Projectile Points As Indicators of Preceramic Occupation of the Coconino Plateau by Michael G. Lyndon a Thesis Submitted In
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Projectile Points as Indicators of Preceramic Occupation of the Coconino Plateau by Michael G. Lyndon A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts in Anthropology Northern Arizona University August 2005 Approved: ___________________________ Francis E. Smiley IV, Ph.D., Chair ___________________________ Christian E. Downum, Ph.D. ___________________________ Robert T. Trotter II, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Projectile Points as Indicators of Preceramic Occupation of the Coconino Plateau Michael G. Lyndon The study presented here represents the first regional analysis of how preceramic site distributions on the Coconino Plateau changed through time. Although a growing body of literature focuses on the ceramic-era Cohonina people that inhabited the area after A.D. 700, only a few projects have offered any insight into the 12,000 year period of human occupation prior to that time. The paucity of data regarding the preceramic period on the Coconino Plateau has long frustrated attempts to develop a complete culture-history for the region. As Hanson (1996:2) notes, “[t]he chronology of the Archaic west of the [San Francisco] Peaks is not well developed and the identity of the antecedent Archaic populations is not possible with the current evidence.” This study seeks to identify such populations by using the temporally diagnostic projectile points they left on the landscape in order to develop an initial culture chronology for the Coconino Plateau. I argue throughout this thesis that the absence of such a chronology coupled with the lack of archaeological investigation into the preceramic periods on the Coconino Plateau has biased archaeological site data for the region. I further argue that such biases have heavily influenced the development of the current culture-historical model for the research area. I have attempted here to test such assertions by compiling data on the preceramic periods of prehistory in the region and performing a spatial analysis of where preceramic sites appear on the landscape and how these patterns shifted over time. Specifically, I use temporally diagnostic projectile points as evidence of occupation of ii the study area during the preceramic era in contrast to current culture-historical models that rely upon the temporal designations of archaeological sites. iii © 2005, Michael G. Lyndon iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis has benefited greatly from the contributions of my thesis committee, Dr. Francis Smiley, Dr. Christian Downum, and Dr. Robert Trotter. I am extremely grateful for their direction throughout the thesis writing process. I would especially like to thank Dr. Francis Smiley, committee chair, for his constant guidance throughout the graduate school experience. I would like to thank my co-workers, past and present, on both the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests for numerous discussions over the last three years that have contributed greatly to my understanding of the archaeology of the Flagstaff area and to my own thesis topic. These are Dr. John Hanson, Neil Weintraub, Melissa Schroeder, Daniel Sorrell, Calla McNamee, Travis Bone and Liz Lane on the Kaibab National Forest, and Peter Pilles, Heather Provencio, David Gifford, Angela Crossley, Gallina Franz, and Christopher Barrett on the Coconino National Forest. Special thanks is given to Dr. John Hanson and Neil Weintraub of the Kaibab National Forest for access to the artifacts and GIS data used for this project, and support of this project from the beginning. Extra special thanks are given to Chris Barrett who has devoted a great amount of personal time to helping me with a constant flow of GIS and computer-related issues. The typology section of this project was the most difficult and time consuming portion of this thesis and was greatly aided by the combined expertise of the following individuals during the Projectile Point Typology Workshop outlined in Chapter 4; Dr. Francis Smiley, Dr. Christian Downum, Dr. Stan Ahler, Phil Geib, Peter Pilles and Michael Robins. I thank Phil Geib also for being willing to meet on numerous occasions v to discuss this project and for being a constant source of information. Dr. Ahler and Phil Geib were also kind enough to offer comments on original drafts of portions of this thesis. Additionally, I have consulted with numerous other individuals regarding facets of this project and I thank them all for their input. These are, Dr. Claudia Berry, Dr. John Whittaker, Dr. J. Jefferson Reid, Jim Holmlund, Don Christensen, Ron Krug, and Curtis Porter. In addition, Brad Mason lent crucial assistance during the artifact scanning and curation portion of this project. Scott Walker, of the Department of Geography, Planning and Recreation at Northern Arizona University supplied much needed advice on some of the more technical aspects of the GIS analysis presented here. I would also like to thank the members of my cohort who have lent support during the last three years. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family, who have been such a great support throughout my life, especially my parents Nick and JoAnne Lyndon, and my brother Steve, who is the master of all illustrative computer programs. Very special thanks goes to my wife Stacey, who has started to hate the word “thesis” more than any graduate student ever did. You’ve been great. Thanks. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract….……………………………………………………………………………...ii Acknowledgements….………………………………………………………………….v Table of Contents……………………………………….……………………………..vii List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………..ix List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………..x Chapter 1 : Introduction...................................................................................................... 1 The Utility of Using an Artifact-Level Analysis for the Spatial Modeling of Culture- History on the Coconino Plateau .................................................................................... 3 Overview of the Report................................................................................................... 6 Research Questions......................................................................................................... 8 A Brief Explanation of Temporal Period Names Used in this Volume.......................... 8 Chapter Summaries....................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 2 : The Physical Environment of the Coconino Plateau and Previous Research within the Study Area ....................................................................................................... 13 The Study Area: The South Zone of the Kaibab National Forest................................. 13 The Coconino Plateau: Environmental, Geological, Geographic, and Climactic Data 15 High Elevation on the Coconino Plateau...................................................................... 18 Previous Research for the Coconino Plateau................................................................ 19 The Late Preceramic Period on the Coconino Plateau: The Search for a Cohonina Predecessor ................................................................................................................... 20 Other Proposed Hiatuses during the Preceramic Period............................................... 25 Chapter 3 : Methods of Analysis ...................................................................................... 29 Developing Artifact Selection Criteria for the Analysis............................................... 32 Visual Sourcing of Lithic Raw Materials ..................................................................... 37 Local Raw Material Sources......................................................................................... 39 A Note Regarding Other Obsidian Sources near the Project Area ............................... 42 Chapter 4 : Projectile Point Types of the Coconino Plateau............................................. 44 Contrasting Methods of Lithic Artifact Classification in the Southwest...................... 45 Development of the Current Classificatory System...................................................... 49 Projectile Point Types on the Coconino Plateau........................................................... 51 Paleoindian Period Types (11,900 to 9,000 B.P.)......................................................... 53 Early Archaic Projectile Point Types (9,000 B.P. to 6,200 B.P.) ................................. 58 Middle Archaic Projectile Point Types (6,200 B.P. to 4,600 B.P.) .............................. 61 Late Archaic Projectile Point Types (4,600 B.P. to 2,400 B.P.)................................... 65 Early Agricultural Projectile Point Types (2,400 B.P. to 1,550 B.P.) .......................... 74 Early Ceramic Projectile Point Types (A.D. 400 to A.D. 700) .................................... 78 Ceramic Period Projectile Point Types (A.D. 700 to A.D. 1300)................................. 82 Protohistoric Projectile Points (A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1600) ............................................ 90 A Solitary Historic Projectile Point (A.D. 1,600 to A.D. 1,950).................................. 92 Undated Projectile Point Types .................................................................................... 94 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 105 Chapter 5 : Changing Distributions of Preceramic Artifacts on the Coconino Plateau Over Time ...............................................................................................................................