University of Nevada, Reno
Evaluating Gaps in the Radiocarbon Sequences of Northwestern Great Basin Sandals
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Anthropology
by
Aaron Patrick Ollivier
Dr. Geoffrey M. Smith/Thesis Advisor
May, 2016
©Aaron Patrick Ollivier All Rights Reserved
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by
AARON OLLIVIER
Entitled
Evaluating Gaps In The Radiocarbon Sequences Of Northwestern Great Basin Sandals
be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Geoffrey M. Smith, Ph.D., Advisor
J. Pat Barker, Ph.D., Committee Member
Peter Weisberg, Ph.D., Graduate School Representative
David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School
May, 2016
i
ABSTRACT
Large gaps occur in the radiocarbon sequences of Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandals. The gaps begin during the initial Middle Holocene and last for several millennia; however, the sandal types are technologically indistinguishable on either side of them. To test hypotheses regarding the cause of these gaps, I evaluate the existing radiocarbon sequences of both sandal types, present 24 additional radiocarbon dates on sandals, and critically evaluate chronological data from sandal-bearing sites in the northwestern Great
Basin. My results demonstrate that the gaps in the sandal radiocarbon sequences are highly unlikely to occur due to chance. Instead, the gaps are likely a product of changing land-use patterns during the initial Middle Holocene. During this generally arid period of
Great Basin prehistory, groups began utilizing areas where reliable water was found in both lowland and upland areas. This change necessitated abandoning the caves and rockshelters groups occupied during the Early Holocene, areas that afford excellent preservation of perishable artifacts like sandals.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following people and organizations provided invaluable support for completing this thesis. First, the Great Basin Paleoindian Research Unit (GBPRU), the
Sven and Astrid Liljeblad Endowment, the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Graduate
Student Association, and the Lakeview BLM funded my research. Second, the Summit
Lake Paiute Tribe, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada State Museum, UNR
Anthropology Museum, and Lakeview BLM granted permission to radiocarbon date additional sandals from Last Supper Cave, South Warner Cave, and LSP-1.Third, my committee members – Dr. Geoffrey Smith, Dr. Pat Barker, and Dr. Peter Weisberg – offered guidance and patience throughout the writing process. I am especially thankful for the time my advisor, Dr. Smith, has invested in my education. Dr. Dave Rhode helped me understand how to interpret gaps in radiocarbon sequences, and Dr. Tom Connolly and Dr. Dennis Jenkins provided important unpublished information about several sites.
Finally, my family has loved and supported me through the years, my friends provided a stiff drink to help alleviate the frustrations of academic work, and my graduate cohort offered companionship throughout my time at UNR, which has affirmed my decision to make archaeology my career.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...... i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii
LIST OF TABLES...... vi
LIST OF FIGURES...... vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...... 1
Background...... 2
Sandal Technology...... 12
Definition of Types...... 12
Temporal and Spatial Distribution...... 15
Unresolved Research Questions...... 18
CHAPTER 2: MATERIALS AND METHODS...... 22
Materials...... 22
Previously Dated Sandals...... 23
Additional Directly Dated Sandals...... 23
Chronological Data of Sandal-Bearing Sites...... 29
Sandal-Bearing Sites...... 40 iv
The Good...... 40
The Bad...... 41
The Ugly...... 45
Methods...... 50
CHATPTER 3: RESULTS...... 61
Mind the Gaps...... 61
Additional Radiocarbon Dated Specimens...... 63
Evaluating the Chronological Data...... 65
The Good...... 66
The Bad...... 73
The Ugly...... 80
Summary...... 86
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION...... 89
Null Hypothesis...... 89
Hypothesis #1...... 90
Hypothesis #2...... 93
Middle Holocene Land-Use...... 94
The Lunette Lake Period...... 95
The Bergen Period...... 97
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION...... 100 v
Summary of Interpretations...... 102
Future Research Directions...... 104
REFERENCES CITED...... 105
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Dated Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft Sandals...... 25
Table 2.2 Radiocarbon Dates from Northwestern Great Basin Sites...... 30
Table 2.3 Age Ranges for Projectile Point Types...... 37
Table 2.4 Projectile Point Frequencies from Northwestern Great Basin Sites...... 39
Table 2.5 Defining Attributes of Additional Radiocarbon-Dated Sandals...... 59
Table 3.1 New Sandal Radiocarbon Dates...... 64
Table 3.2 Summary of Evidence for Middle Holocene Hiatuses...... 88
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 The Hydrographic Great Basin...... 3
Figure 1.2 Summed Probability Distribution of the Fort Rock Basin Radiocarbon Sequence...... 6
Figure 1.3 Summed Probability Distribution of the Western Lahontan Basin Radiocarbon Sequence...... 7
Figure 1.4 Northwestern Great Basin Sandal Types...... 14
Figure 1.5 V-Twined Sandals...... 15
Figure 1.6 Geographic Distributions of Northwestern Great Basin Sandals...... 17
Figure 2.1 Sandal-Bearing Sites of the Northwestern Great Basin...... 27
Figure 2.2a Sandals from Last Supper Cave...... 53
Figure 2.2b Last Supper Cave Sandals, Continued...... 54
Figure 2.3 Sandals from South Warner Cave...... 55
Figure 2.4 Profile of Pit F.14.10, LSP-1...... 57
Figure 2.5 Sandals from LSP-1...... 58
Figure 3.1 Summed Probability Distribution of Dirty Shame Rockshelter Radiocarbon Dates...... 67
Figure 3.2 Time-Sensitive Projectile Point Frequencies from Dirty Shame Rockshelter...... 68
Figure 3.3a Summed Probability Distribution of Last Supper Cave Radiocarbon Dates...... 69
Figure 3.3b Last Supper Radiocarbon Dates, Continued...... 70
Figure 3.4 Time-Sensitive Projectile Point Frequencies from Last Supper Cave...... 71
viii
Figure 3.5 Summed Probability Distribution of LSP-1 Radiocarbon Dates...... 72
Figure 3.6 Time-Sensitive Projectile Point Frequencies from LSP-1...... 73
Figure 3.7 Summed Probability Distribution of Antelope Creek Overhang Radiocarbon Dates...... 74
Figure 3.8 Time-Sensitive Projectile Point Frequencies from Antelope Creek Overhang...... 75
Figure 3.9 Summed Probability Distribution of Catlow Cave No. 1 Radiocarbon Dates...... 76
Figure 3.10 Time-Sensitive Projectile Point Frequencies from Catlow Cave No. 1...... 77
Figure 3.11 Summed Probability Distribution of Paisley Cave No. 1 Radiocarbon Dates...... 78
Figure 3.12 Summed Probability Distribution of Paisley Cave No. 2 Radiocarbon Dates...... 79
Figure 3.13 Summed Probability Distribution of Roaring Springs Cave Radiocarbon Dates...... 81
Figure 3.14 Time-Sensitive Projectile Point Frequencies from Roaring Springs Cave...... 82
Figure 3.15 Summed Probability Distribution of Crypt Cave Radiocarbon Dates...... 82
Figure 3.16 Summed Probability Distribution of Elephant Mountain Cave Radiocarbon Dates...... 83
Figure 3.17 Time-Sensitive Projectile Point Frequencies from Elephant Mountain Cave...... 84
Figure 3.18 Summed Probability Distribution of Fishbone Cave Radiocarbon Dates...... 85
Figure 3.19 Summed Probability Distribution of Rattlesnake Cave Radiocarbon Dates...... 86
ix
Figure 3.20 Summed Probability Distribution of South Warner Cave Radiocarbon Dates...... 87
Figure 4.1 Map of Fort Rock Basin Sites...... 96
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Fort Rock type sandals were made at least 11,000 calendar years before present
(cal BP) in the northwestern Great Basin (Barker and Connolly 2004). Subsequent types
(Multiple Warp, Spiral Weft, and V-twined) were constructed throughout the Holocene
(Barker 2009; Connolly and Barker 2004). These artifacts have the potential to inform researchers on a number of issues such as the spread of technology and/or ethnolinguistic populations across the region, but fundamental questions remain unresolved. For example, Fort Rock sandals drop out of the record ~9200 cal BP and are replaced by
Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandals; what caused this technological replacement is unknown. Another issue involves the bimodal distributions of Multiple Warp and Spiral
Weft sandal radiocarbon dates. Large gaps occur in the middle of the sequences, yet the technology on either side remains unchanged. This latter issue is the topic on which I focus in this thesis. I test three hypotheses: (H0) sampling error and/or a low number of radiocarbon-dated sandals are responsible for the gaps; (H1) Middle Holocene hiatuses at sandal-bearing sites are responsible for the gaps; and (H2) the popularity of Multiple
Warp and Spiral Weft sandal technology rose and fell throughout the Holocene, causing the gaps.
2
Background: The Prehistory of the Northwestern Great Basin
The northwestern Great Basin, which encompasses much of southern Oregon and northwestern Nevada, is a high desert defined by general aridity (Figure 1.1). The aridity is caused by a rain shadow effect from the Cascade and Sierra Nevada Mountain ranges, which border the region to the west. This results in low annual precipitation, the majority of which falls in the mountains as snow during the winter. In much of the region, a shrub- steppe dominated by tall sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) characterizes the landscape.
Sediment-filled lake basins containing playas, wetlands, and in some cases, lakes, are separated by north-south trending mountain ranges. At higher elevations, pine (Pinus ponderosa and/or Pinus contorta), aspen (Populus tremuloides), and mountain mahogany
(Cercocarpus ledifolius) are not uncommon (Minckley et al. 2004, 2007). In northwestern Nevada, the landscape differs from the basin-and-range topography that characterizes southern Oregon and the Lahontan Basin. Informally named the High Rock
Country (Layton 1970), the area consists of volcanic tablelands with deeply-incised canyons. The High Rock Country is the southernmost extension of the Columbia Plateau.
The northwestern Great Basin has recently moved to the forefront of the Peopling of the Americas debate. This attention is due to work at the Paisley Five Mile Point
Caves, where coprolites containing human DNA have been dated to as early as ~14,300 cal BP (Jenkins et al. 2012, 2013). Whether or not the coprolites clearly demonstrate that initial human occupation of the site occurred over a millennium before the Clovis Era remains debated (see Fiedel and Morrow 2012; Poinar et al. 2009; Sistiaga et al. 2014); however, the site has also produced several Western Stemmed Tradition (WST) projectile 3
Figure 1.1. The hydrographic Great Basin with the northwestern region highlighted in red. Map adapted from Grayson (2011).
points from Clovis-aged deposits (Jenkins et al. 2012, 2013). In the millennia following the initial occupation of the Paisley Caves, other sites including additional caves and shelters (e.g., Fort Rock Cave, the Connley Caves, Last Supper Cave) and numerous open-air locales (e.g., the Alkali Basin, Warner Valley, the Alvord Desert) were occupied for the first time, indicating that humans had spread throughout the region by the end of the Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene (TP/EH) ~8500 cal BP. Many WST sites are 4 associated with relict pluvial lakes or wetlands, which led Bedwell (1973) to propose the
Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition model in which he argued that Paleoindians focused almost exclusively on lacustrine resources. That term has largely fallen out of favor in recent years and it is now apparent that Bedwell (1973) presented an oversimplified view of early adaptation, due in large part to his focus on cave sites located adjacent to wetlands during the TP/EH. It is now clear that Paleoindian occupations occur in a wider variety of locations (e.g., uplands) than initially believed (Felling 2015; Hanes 1988;
Middleton et al. 2014).
The TP/EH was a good time for early groups (Elston 1982). Diet breadth during this time was broad and groups consumed large and small mammals, fish, birds, grasshoppers, and various plants (Eiselt 1997; Grayson 1988; Hockett 2007; Oetting
1994; Pinson 2007). While small seeds have been recovered from TP/EH deposits at
Bonneville Estates Rockshelter (Rhode and Louderback 2007) and in coprolites from
Spirit Cave (Napton 1997), groundstone implements suggesting intensive exploitation of lower-ranked resources first appeared in large numbers only after ~9500 cal BP (Rhode and Louderback 2007).
The Middle Holocene (~8500-5000 cal BP) was once commonly referred to as the
Altithermal and widely viewed as a monolithic, severe drought (Antevs 1948). Evidence for warmer and drier conditions comes in a variety of forms: (1) in Lake Tahoe, pine trees grew well below the current lake level ~6500-4200 cal BP, indicating that water levels were lower during that period (Lindström 1990); (2) in the mountains of the northwestern Great Basin, fir, pine, and spruce declined in abundance and those that remained moved upslope (Thompson 1992; Wells 1983); (3) faunal data from the 5
Connley Caves show decreased waterfowl after ~8000 cal BP, suggesting that nearby wetlands had declined (Bedwell 1973; Grayson 1979); and (4) pika (Ochotona princeps), only found in high-elevations today, were present in the Fort Rock Basin prior to ~8000 cal BP, suggesting that the climate warmed and pushed them upslope (Grayson 2005).
Antevs (1948) argued that the environment was unsuitable for human habitation and that wholesale abandonment of the region took place – an idea that archaeologists quickly adopted. We now that know that Antevs’ (1948) argument of widespread abandonment of the Great Basin is not accurate; for example, some locations show evidence of intensive occupation during that period (see below). In general, however, populations in the region were probably lower during the Middle Holocene than at any other time. Louderback et al. (2010) highlight troughs in radiocarbon frequency distributions during the Middle Holocene in the Fort Rock and Lahontan basins (Figures
1.2 and 1.3) and argue that they are evidence of low populations. It is important to note that within the broader Middle Holocene peaks do exist, indicating that populations fluctuated similar to other periods, albeit perhaps at lower levels (Grayson 2011;
Louderback et al. 2010).
As noted above, some locations show persistent and/or intensive occupation in the northwestern Great Basin during the Middle Holocene. While many caves and rockshelters along the margins of TP/EH wetlands may have been abandoned (Aikens and Jenkins 1994; Bedwell 1973; Jenkins et al. 2004a; Kennedy and Smith 2016) – a topic I explore in depth in this thesis – other locations around dependable water sources remained occupied. Surprise Valley in northeastern California is one place where Middle
Holocene groups sought refuge. O’Connell (1975) demonstrated that there were large 6
Figure 1.2. Summed probability distribution of the radiocarbon sequence in the Fort Rock Basin showing clear Middle Holocene troughs highlighted in red (Adapted from Louderback et al. 2010).
populations living in the valley during the Middle Holocene and that they built substantial, semi-subterranean “pit” houses adjacent to warm springs. His excavations of the houses suggested that they were inhabited year-round (O’Connell 1975). He suggested that the valley was capable of supporting dense populations and that population aggregation was likely due to the presence of freshwater runoff from the Warner
Mountains to the west (O’Connell 1975). 7
Figure 1.3. Summed probability distribution of the radiocarbon sequence in the Western Lahontan Basin showing clear Middle Holocene troughs highlighted in red (Adapted from Louderback et al. 2010).
The Bergen Site is another lowland locale where northwestern Great Basin groups aggregated during the Middle Holocene. Evidence from the site, a village located on the
Bergen Dune in the Fort Rock Basin, suggests that groups resided adjacent to pluvial
Lake Beasley (Helzer 2004; Jenkins et al. 2004a). Radiocarbon dates suggest that residents at the Bergen Site constructed semi-permanent dome-shaped houses between
~7000 and 4200 cal BP. Time-sensitive projectile points from the site correspond with 8 those dates. Helzer (2004:92) argues for winter occupation of the site and faunal evidence suggests that residents hunted large game (antelope, deer, and elk), jackrabbits, and migratory birds. Small fish from Lake Beasley were also eaten. Small seeds were the predominant plant remains found during excavations of the house floors. Other primary activities at the site included animal processing and stone tool production (Helzer 2004).
A second Middle Holocene village in a lowland setting is the Big M Site. This village is located in a narrow valley connecting the Silver Lake and Fort Rock sub-basins
(Jenkins 1994). Radiocarbon evidence indicates that the site was first occupied ~6000 cal
BP and used into the Late Holocene. Jenkins (1994:250) argues that the presence of cache pits and interior hearths in the houses at the Big M Site suggest year-round occupation. Fish vertebrae, various fishing tools, and numerous groundstone fragments suggest that occupants of the village consumed a broad array of resources. The Big M
Site also produced a large number of Olivella shell beads, indicating that occupants engaged in trade with other groups and providing further evidence for relatively permanent site occupation (Jenkins 1994:250).
Another lowland Middle Holocene occupation in the Fort Rock Basin is the DJ
Ranch Site (Moessner 2004). It is located on a lunette dune situated adjacent to a pond which during wet years receives water from the main Silver Lake/Fort Rock channel system. Radiocarbon dates on isolated charcoal fragments indicate that the DJ Ranch Site was first occupied after ~6000 cal BP and used intermittently during the Middle and Late
Holocene (Moessner 2004). Those periods of use correspond with wet intervals that would have filled the nearby pond. Excavations revealed a diverse artifact assemblage including projectile points, bone tools, and some grinding implements (Moessner 2004). 9
Olivella shell beads were also recovered from the site. The DJ Ranch Site was used intensively, as indicated by discrete house floors and cache pits. Moessner (2004) proposes that during the Middle Holocene, occupations at DJ Ranch were relatively short due to the low number of food processing implements recovered.
The Bowling Dune Site is another lowland occupation in the Fort Rock Basin used during the Middle Holocene (Jenkins 2004; Jenkins et al. 2004a). The site is located east of a blow-out lake attached by a small channel to the larger north-flowing Silver
Lake/Fort Rock channel system (Jenkins 2004:123). Radiocarbon data suggest that the site received light use prior to ~6000 cal BP. After that time, use of the site increased, primarily during the summer and early fall. Activities at the Bowling Dune Site included intensive exploitation of small seeds, small mammals, waterfowl, and fish. These resources were often stored for later use as indicated by numerous cache pits found at the site (Jenkins 2004).
The Locality III Site, a lowland occupation in the Fort Rock Basin, was also used during the Middle Holocene. Locality III is located on the northern shore of Lunette
Lake, a playa ~5 km northeast of the Table Rock/Egli Rim gap (Jenkins et al. 2004b:35)
The site’s Middle Holocene horizon begins ~8500 cal BP (Jenkins et al. 2004b). Artifact assemblages are small, indicating that occupations were generally short. Items recovered include projectile points, bifaces, unifaces, groundstone implements, and a few shell beads. Jenkins et al. (2004b) place the Middle Holocene occupations at the site during the early spring. At that time of year, groups would have probably gathered waterfowl eggs and nearby plants as well as hunted rabbits and birds (Jenkins et al. 2004b). 10
While many groups appear to have aggregated near dependable lowland water sources, others increasingly relied on upland locations. Fagan (1974) demonstrated that upland springs became important residential locations during the Middle Holocene. The majority of spring sites in his study contained abundant Northern Side-notched projectile points – the premiere diagnostic Middle Holocene artifact type in the northwestern Great
Basin (Oetting 1994). Fagan (1974) argued that as conditions grew warmer and drier, groups likely abandoned disappearing wetlands in nearby Warner and Catlow valleys and moved upslope. Pattee’s (2014) research in northern Warner Valley, which shows a near absence of Northern Side-notched points there, supports Fagan’s argument. Further evidence for changing land-use patterns in the region comes from Smith’s (2010) study of lithic conveyance zones in nearby northwestern Nevada. His research showed that projectile points moved significantly shorter distances during the Middle Holocene and that both conveyance zone size and source diversity dropped significantly from Early
Holocene highs. Smith (2010) argues this pattern is likely due to groups settling in near reliable water sources and shifting to a predominantly logistically-mobile (sensu Binford
1980) resource acquisition strategy in which a few nearby toolstone sources played a major role.
Just as there is substantial evidence of lower populations and major reorganizations in subsistence and land-use strategies likely related to changing environmental conditions during the Middle Holocene, so too is there evidence that human populations rebounded during the Late Holocene. In northern Warner Valley,
Pattee (2014) demonstrated a dramatic increase in the frequency of Late Holocene projectile point types, indicating that populations returned following abandonment of the 11 area. Smith (2010) also demonstrated changing land-use patterns from the Middle to Late
Holocene in the northwestern Great Basin. Late Holocene points were transported greater distances than Middle Holocene points and the diversity of toolstone sources increased from the Middle to Late Holocene, suggesting that groups were again on the move.
Smith’s (2010) research seems to indicate a return to higher residential mobility in the
Late Holocene as groups were no longer tethered to scarce dependable water sources.
The Late Holocene also brought increased use of uplands as demonstrated by
Boulder Village. High frequencies of Late Holocene projectile points and the remains of houses indicate an intensified use of the area during that period (Byram 1994; Jenkins and Brashear 1994). Researchers working elsewhere in the region have argued that Late
Holocene use of uplands, and in some cases alpine zones, is a function of regional population pressure pushing groups into marginal settings (Bettinger 1991; Thomas
2014). Evidence of Late Holocene population increase in the northwestern Great Basin is demonstrated by Louderback et al.’s (2010) study of radiocarbon date frequencies, which they assume track population levels. Their data suggest that populations were at their highest during the Late Holocene in both the Fort Rock and Western Lahontan basins
(see Figures 1.2 and 1.3). Finally, many caves and rockshelter sites abandoned during the
Middle Holocene were reoccupied during this time (e.g., the Connley Caves, Dirty
Shame Rockshelter, Little Steamboat Point-1 Rockshelter [LSP-1]) (Aikens et al. 1977;
Bedwell 1973; Hanes 1988; Kennedy and Smith 2016).
12
Sandal Technology in the Northwestern Great Basin
Most sites in the northwestern Great Basin are open-air, near-surface lithic scatters. While capable of generating data about lithic technological organization and land-use strategies (e.g., Smith 2010), such sites generally lack organic material suitable for radiocarbon dating, preserved subsistence residues, and evidence of the organic technologies (wood, bone, and fiber artifacts) that prehistoric and ethnographic populations used. Such information is typically preserved in the region’s dry caves and rockshelters, which have produced a range of well-crafted fiber artifacts including baskets, trays, mats, and sandals. Regarding the latter, the northwestern Great Basin is home to some of the oldest footwear in the World. Distinctive Fort Rock sandals were constructed as early as 11,000 cal BP, with other types referred to as Multiple Warp,
Spiral Weft, and V-twined sandals appearing later in time. In addition to the chronological data that sandals offer because they can be directly dated, sandals may hold information about ethnolinguistic or technological spreads (Connolly and Barker 2004).
As such, they are a critical source of information about the prehistory of the northwestern
Great Basin.
Definition of Types
Fiber sandals from the Great Basin first entered the archaeological spotlight in
1938. Luther Cressman (1942, 1943; Cressman et al. 1940; see also Connolly 1994;
Connolly and Barker 2004), who had been working in the dry caves of the northern Great 13
Basin, described well-preserved basketry assemblages from several sites. At Fort Rock
Cave, he found a large cache of sandals beneath a layer of volcanic tephra. The tephra initially thought to have originated from nearby Newberry Crater (Cressman et al. 1940) was later identified as tephra from Mt. Mazama (Cressman 1943). Although the exact age of the Mazama eruption was unknown when Cressman first found the sandals at Fort
Rock Cave, researchers now know that it occurred ~7600 cal BP (Bacon 1983).
The sandals that Cressman uncovered below the tephra at Fort Rock Cave were all constructed in a similar fashion. Cressman (1942; see also Barker 2009; Connolly
1994; Connolly and Barker 2004) defined the Fort Rock type and described its distinguishing attributes: (1) a flat, close twined sole constructed from heel to toe; (2) five rope warps that were left unspun at the toe and open twined on top of the foot to form a toe flap (warp number is variable but Fort Rock sandals always display an odd number);
(3) the absence of a heel pocket; and (4) a cord used to tie the sandal to the foot, presumably around the ankle, spun out from the toe flap (Figure 1.4).
Cressman (1942; see also Connolly 1994; Connolly and Barker 2004; Barker
2009) also defined two other sandal types during his work in the Fort Rock Basin and nearby areas: (1) Multiple Warp; and (2) Spiral Weft. Multiple Warp sandals are identified based on the following attributes: (1) a close or open twined sole comprised of eight to 14 warps (although more have been observed, typically an even number) also constructed from the heel to the toe; (2) at the heel, the warps are arranged in a series of stacked arcs, rather than flat like the Fort Rock warps, to form a heel pocket; (3) at the toe, the warps are left unspun and pulled back over the foot to form either an open twined or untwined toe flap; and (4) a tie system consisting of bindings, made from weft loops 14
Figure 1.4. Distinct sandal types found at northwestern Great Basin sites (Adapted from Connolly and Barker 2004).
which were spun out and back into the sole, and a warp cord spun out from the toe flap
(see Figure 1.4).
Spiral Weft sandals are identified by the following attributes: (1) they are not twined from heel to toe; rather, the twining begins in the center of the sole and radiates outward in a spiral fashion; (2) the warps are aligned perpendicular to the long axis of the foot rather than parallel like the Fort Rock and Multiple Warp types; and (3) they often display a heel pocket but never a toe flap (see Figure 1.4). Cressman’s (1940; Cressman et al. 1942) original definitions of these types have persisted throughout the 20th century and comprise the major sandal typology used by Great Basin researchers today.
Recently, Pat Barker (2009; Connolly and Barker 2004) defined a fourth type of
Great Basin sandal called V-twined. Barker (2009:129) states that V-twined sandals are 15 made “by twining a heel pocket around a circular start, and then open or close twin[ing] with alternating rows of clockwise and counter-clockwise weft twists from side to side to produce a V pattern, and finishing with an un-twined toe flap” (Figure 1.5). They are constructed in a similar fashion to woven bags found at Humboldt Cave in western
Nevada (Heizer and Krieger 1956).
Figure 1.5. V-twined sandal from Lovelock Cave (image courtesy of Pat Barker).
The Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Great Basin Sandal Types
Cressman (1942, 1943, 1951, 1981; Cressman et al. 1940) long believed that humans had been in the Great Basin since the end of the Pleistocene – an opinion that was not shared by researchers working elsewhere (e.g., Martin et al. 1947; Steward
1940). Prior to the advent of radiocarbon dating, he attempted to demonstrate this fact 16 using associations between artifacts and ice-age fauna at northern Great Basin sites (e.g.,
Klamath Lake, the Paisley Caves). With the development of radiocarbon dating in the
1950s, he proved that he was right when a Fort Rock sandal produced a date of 9053±350
14C BP (11,211-9436 cal BP) (Cressman 1951:308). Later, additional dates on other Fort
Rock sandals dates would provide further support for Cressman’s arguments.
With a larger sample of directly dated specimens, it is now apparent that Fort
Rock sandals were constructed during a brief period in the northwestern Great Basin beginning ~11,000 cal BP and ending ~9200 cal BP (Connolly and Barker 2004). Most
Fort Rock sandals have been recovered within a relatively discrete geographic range bordered by Cougar Mountain Cave to the north (Cowles 1959; see also Connolly 1994),
Dirty Shame Rockshelter to the east (Aikens et al. 1977), Elephant Mountain Cave to the south (Barker et al. 2011), and Fort Rock Cave to the west (Cressman et al. 1940) (Figure
1.6); however, recently a Fort Rock sandal was found in a cave in southwestern Idaho
(Plew and Wilson 2010). This new discovery extends the known Fort Rock distribution significantly to the east.
Around the time that Fort Rock sandals disappeared, both Multiple Warp and
Spiral Weft sandals appear to have emerged. Multiple Warp sandals first appeared ~9400 cal BP and were constructed until ethnographic times. Existing radiocarbon dates on
Multiple Warp sandals display a bimodal distribution with an earlier period lasting from
~9400 to 7400 cal BP and a later period lasting from ~3400 cal BP to EuroAmerican contact (Connolly and Barker 2004). Multiple Warp sandals remain unchanged in their style and manufacturing technique across this apparent ~4000 year gap, although it remains possible that the occurrence of this type of sandal throughout the Holocene is due 17
Figure 1.6. Map showing approximate locations of major sandal-producing sites in the northwestern Great Basin as well as approximate geographic extents of sandal types (Adapted from Connolly and Barker 2004).
“to an overly inclusive type definition” (Connolly and Barker 2004:248). Multiple Warp sandals have a broad geographic distribution that spans the majority of the northwestern
Great Basin bordered by Redmond Caves to the north (Connolly 1994; Connolly and 18
Barker 2004), Dirty Shame Rockshelter to the east (Aikens et al. 1977), the Winnemucca
Lake caves to the south (Orr 1974; Rozaire 1974), and the Connley Caves to the west
(Bedwell 1973) (see Figure 1.6).
Spiral Weft sandals first appeared ~9700 cal BP and have been dated as late as
~1400 cal BP. Like Multiple Warp sandals, Spiral Weft sandals also display a bimodal distribution of radiocarbon dates: an earlier period from ~9700 to ~8500 cal BP and a later period from ~1900 to ~1400 cal BP (Connolly and Barker 2004). Again, like
Multiple Warp sandals, Spiral Weft sandals are also unchanged in style and construction technique across this gap. Spiral Weft sandals occupy a smaller geographic range than either Fort Rock or Multiple Warp sandals; they have been found at sites ranging from
Roaring Springs Cave to the north (Cressman 1942), Dirty Shame Rockshelter to the east
(Aikens et al. 1977), Elephant Mountain Cave to the south (Barker et al. 2011), and the
LSP-1 rockshelter to the west (Smith et al. 2016a) (see Figure 1.6).
Finally, to date V-twined sandals have only been found at Lovelock Cave in northwestern Nevada (see Figure 1.6). This type seems to be a very late addition in the region: they have been dated to only the last 500 years or so (Barker 2009; Connolly and
Barker 2004).
Unresolved Research Questions
Sandals have informed our understanding of sites’ chronologies and provided a rare glimpse into the kinds of organic technology employed by Great Basin populations.
Beyond these basic observations, ongoing work by a few Great Basin researchers – most 19 notably, Tom Connolly (University of Oregon) and Pat Barker (Nevada State Museum) – has identified several topics for further study. First is the abrupt disappearance of Fort
Rock sandals ~9200 cal BP and near synchronous appearance of the Multiple Warp and
Spiral Weft types (Connolly and Barker 2004). Connolly and Barker (2004) suggest that this phenomenon may be explained by a population replacement that occurred in the northwestern Great Basin during the Early Holocene.
Second is the apparent continuity in the construction techniques of Fort Rock,
Multiple Warp, and V-twined sandals across time (Pat Barker, personal communication
2015). These types share three fundamental attributes: (1) twining begins at the heel and ends at the toe; (2) warps are aligned parallel to the long axis of the foot; and (3) toe flaps are constructed using the warps of the sandal. These shared attributes, coupled with the fact that together the three types more or less sequentially span the entire Holocene, may suggest a technological tradition stretching back to the Early Holocene in the northwestern Great Basin.
Third is the fact that Spiral Weft sandals differ drastically in their construction techniques from the other three types – Fort Rock, Multiple Warp, and V-twined. It is currently unclear if Spiral Weft sandals represent a different technological tradition (and perhaps ethnolinguistic population) that entered the northwestern Great Basin during the
Early Holocene. Connolly (2013) has recently suggested an eastern origin for Spiral Weft technology (along with coiled basketry and pottery), perhaps southern Idaho. It is difficult to reconcile the antiquity of Spiral Weft sandals in the region when lumping them together with younger artifacts on which Connolly (2013) suggested; however, the 20 idea does present an intriguing starting point for determining the genesis of Spiral Weft sandal technology.
Finally, there is the issue of the apparent gaps in the existing Multiple Warp and
Spiral Weft radiocarbon sequences (Barker 2009; Connolly and Barker 2004). As noted above, the techniques used to construct the two types appear to be the same on both sides of the gap. It is unclear if the gaps are due to: (1) sampling issues associated with the relatively small numbers of radiocarbon-dated Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandals
(25 and 20, respectively); (2) hiatuses at the sites where the sandals have been recovered; and/or (3) the waxing and waning of technological traditions in the region. In the remainder of this thesis, I explore these possibilities by testing three hypotheses:
H0 – Gaps in the radiocarbon date sequences for Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft
sandals are a function of sampling error due to insufficient numbers of dated
specimens;
H1 – Middle Holocene hiatuses at sandal-bearing sites are responsible for the gaps
in the radiocarbon sequences; that is, there are no dated sandals during the gaps
because the sites were not occupied;
and
21
H2 – Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandals waxed and waned in popularity during the Holocene, which could reflect stylistic choices, the spread of technology, or movements of prehistoric populations.
22
CHAPTER 2
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In Chapter 1, I presented three hypotheses that may account for the gaps in the samples of radiocarbon-dated Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandals: (H0) the gaps are the result of small samples of dated sandals or sampling error; (H1) Middle Holocene hiatuses at sandal-bearing sites in the northwestern Great Basin account for the gaps; and
(H2) Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandal technology came and went throughout time in the region. In this chapter, I review the materials and methods used to test these hypotheses.
Materials: Sandals, Radiocarbon Dates, and the Cave and Rockshelter Record of
the Northwestern Great Basin
To test the hypotheses outlined above, I used materials from numerous sites in the northwestern Great Basin. First, I compiled a list of all previously radiocarbon-dated
Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandals from the northwestern Great Basin. Second, I selected additional undated Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandals that had yet to be analyzed or directly dated; these were the focus of additional analyses described below.
Finally, I compiled published chronological data including radiocarbon dates on features or perishable artifacts other than sandals and projectile point frequencies from sites that produced Multiple Warp and/or Spiral Weft sandals. 23
Previously Dated Sandals
Prior to my study, 25 Multiple Warp and 20 Spiral Weft sandals from 16 sites in the northwestern Great Basin had been radiocarbon dated (Table 2.1). While some sandals were dated as part of site-specific projects (e.g., Cressman 1951), many others have been dated as part of the Northwestern Great Basin Textiles Dating Project. As part of that broader project, Pat Barker and Tom Connolly have focused specifically on sandals and targeted specimens from a variety of sites in the region: (1) Antelope Creek
Overhang; (2) Catlow Cave No. 1; (3) Connley Cave No. 8; (4) Crypt Cave; (5) Dirty
Shame Rockshelter; (6) Elephant Mountain Cave; (7) Fishbone Cave; (8) Paisley Five
Mile Point Cave No. 1; (9) Paisley Five Mile Point Cave No. 2; (10) Plush Cave; (11)
Rattlesnake Cave; (12) Redmond Cave; (13) Roaring Springs Cave; (14) Snake River
Canyon Site; (15) South Warner Cave; and (16) Winnemucca Lake (Figure 2.1). I briefly discuss each site later in this chapter.
Additional Directly Dated Sandals from the Northwestern Great Basin
To increase the number of directly dated sandals in the region, including examples from two sites from which no sandals had been previously dated, I selected 24 additional sandals for AMS radiocarbon dating: one Fort Rock, 18 Multiple Warp, and five Spiral Weft sandals. The sandals were recovered from the following sites: (1) Last
Supper Cave; (2) LSP-1; and (3) South Warner Cave. 24
Last Supper Cave. Last Supper Cave is located in northwestern Nevada’s High
Rock Country. Layton (1970; see also Felling 2015; Layton and Davis 1978; Smith et al.
2015a) tested the site in 1968 and later returned in 1973 for an extensive excavation. The project was completed in 1974 and yielded a large lithic assemblage, many baskets and sandals, faunal remains, and human coprolites. The lithic assemblage contained many projectile points of various types (Smith et al. 2015a).
Data on Last Supper Cave’s basketry assemblage remain unpublished and incomplete. A total count of sandals is currently unavailable; however, as part of this study I selected 14 sandals from the site for radiocarbon dating: one Fort Rock, nine
Multiple Warp, and four Spiral Weft sandals.
To date, 37 radiocarbon dates (excluding new dates on sandals, which are presented in the next chapter) have been obtained on material from Last Supper Cave: (1) sinew attached to projectile points (n=6); (2) isolated charcoal fragments (n=12); (3) heath features (n=1); (4) human coprolites (n=10); (5) animal bones (n=4); (6)
Margaritifera shell (n=2); and (7) various organic materials (n=2) (Felling 2015; Grant
2008; Grayson 1988; Layton and Davis 1978; Smith et al. 2013, 2015a; Taylor and
Hutson 2012). Last Supper Cave produced 587 diagnostic projectile points including 36
Paleoindian points, 49 Northern Side-notched points, 107 Gatecliff series points, 208
Elko series points, 85 Humboldt series points, 73 Rosegate series points, and 29 Desert series points (Smith et al. 2013, 2015a).
Table 2.1. Dated Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft Sandals.
Site Type Date ID Type 14C 2 σ Range1 Reference Antelope Creek Overhang Spiral Weft AA-74229 AMS 8395±55 9522-9292 Unpublished, BLM, 2007 Spiral Weft AA-74228 AMS 8395±55 9522-9292 Unpublished, UO
Spiral Weft AA-74227 AMS 7806±40 8696-8456 Unpublished, UO
Catlow Cave No. 1 Spiral Weft Beta-249772 AMS 7860±50 8973-8543 Unpublished, UO, 2008 Spiral Weft AA-61371 AMS 1889±37 1920-1722 Unpublished, OSMA, 2007
Spiral Weft Beta-147425 AMS 1740±50 1810-1548 Connolly and Barker 2004
Multiple Warp AA-30055 AMS 0950±45 951-762 Connolly and Cannon 1999
Connley Cave No. 8 Multiple Warp Beta-148738 AMS 1970±40 1999-1825 Unpublished, Burke, 1998 Crypt Cave Multiple Warp Beta-163540 AMS 3120±40 3445-3227 Connolly and Barker 2004 Dirty Shame Rockshelter Spiral Weft AA-45788 AMS 8395±70 9534-9151 Unpublished, OSMA, 2007 Spiral Weft AA-45787 AMS 8106±67 9270-8776 Unpublished, OSMA, 2007
Spiral Weft Beta-147423 AMS 8020±40 9018-8727 Connolly and Cannon 2000
Spiral Weft AA-45786 AMS 7901±68 8991-8586 Unpublished, OSMA, 2007
Multiple Warp Beta-147422 AMS 6990±40 7933-7720 Connolly and Cannon 2000
Spiral Weft Beta-173701 AMS 1880±40 1898-1715 Unpublished, OSMA, 2007
Spiral Weft Beta-173700 AMS 1810±40 1863-1618 Unpublished, OSMA, 2007
Elephant Mountain Cave Spiral Weft Beta-163513 AMS 8720±40 9887-9551 Barker and Connolly 2004 Spiral Weft AA-74057 AMS 8360±40 9475-9285 Barker et al. 2011
Multiple Warp Beta-146212 AMS 8330±40 9468-9153 Hattori et al. 2000
Spiral Weft AA-34773 AMS 8280±65 9451-9035 Hattori et al. 2000
Spiral Weft Beta-248278 AMS 8210±50 9395-9020 Unpublished, BLM, 2007
Spiral Weft Beta-146211 AMS 7780±90 8971-8395 Hattori et al. 2000
Multiple Warp Beta-146210 AMS 6980±40 7930-7702 Hattori et al. 2000
Multiple Warp Beta-146213 AMS 0130±40 281-present Hattori et al. 2000
Fishbone Cave Multiple Warp Beta-163541 AMS 7170±40 8147-7878 Connolly and Barker 2004 Paisley Cave No. 1 Multiple Warp Beta-249767 AMS 1610±40 1599-1405 Jenkins et al. 2013 Multiple Warp Beta 249762 AMS 1590±40 1560-1390 Jenkins et al. 2013
Paisley Cave No. 2 Multiple Warp Beta-249765 AMS 2830±50 3075-2793 Jenkins et al. 2013 Multiple Warp Beta-147424 AMS 2270±50 2359-2151 Connolly and Barker 2004
Multiple Warp Unk-3 AMS 2280±50 2359-2151 Unpublished, UO, 2007 25 Multiple Warp Beta-249763 AMS 1130±40 1174-960 Jenkins et al. 2013
Site Type Date ID Type 14C 2 σ Range1 Reference Plush Cave Multiple Warp AA-98332 AMS 945±43 934-762 Unpublished, UO, 2012 Rattlesnake Cave Multiple Warp AA-30372 AMS 1655±45 1694-1415 Unpublished, Cannon 2007 Redmond Cave Multiple Warp Beta-177958 AMS 1820±40 1865-1625 Helzer 2003 Roaring Springs Cave Spiral Weft AA-61370 AMS 8065±50 9127-8768 Unpublished, OSMA, 2007 Multiple Warp Beta-147428 AMS 3110±50 3446-3184 Connolly and Barker 2004
Multiple Warp Beta-147429 AMS 1960±50 2044-1743 Connolly and Barker 2004
Spiral Weft Beta-147427 AMS 1620±40 1605-1409 Connolly and Barker 2004
Multiple Warp AA-74225 AMS 1275±34 1290-1088 Unpublished, UO, 2007
Multiple Warp Beta-249764 AMS 0320±40 483-301 Unpublished, UO, 2008
Snake River Canyon Spiral Weft AA-74061 AMS 8110±44 9251-8816 Unpublished, NSM, 2007 South Warner Cave Multiple Warp AA-19785 AMS 6600±55 7573-7428 Fowler and Cannon 1992 Multiple Warp WSU-4198 AMS 0820±60 906-667 Fowler and Cannon 1992
Winnemucca Lake Multiple Warp Beta-163539 AMS 1280±40 1294-1086 Connolly and Barker 2004 Multiple Warp Beta-163538 AMS 1280±40 1294-1086 Connolly and Barker 2004
1All dates calibrated using OxCal 4.2 (Ramsey 2009) and the IntCal 13 Curve (Reimer et al. 2013).
26
27
Figure 2.1. Map of the northwestern Great Basin showing locations of sandal-bearing sites. 28
LSP-1. LSP-1 is located in Oregon’s Warner Valley. During the Terminal
Pleistocene, the shelter was cut into a welded tuff formation by wave action from pluvial
Lake Warner (Smith et al. 2015b). Excavations by the University of Nevada, Reno between 2010 and 2015 revealed a significant record of occupation beginning in the
Early Holocene (Smith et al. 2012, 2014, 2016a, 2016b). A diverse assemblage of cultural material was recovered including projectile points, a crescent, abundant faunal remains, Olivella shell beads, and sandals and other basketry fragments. One potential issue with the interpretation of LSP-1’s chronological record is that the site was looted in
2012, resulting in the loss of ~10 m2 of deposits. Excavations continued afterward and undisturbed deposits were encountered beneath the looters’ pit.
Five sandals and sandal fragments were recovered from LSP-1: three Multiple
Warp sandals, one Spiral Weft sandal, and one sandal fragment. I selected the four classifiable sandals from LSP-1 for radiocarbon dating.
Forty-four radiocarbon dates have been obtained from the site. Dated material includes: (1) hearth/isolated charcoal (n=28); (2) basketry/cordage fragments (n=6); (3) animal bones (n=3); (4) Olivella shell beads (n=6); and (5) juniper (Juniperus) seeds
(n=1) (Smith et al. 2016a, 2016b). Thirty-seven projectile points were recovered from
LSP-1 including five Paleoindian points, two Gatecliff series points, 13 Elko series points, one Humboldt series point, eight Rosegate series points, and eight Cascade/foliate points.
South Warner Cave. South Warner Cave was illegally excavated by artifact collectors. The site is located in southern Warner Valley, Oregon. In the late 1980s, the
BLM confiscated artifacts from a collector in a successful ARPA prosecution (Connolly 29
2013). These confiscated materials included pieces of both twined and coiled basketry from South Warner Cave. The site contained at least eight Multiple Warp sandals, two of which were previously dated to 6600±55 14C BP (7573-7428 cal BP) and 820±60 14C BP
(906-667 cal BP) (Fowler and Cannon 1992). Connolly et al. (1998) dated three pieces of decorated basketry from the cave, all of which returned recent age estimates: (1) 150±55
14C BP (289 cal BP-present); (2) 80±55 14C BP (273 cal BP-present); and (3) 25±95 14C
BP (282 cal BP-present). No data regarding time-sensitive projectile point frequencies are available from South Warner Cave. As part of this project, I submitted the six undated
Multiple Warp sandals for AMS dating.
Chronological Data from Sandal-Bearing Sites in the Northwestern Great Basin
Finally, I collected chronological data for sites from which Multiple Warp and/or
Spiral Weft sandals have been recovered and dated. These data include conventional and/or AMS dates run on organic items (e.g., textiles, bone, charcoal, etc.) as well as projectile points or other artifact types diagnostic of particular periods. Previously reported radiocarbon dates are presented in Table 2.2, where I provide lab number, material dated, uncalibrated date with error, dating technique employed (i.e., conventional or AMS), and 2 sigma calibrated age range (all dates calibrated using OxCal v. 4.2 with IntCal13 curve). I compiled projectile point counts for each site using information contained in site reports; these were typically classified by researchers using standard types (e.g., Elko, Humboldt, Northern Side-notched, etc.) for the northwestern
Great Basin. Many of these types possess well-defined, albeit coarse-
Table 2.2. Radiocarbon Dates from Northwestern Great Basin Sites.
Site 14C Material Type Date ID 2 σ Range1 Reference Antelope Creek Overhang 8690±70 cordage AMS Beta-185437 9901-9536 Plager et al. 2013 7960±120 cordage Conv WSU-1408B 9189-8477 Sheppard and Chatters 1976
7700±40 woven mat AMS Beta-185436 8561-8410 Plager et al. 2013
7630±40 cordage AMS Beta-185435 8537-8375 Plager et al. 2013
1840±40 grass bundle AMS Beta-185438 1876-1634 Plager et al. 2013
1760±40 coiled basketry AMS Beta-249778 1810-1566 Connolly 2013
Catlow Cave No. 1 2022±26 coiled basketry AMS AA-66191 2044-1897 Connolly 2013 1900±40 coiled basketry AMS Beta-240511 1927-1728 Connolly 2013
1850±40 coiled basketry AMS Beta-249774 1882-1700 Connolly 2013
1850±42 coiled basketry AMS AA-66189 1885-1637 Connolly 2013
1286±83 coiled basketry AMS AA-66192 1346-1000 Connolly 2013
1005±36 coiled basketry AMS AA-66190 980-796 Connolly 2013
959±150 digging stick Conv N/A 1236-656 Cressman 1951
510±41 coiled basketry AMS AA-66187 634-499 Connolly 2013
Crypt Cave 9140±60 plain-weave mat AMS UCR-3675 10,490-10,205 Fowler et al. 2000 9120±60 plain-weave mat AMS UCR-3483 10,484-10,193 Tuohy and Dansie 1997
6360±60 dog burial AMS N/A 7420-7174 Kirner et al. 1997
2400±200 coiled basketry Conv L-289II 2921-1950 Orr 1974
1510±200 twisted fur robe Conv M-346 1876-1001 Orr 1974
Dirty Shame Rockshelter 9500±95 charcoal Conv SI-1774 11,157-10,559 Aikens et al. 1977 8905±75 charcoal Conv SI-1775 10,221-9744 Aikens et al. 1977
8865±95 N/A Conv SI-2265 10,218-9634 Aikens et al. 1977
8850±75 N/A Conv SI-2268 10,190-9680 Aikens et al. 1977
7925±80 twigs/bark Conv SI-1768 9003-8588 Aikens et al. 1977
7880±100 charcoal Conv SI-1773 9000-8460 Aikens et al. 1977
7850±120 charcoal Conv SI-1771 8996-8427 Aikens et al. 1977
7100±85 twigs Conv SI-2266 8154-7726 Aikens et al. 1977
6950±110 Scirpus basket AMS AA-19154 7967-7595 Connolly et al. 1998
6845±85 charcoal Conv SI-1770 7921-7567 Aikens et al. 1977
6535±100 N/A Conv SI-1772 7589-7264 Aikens et al. 1977 30 6315±195 grass Conv SI-2269 7575-6756 Aikens et al. 1977
Site 14C Material Type Date ID 2 σ Range1 Reference 6210±65 charcoal Conv SI-1769 7262-6951 Aikens et al. 1977
5855±125 grass Conv SI-2267 6995-6398 Aikens et al. 1977
2740±80 grass Conv SI-2270 3059-2742 Aikens et al. 1977
2545±80 charcoal Conv SI-1767 2770-2364 Aikens et al. 1977
2217±38 coiled basketry AMS AA-66195 2334-2145 Connolly 2013
2005±75 charcoal Conv SI-1766 2290-1742 Aikens et al. 1977
1715±70 charcoal Conv SI-1764 1820-1418 Aikens et al. 1977
1480±75 charred stick Conv SI-1765 1534-1285 Aikens et al. 1977
1405±70 charcoal Conv SI-1763 1518-1181 Aikens et al. 1977
1331±43 coiled basketry AMS AA-66196 1312-1179 Connolly 2013
1175±70 grass Conv SI-2264 1265-960 Aikens et al. 1977
1140±95 grass Conv SI-2263 1284-835 Aikens et al. 1977
365±80 charcoal Conv SI-1762 534-155 Aikens et al. 1977
Elephant Mountain Cave 8830±70 plaited basketry AMS N/A 10,178-9635 Barker et al. 2011 6860±45 twined basketry AMS N/A 7793-7607 Barker et al. 2011
4910±230 hearth charcoal Conv N/A 6204-5048 Barker et al. 2011
4200±70 human coprolite Conv N/A 4866-4528 Barker et al. 2011
3560±80 vegetation AMS N/A 4084-3641 Barker et al. 2011
2060±60 Catlow Twining AMS N/A 2295-1882 Barker et al. 2011
2050±60 netting AMS N/A 2290-1876 Barker et al. 2011
2030±60 Catlow Twining AMS N/A 2147-1868 Barker et al. 2011
1580±50 moccasin AMS N/A 1565-1355 Barker et al. 2011
855±45 twined frag AMS N/A 907-686 Barker et al. 2011
Fishbone Cave 11,350±40 horse mandible AMS UCR-3783 13,285-13,100 Dansie and Jerrems 2004 11,250±250 cedar bark mat Conv L-245 13,571-12,700 Orr 1956, 1974
11,210±50 horse mandible AMS UCR-3920 13,181-12,984 Adams et al. 2008
10,900±300 wood Conv L-245? 13,421-12,051 Orr 1956, 1974
8370±50 Catlow twining AMS UCR-3779 9495-9297 Dansie and Jerrems 2004
7830±350 netting Conv L-289 9523-8010 Orr 1956, 1974
7240±180 Catlow Twining AMS RL-49 8391-7717 Adovasio 1970
Last Supper Cave 10,280±40 hearth charcoal AMS Beta-231717 12,374-11,827 Smith 2008 8960±190 Artemisia charcoal Conv TX-2541 10,513-9549 Layton and Davis 1978 31
8910±50 charcoal AMS Unknown 10,204-9795 Grant 2008
Site 14C Material Type Date ID 2 σ Range1 Reference 8790±350 Margaritifera shell Conv LSU 73-120 11,166-9310 Layton and Davis 1978
8630±195 Margaritifera shell Conv WSU-120 10,223-9254 Layton and Davis 1978
8600±30 charcoal AMS Beta-406151 9627-9523 Felling 2015
8260±90 Artemisia charcoal Conv WSU-1706 9450-9024 Layton and Davis 1978
8160±50 charcoal AMS Unknown 9262-9007 Grant 2008
6905±320 charcoal Conv LSU 73-247 8401-7177 Layton and Davis 1978
4520±30 charcoal AMS Beta-405808 5305-5050 Felling 2015
3700±40 PPT sinew AMS Beta-248287 4152-3921 Smith et al. 2013
3640±30 charcoal AMS Beta-405807 4081-3869 Felling 2015
2580±40 charcoal AMS Unknown 2771-2499 Grant 2008
2520±40 charcoal AMS Unknown 2747-2470 Grant 2008
2480±40 PPT sinew AMS Beta-248291 2724-2379 Smith et al. 2013
2450±30 charcoal AMS Beta-405806 2692-2365 Felling 2015
1900±40 PPT sinew AMS Beta-248289 1927-1728 Smith et al. 2013
1900±30 human coprolite AMS CAMS-157311 1922-1737 Taylor and Hutson 2012
1895±30 human coprolite AMS CAMS-157316 1898-1735 Taylor and Hutson 2012
1855±30 human coprolite AMS CAMS-157314 1868-1717 Taylor and Hutson 2012
1850±40 PPT sinew AMS Beta-248290 1882-1700 Smith et al. 2013
1820±40 PPT sinew AMS Beta-248292 1865-1625 Smith et al. 2013
1805±25 human coprolite AMS CAMS-157312 1820-1629 Taylor and Hutson 2012
1790±30 human coprolite AMS Beta-310893 1817-1620 Taylor and Hutson 2012
1789±60 Ovis horn sheath Conv A-4255 1861-1560 Grayson 1988
1750±70 Ovis horn sheath Conv A-4254 1863-1527 Grayson 1988
1745±25 human coprolite AMS CAMS-157313 1714-1570 Taylor and Hutson 2012
1545±360 Artemisia bark Conv LSU 73-164 2331-785 Layton and Davis 1978
1490±50 charcoal Conv TX-2857 1522-1301 Layton and Davis 1978
1400±30 human coprolite AMS Beta-310894 1353-1281 Taylor and Hutson 2012
1120±60 Ovis horn sheath Conv A-4257 1179-929 Grayson 1988
1043±175 willow post Conv LSU 73-268 1288-680 Layton and Davis 1978
885±25 human coprolite AMS CAMS-157315 906-732 Taylor and Hutson 2012
620±30 human coprolite AMS Beta-310892 659-550 Taylor and Hutson 2012
580±40 PPT sinew AMS Beta-248288 653-529 Smith et al. 2013 32
270±50 Ovis horn sheath Conv A-4256 479-present Grayson 1988
Site 14C Material Type Date ID 2 σ Range1 Reference 115±30 human coprolite AMS CAMS-157310 270-present Taylor and Hutson 2012
LSP-1 9200±30 Olivella bead AMS UGA-21828 9815-9489 Smith et al. 2016b 9100±30 Sylvilagus humerus AMS UGA-15259 10,293-10,200 Smith et al. 2014
8932±17 Olivella bead AMS UGA-21826 9477-9232 Smith et al. 2016b
8870±30 Olivella bead AMS UGA-21825 9435-9119 Smith et al. 2016b
8700±30 Artemisia charcoal AMS UGA-15142 9735-9550 Smith et al. 2014
8670±40 charcoal AMS Beta-306419 9731-9540 Smith et al. 2014
8630±21 Olivella bead AMS UGA-21829 9142-8765 Smith et al. 2016b
8400±50 charcoal AMS Beta-297186 9520-9301 Smith et al. 2014
8350±30 Artemisia charcoal AMS UGA-14916 9462-9296 Smith et al. 2014
8341±27 Artemisia charcoal AMS PRI-14-069 9449-9289 Smith et al. 2016b
8340±40 charcoal AMS Beta-287251 9470-9261 Smith et al. 2014
8300±20 cf. Rhus charcoal AMS UGA-15594 9422-9252 Smith et al. 2016b
8290±25 Lepus ulna AMS UGA-18011 9420-9143 Smith et al. 2016b
8290±40 charcoal AMS Beta-282809 9427-9137 Smith et al. 2014
8263±38 Artemisia charcoal AMS D-AMS-0010594 9408-9124 Smith et al. 2016b
7944±35 Artemisia charcoal AMS D-AMS-0010597 8980-8644 Smith et al. 2016b
7890±30 Olivella bead AMS UGA-21827 8258-7972 Smith et al. 2016b
7310±40 charcoal AMS Beta-306418 8186-8021 Smith et al. 2014
6550±20 charcoal AMS UGA-15595 7490-7425 Smith et al. 2016b
5238±26 Artemisia charcoal AMS UGA-15260 6174-5921 Smith et al. 2016b
4560±25 Olivella bead AMS UGA-21830 4618-4273 Smith et al. 2016b
4010±25 Bison femur AMS UGA-15260 4525-4422 Smith et al. 2014
4010±20 charcoal AMS UGA-16801 4522-4425 Smith et al. 2016b
4000±25 Artemisia charcoal AMS UGA-14917 4522-4420 Smith et al. 2014
3990±26 Artemisia charcoal AMS D-AMS-0010589 4522-4416 Smith et al. 2016b
3987±26 cordage AMS D-AMS-0010588 4522-4415 Smith et al. 2016b
3160±30 Salix charcoal AMS Beta-406150 3450-3272 Smith et al. 2016b
3140±25 cf. Rhus charcoal AMS UGA-15593 3444-3257 Smith et al. 2016b
3090±26 Artemisia charcoal AMS D-AMS-0010592 3371-3231 Smith et al. 2016b
3046±31 Artemisia charcoal AMS D-AMS-0010593 3350-3170 Smith et al. 2016b
3038±26 Artemisia charcoal AMS D-AMS-0010591 3343-3166 Smith et al. 2016b 33
2910±30 charcoal AMS Beta-317155 3158-2960 Smith et al. 2014
Site 14C Material Type Date ID 2 σ Range1 Reference 2490±25 charcoal AMS UGA-16800 2723-2473 Smith et al. 2016b
2070±25 Artemisia charcoal AMS UGA-15596 2122-1951 Smith et al. 2016b
1850±25 charcoal AMS UGA-16803 1865-1716 Smith et al. 2016b
1790±20 Catlow Twining AMS UGA-18235 1813-1625 Smith et al. 2016a
1340±20 sagebrush bundle AMS UGA-18237 1302-1190 Smith et al. 2016a
1255±24 Artemisia charcoal AMS D-AMS-0010590 1277-1088 Smith et al. 2016b
1230±36 basketry fragment AMS AA-103861 1264-1065 Smith et al. 2016b
1200±20 Catlow Twining AMS UGA-16859 1180-1063 Smith et al. 2016a
1173±25 Artemisia charcoal AMS D-AMS-0010596 1179-1000 Smith et al. 2016b
1160±20 Catlow Twining AMS UGA16860 1175-989 Smith et al. 2016a
1013±29 Juniperus seeds AMS D-AMS-0010587 976-803 Smith et al. 2016b
880±40 charcoal AMS Beta-283901 915-706 Smith et al. 2014
Paisley Cave No. 1 11,870±50 leporid bone AMS Beta-226554 13,775-13,565 Jenkins et al. 2013 10,540±25 Artemisia charcoal AMS UCIAMS-90578 12,580-12,419 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,476±56 S twist cordage AMS AA-96488 12,570-12,129 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,180±60 cut artiodactyl bone AMS Beta-239084 12,110-11,510 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,165±25 Pinus ponderosa nut shell AMS UCIAMS-98930 12,017-11,723 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,095±30 Artemisia charcoal AMS UCIAMS-98929 11,957-11,406 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,010±30 Pinus ponderosa nut shell AMS UCIAMS-98930 11,700-11,317 Jenkins et al. 2013
8575±30 carnivore coprolite AMS UCIAMS-98928 9559-9494 Jenkins et al. 2013
7680±20 Artemisia charcoal AMS UCIAMS-98927 8537-8415 Jenkins et al. 2013
7600±70 charcoal, hearth AMS Beta-191540 8549-8213 Jenkins et al. 2013
6640±40 human coprolite AMS Beta-213428 7581-7443 Jenkins et al. 2013
6608±35 human coprolite AMS OxA-16496 7566-7438 Jenkins et al. 2013
6560±70 Scirpus basketry AMS AA-19153 7577-7325 Connolly et al. 1998
4290±15 Artemisia charcoal AMS UCIAMS-98926 4863-4838 Jenkins et al. 2013
1060±40 cotton cloth AMS Beta-195907 1059-922 Jenkins et al. 2013
145±50 Scirpus basketry AMS AA-19151 285-present Connolly et al. 1998
Paisley Cave No. 2 12,425±30 bone AMS UCIAMS-90594 14,818-14,220 Jenkins et al. 2013 12,340±35 horse bone AMS UCIAMS-103084 14,632-14,113 Jenkins et al. 2013
12,320±35 rodent ramus AMS UCIAMS-79663 14,570-14,085 Jenkins et al. 2013
12,275±30 large mammal bone AMS UCIAMS-79660 14,360-14,044 Jenkins et al. 2013 34
12,190±30 rodent bone AMS UCIAMS-68016 14,192-13,972 Jenkins et al. 2013
Site 14C Material Type Date ID 2 σ Range1 Reference 12,025±30 large mammal bone AMS UCIAMS-79659 13,997-13,759 Jenkins et al. 2013
11,980±35 horse bone AMS UCIAMS-103085 13,976-13,737 Jenkins et al. 2013
11,980±40 sage grouse bone AMS Beta-228917 13,983-13,734 Jenkins et al. 2013
11,930±25 cut bone AMS UCIAMS-90593 13,954-13,570 Jenkins et al. 2013
11,830±25 rodent bone AMS UCIAMS-68018 13,741-13,568 Jenkins et al. 2013
11,810±50 Artemisia branch AMS UCIAMS-112742 13,756-13,485 Jenkins et al. 2013
11,790±35 large mammal bone AMS UCIAMS-79658 13,740-13,480 Jenkins et al. 2013
11,740±25 horse maxilla AMS UCIAMS-86251 13,602-13,460 Jenkins et al. 2013
11,625±35 human coprolite AMS UCIAMS-77104 13,565-13,383 Jenkins et al. 2013
11,623±51 Artemisia branch AMS D-AMS-1217-409 13,567-13,336 Jenkins et al. 2013
11,560±40 insoluble residue AMS UCIAMS-68047 13,471-13,300 Jenkins et al. 2013
11,270±30 human coprolite AMS UCIAMS-77103 13,190-13,062 Jenkins et al. 2013
11,098±45 hearth charcoal AMS D-AMS-1217-406 13,075-12,823 Jenkins et al. 2013
11,090±30 human coprolite AMS UCIAMS-77100 13,065-12,833 Jenkins et al. 2013
11,055±35 hearth charcoal AMS UCIAMS-102110 13,040-12,800 Jenkins et al. 2013
11,005±30 hearth charcoal AMS UCIAMS-90577 12,986-12,745 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,980±20 human coprolite AMS UCIAMS-76191 12,918-12,723 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,585±35 human hair AMS UCIAMS-102112 12,672-12,428 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,365±30 unidentified bone AMS UCIAMS-103086 12,391-12,065 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,365±30 sagebrush cordage AMS UCIAMS-79680 12,391-12,065 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,356±44 sagebrush cordage AMS D-AMS-1217-411 12,400-12,024 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,330±30 cervid hair AMS UCIAMS-98933 12,381-11,997 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,319±56 sagebrush cordage AMS AA-96490 12,399-11,845 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,290±40 sagebrush rope AMS Beta-195908 12,378-11,763 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,290±30 periosteum tissue AMS UCIAMS-103089 12,370-11,843 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,290±35 cordage AMS UCIAMS-87420 12,375-11,837 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,260±60 cut artiodactyl bone AMS Beta-239083 12,378-11,763 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,260±25 Artemisia twig AMS UCIAMS-80386 12,139-11,835 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,160±60 processed tissues AMS Beta-182920 12,087-11,411 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,090±20 Artemisia twig AMS UCIAMS-80385 11,815-11,410 Jenkins et al. 2013
10,020±30 charcoal, hearth AMS UCIAMS-98931 11,704-11,330 Jenkins et al. 2013
9995±25 cordage AMS UCIAMS-85337 11,614-11,310 Jenkins et al. 2013 35
9774±46 cordage AMS D-AMS-1217-410 11,256-11,130 Jenkins et al. 2013
Site 14C Material Type Date ID 2 σ Range1 Reference 9565±20 insoluble residue AMS UCIAMS-68044 11,081-10,746 Jenkins et al. 2013
9480±20 Atriplex twig AMS UCIAMS-68045 10,990-10,609 Jenkins et al. 2013
9078±52 3-strand hemp cordage AMS AA-9687 10,390-10,174 Jenkins et al. 2013
8180±15 coprolite AMS UCIAMS-76192 9247-9028 Jenkins et al. 2013
7860±40 coprolite AMS Beta-213429 8933-8546 Jenkins et al. 2013
7680±50 Scirpus basketry AMS Beta-240513 8561-8390 Jenkins et al. 2013
7645±20 human coprolite AMS UCIAMS-79712 8510-8390 Jenkins et al. 2013
7605±20 human coprolite AMS UCIAMS-79705 8422-8380 Jenkins et al. 2013
7595±15 human coprolite AMS UCIAMS-76188 8415-8380 Jenkins et al. 2013
7490±20 human coprolite AMS UCIAMS-79704 8377-8211 Jenkins et al. 2013
7025±15 human coprolite AMS UCIAMS-79713 7933-7830 Jenkins et al. 2013
7020±15 human coprolite AMS UCIAMS-79711 7932-7798 Jenkins et al. 2013
7000±15 human coprolite AMS UCIAMS-76189 7926-7791 Jenkins et al. 2013
6790±15 bat guano AMS UCIAMS-68046 7670-7595 Jenkins et al. 2013
2295±15 human coprolite AMS UCIAMS-79714 2350-2313 Jenkins et al. 2013
2285±37 Scirpus ‘S twist’ fragment AMS AA-96489 2355-2158 Jenkins et al. 2013
2270±50 Scirpus sandal AMS Beta-147424 2354-2158 Jenkins et al. 2013
2107±26 Scirpus ‘S twist’ fragment AMS D-AMS-1217-407 2146-2002 Jenkins et al. 2013
2040±20 leather scrap with fringe AMS UCIAMS-111795 2100-1929 Jenkins et al. 2013
340±40 leporid bone AMS Beta-228916 489-308 Jenkins et al. 2013
Rattlesnake Cave 2128±27 Twined frag AMS AA-30373 2296-2004 Connolly pers. comm. 2016 620±50 moccasin AMS AA-30374 667-540 Connolly pers. comm. 2016
395±50 Catlow twining AMS D-AMS-7239 519-315 Connolly pers. comm. 2016
Roaring Springs Cave 2471±51 coiled basketry AMS AA-66193 2719-2365 Connolly 2013 1297±42 coiled basketry AMS AA-66194 1302-1091 Connolly 2013
20±50 Salix AMS AA-19152 266-present Connolly et al. 1998
South Warner Cave 150±55 Salix AMS AA-6445 286-present Connolly et al. 1998 80±55 Salix AMS AA-6482 273-present Connolly et al. 1998
25±95 Salix AMS AA-6482 282-present Connolly et al. 1998
1All dates calibrated using OxCal 4.2 (Ramsey 2009) and the IntCal 13 Curve (Reimer et al. 2013).
36
37 grained, estimates of when they were used in the region and as such I used the point types as time markers to help evaluate the period(s) during which each site was (or was not) occupied. I describe the various time periods and the point types that reflect each below; this information is summarized in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3. Calibrated Age Ranges for Projectile Point Categories (Adapted from Oetting 1994).
Categories Great Basin Types Calibrated Age Paleoindian Fluted/unfluted Lanceolate, 13,500-8000 cal BP Western Stemmed, Crescents
Northern Side-notched Northern Side-notched, 8000-5500 cal BP Large Side-notched Gatecliff series Gatecliff Split-stem, 5500-2000 cal BP Gatecliff Contracting-stem, Pinto forms
Elko series Elko Corner-notched, 5500-1000 cal BP Elko Eared Humboldt series1 Humboldt Concave Base, 7000-1000 cal BP Humboldt Basal-notched Rosegate series Rosespring forms, 2000 cal BP-historic Eastgate forms Desert series Desert Side-notched, 700 cal BP-historic Cottonwood Triangular
1Poor temporal markers.
Paleoindian points (fluted, unfluted concave base, WST points, and crescents) reflect TP/EH (~13,500-8000 cal BP) occupations. Northern Side-notched points are diagnostic of Middle Holocene (~8000-5500 cal BP) occupations. The initial Late
Holocene (~5500-2000 cal BP) is represented by Gatecliff, Elko, and Humboldt series points. In his study of northern Great Basin projectile point chronology, Oetting (1994) 38 suggests that Pinto points should be grouped with Gatecliff series points, a recommendation that I follow here. Also, while some researchers have argued for a greater antiquity of Elko series points in the northern and eastern Great Basin (Adovasio and Fry 1972; Aikens 1970; Beck 1995; Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Holmer 1978;
Thomas 1975, 1981), Oetting (1994) argues that most Elkos were produced during the initial Late Holocene in the northwestern Great Basin. As such, I consider them to be markers of that period in this study. While Humboldt series points are sometimes considered poor time markers (Oetting 1994; Smith et al. 2013), they often date to the initial Late Holocene in the northwestern Great Basin (Oetting 1994). As such, I consider them diagnostic of that period here. Finally, Rosegate (Rose Spring and Eastgate) and
Desert (Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood) series points date to the terminal Late
Holocene and Protohistoric periods (post-2000 cal BP) (Oetting 1994). While common in the northwestern Great Basin, foliate points, often called Cascade points, remain poorly dated and were used for very long periods (Oetting 1994). For that reason, I did not use them as time markers in this study and they are omitted from counts of projectile points for each site (Table 2.4).
In the following section, I briefly describe each site and the materials used to test the hypotheses outlined in Chapter 1. Clearly, the quality of data varies widely between sites: some of the caves and shelters (e.g., LSP-1, the Paisley Five Mile Point Caves) have been the focus of recent archaeological projects and are well-dated and reported.
Other sites were looted or excavated at a time when careful note-taking and mapping were not standard practices. In those cases, sometimes there are only sandals from
Table 2.4. Frequencies of Time-sensitive Projectile Points from Northwestern Great Basin Sites.
Northern Site Paleoindian Side-notched Gatecliff Elko Humboldt Rosegate Desert Other Total Antelope Creek Overhang 1 16 15 38 35 43 6 3 157 Catlow Cave No. 1 2 15 13 30 15 67 17 2 161 Dirty Shame Rockshelter 5 14 14 25 17 62 17 9 163 Elephant Mountain Cave 7 0 11 23 18 29 5 0 93 Last Supper Cave 36 49 107 208 85 73 29 0 587 LSP-1 5 0 2 13 1 8 0 8 37 Roaring Springs Cave 7 58 7 80 30 171 50 0 403
39
40 unknown contexts and the direct radiocarbon dates obtained on them (see Table 2.2 for previously reported dates from each site).
Sandal-Bearing Sites
Other researchers (e.g., Graf 2009) have used the title from Clint Eastwood’s
1966 film, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, to describe varying quality of their data and
I follow that approach here. “Good” sites are those that are well-dated (i.e., more than a dozen radiocarbon dates from material other than sandals) and published counts of time- sensitive projectile points. “Bad” sites are those that are either well-dated or have projectile point data available, but not both. Finally, “ugly” sites are those that are poorly dated and have no projectile point data or sites significantly impacted by illegal activities
(i.e., sites with no contextual information available). Last Supper Cave and LSP-1 are examples of “good” sites while South Warner Cave is an example of an “ugly” site.
The Good
Dirty Shame Rockshelter. Dirty Shame Rockshelter is located along Antelope
Creek in the Owyhee uplands. The site was excavated in 1973 by the University of
Oregon (Aikens et al. 1977). It yielded rich lithic and perishable artifact assemblages.
Twenty-five radiocarbon dates suggest that occupation of the site stretches back to
~11,000 cal BP. A total of 169 sandals and sandal fragments were recovered including 30
Fort Rock, 58 Multiple Warp, and 44 Spiral Weft sandals; 37 sandal fragments could not 41 be assigned to particular types (Andrews et al. 1986). Eight sandals have been radiocarbon dated: one Fort Rock, one Multiple Warp, and six Spiral Weft sandals
(Connolly and Barker 2004; Connolly and Cannon 2000). Twenty-five other radiocarbon dates on materials from the site have been published; 22 of these were obtained on various organic materials found in the site’s stratigraphic profile and three were obtained on basketry items (Aikens et al. 1977; Connolly 2013; Connolly et al. 1998). Dirty
Shame Rockshelter produced a large projectile point sample (Hanes 1988): five
Paleoindian points, 14 Northern Side-notched points, 14 Gatecliff series points, 25 Elko series points, 17 Humboldt series points, 62 Rosegate series points, and 19 Desert series points. I excluded nine Cascade/foliate points found at the site from my projectile point counts.
The Bad
Antelope Creek Overhang. While located outside the hydrographic Great Basin, I included Antelope Creek Overhang due to its proximity to the region and the multiple sandals were recovered from the site (Connolly 2013; Plager et al. 2006). The site is located in southeastern Oregon on a tributary of the Owyhee River. It was badly looted prior to 1969 when it was professionally excavated by B. Robert Butler and members of the Upper Snake River Paleo-archaeological Society. Despite the destruction caused by the looting, later professional excavations produced large lithic and faunal assemblages as well as some perishable materials. The site’s proximity and similarity to Dirty Shame 42
Rockshelter, another Owyhee upland site, makes it particularly important to understanding the region’s prehistory (Plager et al. 2006).
Ten sandals and sandal fragments were originally recorded from the excavations at Antelope Creek Overhang but not described in any detail. Later analysis by Andrews et al. (1986) established that there were two Fort Rock and five Spiral Weft sandals in the collection. No mention was made of the other three specimens. Five sandals have been radiocarbon dated: two Fort Rock and three Spiral Weft sandals (see Tables 2.1 and 2.2).
Six other radiocarbon dates have been published from the site (Connolly 2013; Plager et al. 2006; Sheppard and Chatters 1976). Dated material includes: (1) basketry fragments dated to 7700±40 14C BP (8561-8410 cal BP) and 1760±40 14C BP (1810-1566 cal BP);
(2) cordage dated to 8690±70 14C BP (9901-9536 cal BP), 7960±120 14C BP (9189-8477 cal BP), and 7630±40 14C BP (8537-8375 cal BP); and (3) perishable artifact construction materials dated to 1840±40 14C BP (1876-1634 cal BP). The site boasts a large projectile point sample consisting of 157 typed specimens: one Paleoindian point, 16 Northern
Side-notched points, 15 Gatecliff series points, 38 Elko series points, 35 Humboldt series points, 43 Rosegate series points, and six Desert series points. Three Antelope Creek
Overhang points do not fall into categories outlined earlier in the chapter.
Catlow Cave No. 1. Catlow Cave is located in southeastern Oregon. The site was first excavated in 1935 and again in 1937-1938 by Luther Cressman (1942, 1943;
Cressman et al. 1940). The site contained rich deposits with abundant cultural material including human remains, twined and coiled basketry, and sandals. Evidence from
Catlow Cave led Cressman (1943) to speculate on humans’ great antiquity in North
America: human remains found among beach gravels in the lowest levels of the cave 43 suggested that people arrived shortly after the pluvial lakes receded from their highstands.
Cressman (1942) recovered 31 sandals from Catlow Cave: 12 Fort Rock, 10
Multiple Warp, and nine Spiral Weft sandals. Eight sandals have been radiocarbon dated: four Fort Rock, one Multiple Warp, and three Spiral Weft sandals (Connolly and Barker
2004; Connolly and Cannon 1999). Other dated materials from the cave include a digging stick dated to 959±150 14C BP (1236-656 cal BP) and seven coiled basketry specimens:
(1) 2022±26 14C BP (2044-1897 cal BP); (2) 1900±40 14C BP (1927-1728 cal BP); (3)
1850±40 14C BP (1882-1700 cal BP); (4) 1850±42 14C BP (1885-1637 cal BP); (5)
1286±83 14C BP (1346-1000 cal BP); (6) 1005±36 14C BP (980-796 cal BP); and (7)
510±41 14C BP (634-499 cal BP) (Connolly 2013; Cressman 1951). Cressman (1942) identified 194 projectile points from the site. Wilde (1985) classified the points as follows: two Paleoindian points, 15 Northern Side-notched points, 13 Gatecliff series points, 30 Elko series points, 15 Humboldt series points, 67 Rosegate series points, and
17 Desert series points. Two projectile points did not fit into these categories so I excluded them from my counts.
Paisley Five Mile Point Caves No. 1 and 2. These wave-cut shelters are located in
Oregon’s Summer Lake Basin. The Paisley Caves were first excavated by Cressman in
1938 and 1939 (Cressman 1940, 1942). From 2002-2012, University of Oregon teams returned to the sites. The project made two significant discoveries: (1) WST points from reliably-dated Clovis-age sediments; and (2) human coprolites dating to ~14,300 cal BP.
These coprolites make the Paisley Caves one of the oldest sites in North America; 44 however, debate among experts regarding whether they are human is ongoing (see Fiedel and Morrow 2012; Jenkins et al. 2012, 2013; Poinar et al. 2009; Sistiaga et al. 2014).
Seven Multiple Warp sandals were recovered from Paisley Cave No. 1 and four
Multiple Warp sandals were recovered from Paisley Cave No. 2. Six of the sandals from
Paisley Cave No.1 and one from Paisley Cave No. 2 were recovered during Cressman’s
(1940, 1942) excavations. The remainder was recovered during the recent excavations by
Jenkins et al. (2012, 2013). Two sandals from Paisley Cave No. 1 and all four from
Paisley Cave No. 2 have been radiocarbon dated (Connolly and Barker 2004; Jenkins et al. 2013). Sandals aside, both sites are exceptionally well-dated. Sixteen dates on other material were obtained from Paisley Cave No. 1 and 57 dates were obtained from Paisley
Cave No. 2. Dated material from the sites includes: (1) human coprolites and hair (n=15);
(2) faunal remains (n=24); (3) hearth and isolated charcoal fragments (n=9); (4) various textiles (n=16); and (5) miscellaneous organic material (n=9) (Jenkins et al. 2013). While the earliest WST points from the Paisley Caves have been discussed (see Jenkins et al.
2012), no publication has yet described the full range of diagnostic projectile points recovered from either cave.
Roaring Springs Cave. Roaring Springs Cave is located in southeastern Oregon not far from Catlow Cave. Like many Oregon caves, Roaring Springs Cave was excavated by Cressman in 1938 (Cressman 1942; Wilde 1985). Work there produced a large assemblage of over 1500 artifacts. Most notably, the site yielded several atlatl fragments covered with red ochre (Cressman et al. 1940).
Cressman (1942) found 18 sandals in the cave including 14 Multiple Warp and four Spiral Weft specimens. Of those 18, six have been radiocarbon dated: four Multiple 45
Warp and two Spiral Weft sandals (Connolly and Barker 2004). Three other dates have been reported on basketry from Roaring Springs Cave: (1) 2471±51 14C BP (2719-2365 cal BP); (2) 1297±42 14C BP (1302-1091 cal BP); and (3) 20±50 14C BP (266 cal BP- present) (Connolly and Barker 2004; Connolly et al. 1998). The site produced 403 projectile points analyzed by Wilde (1985): seven Paleoindian points, 58 Northern Side- notched points, seven Gatecliff series points, 80 Elko series points, 30 Humboldt series points, 171 Rosegate series points, and 50 Desert series points.
The Ugly
Connley Cave No. 8. The Connley Caves are located in southcentral Oregon. The eight caves and shelters were created by pluvial wave action cutting into volcanic tuffs at the base of the Connley Hills (Bedwell 1973). The caves were first excavated in 1967 by
Stephen Bedwell but had been extensively looted before the project began (Bedwell
1973). Fortunately, the deposits at the mouth of the caves were left intact. In Connley
Caves No. 1-6, Bedwell (1973) found abundant, well-preserved records of occupation stretching back to the TP/EH, but it is now apparent that Bedwell’s excavations proceeded in ways not congruent with modern standards, making it difficult to reconstruct the contexts of particular finds. This realization was the impetus for reinvestigation of the caves, which was conducted in both 2000-2001 and recent years by
Dennis Jenkins (University of Oregon). New radiocarbon data from the site suggest an early occupation beginning ~13,000 cal BP (Dennis Jenkins, personal communication,
2015). 46
While the other Connley Caves were thoroughly investigated, Connley Cave No.
8 was never formally excavated. In 1972, Hal Bergen, a local collector, looted the site and later donated a Multiple Warp sandal to the University of Washington. The sandal was ultimately transferred to the Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History. Prior to its transfer, the sandal was dated to 1970±40 14C BP (1999-1825 cal BP). This date represents the only data available from the site (Tom Connolly, personal communication,
2016).
Crypt Cave. Crypt Cave is located in the Winnemucca Lake Basin in western
Nevada. It is one of seven Winnemucca Lake caves initially investigated by Orr (1952) in the 1950s; the others include Horse, Stick, Chimney, Cowbone, Fishbone, and Guano caves. Orr (1952, 1956, 1974; Orr and Berger 1965) was most interested in mortuary practices and devoted the majority of his brief publications to describing the sites’ burials. Like other archaeologists of the day, Orr’s excavation and reporting standards make it difficult to find contextual information for most of the recovered artifacts.
Only one Multiple Warp sandal was recovered from Crypt Cave. Rozaire (1974) analyzed the basketry assemblages from the Winnemucca Lake caves but did not mention the sandal in his work. Connolly and Barker (2004) provide the only published mention of it within the context of a broader discussion of sandal chronology in the northwestern
Great Basin. Five additional radiocarbon dates have been obtained on material from the site: (1) diamond-plaited matting dating to 9140±60 14C BP (10,490-10,205 cal BP) and
9120±60 14C BP (10,484-10,193 cal BP); (2) faunal remains from a dog burial dating to
6360±60 14C BP (7420-7174 cal BP); (3) coiled basketry dating to 2400±200 14C BP
(2921-1950 cal BP); and (4) a twisted fur robe dating to 1500±200 14C (1876-1001 cal 47
BP) (Fowler et al. 2000; Kirner et al. 1977; Orr 1974; Tuohy and Dansie 1997). No data regarding time-sensitive projectile point frequencies are available for Crypt Cave.
Elephant Mountain Cave. Elephant Mountain Cave is located in Nevada’s Black
Rock Desert. Like Connley Cave No. 8, the site was never formally excavated. From
1980 to 1985, it was systematically looted by Jack Harelson, an artifact collector from
Grants Pass, Oregon. Harelson destroyed significant cultural deposits spanning at least the last 10,000 years. Fortunately, the Elephant Mountain Cave collection was recovered and Harelson was prosecuted. Efforts by the Nevada State Museum have provided a glimpse of what was lost; however, what we know about Elephant Mountain Cave is unavoidably incomplete (Barker et al. 2011; Hattori et al. 2000).
Twelve sandals and sandal fragments purportedly from Elephant Mountain Cave were recovered from Harelson’s home including three Fort Rock, three Multiple Warp, and five Spiral Weft sandals. One sandal fragment could not be classified. All 11 classifiable sandals from the site have been radiocarbon dated. Additionally, 10 other radiocarbon dates have been obtained on materials from Elephant Mountain Cave: (1) plaited and twined basketry (n=5); (2) netting (n=1); (3) hearth charcoal (n=1); (4) a moccasin (n=1); (5) a human coprolite (n=1); and (6) miscellaneous vegetation (n=1)
(Barker et al. 2011; Connolly and Barker 2004; Hattori et al. 2000). Ninety-three projectile points were recovered including seven Paleoindian points, 11 Gatecliff series points, 23 Elko series points, 18 Humboldt series points, 29 Rosegate series points, and five Desert series points (Barker et al. 2011).
Fishbone Cave. Fishbone Cave is located near Crypt Cave in the Winnemucca
Lake Basin. It was excavated by Orr (1956) in the 1950s and he claimed that the site 48 contained a burial associated with a cedar bark mat dated to 11,250±250 14C BP (13,571-
12,700 cal BP). He also claimed that the cave’s lowest level contained artifacts associated with culturally-modified horse mandibles; however, Orr’s (1952, 1956, 1974) scant reports provide conflicting provenience information for these items. This fact, paired with a more recent date (8370±50 C14 BP; 9495-9297 cal BP) placing the burial in the Early
Holocene, conflicts with Orr’s (1956) claim for the antiquity of the site (Dansie and
Jerrems 2005). Furthermore, researchers are divided over whether or not the horse mandibles are culturally modified (Adams et al. 2008). For these reasons, it is difficult to accept Orr’s original interpretation of Fishbone Cave’s lowest level. Further research needs to be completed to substantiate his claims.
One Multiple Warp sandal was recovered from Fishbone Cave (Rozaire 1974) and radiocarbon-dated to 7170±40 14C BP (8147-7878 cal BP) (Connolly and Barker
2004). Other dated materials from the site include: (1) two horse mandibles dating to
11,350±40 14C BP (13,285-13,100 cal BP) and 11,210±50 14C BP (13,181-12,984 cal
BP); (2) cedar bark matting dating to 11,250±250 14C BP (13,571-12,700 cal BP); (3) netting dating to 7830±350 14C BP (9523-8010 cal BP); (4) Catlow Twined basketry dating to 8370±50 C14 BP (9495-9297 cal BP) and 7240±180 14C BP (8391-7717 cal BP); and (5) organic material dating to 10,900±300 14C BP (13,421-12,051 cal BP) (Adovasio
1970; Dansie and Jerrems 2005; Orr 1956, 1974). No counts of diagnostic projectile points are available.
Plush Cave. This site is located in southern Warner Valley, Oregon. The site was never formally excavated and when Cressman (1940, 1942) first visited it in the 1930s he found it heavily looted. He salvaged some artifacts from the cave’s back dirt, most 49 notably an atlatl. One Multiple Warp sandal was also recovered and later dated to 945±43
14C BP (934-762 cal BP) (Pat Barker, personal communication, 2014). That date represents the lone radiocarbon assay available from the site. No published counts of projectile point types are available.
Rattlesnake Cave. Rattlesnake Cave is located on the western edge of Lake Abert in southcentral Oregon. The site was looted by an artifact collector, Ted Weld, and his family in the 1950s. In 1997, their collection was donated to the Fort Rock Homestead
Museum. It is comprised mostly of perishable artifacts and a Multiple Warp sandal from the site has been radiocarbon dated to 1655±45 14C BP (1694-1415 cal BP) (Tom
Connolly, personal communication, 2016). Two dates on other basketry items have also been obtained: (1) 2128±27 14C BP (2296-2004 cal BP); and (2) 395±50 14C BP (519-315 cal BP) (Tom Connolly, personal communication, 2016). A moccasin was also dated to
620±50 14C BP (667-540 cal BP). Weld’s notes mention a small lithic assemblage; however, it was not included with the donated materials (Tom Connolly, personal communication, 2016). As such, no projectile point data are available for Rattlesnake
Cave.
Redmond Cave. Redmond Cave is located in central Oregon and while no extensive excavations have taken place the site was tested by Robert Heizer in 1941
(Connolly 1994). His test excavations produced no perishable items; however, a Multiple
Warp sandal fragment was purportedly found on the surface near the cave entrance. The fragment was dated to 1820±40 14C BP (1865-1625 cal BP) and represents the only radiocarbon data available from the site (Connolly and Barker 2004; Helzer 2003). No frequencies of time-sensitive projectile points are available. 50
Snake River Canyon Site. In 2007, the Nevada State Museum dated a Spiral Weft sandal donated by Raphael Bell, a Western Shoshone man from Elko, NV. It purportedly came from a site in the Snake River Canyon; no other information is available for the site
(Pat Barker, personal communication, 2016). The sandal returned a date of 8110±44 14C
BP (9251-8816 cal BP).
Winnemucca Lake. Two Multiple Warp sandals purportedly from the
Winnemucca Lake area have both been radiocarbon dated to 1280±40 (1294-1086 cal
BP). These specimens are from collections at the Nevada State Museum and lack more detailed provenience information (Connolly and Barker 2004).
Methods
To test the hypotheses that either (H0) insufficient dated sandals or sampling error, (H1) Middle Holocene occupation hiatuses at sandal-bearing sites, or (H2) sandal technology waxing and waning in the northwestern Great Basin are responsible for the gaps in the radiocarbons sequences of Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandals, I employed several methods. First, I evaluated the current radiocarbon-dated samples of
Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandals using a method developed by Rhode et al. (2014) to determine the probability that observed gaps in radiocarbon sequences are the result of random sampling or occupation hiatuses. They developed a uniform-frequency model that assumes constant probability of occupation intensity throughout time (Rhode et al.
2014). This assumption may be problematic if the focus was a single site because locations were often occupied sporadically rather than continuously; however, I used the 51 entire samples of dated specimens of Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandals from a broad geographic region (the northwestern Great Basin). As such, assuming a constant probability of occupation intensity for the region is reasonable.
Prior to incorporating new radiocarbon dates on additional sandals from Last
Supper Cave, LSP-1, and South Warner Cave, I ran the existing samples of dated sandals through equations 4 and 5 described by Rhode et al. (2014:568-570). Equation 4 is a
“cumulative negative exponential distribution [which] describes the probability of a waiting time of at least duration t before observing the first event” (Rhode et al.
2014:568). This equation is helpful for determining the probability of long gaps occurring between radiocarbon dates (Rhode et al. 2014:570). The equation is given below:
(4) f(t) = 1 – e –t/β
where β represents the average gap length and t is the max gap length in question.
Equation 5 takes Equation 4 a step further. It is helpful for determining if all the gaps in a given sequence are less than or equal to the largest observed gap. This equation relies on information from Equation 4 and is given below:
N! n1 N-n1 (5) p (n1)= p q N n1!(N-n1)
where p = the probability that any gap is ≤ the largest observed gap, q = the probability of any gap being > the largest gap (merely the reciprocal of p), and N = the total number of gaps in the sequence. 52
To state the purpose of these equations simply, they provide the impetus for my research. They inform our understanding of the probability of seeing large gaps like those in the radiocarbon sequences of Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandals in a series of uniform-frequency sequences. If it is highly unlikely for the large Multiple Warp and
Spiral Weft gaps to exist by chance, then alternative hypotheses capable of accounting for the gaps such as those that are the focus on my work here must be developed.
Radiocarbon Dating of Last Supper Cave, LSP-1, and South Warner Cave
Sandals. The current sample of directly dated Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft Sandals is fairly small (n=45). Expanding the sample of dated sandals is a simple way to help determine if the gaps in the radiocarbon sequences of both types are the result of sampling error. Toward this goal, I analyzed, classified, and dated additional sandals from three northwestern Great Basin sites: (1) Last Supper Cave; (2) LSP-1; and (3)
South Warner Cave.
I included 14 sandals from Last Supper Cave, none of which had been dated before, in my project (Figures 2.2a and 2.2b). The sandals possess minimal provenience information: (1) two Multiple Warp sandals (31-3508 and 31-3507) came from a depth of
> 66” in the White Stratum in Unit JKL-13; (2) one Multiple Warp sandal (31-3904) came a depth of 6-12” within the rats’ nest in Unit O-9; (3) one Multiple Warp sandal
(31-1143) came from a depth of 42-56” in the intrusive house fill in Unit M-7; (4) three
Multiple Warp sandals (31-4186, 31-4188, and 31-4191) came from a depth of ~20” in the rats’ nest in Unit N12; (5) one Multiple Warp sandal (31-2182) came from a depth of
< 36” in the rats’ nest in Unit J-10; (6) one Spiral Weft sandal (31-1295) came from a depth of 18-24” in the rear rats’ nest at the back of the cave; (7) one Spiral Weft sandal 53
Figure 2.2a. Sandals selected for radiocarbon dating from Last Supper Cave. 54
Figure 2.2b. Sandals selected for radiocarbon dating from Last Supper Cave.
(31-2980) came from an unknown depth from the rats’ nest in Unit K-12; (8) two Spiral
Weft sandals (31-4939 and 31-4943) came from a depth of 18-36” in the rear rats’ nest at the back of the cave; (9) the Fort Rock sandal (31-4877) came from a depth of 33-39” in 55 the rats’ nest in Unit L-12; and (10) one Multiple Warp sandal (31-4972) came from an unknown depth from the rear rats’ nest at the back of the cave.
The sandals from South Warner Cave were recovered from a looter’s collection; therefore, no contextual information is available. Two Multiple Warp sandals recovered as part of an ARPA case had been previously radiocarbon dated to 6600±55 14C BP
(7573-7428 cal BP) and 820±60 14C BP (906-667 cal BP). I analyzed the other six undated sandals from the site currently housed at the UNR Anthropology Museum
(Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3. Sandals selected for radiocarbon dating from South Warner Cave. 56
Finally, during my preliminary thesis research, four sandals and one sandal fragment were recovered from a storage or refuse pit in LSP-1 (Smith et al. 2016a). The pit (F.14.10) was located against the west wall close to the dripline of the shelter at a depth of ~35-50 cm below datum (22-38 cm below the surface). The pit yielded seven total basketry artifacts: five sagebrush sandals and sandal fragments, one Catlow Twined tule basketry fragment, and a bundle of shredded sagebrush bark (Smith et al. 2016a).
The pit and surrounding stratigraphy are shown in Figure 2.4. Three Multiple Warp sandals and one Spiral Weft sandal were submitted to the University of Georgia’s Center for Applied Isotope Studies for direct AMS dating (Figure 2.5).
The 14 Last Supper Cave sandals and three of the South Warner Cave sandals
(89-6-142, 89-6-143, and 89-6-144) were sent to DirectAMS in Bothell, Washington for
AMS dating. The sandals from Last Supper Cave had not been cleaned for display and did not need additional pretreatment to prevent contamination; however, the sandals from
South Warner Cave had been cleaned by the collector using an unknown substance. The lab took extra precaution to ensure accurate dates. This involved boiling the samples in water for ten minutes to leach out any chemicals used during cleaning. The three other
South Warner Cave sandals (89-6-139, 89-6-141, and 89-6-146) were sent to Beta
Analytic in Miami, Florida. The lab was also advised of the potential contaminates.
Technological Analysis. My research presented an opportunity to not only expand the dated sample of northwestern Great Basin sandals but also the sample of sandals analyzed for construction materials and manufacturing techniques. I collected data on each sandal described above using the Northern/Western Great Basin Twined Sandal
Analysis Form developed by Pat Barker. All terminology (e.g., warp, weft, etc.) on the 57
Figure 2.4. LSP-1 profile showing pit F.14.10 (Smith et al. 2016a).
form is derived from Adovasio (2010) and Hurley (1979). I collected all measurements using digital calipers and rounded them to the nearest 0.1 mm. I also recorded non-metric attributes for each sandal including: (1) type of sole twining; (2) number of warps; (3) presence or absence of toe flap; (4) presence or absence of heel pocket; (5) location of twining start (e.g., heel); and (6) how warps aligned with the long-axis of the foot
(perpendicular vs. parallel). Table 2.5 summarizes this information. 58
Figure 2.5. Sandals selected for radiocarbon dating from LSP-1.
Intrasite Evaluation. To test the hypothesis that the gaps in the radiocarbon sequences of Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandals are a product of breaks in occupation at the sites where the sandals were recovered, I compiled all radiocarbon dates obtained on materials from each site. This effort produced data of varying quality and completeness. Inevitably, sites excavated recently had more chronological data available whereas sites excavated in the early 20th century or those that were looted had few data available.
Using the compiled dates (excluding those obtained on sandals), I created summed probability distributions for each site using OxCal 4.2 (Ramsey 2009). For each site, I compared its summed probability distribution to the calibrated age ranges of individual sandal dates. If no individual sandal date ranges fell within troughs in the
Table 2.5. Defining Attributes of Analyzed Sandals from Last Supper Cave, LSP-1, and South Warner Cave.
ID Site Type1 Sole Twining Warps (n) Heel Pocket Toe Flap Twining Start Warp Alignment 31-1143 Last Supper Cave MW Close simple 8 Present Present Heel Parallel 31-1295 Last Supper Cave SW Close simple 3 Absent Absent Center of Sole Perpendicular 31-2182 Last Supper Cave MW Open simple 14 Absent Absent Heel Parallel 31-2980 Last Supper Cave SW Close simple 6 Absent Absent Center of Sole Perpendicular 31-3507 Last Supper Cave MW Close simple 8 Absent Absent Heel Parallel 31-3508 Last Supper Cave MW Close simple 8 Present Present Heel Parallel 31-3904 Last Supper Cave MW Close simple 10 Present Absent Heel Parallel 31-4186 Last Supper Cave MW Open simple 9 Present Present Heel Parallel 31-4188 Last Supper Cave MW Close simple 10 Present Absent Heel Parallel 31-4191 Last Supper Cave MW Open simple 10 Present Present Heel Parallel 31-4877 Last Supper Cave FR Close simple 5 Absent Present Heel Parallel 31-4939 Last Supper Cave SW Close simple 3 Absent Absent Center of Sole Perpendicular 31-4943 Last Supper Cave SW Close simple 4 Absent Absent Center of Sole Perpendicular 31-4972 Last Supper Cave MW Close simple 12 Present Present Heel Parallel FS 1297 LSP-1 SW Close, simple 5 Present Absent Center of Sole Perpendicular FS 1302 LSP-1 MW Open, simple 12 Present Absent Heel Parallel FS 1309 LSP-1 MW Open, simple 6 Absent Absent Heel Parallel FS 1311 LSP-1 MW Simple 10 Absent Absent Heel Parallel 89-6-139 South Warner Cave MW Close, simple 10 Absent Absent Heel Parallel 89-6-141 South Warner Cave MW Close, simple 9 Absent Absent Heel Parallel 89-6-142 South Warner Cave MW Close, simple 10 Absent Absent Heel Parallel 89-6-143 South Warner Cave MW Close, simple 12 Present Present Heel Parallel 89-6-144 South Warner Cave MW Close, simple 12 Present Present Heel Parallel 89-6-146 South Warner Cave MW Open, simple 8 Present Present Heel Parallel
1 Note: MW = Multiple Warp; SW = Spiral Weft; FR = Fort Rock.
59
60 summed probability distributions, then I interpreted this as evidence that the lack of dated sandals from that site may be due to a lack of occupation during that time. Conversely, if a summed probability distribution suggested that a site was more or less occupied continuously, then it could suggest that the technology waxed and waned there.
To supplement the chronological data provided by radiocarbon dates described above, I also compiled frequencies of time-sensitive projectile points for each site and presented these as histograms. These data were used to help determine broad periods of time during which the sites were occupied and if, like the summed probability distributions, breaks in occupation could account for the gaps in the Multiple Warp and
Spiral Weft chronologies.
61
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
In Chapter 2, I reviewed the materials and methods used to evaluate the hypotheses presented in Chapter 1. Here, I present the results of the: (1) statistical analyses of the existing Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandal radiocarbon sequences designed to identify the probability of obtaining the observed gaps via random chance;
(2) AMS dating of additional sandals; and (3) my evaluation of chronological data
(radiocarbon dates and time-sensitive projectile points) from sandal-bearing sites in the northwestern Great Basin.
Mind the Gaps
Multiple Warp Sandal Radiocarbon Sequence. Prior to my research, the Multiple
Warp sandal radiocarbon sequence spanned 8200 14C years and was comprised of 26 dates. The largest observed gap was 3480 14C years. Rhode et al. (2014:567) used a similarly small sample of dates (n=31) in their study to evaluate the regional radiocarbon sequence of Qinghai Lake Basin in western China. In this instance, β (average gap length) = 328 14C years and t (longest gap length) = 3480 14C years. Following Equation
4 presented in the previous chapter, f(t) = 0.99997; therefore, the probability that any one gap in the Multiple Warp sequence is ≤ 3480 14C years is 99.997%. The complement of that number is the probability that a single gap in the sequence will be greater than the 62 largest observed gap (i.e., 3480 14C years); this is 0.00003 or 0.003%. In other words, there is virtually no chance of a single gap being larger than the largest observed gap in the Multiple Warp radiocarbon sequence if random factors alone are at play.
Turning to Equation 5 (presented in the previous chapter), which calculates the probability of all gaps in the sequence, where p = the probability that a gap is ≤ 3480 14C years (in this instance, 0.99997 obtained from Equation 4), x = the probability that a gap
14 is > 3480 C years (0.00003 also from Equation 4), N = total number of gaps (25), and n1
= the total number of gaps that are ≤ 3480 14C years (also 25). Following Equation 5, the
14 result is pN(n1) = 0.9993. There is a 99.93% chance that there will be no gaps > 3,480 C years. The complement of this is the probability of there being at least one gap in this sequence > 3480 14C years, which is 0.03% (Rhode et al 2014). Simply stated again, there is virtually no chance that an individual gap greater than the largest one, 3480 14C years, exists in an 8200 14C year-long sequence if random factors alone are at play.
Spiral Weft Sandal Radiocarbon Sequence. Prior to my research, the dated Spiral
Weft sample spanned 6775 14C years and was comprised of 20 dates. There was a 5891
14C year gap in the sequence. Due to the smaller sample size, it is conceivable that the gap in the Spiral Weft sample is due to random factors. Equation 4 resulted in f(t) =
0.9999; thus, the probability that a single gap will be ≤ 5891 14C years is 99.99%. The complement of this figure is the probability that a single gap in the sequence will be greater than the largest observed gap (5891 14C years); which is 0.0001 or 0.01%.
Inputting this information into Equation 5 results in pN(n1) = 0.9999. Therefore, there is a
99.99% chance that no gaps in the sequence are > 5891 14C years. The complement of this number is the probability that at least one gap exists in this sequence that is > 5891 63
14C years, which is 0.0001 or 0.01% (Rhode et al. 2014:570). As is the case in with the
Multiple Warp sample discussed above, it is highly unlikely that a long gap such as the one observed in the Spiral Weft sequence would occur due to chance alone.
Additional Radiocarbon Dated Specimens
Last Supper Cave. Fourteen new AMS dates on sandals from Last Supper Cave are reported in Table 3.1. The Last Supper Cave sandals returned a wide range of dates.
As expected, the Fort Rock sandal fit well into the range of dated specimens, returning a date of 8925±39 14C BP (10,195-9914 cal BP). The nine Multiple Warp sandals returned some interesting dates. First, no Multiple Warp sandals returned dates older than ~4100 cal BP. Second, five Multiple Warp sandals returned dates that clustered between 4139 and 3632 cal BP. The individual dates of these sandals are as follows: (1) 3681±27 14C
BP (4139-3924 cal BP); (2) 3596±24 14C BP (3972-3840 cal BP); (3) 3585±26 14C BP
(3971-3833 cal BP); (4) 3550±25 14C BP (3911-3724 cal BP); and (5) 3446±32 14C BP
(3829-3632 cal BP). The first three sandals and last two sandals of this group overlap when calibrated at 2σ; it is conceivable that these were deposited during the same occupation. Third, dates on three other Multiple Warp sandals cluster between 2779 and
2131 cal BP: (1) 2622±27 14C BP (2779-2729 cal BP); (2) 2287±27 14C BP (2353-2182 cal BP); and (3) 2187±22 14C BP (2308-2131 cal BP). The second and third sandals of this group overlap when calibrated at 2σ. The remaining Multiple Warp sandal produced a date of 1366±26 14C BP (1329-1265 cal BP). The four Spiral Weft sandals from Last
Supper Cave cluster between 1895-1415 cal BP. The individual dates obtained on those 64
Table 3.1. New AMS Radiocarbon Dates on Sandals from Last Supper Cave, LSP-1, and South Warner Cave.
Site Type Catalog # Lab ID # 14C Date 2 σ Calibration Last Supper Cave Fort Rock 31-4877 D-AMS-012575 8925±39 10,195-9914 Last Supper Cave Multiple Warp 31-4188 D-AMS-012568 3681±27 4139-3924 Last Supper Cave Multiple Warp 31-3507 D-AMS-012565 3596±24 3972-3840 Last Supper Cave Multiple Warp 31-4972 D-AMS-012571 3585±26 3971-3833 Last Supper Cave Multiple Warp 31-2182 D-AMS-012563 3550±25 3911-3724 Last Supper Cave Multiple Warp 31-1143 D-AMS-012561 3446±32 3829-3632 Last Supper Cave Multiple Warp 31-3508 D-AMS-012576 2622±27 2779-2729 Last Supper Cave Multiple Warp 31-4191 D-AMS-012577 2287±27 2353-2182 Last Supper Cave Multiple Warp 31-4186 D-AMS-012567 2187±22 2308-2131 Last Supper Cave Spiral Weft 31-4939 D-AMS-012569 1894±24 1895-1739 Last Supper Cave Spiral Weft 31-4943 D-AMS-012570 1773±26 1809-1611 Last Supper Cave Spiral Weft 31-2980 D-AMS-012564 1683±27 1693-1531 Last Supper Cave Spiral Weft 31-1295 D-AMS-012562 1630±26 1604-1415 Last Supper Cave Multiple Warp 31-3904 D-AMS-012566 1366±26 1329-1265 LSP-1 Multiple Warp 1311 UGA-18240 1880±20 1879-1737 LSP-1 Spiral Weft 1297 UGA-18236 1860±20 1865-1729 LSP-1 Multiple Warp 1309 UGA-18239 1760±20 1721-1610 LSP-1 Multiple Warp 1302 UGA-18238 1300±20 1287-1183 South Warner Cave Multiple Warp 89-6-144 D-AMS-012574 725±25 699-652 South Warner Cave Multiple Warp 89-6-143 D-AMS-012573 665±27 674-559 South Warner Cave Multiple Warp 89-6-139 Beta-429905 660±30 674-557 South Warner Cave Multiple Warp 89-6-141 Beta-429906 650±30 670-556 South Warner Cave Multiple Warp 89-6-146 Beta-429907 590±30 652-537 South Warner Cave Multiple Warp 89-6-142 D-AMS-012572 528±26 627-511
1All dates calibrated using OxCal 4.2 (Ramsey 2009) and the IntCal 13 Curve (Reimer et al. 2013).
sandals are: (1) 1894±24 14C BP (1895-1739 cal BP); (2) 1773±26 14C BP (1809-1611 cal
BP); (3) 1683±27 14C BP (1693-1531 cal BP); and (4) 1630±26 14C BP (1604-1415 cal
BP). When calibrated at 2σ, each sandal date from this group overlaps with the one that 65 precedes it. Because these four sandals cluster so closely, it is possible that they were deposited during the same event.
LSP-1. Two Multiple Warp sandals and the Spiral Weft sandal from LSP-1 cluster between 1879 and 1610 cal BP. The individual dates obtained on those sandals are: (1)
Multiple Warp, 1880±20 14C BP (1879-1737 cal BP); (2) Spiral Weft, 1860±20 14C BP
(1865-1729 cal BP); and (3) Multiple Warp, 1760±20 14C BP (1721-1610 cal BP). The first two sandals from this cluster overlap when calibrated at 2σ, suggesting that they may have been deposited at the same time. The final Multiple Warp sandal from LSP-1 was dated to 1300±20 14C BP (1287-1183 cal BP).
South Warner Cave. The six Multiple Warp sandals from South Warner Cave date to recent times. All sandals date to a narrow range between 699 and 511 cal BP. The individual dates obtained on those sandals are: (1) 725±2514C BP (699-652 cal BP); (2)
665±27 14C BP (674-559 cal BP); (3) 660±30 14C BP (674-557 cal BP); (4) 650±30 14C
BP (670-556 cal BP); (5) 590±30 14C BP (652-537 cal BP); and (6) 528±26 14C BP (627-
511 cal BP). All six of the dates overlap with each other, indicating they were likely deposited at the same time.
Evaluating the Chronological Data from Sandal-Bearing Sites
As noted in the previous chapter, I organized the sandal-bearing sites into three general categories based on the quality of published data available from each site: (1) good; (2) bad; and (3) ugly. Not every site discussed in Chapter 2 possessed adequate data for intrasite chronological evaluation and were thus omitted from the following 66 section; those sites include Connley Cave No. 8, Plush Cave, Redmond Cave, the Snake
River Canyon Site, and Winnemucca Lake.
The Good
Dirty Shame Rockshelter. Radiocarbon data from Dirty Shame Rockshelter suggest a bimodal occupation history with an early period beginning ~11,000 cal BP and continuing until ~6500 cal BP (Figure 3.1). A clear trough is visible from ~6500 to 3000 cal BP. The later period of occupation begins ~3000 cal BP and continues into historic times. Six of eight sandal dates fall between ~10,000 and 7500 cal BP whereas two sandal dates fall between ~2200 and 1500 cal BP.
Projectile point data from the site correspond well with the radiocarbon sequence
(Figure 3.2). Low frequencies of Paleoindian and Northern Side-notched points correspond with the early peak in radiocarbon dates, the absence of Gatecliff points corresponds with the trough in the summed probability distribution during the initial Late
Holocene, and higher frequencies of Elko, Humboldt, and Rosegate points suggest a more intense occupation period later in time.
The radiocarbon data and Northern Side-notched points suggest that Dirty Shame
Rockshelter was occupied during the early Middle Holocene, ~8000-6500 cal BP. One
Multiple Warp sandal date falls with this period at ~7500 cal BP. The site shows a clear hiatus in occupation from ~6500 to 3000 cal BP (see Aikens et al. 1977; Hanes 1988). As such, Dirty Shame Rockshelter supports the hypothesis that the gaps are due to hiatuses, as all sandal dates fall during clear periods of occupation. 67
Figure 3.1. Dirty Shame Rockshelter radiocarbon data: individual sandal dates are on top, a summed probability distribution of other dates is below, and on bottom is a summed probability distribution of all dates. The Middle Holocene is indicated in red.
Last Supper Cave. Radiocarbon data from Last Supper Cave suggest two discrete
TP/EH occupations: (1) ~12,000 cal BP suggested by one anomalous date (10,280±40
14C BP) that may ultimately prove to be an outlier; and (2) from ~10,200-9000 cal BP
(Figures 3.3a and 3.3b). The dated Fort Rock sandal (~10,100 cal BP) corresponds with the latter cluster of dates. There is a wide trough in the summed probability distribution until a peak ~5200 cal BP; no sandal dates correspond with this peak. The next peak falls 68
180
160
140
120
100 (n) 80
60
40
20
0 Paleoindian Northern Gatecliff Elko Humboldt Rosegate Desert Side-notched Point Categories
Figure 3.2. Time-sensitive projectile point frequencies from Dirty Shame Rockshelter.
~4000 cal BP. Five Multiple Warp sandal dates ranging between 4100 and 3400 cal BP correspond with that peak. The summed probability distribution shows a brief trough before rising again ~2800 cal BP. After ~2800 cal BP, the site appears to have been more or less continuously occupied until historic times. The remaining eight Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandals fall during the early half of this later period, between ~2900 and
1300 cal BP.
Projectile point data both correspond and conflict with the radiocarbon data
(Figure 3.4). A large number of Paleoindian points (n=36) corresponds with the TP/EH peak in the summed probability distribution. Also, large samples of Late Holocene points
(Gatecliff and Elko) correspond with the large number of radiocarbon dates ~4000 cal 69
Figure 3.3a. Last Supper Cave radiocarbon data: individual sandal dates are on top, a summed probability distribution of other dates is below, and on bottom is a summed probability distribution of all dates. The Middle Holocene is indicated in red.
BP. A modest sample of Northern Side-notched points (n=50) from the site does not correspond closely with the Middle Holocene trough in the summed probability distribution, suggesting that it was likely visited at some point during that period but may not have been occupied continuously. As such, the lack of evidence for Middle Holocene occupation at Last Supper Cave – in particular the paucity of radiocarbon dates from that 70
Figure 3.3b. Last Supper Cave radiocarbon data: individual sandal dates are on top, a summed probability distribution of other dates is below, and on bottom is a summed probability distribution of all dates. The Middle Holocene is indicated in red.
period – supports the hypothesis that site hiatuses are responsible for the gaps in sandal radiocarbon sequences.
LSP-1. Radiocarbon data from LSP-1 suggest several discrete occupation periods during the Early Holocene (Figure 3.5). Although some dates fall between ~10,400 and
9900 cal BP, they were obtained on material not linked to human occupation. The first 71
220
200
180
160
140
120
100 (n) 80
60
40
20
0 Paleoindian Northern Gatecliff Elko Humboldt Rosegate Desert Side-notched Point Categories Figure 3.4. Time-sensitive projectile point frequencies from Last Supper Cave.
period of human use lasts from ~9700 to 9200 cal BP, while another stretches from
~9000 to 8600 cal BP. This second period is followed by a discrete peak ~8100 cal BP.
Following the Early Holocene fluorescence of occupation, there is little evidence for
Middle Holocene occupations, only short peaks at ~7600, 6000, and 5300 cal BP, all of which reflect dates obtained on isolated charcoal fragments that are discordant with the majority of dates from the site. More intense occupations occurred during the Late
Holocene: two sharp peaks occur between ~4600 and 4400 cal BP and a longer peak occurs between ~3500 and 3000 cal BP. Subsequently, a low peak occurs from ~2800 to
2500 cal BP. A low peak and three sandal dates suggest occupation from ~2100 to 1600
72
Figure 3.5. LSP-1 radiocarbon data: individual sandal dates are on top, a summed probability distribution of other dates is below, and on bottom is a summed probability distribution of all dates. The Middle Holocene is indicated in red.
cal BP. Finally, an occupation spans ~1300 to 700 cal BP. The last Multiple Warp sandal date corresponds with this final occupation.
Projectile point data correspond closely to the radiocarbon data (Figure 3.6). A small number of Paleoindian points (n=5) corresponds with the Early Holocene occupations suggested by dated materials. The absence of Northern Side-notched points corresponds with the trough in dates during the Middle Holocene. The small sample of
Gatecliff points corresponds with the trough during the initial Late Holocene. Higher frequencies of Elko and Rosegate points correspond with the Late Holocene occupation periods at the site beginning ~4600 cal BP. Scant evidence for Middle Holocene 73
20
(n)
0 Paleoindian Northern Gatecliff Elko Humboldt Rosegate Desert Side-notched Point Categories Figure 3.6.Time-sensitive projectile point frequencies from LSP-1.
occupations at LSP-1, coupled with the fact that all sandal dates fall during terminal Late
Holocene occupation periods, supports the hypothesis that hiatuses at sites in the region are responsible for the gaps in radiocarbon sequences.
The Bad
Antelope Creek Overhang. Radiocarbon data from Antelope Creek Overhang suggest that there were two periods of occupation: (1) an intense period from ~10,000 to
8500 cal BP; and (2) a less intense period post-2000 cal BP (Figure 3.7). All five dated sandals fall within the earlier period. 74
Figure 3.7. Antelope Creek Overhang radiocarbon data: individual sandal dates are on top, a summed probability distribution of other dates is below, and on bottom is a summed probability distribution of all dates. The Middle Holocene is indicated in red.
Projectile point data from the site suggest a different trend, as only one
Paleoindian point was recovered from the site – a finding that does not correspond with the cluster of directly dated sandals and other organic samples from the Early Holocene.
Instead, the projectile data suggest that the site was most intensely occupied during the
Late Holocene, as demonstrated by high frequencies of Elko, Humboldt, and Rosegate 75 series points (Figure 3.8). This trend corresponds well with the post-2000 cal BP peak in the summed probability distribution. A small sample of Northern Side-notched points
(n=16) suggests that the site was visited at least once during the Middle Holocene although no dates fall within that period. Overall, data from Antelope Creek Overhang suggest that the site was largely unoccupied during the Middle Holocene.
60
40
(n)
20
0 Paleoindian Northern Gatecliff Elko Humboldt Rosegate Desert Side-notched Point Categories Figure 3.8. Time-sensitive projectile point frequencies from Antelope Creek Overhang.
Catlow Cave No. 1. Like Antelope Creek Overhang, radiocarbon data from
Catlow Cave No. 1 suggest that that site also saw two periods of occupation: (1) an early period represented by five sandal dates ranging from ~9600 to 8400 cal BP; and (2) a
76
Figure 3.9. Catlow Cave No. 1 radiocarbon data: individual sandal dates are on top, a summed probability distribution of other dates is below, and on bottom is a summed probability distribution of all dates. The Middle Holocene is indicated in red.
later period, represented by three sandal dates and eight dates on other organic materials, that spanned ~2200-200 cal BP (Figure 3.9).
Projectile point data display low frequencies of Paleoindian and Northern Side- notched points (Figure 3.10); however, there is a high frequency of Rosegate series points suggesting increased occupation late in time corresponding with the late sandal dates and 77
80
60
(n) 40
20
0 Paleoindian Northern Gatecliff Elko Humboldt Rosegate Desert Side-notched Point Categories Figure 3.10. Time-sensitive projectile point frequencies from Catlow Cave No. 1.
peak in the summed probability distribution of dates from the site. Catlow Cave No. 1 shows little evidence for Middle Holocene occupation: no radiocarbon dates fall within this period and there are relatively few (n=15) Northern Side-notched points.
Paisley Five Mile Point Cave No. 1. Radiocarbon data from Paisley Cave No. 1 suggest five discrete intervals of TP/EH occupation (Figure 3.11): (1) ~13,700 cal BP; (2)
~12,600 to 12,400 cal BP; (3) ~12,000 to 11,200 cal BP; (4) ~9600 cal BP; and (5) ~8600 to 8300 cal BP. Some Middle Holocene activity is suggested by two brief peaks: (1)
~7600 to 7400 cal BP; and (2) ~5000 cal BP. A trough suggests that following these peaks, the cave was unoccupied until the terminal Late Holocene. Two Multiple Warp sandals do not correspond with any peaks in the summed probability distribution; instead 78
Figure 3.11. Paisley Cave No. 1 radiocarbon data: individual sandal dates are on top, a summed probability distribution of other dates is below, and on bottom is a summed probability distribution of all dates. The Middle Holocene is indicated in red.
they suggest an occupation period spanning ~1800 to 1400 cal BP. The sandals are followed by a short peak ~1000 cal BP. Finally, there are a series of short peaks very late in time.
Paisley Five Mile Point Cave No. 2. Radiocarbon data from Paisley Cave No. 2 similarly suggest a series of occupations during the TP/EH, beginning with an occupation lasting from ~14,500 to 10,600 cal BP (Figure 3.12). A short peak follows ~10,300 cal
BP. Following a 1000 year trough, short peaks occur ~9000 cal BP and 8500 cal BP, respectively. Limited Middle Holocene use of the cave is suggested by a pair of short peaks ~8000 and 7500 cal BP, respectively. A long trough follows, lasting until the Late 79
Figure 3.12. Paisley Cave No. 2 radiocarbon data: individual sandal dates are on top, a summed probability distribution of other dates is below, and on bottom is a summed probability distribution of all dates. The Middle Holocene is indicated in red.
Holocene. Occupation resumes ~3000 cal BP and is represented by one Multiple Warp sandal date. The next two Multiple Warp sandals correspond with a peak ~2500 cal BP.
Next, a short peak lasts from ~2400 to 2000 cal BP. A trough lasts until the final Multiple
Warp sandal date, ~1100 cal BP. Finally, there is a brief peak post-500 cal BP.
Roaring Springs Cave. Radiocarbon data from Roaring Spring Cave suggest that occupation only occurred post-3000 cal BP (Figure 3.13); however, two sandal dates 80 suggest earlier use of the site: one Spiral Weft sandal dates to ~9000 cal BP and one
Multiple Warp sandal dates to ~3400 cal BP. The summed probability distribution suggests initial occupation from ~2800 to 2300 cal BP. Two Multiple Warp sandals, a
Spiral Weft sandal, and a brief peak suggest an occupation period lasting from ~2000 to
1000 cal BP. After a brief trough, one Multiple Warp sandal and a series of peaks suggest a period of occupation from ~500 cal BP to the present.
Projectile point data from the site suggest limited use of the cave early on, as only a few Paleoindian points (n=7) were recovered (Figure 3.14). A moderate number of
Northern Side-notched points (n=58) do not correspond to the trough during the Middle
Holocene in the site’s summed probability distribution; however, it’s possible that those points were deposited during a few visits. Moderate numbers of initial Late Holocene points (i.e., Gatecliff, Elko, and Humboldt) correspond with the increasing intensity of radiocarbon data for that period. Finally, the high number of Rosegate series points
(n=171) corresponds with the occupation period from ~2000 to 1100 cal BP suggested by the radiocarbon data.
The Ugly
Crypt Cave. Radiocarbon data from Crypt Cave are sparsely distributed throughout time (Figure 3.15). The lone Multiple Warp sandal date, ~3500 cal BP, falls just before two dates of ~2000 cal BP obtained on other organic items. The largest peak in the summed probability distribution occurs prior to 10,000 cal BP; this reflects two dates obtained on plaited basketry. One date obtained on bone from a dog burial falls 81
Figure 3.13. Roaring Springs Cave radiocarbon data: individual sandal dates are on top, a summed probability distribution of other dates is below, and on bottom is a summed probability distribution of all dates. The Middle Holocene is indicated in red.
within the Middle Holocene (Adams et al. 2008; Kirner et al. 1997; Orr 1952), suggesting that the site was visited at least once during that period. No projectile point data are published for Crypt Cave.
Elephant Mountain Cave. Radiocarbon data from Elephant Mountain Cave suggest an early occupation period from ~10,600 to 7600 cal BP (Figure 3.16). All but one sandal date fall during this period. The summed probability distribution displays a 82
180
160
140
120
100 (n) 80
60
40
20
0 Paleoindian Northern Gatecliff Elko Humboldt Rosegate Desert Side-notched Point Categories Figure 3.14. Time-sensitive projectile point frequencies from Roaring Springs Cave.
Figure 3.15. Crypt Cave radiocarbon data: individual sandal dates are on top, a summed probability distribution of other dates is below, and on bottom is a summed probability distribution of all dates. The Middle Holocene is indicated in red.
83
Figure 3.16. Elephant Mountain Cave radiocarbon data: individual sandal dates are on top, a summed probability distribution of other dates is below, and on bottom is a summed probability distribution of all dates. The Middle Holocene is indicated in red.
trough until two short peaks ~4700 and ~3900 cal BP, respectively. Around 2000 cal BP, there is a peak followed by two subsequent shorter peaks at ~1500 and ~800 cal BP, respectively. The remaining Multiple Warp sandal dates to the historic period and, again, does not correspond with any other dates. 84
Excluding the early forms, the projectile point data correspond closely with the radiocarbon data from Elephant Mountain Cave (Figure 3.17). Few Paleoindian points
(n=7) align with the intense early occupation suggested by the radiocarbon data. The absence of Northern Side-notched points corresponds with the trough at the site during this time. High frequencies of Late Holocene points (i.e., Elko, Humboldt, and Rosegate) correspond with the post-2000 cal BP peak in dates. Neither the radiocarbon nor the projectile point data suggest that Elephant Mountain Cave was used during the Middle
Holocene.
40
(n) 20
0 Paleoindian Northern Gatecliff Elko Humboldt Rosegate Desert Side-notched Point Categories Figure 3.17. Time-sensitive projectile point frequencies from Elephant Mountain Cave.
85
Fishbone Cave. Radiocarbon data from Fishbone Cave suggest two TP/EH periods of occupation: an initial period ~13,000 cal BP and a later occupation from ~9500 to ~7800 cal BP (Figure 3.18). The lone Multiple Warp sandal date corresponds with the later occupation, falling ~8000 cal BP. No evidence of occupation later than the Early
Holocene is available from Fishbone Cave. No published projectile point data are available from the site.
Figure 3.18. Fishbone Cave radiocarbon data: individual sandal dates are on top, a summed probability distribution of other dates is below, and on bottom is a summed probability distribution of all dates. The Middle Holocene is indicated in red.
Rattlesnake Cave. Radiocarbon data from Rattlesnake Cave suggest occupation at the site solely during the Late Holocene (Figure 3.19). The initial occupation period stretches from ~2300 to 2000 cal BP. The lone Multiple Warp sandal date from the site falls ~1500 cal BP. After the sandal date, there is trough until ~700 cal BP. From ~700 to
300 cal BP, an occupation is suggested by a sustained peak with a brief trough ~550 cal
BP. No evidence of Middle Holocene occupation exists from Rattlesnake Cave. No projectile point data are available from the site. 86
Figure 3.19. Rattlesnake Cave radiocarbon data: individual sandal dates are on top, a summed probability distribution of other dates is below, and on bottom is a summed probability distribution of all dates.
South Warner Cave. Radiocarbon data from South Warner Cave suggest occupation(s) during the terminal Late Holocene and historic periods (Figure 3.20). There is one Middle Holocene date from the site: a Multiple Warp sandal dated to ~7500 cal
BP. However, no other material corresponds with this date and the other Multiple Warp sandals from the site all date to the late occupation: between ~900 and 500 cal BP.
Summary
Of the three “good” sites, both Last Supper Cave and LSP-1 display clear hiatuses during the Middle Holocene. Dirty Shame Rockshelter shows a hiatus that begins in the latter half of the Middle Holocene, ~6500 cal BP, and lasts into the Late Holocene. All sandal dates from Dirty Shame Rockshelter fall during periods of occupation, supporting 87
Figure 3.20. South Warner Cave radiocarbon data: individual sandal dates are on top, a summed probability distribution of other dates is below, and on bottom is a summed probability distribution of all dates. The Middle Holocene is indicated in red.
the hypothesis that hiatuses are responsible for the gaps in sandal radiocarbon sequences.
Although derived from less well-reported sites, radiocarbon data from the “bad” sites similarly suggest hiatuses during the Middle Holocene. Projectile point data from
Antelope Creek Overhang, Catlow Cave No .1, and Roaring Springs Cave – specifically, the presence of Northern Side-notched points – suggest some Middle Holocene activity at 88 the sites; however, they may reflect brief visits rather than prolonged occupations spanning much of that period. Radiocarbon data from the “ugly” sites all suggest Middle
Holocene hiatuses except for Crypt Cave, which has a dog burial dated to ~7300 cal BP
(Kirner et al. 1997); however, this is only one date and could represent a single Middle
Holocene visit at the site. In the next chapter, I discuss the significance of these results and their utility in evaluating possible explanations for the gaps in Multiple Warp and
Spiral Weft radiocarbon sequences.
Table 3.2. Summary of Evidence for Middle Holocene Hiatuses at Northwestern Great Basin Sites.
EVIDENCE OF MIDDLE HOLOCENE HIATUS1 Site 14C Dates 14C Dates Projectile Point Overall Sandals Other Frequencies THE GOOD
Dirty Shame Rockshelter + ~ ~ ~ LSP-1 + + + + Last Supper Cave + + ~ + THE BAD
Antelope Creek Overhang + + ~ + Catlow Cave No. 1 + + ~ + Paisley Cave No. 1 + + N/A + Paisley Cave No. 2 + + N/A + Roaring Springs Cave + + ~ + THE UGLY
Crypt Cave + ~ N/A + Elephant Mountain Cave + + + + Fishbone Cave + + N/A + Rattlesnake Cave + + N/A + South Warner Cave + + N/A +
1 + indicates evidence for hiatus, ~ indicates mixed evidence for hiatus.
89
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
In Chapter 3, I presented the results of: (1) the statistical evaluation of the large gaps in the Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandal radiocarbon sequences; (2) the additional radiocarbon-dating of sandals from Last Supper Cave, LSP-1, and South
Warner Cave; and (3) my evaluation of chronological data (i.e., radiocarbon sequences and time-sensitive projectile point frequencies) from sandal-bearing sites in the northwestern Great Basin. In this chapter, I discuss the implications of my results to the hypotheses outlined in Chapter 1: (1) H0, the gaps are the result of sampling error (i.e., insufficient radiocarbon dating); (2) H1, Middle Holocene hiatuses at sandal-bearing sites are responsible for the gaps; and (3) H2, the popularity of sandals types rose and fell throughout the Holocene, causing the gaps.
H0
My application of Rhode et al.’s (2014) approach to the samples of dated sandals indicates that the large gaps in the radiocarbon sequences prior to my dating of additional specimens are unlikely to occur due to chance alone. Equation 5 demonstrated that there is a < 1% chance that any single gap will be larger than the Multiple Warp or Spiral Weft gaps in uniform frequency sequences spanning the same amount of radiocarbon years as the sandal types. In light of these results, I reject the null hypothesis (H0): the gaps are the 90 result of sampling error. Instead, some element of human behavior (e.g., site occupation history) is likely responsible for the gaps.
Further support for this interpretation comes from the additional sandals that I submitted for radiocarbon dating as part of my research. The 18 additional Multiple Warp sandal dates only shorten the gap by 561 14C years (from 3482 to 2921 14C years) while the additional five Spiral Weft sandal dates shortened the gap by five 14C years. The fact that I failed to eliminate or even appreciably shorten the gaps, despite significantly increasing the sample of directly dated sandals, strongly suggests that they are not simply a product of insufficient or problematic sampling. Instead, the gaps are likely a function of how and when sandal-bearing sites were occupied, a topic on which I focus in the remainder of this chapter.
H1
The results presented in Chapter 3 show that there were substantial breaks in occupations at all sandal-bearing sites in the northwestern Great Basin. The majority of these hiatuses occurred during the Middle Holocene although two sites, Dirty Shame
Rockshelter and Crypt Cave, saw some activity during that period. At Dirty Shame
Rockshelter, occupations continued from the Early into the Middle Holocene until ~6500 cal BP. After that time, the site was apparently unoccupied until visits resumed ~3000 cal
BP. Crypt Cave contained a dog burial dating to ~7300 cal BP; however, long troughs exist on either side of the date suggesting that the burial was an isolated event rather than part of a prolonged occupation. Therefore, these sites still support H1: the gaps in sandal 91 radiocarbon sequences are a result of hiatuses at northwestern Great Basin sites, albeit not exclusively during the Middle Holocene for Dirty Shame Rockshelter.
It warrants mentioning that Dirty Shame Rockshelter is the site most likely to contain sandals with ages that fall within the gaps because the site was occupied during the early Middle Holocene (i.e., ~8000 to 6500 cal BP) and only a small fraction (~7 percent) of the many Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandals recovered have been dated.
Further dating efforts should focus on specimens from that site to increase our understanding of when those sandals were deposited. It is probable that at least some sandals from Dirty Shame Rockshelter will date to the Middle Holocene.
The additional dates on sandals from Last Supper Cave, LSP-1, and South Warner
Cave presented here support H1 as well, as they do not shorten the gaps in either the
Multiple Warp or Spiral Weft radiocarbon sequences to any great degree. None of those sandals date to the Middle Holocene and all correspond with other dated material at the sites, suggesting that they were deposited during substantial occupations.
It warrants mentioning that the gap in the Spiral Weft radiocarbon sequence
(~6000 14C years) is twice as large as the one in the Multiple Warp radiocarbon sequence
(~3000 14C years). This may simply be a function of the discrepancy in the number of dated specimens. With the additional dates presented in this thesis, almost twice as many
Multiple Warp sandals have been dated (n=44) as Spiral Weft sandals (n=25). With additional dating, the Spiral Weft gap may shrink and more closely resemble the size of the Multiple Warp gap. As previously stated, Dirty Shame Rockshelter is the best site for selecting sandals which may date within the current gaps. 92
At first glance, the time-sensitive projectile point frequencies from sandal-bearing sites contradict the radiocarbon data: five of seven sites with projectile point data available (Last Supper Cave, Antelope Creek Overhang, Dirty Shame Rockshelter,
Catlow Cave No. 1, and Roaring Springs Cave) contain Northern Side-notched points.
With the exception of Dirty Shame Rockshelter, there are clear troughs in the summed probability distributions of radiocarbon dates from those locations that correspond with the Middle Holocene, suggesting that there were substantial hiatuses during that time. It is possible, however, that the Northern Side-notched points were deposited during one or more short occupations during a broader period in which the sites generally saw reduced use relative to earlier and/or later times. Unfortunately, this possibility is difficult to evaluate with the data at hand.
As previously noted in Chapter 2, many sandal-bearing sites have been affected by looting events. With the exception of Last Supper Cave, even those sites that I designated as “good” due to their detailed records of professional excavations have been negatively impacted by illegal excavations. The majority of the looting events occurred prior to professional excavations, although in the case of LSP-1, the looting event occurred between field seasons early in the project. Therefore, it is important to note that while a pattern of Middle Holocene hiatus has been recognized at most sandal-bearing sites, it is possible that deposits dating to that period were destroyed. Again this possibility is difficult to evaluate with current data.
In light of the results of my analysis, H1 (Middle Holocene hiatuses at sandal- bearing sites are largely responsible for the gaps in Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft radiocarbon sequences) cannot be rejected. This apparent decrease in cave and 93 rockshelter use during the Middle Holocene, which has been long noted by researchers
(e.g., Bedwell 1973; Grayson 1993; Jenkins et al. 2004a), was likely part of a broader shift in settlement-subsistence strategies during that period.
H2
H2 states that the gaps in the radiocarbon sequences of Multiple Warp and Spiral
Weft sandals are the result of the popularity of these types waxing and waning throughout the Holocene. For H2 to find support, sandal-bearing sites in the northwestern Great
Basin should display evidence of occupations during the Middle Holocene (the period during which the gaps in the radiocarbon sequences occur). Clearly, this is not the case.
As such, there is no support for H2 – we should not conclude that gaps in the sequences reflect diachronic shifts in style, ethnolinguistic populations, or anything else. Instead, the gaps are most parsimoniously explained by limited cave and rockshelter use during the
Middle Holocene in the region (H1).
Furthermore, the data needed to speak on the popularity of Multiple Warp and
Spiral Weft technology throughout the Holocene are unavailable in the northwestern
Great Basin. Speaking on the popularity of any prehistoric artifact type is a difficult task; however, researchers have had success with projectile point types in the Great Basin, resulting in typologies and chronologies specific to the various areas of the region (e.g.,
Oetting 1994; Thomas 1981). This success can be ascribed to the ubiquitous presence of projectile points in the region. This is an impossible task with Multiple Warp and Spiral
Weft sandals for several reasons: (1) their relative scarcity; (2) the minimal number of 94 sites from which they have been recovered; and (3) the broad swaths of time over which they were apparently constructed.
Middle Holocene Land-use in the Northwestern Great Basin
As noted in Chapter 1, while the Middle Holocene was in general more arid than the periods that came before or after it, it was not simply a millennia-long drought (sensu
Antevs 1948). Conditions were variable and groups did not abandon the region entirely as originally postulated (Grayson 2011; Louderback et al. 2010); rather, they honed in on remaining dependable water sources. Because groups became tethered to such areas, a shift in land-use followed. Before the climatic deterioration of the Middle Holocene, groups practiced high residential mobility with moves occurring between wetlands and caves and rockshelters appear to have been frequent stops during these moves (Beck and
Jones 1997; Bedwell 1973; Smith 2010). During the Middle Holocene, groups shifted to a pattern of logistical mobility where residential camps were established near remaining sources of water (Jenkins 2004; Jenkins et al. 2004a, 2004b) – in many cases such places were not the same wetlands frequented by earlier populations. Instead, populations aggregated in remaining productive locations including sites in Oregon’s Fort Rock Basin and Surprise Valley, California. Those areas have produced records of changing Middle
Holocene lifeways that support the notion that groups removed many caves and rockshelters from their seasonal rounds (sensu Jones et al. 2003).
While many extensive TP/EH wetlands in the northwestern Great Basin either disappeared completely or diminished in size during the Middle Holocene (Minckley et 95 al. 2004), smaller wetlands persisted in some parts of the Fort Rock Basin. Jenkins et al.
(2004a:16) divide the Middle Holocene into two distinct periods based largely on differences in environmental conditions: (1) the Lunette Lake Period; and (2) the Bergen
Period. The Lunette Lake Period lasted from 7600 to 6000 cal BP and is defined by general aridity. The Bergen Period began ~6000 cal BP and stretched into the Late
Holocene. This period was characterized by increased moisture and the return of more stable lakes and marshes (Jenkins et al. 2004a; Minckley et al. 2004). The Lunette Lake
Period was characterized by shorter-term seasonal occupations in the Fort Rock Basin where groups harvested resources before moving on. In contrast, once conditions began to improve during the Bergen Period, permanent village sites emerged (Jenkins et al.
2004a).
The Lunette Lake Period
Two stratified dune sites in the Fort Rock Basin provide information about prehistoric land-use strategies during the early Middle Holocene: the Bowling Dune Site and the Locality III Site (Jenkins 2004; Jenkins et al. 2004a, 2004b). These sites lie within a few kilometers of each other. The Locality III Site is located on the northern end of Lunette Lake (Jenkins et al. 2004b) while the Bowling Dune Site is located on a large dune near a secondary channel of the main Silver Lake-Fort Rock channel system (Figure
4.1). The Middle Holocene components at both sites began ~8000 cal BP (Jenkins 2004;
Jenkins et al. 2004b). These locations were used seasonally as intensive resource- 96
Figure 4.1. Fort Rock Basin sites mentioned in the text (adapted from Moessner 2004).
gathering locales. Occupations were probably short due to decreased productivity during the more arid early Middle Holocene (Jenkins 2004; Jenkins et al. 2004b). Both sites are situated ~50 m lower in elevation and at least 10 km from the nearest Fort Rock Basin caves and shelters that saw extensive use during the TP/EH. This use of remaining lower- elevation resource patches as residential hubs may explain why cave and rockshelter sites were abandoned: remaining wetlands became important locations from which to gather 97 resources – locations that were no longer adjacent to caves and rockshelters which afford excellent preservation of perishable artifacts such as sandals (Jenkins et al. 2004a:16).
The Bergen Period
As conditions improved in the Fort Rock Basin ~6000 cal BP (Minckley et al.
2004), groups settled into longer-term marsh-side residences and exploited resources more intensively (Jenkins et al. 2004a). This shift is apparent at the Locality III and
Bowling Dune sites. After ~6000 cal BP, groups began to construct large cache pits to store either food (e.g., dried fish) or possibly gear required to procure food (e.g., nets)
(Jenkins 2004; Jenkins et al. 2004a, 2004b). While these sites were used more intensively than during the preceding Lunette Lake Period, it does not appear that they served as year-round occupations (Jenkins 2004; Jenkins et al. 2004a, 2004b). Instead, they probably served as resource procurement and processing locales where food and gear were stored in advance of being transported to aggregation centers located nearby.
Such centers include the Bergen, Big M, and DJ Ranch sites (see Figure 4.1).
There, groups constructed substantial residential structures suggesting considerable investment in place, intensively processed plant and animal resources, and produced lithic tools (Helzer 2004; Jenkins 1994; Jenkins et al. 2004a; Moessner 2004). Olivella shell beads suggest that groups at those sites were engaged in widespread exchange networks that included groups living on the Pacific Coast. The presence of hearths inside structures and abundant storage pits suggest that the Bergen, Big M, and DJ Ranch sites were used for most, if not all, of the year during the Bergen Period. 98
A similar pattern to that observed in Oregon’s Fort Rock Basin occurred in
Surprise Valley in northeastern California. There, populations aggregated near dependable water sources during the Middle Holocene and as was the case at the sites in the Fort Rock Basin, groups constructed substantial, semi-subterranean “pit” houses near permanent springs and streams on the valley floor (O’Connell 1975).
As mentioned in Chapter 1, lowland water sources were not the only places that attracted Middle Holocene groups. Fagan (1974) demonstrated that upland spring sites between Warner and Catlow valleys contained an abundance of Northern Side-notched points suggesting that those areas were used more intensively as conditions deteriorated in the basins below. Like the small wetlands in the centers of wide valleys occupied during the Middle Holocene, those upland springs are not situated near the caves and rockshelters in which most sandals have been recovered.
Collectively, these examples illustrate that Middle Holocene groups in the northwestern Great Basin were tethered to reliable water sources typically situated far from the caves and rockshelters occupied during the TP/EH. This change in land-use likely accounts for the Middle Holocene gaps in the radiocarbon sequences of Multiple
Warp and Spiral Weft sandals: groups simply did not use locations where perishable artifacts preserve during that period. As my analysis of the records of sandal-bearing caves and rockshelters shows, groups eventually returned to such places and when they did, sandals reappear in the material record.
The Late Holocene brought the return of “good” times in the northwestern Great
Basin. Many of the major wetlands witnessed resurgences (e.g., Paulina Marsh, Warner
Valley) and nearby caves and rockshelters (e.g., the Connley Caves, LSP-1) were 99 subsequently reoccupied (Bedwell 1973; Jenkins et al. 2004a; Kennedy and Smith 2016).
Late Holocene groups not only reoccupied places previously abandoned during the
Middle Holocene, they also began to occupy upland areas intensively (e.g., Boulder
Village Uplands) (Byram 1994; Jenkins and Brashear 1994). Occupation at Bergen
Period village sites persisted during the initial Late Holocene, and other lowland villages
(e.g., Carlon Village) began to be used (Jenkins 1994; Jenkins et al. 2004a). Late
Holocene groups occupying a wide variety of settings, including sandal-bearing sites, seems to reflect substantial population growth during this period (Grayson 2011;
Louderback et al. 2010). Both the improving climate and population growth of the Late
Holocene may explain why most sandal-bearing sites were reoccupied in the northwestern Great Basin after the end of the Middle Holocene.
100
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
In this thesis, I focused on large gaps in the radiocarbon sequences of Multiple
Warp and Spiral Weft sandals in the northwestern Great Basin. Prior to my research, the gaps in the dated samples of Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandals spanned ~4000 and
~6600 calendar years, respectively. Both gaps start around the beginning of the Middle
Holocene (~8500 cal BP) and last into the Late Holocene. A relatively small number of sandals (25 Multiple Warp and 20 Spiral Weft) had been dated prior to my work and it was unclear if the gaps were the result of sampling error or instead signaled changes in human behavior (e.g., land-use, technology, ethnolinguistic spreads, etc.). I evaluated the existing sandal radiocarbon sequences, analyzed and radiocarbon-dated 24 additional sandals from three sites, and critically evaluated chronological data (radiocarbon date sequences and projectile point frequencies) from sandal-bearing sites to test three hypotheses: (H0) the gaps are a product of insufficient numbers of dated specimens; (H1) the gaps reflect Middle Holocene hiatuses at sandal-bearing sites; and (H2) the popularity of sandal types in the region waxed and waned during the Holocene.
In Chapter 1, I reviewed how changing climatic conditions beginning during the
Early Holocene and continuing into the Middle Holocene prompted changes in human behavior in the northwestern Great Basin. During the Middle Holocene, groups became tethered to reliable water sources, forgoing the caves and rockshelters they had previously occupied. I also reviewed sandal technology in the region, beginning ~11,000 101 cal BP with the distinctive Fort Rock type and moving through subsequent Multiple
Warp, Spiral Weft, and V-twined types. I discussed the defining attributes, age ranges, and geographic distributions of each type. Finally, I highlighted unresolved questions regarding sandal technology in the northwestern Great Basin – most notably the gaps in the radiocarbon sequences of Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandals.
In Chapter 2, I presented the materials and methods used to evaluate the hypotheses; these included 24 sandals from three sites in the northwestern Great Basin
(Last Supper Cave, LSP-1, and South Warner Cave) selected for radiocarbon dating. I described the diagnostic attributes of these sandals. I reviewed the chronological data from other sites in the region where Multiple Warp and/or Spiral Weft sandals have been found and dated. These data include all previously dated sandals, all radiocarbon dates on other materials, and diagnostic projectile point samples, if available. I assigned projectile point types to time-sensitive categories using Oetting’s (1994) chronology for the northwestern Great Basin. I assigned sandal-bearing sites to arbitrary categories (good, bad, and ugly) based on the quality of data available. In the remainder of the chapter, I discussed the methods used to evaluate the gaps in the Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft radiocarbon sequences. First, I used a method developed by Rhode et al. (2014) to evaluate the probability that gaps in radiocarbon sequences are the result of sampling error. Second, I constructed summed probability distributions for each sandal-bearing site with sufficient data available (these included sites from all three arbitrary categories).
Each figure included individual sandal dates, a summed probability distribution of other dated materials, and a summed probability distribution of all dated materials. Finally, I created histograms to display the frequencies of time-sensitive projectile points. 102
In Chapter 3, I presented the results of my evaluations of sandal radiocarbon sequences, new radiocarbon dates for the additional 24 sandals, and my evaluations of the chronological data for sandal-bearing sites. Rhode et al.’s (2014) method revealed that the large sandal gaps are unlikely to occur due to chance alone and that shifts in human behavior (e.g., site abandonment, technological change) are more likely responsible.
Additional evidence for that interpretation was provided by the additional sandal dates, which increased the sample of dated sandals by more than 50 percent but did not appreciably decrease the gaps in the radiocarbon sequences of either sandal type. My critical evaluation of chronological data from sandal-bearing sites revealed that there is evidence for Middle Holocene hiatuses at almost all of them. Two exceptions to this trend exist: (1) Dirty Shame Rockshelter displays a hiatus but it begins late in the Middle
Holocene (~6500 cal BP) and ends during the Late Holocene (~3000 cal BP); and (2)
Crypt Cave contained a dog burial dated to ~7300 cal BP but shows prolonged gaps on either side suggesting that it was an isolated event. All dated Multiple Warp and Spiral
Weft sandals from the sites correspond with other dated material from the sites, indicating that the sandals were deposited during periods of more substantial site occupation.
Summary of Interpretations
Collectively, my results support H1: gaps in the Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft radiocarbon sequences are a function of Middle Holocene hiatuses at sandal-bearing sites.
Due to the generally arid conditions during the Middle Holocene in the northwestern 103
Great Basin, groups appear to have abandoned caves and rockshelters as such places became further removed from remaining wetlands (Aikens and Jenkins 1994; Bedwell
1973; Jenkins et al. 2004a; Kennedy and Smith 2016). Groups aggregated around remaining springs and marshes in both lowland and upland settings. The Fort Rock Basin provides several examples of such sites. The Bowling Dune and Locality III sites represent resource-procurement camps used seasonally throughout the Middle Holocene
(Jenkins 2004; Jenkins et al. 2004a, 2004b). Around 6000 cal BP, groups began to construct substantial cache pits at those sites to store either food or tools (Jenkins 2004;
Jenkins et al. 2004a, 2004b). Lowland villages containing large “pit” houses including the Bergen, Big M, and DJ Ranch sites also appeared around this time and continued to be occupied into the Late Holocene (Helzer 2004; Jenkins 1994; Jenkins et al. 2004a;
Moessner 2004). Upland spring sites located between Warner and Catlow valleys contain a high frequency of Northern Side-notched points, suggesting that they were most intensively used during the Middle Holocene (Fagan 1974). These open-air aggregation sites suggest that the gaps in Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft radiocarbon sequences are a function of groups residing in areas where perishable artifacts do not preserve. When climatic conditions improved during the Late Holocene, groups once again returned to caves and rockshelters and sandals returned to the records at many such sites.
My results do not support either H0 or H2. Rhode et al.’s (2014) method of analyzing radiocarbon sequences suggested that the large gaps are unlikely to occur in uniform-frequency sequences (i.e., due to chance alone). In light of this realization and the fact that the additional sandals I dated did not significantly shorten the gaps, I rejected
H0. As for H2, all dated sandals were deposited during times of occupation at the sites and 104 none were deposited during hiatuses, suggesting that the gaps are a function of hiatuses not fluctuations in popularity.
Future Research Directions
Several topics for future inquiry have emerged as part of this research. Most notably, it has reinforced the need for a critical evaluation of the potentially overly- inclusive Multiple Warp type definition (Barker 2009; Connolly and Barker 2004). It is possible that the presence of this sandal type throughout the Holocene is due to superficially similar types being lumped together. Cressman (1942) recognized variation in the Multiple Warp type in regards to its binding system (i.e., weft loops versus running loops); however, he did not split them into multiple types. Another important issue that warrants future attention is the abrupt end of Fort Rock sandal production ~9200 cal BP and subsequent appearance of both the Multiple Warp and Spiral Weft sandal types – a phenomenon that may represent a population replacement (Connolly and Barker 2004).
The apparent continuity between Fort Rock, Multiple Warp, and V-twined sandal construction techniques also merits attention as the shared attributes of those types and the fact that they sequentially span the Holocene may indicate that they represent a technological tradition. Finally, how the technologically distinct Spiral Weft type relates to the other sandals of the region remains unresolved. Further research related to these topics will allow researchers to better understand the lives of the people who made and wore the distinctive sandals of the northwestern Great Basin.
105
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, K.D., T. Goebel, K.E. Graf, G.M. Smith, A.J. Camp, R.W. Briggs, and D. Rhode 2008 Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Lake-Level Fluctuations in the Lahontan Basin, Nevada: Implications for the Distribution of Archaeological Sites. Geoarchaeology 23(5):608-643.
Adovasio, J.M. 1970 The Origin, Development and Distribution of Western Archaic Textiles. Tebiwa: The Journal of the Idaho State University Museum 13(2):1-40. 2010 Basketry Technology: A Guide to Identification and Analysis. 2nd ed. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Adovasio, J.M., and G.F. Fry 1972 An Equilibrium Model for Culture Change in the Great Basin. In Great Basin Cultural Ecology: A Symposium, edited by D.D. Fowler, pp. 67-72. Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences No. 8, Reno, Nevada.
Aikens, C.M. 1970 Hogup Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 93, Salt Lake City.
Aikens, C.M., D.L. Cole, and R. Stuckenrath 1977 Excavations at Dirty Shame Rockshelter Southeastern Oregon. Tebiwa: Miscellaneous Papers of the Idaho State University Museum of Natural History 4, Pocatello.
Aikens, C.M., and D.L. Jenkins 1994 Environment, Climate, Subsistence, and Settlement: 11,000 Years of Change in the Fort Rock Basin, Oregon. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C.M. Aikens and D.L. Jenkins, pp.1-20. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.
Andrews, R.L, J.M. Adovasio, and R.C. Carlisle 1986 Perishable Industries from Dirty Shame Rockshelter, Malheur County, Oregon. Ethnology Monographs No. 9, University of Pittsburgh and University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 34 (joint publication).
106
Antevs, E. 1948 The Great Basin, with Emphasis on Glacial and Postglacial Times: Climate Changes and Pre-White Man. Bulletin of the University of Utah 38(20): 168–191.
Bacon, C.R. 1983 Eruptive History of Mount Mazama and Crater Lake Caldera, Cascade Range, USA. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 18(1):57- 115.
Barker, J.P., C. Ellis-Pinto, and D. Valentine 2011 Looting at Elephant Mountain Cave. Nevada Archaeologist 24:1-10.
Beck, C. 1995 Functional Attributes and the Differential Persistence of Great Basin Dart Forms. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 17(2):222- 243.
Beck, C., and G.T. Jones 1997 The Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Archaeology of the Great Basin. Journal of World Prehistory 11(2):161-236.
Bedwell, S.F. 1973 Fort Rock Basin: Prehistory and Environment. University of Oregon Books, Eugene.
Bettinger, R.L. 1991 Aboriginal Occupation at High Altitude: Alpine Villages in the White Mountains of Eastern California. American Anthropologist 93:656-679.
Bettinger, R.L., and R.E. Taylor 1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Sequences of the Great Basin in Interior Southern California. Nevada Archaeological Survey Research Paper 5:1-26.
Binford, L.R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems an Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.
Byram, R.S. 1994 Holocene Settlement Changes in the Boulder Village Uplands. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology since Cressman, edited by C.M. Aikens and D.L. Jenkins, pp. 369-384. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.
107
Connolly, T.J. 1994 Prehistoric Basketry from the Fort Rock Basin and Vicinity. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology since Cressman, edited by C.M. Aikens and D.L. Jenkins, pp. 63-83. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene. 2013 Implications of New Radiocarbon Ages on Coiled Basketry from the Northern Great Basin. American Antiquity 78(2):373-384.
Connolly, T.J., C.S. Fowler, and W.J. Cannon 1998 Radiocarbon Evidence Relating to Northern Great Basin Basketry Chronology. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 20(1):88-100.
Connolly, T.J., and W.J. Cannon 1999 Comments on America’s Oldest Basketry. Radiocarbon 41(3):309-313. 2000 Basketry Chronology of the Pre-Mazama Period in the Northern Great Basin. Paper presented at the 27th Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Ogden, UT.
Connolly, T.J., and J.P. Barker 2004 Basketry Chronology of the Early Holocene in the Northern Great Basin. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by D.L. Jenkins, T.J. Connolly, and C.M. Aikens, pp. 241-250. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.
Cressman, L.S. 1942 Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. 1943 Results of Recent Archaeological Research in the Northern Great Basin Region of South Central Oregon. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 86(2):236-246. 1951 Western Prehistory in the Light of Carbon-14 Dating. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7(3):289-313.
Cressman, L.S., H. Williams, and A.D. Krieger 1940 Early Man in Oregon: Archaeological Studies in the Northern Great Basin. University of Oregon Monographs. Studies in Anthropology No. 3. Eugene, OR.
108
Dansie, A.J., and W.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 B.T. Lepper and R. Bonnichsen, pp. 55-63. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M University, College Station.
Eiselt, B.S. 1997 Fish Remains from the Spirit Cave Paleofecal Material: 9,400 Year Old Evidence for Great Basin Utilization of Small Fishes. Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 40(1):117-139.
Elston, R.G. 1982 Good Times, Hard Times: Prehistoric Culture Change in the Western Great Basin. In Man and the Environment in the Great Basin, edited by D.B. Madsen and J.F. O'Connell, pp. 186-206. SAA Papers, No. 2. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.
Fagan, J.L. 1974 Altithermal Occupation of Spring Sites in the Northern Great Basin. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 6, Eugene.
Felling, D.C. 2015 Paleoindian Settlement Strategies Across Time and Space in the Northwestern Great Basin: Lithic Technological Organization at Last Supper Cave, Nevada. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.
Fiedel, S.J., and J.E. Morrow 2012 Comment on “Clovis and Western Stemmed: Population Migration and the Meeting of Two Technologies in the Intermountain West” by C. Beck and G.T. Jones. American Antiquity 77(2):376-385.
Fowler, C.S., and W.J. Cannon 1992 Catlow Twine and Warner Valley Prehistory. Paper presented at the 23rd Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Boise, ID.
Fowler, C.S., E.M. Hattori, and A.J. Dansie 2000 Ancient Matting from Spirit Cave, Nevada: Technical Implications. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage, Archaeological Textile Research In the Americas, edited by P.B. Drooker and L.D. Webster, pp. 119-139. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
109
Graf, K.E. 2009 “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly:” Evaluating the Radiocarbon Chronology of the Middle and Late Upper Paleolithic in the Enisei River Valley, South-Central Siberia. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:694- 707. Grant, J. 2008 An Archaeobotanical Record of Early-Mid Holocene Plant Use from Deposits at Last Supper Cave, Northwestern Nevada. Paper presented at st the 31 Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Portland, OR.
Grayson, D.K. 1979 Mount Mazama, Climatic Change, and Fort Rock Basin Archaeofaunas. In Volcanic Activity and Human Ecology, edited by P.D. Sheets and D.K. Grayson, pp. 427-458. Academic Press, New York. 1988 Danger Cave, Last Supper Cave, and Hanging Rock Shelter: The Faunas. Anthropological Papers Vol. 66, Pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1993 The Desert’s Past: A Natural Prehistory of the Great Basin. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 2005 A Brief History of Great Basin Pikas. Journal of Biogeography 32:2101- 2111. 2011 The Great Basin: A Natural Prehistory. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hanes, R.C. 1988 Lithic Assemblages of Dirty Shame Rockshelter: Changing Traditions in the Northern Intermontane. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 40, Eugene.
Hattori, E.M., C.S. Fowler, and J.P. Barker 2000 Prehistoric Perishable Artifact Manufacture and Use in the Western Great Basin. Paper presented at the 27th Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Ogden, UT.
Heizer, R.F., and A.D. Krieger 1956 The Archaeology of Humboldt Cave, Churchill County, Nevada. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 47(1):1-190.
Helzer, M.M. 2003 Redmond Caves Archaeological Project An Interim Report: Spring 2003. State Museum of Anthropology, University of Oregon. Eugene.
110
2004 Archaeological Investigations at the Bergen Site: Middle Holocene Lakeside Occupations Near Fort Rock, Oregon. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology in the Northern Great Basin, edited by D.L. Jenkins, T.J. Connolly, and C.M. Aikens, pp. 77-93. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.
Hockett, B.S. 2007 Nutritional Ecology of Late Pleistocene-to-Middle Holocene Subsistence in the Great Basin: Zooarchaeological Evidence from Bonneville Estates Rockshelter. In Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic?: Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition, edited by K.E. Graf and D.N. Schmitt, pp. 204-230. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Holmer, R.N. 1978 A Mathematical Typology for Archaic Projectile Points of the Eastern Great Basin. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Hurley, W.M. 1979 Prehistoric Cordage: Identification of Impressions on Pottery. Taraxacum, Washington, D.C.
Jenkins, D.L. 1994 Archaeological Investigations at Three Wetlands Sites in the Silver Lake Area of the Fort Rock Basin. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology since Cressman, edited by C.M. Aikens and D.L. Jenkins, pp. 213-258. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene. 2004 The Grasshopper and the Ant: Middle Holocene Occupation and Storage Behavior at the Bowling Dune Site in the Fort Rock Basin, Central Oregon. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology in the Northern Great Basin, edited by D.L. Jenkins, T.J. Connolly, and C.M. Aikens, pp. 123-155. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.
Jenkins, D.L., and A. Brashear 1994 Excavations at Four Habitation Sites in the Boulder Village Uplands: a Preliminary Report. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology since Cressman, edited by C.M. Aikens and D.L. Jenkins, pp. 431-484. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.
111
Jenkins, D.L., T.J. Connolly, and C.M. Aikens 2004a Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology in the Northern Great Basin: Dynamic Natural and Cultural Ecologies. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology in the Northern Great Basin, edited by D.L. Jenkins, T.J. Connolly, and C.M. Aikens, pp.1-20. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.
Jenkins, D.L., M.S. Droz, and T.J. Connolly 2004b Geoarchaeology of Wetland Settings in the Fort Rock Basin, South Central Oregon. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology in the Northern Great Basin, edited by D.L. Jenkins, T.J. Connolly, and C.M. Aikens, pp. 31-52. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.
Jenkins, D.L., L.G. Davis, T.W. Stafford, Jr., P.F. Campos, T.J. Connolly, L.S. Cummings, M. Hofreiter, B.S. Hockett, K. McDonough, I. Luthe, P.W. O’Grady, K.J. Reinhard, M.E. Swisher, F. White, B. Yates, R.M. Yohe II, C. Yost, and E. Willerslev 2013 Geochronology, Archaeological Context, and DNA at the Paisley Caves. In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by K.E. Graf, C.V. Ketron, and M.R. Waters, pp. 485-510. Texas A&M Press, College Station.
Jenkins, D.L., L.G. Davis, T.W. Stafford Jr., P.F. Campos, B. Hockett, G.T. Jones, L.S. Cummings, C. Yost, T.J. Connolly, R.M. Yohe II, S.C. Gibbons, M. Raghavan, M. Rasmussen, J.L.A. Paijmans, M. Hofreiter, B.M. Kemp, J.L. Barta, C. Monroe, M.T.P. Gilbert, and E. Willerslev 2012 Clovis Age Western Stemmed Projectile Points and Human Coprolites at the Paisley Caves. Science 337(6091):223-228.
Jones, G.T., C. Beck, E.E. Jones, and R.E. Hughes 2003 Lithic Source Use and Paleoarchaic Foraging Territories in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68(1):5-38.
Kirner, D.L., R. Burky, K. Selsor, D. George, R.E. Taylor, and J.R. Southon 1997 Dating the Spirit Cave Mummy: The Value of Reexamination. Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 40(1):54-56.
Kennedy, J.D., and G.M. Smith 2016 Paleoethnobotany at the LSP-1 Rockshelter, Southcentral Oregon: Assessing the Diversity of Plant Foods in Holocene Diet. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5:640-648.
112
Layton, T.N. 1970 High Rock Archaeology: An Interpretation of the Prehistory of the Northwestern Great Basin. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge.
Layton, T.N., and J.O. Davis 1978 Last Supper Cave: Early Post-Pleistocene Cultural History and Paleoecology in the High Rock Country of the Northwestern Great Basin. MS on file at the Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno. Lindström, S. 1990 Submerged Tree Stumps as Indicators of Mid-Holocene Aridity in the Lake Tahoe Region. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 12(2):146-157.
Martin, P.S., G.I. Quimby, and D. Collier 1947 Indians Before Columbus: Twenty Thousand Years of American History Revealed by Archaeology. University of Chicago Press.
Middleton, E.S., G.M. Smith, W.J. Cannon, and M.F. Ricks 2014 Paleoindian Rock Art: Establishing the Antiquity of Great Basin Carved Abstract Petroglyphs in the Northern Great Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science 43:21-30.
Minckley, T.A., P.J. Bartlein, and J.J. Shinker 2004 Paleoecological Response to Climate Change in the Great Basin since the Last Glacial Maximum. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by D.L. Jenkins, T.J. Connolly, and C.M. Aikens, pp. 21-30. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.
Minckley, T.A., C. Whitlock, and P.J. Bartlein 2007 Vegetation, Fire, and Climate History of the Northwestern Great Basin during the last 14,000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews 26:2167-2184.
Moessner, J. 2004 DJ Ranch: A Mid- to Late-Holocene Occupation Site in the Fort Rock Valley, South-Central Oregon. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology in the Northern Great Basin, edited by D.L. Jenkins, T.J. Connolly, and C.M. Aikens, pp. 95-122. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.
113
Napton, K.L. 1997 The Spirit Cave Mummy, Coprolite Investigations. Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 40(1):97-104.
O’Connell, J.F. 1971 The Prehistory of Surprise Valley. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 4.
Oetting, A.C. 1994 Chronology and Time Markers in the Northwestern Great Basin: the Chewaucan Basin Cultural Chronology. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology since Cressman, edited by C.M. Aikens and D.L. Jenkins, pp. 41-62. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.
Orr, P.C. 1952 Preliminary Excavations of Pershing County Caves. Bulletin of the Department of Archaeology, Nevada State Museum 1:1-21. 1956 Pleistocene Man in Fishbone Cave, Pershing County, Nevada. Bulletin of the Department of Archaeology, Nevada State Museum 2:1-20. 1974 Notes on the Archaeology of the Winnemucca Caves. In Collected Papers on Aboriginal Basketry, edited by D.R. Tuohy and D.L. Rendall, pp. 98 148. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 16. Carson City.
Orr, P.C., and R. Berger 1965 Radiocarbon Age of a Nevada Mummy. Science 148(3676):1466-1467.
Pattee, D. 2014 A Changing Valley, a Changing People: The Prehistoric Occupation of Northern Warner Valley, Oregon. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.
Pinson, A.O. 2007 Artiodactyl Use and Adaptive Discontinuity Across the Paleoarchaic Archaic Transition in the 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. 187-203. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Plager, S., M.G. Plew, and C.A. Willson 2006 The Archaeology of Antelope Creek Overhang, Southeastern Oregon. Monographs in Archaeology, vol. 2. Department of Anthropology, Boise State University.
114
Poinar, H., S. Fiedel, C.E. King, A.M. Devault, K. Bos, M. Kuch, and R. Debruyne 2009 Comment on “DNA from Pre-Clovis Human Coprolites in Oregon, North America.” Science 325(5937):148.
Ramsey, C.B. 2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337-360.
Reimer, P.J., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J.W. Beck, P.G. Blackwell, C.B. Ramsey, C.E. Buck, H. Cheng, R.L. Edwards, M. Friedrich, P.M. Grootes, T.P. Guilderson, H. Haflidason, I. Hajdas, C. Hatté, T.J. Heaton, D.L. Hoffmann, A.G. Hogg, K.A. Hughen, K.F. Kaiser, B. Kromer, S.W. Manning, M. Niu, R.W. Reimer, D.A. Richards, E.M. Scott, J.R. Southon, R.A. Staff, C.S.M. Turney, and J. van der Plicht 2013 IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0-50,000 Years Cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869-1887.
Rhode, D., and L.A. Louderback 2007 Dietary Plant Use in the Bonneville Basin During the Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene transition. In Paleoindian of Paleoarchaic: Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition, edited by K.E. Graf and D.N. Schmitt, pp. 231-247. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Rhode, D.P., J. Brantingham, C. Perreault, and D.B. Madsen 2014 Mind the Gaps: Testing for Hiatuses in Regional Radiocarbon Date Sequences. Journal of Archaeological Science 52:567-577.
Rozaire, C.E. 1974 Analysis of Woven Materials from Seven Caves in the Lake Winnemucca Area, Pershing County, Nevada. In Collected Papers on Aboriginal Basketry, edited by D.R. Tuohy and D.L. Rendall, pp. 98-148. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 16. Carson City.
Sistiaga, A., F. Berna, R. Laursen, and P. Goldberg 2014 Steroidal Biomarker Analysis of a 14,000 Years Old Putative Human Coprolite from Paisley Cave, Oregon. Journal of Archaeological Science 41:813-817.
Sheppard, J.C., and R.M. Chatters 1976 Washington State University Natural Radiocarbon Measurements II. Radiocarbon 18(1):140-149.
115
Smith, G.M. 2010 Footprints Across the Black Rock: Temporal Variability in Prehistoric Foraging Territories and Toolstone Procurement Strategies in the Western Great Basin. American Antiquity 75(4):865-885.
Smith, G.M., P. Carey, E.S. Middleton, and J. Kielhofer 2012 Cascade Points in the Northern Great Basin: A Radiocarbon-dated Foliate Point Assemblage from Warner Valley, Oregon. North American Archaeologist 33(1):13-34.
Smith, G.M., J.P. Barker, E.M. Hattori, A. Raymond, and T. Goebel 2013 Points in Time: Direct Radiocarbon Dates on Great Basin Projectile Points. American Antiquity 78(3):580-594.
Smith, G.M., D.D. Pattee, J.B. Finley, J.L. Fagan, and E.J. Pellegrini 2014 A Stone Crescent from a Stratified, Radiocarbon-Dated Site in the Northern Great Basin. North American Archaeologist 35(3):257-276.
Smith, G.M., D.C. Felling, A.W. Taylor, and T.N. Layton 2015a Evaluating the Stratigraphic and Chronological Integrity of the Last Supper Cave Deposits. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 35(1):99-112.
Smith, G.M., D.C. Felling, T.A. Wriston, and D.D. Pattee 2015b The Surface Paleoindian Record of Northern Warner Valley, Oregon, and its Bearing on the Temporal and Cultural Separation of Clovis and Western Stemmed Points in the Northern Great Basin. Paleoamerica 1(4):360-373.
Smith G.M., A. Cherkinsky, C. Hadden, and A.P. Ollivier 2016a The Age and Origin of Olivella Beads from Oregon’s LSP-1 Rockshelter: The Oldest Marine Shell Beads in the Northern Great Basin. American Antiquity, in press.
Smith, G.M., A.P. Ollivier, J.P. Barker, A.J. Camp, D.C. Harvey, and H. Jones 2016b A Collection of Fiber Artifacts from Southcentral Oregon. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 36(1):149-159.
Steward, J.H. 1940 Native Cultures of the Intermontane (Great Basin) Area. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
116
Taylor, A.W., and J. Hutson 2012 Improved Chronology and Dietary Information for Last Supper Cave, rd Nevada. Paper presented at the 33 Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Stateline, NV.
Thomas, D.H. 1975 Review of Hogup Cave, by C.M. Aikens. American Antiquity 40(4):501-502. 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Joumal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):7-43. 2014 Alta Toquima: Why Did Foraging Families Spend Summers at 11,000 Feet? In Archaeology for All Times: Essays in Honor of Don D. Fowler, edited by N. Parezo and J. Janetski, pp. 130-148. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Thompson, R.S. 1992 Late Quaternary Environments in Ruby Valley, Nevada. Quaternary Research 37:1-15.
Tuohy, D.R., and A.J. Dansie 1997 New Information Regarding Early Holocene Manifestations in the Western Great Basin. Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 40(1):24-53.
Wilde, J.D. 1985 Prehistoric Settlements in the Northern Great Basin: Excavations and Collections Analysis in the Steens Mountain Area, Southeastern Oregon. Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.