shouldered, lanceolate points with indented bases; and (3) Windust C are unshouldered, lanceolate points. By these definitions, Windust A is most similar in shape to Alberta/Cody points from the Great Plains.
The TP/EH northern Great Plains were colder than they are today but warmer than other regions at the time. They provided a fairly homogenous environment for plants and, in turn, large gra ers (Kelly and Todd 1988; Melt er and Holliday 2010). After the
Younger Dryas, the Plains grew more mesic than today. Some areas were warmer than modern while others were cooler and characteri ed by hardwood parklands (Mu i 2005,
2013). Many early Holocene sites on the Great Plains are associated with bison kills, which suggested to early researchers that Cody groups focused primarily on bison. More 12 recent research has indicated that groups exploited a variety of resources and in some situations pursued a tethered lifeway focused on the foothills and mountains (Kelly and
Todd 1988; Knell et al. 2012; Pitblado 2003).
Unlike the Intermountain West, the Great Plains host substantial stratified open- air sites and therefore a finer-grained projectile point chronology (Table 1.3) (Holliday
2000). Clovis dominated the earliest period, followed by Folsom which may or may not be derived from Clovis (Bradley 2010; Kornfeld et al. 2010). The early Plano-lanceolate phase was followed by divergent stemmed point technology that included Agate Basin and Hell Gap projectile point forms. Bradley (1991) placed Goshen, Agate Basin, and
Cody points into the Collateral Point Complex, arguing an evolutionary relationship among these points (see Table 1.1).
Cody
Cody sites occur along the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains from central
Alberta to central Texas, as far east as Wisconsin (Knell and Mu i 2013), in the Black
Rock Desert of northwestern Nevada (Amick 2013), and possibly as far west as
Newberry Crater in central Oregon (Amick 2013). Our understanding of Cody lifeways and technology has evolved over the last 80 years. The first Cody Complex points were named Yuma after the Colorado county in which they were identified as a result of dust bowl erosion during the 1930s. Researchers identified two styles of Yuma points that seemed to have different geospatial patterning. The two forms were named for their type sites, Eden and Scottsbluff (Wormington 1948; 1957). Eden typically occurs with 13
Table 1.3. Dated Cody Sites.
C1 Ben Alberta 9540 50 11,100-10,700 charcoal UCR-3466 Root 1992, 1998 Scottsbluff 8910 70 10,225-9775 humates SMU-12271 Root 1992, 1998 Scottsbluff 8700 70 9900-9550 humates SMU-1282 Root 1992, 1998 C2 Blue Point Alberta 9540 40 11,085-10,705 charcoal Beta1333208 Johnson and Pastor 2003 C3 Dirty Shame Scottsbluff 6845 85 7920-7565 charcoal SI-1770 Hanes 1988 Rockshelter C4 DjPm-16 Alberta; Scottsbluff 9600 210 11,605-10,290 bone AECV-746C Van Dyke et al 1989 Alberta; Scottsbluff 9450 230 11,350-10,180 bone BIS-17 Van Dyke et al 1989 C5 EgPn-480 Scottsbluff 9540 70 11,140-10,610 bone Beta-127235 De Mille and Head 2001 C6 EkPU-8 Scottsbluff 9750 80 11,320-10,790 bison metacarpal TO-2999 Ronaghan 1993 C7 Finley Eden; Scottsbluff 9026 118 10,500-9765 bison apatite SMU-250 Frison 1991 Eden; Scottsbluff 9850 220 12,100-10,605 bison apatite RL-574 Frison 1991 C8 Fletcher Alberta; Scottsbluff 9540 110 11,200-10,575 seed CAMS-42980 Beaudoin et al. 2000 Alberta; Scottsbluff 9380 110 11,075-10,265 Bone TO-1097 Vickers and Beaudoin 1989 C9 Frasca Eden; Scottsbluff 8910 90 10,230-9705 bone SI-4848 Fulgham and Stanford 1982 C12 Heron Eden Eden 9210 110 10,670-10,200 bison bone S-3308 Corbeil 1995 Eden 8930 120 10,275-9605 bison bone S-3114 Corbeil 1995 Eden 8920 130 10,275-9560 bison bone S-3309 Corbeil 1995 C15 Hudson-Meng Alberta 9920 73 11,700-11,205 charcoal 4 dates Todd and Rapson 1994 Alberta 9820 160 11,920-10,720 charcoal SMU-224 Agenbroad 1978 Alberta 9675 70 11,225-10,780 bone collagen 2 dates Todd and Rapson 1994 Eden 9539 55 11,105-10,680 bone collagen NZA 29717 Mu i 2008 C16 Jerry Craig Eden; Scottsbluff 9310 50 10,660-10,300 charcoal Beta-109467 Hill and Kornfeld 1999; Richings- Germain 2002 C17 Jim Pitts Alberta; Scottsbluff 9390 65 11,055-10,430 wood AA-23779 Sellet 2009 14
C18 Lamb Spring Eden; Scottsbluff 8870 350 11,075-9130 bison collagen M-1463 Rancier et al. 1982; Stanford et al. 1981 C19 Lindenmeier Alberta 9880 100 11,750-11,130 charcoal TO-339 Haynes et al. 19992 Eden; Scottsbluff 9690 60 11,230-10,790 charcoal TO-341 Haynes et al. 19992 C20 MacHaffie Scottsbluff 8620 200 10,220-9145 wood GX-15152 Davis et al. 1991; Forbis and Sperry 1952 Scottsbluff 8280 120 9515-9010 bone collagen GX-15153-G Davis et al. 1991; Forbis and Sperry 1952 Scottsbluff 8100 300 9735-8340 wood L-578A Davis et al. 1991; Forbis and Sperry 1952 C21 Mammoth Eden; Scottsbluff 9390 90 11,070-10,295 charcoal TO-1976 Bonnichsen et al. 1992 Meadow C22 Medicine Lodge Eden; Alberta/Cody? 9360 380 11,800-9555 bone RL-150 Frison and Walker 2007 Creek Eden; Alberta/Cody? 9030 470 11,700-9015 bone RL-439 Frison and Walker 2007 Eden; Alberta/Cody? 8830 470 11,245-8705 charcoal RL-446 Frison 1991; Frison and Walker 2007 C23 Nelson Eden; Scottsbluff 9260 20 10,520-10,300 bone UCIAMS-26939 Kornfeld et al. 2007 Eden; Scottsbluff 7995 80 9075-8600 bone (bad date?) SI-4898 Cassells 1997 C24 Osprey Beach Eden; Scottsbluff 9360 60 10,740-10,405 charcoal Beta-148567 Johnson et al. 2004 C25 Red Rock Canyon Scottsbluff 8220 260 9745-8455 charcoal GX-1435 Dawe 2013 C26 Scottsbluff Scottsbluff 8939 85 10,240-9765 bison collagen AA-67443 Hill 2008 Scottsbluff 8680 85 10,115-9505 bison collagen AA-67442 Hill 2008 C27 Swan Landing Alberta 8675 270 10,410-9035 charcoal S-2178 Dawe 2013 Alberta 8630 100 10,115-9450 charcoal AEVC-10cx Dawe 2013 Note: Adapted from Knell and Mu i (2013) Table 1.1. Sites presented in bold are represented in this analysis. Grey highlighting indicates that the site does not contribute to the SPD presented later in Figure 4.1. 15
Scottsbluff, but Scottsbluff assemblages do not always contain Eden points, which suggested temporal significance to early archaeologists. The Horner Site became the type site for the Cody Complex when Eden and Scottsbluff were found in the same strata alongside distinctive asymmetrical knives, inferring the contemporaneity of the forms.
Alberta points are reported from the more northern climes of Cody territory, often with Scottsbluff points. Alberta are larger than Scottsbluff with longer stems, slightly convex bases, and somewhat blunted tips (Wormington 1957). The Alberta component at
Hell Gap Locality I appeared to be a short and discrete occupation followed by a Cody component (Irwin-Williams 1973) which is perhaps why researchers believed that
Alberta was ancestral to Cody. More recent research suggests that Alberta points were concurrent with Scottsbluff (see Table 1.3). However, Bradley (2009) has suggested that specimens from the Hell Gap component at Locality II should be considered Alberta rather than Hell Gap points because of their lenticular cross section, which would place
Alberta earlier than Eden and Scottsbluff. The lenticular cross-section of Alberta points is important because it departs from the Hell Gap style and signals technological change on the Plains. Rather than thinning bifaces to create thin, flat finished tools people were making tools that are thick and diamond-shaped in cross-section.
Upon revisiting the Horner Site in 1977, Frison and colleagues (1987) identified a projectile point form that they assumed represented an evolutionary stage between
Alberta and Cody points. Introducing the form as a new type was complicated for many reasons. Archaeologists had potentially collected and analy ed specimens of the newly identified form with Eden and Scottsbluff points over the course of previous work; therefore, the metric guidelines for Cody points may have already encompassed the 16 newly identified style. Bradley and Frison (1987) considered points from the Hudson-
Meng site in Nebraska as a template for Alberta; however, Huckell (1978) reported that the points he analy ed from Hudson-Meng may have been an interim style between
Alberta and Cody. Bradley and Frison (1987) ultimately chose to retain the name
Alberta/Cody rather than create a completely new projectile point type and potentially confuse the issue even further. Two forms of Alberta/Cody were identified, and radiocarbon dates and the distribution of Alberta suggest that the two types overlap in time and space.
The Cody Complex is comprised of several types of projectile points including
Alberta, Alberta/Cody I and II, Scottsbluff, and Eden. Alberta points have blades that are triangular to excurvate, parallel to contracting stems that are generally square but with some slightly concave to convex bases, exhibit fine percussion flaking, are lenticular in cross-section, are shouldered, and were likely hafted onto a split shaft (Bradley 2009;
Frison 1991; Huckell 1978; Wormington 1957). Alberta/Cody I points have lenticular cross-sections with no medial ridge and evenly convex blade edges that are widest at the shoulders and taper gradually to the tips. They have distinct stems with edges that are either parallel or slightly converging toward the bases and straight to slightly convex bases and exhibit basal edge grinding (Bradley and Frison 1987). Alberta/Cody II points are narrower than Alberta/Cody I points with less convex blade margins, have comedial flake scars that create a lenticular cross-section on the blade, and have stems that are parallel and flat with slightly convex bases (Bradley and Frison 1987). Scottsbluff points are wider than Eden and have triangular to parallel-sided blades, small shoulders, and broad stems. Scottsbluff stems are short with parallel to slightly expanding sides and 17 bases that are generally straight but sometimes slightly concave to slightly convex
(Pitblado 2003; Wormington 1957). Eden points are narrow lanceolates with diamond- shaped cross-sections, comedial flaking on both faces, and square stems that are sometimes achieved by pressure flaking (Justice 2002; Pitblado 2003).
Archaeologists often focus on culture areas determined by natural physiographic boundaries (Bryan 1980). I am not the first to posit that the point styles discussed above bear enough commonality to indicate interaction between TP/EH groups across the
Rocky Mountains. Bryan (1980) included points from the Wyoming Basin in his seminal synthesis of stemmed projectile points. Musil (1988) placed Windust with Cody projectile points in the Parallel-sided Sub-tradition and assumed that both were hafted onto a split foreshaft. Square-based points from Intermountain West locations such as the
Alvord Desert (Cannon and Wiggin 1975), Paulina Lake (Amick 2013), the Black Rock
Desert (Amick 2013; Clewlow 1968; Dansie et al. 1988), and the Sunshine Locality
(Hutchinson 1988) have all been called Cody. Therefore, it is appropriate to investigate the possibility that groups bearing Windust and Cody technology were not restricted by the Rocky Mountains.
Many researchers have used stylistic variation within projectile point types to infer the movements of, or interactions between, early groups (Buchanan et al. 2014;
Davis et al. 2012; Gingerich et al. 2014; Morrow and Morrow 1999; Scott 2016; Sholts et al. 2017; Shott and Trail 2010; Smith 2010; Smith and Goebel 2018). This is made 18 possible by two things: (1) the intentional or inadvertent application of ideas from cultural transmission theory; and (2) morphometrics. In the following sections, I present the basic tenets of both cultural transmission theory and morphometrics and their usefulness in addressing my question specifically.
Cultural Transmission Theory
Cultural transmission theory was developed in biology before being adopted by the social sciences. It is informed by Darwinian evolutionary theory and posits that behavior can operate like a phenotype with social learning systems as analogues to genotypes (Richerson and Boyd 1984). When applied to archaeology, cultural transmission theory seeks to identify group affiliation through the study of stylistic trends in assemblages under the assumption that style is the result of social learning (Bettinger and Eerkens 1997, 1999; Boyd and Richerson 1985; Cavalli-Sfor a and Feldman 1981;
Weissner 1983; Wobst 1977). Stylistic difference between neighboring groups is not guaranteed but when such differences are observed cultural boundaries can be inferred.
According to Dunnell (1978), analysis of idiosyncratic style choices and their spread and evolution is a superior to interpretations based on assumed function method for identifying culture. However, stylistic difference may only be implicit if the artifact in question is specifically intended to broadcast group affiliation (Weissner 1983; Wobst
1977). In her analysis of the Kalahari San, Weissner (1983) observed that artifacts made quickly in anticipation of having a short use life generally have little if any stylistic content, but projectile points are an exception to this rule. Stylistic attributes of San 19 arrowheads generally reflect linguistic or ethnic group membership even though particular projectile point attributes that denote affiliation may vary from group to group.
Bettinger and Eerkens’ (1997, 1999) work with regional variation in projectile point attributes and its ability to reflect culture change created a precedent for quantifying the results of social learning. Concepts about social learning allow researchers to model changes in behavior and material culture and make predictions about how information and habits were acquired. In turn, that allows researchers to build arguments about cultural interaction (Bettinger and Eerkens 1999; Davis et al. 2012; Lipo et al. 2015).
Researchers who employ cultural transmission theory have created complex models that allow them to objectively and quantitatively address issues like the amount of change one could expect to see after generations of drift (Eerkens and Lipo 2005; Porčić 2014) or the amount of change that occurs given various patterns of mobility (Atkisson et al. 2012;
Grove 2016; Lipo et al. 2015).
Some basic tenets of cultural transmission theory are that vertical transmission takes place from parent to child, oblique transmission occurs when the younger generation acquires information from non-parental individuals in an older generation, and horizontal transmission takes place when individuals acquire behavior from other individuals within their own generation (Cavalli-Sfor a and Feldman 1981). Vertical transmission is unbiased and reduces variation but does not necessarily reduce maladaptive traits. Other forms of transmission are biased and do reduce maladaptive traits. According to Boyd and Richerson (1985), the three main forms of biased transmission are: (1) direct bias, which occurs when a suite of traits is observed and an individual chooses one after experimentation; (2) indirect bias, which is the choice to 20 emulate the most effective model, and; (3) frequency dependent bias, which occurs when the most commonly modeled behavior is adopted. Boyd and Richerson (1985) also outline four models of learning that affect guided variation: (1) individuals have objectives or guiding criteria that allow them to rank possible outcomes of their behavior;
(2) individuals make assumptions about the relationship between observed events and the environment and the outcome of future decisions; (3) because observed events are imperfect indicators of the outcomes in the local environment, learning leads to errors; and (4) individuals have an initial guess about which forms of behavior are best in the local environment.
Bettinger and Eerkens (1999) used these concepts to explain differences between bow-and-arrow technology in the central Great Basin and California. They observed that there is a strong correlation between si e and shape in Great Basin points whereas shape and weight are correlated in California points. From this, they inferred that arrow points from the Great Basin reflect frequency dependent bias wherein the technology was learned through observation of a pooled norm, while the California sample reflects emulation of a more successful technology through trial and error. Mesoudi and O’Brien
(2008a, 2008b) tested this application of cultural transmission in a laboratory setting using computer simulations with and without human participants and found that humans are generally willing to copy the most successful model of projectile points and choose to retain shape even if other si e variables are altered. Participants also copy neutral projectile point traits, such as color, reinforcing the idea that indirect bias is a powerful force in the desire for individuals to adapt successfully in any given environment.
21
Morphometrics
Morphometric analysis was developed within the field of biology to study shape variation and analy e the underlying geometric form of an organism (Bookstein 1986,
1996a). Webster and Sheets (2010) outlined three types of morphometrics. Traditional morphometrics are frequently applied in archaeology and use tools like calipers and rulers to measure the distance between obvious points of reference directly from the object in question. Landmark-based morphometric analysis requires a digital format so that Cartesian coordinates can be taken at points of reference, or landmarks.
Outline-based morphometric analysis also utili es a digital platform and summari es the shape of an open or closed curve without fixing landmarks. Geometric morphometrics uses the mean shape described by landmarks to describe variation around that mean by removing the centroid si e (Bookstein 1996b; Spradley and Jant 2016). A more nuanced measure or description of morphological characteristics as made available by landmark- and outline-based morphometrics can tell us a lot more about things like social learning, technological development, and evolutionary patterning (Lycett and Cramon-Taubdel
2012; Webster and Sheets 2010).
Some researchers find landmark- and outline-based morphometrics cumbersome and argue that although morphometric techniques can address issues like authorship, they may not be more useful to classification than traditional methods (Gingerich et al. 2014).
Shott (2014) has critiqued traditional morphometric, or orthogonal, measurements because they oversimplify each measurement, fail to preserve the relationship between the measurements, and cannot address attributes of stone tools such as tip acuity and 22 cross-section that are crucial to finer analyses. While Shott (2014) champions novel measurement techniques, he also recogni es the limitations of digital morphometrics.
Landmarks can be difficult to choose and replicate and not all interesting aspects of a projectile point can be addressed without the help of speciali ed software.
Despite these possible shortcomings, morphometrics and geometric morphometrics have produced remarkable results in archaeology. Before the introduction of morphometrics proper, Holmer (1978) digiti ed landmarks and used discriminant function analysis to determine the viability of regional projectile point typologies in the eastern Great Basin. Archer and Braun (2009) gathered 3D data from large Acheulean cutting tools from South Africa. The 3D data allowed them to recogni e shape variation not evident in traditional analysis, and thus make inferences about early toolstone preference and conveyance. Lycett and Cramon-Taubdel (2012) discerned patterns in
Levallois core reduction that suggested attention to preserving flake and core geometry rather than reliance on planview reproduction. They suggest that their findings allude to cognitive functions such as intentional teaching and reasoning as opposed to replicating.
Buchanan and colleagues (2014) performed a geometric morphometric analysis of Clovis points from across temperate North America and through quantifying shape attributes concluded that there is significantly more shape variation than previously observed. More recently, Smith and Goebel (2018) used geometric morphometrics to create a cladistic model of Clovis points and present a trajectory of the spread of fluted point technology.
Other applications of geometric morphometrics in archaeology are as far ranging as examining the dispersion of grain species (Ros et al. 2013) to interpreting gender in
Paleolithic rock art authorship (Nelson et al. 2017). These kinds of studies are dependent 23 on identifying and analy ing shape in a way that is restricted by traditional measurement techniques.
In this chapter, I have presented the possibility that interactions between groups living in the Intermountain West and Great Plains during the TP/EH can be better understood through a morphological analysis of projectile points. I identified how the projectile points in this study differ from others in the same region. I outlined cultural transmission theory and its potential for identifying how stylistic continuity may represent cultural continuity. Finally, I provided background on how morphometric methodologies have been implemented in previous research to identify meaningful continuity and variation in archaeological material. 24
My research relies heavily on using form to predict provenance. If form can predict provenance, then physiographic cultural boundaries may be considered valid.
However, if provenance cannot be rigidly predicted by form, then cultural transmission or migration are implied. I selected specimens to compare from several locations throughout the Western United States (Figure 2.1). I compiled samples from type sites, dated contexts, and surface assemblages (see tables 1.2 and 1.3). In this chapter I discuss the provenance of my samples, how I classified the specimens and identified attributes that are unique to each class, and how those attributes are or are not specific to location.
Finally, I develop a list of possible relationships between Windust and Cody projectile points and the data that would support each scenario.
Columbia Plateau Sites
I analy ed projectile points from four sites on the Columbia Plateau (Table 2.1). I chose samples from Windust Caves (Figure 2.2), Marmes Rockshelter (Figure 2.3), and
Granite Point (Figure 2.4) because they comprise the type sites for the Windust Phase (D.
Rice 1972). The Paulina Lake assemblage contains Windust projectile points from dated contexts (Connolly and Jenkins 1999) (Figure 2.5). Although Paulina Lake is within the 25 historic Great Basin culture area, I consider it a Columbia Plateau site here because its association with the Columbia River drainage system is congruent with early observations that Windust was a riverine adaptation (Connolly and Jenkins 1999; D. Rice
1972).
Table 2.1. The Columbia Plateau Sample.
45WT41 Granite Point 4994 Category 1-5 Leonhardy 1970 4995 Category 1-4 Leonhardy 1970 4996 Category 1-4 Leonhardy 1970 5026 Category 1-4 Leonhardy 1970 5027 Category 1-5 Leonhardy 1970 5040 Category 1-5 Leonhardy 1970 5046 Category 1-9 Leonhardy 1970 5049 Category 1-5 Leonhardy 1970 5058 Category 1-7 Leonhardy 1970 5085 Category 1-5 Leonhardy 1970 45FR50 Marmes 3047 Windust AINW 2004 3077 Windust AINW 2004 3129 Windust AINW 2004 3130 Windust AINW 2004 3131 Windust AINW 2004 3139 Lanceolate AINW 2004 3166 Windust AINW 2004 3167 Windust AINW 2004 3171 Windust AINW 2004 3173 Windust AINW 2004 3176 Windust AINW 2004 3177 Windust AINW 2004 3178 Windust AINW 2004 3179 Windust AINW 2004 3183 Windust AINW 2004 45FR46 Windust Cave 1408 Windust Type Rice 1965 1518 Style 11 Rice 1965 1519 Style 11 Rice 1965 1520 Style 11 Rice 1965 1784 Style 6 Rice 1965 1786 Style 6 Rice 1965 1801 Style 6 Rice 1965 1805 Style 9 Rice 1965 35DS34 Paulina Lake CD-22 Stemmed Variety 1 Connolly and Jenkins 1999 CCB-7 Stemmed Variety 2 Connolly and Jenkins 1999 LLA-8 Stemmed Variety 2 Connolly and Jenkins 1999 AAD-6/3-3 Stemmed Variety 2 Connolly and Jenkins 1999
Windust Cave. The Windust Cave excavations contributed to the identification of
“Windust Type” projectile points and a preliminary seriation of short-stemmed and 26
Dirty Shame Rockshelter; Hell Gap Loc. I; Hell Gap Loc. V; Horner I; Horner II; Buhl; Marmes Rockshelter; Paulina Lake; Wallman Bison; Wallman Square-Base; Granite Point; Windust Caves; Guano Valley; Hawksy Walksy Valley; Warner Valley.
Figure 2.1. Sites in this Study. 27 square-based projectile points in the Lower Snake River drainage system (H. Rice
1965:100). This site is on the northern bank of the Lower Snake River just above its confluence with the Columbia River in eastern Washington. It is one of nine caves located in a cliff face above the Farrington Rapids at the upper end of the Ice Harbor
Reservoir. H. Rice tested the caves while at Washington State University in 1959.
Cultural materials recovered from Cave C (referred to as Windust Cave) provided the impetus for a more thorough effort in 1960 and 1961. Because the cave did not contain datable materials or Ma ama ash, H. Rice (1965) used regional geochronology and radiocarbon dates associated with similar assemblages from other locations to estimate the age of the deposit between 10,000 and 7500 14C BP ( 11,500-8300 cal BP).
Figure 2.2. Windust Cave Points. First row: A (Windust 1): 1518; B-C (Windust 2):1408, 1520. Second row: D-H (Windust 4): 1519, 1784, 1801, 1805, 1786.
28
Marmes Rockshelter. The Marmes Rockshelter is located on the west bank of the
Palouse River 1.5 mi. north of its confluence with the Snake River in southeastern
Washington. Archaeological salvage operations began in 1962 under the direction of
Richard Daugherty alongside geological studies led by Roald Fryxell through
Washington State University. The excavation team discovered human remains late in the
Figure 2.3. Marmes Rockshelter Points. First row: A-E (Windust 2): 3178, 3177, 3077, 3183, 3176. Second row: F-I (Windust 2): 3173, 3179, 3166, 3171. Third row: J-M (Windust 4) 3047, 3131, 3129, 3176; N (Windust 6) 3130. 29 project and worked at a fren ied pace to complete recovery ahead of the construction of the Lower Monumental Dam. They completed the effort in 1969. Washington State
University identified two stratigraphically separated cultural assemblages of considerable antiquity and importance on the floodplain in front of the shelter. The upper was termed the Marmes Hori on and contained the human remains. The lower Harrison Hori on contained only stone tools (Fryxell and Keele 1968). Fryxell and Keele (1968) stated that the materials are similar though not identical to those recovered from the Windust Cave
C, Wildcat Canyon, Lind Coulee, and Granite Point sites. Early in 1968, they estimated site age was estimated to be 11,000-10,000 14C BP ( 12,900-11,500 cal BP) based on geologic evidence. Radiocarbon dates obtained in 1968 indicated an age between 9540
300 14C and 8700 300 14C BP (11,968-9025 cal BP) (Fryxell 1968). The results and interpretations of the 1960s investigations were not published until 2004, at which time an older date of 11,230 50 14C BP (13,200-13,010 cal BP) was also published (Hicks
2004).
Granite Point. This site is located in eastern Washington at the bottom of the
Snake River Canyon at the downstream end of a gravel bar. Frank Leonhardy (1970) excavated Granite Point during 1967 and 1968. The focus of Leonhardy’s research was to determine if technological evolution can be identified distinctly from population replacement. Leonhardy argued that the earliest materials within Component I
(comparable to assemblages from Marmes Rockshelter, Windust Caves, Wildcat Canyon, and the Lenore site) and Component II (a Cascade assemblage) fall along an evolutionary continuum. The only dateable material from Component I yielded an impossibly old date that was discarded. Leonhardy estimated Component I to be between 10,000 and 9000 30
14C BP ( 11,500-10,200 cal BP) based on dates of similar assemblages and regional geochronology.
Figure 2.4. Granite Point Points. First row: A-C (Windust 1): 5026, 4995, 4996. Second row: D-H (Windust 2): 4994, 5027, 5040, 4049, 5085. Third row: I-H (Windust 4): 5085, 5046.
Paulina Lake. The Paulina Lake site underlies an access road to a campground on the shores of Paulina Lake within the Newberry Crater of central Oregon. The site 31 straddles Paulina Creek, which drains into the Deschutes and finally the Columbia River
(Connolly and Jenkins 1999). The Pacific Gas Transmission Company dug a 6-ft.-deep test trench in 1960 that exposed cultural materials above Ma ama tephra. Later testing in
1988 identified a pre-Ma ama cultural deposit. In 1990, Thomas Connolly led testing that exposed a dense pre-Ma ama cultural level prompting further investigation in 1991 and full data recovery in 1992 (Connolly and Jenkins 1999). Three distinct pre-Ma ama cultural components were identified over the course of the 1990s work. Component 1 contained stemmed projectile points and a hearth feature and yielded a radiocarbon date of 9920 470 14C BP (12,705-10,255 cal BP). Component 2 contained a habitation floor, post molds, and hearth features associated with a radiocarbon date range of 9060 80 14C
BP to 7930 80 14C (10,485-8590 cal BP) (Connolly and Jenkins 1999).
Figure 2.5. Paulina Lake Points. First row: A (Windust 1) CCB-7/3-9; B-C (Windust 4): CD-22/3-1, LLA- 8/3-9; D (basal fragment): AAD-6/3-3.
32
Following D. Rice (1972), I consider samples from Marmes Rockshelter, Windust
Caves, and Granite Point as a single analytical unit. Washington State University provided me with catalogues of their collections from Marmes, Granite Point, and
Windust Caves. I chose samples from the Windust Caves from the Period I, Tradition I assemblage. Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc. (AINW) analy ed the lithic assemblage several years after excavations at Marmes were completed, by which time the
Windust form was established and I was able to choose Windust points from the Marmes assemblage. The Granite Point sample comes from Component I. I selected the majority of the Columbia Plateau sample from the aforementioned sites and travelled to
Washington State University to photograph the artifacts. The University of Oregon generously lent artifacts from Paulina Lake and Dirty Shame Rockshelter that I chose from descriptions and illustrations in monographs on those sites (Connolly and Jenkins
1999; Hanes 1988). I selected points from these collections that retained the majority of their proximal portions, including shoulders.
I enacted a descriptive classification scheme that could encapsulate the variability within the Columbia Plateau sample while allowing for direct comparison. I employed the seven basic types identified by D. Rice (1972) (see Figure 1.2). I applied this scheme to the points from Marmes, Granite Point, Windust Caves, and Paulina Lake. My analysis includes eight points from Windust Cave (see Figure 2.2), 14 points from Marmes
Rockshelter (see Figure 2.3), 10 points from Granite Point (see Figure 2.4), and four points from Paulina Lake (I selected three specimens for analyses 1-12 and considered eight basal fragments appropriate for analyses 13-16) (see Figure 2.5).
33
Great Plains Sites
I traveled to University of Wyoming to photograph points from two sites in the northern Great Plains (Table 2.2). To the best of my knowledge, the Horner Site is one of only three with a significant number of potential Alberta/Cody points (Amick 2013;
Bradley and Frison 1987; Huckell 1978). I analy ed all available points from this site
(Figure 2.6 and Figure 2.7). I also photographed points from the Hell Gap Site, which possesses fairly discrete Alberta and Scottsbluff components and may contain
Alberta/Cody materials (Irwin-Williams 1973; Kornfeld and Larson 2009) (Figure 2.8).
Table 2.2. The Great Plains Sample.
48GO305 Hell Gap 14R200-14-88 Alberta Bradley 2009 Alberta I-376 Alberta Bradley 2009 Alberta I-398 Alberta Bradley 2009 Alberta I-78 Alberta/Cody Bradley 2009 Alberta II-3630 Alberta Bradley 2009 Hell Gap II-3640 Alberta Bradley 2009 Hell Gap I-378 Cody/interim Bradley 2009 Eden/Scottsbluff X-23 Alberta/Cody Bradley 2009 surface 48PA29 Horner II 77101 Alberta/Cody I Bradley and Frison 1987 Horner II 77102 Alberta/Cody I Bradley and Frison 1987 Horner II 77103 Alberta/Cody I Bradley and Frison 1987 Horner II 77144 Alberta/Cody I Bradley and Frison 1987 Horner II 77146 Alberta/Cody I Bradley and Frison 1987 Horner II 77154 Alberta/Cody I Bradley and Frison 1987 Horner II 77156 Alberta/Cody I Bradley and Frison 1987 Horner II 77184 Alberta/Cody I Bradley and Frison 1987 Horner II 77187 Alberta/Cody II Bradley and Frison 1987 Horner II Horner I 77070 Alberta/Cody II Bradley and Frison 1987 Horner I 77071 Scottsbluff Bradley and Frison 1987 Horner I 77067 Scottsbluff Unknown Horner I 77062 Scottsbluff Bradley and Frison 1987 Horner I
The Horner Site. The Horner Site is located on the western margin of the Bighorn
Basin at the foot of the Absaroka Mountains of western Wyoming. This multi-component bison bone bed is at the confluence of the Shoshone River and Sage Creek 11 km from 34 the mouth of Shoshone Canyon. Glenn Jepsen of Princeton University conducted initial investigation of the site in 1949-1950 with the primary purpose of examining the bison bone bed. Waldo Wedel of the Smithsonian Institute joined the project in 1952 for the last of the early field seasons (Wedel 1987). In 1977, George Frison from the University of Wyoming led a geologic exploration of the site. That fieldwork revealed a second bone bed characteri ed by larger bison. Researchers in the 1970s also identified Alberta/Cody I and II projectile points there. Horner I, as the later component of the site came to be
Figure 2.6. Horner I Points. First row: A (Alberta/Cody II): 77070; B-D (Scottsbluff): 77062, 77071, 77076.
35 called, yielded dates of 8750 120 14C BP (10,160-9540 cal BP) and 8840 140 14C BP
(10,220-9555 cal BP). Horner II, discovered in the 1970s, produced dates of 10,060
220 14C BP (12,525-11,100 cal BP), 9875 85 14C BP (11,700-11,160 cal BP), and 9390
75 14C BP (11,065-10,305 cal BP) (Frison 1987).
Figure 2.7 Horner II Points. First row: A-D (Alberta/Cody I): 77101, 77102, 77103, 77144. Second row: E- H (Alberta/Cody I): 77184, 77154, 77146; I (Alberta/Cody II) 77187.
36
Hell Gap. Hell Gap is located on the east side of the Hartville Uplift at the foot of the Haystack Range in eastern Wyoming. James Duguid observed cultural materials eroding from TP/EH soils in a cutbank during a flash flood in 1958 and reported his find to George Agogino of the University of Wyoming. Agogino’s students began preliminary
Figure 2.8. Hell Gap Points. Top row: (Alberta, A-D) II-3630, II-3640, 1-376, 1-389. Second row: (Scottsbluff, E) 1-378, (Alberta, F) 14R-200-14-88.
excavations in the spring of 1960. The results were promising and prompted Agogino to ask Cynthia Irwin-Williams and Henry Irwin of Harvard University to join the Hell Gap investigation (Duguid 2009). The Hell Gap Site consists of five localities spread across a 37 mile-long valley that have yielded stratified deposits representing the entire northern
Great Plains Paleoindian sequence. Locality I contains the full suite of Paleoindian projectile points (Clovis, Goshen, Folsom, Midland, Agate Basin, Hell Gap, Alberta,
Cody, and Frederick) as stratigraphically discrete components. Locality II contains
Midland, Agate Basin, Hell Gap, and Lusk components (Irwin-Williams et al. 1973;
Kornfeld and Larson 2009). The Alberta component at Locality I has an age range of
10,560 80 14C BP (12,705-12,170 cal BP) to 9410 95 14C BP (11,085-10,300 cal BP)
(Haynes 2009), but a more recent analysis suggests an age range of 10,700-10,200 cal
BP for the Alberta component and 11,300-10,700 cal BP for the underlying Hell Gap component (Pelton et al. 2017). The Hell Gap component at Locality II presumably falls within the same age range.
The Snake River Plain, Owyhee Uplands, and Northern Great Basin Sites
Other Intermountain West sites containing square- and concave-based projectile points are located throughout the Snake River Plain (SRP), Owyhee Uplands, and northern Great Basin. Here, I introduce the Buhl Burial (Figure 2.9), Dirty Shame
Rockshelter (Figure 2.10), Wallman Bison and Wallman Square-Base sites (Figure 2.11), and other locales in the northern Great Basin (Figure 2.12). These sites should demonstrate the variability of square- and concave-based projectile points from locations between the Windust and Cody type sites (Table 2.3).
The Buhl Burial. The Buhl Burial was discovered in a gravel quarry on the south side of the Snake River in south-central Idaho. The site consists of the remains of a young 38 woman, a stemmed biface, a bone needle, and a badger baculum. The remains were disarticulated but the position of the biface relative to the cranium implies that these two elements were at least somewhat near their original deposition. Isotopic analysis suggests that the woman’s diet consisted of meat and fish and occlusal wear suggests that foods
Table 2.4 The Snake River Plain, Owyhee Uplands, and Northern Great Basin Sample.
10TF1019 Buhl Various Various N/A Isolates Guano Valley Iso-001 WST Surface Iso-002 WST Surface Iso-010 WST Surface 35ML65 Dirty Shame Rockshelter B210 Plano Hanes 1988 Zone 5 B410 Plano Hanes 1988 Zone 5 35HA2599 Hawksy Walksy 410 WST Surface 460 WST Surface 461 WST Surface 464 WST Surface 485 WST Surface 522 WST Surface 523 WST Surface 526 WST Surface 35HA840 1510 WST Surface 1569 WST Surface 1683 WST Surface 2000 WST Surface 2243 WST Surface 26HU58 Wallman Bison SW-504 Scottsbluff Dansie et al. 1988 (partially buried) 26HU22 Wallman Square-Base DRI-17 Alberta/Cody Amick 2013 Surface DRI-8 Alberta/Cody Amick 2013 Surface KT-2 Alberta/Cody Amick 2013 Surface SM-3 Alberta/Cody Amick 2013 Surface SM-5 Alberta/Cody Amick 2013 Surface SM-6 Alberta/Cody Amick 2013 Surface SW-14 Alberta/Cody Amick 2013 Surface SW-510 Alberta/Cody Amick 2013 Surface SW-511 Alberta/Cody Amick 2013 Surface SW-520 Alberta/Cody Amick 2013 Surface SW-534 Alberta/Cody Amick 2013 Surface SW-573 Alberta/Cody Amick 2013 Surface SW-574 Alberta/Cody Amick 2013 Surface SW-579 Alberta Amick 2013 Surface SW-582 Alberta/Cody Amick 2013 Surface Warner Valley G43-4 WST Surface G43-7 WST Surface G43-8 WST Surface G43-9 WST Surface G43-10 WST Surface G43-11 WST Surface P9-1 WST Surface P10-9 WST Surface Isolates GIF-50 WST Surface GIF-116 WST Surface
39 were processed with stone. Her bones returned a radiocarbon date of 10,675 95 14C BP
(12,740-12,420 cal BP) (Green et al. 1998); however, this date is based on the assumption that her diet was primarily terrestrial. Recent research posits that her diet was 83% marine and appropriate calibration indicates that the remains may date to 12,135-11,300 cal BP (Richard Rosencrance, personal communication, March 2019).
Figure 2.9 Buhl Biface.
Dirty Shame Rockshelter. This site is located in southeastern Oregon along a tributary to the Owyhee River that in turn drains into the Snake River. The site was excavated in 1973 by University of Oregon under the direction of Melvin Aikens. Hanes
(1977) describes a Windust point with a lanceolate blade, squared shoulders and a broad stem that is parallel-sided and has a broadly notched base in Zone VI (the lowest cultural deposit). The point is made on black vitrophyre from the Whitehorse source and was recovered from just above a charcoal sample dated to 8865 95 14C BP (10,220-9635 cal 40
BP). A point fragment “resembling the Scottsbluff type,” and another “resembling the
Angostura type” (Hanes 1977:6) were recovered from Zone V; both were made on non- local chert and situated below charcoal that returned a date of 7850 120 14C BP (8995-
8430 cal BP) and were later classified as lanceolate Plano (Hanes 1988). Zone V also contained the remains of Bison antiquus (Grayson 1977). Another potential Windust point was reported from Zone IV. Of these, only the Angostura and Scottsbluff points retain characteristics appropriate for inclusion in my analysis.
Figure 2.10. Dirty Shame Rockshelter Points: A (Angostura): B2-10/2A-1; B (Scottsbluff) B4-10/2A-1.
Wallman Square-Base Site. This site is a multicomponent lithic scatter located along the Quinn River in Nevada’s Black Rock Desert. William Clewlow inventoried the area in the late 1960s and reported temporally diagnostic projectile point forms reflecting human use of the area from the Paleoindian to the Late Archaic periods (Clewlow 1968).
The Paleoindian assemblage included “Lind-Coulee like” projectile points, crescents, and parallel sided stem fragments that he wrote bore a “generic affinity” to Alberta points 41
(Clewlow 1968:28). The Desert Research Institute in cooperation with the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) tested the site in 1990. Amick (2013) reports that the 1990 effort yielded evidence of a substantial Cody occupation including 11 complete points, many of which conform closely to Alberta/Cody I and II forms identified at the Horner
Figure 2.11. The Wallman Bison and Wallman Square-Base Points. First row: A (Scottsbluff from the Wallman Bison Site): SW-504; B-G (Wallman Alberta/Cody from the Wallman Square-Base Site): DRI- 17, DRI-8, KT-2, SM-3, SM-5, SM-6. Second row: H-L (Wallman Alberta/Cody from the Wallman Square-Base Site): SW-14, SW-510, SW-511, SW-520, SW-534. Third row: M-Q (Wallman Alberta/Cody from the Wallman Square-Base Site) SW-582, SW-573, SW-574, SW-583, SW-579. (Amick 2013).
and Hudson-Meng sites. Efforts to document private collections from the site yielded 161 additional Cody projectile points. Excavations revealed black mat deposits 55 cm below 42 the surface that returned a radiocarbon date of 8810 160 14C BP (10,230-9535 cal BP)
(Amick 2013).
Wallman Bison Site. Avocationalist Steve Wallman discovered bison remains along with a square-based projectile point 10 km south of the Wallman Square-Base
Site in an area that was likely a broad marshy delta during the TP/EH (Dansie et al.
1988). Professional archaeologists examined the site in 1982 and in 1987 a team including Alan Bryan, Ruth Gruhn, Sharon Taylor, Amy Dansie, and Andon Dansie excavated the site (Dansie et al. 1988). Bison bone returned a radiocarbon date of 5240
230 14C BP (6505-5485 cal BP) but a later testing of amino acids returned a date of 9770
50 14C BP (11,260-11,105 cal BP) (Dansie and Jerrems 2004). The older date is congruent with early Cody Complex dates from the Great Plains (Knell and Mu i 2013).
Northern Great Basin Surface Assemblages. Square-based projectile points occur in many areas of the Intermountain West. The University of Nevada, Reno’s Great Basin
Paleoindian Research Unit (GBPRU) holds collections from various locations in the northern Great Basin. Surface collections from Guano Valley in southeastern
Oregon/northwestern Nevada, Hawksy Walksy Valley, also on the Oregon/Nevada border, and Warner Valley in southeastern Oregon contain a variety of square-based and stemmed points as well as crescents (Christian 1997; Jew et al. 2015; Reaux et al. 2018;
Smith et al. 2015). Square-based points from this area are generally considered WST because of their location within the Intermountain West.
I photographed a cast of the Buhl biface to include in my analysis (see Figure
2.9). It has been classified as Windust, Cody, Plano, and WST although it does not exhibit characteristics that place it in the same clade as other square-based WST points 43
(Holmer 2009; Plew 2008; Scott 2016; Yohe and Woods 2002). If the biface could be definitively classified, then researchers might be able to infer more about the lifeways or
Figure 2.12. Guano Valley, Hawksy Walksy Valley, and Warner Valley Points. First row: A-C (Stemmed from Guano Valley): IS0-001, ISO-002, ISO-010 (Guano Valley); D-E (Stemmed from Hawksy Walksy Valley): 041, 460. Second row: F-J: (Stemmed from Hawksy-Walksy): 464, 485, 522, 523, 461. Third row: K-P (Stemmed from Hawksy Walksy Valley): 1596, 526, 2000, 1638, 2243, 1510. Fourth row Q-U (Stemmed from Warner Valley): G43-4, G43-10, G43-7,G43-8,G43-9. Fifth row: V-Z (Stemmed from Warner Valley): P9-1,GIF-50, GIF116, P10-9, G43-11.
44 mobility patterns associated with that technology. The University of Oregon kindly lent me specimens from Dirty Shame Rockshelter, two of which are suitable for my study
(see Figure 2.10). During my analyses, I discovered that the Angostura point from Zone
V of the Dirty Shame Rockshelter materials diverged radically from the other specimens and had to be culled from the sample. Although this site does not provide very much in the way of materials appropriate to this analysis, it does place Late Paleoindian lithic technology associated with the Great Plains in the Intermountain West (Pitblado 2003). I obtained the Wallman Alberta/Cody sample from 17 illustrations of projectile points in published material (Amick 2013) (see Figure 2.11). The Wallman sample provides several pieces of information. If, as Amick (2013) has suggested, the points fall within the Alberta/Cody class, then the Wallman sites provide information about the westward extent of Cody expansion, the amount of variation tolerated within the Alberta/Cody subtype, and a radiocarbon date for when Cody technology was present in the Great
Basin. I selected 26 complete and partial proximal fragments from Guano, Hawksy
Walksy, and Warner valleys (see Figure 2.12). Complete specimens from the northern
Great Basin provide information about morphological variability of specimens located between type sites. Analysis of basal portions will indicate how well this style of projectile point can be classified by the basal portion alone.
I retained the earliest classifications of points from the Dirty Shame Rockshelter. I consider the Wallman specimens Alberta/Cody after Amick (2013), although I identify them in my analyses as Wallman Alberta/Cody. GBPRU materials have generally been classified as square-based or WST; here I refer to all specimens from these assemblages as Stemmed. 45
The first step to answering questions about the relationship between Windust and
Alberta/Cody projectile points is to objectively establish them as separate classes.
Toward that goal, I applied k-means cluster analysis and discriminant functions analysis
(DFA) two kinds of data derived from the samples. First, I analy ed nonstandard interlandmark metric distances (henceforth referred to as interlandmark distances or
ILDs) (Spradley and Jant 2016) on four subsets of variables. Interlandmark distances supply detailed metric information generally unavailable via traditional measurement techniques. I then performed the same tests using geometric morphometric (GM) ILDs.
The GM data reflect shape trends without the influence of si e. Using these two data sets allows for two things: (1) examining variability in shape versus variability in si e; and (2) identifying which attributes contribute most significantly to class membership.
Throughout this analysis I refer to ILDs extrapolated from metric coordinates as si e variables and ILDs from GM coordinates as shape variables.
This analysis addresses a planview of the proximal portion of the projectile point.
The proximal portion is of interest for several reasons. The base is less likely to undergo resharpening and generally retains its shape throughout the use life of the projectile point
(Goodale et al. 2015; Thomas 1981). Also, Goodale and colleagues (2015) assert that the haft element contains the original intent of what the toolmaker envisioned, which is influenced by cultural transmission. It makes sense that even if a blade fragment were to 46 be rebased, as they often were (Amick 2013; Davis et al. 2017; Huckell 1978), the new base should still be manufactured to reflect social norms.
I chose 13 landmarks along the hafting element of each specimen (Figure 2.13).
The landmarks are intended to reflect attributes described in the Monitor Valley Key
(Thomas 1981) such as shoulder, neck, and base width, distal and proximal shoulder angle, and basal indentation; these would be considered standard landmarks. Notch angle may have the potential to indicate authorship and toolkit (Goodale et al. 2015) so I placed landmarks halfway between the shoulder and the neck, and between the neck and the base to indicate the curvature of those elements; these are non-standard landmarks. I initially set landmarks that would describe blade shape but the disproportionate amount of retouch on points from different localities rendered this information meaningless, so I discarded it early in my analysis.
Figure 2.13. Landmark Locations. 47
Landmark-based morphometrics are coordinate driven; thus, landmarks must exist in digital space. For this analysis I set landmarks on digital images acquired through a few different means. I photographed the specimens from Paulina Lake, Windust Caves,
Marmes Rockshelter, Granite Point, Horner I and II, Dirty Shame Rockshelter, and the
GBPRU collections. I photographed a cast of the Buhl biface. I used published drawings of specimens from the Wallman Bison and Wallman Square-Base sites (Amick 2013). I used the programs tpsDIG2w32 and tpsUtil (Rohlf 2016) available through SUNY Stony
Brook (http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/) to set landmarks. I set a scale so that specimens would retain a sensible relationship to each other and so that the exported data could be presented as common metrics. I used the tpsUtil software to convert .tps coordinate data into metric data in a .csv format.
Before beginning my analyses, I performed a technical error of measurement
(TEM) test to establish the replicability and validity of the landmarks that I chose (Bland and Altman 1996). Another qualified archaeologist and myself set landmarks on10 specimens that I selected at random. Andrew Hoskins, MA, was gracious enough to participate in the test. We each set landmarks on each of the specimens. I calculated the
ILDs and compared them. Because no measurement showed a greater average discrepancy than 5 mm I consider the landmarks replicable.
I set landmarks on all specimens using a 10 mm scale. With the .tps output, I created two Microsoft Excel 2018 spreadsheets. I calculated the Euclidean distance between each possible pair of coordinates to find the metric ILDs, or si e variables. I performed a general Procrustes analysis on the metric coordinates that removed centroid 48 si e and then calculated the Euclidean distance between each possible pair of the resulting coordinates to find the GM ILDs, or shape variables. I calculated a total of 78 variables each for si e and shape.
I imported the full suite of ILDs into Rstudio and scanned the data for any outliers that might have been the result of data collection errors. Once I cleaned the data and determined that all outlying specimens are truly outliers, I ran ANOVA and Kruskal-
Wallis post-hoc tests to determine which measurements play a significant role in assigning specimens to subtypes. However, all variables were significant and none could be eliminated. The sample si e of each class in a classification analysis should be three times more than the number of classifying variables to avoid overfitting the model and to cut down on statistical noise (Huberty 1994; Stull 2016). I could not eliminate variables based on the results of the ANOVA test and thus had to remove variables via other means. I discarded all measurements associated with the blade, which is appropriate because the blade is susceptible to post-manufacture modification: this left 55 variables. I then identified four subsets of variables of complete points: (1) one subset contains all variables except the blade; (2) one subset omits the shoulder element; (3) one subset retains the shoulder but omits all variables related to the base; and (4) one subset contains only bases. I then applied backwards stepwise selection to each of the four subsets as well as principal components analysis followed by backwards stepwise selection. These variable reduction processes resulted in 16 subsets of variables.
For each of the 16 subsets I performed a k-means cluster analysis, which compares combinations of observations until it finds which observations are most alike and groups them into a number of clusters determined by the analyst. This analysis 49 determines if previous classifications assign specimens to the group with which they share the most commonality. I then conducted a discriminant function analysis (DFA) which maximi es between group differences and can be used to place an unclassified specimen into a group. I used DFA to classify specimens by subtype, type, and provenance and leave-one-out cross-validation to determine the accuracy of the DFA scores. The psych package in Rstudio contains a confusionMatrix which provides a
Cohen’s kappa score that indicates the performance of the predictors. I used this to determine which variables provide results most consistent with predetermined classes.
My research examines the morphological similarities between Windust and
Alberta/Cody projectile points to determine if those similarities can inform our understanding of interactions between groups in the Great Plains and Intermountain West during the TP/EH. Here, I outline three possible scenarios and which types of results support each.
Scenario 1. If the two technological traditions developed independently then I expect specimens to show suppressed variation within groups with a large degree of variation between groups (Mesoudi and O’Brien 2008a). I also expect that geographic provenance will be predicted by both metric and shape attributes. Furthermore, I expect that surface specimens from the Great Basin and SRP will adhere closely to attributes of either tradition. 50
Scenario 2. If the two traditions developed separately but interacted then I expect specimens from the Columbia Plateau and Great Plains to show greater variation between groups than within groups and that provenance will be mostly predicted by both shape and metric data, but with some error. Specimens from the Great Basin and SRP will contain attributes of both traditions, high variability between shape and metric attributes, and shape and metric attributes will not predict provenance (Lipo et al. 2015).
Scenario 3. If the two traditions share an ancestor/descendent relationship (i.e., square-based points developed in one region and spread to the other) then I expect the parent technology to display correlating shape and si e attributes and the descendent technology to exhibit subtle shape difference due to the effects of drift. In this scenario I expect specimens from the Great Basin and SRP to display a gradual decline in the retention of size and shape attributes over space as a result of drift (Mesoudi and O’Brien
2008a, 2008b). 51
In this chapter I present the results of k-means and DFA analyses I conducted on subsets (n=16) of ILDs (n=55) that reflect the overall morphology of the proximal portions of projectile points in my studyIII. My results are summari ed in Table 3.1. The first column describes what portion of the projectile points I analy ed and the variable reduction techniques that I employed. The second column contains the variables from the subtype analyses with the most weighted variables in the DFA presented in bold. The third column presents the overall accuracy of the DFA classification. The final column gives the Cohen’s kappa score, which evaluates how the classifiers performed. I summari e my findings and articulate them to expectations associated with the three scenarios posited in Chapter 2 (Table 3.3).
I designated three clusters for the k-means analyses to determine how the eight subtypes I identified fit within three types (Figure 3.1a-o). Analysis 1 and Analysis 3 contain all si e variables and show similar results. Both analyses 1 and 3 place the majority of points in two clusters. One cluster contains 80% or more of the Windust 2 points and 60% of the Windust 4 points. The other major cluster captures the majority of Alberta/Cody and Scottsbluff points. Other subtypes group vary depending on si e and 52
Table 3.1. Summary of Results.
1. Complete point: LSLDSA + LSLN + LSLPSA + LSLBS + LSMBS + LSRBS + LSRPSA + Subtype .33 .22 si e LSRDSA + LSRS + LDSALN + LDSALPSA + + LDSARBS + + Type .55 .26 stepwise LDSARN + LDSARDSA + LNLPSA + LNLBS + + LNRPSA + LNRN + Site .20 .10 LNRDSA + LNRS + LPSALBS + LPSAMBS + LPSARBS + LPSARPSA + LPSARN + LPSARDSA + LBSMBS + LBSRPSA + LBSRN + LBSRDSA + LBSRS + MBSRBS + MBSRPSA + MBSRN + MBSRDSA + MBSRS + RBSRPSA + RBSRN + + RBSRS + RPSARN + RPSARDSA + RPSARS + RNRDSA + RNRS + RDSARS
2. Complete point: LSLPSA + LSLBS + LSMBS + LSRBS + + + LDSALPSA + Subtype .41 .31 shape LDSALBS + LDSARBS + LDSARPSA + + + LNLPSA + Type .57 .31 stepwise LNRBS + LNRPSA + LNRS + LPSALBS + LPSAMBS + LPSARBS + LPSARN + Site .31 .20 LPSARS + LBSMBS + LBSRN + LBSRDSA + LBSRS + MBSRBS + MBSRPSA + MBSRN + MBSRDSA + RBSRPSA + RBSRN + RBSRDSA + RBSRS + RPSARN + RPSARDSA + RPSARS + RNRS + RDSARS
3. Complete point: LSLPSA + LSLBS + LSMBS + LSRBS + LSRPSA + LSRN + LSRDSA + Subtype .41 .31 si e LSRS + LDSALBS + LDSAMBS + LDSARN + + + LNRBS + Type .56 .31 stepwise and PCA LNMBS + LNRPSA + + + LPSAMBS + LPSARBS + LPSARPSA + Site .29 .19 LPSARN + LPSARS + LBSRPSA + LBSRN + LBSRDSA + LBSRS + MBSRPSA + MBSRN + MBSRDSA + MBSRS + RBSRPSA + RBSRN + RBSRS
4. Complete point: LSLN + LSMBS + + LSRPSA + LSRN + LSRDSA + LSRS + Subtype .41 .32 shape LDSAMBS + LDSARBS + + LDSARN + + LDSARS + Type .66 .46 stepwise and PCA LNRBS + LNRPSA + LNRDSA + LNRS + LPSAMBS + LPSARBS + LPSARPSA + Site .36 .27 LPSARN + LBSRPSA + LBSRN + LBSRDSA + LBSRS + MBSRN + + MBSRS + RBSRN + RBSRDSA + RBSRS
5. Without shoulder: LBSRN + LBSRDSA + LDSARBS + LNRBS + LPSAMBS + + Subtype .64 .58 si e + + + LBSMBS + LNLPSA + LBSRBS + Type .77 .62 stepwise LDSALBS + LPSALBS + MBSRBS + LDSALPSA + RPSARN Site .47 .39
6. Without shoulder: LDSALPSA + LDSAMBS + LDSARBS + + LDSARN + Subtype .36 .26 shape LDSARDSA + LNLPSA + + LNRBS + LNRPSA + LNRN + LNRDSA + Type .53 .25 stepwise LPSALBS + LPSAMBS + LPSARBS + LPSARPSA + LPSARN + LPSARDSA + Site .17 .04 LBSRBS + LBSRPSA + LBSRN + LBSRDSA + MBSRBS + MBSRPSA + + MBSRDSA + RBSRPSA + + RBSRDSA + RPSARN + RPSARDSA
7. Without shoulder: LBSRN + LBSRDSA + LNRBS + LPSAMBS + MBSRPSA + LPSARN + Subtype .43 .34 si e + LNMBS + LBSMBS + LNLPSA + LBSRBS + + + Type .64 .41 stepwise and PCA MBSRBS + + RPSARN + RBSRN + LPSARPSA Site .35 .26
53
8. Without shoulder: LDSALPSA + LDSARBS + LDSARN + LDSARDSA + LNMBS + LNRPSA + Subtype .36 .26 shape LNRN + + + LPSARN + LBSRPSA + LBSRN + LBSRDSA + Type .55 .27 stepwise and PCA MBSRPSA + + + RBSRN + RBSRDSA Site .22 .12
9. Without base: LSLDSA + LSLN + LSLPSA + LSRPSA + + + LSRS + Subtype .41 .26 si e LDSALN + LDSALPSA + LDSARPSA + + + LDSARS + Type .67 .46 stepwise LNLPSA + LNRPSA + LNRN + LNRDSA + LPSARPSA + LPSARDSA + LPSARS + Site .44 .27 RPSARN + RPSARDSA + RPSARS + RNRDSA + RNRS + RDSARS
10. Without base: LSLDSA + LSLN + LSLPSA + LSRPSA + LSRN + + + Subtype .24 .13 shape LDSALN + LDSALPSA + LDSARPSA + LDSARN + + + Type .60 .35 stepwise LNLPSA + LNRPSA + LNRN + LNRDSA + LPSARPSA + LPSARDSA + LPSARS + Site .24 .12 RPSARN + RPSARDSA + RPSARS + RNRDSA + RNRS + RDSARS
11. Without base: + + LSRPSA + LSRN + LSRDSA + LSRS + + Subtype .42 .32 si e LDSARPSA + LDSARN + LDSARDSA + LDSARS + LNLPSA + LNRN + LNRDSA + Type .61 .38 stepwise and LNRS + + LPSARN + LPSARDSA + RPSARDSA + RPSARS + Site .36 .26 PCA RNRS
12. Without base: LSLDSA + LSLN + + LSRN + + LSRS + LDSALN + Subtype .32 .22 shape + LDSARN + + LDSARS + LNLPSA + LNRN + LNRDSA + Type .48 .16 stepwise and LNRS + LPSARPSA + LPSARN + LPSARDSA + RPSARDSA + RPSARS + Site .24 .13 PCA RNRS
13. Base si e: + + LNRPSA + LPSAMBS + LPSARBS + LPSARPSA + Subtype .33 .23 stepwise LPSARN + LBSRPSA + + MBSRPSA + + RBSRN + RPSARN + Type .57 .33 LNRN Site .22 .14
14. Base shape: + + + LNRPSA + LPSALBS + LPSAMBS + Subtype .29 .19 stepwise LPSARBS + LPSARPSA + LBSRBS + + LBSRN + LBSRDSA + Type .53 .27 MBSRBS + MBSRPSA + MBSRN + RBSRPSA + RBSRN Site .22 .14
15. Base si e: LNMSA + LNRBS + + + LPSARPSA + LPSARN + Subtype .33 .17 stepwise and + LBSRBS + + LBSRN + MBSRBS + MBSRN + RBSRPSA + Type .56 .32 PCA RBSRN + RPSARN Site .28 .20
16. Base shape: + + + LNRPSA + LPSALBS + LPSAMBS + Subtype .33 .19 stepwise and PCA LPSARBS + LPSARPSA + LBSRBS + + LBSRN + LBSRDSA + Type .53 .27 MBSRBS + MBSRPSA + MBSRN + RBSRPSA + RBSRN Site .22 .14
54 shape criteria. The third cluster is sparsely populated and typically contains 50% of the
Alberta points as well as mix of Wallman Alberta/Cody, Stemmed, and Windust 4 points.
Analyses 2 and 4 contain shape variables and still suggest two dominant clusters and one sparser cluster. The most heavily populated group in Analysis 2 contains 31 points made up of 30% Windust, 30% Cody, and 30% Stemmed and Wallman
Alberta/Cody. The second major cluster consists of 36 points: 40% are Windust, 25% are Wallman Alberta/Cody, 27% are Cody, and the remainder are Stemmed. In Analysis
4 (Figure 3.1d) variables describing the distance from the left neck to right neck, right neck to right distal shoulder angle, and left proximal shoulder angle to right distal shoulder angle did not contribute significantly to PCA and their removal resulted in more dense groupings with clusters that lean more heavily toward Windust or Cody.
In Analyses 5-8 (Figure 3.1e-3.1h) I omitted ILDs associated with the shoulder landmark to reduce variables and mitigate variation resulting from post-manufacture modification. Analysis 5 (Figure 3.1e) and Analysis 7 (Figure 3.1g) contain si e variables and the clusters are congruent with analyses 1 and 3, but scores in analyses 5 and 7 indicate that there is less variation in si e once shoulder variables are removed. Analyses
6 (Figure 3.1f) and 8 (Figure 3.1h) also reflect similar results to analyses 2 and 4 but again there is less variation when the shoulder is removed.
For analyses 9-12 (Figure 3.1i-3.1l), I retained shoulder variables and omitted base variables. Analysis 9 (Figure 3.1i) contains si e variables and places over half of the total projectile points one in cluster including all Cody projectile points and the majority of Stemmed, Wallman Alberta/Cody, and Windust 1 points. The second most populated cluster includes the majority of Windust 2 and 4. The third group is sparsely populated 55 and contains Alberta, Stemmed, Wallman Alberta/Cody, and Windust 4 points. Analysis
11 (Figure 3.1k) omits the variables that PCA determined do not significantly contribute to classification. These include right proximal shoulder angle to right notch, left distal shoulder angle to left proximal shoulder angle, left distal shoulder angle to left notch, and right notch to right distal shoulder angle. In the cluster analyses, the remaining variables produced one group that contains 78% of the total points, another that contains 50% of the Alberta points, 55% of the Stemmed points and 40% of Windust 4 points along with
Scottsbluff, Wallman Alberta/Cody and Windust 1 points. Analyses 10 and 12 (Figure
3.1j and Figure 3.1l) uses si e variables and produces two major groupings; in each analysis one group is predominantly Windust points while the other contains more Cody points. In both analyses, the Wallman Alberta/Cody points fall into the Windust- dominated cluster. Both analyses also find that one Stemmed and one Windust 4 point are more similar to each other than they are to either of the other two groups. Overall, the removal of PCA selected variables creates groupings that are far less discrete.
Analyses 13-15 include basal fragments of projectile points that are not appropriate to include in other analyses. The basal analyses identify two clusters that contain the majority of points with a third sparsely populated cluster. One cluster tends to contain Alberta/Cody, Scottsbluff, 50% or more of the Stemmed points, and 50% of the
Wallman Alberta/Cody points. The other major cluster tends to be composed of 60%
Windust points and includes 25% of Stemmed points.
The highest kappa scores are associated with the DFA in Analysis 5 in which the most weighted variables are those that describe the relationship of the mid-base to both sides of the neck and distal shoulder angles. The k-means results (see Figure 3.1e) break 56 down thusly: Cluster 1 includes 92% of Windust 2 points, 57% of Windust 4 points, 50% of Windust 1 points, 33% of Wallman Alberta/Cody points, 22% of Stemmed points with
Windust 2 points comprising 82% of the cluster; Cluster 2 contains 50% of the Alberta points, 33% of the Stemmed points, 22% of Wallman Alberta/Cody points , and 7% of
Windust 4 points, and; Cluster 3 contains 33 points comprising 100% each of the
Alberta/Cody and Scottsbluff points, 50% each of the Alberta and Windust 1 points, 44% each of Stemmed and Wallman Alberta/Cody points, 36% of Windust 4 points, and 8% of Windust 2 points. These results indicate that Windust 2 is a relatively discrete class, as are Cody Complex points; however, other square-based points may fall into either group.
1 2 10 4 6 4 1 2 5 2 0 0 0 1 3 3 11 8 3 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 1
Figure 3.1a. K-means Analysis 1. 57
1 2 6 2 6 4 2 3 6 2 1 4 3 3 9 4 7 5 3 1 0 0 4 0 1 3 3
Figure 3.1b. K-means Analysis 2.
1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 3 3 11 9 3 2 10 4 5 4 3 2 4
Figure 3.1c. K-means Analysis 3. 58
1 2 9 2 4 1 2 1 5 2 1 0 0 4 0 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 10 4 9 6
Figure 3.1d. K-means Analysis 4.
1 0 0 0 2 3 3 12 8 2 2 10 4 4 4 3 1 5 3 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 1
Figure 3.1e. K-means Analysis 5.
59
1 3 8 2 4 2 2 3 6 2 0 1 2 3 9 4 7 5 3 1 1 1 4 0 1 3 3
Figure 3.1f. K-means Analysis 6.
1 2 10 3 5 3 3 1 5 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 2 4 3 12 8
Figure 3.1g. K-means Analysis 7. 60
1 0 1 2 3 9 4 9 6 2 3 8 2 6 2 3 1 5 3 1 1 1 2 0 0 3 3
Figure 3.1h. K-means Analysis 8.
1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 2 10 4 6 6 5 2 5 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 11 8
Figure 3.1i. K-means Analysis 9. 61
10 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 8 2 4 1 2 3 7 3 2 2 3 6 10 5 10 6
Figure 3.1j. K-means Analysis 10.
1 2 0 1 5 1 1 0 4 2 2 10 3 4 7 5 13 10 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Figure 3.1k. K-means Analysis 11. 62
1 2 1 3 6 10 5 10 6 2 2 9 2 4 1 2 3 7 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Figure 3.1l. K-means Analysis 12.
1 2 0 1 5 2 0 0 2 2 3 10 4 13 6 2 3 4 3 0 0 0 6 4 5 10 10
Figure 3.1m. K-means Analysis 13.
63
1 3 8 2 5 3 3 5 6 2 0 2 3 3 8 3 5 6 3 1 0 0 3 0 1 3 2
Figure 3.1n. K-means Analysis 14/16.
1 3 10 4 14 7 3 3 5 2 2 0 1 5 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 5 3 4 10 9
Figure 3.1o. K-means Analysis 15. 64
Comparing the DFAs in analyses 1 and 2 suggests that si e predicts subtype, type, and provenance better than shape (Figure 3.2a-b). Analyses 3 and 4 contain si e and shape variables that contributed to the first principle component, which removed stem length and base width. The resulting DFA scores indicate that si e once again informs classification more than shape (Figure 3.2c-d). These analyses show groupings that have more variation within groups than between them, and many groups overlap.
For analyses 5-8 (Figures 3.2e-h), I removed variables related to the shoulder. The
DFA shows that si e and shape variables identify class for Windust 2 and provenance 77-
85% of the time. Si e variables in analyses 5 and 7 distinguish Alberta, Wallman
Alberta/Cody, and Windust 2, while analyses 6 and 8 shape variables only distinguish
Windust 2 points.
I removed variables associated with the base for analyses 9-12 (Figure 3.2i-l).
Without the basal elements, the most heavily weighted si e and shape variables describe the width of the point above the neck. Analyses 9 and 11 si e variables isolate Alberta points, and identify Wallman Alberta/Cody; the DFA predicts provenance for both subtypes in Analysis 9 but not Analysis 11. Windust 1 and 2 are distinguished in shape analysis but their provenance is unlikely to be predicted accurately. These variables also indicate much greater variation within groups than between groups. Si e and shape variables after PCA and stepwise reduction characteri e the width of the point without the width of the neck and produce similar results to only stepwise selected variables in 65
Analysis 11 (Figure 3.2k). Discriminant function using solely shape variables in Analysis
12 (Figure 3.2l) fails to identify distinct subtypes or types and cannot predict provenance.
Analysis 14 variables are weighted most heavily on left neck to left proximal shoulder angle, left neck to left base, left neck to mid-base, and left base to right proximal shoulder angle, and identify Alberta points (Figure 3.2n). Analyses 13 and 15 contain variables associated with only the stem and basal portion of the projectile point. These variables perform poorly in the DFA and do not indicate independent subtypes, types, or provenance prediction (Figure 3.2m, Figure 3.2o).
The most accurate classification occurs in Analysis 5 (Figure 3.2e). The first two discriminant functions capture 70% of the variation in the subtype analysis and show
Alberta points grouping separately. Further, Alberta/Cody, Scottsbluff, Stemmed, and
Windust 1 and 4 group closely and exhibit more variation within groups than between groups. Wallman Alberta/Cody and Windust 2 points both articulate to Windust 4 points but remain exclusive of one another. Based on this set of variables, Alberta points will be correctly classified 100% of the time, Windust 2 85% of the time, Windust 1 66% of the time, Windust 4 64% of the time, Alberta/Cody 50% of the time, Scottsbluff 50% of the time, and Stemmed 50% of the time. A Cohen’s kappa of .58 suggests that the performance of the classification is fair. There are only three categories in the type analysis so 100% of the variation is captured. These DFA scores suggest that Cody and
Windust points mostly group separately with some overlap and more variation within groups than between groups. WST points are separate. Cross validation suggests that
Windust points will be correctly classified 85% of the time, Cody points 70% of the time, and WST points 67% of the time, and that these results have a 77% accuracy rate. 66
The Cohen’s Kappa is .62, indicating that the classification performance is moderate to good. The first two linear discriminants predicting provenance capture 58% of the variation in the site analysis and provenance is not indicated by these si e variables.
Cross validation suggests that the points from Marmes Rockshelter will be accurately predicted 77% of the time, Horner points 67% of the time, Wallman Square-Base points
63% of the time, Granite Point points 43% of the time, Hell Gap and Hawksy Walksy points 40% of the time, Windust Cave points 13% of the time, and Warner Valley and
Paulina Lake points are not accurately predicted. Dirty Shame Rockshelter and Buhl do not contain large enough samples to create a model. Predictions of provenance based on mid-base to neck and distal shoulder angle si e variables will be accurate about 47% of the time and Cohen’s kappa suggests that the classification performance is fair.
These analyses indicate that concave-based Windust 2 projectile points classify discretely from Alberta/Cody projectile points 80% of the time and only classify together when the base is removed. The results of k-means and DFA are similar in that neither consistently predicts subtype, type, or provenance according to previous classification. K- means and DFA classifications group Stemmed, Alberta, Wallman Alberta/Cody,
Windust 1 and 4 projectile points with both Windust 2 and Alberta/Cody. I placed subtypes into the type cross validation of analyses 5 and 6 and found that there are some important differences. Table 3.2 shows that si e variables will classify more points as
Windust while shape will classify more points as Alberta/Cody. These findings are in 67
Figure3.2a. DFA Analysis 1.
Figure 3.2b. DFA Analysis 2. 68
Figure 3.2c. DFA Analysis 3.
Figure 3.2d. DFA Analysis 4. 69
Figure 3.2e. DFA Analysis 5.
Figure 3.2f. DFA. Analysis 6. 70
Figure 3.2g. DFA Analysis 7.
Figure 3.2h. DFA Analysis 8. 71
Figure 3.2i. DFA Analysis 9.
Figure 3.2j. DFA Analysis 10. 72
Figure 3.2k. DFA Analysis 11.
Figure 3.2l. DFA Analysis 12. 73
Figure 3.2m. DFA Analysis 13.
Figure 3.2n. DFA Analyses 14 and 16. 74
Figure 3.2o. DFA Analysis 15. 75 keeping with results from the k-means analyses. Square-based projectile points from the northern Great Basin (GB) frequently classify with Alberta/Cody points in shape analyses. Basal elements without distal shoulder angle do not classify well in any analysis and do not indicate provenance.
Table 3.2. Projectile Point Type and Subtype Cross-Validation Comparison.
Cody Windust WST Cody Windust WST Alberta 3 0 1 1 0 3 Alberta/Cody 7 2 1 10 0 0 Scottsbluff 2 2 0 3 0 1 Stemmed 1 2 6 4 1 4 Wallman A/C 7 1 1 3 5 1 Windust 1 0 6 0 1 4 1 Windust 2 0 12 1 0 13 0 Windust 4 4 10 0 7 6 1
Table 3.3 summari es how my analyses articulate to the expectations associated with the scenarios set forth in Chapter 2. I use analyses 1-2 and 5-6 to illustrate the interpretive difference between using all variables versus those that perform best.
Subtype data do not consistently show suppressed variation within subtypes and greater variability between subtypes. Provenance is accurately predicted less than half of the time and Great Basin specimens do not consistently belong to Cody or Windust. Therefore, my results do not support Scenario 1, which states that Windust and Cody technologies were mutually exclusive. Instead, they indicate that: (1) there is generally greater variation within subtypes than between them; (2) provenance is seldom accurately predicted; and (3) Great Basin points contain relatively high metric and shape variation.
Thus, the expectations for Scenario 2, in which the two technological traditions developed separately but interacted, are met. There is greater shape and metric variation 76 among complete Windust and WST points than Cody points, and Great Basin specimens do not exhibit retention of si e and shape attributes of either Windust or Cody. Scenario 3 posits that Windust and Cody share an ancestor/descendent relationship and is not supported by analyses 1 and 2 but is supported by analyses 5 and 6.
Table 3.3. Summary of Results and Expectations.
Scenario 1
Suppressed variation Yes No No No within groups, large variation between groups.
Metric and shape attributes Yes Yes No No predict provenance.
Great Basin points will No No No No belong to one or the other group.
Scenario 2 Greater variation between No Yes Yes Yes groups than within groups.
Metric and shape attributes Yes Yes Yes Yes predict provenance with some error.
Great Basin points will No Yes Yes Yes contain attributes of Windust and Cody, have high metric and shape variability, and provenance will not be predictable.
Scenario 3 One group will maintain Yes Yes Yes Yes metric and shape correlation, the other will see shape variation.
Great Basin points will Yes Yes Yes Yes exhibit a decline in si e and shape attribute retention.
77
The bulk of my results suggest that there is considerable chronological and morphological overlap between Alberta/Cody and Windust projectile points. The concave-based variety that I refer to as Windust 2 and Alberta subtypes group independently more frequently than any of the other subtypes that I have identified.
Unsupervised classification placed the majority of the sample addressing si e variables into two main clusters, one of which contains predominantly Cody points, one of which is heavy in Windust points. However, about 35% of Windust 4 points are placed in the
Cody cluster in analyses of both shape and si e. The third cluster contains half of the
Alberta points and an assortment of other points from the northern Great Basin.
Discriminant function scores seldom show discrete groupings in either si e or shape analyses and kappa values indicate that most classifications are fairly weak. The majority of my results indicate that in general the Cody Complex is less tolerant of variation than
Windust. Following previous research, this is often the pattern when a technology is copied and learned individually rather than when the learner is immersed (Mesoudi and
O’Brien 2008a). My results support the hypothesis that there is morphological similarity between Alberta/Cody and some Windust points suggesting ties between the
Intermountain West and Great Plains during the TP/EH.
78
The results that are strongest and most amenable to application of cultural transmission theory are from Analysis 5. In Analysis 5, I discarded variables associated with the shoulder portion of the projectile point and performed a stepwise variable reduction. Discarding the shoulder did two things: (1) it reduced variables; and (2) it mitigated the effects of comparing assemblages with different discard criteria. Marmes,
Granite Point, Paulina Lake, and Windust Cave specimens appear to have been discarded when they were exhausted while many Great Plains points are complete. The most heavily weighted of the remaining variables are left distal shoulder angle to mid-base, left neck to mid-base, mid-base to right neck, and mid-base to right distal shoulder angle.
These variables are able to address aspects of the points that are both functional (stem length and neck width) as well as stylistic (shoulder angle and overall outline) (Goodale et al. 2015; Weissner 1983).
Analyses 5, specifically the classification by type, yielded the highest kappa score out of all of the analyses which means that these variables yielded results most consistent with the traditional classification. The DFA of the subtypes distinguishes Alberta,
Wallman Alberta/Cody, and Windust 2 by si e while other subtypes are grouped closely together. The type classification shows Windust and Cody grouping together and WST separately (Figure 4.1). Provenance might be predicted for Alberta points and possibly
Wallman Alberta/Cody points. Analysis 6 contains shape variables selected by the same means as Analysis 5. The DFA distinguishes Stemmed and Windust 2 subtypes while all other points appear to be similar in shape. Discriminant functions do not classify type 79 discretely or identify patterns associated with provenance. The kappa score indicates that the DFA does not classify as well as in Analysis 5, which essentially means that there are more similarities than differences between Cody Complex points and Windust 1 and 4 points.
Analysis 5 Analysis 6
Figure 4.1. Comparison of Analyses 5 and 6 DFA.
Following Bettinger and Eerkens (1997, 1999) and Mesoudi and O’Brien (2008a,
2008b), I consider the implications of vertical, oblique, and hori ontal transmission
(Cavalli-Sfor a and Feldman 1981) on projectile point manufacture. As I outlined in
Chapter 1, vertical and oblique transmission occur when a child learns from adults within their community while hori ontal transmission occurs between peers. These sources of 80 knowledge may allow for an individual to learn through direct bias, indirect bias, or frequency dependent bias (Boyd and Richerson 1985).
A successful technology will usually be retained with little variation through frequency dependent bias. Isolated groups in a restricted environment affect frequency dependent learning behavior through suppressed variation in projectile point form with a high degree of divergence from other forms (Cavalli-Sfor a and Feldman 1981; Grove
2016; Mesoudi and O’Brien 2008a, 2008b). Projectile points were a crucial component of prehistoric subsistence economies and, unlike pottery, individual experimentation with design may have been considered risky, which likely reinforced suppressed variation
(Boyd and Richerson 1985; Porčić 2014). In such a system, there should be a high correlation between si e and shape and those attributes should indicate class membership and provenance (Bettinger and Eerkens 1997, 1999; Cavalli-Sfor a and Feldman 1981;
Lipo et al. 2015; Mesoudi and O’Brien 2008a, 2008b). Even within this framework, individual error should cause drift. For example, frequency dependent bias can be observed on a relatively small geospatial scale as a gradual increase in variation with distance from a village. When there are multiple villages associated with the same cultural group, stylistic elements of multiple villages may be visible in assemblages found between those villiages (Lipo et al. 2015).
Environmental change and cultural migration may prompt individuals to experiment with new forms (Cavalli-Sfor a and Feldman 1981; Mesoudi and O’Brien
2008b). When individuals seek to emulate a new model without being immersed in the biasing pool, individual learning and copying errors will result in greater variation in si e and shape than is observed in the parent technology, and si e will frequently vary more 81 than shape (Bettinger and Eerkens 1997, 1999; Cavalli-Sfor a and Feldman 1981;
Mesoudi and O’Brien 2008a, 2008b). I surmise that it is also possible that some aspects of a technology will be retained even when another is copied; for example, the shape of a projectile point around the neck may be retained to some degree even while other aspects may be altered to accommodate a more successful technology (Goodale et al. 2015;
Weissner 1983).
Analyses 5 and 6 contain the most successful set of variables and do not conform to expectation associated with isolated groups. WST points from the northern Great Basin do not necessarily belong to Windust or Cody and group independently of Windust and
Cody in most classifications of type by si e. Many of these points might even be accurately classified as Gatecliff. My results do not support a scenario in which Windust and Cody represent discrete isolated groups.
I used Bettinger and Eerkens’ (1999) findings regarding the spread of bow-and- arrow technology to model my expectations for Scenario 2. In the central Great Basin, arrow points tend to be the same si e and shape but vary in thickness, indicating that knappers worked with a mental template of what arrow points should look like in planview. In the western Great Basin, arrow points tend to share a planview with central
Great Basin points but exhibit greater variation in si e while conforming to specific weights. I developed my expectations for Scenario 2 assuming that I would observe a similar trend in my sample. I also assumed that I would see morphological drift in specimens from between type sites.
As I have outlined, si e is a stronger classification tool than shape throughout my analyses. Only DFA Analysis 1 fails to conform to the expectations for Scenario 2. In 82 unsupervised classifications, my Great Basin sample groups with both Windust and Cody points and DFA suggests more similarity to Cody points. Si e does not predict provenance well, though the DFA differentiates somewhat between Intermountain West and Great Plains, placing Wallman Alberta/Cody closer to Plains points. Shape predicts provenance with even less success than si e. My results support a scenario in which there was interaction by groups using Windust and Cody technology.
Scenario 3 is more complicated because Windust 2 and Alberta tend to group distinctly while other subtypes group together given different criteria. Windust 2 tends to group independently in most si e and shape analyses. Other Windust subgroups frequently group with Alberta/Cody and Scottsbluff points. My results indicate that it may be appropriate to consider Windust 2 as its own class while square-based points associated with the Windust type will frequently classify with Cody forms. That being said, group means indicate that square-based points from the Intermountain West frequently have shorter and wider bases than Plains points, which may speak to the influence of Windust 2 points. Concave-based points are a component of the Foothill-
Mountain Paleoindian technology and have been identified in the Rocky Mountains adjacent to the Great Plains (Black 1991; Frison 1991), but to my knowledge have not been identified in Cody assemblages on the Plains. This may indicate differential preference for projectile point form dependent on effective environment within the same group.
My expectations for Scenario 3 were intended to reflect whether one technology precedes the other. My data support the expectations but not the scenario they were intended to reflect. Instead, they suggest that square-based forms were adopted by people 83 who were making concave-based points and adjusted to reflect proportions consistent with concave-based points, further supporting Scenario 2.
Based on unevaluated radiocarbon dates, I assumed that Windust developed before Cody (Table 4.1). However, after culling the less reliable dates, the SPD shown in
Figure 4.1 indicates that Cody may have emerged before Windust. The Hell Gap component at the Hell Gap Site contains Alberta points and dates to the Younger Dryas, as does the Buhl biface. The Hudson-Meng and Lindenmeier sites on the Great Plains are roughly contemporary with the Hetrick Site along the Snake River in Idaho and Nevada’s
Wallman Bison Site (Figure 4.2). These sites each occur during the first spike of Windust sites in the Intermountain West, 11,300 cal BP. Peaks in the SPD occur simultaneously in the Great Plains and Intermountain West 11,000-10,500 cal BP. In the Intermountain
West, this peak encompasses the appearance of square-based points at
Bonneville Estates Rockshelter (Graf 2007), the Windust occupation at Marmes (Hicks
2004), the earliest Windust 2 date at Dirty Shame Rockshelter (Aikens et al. 1977), and the earliest date for the Bunny Pits in Oregon (Oetting 1994). The early Alberta/Cody peak encompasses the Alberta component at Hell Gap I (Bradley 2009) and the earliest date associated with Horner I. There is a small trough in the SPD data that spans
10,400-10,200 cal BP. After the trough, there are plateaus in both regions. Sites contributing to the plateaus include Paulina Lake and Dirty Shame Rockshelter in the
Intermountain West and the later dates from Horner 2 and Hell Gap 5 on the Great Plains. 84
Table 4.1. Windust and Cody Radiocarbon Dates in Chronological Order.
Hatwai Windust 2 and 4 7515-7160 Dirty Shame Rockshelter Scottsbluff 7921-7567 Cooper's Ferry Lind Coulee 8305-7970 Kelly Forks Windust 2 and 4 8590-8425 Kelly Forks Windust 2 and 4 8985-8635 Hatwai Windust 2 and 4 9025-8560 Road Cut Site 9090-8425 Nelson Eden, Scottsbluff 9075-8600 Kelly Forks Windust 2 and 4 9245-8990 Road Cut Site Windust? 9285-8650 Wildcat Canyon Windust? 9405-8630 Fort Rock Cave Windust 2 9440-9090 Fort Rock Cave Windust 2 9470-9300 Fort Rock Cave Windust 2 9505-9285 MacHaffie Scottsbluff 9520-9010 Fort Rock Cave Windust 2 9525-9440 Fort Rock Cave Windust 2 9535-9430 Fort Rock Cave Windust 2 9535-9460 Cooper's Ferry Windust 9540-9290 Fort Rock Cave Windust 2 9540-9320 Paulina Lake 9745-9305 MacHaffie Scottsbluff 9740-8340 Fort Rock Cave Windust 2 9890-9545 Red Rock Canyon Scottsbluff 9745-8450 Dirty Shame Rockshelter Windust 9890-9555 Hell Gap, Loc. V Eden 9900-9530 Fort Rock Cave Windust 2 9905-9120 Fort Rock Cave Unknown 10,135-9135 Swan Landing Alberta 10,120-9450 Paulina Lake 10,145-9480 Scottsbluff Scottsbluff 10,120-9500 Cooper's Ferry Lind Coulee 10,160-9520 Horner I Alberta/Cody, Eden, Scottsbluff 10,160-9540 Dirty Shame Rockshelter Windust 2 10,190-9680 Dirty Shame Rockshelter Windust 2 10,220-9630 Horner I Alberta/Cody, Eden, Scottsbluff 10,220-9560 Dirty Shame Rockshelter Windust 2 10,225-9740 MacHaffie Scottsbluff 10,220-9140 Wallman Square-Base Wallman 10,235-9535 Frasca Eden; Scottsbluff 10,230-9710 Alberta/Cody Paulina Lake Windust 4 10,235-9625 Hell Gap, Loc. V Eden 10,240-9630 Paulina Lake Windust 4 10,485-9920 Scottsbluff Scottsbluff 10,240-9760 Paulina Lake Windust 4 10,555-9550 Swan Landing Alberta 10,410-9030 Finley Eden; Scottsbluff 10,500-9770 Nelson Eden; Scottsbluff 10,520-10,300 Hell Gap, Loc. V Eden 10,650-9681 Jerry Craig Eden; Scottsbluff 10,660-10,300 85
Bonneville Estates Rockshelter Windust 4 10,750-10,575 Osprey Beach Eden, Scottsbluff 10,740-10,410 Bonneville Estates Rockshelter Windust/square 11,060-10,515 Jim Pitts Alberta, Scottsbluff 11,060-10,430 Fort Rock Cave Windust 2 11,060-9945 Horner I Alberta/Cody, Eden, Scottsbluff 11,070-10,300 Bonneville Estates Rockshelter Windust 4 11,065-10,520 Mammoth Meadow Eden, Scottsbluff 11,070-10,300 Kelly Forks 11,070-10,590 Lamb Spring Eden, Scottsbluff 11,080-9130 Hell Gap, Loc. I Alberta 11,090-10,300 Blue Point, Alberta 11,090-10,700 Dirty Shame Rockshelter 11,160-10,555 Hudson-Meng Eden 11,100-10,680 EgPn-480 Scottsbluff 11,140-10,610 Marmes Rockshelter Floodplain 11,230-10,880 Hudson-Meng Alberta 11,220-10,780 Hetrick Windust 2 and 4 11,250-10,800 Lindenmeier Eden, Scottsbluff 11,230-10,790 Wallman Bison Wallman 11,260-11,105 Medicine Lodge Creek Eden, Alberta/Cody? 11,240-8700 Alberta/Cody Hetrick Windust 2 and 4 11,270-11,200 Hetrick Windust 2 and 4 11,295-11,195 EkPU-8 Scottsbluff 11,320-10,790 Marmes Rockshelter Floodplain 11,400-11,195 DjPm-16 Alberta, Scottsbluff 11,350-10,180 DjPm-16 Alberta, Scottsbluff 11,600-10,290 Medicine Lodge Creek Eden, Alberta/Cody? 11,700-9020 Hudson-Meng Scottsbluff 11,700-11,200 Fort Rock Cave Windust 2 11,720-8635 Horner II Alberta/Cody 11,700-11,160 Hetrick Windust 2 and 4 11,760-10,825 Lindenmeier Scottsbluff 11,750-11,130 Cooper's Ferry Lind Coulee 11,960-11,265 Medicine Lodge Creek Eden, Alberta/Cody? 11,800-9550 Road Cut Site Windust? 12,005-10,570 Hudson-Meng Alberta 11,920-10,720 Fort Rock Cave Windust 2 12,005-9270 Hell Gap, Loc. I Eden, Scottsbluff 11,950-9120 Marmes Rockshelter Floodplain 12,395-105,00 Finley Eden 12,100-10,600 Marmes Rockshelter Floodplain 12,530-11,410 Marmes Rockshelter Floodplain 12,690-10,820 Marmes Rockshelter Floodplain 12,710-12,240 Horner II Alberta/Cody 12,530-11,100 Wildcat Canyon Windust? 12,785-9950 Hell Gap, Loc. I Alberta 12,710-12,170 Hatwai Windust 13,045-12,420 Marmes Rockshelter 13,205-13,005 Hatwai Windust 13,455-9895 Hatwai Windust 14,095-7325 86
Figure 4.2. Summed Probability Distribution of Windust and Cody Radiocarbon Dates IV.
In this section I provide context for early trans-montane interactions and migrations. My timeline begins 12,700-12,200 cal BP with the Hell Gap component at
Hell Gap (Haynes 2009), where Bradley (2009) identified a change in technology that signaled the beginning of the Cody Complex on the Great Plains. This date overlaps with the 12,500-11,100 cal BP date from the Horner Site (Frison 1987) as well as most of the
Younger Dryas. During the Younger Dryas, the area around Hell Gap was characteri ed by lower temperatures, lower precipitation, and C4 grasses (Bryson and Bryson 2009;
Fredlund 2009). The relative temperature at the Horner Site during the Horner 2 87 occupation is unknown but it was a mesic to hydric environment with wooded and shrubby vegetation (Mu i 2013). Marmes Rockshelter produced Younger Dryas dates as well although they cannot be definitively associated with Windust projectile points
(Hicks 2004). Conditions on the Columbia Plateau during the Younger Dryas were more similar to the Great Basin than they are at present and were cooler and more mesic with decreased seasonality (Chatters 2012).
Windust and Cody activity rose 11,300 cal BP. Sites in the Intermountain West that date to around that time include the Hetrick and Wallman Bison sites and Bonneville
Estates Rockshelter. At that time, the Bonneville Basin was warming and becoming drier but remained cooler and more mesic than today (Metcalf and McDonald 2012; Oviatt et al. 2003). The Snake River Plain was also affected by warming trends. Coniferous forests moved uphill while the lower elevations became a sagebrush steppe (Plew 2008). Pluvial lakes receded throughout the Great Basin (Grayson 2011) and the Black Rock Desert hosted a marshy and deltaic environment (Amick 2013; Dansie et al. 1988; Dansie and
Jerrems 2004). The Columbia Plateau saw an expansion of C3 Festuca grasslands
(Blinnikov et al. 2002).
The trough apparent in Figure 4.1 coincides with a time when warming and drying trends in the Rocky Mountains surpassed the surrounding lowlands; thus, while the Great Plains and much of the Intermountain West was still cooler and more mesic than today, the mountains began to grow warmer and drier 10,300 cal BP (Metcalf and
McDonald 2012).
The subsequent plateau in the SPD represents the dates from Paulina Lake
(Connolly and Jenkins 1999), Dirty Shame Rockshelter (Aikens et al. 1977), Horner 1 88
(Frison 1987), and the Eden occupation at Hell Gap (Haynes 2009; Knell and Mu i
2013; Mu i 2013). Radiocarbon dates associated with the Cody Complex decline around the same time that: (1) drying trends intensified on the Columbia Plateau 9500-9000 cal
BP (Chatters 2012); (2) seasonality increased in the Rocky Mountains 9400 cal BP
(Metcalf and McDonald 2012); and (3) pluvial Lake Warner Lake largely disappeared in
Oregon 9650 cal BP (Wriston and Smith 2017). Radiocarbon dates suggest that Windust technology persisted on the Columbia Plateau until 8000 cal BP.
Cody foraging on the Great Plains grasslands is strongly associated with bison
(Knell et al. 2012). Changes in climate and consequent grassland reorgani ation during the Early Holocene meant that bison herds had greater access to higher protein C3 grasses.
Between 11,000-8000 cal BP bison body mass stabili ed between two diminution periods, potentially in response to greater abundance and range of C3 grasses (Hill et al.
2008). This period of bison body si e stabili ation corresponds with the fluorescence of
Windust and Cody projectile points throughout the West. The expansion of C3 grasses may well have facilitated the expansion of bison gra ing range and by extension the range of Cody hunters.
Bison remains have been documented at several Paleoindian sites in the
Intermountain West, including Marmes Rockshelter (Lyman 2013), Lind Coulee
(Daugherty 1956; Irwin and Moody 1978), Paulina Lake (Connolly and Jenkins 1999),
Sentinel Gap (Lyman 2004), the Wallman Bison Site (Amick 2013; Dansie et al. 1988;
Dansie and Jerrems 2005), Connley Caves 4 and 5 (Grayson 1979), Dirty Shame
Rockshelter (Hanes 1988; Grayson 1977), Cougar Mountain Cave (Cowles 1960, Jenkins et al. 2004), Owl Cave (Butler 1978; Henrikson et al. 2017) and Kelvin’s Cave 89
(Henrikson and Long 2007). These sites demonstrate that bison were present in the
Intermountain West during the TP/EH but likely never abundant or widespread (but see
Chatters 2012). Grasslands on the Columbia Plateau are far more vulnerable to invasive species after fire and gra ing than are the grasslands of the Great Plains, indicating that
Columbia Plateau grasses did not evolve in response to gra ing pressure (Stutte 2004).
Additionally, while small breeding herds were probably present during the TP/EH, the mosaic environment of the Intermountain West was not conducive to large gra ing herds
(Grayson 2011). An expansion of bison populations in the Intermountain West could have altered the effective environment sufficiently for groups to choose to adopt a more effective technology for hunting them (Mesoudi and O’Brien 2008b; Musil 1988). If
Cody groups moved into the Intermountain West during this time, they would have brought with them just such a technology. Radiocarbon dates associated with the Cody
Complex decline abruptly around the same time that bison populations were extirpated on the Columbia Plateau and severely declined in the Great Basin, which further suggests a relationship between the Cody Complex and bison in the West (Grayson 2011; Lyman
2004).
In this section I review previous hypotheses about potential Cody occupations in the Intermountain West and discuss how my findings do and do not support them. I evaluate classification schemes that have been applied to the Buhl biface, whether 90
Paulina Lake points are aptly considered Windust, and if the Wallman Bison and
Wallman Square-Base sites indicate a Cody presence in Nevada’s Black Rock Desert.
Buhl. The biface associated with the remains of the Buhl woman has been classified variously as Cody (Holmer 1995), WST (Scott 2016), and Windust (Yohe and
Woods 2002). Although it often groups with Wallman Alberta/Cody points in my unsupervised analyses, the metric measurements of its most weighted DFA variables are comparable those of the Alberta points in my sample. The remains date to 12,725-12,420 cal BP, which is contemporaneous with the earliest Alberta points from the Hell Gap component at Hell Gap (Bradley 2009), or 12,135-11,300 cal BP, which is between the
Hell Gap component at the Hell Gap Site and the Horner I occupation. Considering this artifact with both radiocarbon dates and si e data suggests that Alberta might be the most parsimonious classification. Stemmed bifaces frequently served a variety functions (Beck and Jones 1997; Lafayette 2006). The biface possesses a tranchet rather than sharp tip and therefore does not conform to Musil’s (1988) first criterion for an effective projectile point. Furthermore, a use-wear study suggested that it may have been manufactured or resharpened just prior to interment (Green et al. 1998). I am not confident that the biface was intended to be used as a projectile point and it may not be appropriate to force its classification as such.
Paulina Lake. Windust-style projectile points were identified during the 1991 excavations at the Paulina Lake site (Connolly and Jenkins 1999). My study includes points that Connolly and Jenkins (1999) termed Stemmed Varieties 1 and 2, Beck and
Jones (2009) referred to as Windust A, and Amick (2013) suggested meet criteria for
Cody points. Unsupervised classification places the Paulina Lake points with Wallman 91
Square-Base points, Horner 2 points, and Hell Gap points. Cross validation of DFA scores from Analysis 5 classifies the four points that I considered complete for this study as two Windust 4, one Scottsbluff, and one Windust 1. Eight specimens were appropriate for analysis of the basal portion alone and of these, three classified as Windust 4, one classified as Alberta/Cody, one classified as Scottsbluff, one classified as Stemmed, one classified as Wallman Alberta/Cody, and one classified as Windust 1. Group means indicate that the Paulina Lake points bear the most metric similarity to points from
Horner, and the radiocarbon dates fit comfortably within the Cody range. The Alberta point from the Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump site made on obsidian from near Burns,
Oregon reflects some form of interaction between Cody groups and groups in the northern Great Basin (Dawe 2013). This evidence supports Amick’s (2013) assertion that the Paulina Lake points may be Cody.
Wallman Square-Base. Amick (2013) has made a case for Cody occupation in the
Intermountain West by suggesting that square-based projectile points from the Wallman
Bison and Wallman Square-Base sites are Alberta/Cody rather than Windust. He compared the Wallman points to projectile points from the Hudson-Meng site. The
Hudson-Meng points are classified as Alberta (Huckell 1978) and although there has been discussion of similarity between them and the Alberta/Cody I points from Horner II
(Bradley 1987), they are more often referred to as Alberta (Bradley and Frison 1987;
Dawe 2013; Huckell 1978; Knell et al. 201; Knell and Mu i 2013; Mu i 2005;
Pitblado 2003). Throughout unsupervised analysis the Wallman points are frequently grouped with both Alberta and Alberta/Cody points. 92
I considered eight specimens from the Wallman Square-Base site complete for this study. Cross validation of DFA site scores in Analysis 5 classified one point as
Stemmed, five as Wallman Alberta/Cody, and two as Windust 4. Group means of heavily weighted si e variables in Analysis 5 indicate that the Wallman points are most similar to
Alberta/Cody from the Horner site. The same variables in Analysis 6 indicate that
Wallman points are the most similar in shape to Windust 4. Group means of both shape and si e by site suggest that Wallman Square-Base points are most similar to points from
Granite Point and Paulina Lake.
The Wallman Alberta/Cody points in my study are more similar in si e to
Alberta/Cody points from the Horner site than they are to other subtypes; however, shape attributes are more consistent with Windust points. These attributes include a shorter, wider neck and greater distance between distal shoulder angles. Cultural transmission theory suggests that a copied technology is more likely to retain shape attributes but vary in si e (Bettinger and Eerkens 1999; Mesoudi and O’Brien 2008a, 2008b). Wallman
Alberta/Cody vary in shape while retaining si e, as might be the case if they were derived from Cody points. Like Windust 2 and Alberta points, Wallman Alberta/Cody points often classify discretely. This sample consists of published illustrations which may have impacted my analysis either because of artist interpretation or scaling difficulties. My results generally support Amick’s (2013) hypothesis and the Wallman Bison coincides with the Hetrick site and Horner I; however, the Wallman Square-Base Site could also reflect the east-to-west spread of square-based points across in situ populations.
93
There is no question that people traversed the continent during the TP/EH
(Bradley 2009; Davis et al. 2012; Dawe 2013; Kilby and Huckell 2014; Pitblado 2003).
Windust and Cody signal what initially appears to be independent invention in their respective regions; however, that can be hard to differentiate from cultural migration
(Beck and Jones 1997; Bradley 2009; Cavalli-Sfor a and Feldman 1981; Musil 1988).
Changing environmental conditions and consequent ecological change may have predicated a change in projectile point technology in the Intermountain West. Windust varies from other WST points technologically in such a manner that Musil (1988) interpreted them to have been manufactured for use with a split foreshaft, rather than a socketed or clothespin style shaft. Such a change appeared in the Great Plains much earlier with the introduction of projectile points that have well-defined shoulders, which may have protected shafts from breaking on impact (Musil 1988), and lenticular cross- sections, which also may have had adaptive advantages (Bradley 2009). It is possible that another older variety of shouldered projectile point such as Lind Coulee (Davis et al.
2017) was introduced to people already engaged in the collateral point complex (Bradley
1991), resulting in the development of the Cody Complex. Comparison of reliable radiocarbon dates suggests that Alberta points precede Windust and the fluorescence of
Cody and Windust occur simultaneously during a period of hiatus in bison diminution
(Hill et al. 2008). Based on my analyses, the implications of cultural transmission theory, and the environmental context, it appears that Windust 2 and Cody developed separately 94 in response to stabili ed bison populations and Windust 1 and 4 are the result of Cody expansion into the Intermountain West. 95
Creating typologies is indispensable but it can confound efforts to understand the complexity of early lifeways (Tuohy and Layton 1977). The simple fact that the majority of temperate North America was peopled suggests that early people traversed the Rocky
Mountains. Nonetheless, archeologists frequently use that range and other major physiographic features to bound culture regions (Bryan 1980). Numerous researchers have observed the similarity of Windust points from the Intermountain West and
Alberta/Cody points from the Great Plains. Furthermore, some have suggested that
Alberta/Cody points have been mistyped as Windust throughout the Intermountain West
(Amick 2013; Beck and Jones 2009; Bryan 1980; Clewlow 1968).
In this study, I tested the hypothesis that Windust and Alberta/Cody points share enough morphological similarity to reflect ties between in the Great Plains and
Intermountain West during the early Holocene. I collected 2D images of TP/EH projectile points from several sites throughout the American West. I chose points from
Granite Point, Windust Caves, and Marmes Rockshelter because they are the type sites for the Windust Phase (D. Rice 1972). I included Alberta/Cody points from the Horner site because it is one of the few sites where those points have been identified (Frison
1987). I also included Alberta and Scottsbluff points from the Horner and Hell Gap sites to help identify the amount of variation tolerated within the Cody Complex. I included points from the Wallman Square-Base and Wallman Bison sites to test the hypothesis that those points are Alberta/Cody points (Amick 2013). I also included points from surface 96 scatters in the northern Great Basin to determine if I could definitively classify them as
Windust or Cody.
I selected 13 elements of projectile point morphology to be used as landmarks. I digitally collected the Cartesian coordinates for each landmark. I identified ILDs by calculating the Euclidean distance between each possible pair; I referred to those ILDs as si e variables. I removed centroid si e from specimens by performing a Procrustes transformation and then calculated the Euclidean distance between each set of the resulting coordinates; I referred to those ILDs as shape variables. I eliminated all ILDs associated with the blade to avoid analy ing variation that is the result of resharpening. I identified four suites of variables: (1) all ILDs from the shoulder to the base; (2) all ILDs except those related to the shoulder; (3) all ILDs except those related to the base; and (4) only ILDs associated with the stem and base. I performed two variable reduction techniques for each of the four suites: (1) PCA followed by backwards stepwise selection; and (2) backward stepwise selection. In doing so, I created eight sets of ILDs for si e data and eight sets for shape data. For each of the 16 sets of ILDs, I conducted cluster analysis in which I specified three clusters: one for Cody, one for Windust, and one for WST. I then performed DFA analyses that forced group membership by subtype, type, and provenance.
There is more morphological difference between Windust 2 subtypes and some
Windust 4 than there are between Windust 4 and subtypes within the Cody Complex.
Cluster analyses and discriminant functions indicate that some Windust 4 fall within the
Cody type. These analyses support the portion of my hypothesis that states that Cody and
Windust are morphologically similar. I used ILDs to evaluate morphological variation 97 based on a set of expectations derived from cultural transmission theory. Those evaluations supported the second part of my hypothesis: that morphological similarity suggests ties between groups living on either side of the Rocky Mountains during the
TP/EH.
The likelihood of accurately classifying square-based projectile points from the base alone is slim. This is important because archaeologists frequently use bases to classify projectile points. It is also significant because of the implication that the shape of the hafting element has greater impact on classification than base shape. The shape of the hafting element may reflect social norms, while stem and base morphology relates more to hafting technology (Goodale et al. 2015; Weissner 1983).
The presence of square-based projectile points in the Intermountain West may be the result of Cody incursions. This possibility is supported by radiocarbon and paleoenvironmental data. Windust and Cody both conform to Musil’s (1988) criteria for projectiles suitable for hunting large-bodied prey and, with the possible exception of
Alberta points, were developed during the early Holocene synchronously with the expansion of C3 grasslands and bison body mass stability.
I have used methods here that are somewhat novel to archaeology. Geometric morphometrics has been applied to archaeological materials in recent years, and DFA has been used to some extent (Holmer 1978; MacLeod et al. 2018). Previous studies using
GM have identified and quantified variation but they typically contend with a specimen 98 as whole and create one monolithic measure (Buchanan et al. 2014; Davis et al. 2017;
Gingerich et al. 2014; MacLeod et al. 2018; Sholts et al. 2017; Smith and DeWitt 2016;
Smith and Goebel 2018). To the best of my knowledge, no other study has applied the
ILDs that I have identified to lithic materials.
Interlandmark distance may provide slightly less precision than other techniques; however, by using ILDs researchers can isolate those measurements that contribute to variation and can contribute to classification criteria. Ethnolinguistic group membership can be indicated by the emblematic style of a projectile points, specifically the plan view and hafting element (Bettinger and Eerkens 1999; Goodale et al. 2015; Weissner 1983).
This study suggests that ILDs provide a quantifiable and objective means to identify stylistic traits.
tpsDIG allowed me to gather consistent and replicable landmark data from photographs. There is a difference in the resolution of acquiring landmark data from published materials than from photographs taken explicitly for this study. The Wallman
Alberta/Cody points frequently classified separately throughout my analyses. It could be that there are scaling inconsistencies or issues of artist interpretations, but most likely the images did not contain proper resolution for precise landmarking. The Wallman
Alberta/Cody points did not consistently group separately so this issue may not have impacted my results.
99
It is plausible that groups with Cody technology expanded their territory into the
Intermountain West as they followed bison populations during the Early Holocene. In situ populations may have adopted novel technology that was better adapted to bison hunting from Cody groups. Alternatively, Windust and Cody points may have been invented independently and the innate restrictions of lithic reduction paired with the functional requirements for taking large game produced seeming stylistic similarities.
Further research applying the techniques I used in this study may support or refute my conclusions.
Analyses like the ones I conducted should be applied to a larger sample.
Specifically, there should be three times as many specimens within a class than there are variables to avoid overfitting the model (Huberty 1994; Spradley and Jant 2016). Some of my subtypes contained fewer than five specimens while the smallest number of variables in any of my analyses was 14. A larger sample that captured more of the variability within each type would deliver more definitive results. Expanding the sample to include shouldered WST points such as Parman, Lind Coulee, Lake Mohave, and
Silver Lake would establish a standard of proportion to which Windust and Cody could be compared. Such an expansion would also expand the temporal scope of the question.
Morphological similarities between Alberta points, the Buhl biface, examples from the
Mountain Foothill complex, and shouldered WST points may suggest earlier ties. My results indicate that Cody points are not easily distinguished from Windust points by the basal portion alone; however, there does appear to be a trend for square-based points in the Intermountain West to have slightly shorter and broader stems than Alberta/Cody and 100
Scottsbluff points. A broader sample of both Windust and Cody points may facilitate the development of some sort of index or specific measure to differentiate between the two. 101
I I calibrated all recent radiocarbon dates presented in the text with the OxCal 4.3 online program (Bronk Ramsey 2009) with the IntCal13 curve (Reimer et al. 2013).
II I followed Grayson (2011: Appendix A) to convert older or estimated dates to cal BP.
III Complete metrics, R code and output are available upon request from [email protected].
IV The SPD does not contain dates from mixed assemblages, shell, or dates with a standard deviation over 190 (see table 1.2 and 1.3).
102
Adams, Kenneth D., Ted Goebel, Kelly Graf, Geoffrey M. Smith, Anna J. Camp, Richard W. Briggs, and David Rhode 2008 Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Lake-Level Fluctuations in the Lahontan Basin, Nevada: Implications for the Distribution of Archaeological Sites. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 23(5):608-634.
Aikens, C. Melvin 1977 Excavations at the Dirty Shame Rock Shelter, Southeastern Oregon. Tebiwa Miscellaneous Papers of the Idaho State University Museum of Natural History No. 4. Idaho State University, Pocatello.
Ames, Kenneth M. 1988 Early Holocene Forager Mobility Strategies on the Southern Columbia Plateau. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: the Clovis Archaic Interface, edited by Judith A. Willig, C. Melvin Aikens, and John L. Fagan, pp. 325-260. Anthropological Paper No. 21. Nevada State Museum, Carson City.
Amick, Daniel S. 2013 Way Out West: Cody Complex Occupations from the Northwestern Great Basin. In Paleoindian Lifeways of the Cody Complex, edited by Edward J. Knell and Mark P. Mu i , pp. 215-248. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Andrefsky, William, Jr. 2004 Materials and Context for a Culture History of the Columbia Plateau. In Complex Hunter-Gatherers: Evolution and Organization of Prehistoric Communities on the Plateau of Northwestern North America, edited by William C. Prentiss and Ian Kuijt, pp. 23-35. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Archer, Will, and David R. Braun 2009 Variability in Bifacial Technology at Elandsfontein, Western Cape, South Africa: A Geometric Morphometric Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:201-209.
Atkisson, Curtis, Michael J. O’Brien, and Alex Mesoudi 2012 Adult Learners in a Novel Environment Use Prestige-Biases Social Learning. Evolutionary Psychology 10(3):519-537.
103
Bamforth, Douglas B. 2002 High-Tech Foragers? Folsom and Later Paleoindian Technology on the Great Plains. Journal of World Prehistory 16:55-98. 2009 Projectile Points, People, and Plains Paleoindian Perambulations. Journal Anthropological Archaeology. 28:142-157.
Beck, Charlotte, and George T. Jones 1988 Western Pluvial Lake Tradition in Butte Valley, Eastern Nevada. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: the Clovis Archaic Interface, edited by Judith A. Willig, C. Melvin Aikens, and John L. Fagan, pp. 273-302. Anthropological Paper No. 21. Nevada State Museum, Carson City. 1997 The Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Archaeology of the Great Basin. Journal of World Prehistory 11(2):161-236. 2009 Projectile Points. In The Archaeology of the Eastern Nevada Paleoarchaic, Pt I: The Sunshine Locality, edited by Charlotte Beck and George T. Jones, pp. 145-217. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 126. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 2010 Clovis and Western Stemmed: Population Migration and the Meeting of Two Technologies in the Intermountain West. American Antiquity 75(1):81-116. 2012 The Clovis Last Hypothesis: Investigating Early Lithic Technology in the Intermountain West. In Meetings at the Margins: Prehistoric Cultural Interactions in the Intermountain West, edited by David Rhode, pp. 23-47. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Bedwell, Stephen F. 1970 Prehistory and Environment of the Pluvial Fort Rock Lake Area of Southcentral Oregon. Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Bentley, R. Alexander, and Michael O’Brien 2012 Cultural Evolutionary Tipping Points in the Storage and Transmission of Information. Frontiers in Psychology 3(569):1-14.
Bettinger, Robert L., and Jelmer W. Eerkens 1997 Evolutionary Implications of Metrical Variation in Great Basin Projectile Points. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 7(1):177-191. 1999 Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow and Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64(2):231-242.
104
Black, Kevin D. 1991 Archaic Continuity in the Colorado Rockies: The Mountain Tradition. Plains Anthropologist 36(133):1-29.
Bland, J. Martin, and Douglas G. Altman 1996 Measurement Error and Correlation Coefficients. British Medical Journal 313:41-42.
Blinnikov, Mikhail, Alan Busacca, and Cathy Whitlock 2002 Reconstruction of the Late Pleistocene Grassland of the Columbia Basin, Washington, USA, Based on Phytolith Records in Loess. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 177:77-101.
Bookstein, Fred L. 1986 Si e and Shape Spaces for Landmark Data in Two Dimensions. Statistical Science 1(2):181-242. 1996a Biometrics, Biomathematics and the Morphometric Synthesis. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 58(2):311-365. 1996b Combining the Tools of Geometric Morphometrics. In Advances in Morphometrics. NATO ASI Series (Series A: Life Sciences) No. 248. Edited by Leslie F. Marcus, Marco Corti, Ana Loy, Gavin J.P. Naylor, and Dennis E. Slice, 131-151. Springer, Boston.
Boyd, Robert, and Peter J. Richerson 1985 Culture and Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bradley, Bruce A. 1991 Flaked Stone Technology in the Northern High Plains. In Hunters of the High Plains, edited by George Frison, pp. 369-396. Academic Press, San Diego. 2009 Bifacial Technology and Paleoindian Projectile Points. In Hell Gap: A Stratified Paleoindian Campsite at the Edge of the Rocky Mountains, edited by Mary Lou Larson, Marcel Kornfeld, and George Frison, pp. 259- 273. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2010 Paleoindian Flaked Stone Technology on the Plains and in the Rockies. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the High Plains and Rockies, edited by Marcel Kornfeld, George Frison, and Mary Lou Larson, pp. 463-495. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.
Bradley, Bruce A., and George C. Frison 1987 Projectile Points and Speciali ed Bifaces from the Horner Site. In The Horner Site: The Type Site of the Cody Cultural Complex, edited by George C. Frison and Lawrence C. Todd, pp. 199-132. Academic Press, Orlando.
105
Bryan, Alan L. 1980 The Stemmed Point Tradition: An Early Technological Tradition in Western North America. In Anthropological Papers in Memory of Earl H. Swanson Jr., edited by Lucille B. Harten, Claud N. Warren, and Donald R. Touhy, pp. 77-107. Idaho State Museum of Natural History, Pocatello.
Bryson, Reid A., and Robert U. Bryson 2009 Site Specific High-Resolution Climate Models of Paleoindian Sites in the Plains. In Hell Gap: A Stratified Paleoindian Campsite at the Edge of the Rocky Mountains, edited by Mary Lou Larson, Marcel Kornfeld, and George Frison, pp. 103-110. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Buchanan, Briggs, Anne Chao, Chun-Huo Chiu, Robert K. Colwell, Michael J. O’Brien, Angelia Werner, and Metin I. Eren 2017 Environmentally-Induced Changes in Selective Constraints on Social Learning during the Peopling of the Americas. Scientific Reports 7(44431):1-12.
Buchanan, Briggs, Michael J. O’Brien, and Mark Collard 2014 Continent-wide or Region-Specific? A Geometric Morphometrics-based Assessment of Variation in Clovis Point Shape. Archaeology Anthropology Science 6:145-162.
Butler, B. Robert 1978 Bison Hunting in the Desert West Before 1800: the Paleoecological Potential and the Archaeological Reality. Plains Anthropologist 23(82):106-112.
Cannon, William J., and Roger Wiggin 1975 Preliminary Reconnaissance of the Alvord Region, with Notes on a New Plano-like Assemblage from Southeastern Oregon. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Northwest Anthropological Conference, Seattle.
Cavalli-Sfor a, Luigi Luca, and Marcus W. Feldman 1981 Cultural Transmission and Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Chatters, James C. 2012 Columbia Plateau: The Northwestern Frontier. In Meetings at the Margins: Prehistoric Cultural Interactions in the Intermountain West, edited by David Rhode, pp. 142-161. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
106
Christian, Leif J. 1997 Early Holocene Typology, Chronology, and Mobility: Evidence form the Northern Great Basin. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.
Clewlow, C. William, Jr. 1968 Surface Archaeology of the Black Rock Desert, Nevada. In Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 73:1-93. Berkeley.
Connolly, Thomas J., and Dennis L. Jenkins 1999 The Paulina Lake Site. In Newberry Crater: A Ten-Thousand-Year Record of Human Occupation and Environmental Change in the Basin Plateau Borderlands, edited by Thomas J. Connolly, pp. 86-130. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 12. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Dansie, Amy J., Jonathan O. Davis, and Tom W. Stafford Jr. 1988 The Wi ards Beach Recession: Farmdalian (25,000 yr BP) Vertebrate Fossils Co-occur with Early Holocene Artifacts. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: the Clovis Archaic Interface, edited by Judith A. Willig, C. Melvin Aikens, and John L. Fagan, pp. 153- 200. Anthropological Paper No. 21. Nevada State Museum Carson City.
Dansie, Amy J., and William J. Jerrems 2004 Lahontan Chronology and Early Human Occupation in the Western Great Basin: a New Look at Old Collections. In New Perspectives on the First Americans, edited by Bradley T. Lepper and Robson Bonnichsen, pp. 55- 63. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M University, College Station.
Daugherty, Richard D. 1956 Archaeology if the Lind Coulee Site. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 100:223-278.
Davis, Loren G., Daniel W. Bean, and Alexander J. Nyers 2017 Morphometric and Technological Attributes of Western Stemmed Traditions Projectile Points Revealed in a Second Artifact Cache from the Cooper’s Ferry Site, Idaho. American Antiquity 82(3):537-557.
Davis Loren G., Samuel C. Willis, Shane J. Macfarlan 2012 Lithic Technology, Cultural Transmission, and the Nature of the Far Western Paleoarchaic-Paleoindian Co-tradition. In Meetings at the Margins: Prehistoric Cultural Interactions in the Intermountain West, edited by David Rhode, pp. 47-64. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
107
Dawe, Robert J. 2013 A Review of the Cody Complex in Alberta. In Paleoindian Lifeways of the Cody Complex, edited by Edward J. Knell and Mark P. Mu i , pp. 144- 187. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Duguid, James O. 2009 Appendix A: A Paleoindian Site Discovery. In Hell Gap: A Stratified Paleoindian Campsite at the Edge of the Rocky Mountains, edited by Mary Lou Larson, Marcel Kornfeld, and George Frison, pp. 313-315. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Duke, Daron, and D. Craig Young 2007 Episodic Permanence in Paleoarchaic Basin Selection and Settlement. In Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic?: Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition, edited by Kelly E. Graf and Dave N. Schmitt, pp. 123-138. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Dunnell, Robert C. 1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43(2):192-202.
Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Carl P. Lipo 2005 Cultural Transmission, Copying Errors, and the Generation of Variation in Material Culture and the Archaeological Record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24(4):316-334. 2007 Cultural Transmission Theory and the Archaeological Record: Providing Context to Understanding Variation and Temporal Changes in Material Culture. Journal of Archaeological Research 15(3):239-274.
Fredlund, Glen 2009 Phytolith Evidence for Vegetation and Climate Change during the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition. In Hell Gap: A Stratified Paleoindian Campsite at the Edge of the Rocky Mountains, edited by Mary Lou Larson, Marcel Kornfeld, and George Frison, pp. 90-98. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Frison, George C. 1987 The University of Wyoming Investigations at the Horner Site. . In The Horner Site: The Type Site of the Cody Cultural Complex, edited by George C. Frison and Lawrence C. Todd, pp. 93-106. Academic Press, Orlando. 1991 The Prehistoric Plains Indian Hunter. In Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains, edited by George Frison, pp. 139-238. Academic Press, San Diego.
108
Fryxell, Roald, Tadeus Bielicki, Richard D. Daugherty, Carl E. Gustafson, Henry T. Irwin, and Bennie Keel 1968 A Human Skeleton from Sediments of Mid-Pinedale Age in Southeastern Washington. American Antiquity 33(4):511-515.
Fryxell, Roald, and Bennie C. Keel 1968 Emergency Salvage Excavations for the Recovery of Early Human Remains and Related Scientific Materials from the Marmes Rockshelter Archaeological Site, Southeastern Washington. Submitted to Army Corps of Engineers Contract No. DACW68-68-c-0107.
Galm, Jerry R., and Stan Gough 2008 The Projectile Point/Knife Sample from the Sentinel Gap Site. In Projectile Point Sequences in Northwestern North America, edited by Roy. L. Carlson and Martin .P.R. Magne, pp.1-14. Archaeology Press Publication No. 35. Simon Frasier University, Burnaby.
Gingerich, Joseph A.M., Sabrina B. Sholts, Sebastian K.T.S. W rml nder, and Dennis Stanford 2014 Fluted Point Manufacture in Eastern North America: and Assessment of Form and Technology Using Traditional Metrics and 3D Morphometrics. World Archaeology 46(1):101-122.
Goodale, Nathan, William Andrefsky, Jr., Curtis Osterhoudt, Lara Cueni, and Ian Kuijt 2015 Cultural Transmission of Material Goods: Evolutionary Pattern through Measuring Morphology. In Lithic Technological Systems and Evolutionary Theory, edited by Nathan Goodale and William Andrefsky, pp. 239-252. Cambridge, New York.
Graf, Kelly 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.
Grayson, Donald K. 1977 Paleoclimatic Implications of the Dirty Shame Rockshelter Mammalian Fauna. Tebiwa No. 6. Miscellaneous Papers of the Idaho State University Museum of Natural History, Pocatello. 1979 Mt. Ma ama, Climatic Change, and Fort Rock Archaeofaunas. In Volcanic Activity and Human Ecology, edited by Payson D. Sheets and Donald K. Grayson, 427-458. Academic Press, New York. 2011 The Great Basin: A Natural Prehistory. University of California Press, Berkeley. 109
Green, Thomas, Bruce Cochran, Todd W. Fenton, James C. Woods, Gene L. Titmus, Larry Tie en, Mary Anne Davis, and Susanne J. Miller 1998 The Buhl Burial: A Paleoindian Woman form Southern Idaho. American Antiquity 63(3):437-456.
Grove, Matt 2016 Population Density, Mobility, and Cultural Transmission. Journal of Archaeological Science 74(1):75-84.
Gunn, Joel, and Elton R. Prewitt 1975 Automatic Classification: Projectile Points form West Texas. Plains Anthropologist 20(68):139-149.
Hanes, Richard C. 1977 Lithic Tools of the Dirty Shame Rockshelter: Typology and Distribution. Tebiwa Miscellaneous Papers of the Idaho State University Museum of Natural History No. 6. Idaho State University, Pocatello. 1988 Lithic Assemblages at Dirty Shame Rockshelter Changing Traditions in the Northern Intermontane. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 40. University of Oregon, Eugene.
Haynes, C. Vance, Jr. 2009 Appendix F: Radiocarbon Assays. In Hell Gap: A Stratified Paleoindian Campsite at the Edge of the Rocky Mountains, edited by Mary Lou Larson, Marcel Kornfeld, and George Frison, pp. 336-340. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Henrickson, L. Su ann, David A. Byers, Robert M. Yohe, Matthew M. DeCarlo, and Gene L. Titmus 2017 Folsom Mammoth Hunters? The Terminal Pleistocene Assemblage from Owl Cave (10BV30), Wasden Site, Idaho. American Antiquity 83(3):574- 592.
Henrickson, L. Su ann, and Montana Long 2007 In Pursuit if Humans and Extinct Megafauna in the Northern Great Basin: Results of Kelvins Cave Excavations. In Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic?: Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene/Holocene Transition, edited by Kelly E. Graf and Dave N. Schmitt, pp. 42-56. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Hicks, Brent A. (editor) 2004 Marmes Rockshelter: A Final Report on 11,000 Years of Cultural Use. Washington State University Press, Pullman.
110
Hildebrandt, William, Kelly McGuire, Jerome King, Allika Ruby, and D. Craig Young 2016 Prehistory of Nevada’s Northern Tier: Archaeological Investigations along the Ruby Pipeline. American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers No. 101. American Museum of Natural History, New York.
Hill, Matthew E., Jr., Matthew G. Hill, and Christopher C. Wigda 2008 Late Quaternary Bison Diminution on the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains of North America. Quaternary International 191:1-4.
Holliday, Vance T. 2000 Folsom Drought and Episodic Drying on the Southern High Plains from 10,900-10,200 14C yr BP. Quaternary Research 53:1-12.
Holmer, Richard N. 1978 A Mathematical Typology for Archaic Projectile Points of the Eastern Great Basin. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 2009 Field Guide: Projectile Points of Eastern Idaho. Idaho Museum of Natural History, Pocatello.
Huberty, Carl J. 1994 Applied Discriminant Analysis. Wiley, New York.
Huckell, Bruce 1978 Appendix I: Hudson-Meng Chipped Stone. In The Hudson-Meng Site: an Alberta bison kill in the Nebraska High Plains, edited by Larry D. Agenbroad, pp 153-189. University Press of America, Washington D.C.
Hutchinson, Phillip W. 1988 The Prehistoric Dwellers at Lake Hubbs. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: the Clovis Archaic Interface, edited by Judith A. Willig, C. Melvin Aikens, and John L. Fagan, pp. 303-318. Anthropological Paper No. 21. Nevada State Museum, Carson City.
Irwin, Ann M., and Ula Moody 1978 The Lind Coulee Site (45GR97). Project Report No. 56. Washington Archaeological Research Center, Pullman.
Irwin-Williams, Cynthia, Henry Irwin, George Agogino, and C. Vance Haynes 1973 Hell Gap: Paleoindian Occupation on the High Plains. Plains Anthropologist 18(59):40-53.
111
Jamaldin, Sophia A. 2018 Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Cave Use in Oregon’s Fort Rock Basin: An Examination of Western Stemmed Point Assemblages from Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.
Jenkins, Dennis L., Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens 2004 Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology in the Northern Great Basin: Dynamic Natural and Cultural Ecologies. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 1-20. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 62. University of Oregon, Eugene.
Jenkins, Denis L., Loren G. Davis, Thomas W. Stafford, Paula F. Campos, Thomas J. Connolly, Linda Scott Cummings, Michael Hofreiter, Bryan Hockett, Katelyn McDonough, Ian Luthe, Patrick O’Grady, Karl J. Reinhard, Mark E. Swisher, Frances White, Bonnie Yates, Robert M. Yohe II, Chad Yost, Eske Willerslev 2014 Geochronology, Archaeological Context, and DNA at the Paisley Caves. In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by Kelly E. Graf, Caroline V. Ketron, and Michael R. Waters, pp. 485-510. Texas A&M Press, College Station.
Jepsen, Glenn L. 1951 Ancient Buffalo Hunters in Wyoming. Archaeological Society of New Jersey Newsletter 24:22-24.
Jew, Nicholas P., Amira F. Ainis, Pamela E. End wig, Jon M. Erlandson, Craig Skinner, and Kelsey J. Sullivan 2015 Chipped Stone Crescents from America’s Far West: Descriptive and Geochemical Analyses from the Northern Great Basin. North American Archaeologist 36(2):119-140.
Jones, George T., Lisa M. Fontes, Rachel A. Horowit , Charlotte Beck, and David G. Bailey 2003 Lithic Source Use and Paleoarchaic Mobility in the Central Great Basin. American Antiquity 77(2):351-367.
Justice, Noel 2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Keel, Bennie C., and Roald Fryxell 1968 Recovery of Early Human Remains form the Marmes Rockshelter Archaeological Site, Southeastern Washington. Submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Contract No. DACW68-68-C- 0107. 112
Kelly, Robert L., and Lawrence C. Todd 1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Gathering and Mobility. American Antiquity 53(2):231-244.
Kilby, David J., and Bruce B. Huckell 2014 Clovis Caches: Current Perspectives and Future Directions. In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by Kelly E. Graf, Caroline V. Ketron, and Michael Waters, pp 257-272. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Knell, Edward J. 2007 The Organization of Late Paleoindian Cody Complex Land-Use on the North American Great Plains. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State, Pullman. 2009 Cody Complex at Locality I. In Hell Gap: A Stratified Paleoindian Campsite at the Edge of the Rockies, edited by Mary Lou Larson, Marcel Kornfeld, and George C. Frison, pp. 180-194. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Knell, Edward J., Mathew E. Hill, and Mathew E. Hill, Jr. 2012 Linking Bones and Stones: Regional Variation in Late Paleoindian Cody Complex Land Use and Foraging Strategies. American Antiquity. 77(1):40-70.
Knell, Edward J., and Mark P. Mu i 2013 Introducing the Cody Complex. In Paleoindian Lifeways of the Cody Complex, edited by Edward J. Knell and Mark P. Mu i , pp. 3-30. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Klingenberg, Christian P. 2011 MorphoJ: and Integrated Software Package for Geometric Morphometrics. Molecular Ecology Resources 11:353-357.
Kornfeld, Marcel, George C. Frison, and Mary Lou Larson 2010 The Archaeological Record for the Northwestern Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the High Plains and Rockies, edited by Marcel Kornfeld, George C. Frison, and Mary Lou Larson, pp. 47-135. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.
Kornfeld, Marcel, and Mary Lou Larson 2009 Reinvestigation in Context: A Paleoindian Prehistory at the Edge of the Rockies. In Hell Gap: A Stratified Paleoindian Campsite at the Edge of the Rocky Mountains, edited by Mary Lou Larson, Marcel Kornfeld, and George Frison, pp. 3-13. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 113
Lafayette, Linsie M. 2006 Use-Wear Analysis of Great Basin Stemmed Points. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.
Leonhardy, Frank C. 1970 Artifact Assemblages and Archaeological Units at Granite Point Locality 1 (45W41), Southeastern Washington. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University.
Lipo, Carl P., Terry L. Hunt, and Brook Hundtoft 2015 An Analysis of Stylistic Variability of Stemmed Obsidian Tools (Mata’a) on Rapa Nui (Easter Island). In Lithic Technological Systems and Evolutionary Theory, edited by Nathan Goodale and William Andrefsky, pp. 225-238. Cambridge, New York.
Lohse, Ernest S. 1995 The Southeastern Idaho Prehistoric Sequence. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 28(2):135-156
Lohse, Ernest S. and C Schou 2008 The Southern Columbia Plateau Projectile Point Sequence: An Informatics- Based Approach. In Projectile Point Sequences in Northwestern North America, edited by Roy L. Carlson and Phillip M. Hobler, pp. 187-208. Archaeology Press, Burnaby.
Lycett, Stephen J., and Noreen von Cramon-Taubdel 2012 A 3D Morphometric Analysis of Surface Geometry in Levallois Cores: Patterns of Stability and Variability across Regions and their Implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:1508-1517.
Lyman, R. Lee 2004 Late-Quaternary Bison Diminution and Abundance of Pre-historic Bison (Bison sp.) in Eastern Washington State, U.S.A. Quaternary Research 62:76-85. 2013 Paleoindian Exploitation of Mammals in Eastern Washington State. American Antiquity 78(2):227-247.
MacLeod, Norman 2018 The Quantitative Assessment of Archaeological Artifact Groups: Beyond Geometric Morphometrics. Quaternary Science Reviews 201:319-348.
Melt er, David J., and Vance T. Holliday 2010 Would North America Paleoindians have Noticed Younger Dryas Age Climate Changes? Journal of World Prehistory 23:1-41. 114
Mesoudi, Alex, and Michael J. O’Brien 2008a The Cultural Transmission of Great Basin Projectile-Point Technology I: An Experimental Simulation. American Antiquity 73(1):3-28. 2008b The Cultural Transmission of Great Basin Projectile-Point Technology II: An Agent-Based Computer Simulation. American Antiquity 73(4):627- 644.
Metcalf, Michael D., and E. Kae McDonald 2012 Stability and Change in the Rocky Mountains: Who was Here When, and What were They Doing? In Meetings at the Margins: Prehistoric Cultural Interactions in the Intermountain West, edited by David Rhode, pp. 176- 190. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Mohr, Katelyn 2018 The Relationship Between Paleoindian Site Location and Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Lake-Level Fluctuation in the Lahontan Basin, Nevada. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.
Morrow, Juliet, and Toby A. Morrow 1999 Geographic Variation in Fluted Projectile Points: a Hemispheric Perspective. American Antiquity 62:215-231.
Mu i , Mark P. 2005 The Cody Complex Revisited: Landscape Use and Technological Organization on the Northwestern Plain. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado. 2013 Paleoenvironmental Change and Cultural Ecology of the Cody Complex on the Great Plains and Adjacent Rocky Mountains. In Paleoindian Lifeways of the Cody Complex, edited by Edward J. Knell and Mark P. Mu i , pp. 31-68. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Musil, Robert R. 1988 Functional Efficiency and Technological Change: A Hafting Tradition Model for Prehistoric North America. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: the Clovis Archaic Interface, edited by Judith A. Willig, C. Melvin Aikens, and John L. Fagan, pp. 373-387. Anthropological Paper No. 21. Nevada State Museum, Carson City.
Muto, Guy R. 1976 The Cascade Technique: An Examination of a Levallois-Like Reduction System in Early Snake River Prehistory. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
115
Nelson, Emma, Jason Hall, Patrick Randolph-Quinney, and Anthony Sinclair 2017 Beyond Si e: The Potential of a Geometric Morphometric Analysis of Shape and Form for the Assessment of Sex in Hand Stencils in Rock Art. Journal of Archaeological Science 78:202-213.
O’Brien, Michael J., Briggs Buchanan, and Metin I. Eren 2016 Coloni ation of Eastern North America: A Phylogenic Approach. STAR: Science and Technology of Archaeological Research 2(1):67-89.
Oetting, Albert C. 1994 Early Holocene Rabbit Drives and Prehistoric Land Use Patterns on Buffalo Flat, Christmas Lake Valley, Oregon. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology since Cressman, edited by Melvin C. Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. 155- 170. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 50. University of Oregon, Eugene.
Oviatt, Charles G., David B. Madsen, and David N. Schmitt 2003 Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Rivers and Wetlands in the Bonneville Basin of Western North America. Quaternary Research 60:200-210.
Pelton, Spencer R., Marcel Kornfeld, Mary Lou Larson, and Thomas Minckley 2017 Component Age Estimates for the Hell Gap Paleoindian Site and Methods for Chronological Modeling of Stratified Open Sites. Quaternary Research 88:1-14.
Pitblado, Bonnie L. 2003 Late Paleoindian Occupation of the Southern Rocky Mountains: Early Holocene Projectile Points and Land Use in the High Country. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.
Plew, Mark 2008 Archaeology of the Snake River Plain. Boise State University, Boise.
Plog, Steven 1978 Social Interaction and Stylistic Similarity: A Reanalysis. Advances in Archaeological Methods and Theory 1:143-182.
Porčić, Marko 2014 Exploring the Effects of Assemblage Accumulation on Diversity and Innovation Rate Estimates in Neutral, Conformist, and Anti-Conformist Models of Cultural Transmission. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 22(4):1071-1092.
116
R Core Team 2017 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org./.
Ragan, Kathryn, and Briggs Buchanan 2018 Assessing Collector Bias: A Geometric Morphometric Analysis of a Collection of Isolated Clovis Points form the Midcontinent. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 43(2):91-111.
Reaux, Derek J., Geoffrey M. Smith, Kenneth D. Adams, Sophia Jamaldin, Nicole D. George, Katelyn Mohr, and Richard L. Rosencrance 2018 A First Look at the Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Record of Guano Valley, Oregon, USA. PaleoAmerica 4(2):162-176.
Rice, David 1972 The Windust Phase in Lower Snake River Region Prehistory. Report of Investigations No. 50. Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Rice, Harvey 1965 The Cultural Sequence at Windust Caves. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Pullman.
Richerson, Peter J., and Robert Boyd 1984 Natural Selection and Culture. BioScience 34(7):430-434.
Rohlf, F. James 2016 Morphometrics at SUNY Stony Brook. http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph.
Ros, J r me, Allowen Evin, Laurent Bouby, Marie-Pierre Ruas 2013 Geometric Morphometric Analysis of Grain Shape and the Identification of Two-rowed Barley (Hordeum vulgar subsp. Distichum L.) in Southern France. Journal of Archaeological Science 41:568-575.
Sackett, J. 1977 The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model. American Antiquity 42(3):369-80.
Scott, Lindsay D. 2016 The Western Stemmed Point Tradition: Evolutionary Perspectives on Cultural Change in Projectile Points During the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Montana, Missoula.
117
Sholts, Sabrina B., Joseph A.M. Gingerich, Stefan Schlager, Dennis J. Stanford, and Sebastian K.T.S. W rml nder 2017 Tracing Social Interactions in Pleistocene North America via 3D Analysis of Stone Tool Asymmetry. PLoS One 12(7):e0179933.
Shott, Michael 2014 Digiti ing Archaeology: A Subtle Revolution in Analysis. World Archaeology 46(1):1-9.
Shott, Michael J., and Brian W. Trail 2010 Exploring New Approaches to Lithic Analysis: Laser Scanning and Geometric Morphometrics. Lithic Technology 35(2):195-220.
Smith, Geoffrey M., and Pat Barker 2017 The Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Record in the Northwestern Great Basin: What We Know, What We Don’t Know, and How We May Be Wrong. PaleoAmerica 3(1):13-47.
Smith, Geoffrey M., Teresa Wriston, Donald Pattee, and Danielle C. Felling. 2015 The Surface Paleoindian Record of Northern Warner Valley, Oregon, and its Bearing on the Temporal Separation of Clovis and Western Stemmed Points in the Northern Great Basin. PaleoAmerica 1(4):360-373.
Smith, Heather L. 2010 Behavioral Analysis of Clovis Point Morphology Using Geometric Morphometrics. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University.
Smith, Heather L., and Thomas DeWitt 2016 The Northern Fluted Point Complex: Technological and Morphological Evidence of Adaptation and Risk in the Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene Arctic. Archaeological Anthropological Science 9(8):1799-1823.
Smith, Heather L., and Ted Goebel 2018 Origins and Spread of Fluted-point Technology in the Canadian Ice-Free Corridor and Eastern Beringia. Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America 115(16):4116-4121.
Spradley, M. Katherine, and Richard L. Jant 2016 Ancestry Estimation in Forensic Anthropology: Geometric and Morphometric versus Standard and Nonstandard Interlandmark Distances. Journal of Forensic Science 61(4):892-897.
118
Stevens, Nathan E. 2015 What Steward Got Right: Technology, Work Organi ation, and Cultural Evolution. In Lithic Technological Systems and Evolutionary Theory, edited by Nathan Goodale and William Andrefsky Jr., pp. 253-266. Cambridge, New York.
Stull, Kyra E. 2016 The Craniometric Implications of a Complex Population History in South Africa. In: Biological Distance Analysis: Forensic and Bioarchaeological Perspectives, edited by Marin Pilloud and Joseph T. Hefner, pp. 245-260. Academic Press, San Diego.
Stutte, Nicole A. 2004 The Holocene History of Bison in the Intermountain West: A Synthesis of Archaeological and Paleontological Records from Eastern Oregon. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Portland State University.
Thomas, David H. 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. In Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):7-43.
Todd, Lawrence C. Robert V. Witter, and George C. Frison 1987 Excavation and Documentation of the Princeton and Smithsonian Horner Site Assemblages. In The Horner Site: The Type Site of the Cody Cultural Complex, edited by George C. Frison and Lawrence C. Todd, pp. 39-92. Academic Press, Orlando.
Tuohy, Donald R., and Thomas N. Layton 1977 Toward the Establishment of a New Series of Great Basin Projectile Points. Nevada Archaeological Survey Reporter 10(6):1-5.
Webster, Mark, and H. David Sheets 2010 A Practical Introduction to Landmark-Based Geometric Morphometrics. Paleontological Papers 16:163-188.
Wedel, Waldo R. 1987 History of the Princeton and Smithsonian Investigations at the Horner Site. In The Horner Site: The Type Site for the Cody Complex, edited by George C. Frison and Larry C. Todd, pp. 19-38. Academic Press, Orlando.
Weide, David L. 1975 Postglacial Geomorphology and Environments of the Warner Valley-Hart Mountain Area Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
119
Weissner, Polly 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48(2):235-276.
Willig, Judith A. 1988 The Clovis-Archaic in Far Western North America. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis-Archaic Interface, edited by Judith A. Willig, C. Melvin Aikens, and John L. Fagan, pp. 1- 40. Nevada State Anthropological Papers No. 21. Nevada State Museum, Carson City.
Wobst, Martin H. 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by Charles E. Cleland, pp. 317-342. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers No. 61. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Wormington, Hannah M. 1948 A Proposed Revision of Yuma Point Terminology. Proceedings of the Colorado Museum of Natural History 18(2):3-19. 1957 Ancient Man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History Popular Series No. 4. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver.
Wriston, Teresa A., and Geoffrey M. Smith 2017 Late Pleistocene to Holocene History of Lake Warner and its Prehistoric Occupations, Warner Valley, Oregon. Quaternary Research 88:491-513.
Yohe, Robert M., II, and James C. Woods 2002 The First Idahoans: A Paleoindian Context for Idaho. State Historic Preservation Office, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise.