The Prehistoric Occupation of Northern Warner Valley, Oregon

Home , Crump Lake (Oregon), Glass Buttes, Hart Lake (Oregon), Hart Mountain, Warner Valley

University of Nevada, Reno

A Changing Valley, a Changing People: The Prehistoric Occupation of Northern Warner Valley, Oregon

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Anthropology

Donald D. Pattee

Dr. Geoffrey M. Smith/Thesis Advisor

May, 2014

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by

DONALD D. PATTEE

entitled

A Changing Valley, a Changing People: The Prehistoric Occupation of Northern Warner Valley, Oregon

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Dr. Geoffrey M. Smith, Advisor

Dr. Christopher T. Morgan, Committee Member

Dr. Dick R. Tracy, Graduate School Representative

Marsha H. Read, Ph. D., Dean, Graduate School

May, 2014 i

ABSTRACT

Warner Valley, Oregon was occupied as early as the terminal Pleistocene

(~11,000 radiocarbon years ago [14C B.P.). Random and non-random pedestrian survey conducted over three field seasons by the Great Basin Paleoindian Research Unit

(GBPRU) in the northern portion of the valley, which has been designated the Northern

Warner Valley Study Area (NWVSA), has identified over 100 previously unrecorded sites dating to the Paleoindian and Archaic periods. This study considers all site data

(e.g., site size and location, types of tools present, lithic debitage attributes) as well as x- ray fluorescence data for 185 obsidian projectile points and debitage from the NWVSA.

Using these data, I test the hypothesis that a pronounced shift occurred in prehistoric lifeways of Paleoindian and Archaic groups there following the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. Results suggest that changes in subsistence strategies, occupation intensity, and lithic technological organization occurred, which are reflected in site and stone tool attributes.

DEDICATION

To my Mom and Dad, for encouraging me to do what I love. Without your countless sacrifice and guidance I would not be where I am today.

To my wife Melissa, for always being there for me through the many ups and downs of writing this thesis. Your love and support over the past two years have made all the difference.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the hard work and support of many people and organizations. First, I would like to thank the Great

Basin Paleoindian Research Unit (GBPRU) for employing me as well as offering me the opportunity to work in Warner Valley, Oregon, a place that I will remember fondly.

Second, I would like to thank the many students who participated in the 2011-2013 field seasons in northern Warner Valley. The prehistoric artifacts and sites they recorded over the three field seasons made my reconstruction of prehistoric lifeways there possible.

Finally, I would like to thank the Desert Research Institute (DRI), Am-Arcs of Nevada, and the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Graduate Student Association for providing valuable funding for my thesis research.

I would like to offer my most sincere thanks to the members of my committee.

Dick Tracy’s attention to detail challenged me to question the validity of my methods, which led to more robust interpretations of my data. His warm presence and thoughtful comments made each committee meeting a pleasure. Chris Morgan exercised remarkable patience and provided insight into all of my GIS and statistics related problems. The constructive criticism and helpful advice he consistently offered pushed me think more deeply about my data and to not give up when nothing seemed to work in ArcMap.

Geoff Smith went above and beyond in helping me throughout my coursework and thesis writing. He was always there to answer questions and provide feedback on my writing and/or interpretations. I am very grateful for his unwavering patience and the amount of time he devoted to ensuring that I was successful. Thank you, Geoff. iv

I am truly grateful for the many people that made my time at UNR a pleasure.

First, the energy that the faculty members here in the Department of Anthropology devoted to their students as well as their love for all things Anthropological made the department a warm and inviting place to learn. Second, Craig Skinner’s geochemical characterization of the numerous artifacts used in this thesis aided in my reconstruction of many important aspects of prehistoric lifeways in northern Warner Valley and ensured that my analysis went smoothly. Third, my friends here in Reno provided tremendous support over the past two years. I will not forget our weekly trips to the Little Waldorf or

Archie’s where we commiserated about the many challenges of graduate school. Finally, my family provided constant love and moral support. My Mom and Dad helped me to realize my dream and never doubted the decisions I made. My wife, Melissa, inspired me to work hard and helped me see problems from a different perspective. Her patience and optimism brightened each day no matter what challenges I faced. Thank you all.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... i

DEDICATION ...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... v

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 The Prehistory of the Northern Great Basin ...... 3 The Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Transition: 12,500-7,000 14C B.P...... 3 Climate ...... 3 Flora ...... 4 Fauna ...... 4 People ...... 6 Warner Valley ...... 8 The Early Archaic Period: 7,000-5,000 14C B.P...... 9 Climate ...... 9 Flora ...... 10 Fauna ...... 10 People ...... 10 Warner Valley ...... 11 The Middle Archaic Period: 5,000-2,000 14C B.P...... 12 Climate ...... 12 Flora ...... 12 Fauna ...... 12 People ...... 13 Warner Valley ...... 14 The Late Archaic Period: 2,000 14C B.P.-Contact and the Ethnographic Record of the Northern Great Basin ...... 14 Climate ...... 14 vi

Flora ...... 15 Fauna ...... 15 People ...... 15 Warner Valley ...... 17 Reconstructing Prehistoric Behavior in the Great Basin ...... 18 Mobility ...... 18 Occupation Span ...... 22 Land-use ...... 24 Summary ...... 26

CHAPTER 2: MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 27 Warner Valley: Physical Setting and Modern Biota ...... 27 The 2011-2013 Surveys of Northern Warner Valley ...... 29 Materials: NWVSA Survey Data ...... 32 Site Sample ...... 33 Diagnostic Projectile Points ...... 36 Great Basin Fluted Points ...... 39 Great Basin Stemmed Points ...... 39 Great Basin Concave Base Points ...... 40 Crescents ...... 40 Large Side-notched Points ...... 40 Elko Series Points ...... 41 Gatecliff Series Points...... 41 Rosegate Points ...... 41 Desert Side-notched Points ...... 41 Cottonwood Triangular Points ...... 42 Humboldt Points ...... 42 Unmodified Flake Collection ...... 42 Methods: Evaluating Changing Land-use in the NWVSA on a Local and Regional Scale ...... 44 Evaluating Changing Land-use at a Local Scale: Site Attributes and Debitage ...... 45 Site Area...... 45 Site Location ...... 46 Debitage: Amount and Type ...... 48 Evaluating Changing Land-use at a Local Scale: Lithic Tools ...... 48 vii

Projectile Points ...... 48 Bifaces ...... 49 Evaluating Changing Land-use at a Regional Scale ...... 50 Source Provenance Analysis ...... 51 Regional Projectile Point Frequencies ...... 54 Research Expectations ...... 54

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS ...... 58 Local Measures ...... 58 Site Area ...... 58 Site Distribution ...... 60 Site Distance Relationships ...... 61 Spatial Relationships in Site Distribution ...... 62 Lithic Debitage ...... 62 Debitage Amount ...... 62 Debitage Type ...... 63 Chipped Stone Tools ...... 64 Projectile Points ...... 64 Bifaces...... 65 Summary of Local Measure Results ...... 67 Regional Measures ...... 67 Projectile Points ...... 67 Distance...... 67 Source Diversity...... 70 Transport Direction ...... 71 Local vs Non-Local Toolstone: Projectile Points ...... 72 Unmodified Flakes ...... 73 Distance...... 73 Diversity ...... 73 Transport Direction ...... 76 Local vs Non-Local Toolstone: Unmodified Flakes ...... 78 Local vs. Non-Local Toolstone: Projectile Points and Unmodified Flakes ...... 79 Regional Projectile Point Frequencies ...... 80 viii

Summary of Results for Regional Measures ...... 81

CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION ...... 83 Diachronic Shifts in Local Lifeways ...... 83 Land-use in Northern Warner Valley ...... 83 Paleoindian Subsistence ...... 83 Archaic Subsistence ...... 85 Paleoindian Occupational Intensity ...... 86 Archaic Occupational Intensity...... 86 Prehistoric Mobility in Northern Warner Valley ...... 87 Lithic Tool Production...... 88 Summary of Prehistoric Lifeways in Northern Warner Valley on a Local Scale ...... 88 Diachronic Shifts in Regional Lifeways: The View from Northern Warner Valley..... 89 Lithic Conveyance Zones and Prehistoric Foraging Ranges ...... 89 Extent and Frequency of Movements ...... 89 Toolstone Transport Direction ...... 91 Regional Land-Use ...... 92 Paleoindian Land-use ...... 92 Archaic Land-use ...... 94 Summary of Prehistoric Lifeways in Northern Warner Valley on a Regional Scale ...... 95

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS ...... 97 Limitations and Future Research ...... 101

REFRENCES CITED ...... 103

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2.1 Single-/Multi-Component and Isolated Sites in the NWVSA ...... 33

TABLE 2.2 Projectile Point Types by Cultural Period ...... 39

TABLE 2.3 Diagnostic Projectile Point Sample from the NWVSA ...... 43

TABLE 2.4 Sites Selected for Unmodified Flake Collection ...... 44

TABLE 2.5 Flake Type Frequencies by Site ...... 44

TABLE 2.6 Summary of Expectations for the NWVSA Dataset ...... 57

TABLE 3.1 Site Areas by Cultural Period ...... 59

TABLE 3.2 Frequency of Sites Across Resource Zones in the NWVSA ...... 60

TABLE 3.3 Spatial Distribution of Sites in Each Resource Zone ...... 62

TABLE 3.4 Amount of Debitage by Cultural Period ...... 63

TABLE 3.5 Dominant Flake Types by Cultural Period ...... 64

TABLE 3.6 Expected and Observed Projectile Point Frequencies in the NWVSA ...... 65

TABLE 3.7 Lithic Tool Totals and BI/PBI Averages by Cultural Period ...... 66

TABLE 3.8 Geochemical Data for NWVSA Projectile Points ...... 68

TABLE 3.9 Average Transport Distances for Projectile Points by Cultural Period ...... 69

TABLE 3.10 Comparisons of Average Transport Distances of Projectile Points by Cultural Period ...... 69

TABLE 3.11 Average Source Diversity for Diagnostic Projectile Points ...... 70

TABLE 3.12 Comparisons by Cultural Period for the Average Source Diversity of Diagnostic Projectile Points ...... 70

TABLE 3.13 Direction of Toolstone for Diagnostic Projectile Points ...... 71 x

TABLE 3.14 Frequenceis of Local and Non-Local Toolstone Represented in Diagnostic Projectile Points from the NWVSA ...... 72

TABLE 3.15 Geochemical Sources for NWVSA Unmodified Flakes ...... 74

TABLE 3.16 Average Transport Distances for Unmodified Flakes in the NWVSA ...... 75

TABLE 3.17 Comparisons by Cultural Period for the Average Distances to Source of Unmodified Flakes in the NWVSA...... 75

TABLE 3.18 Average Source Diversity of Unmodified Flakes by Cultural Period in the NWVSA ...... 76

TABLE 3.19 Comparisons by Cultural Period for the Average Source Diversity of Unmodified Flakes in the NWVSA ...... 76

TABLE 3.20 Direction of Toolstone for Unmodified Flakes by Cultural Period ...... 76

TABLE 3.21 Direction of Toolstone for Paleoindian and Archaic Artifacts ...... 77

TABLE 3.22 Comparisons by Cultural Period for the Frequencies of Local/Non-Local Toolstone Represented in Unmodified Flakes in the NWVSA ...... 78

TABLE 3.23 Local vs Non-Local Toolstone for Paleoindian Projectile Points and Unmodified Flakes ...... 79

TABLE 3.24 Local vs Non-Local Toolstone for Archaic Projectile Points and Unmodified Flakes ...... 80

TABLE 3.25 Projectile Point Frequencies of the NWVSA and Nearby Study Areas ...... 81

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1 Location of study area and other important study areas in the northern Great Basin ...... 3

FIGURE 2.1 Warner Valley, Oregon ...... 29

FIGURE 2.2 The Northern Warner Valley Study Area divided by landform type ...... 32

FIGURE 2.3 Examples of diagnostic Paleoindian projectile points encountered in the NWVSA ...... 37

FIGURE 2.4 Examples of diagnostic Archaic projectile points encountered in the NWVSA ...... 38

FIGURE 3.1 Rose diagrams for the direction to source of diagnostic projectile points in the NWVSA ...... 72

FIGURE 3.2 Rose diagrams for the direction to source of unmodified flakes in the NWVSA ...... 77

FIGURE 3.3 Rose diagrams for the direction to source of all prehistoric artifacts in the NWVSA...... 78

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

The prehistoric record of the Great Basin has been marked by frequent and pronounced environmental changes that resulted in regional fluctuations in water availability, biotic productivity, and resource distribution (Beck and Jones 1997; Benson et al. 1990, Goebel et al. 2011, Grayson 2011; Hershler et al. 2002; Minckley et al. 2004;

Wigand and Rhode 2002). As such, Great Basin studies (e.g., Beck and Jones 1997,

2010; Jenkins et al. 2004; Jones et al. 2003, 2012; Kelly 2001) often center on hunter- gatherer adaptation to changing environmental conditions and how those adaptations are reflected in the archaeological record.

This thesis reports the results of my analysis of prehistoric sites located on the periphery of the northern Great Basin in Oregon’s Warner Valley. The northern Great

Basin comprises a large geographic subdivision of the region that features parts of southern Oregon, northeastern California, and northern Nevada (Figure 1.1). It features several lake basins including Warner Valley that experienced frequent environmental and cultural change during and after the Pleistocene-Holocene transition (~12,500-7,000 radiocarbon years before present [14C B.P.]). For this reason, the area holds high potential for analyzing prehistoric behavioral shifts across time.

According to Kelly (2001, 2007), behavioral ecology is a conceptual framework for researchers to use as a way to better understand relationships between the abundance and distribution of subsistence resources and the decisions hunter-gatherers make to 2 exploit those resources. From an archaeological standpoint, these decisions may be reflected in site distributions as well as lithic technological organization as suggested by

Kelly’s (2001) work in the Carson Desert and Stillwater Mountains. This study adheres to such a framework and explores how variable environmental conditions in Warner

Valley and the northern Great Basin affected hunter-gatherer decision-making. From this perspective, I test the hypothesis that a pronounced shift occurred in prehistoric lifeways in northern Warner Valley following the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. My analysis focuses on characterizing how Paleoindian (12,500-7,000 14C B.P.) and later Archaic

(7,000 14C B.P.-Contact) groups coped with changing environmental conditions and how this is reflected in settlement patterns and stone tool technology. I use survey data from the 2011-2013 field seasons collected by the Great Basin Paleoindian Research Unit

(GBPRU) to test my hypothesis by reviewing evidence for diachronic shifts in: (1) prehistoric settlement patterns; (2) lithic technological organization; and (3) the intensity to which northern Warner Valley was used by prehistoric groups. These data facilitate tracking behavior through time at both a local and regional scale. Regarding the former, they allow me to reconstruct how the project area was used across time. Regarding the latter, they allow me to consider how northern Warner Valley’s role in regional settlement and land-use systems may have varied diachronically.

In the remainder of this chapter, I outline the prehistory of the northern Great

Basin with specific emphasis on changing environmental conditions and cultural trends.

In conjunction with my discussion of regional patterns, I highlight previous studies in southern Warner Valley to situate prehistoric life-ways there within the broader context of the northern Great Basin. I conclude by discussing some of the methods that 3 researchers have used elsewhere to similarly infer prehistoric behavior from archaeological data. I emphasize studies of mobility, occupation span, and land-use and how such approaches hold the potential to help us better understand prehistoric behavior in northern Warner Valley.

Figure 1.1. Location of study area and other important study areas in the northern Great Basin. (1) Warner Valley; (2) Lake Abert-Chewaucan Basin; (3) Fort Rock Basin; (4) Malheur Lake Basin; and (5) Steens Mountain.

The Prehistory of the Northern Great Basin

The Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Transition: 12,500-7,000 14C B.P.

Climate. Although variable, the terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene transition

(herein referred to as the Paleoindian period) (12,500-7,000 14C B.P.) in the northern 4

Great Basin is often characterized as having generally cooler temperatures and increased precipitation as opposed to the generally warmer and drier conditions of the subsequent

Archaic periods (Beck and Jones 1997; Benson et al. 1990; Goebel et al. 2011; Grayson

2011). The shallow remnants of once substantial pluvial lakes dotted the landscape, creating extensive marsh systems as suggested by lake level reconstructions of pluvial lakes Chewaucan, Fort Rock, and Warner (Aikens and Jenkins 1994:7; Freidel 1994:36;

Minckley et al. 2004; Oetting 1989; Wriston and Smith 2012). A major event during this period was the Younger Dryas, which occurred from ~11,100 to 10,100 14C B.P. (Goebel et al. 2011; Madsen 2007). Researchers (e.g., Grayson 2011; Haynes 2009; Minckley et al. 2004) generally attribute this event to a southward shift in the jet stream due to the presence of the Laurentide ice sheet extending across Canada, which resulted in increased precipitation throughout the Great Basin. The Younger Dryas is generally correlated with pluvial lake expansion in the region (but see Bacon et al. 2006), which was especially pronounced in the Lahontan and Bonneville basins (Goebel et al. 2011).

Flora. Pollen samples and packrat middens from a number of sites in the northern Great Basin reflect a landscape that was generally dominated by grassy, sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) steppe intermixed with juniper (Juniperus spp.), white bark pine (Pinus albicaulis), and white fir (Abies concolor) woodlands distributed at elevations below their modern limits (Thompson 1990; Wigand et al. 1995; Wigand and

Rhode 2002). For example, pollen recovered from high elevation lakes such as Fish Lake and Wildhorse Lake in Steens Mountain indicate that between 13,000 and 8,000 14C B.P. grass and sagebrush pollen were below their average levels (Mehringer 1985). Lower pollen levels at higher elevations suggest that mesic plant communities were distributed 5 at lower elevations due to greater effective precipitation (Mehringer 1985). This same pattern is reflected in Minckley et al.’s (2007:2176) vegetal reconstruction at Patterson

Lake, where mesic plant communities were lower in elevation than today ~9,000 14C B.P.

Other parts of the landscape featured extensive marsh systems created by shallow pluvial lakes, indicated by high amounts of sedge pollen (Carex spp.) taken from sediments at

Bicycle Pond and Alkali Lake Valley in southern Oregon (Wigand and Rhode 2002:321).

Fauna. Faunal remains from stratified cave deposits in the Fort Rock Basin feature high frequencies of waterfowl, fish, and small mammals (Aikens and Jenkins

1994:8; Goebel et al. 2011). However, Pinson’s (2007) synthesis of faunal remains from multiple sites in the northern Great Basin including some in the Fort Rock Basin shows that artiodactyl frequencies are lower in Paleoindian assemblages than Archaic assemblages. She attributes these low frequencies to Paleoindians’ use of large, un- notched projectile points, which were not as accurate or lethal as later notched projectile points. Therefore, low success rates in killing large game may have dissuaded

Paleoindians from focusing on large game, but rather on wetland fauna, which could be dispatched more easily with nets or clubs (Pinson 2007). Broughton et al. (2008) instead attribute low artiodactyl frequencies at Bonneville and Lahontan basin sites to extreme seasonality during the Paleoindian period. Frequent oscillations reduced the growing seasons and productivity of plant communities that artiodactyl groups relied on, which may have reduced their numbers (Broughton et al. 2008). Perhaps a combination of high seasonality, unsuccessful hunting forays due to inefficient hunting technology, and hunter-gatherers placing higher importance on easier to attain resources such as 6 waterfowl and small mammals contributed to the low frequencies of artiodactyls at

Paleoindian sites.

People. The generally mild environmental conditions throughout the region immediately prior to the Younger Dryas appear to have coincided with the arrival of

Paleoindian hunter-gatherers. The timing of this colonization is primarily evidenced by

Jenkins et al.’s (2012) work at Paisley Caves in south-central Oregon. Those deeply stratified sites have yielded human coprolites and other organic material associated with

Great Basin stemmed (GBS) projectile points radiocarbon dated to 11,070-11,340 14C

B.P. (Jenkins et al. 2012:225). Those dates coincide with Beck and Jones’ (2010) synthesis of radiocarbon dates associated with GBS points in the northern Great Basin, which suggests that the point type ranges in age from 11,200 to 7,080 14C B.P., with the earliest dates occurring in the Fort Rock Basin (but see Goebel and Keene 2014 for a dismissal of most early GBS point dates). The deepest deposits at Paisley Caves feature human coprolites suggesting occupation of the site by 12,300 14C B.P. (Jenkins et al.

2012:227), which would reflect a “pre-Clovis” colonization of the region; however, this interpretation has been criticized. For example, Poiner et al. (2009) question the age of the coprolites and whether they are human based on the absence of associated cultural material and contamination from animals in higher strata or field and laboratory technicians. Additionally, Goldberg et al. (2009) suggest that the coprolites are not human, but instead resemble those produced by herbivores. To address these criticisms,

Jenkins et al. (2012) submitted samples to laboratories in Copenhagen and York where both confirmed that the coprolites contain human mitochondrial DNA. To test for contamination through leaching or mishandling, Jenkins et al. (2012) tested surrounding 7 sediments and the coprolites for modern DNA and the results suggest that the coprolites are not contaminated.

Occurring in small numbers and often as isolates in surface contexts, Great Basin fluted (GBF) points are also found in the northern Great Basin (Beck and Jones 2010).

The temporal and cultural relationship between fluted and stemmed points remains a contentious topic in Great Basin archaeology with debate focused on whether the two technologies pre- or post-date one another, were different components of the same toolkit, or occurred contemporaneously and represent two distinct Paleoindian cultural traditions in the Great Basin (Beck and Jones 2010, 2012, 2013; Bryan 1988; Davis et al.

2012; Fiedel and Morrow 2012). Much of the uncertainty surrounding GBF points can be attributed to a poor understanding of their antiquity in the region. For example, a single GBF point found in buried context at the Sunshine Locality in eastern Nevada has been dated to ≥10,320 14C B.P. (Beck and Jones 2010:95). A handful of other dates associated with GBF points in the region postdate Clovis points from elsewhere in North

America (Beck and Jones 2010). When considered with apparent early GBS point dates, some researchers (e.g., Beck and Jones 2010, 2012, 2013; Davis et al. 2012) argue that

GBS points pre-date or are coeval with GBF points. Additionally, studies comparing the lithic reduction sequences of fluted and stemmed projectile points (e.g., Beck and Jones

2010; Davis et al. 2012; Pendleton 1979) challenge the traditional view that GBS point technology was derived from GBF point technology (Willig and Aikens 1988) – a regional manifestation of the continent-wide “Clovis first” model. This has led some researchers (e.g., Beck and Jones 2010; Davis et al. 2012) to suggest that GBF and GBS points represent two distinct cultural traditions in the Great Basin; however, others (e.g., 8

Fiedel and Morrow 2012; Goebel and Keene 2014) question the validity of the earliest radiocarbon dates associated with GBS points as well as claims of differences in tool production techniques. Both GBF and GBS points were likely used as throwing or thrusting weapons (Beck and Jones 1997; Lafayette and Smith 2012).

As outlined above, limited fauna from early sites suggest that groups exploited a combination of wetland and upland resources (Aikens and Jenkins 1994; Grayson 2011;

Hockett 2007; Jenkins et al. 2004; Napton 1997; Oetting 1994; Pinson 2007). Groups appear to have occupied large foraging territories and generally practiced high residential mobility (Beck and Jones 1997; Christian 1997; Jones et al. 2003, 2012; Pinson 2011;

Smith 2010). Paleoindian settlement/subsistence organization has been modeled by

Jones et al. (2003) using Bettinger and Baumhoff’s (1982) traveler/processor continuum initially developed to model how later Numic speakers moved into the Great Basin.

Jones et al. (2003) suggest that Paleoindians behaved like travelers and frequently moved between productive resource patches targeting high-ranked resources. Pinson’s (2011) study of Paleoindian land-use in the northern Great Basin supports this view by presenting a model suggesting that groups foraged within large territories that incorporated multiple lake basins. Christian’s (1997) study of lithic assemblages from southern Oregon’s Hawksy Walksy Valley reflects a similar pattern of Paleoindian land- use as those suggested by both Jones et al. (2003) and Pinson (2011).

Warner Valley. Like other areas in the northern Great Basin during the

Paleoindian period, Warner Valley was once dominated by a large pluvial lake – Lake

Warner – which reached its highstand in northern Warner Valley during the terminal

Pleistocene (D. Weide 1975:273). By ~10,400 14 C B.P northern Warner Valley featured 9 marsh systems evidenced by Wriston and Smith’s (2012) work that used radiocarbon dates on organic material in fossil beach ridge profiles and surrounding sediments there.

Associated concentrations of GBS and GBF Paleoindian projectile points at surface sites near those ridges may suggest an initial occupation of northern Warner Valley by

Paleoindians ~10,400 14C B.P. That date corresponds with other radiocarbon dates associated with GBS points in the northern Great Basin. Other than the recent research conducted by Wriston and Smith (2012), the Paleoindian record of Warner Valley has largely gone unstudied until now.

The Early Archaic Period: 7,000-5,000 14C B.P.

Climate. During the Early Archaic Period (7,000-5,000 14C B.P.), environmental conditions rapidly deteriorated across the Great Basin. The generally cooler and wetter conditions during the Paleoindian Period were replaced with warmer temperatures and lower effective precipitation, resulting in the contraction and desiccation of pluvial lakes

(Grayson 2011; Jones et al. 2003; Louderback et al. 2011; Minckley et al. 2004; D.

Weide 1975; Wriston and Smith 2012; Young 2000). Intense drought conditions impacted the northern Great Basin, as indicated by the almost complete desiccation of pluvial lakes Fort Rock and Chewaucan and the substantial loss of surrounding marsh systems (Aikens and Jenkins 1994; Jenkins et al. 2004; Oetting 1989; Wigand et al.

1995). Minckley et al. (2004) attribute this intense drying episode to the loss of the

Laurentide ice sheet, which resulted in the jet stream moving northward to its present day location (Minckley et al. 2004). 10

Flora. Pollen records and packrat middens indicate that increased aridity throughout the region resulted in the redistribution of plant communities (Grayson 2011;

Wigand et al. 1995; Wigand and Rhode 2002). Around Steens Mountain in southern

Oregon, sagebrush communities in valley bottoms retreated to higher elevations and were replaced with drought-tolerant plants such as shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) and greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) (Grayson 2011; Mehringer 1985; Wigand et al.

1995). Evidence from the Warner Mountains and Dead Horse Rim located in south- central Oregon suggest that white fir and juniper forests moved higher as well (Minckley et al. 2004). Reduced biotic productivity of these woodlands resulted in patchy forest cover due to prolonged drought (Minckley et al. 2007).

Fauna. Grayson’s (1979) study of fauna from the Connley Caves suggests that a number of changes also occurred in the region’s fauna during this time. Waterfowl declined substantially with the loss of marsh systems. Small mammals such as pika

(Ochotona princeps) disappeared from lower elevations and were replaced by mammals that could tolerate xeric plant communities such as black-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus) (Grayson 1979). Similar to the Paleoindian period, artiodactyl frequencies remained low likely due to high seasonality and reduced growing seasons (Broughton et al. 2008; Grayson 1979). Declines in some mammals may also have been influenced by the eruption of Mt. Mazama in southern Oregon ~6,850 14C B.P., which blanketed the area in volcanic ash (Grayson 1979).

People. Coinciding with changing environmental conditions, hunter-gatherer populations declined substantially. This decline is indicated by low frequencies of archaeological sites and radiocarbon dates reflecting Early Archaic occupations (Aikens 11 and Jenkins 1994:8; Louderback et al. 2011). Evidence suggests that prehistoric populations exploited certain lake basins throughout the region less intensively than in the preceding Paleoindian Period and rather elected to intensify resources surrounding remaining water sources. General trends of low biotic productivity throughout the region prompted a greater reliance on lower-ranked resources (e.g., seeds) indicated by the presence of milling tools in Early Archaic assemblages surrounding the Lake Abert-

Chewaucan Basin (Oetting 1989:203). The presence of Large Side-notched projectile points in these assemblages suggests that hunting was an important component of hunter- gatherer subsistence during this time (Oetting 1989:203).

Warner Valley. Similar to regional environmental trends, Warner Valley also experienced increased aridity and a reduction in biotic productivity during the Early

Archaic period. Geomorphological work in northern Warner Valley indicates that pluvial

Lake Warner receded from the valley’s northern sub-basin by ~8,700 14C B.P., leading to a substantial reduction in the availability of water and wetland resources (D. Weide 1975;

Wriston and Smith 2012). D. Weide (1975) suggests that the recession of pluvial Lake

Warner permanently altered the topography of northern Warner Valley and resulted in the formation of marsh systems in the southern valley. With the absence of standing water, a mosaic of shadscale, greasewood, and sagebrush plant communities proliferated on the valley floor.

Previous archaeological research in the southern valley has tracked prehistoric occupation primarily from the Middle Archaic (5,000-2,000 14C B.P.) to the Late Archaic

(2,000 14C B.P. to Contact) periods, with the majority of work centered around modern shallow lakes and marshes and upland settings (Cannon et al. 1990; Eiselt 1998; Tipps 12

1998; M. Weide 1968; D. Weide 1975; Young 2000). As such, Warner Valley’s Early

Archaic record remains poorly understood.

The Middle Archaic Period: 5,000-2,000 14C B.P.

Climate. During the Middle Archaic Period (5,000-2,000 14C B.P.), prolonged drought conditions in the Great Basin came to an end with greater effective precipitation and cooler temperatures resulting in the resurgence of shallow lakes and increased marsh productivity (Grayson 2011; Minckley et al. 2004; Wigand and Rhode 2002; Wigand et al. 1995). Lakes in the Abert-Chewaucan and Fort Rock basins deepened and marsh systems around them expanded (Aikens and Jenkins 1994; Grayson 2011; Oetting 1989).

Flora. Valley bottoms dominated by xeric plant communities during the Early

Archaic Period became intermixed with mesic plant communities as sagebrush and grasses recolonized lower elevations (Grayson 2011; Minckley et al. 2004; Wigand and

Rhode 2002). Juniper, fir, and pine woodlands increased and expanded to lower elevations (Minckley et al. 2007; Wigand and Rhode 2002). Charcoal samples taken from Diamond Pond indicate that the expansion of western juniper woodlands to lower elevations began slowly ~5,000 14C B.P. and accelerated ~4,000 14C B.P. (Wigand et al.1995).

Fauna. Wetland expansions resulted in a rebound of fish and waterfowl populations reflected in faunal assemblages at sites like the Big M Site in the Fort Rock

Basin (Jenkins et al. 2004). The expansion of sagebrush, grass, and woodland communities to lower elevations led to artiodactyl range expansions and population 13 increases (Jenkins et al. 2004; Pinson 2007). Unlike previous periods, the Middle

Archaic Period was characterized by less pronounced seasonality, which also likely helped foster higher artiodactyl populations (Broughton et al. 2008). Increased artiodactyl remains, combined with more efficient hunting technology (e.g., notched projectile points), may explain why artiodactyl remains are more common at Middle

Archaic sites (Pinson 2007).

People. Increases in archaeological site frequencies in various lake basins indicate that regional population densities likely increased and hunter-gatherers exploited wetland resources to a higher degree than during the Early Archaic Period (Grayson

2011; Jenkins et al. 2004:18). Multiple lake basins feature habitation sites situated near the shorelines of resurgent shallow lakes, indicating a high degree of sedentism for at least some people at some times (Aikens and Jenkins 2004; Dean 2004; Oetting

1989:207). Lower-ranked resources (e.g., seeds and root crops from upland settings) became more important as indicated by increased milling stones in Middle Archaic assemblages (Cannon et al. 1990; Jenkins et al. 2004). Additionally, the region saw a technological shift from Large Side-notched to Elko and Gatecliff series projectile points that featured corner-notched hafting elements (Oetting 1989, 1994a). Based on breakage patterns and evidence of resharpening in a projectile point sample from Steens Mountain,

Beck (1995) suggests that corner-notched points had longer use-lives than their side- notched predecessors. Therefore, the greater reliability of corner-notched points may account for the proliferation of that distinct hafting technique throughout the northern

Great Basin during the Middle Archaic Period (Beck 1995). 14

Warner Valley. Previous research centered on modern shallow lakes and uplands in southern Warner Valley reflects similar patterns in Middle Archaic lifeways. M.

Weide’s (1968) analysis of settlement patterns indicates that the peripheries of shallow lakes/marshes were the primary focus of hunter-gatherers. She suggested that uplands were used to a lesser extent for seasonal large-game hunting and raw material acquisition

(M. Weide 1968). Cannon et al. (1990) and Tipps (1998) extended M. Weide’s (1968) model by arguing that uplands were commonly used for seasonal root, seed, and bulb collecting. Their model is supported by long-term upland habitation sites featuring rock rings, pit houses, and milling tools (Cannon et al. 1990).

The Late Archaic Period: 2,000 14C B.P.-Contact and the Ethnographic Record of the Northern Great Basin

Climate. Environmental conditions during the Late Archaic Period (2,000 14C

B.P.-Contact) were characterized by rapid fluctuations in temperature and effective precipitation. The period was punctuated most significantly by two climactic events beginning with the Medieval Climactic Anomaly, which occurred from 1,100 to 600 14C

B.P. (Bettinger 1999). Although highly variable, this event generally signaled a return to drought conditions throughout the northern Great Basin, declines in shallow lakes (e.g.,

Diamond Pond), and increased fire activity (Wigand and Rhode 2002). Immediately following this event, the Little Ice Age occurred between 500 and 150 14C B.P. (Bettinger

1999). The brief climactic event resulted in overall cooler temperatures and increased precipitation that ended regional drought conditions and led to a rebound of shallow lakes

(Wigand and Rhode 2002). 15

Flora. Plant communities and woodlands experienced continual contraction and expansion due to the rapidly changing environment. In the 900 years before the

Medieval Climactic Anomaly, mesic plant communities and woodlands were distributed at lower elevations surrounding resurgent shallow lakes and marshes (Grayson 2011;

Wigand and Rhode 2002). Increased aridity at the onset of the Medieval Climactic

Anomaly resulted in the retreat of these communities to higher elevations and an increase in salt tolerant plants at lower elevations (Wigand and Rhode 2002). Re-expansion of juniper woodlands occurred with the increased precipitation and cooler temperatures of the Little Ice Age (Wigand and Rhode 2002; Wigand et al. 1995).

Fauna. Although the region experienced two pronounced climactic shifts, faunal assemblages from the Boulder Village Site in the Fort Rock Basin indicate that artiodactyl frequencies remained high (Pinson 2007). Radiocarbon dates at stratified sites in southern Oregon and Native American oral histories indicate that high frequencies of artiodactyls continued into the latter part of the Late Archaic Period (~450-150 14C B.P.) with the widespread distribution of bison in the northern Great Basin occurring at that time (Grayson 2006).

People. Site locations and assemblages in the northern Great Basin suggest that subsistence activities varied between lake basins. The highest frequencies of upland sites in the Fort Rock Basin occurred during the Late Archaic period, indicating that wetland resources became less reliable there due to rapidly changing environmental conditions

(Jenkins et al. 2004). Evidence for seed and root processing at the Boulder Village Site reflects a greater reliance on upland resources (Brashear 1994:419). The presence of rock-ring structures at the site also suggests a high degree of sedentism and lower-ranked 16 resource processing (Brashear 1994; Jenkins and Brashear 1994). Conversely, Late

Archaic sites in the Lake Abert-Chewaucan Basin are generally situated at lower elevations along modern floodplains, rivers, and marshes, suggesting that reliable water sources were available and that groups consumed lacustrine resources there (Oetting

1989:226). Additionally, groups exploited upland berries, seeds, and roots, but not to the extent that apparently occurred in the Fort Rock Basin (Oetting 1989:226).

Shifts in material culture occurred with groups utilizing Rosegate projectile points during the earlier part of the Late Archaic Period (~2,000-700 14C B.P.) and Desert Side- notched and Cottonwood Triangular points towards the end of the Late Archaic Period

(~1,000-750 14C B.P.) and continuing after Euroamerican Contact (Oetting 1994a).

Bettinger and Baumhoff (1982) suggest that Desert Side-notched projectile points mark the arrival of Numic speaking populations, who were the ancestors of Northern Paiute groups, among others, in the northern Great Basin. Desert Side-notched points date to as early as ~750 14C B.P. (Oetting 1994a) in the northern Great Basin, which may give a rough estimate of when Numic speaking populations arrived in the region.

At the time of Euroamerican contact, Northern Paiute and Klamath groups occupied various parts of the northern Great Basin. Northern Paiute territory included the whole of Surprise Valley as well as parts of Warner Valley, the shores of Goose Lake, and Buck Creek (Kelly 1932:70). Northern Paiute groups moved throughout the year, seasonally exploiting resources in both valley bottoms and the adjacent uplands (Kelly

1932:76-77). Groups also used lowland settings for winter habitation (Kelly 1932). To the northwest, Klamath groups operating in areas surrounding the Lake-Abert

Chewaucan Basin also employed seasonally mobile settlement/subsistence strategies, 17 exploiting wetland and upland resources as well as using lowlands for winter habitation

(Brashear 1994; Oetting 1989:24-25; Spier 1930). Klamath groups employed a dual seasonal movement, only traveling to resource locales during the winter and spring unlike the Northern Paiute, who moved frequently throughout the year (Brashear 1994; Oetting

1989; Spier 1930).

Warner Valley. Previous research in southern Warner Valley indicates that lifeways first established during the Middle Archaic Period remained relatively consistent throughout the Late Archaic Period. Young (2000) demonstrated that drier conditions following 2,000 14C B.P. resulted in the contraction of shallow lakes creating ideal habitats for marsh systems. Continuous use of marsh systems is supported by Eiselt’s

(1998) work, which suggests that permanent habitation structures and faunal assemblages at the Peninsula Site indicate intensive exploitation of aquatic resources in the lowlands.

However, groups did not discontinue use of upland settings during this period. High frequencies of artiodactyl remains and milling tools at the Peninsula Site indicate that groups still hunted and gathered roots and seeds in the uplands, which likely factored into seasonal subsistence rounds (Eiselt 1998).

The multiple studies presented thus far aid in situating the prehistoric lifeways of groups in northern Warner Valley within the broader socioeconomic systems of the northern Great Basin. General cultural trends indicate that earlier groups were residentially mobile and ranged through large foraging territories, while later groups became more localized, targeted a more diverse suite of resources, and employed seasonally variable subsistence strategies. In the following section I discuss the methods 18 that researchers have used to elucidate such behavior from the archaeological record both in the northern Great Basin and elsewhere.

Reconstructing Prehistoric Behavior in the Great Basin

Surface sites featuring lithic artifacts and debitage characterize the majority of the

Great Basin’s archaeological record. Due to a dearth of stratified sites featuring datable organic remains and subsistence residues, reconstructing prehistoric behavior typically depends on lithic and site distribution analyses. Here I review previous studies that have used assemblage-level data (e.g., lithic tools and lithic debitage) and settlement pattern analysis (e.g., site distribution) to reconstruct past human behavior. I emphasize studies that have reconstructed mobility, occupation span, and overall land-use since they represent the most readily identifiable aspects of human behavior that my study can address in northern Warner Valley.

Mobility

Humans move or stay put for a variety of reasons. Kelly (1992, 2007) suggests that mobility may be conditioned by sociopolitical factors (e.g., religious purposes or mate acquisition), changes in the carrying capacity of the surrounding environment, or efforts to reduce risk by mediating spatial incongruities between subsistence resources and toolstone sources through the use of residential or logistical mobility strategies (sensu

Binford 1980). While some researchers (e.g., Hildebrandt and McGuire 2002) have 19 linked shifts in mobility with social factors (in their case, the ascendance of prestige hunting during California’s Middle Archaic Period), given that my dataset is comprised of stone tools and site attributes (see Chapter 2), addressing questions related to sociopolitical factors and how they may have influenced mobility would be exceptionally difficult. Instead, my dataset is better suited to address questions regarding how, where, and when groups used the northern Great Basin landscape, both at a local and regional scale. Given the region’s rich record of environmental data and a dearth of social data extending beyond the ethnographic period, shifts in prehistoric behavior are often linked to adaptation to changing environmental conditions rather than social change. However, social factors cannot be completely ignored when considering how and why changes in lithic assemblages and site distribution occurred. For example, Hughes (2011) and Kelly

(2011) stress that archaeologists must consider trade or exchange between prehistoric groups when interpreting changing source provenance of toolstone. Additionally, Rhode

(2012) suggests that social interactions between prehistoric groups in the Intermountain

West (e.g., maintaining kin and mate networks, exchange systems, sharing information, solidifying political relationships, and resource competition) may explain changes in prehistoric behavior.

Technological and geochemical analyses of lithic assemblages offer clues into various aspects of hunter-gatherer mobility, including the spatial extent of lithic conveyance ranges (Jones et al. 2003, 2012; Skinner et al. 2004; Smith 2010), the frequency of group movements (Andrefsky 1994; Beck et al. 2002; Smith 2010), and/or the directionality of toolstone transport (Beck et al. 2002; Connolly and Jenkins 1997;

Pinson 2011). Mobility studies in the Great Basin typically employ X-ray fluorescence 20 spectrometry (XRF) or other geochemical sourcing techniques of tools manufactured from obsidian or other fine-grained volcanic materials (FGV). XRF analysis and other sourcing techniques identify the unique geochemical signatures of artifacts fashioned from volcanic toolstone and tie them to known geologic sources (Jones et al. 2003, 2012;

Skinner et al. 2004; Smith 2010). Source frequencies represented in site assemblages reflect those raw material sources used by prehistoric groups and can yield general impressions of lithic conveyance zones, which may approximate the foraging territories of prehistoric populations (Jones et al. 2003, 2012; Kelly 1992, 2007; Smith 2010). The following discussion briefly reviews a series of studies that demonstrate the merit of using XRF analysis in conjunction with traditional technological analyses of lithic assemblages to reconstruct prehistoric mobility patterns.

Jones et al. (2003, 2012) employed XRF analysis on diagnostic Paleoindian projectile points from sites in eastern Nevada to demonstrate that geochemical source frequencies of local and extra-local raw material can be used to delineate the boundaries and directionality of lithic conveyance zones through time. At the site level, they noted the occurrence of heavily reduced Paleoindian artifacts fashioned from distant raw material sources located primarily to the north and south of their study area. Previous studies at quarry sites (e.g., Beck et al. 2002) suggest that toolstone directly procured from a quarry became more reduced the farther it was transported from its source (but see

Smith et al. 2013 for a recent study which indicates that under conditions of ubiquitous raw material availability, this may not always be the case). Based on this premise, Jones et al. (2003, 2012) argued that on a regional scale Paleoindian groups in the eastern Great 21

Basin moved through large north-south trending ranges and that these ranges may reflect the foraging territories within which Paleoindians sought subsistence resources.

Smith’s (2010) study in northwest Nevada further contributed to discussions of mobility and lithic conveyance ranges by placing emphasis on measuring average distance-to-source and overall source diversity of artifacts (i.e., the number of raw material sources represented in a tool assemblage) by cultural period. Smith (2010:878) demonstrated that comparing the average distance-to-source of artifacts by cultural period at a number of multi-component sites may identify diachronic shifts in mobility. For example, at Rock Creek, he noted higher average transport distances for Paleoindian points and lower average transport distances for Early and Middle Archaic points, which indicates a contraction of lithic conveyance ranges and decreased mobility following the

Paleoindian Period (Smith 2010:878). Assuming that more mobile groups encountered and exploited a greater number of raw material sources than less mobile groups, calculating source diversity for projectile points by cultural period may also be used to reconstruct diachronic trends in mobility (Smith 2010). Smith (2010) demonstrated that the source diversity for Paleoindian points is higher than later point types at Rock Creek, which further supports the notion that reductions in prehistoric mobility occurred following the Paleoindian period. These trends were mirrored at a range of sites across northwest Nevada, suggesting that Paleoindian groups were regionally more mobile than subsequent Archaic groups.

Eerkens et al.’s (2007) study of three assemblages from California demonstrated that exclusively sourcing formal tools (e.g., projectile points) can bias interpretations of mobility and that sourcing unmodified flakes should be a routine part of source 22 provenance analyses. Employing XRF analysis of formal tools and samples of large and small unmodified flakes, Eerkens et al. (2007) demonstrated that the source profiles of flakes and formal tools often differ. This suggests that if prehistoric groups transported formal tools off-site in a mobile residential or logistical system, then source provenance analyses of remaining tools would result in the underrepresentation of raw material sources used, effectively skewing interpretations of lithic conveyance and group mobility

(Eerkens et al. 2007). Therefore, sourcing flakes in addition to formal tools should offer more robust interpretations of prehistoric mobility.

Occupation Span

Occupation span is the duration of time groups spend at a particular locale, which in part reflects the frequency of their movements. Various attempts have been made to reconstruct occupation span by analyzing morphological characteristics and geochemical and/or visual properties of tool assemblages. For example, Andrefsky (1991) used data from 116 temporally discrete sites on the southern Plains to assess mobility and sedentism there. He distinguished between formal and expedient tools and how they related to mobility strategies. Formal tools feature high amounts of time and energy invested in their production (e.g., bifaces) while expedient tools are produced quickly with little advanced planning (e.g., flake tools). Generally, more residentially- or logistically-mobile groups are expected to have utilized formal tools such as multi- functional bifacial cores (Andrefsky 1991:131). Conversely, more sedentary groups are expected to have utilized expedient tools (Andrefsky 1991:130). Andrefsky (1991) 23 argued that by measuring the frequencies of formal bifacial tools to expedient tools for various cultural periods, inferences regarding diachronic trends in settlement/mobility strategies can be made. Specifically, the Plains assemblages reflected a steady decline in the frequencies of formal tools following the Paleoindian period. He concluded that

Paleoindian groups were more mobile than later groups, which roughly correspond with similar interpretations of prehistoric mobility in the northwestern Great Basin (Skinner et al. 2004; Smith 2010). Therefore, in terms of occupation span, frequencies of formal and expedient tools at a site can serve as rough indicators for how long groups occupied specific locales.

Smith’s (2011) work in the northwestern Great Basin suggested that as occupation span increases at a particular locale, tool assemblages should reflect higher frequencies of local toolstone because longer stays will result in the exhaustion of non-local raw material initially transported to a site and the greater incorporation of local raw material there to replace exhausted tools. Smith (2011) used source provenance data from multiple sites across the northwestern Great Basin in applying this concept to identify diachronic shifts in occupation span and, in turn, mobility. Dividing the assemblages into cultural periods, Smith (2011:464) observed regional fluctuations in occupation span across time. Similar to using formal and expedient tool frequencies, measuring the occurrence of local and non-local raw material sources in assemblages by cultural period may also help to identify if certain locales were occupied longer than others.

Land-use

Land-use studies (e.g., Andrefsky 1994; Binford 1977, 1979; Cannon et al. 1990;

Jones et al. 2003, 2012; Kelly 2001, 2007; McGuire 2002; Smith 2010; Thomas 1983,

1988; Tipps 1998; M. Weide 1968) have centered on how prehistoric groups interacted with the surrounding environment and how those interactions may be reflected in mobility strategies, site composition, technological organization, and resource acquisition. Such studies not only consider mobility and occupation span but the resource zones that prehistoric groups exploited as well. To analyze prehistoric land-use in Warner Valley, M. Weide (1968) divided the landscape into two resource zones, which she then sampled using pedestrian survey: (1) the valley floor, which featured wetland resources; and (2) the adjacent uplands where large game, seeds, and roots were exploited

(M. Weide 1968:193). Her overall goal was to determine how groups targeted those resource areas through time. She included 30 sites distributed throughout each resource zone that placed specific emphasis on site size, site location, amount of lithic debitage featured, and types of tools represented. Additionally, she added a small degree of temporal control to her sample by assigning sites to three cultural periods based on the presence of diagnostic projectile points. Her results indicate that sites in the valley bottom were large and generally featured high amounts of lithic debitage, grinding tools, scrapers, and choppers. Conversely, upland sites were smaller and featured primarily scrapers and choppers (M. Weide 1968:241). Based on site attributes, she argued that groups consistently employed low residential mobility by rotating between productive wetland resource patches on the valley floor and the upland patches where large game 25 was exploited during the summer months. More permanent sites on the valley floor were likely occupied during winter months (M. Weide 1968:262).

M. Weide’s (1968) study offers little precision in tracking land-use patterns through time given the very coarse resolution of her temporal periods; however, the principle of analyzing site distribution and tool assemblages to reconstruct prehistoric land-use has merit. Cannon et al. (1990) applied these methods to evaluate M. Weide’s

(1968) model and their results generally support her interpretations but also suggest that uplands were used to a higher degree than originally thought indicated by the discovery of additional habitation features.

Kelly’s (2001) survey of the Carson Desert and Stillwater Mountains in western

Nevada employed a similar approach by dividing his survey universe into five ecological zones. With different resources available in each zone, Kelly (2001) assumed that different subsistence activities likely occurred there, and that this fact should be reflected in the character of archaeological assemblages (Kelly 2001:139-140). His results indicate that sites in lower elevation zones feature high frequencies of ground stone and evidence for bipolar reduction/tool rejuvenation while sites in higher elevation zones feature almost exclusively bifacial tools (Kelly 2001:293). His study demonstrates that differences in tool assemblages within different ecological zones may reflect the types of subsistence-related behaviors and mobility strategies employed there.

Summary

Previous studies in the northern Great Basin, many of which feature analyses of site distribution and lithic technology, indicate that changing environmental conditions may have influenced prehistoric lifeways during the Pleistocene-Holocene transition and throughout the Holocene. Evidence from southern Warner Valley generally reflects broader regional environmental and cultural trends. Based on these trends, I test the hypothesis that a pronounced shift occurred in the prehistoric lifeways of groups in northern Warner Valley following the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. This shift included changes in settlement/subsistence strategies and lithic technological organization. The methods that researchers employ to infer prehistoric behavior using settlement patterns and stone tool assemblage, examples of which I outlined above, inform my analysis of survey data from the 2011-2013 field seasons in northern Warner

Valley. These data, which are outlined in subsequent chapters, facilitate tracking behavior across time at both a local and regional scale. Understanding how prehistoric groups coped with changing environmental conditions in northern Warner Valley will supplement previous studies from the southern valley and facilitate a more complete reconstruction of prehistoric lifeways there.

CHAPTER 2

Materials and Methods

Warner Valley: Physical Setting and Modern Biota

Located in south-central Oregon, Warner Valley is one of several basins that lie on the periphery of the northwestern Great Basin (Figure 2.1). The valley measures 130 km north-south by 5-15 km east-west. Tablelands of faulted basalt form the valley’s northern and southern boundaries with the Warner Mountains flanking the valley to the west and Hart Mountain to the east. Today, the valley averages less than 30 cm of annual precipitation with higher elevations receiving more precipitation than lower elevations.

As a result, vegetation is subject to altitudinal zoning. The valley floor (~5,000’ above sea level [ASL]) is dominated by communities of sagebrush, rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), and greasewood. Cattail (Typha latifolia) and bulrush (Scirpus spp.) communities cluster around marsh systems near Hart Lake and Crump Lake in the southern valley. Elevations above 5,000’ ASL in the tablelands, Warner Mountains, and

Hart Mountain feature juniper and pine woodlands (Pinus spp.). Like the valley’s flora, its fauna are also distributed according to elevation. Common taxa on the valley bottom include jackrabbits and cottontails (Syvilagus spp.) with mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) also frequenting the area.

Additionally, ducks (Anas spp.), geese (Anser spp.), and pelicans (Pelecanus onocrotalus) are among the waterfowl that take advantage of the valley’s marsh systems. 28

Common species at higher elevations include mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis).

Hydrographically, the valley includes three interconnected, internally-draining sub-basins; from north to south, these are the North Warner, South Warner, and Coleman sub-basins. During periods of increased precipitation, these basins fill in a south-to-north direction while in periods of prolonged drought, they desiccate in the reverse order

(Young 2000). The valley once contained Pluvial Lake Warner, which reached a highstand during the terminal Pleistocene (D. Weide 1975:273). The lake began to gradually recede from the northern valley ~17,000 14C B.P.; this recession accelerated around 10,000 14C B.P. resulting in standing water being confined to the southern portion of the valley by ~8,700 14C B.P. (D. Weide 1975:274). Wriston and Smith’s (2012) work in northern Warner Valley, which included radiocarbon dating organic material in fossil beach ridge profiles, supports D. Weide’s (1975) characterization of the valley’s hydrographic history and similarly indicate that Lake Warner was present there during the Paleoindian period.

Previous archaeological research has tracked the prehistoric occupation of Warner

Valley primarily from the Middle Archaic (5,000-2,000 14C B.P.) to the Late Archaic

(2,000 14C B.P. to Contact) periods, with the majority of work centered in the southern valley around modern shallow lakes and marshes and the adjacent uplands (Cannon et al.

1990; Eiselt 1998; Tipps 1998; D. Weide 1975; M. Weide 1968; Young 2000). Until recently, the northern valley was largely unstudied. In this chapter, I outline recent archaeological work there and discuss the 2011-2013 pedestrian surveys conducted by the University of Nevada, Reno’s Great Basin Paleoindian Research Unit (GBPRU). I 29 review the methods used to conduct those surveys and discuss how I collected additional data as part of my thesis research. Later in the chapter, I discuss the methods that I employed to test the hypothesis that a pronounced shift occurred in prehistoric lifeways of groups in the valley following the Pleistocene-Holocene transition.

Figure 2.1. Warner Valley, Oregon with locations mentioned in the text: (1) Northern Warner Valley; (2) Southern Warner Valley; (3) Hart Mountain; and (4) the Warner Mountains. Image source: National Atlas Maps.

The 2011-2013 Surveys of Northern Warner Valley

The GBPRU’s research in northern Warner Valley was prompted by the recognition of multiple pluvial lakeshore features there by archaeologist Bill Cannon of the Lakeview District of the Bureau of Land Management. The series of beach ridges in northern Warner Valley reflect pauses in the recession of pluvial Lake Warner during the

Late Pleistocene (Wriston and Smith 2012). Recognizing that such features were often 30 favored by Paleoindians, Cannon suggested that the GBPRU survey the shorelines for evidence of early occupations. Over the course of the three field seasons, the GBPRU developed and implemented a rigorous program of survey and site recording to develop an understanding of when, where, and how Paleoindians used northern Warner Valley.

The 2011-2013 field seasons focused on a 17.5 km x 17.5 km (~55,000 acres) parcel designated the Northern Warner Valley Study Area (NWVSA) (Figure 2.2), which was partitioned into 500 m x 500 m parcels (Smith et al. 2012a). The 2011 field season featured a stratified random sampling strategy that divided the NWVSA into four landform types: (1) uplands; (2) canyons; (3) beach ridges; and (4) valley bottoms.

Forty-four parcels were chosen randomly and surveyed using transects spaced 20-30 m apart. Crew members recorded all prehistoric sites (defined in Oregon as 10+ artifacts within a 10 m x 10 m area) and isolated artifacts encountered along these transects (Smith et al. 2012a). Five non-randomly selected beach ridge parcels were surveyed at the end of the 2011 field season, bringing the total number of surveyed parcels to 49 (Smith et al.

2012a). The 2012 and 2013 field seasons employed a non-random sampling strategy, which targeted areas with high potential for Paleoindian sites (e.g., beach ridges and to a lesser extent, valley bottom parcels). Thirty-one parcels were surveyed in 2012 and eight were surveyed in 2013.

Crew members recorded attributes for each site using Intermountain Antiquities

Computer System (IMACS) forms. Site attributes included site location, aspect, slope, geologic setting, surrounding vegetation, site dimensions, numbers and types of tools present, cultural affiliation, and quantities and types of lithic debitage. Debitage was assigned to one of four categories: (1) decortication flakes; (2) core reduction flakes; (3) 31 biface thinning flakes; and (4) shatter. Using IMACS forms, crew members characterized the relative frequencies and kinds of flakes at each site by assigning each category a value between 0 and 3, with 0 being absent and 3 being dominant. In addition to the relative frequencies of flake types, the overall amount of lithic detritus at each site was noted using the following ordinal categories: (1) 0-10; (2) 10-25; (3) 25-100; (4)

100-500; and (5) 500+. If sites featured fewer than ~30 artifacts, crew members mapped each artifact and the sites’ boundaries; if sites featured more than 30 artifacts crew members estimated the amount of lithic debitage at each location and mapped only lithic tools and site boundaries. Most sites were mapped using Trimble GPSs with sub-meter precision, although in a few cases, they were mapped using the more traditional pace- and-compass mapping technique. All location data, whether collected using a GPS or the pace-and-compass technique, were imported into a master GIS database supported by

ArcMap 10.1.

Isolated diagnostic artifacts such as projectile points were collected for further analysis while non-diagnostic artifacts (e.g., bifaces, retouched flakes, scrapers, groundstone) were drawn or photographed but not collected. Unmodified flakes were generally not drawn or collected (see below for a discussion of one exception to this policy). UTM coordinates were recorded for all isolated artifacts using handheld GPS units with ~1-5 m precision. All isolated artifacts and sites were plotted on 1:24,000

USGS topographic quadrangle maps while in the field.

Figure 2.2. The Northern Warner Valley Study Area divided by landform type. Image adapted from Smith et al. (2012a).

Materials: NWVSA Survey Data

Three seasons of pedestrian survey yielded a rich record of Paleoindian and to a lesser extent, Archaic use of the NWVSA. Data derived from this work and used in my study include a large sample of diagnostic projectile points, various types of stone waste flakes, and numerous site attributes (e.g., location, size, artifact density, etc.). I summarize this dataset below. 33

Site Sample. Overall, 116 prehistoric archaeological sites and 58 isolates were recorded in the NWVSA. Of the 116 sites, 48 were lithic scatters that lacked the diagnostic projectile points needed to assign sites to particular time periods; as such, these were excluded from my analysis. Of the sites and isolates containing diagnostic projectile points, 104 were single-component (i.e., sites containing projectile points dating to a single time period) and 22 were multi-component (i.e., sites containing projectile points dating to two or more time periods) (Table 2.1). The majority of single- component sites and isolated finds (59 of 104; 57 percent) date to the Paleoindian Period while a lesser number (45 of 104; 43 percent) date to various Archaic periods.

Table 2.1. Single-/Multi-Component and Isolated Sites in the NWVSA.

Multi- Cultural Period Site Number Component Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic A1 x A5 x A6 x A7 x C2 x C3 x C4 x C13 x C14 x C15 x C16 x C18 x C20 x G4 x G7 x G9 x G10 x G12 x G13 x G14 x G18 X G19 x G20 x G22 x G26 x G27 x 34

Multi- Cultural Period Site Number Component Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic G29 x G30 x G31 x G33 x G37 x G39 x G40 x G41 x G42 x G43 x J2 x J3 x J6 x J7 x P2 x P3 x P5 x P6 x P7 x P8 x P9 x P10 x P11 x T4 x T7 x T8 x T9 x T10 x T11 x T12 x T13 x T14 x T16 x T17 x T18 x T19 x T20 x T21 x T22 x T23 x T24 x T26 x AIF2 x AIF10 x AIF15 x AIF18 x AIF22 x AIF24 x AIF30 x AIF40 x AIF41 x CIF10 x 35

Multi- Cultural Period Site Number Component Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic CIF52 x CIF65 x GMS1 x GMS2 x GIF5 x GIF8 x GIF9 x GIF28 x GIF31 x GIF41 x GIF45 x GIF50 x GIF53 x GIF54 x GIF55 x GIF65 x GIF91 X GIF92 x GIF102 x GIF103 x GIF104 x GIF105 x GIF106 x GIF107 x GIF108 x GIF109 x GIF110 x GIF111 x GIF116 x GIF122 x PIF2 x PIF41 x TIF5 X TIF9 x TIF29 x TIF30 x TIF54 x TIF56 x TIF59 x TIF68 x TIF70 x TIF73 x TIF76 X TIF78 x TIF85 x TIF86 X TIF95 x TIF96 x Total 22 59 5 27 13

Diagnostic Projectile Points. Because most prehistoric sites in the Great Basin – including the NWVSA – are near-surface lithic scatters lacking organic material suitable for radiocarbon dating, researchers typically use projectile points as index fossils to assign sites to particular time periods. Projectile point chronologies are generally specific to certain regions, as morphologically similar types often possess different age ranges in different parts of the Great Basin (Smith et al. 2013). In the northern Great Basin,

Oetting’s (1994a) point chronology developed for the nearby Lake Abert-Chewaucan

Basin provides a means of assigning sites in the NWVSA to particular periods (Table

2.2). Because point types often persisted for millennia in the region, using projectile points as index fossils to date archaeological sites lacks the resolution of radiocarbon dating; however, in the absence of organic material at open-air sites, this approach is well-suited for the NWVSA sample.

A total of 243 projectile points were recovered from sites or recorded as isolates in the NWVSA (Table 2.3). These include Great Basin Fluted (GBF), Great Basin

Stemmed (GBS), crescents, Great Basin Concave Base (GBCB), Large Side-notched,

Elko series (Corner-notched and Eared), Gatecliff series (Split Stem and Contracting

Stem), Rosegate series, Desert series (Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood Triangular), and Humboldt points (Figures 2.3 and 2.4). Because GBF, GBCB, crescents, Desert

Side-notched, Cottonwood Triangular, and Humboldt points are not included in Oetting’s

(1994a) projectile point chronology, I drew from other studies (e.g., Beck and Jones

2010; Delacorte 1997; Hester and Heizer 1978; Hildebrandt and King 2002; Smith et al.

2014; Thomas 1981) to assign them to particular periods. Below, I outline the diagnostic morphological attributes of these types and their respective temporal ranges. 37

Figure 2.3. Examples of diagnostic Paleoindian projectile points encountered in the NWVSA: (A-B) Great Basin Fluted; (C-D) Great Basin Stemmed; (E-F) Great Basin Concave Base; and (G) crescent. Image source: Grayson (2011). 38

Figure 2.4. Examples of diagnostic Archaic projectile points encountered in the NWVSA: (A) Large Side-notched; (B) Humboldt; (C) Elko Corner-notched; (D) Elko Eared; (E) Gatecliff Split Stem; (F) Gatecliff Contracting Stem; (G) Rosegate; (H) Desert Side-notched; (I) Cottonwood Triangular. Image source: Grayson (2011).

Table 2.2. Projectile Point Types by Cultural Period (after Oetting [1994a]).

Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic Great Basin Stemmed Large Side-notched Elko Series Rosegate Series Great Basin Fluted Gatecliff Series Desert Side-notched Great Basin Concave Base Cottonwood Triangular Crescents

Great Basin Fluted Points. GBF projectile points are lanceolate and possess concave bases. One or both faces possess single or multiple channel flakes originating from the base. They occur in low frequencies and are rarely associated with dateable organic material. It is currently unclear if they are technologically and temporally akin to fluted Clovis points from elsewhere in North America or represent a regional variant that potentially postdates Clovis points (Beck and Jones 2010). As outlined in Chapter 1, only four GBF points have been found in dateable contexts in the Great Basin and if taken at face value, radiocarbon dates associated with them suggest that the latter is a possibility. Although they remain poorly dated, GBF points are nevertheless widely assumed to reflect Paleoindian (pre-7,500 14C B.P.) occupations.

Great Basin Stemmed Points. GBS projectile points occur in higher frequencies than GBF projectile points in the northern Great Basin and are more commonly found in stratified deposits with associated organic material (Beck and Jones 2010). The points, which include several poorly-defined morphological variants that currently lack clear temporal or functional differences (Beck and Jones 2009; Lafayette and Smith 2012), are sometimes shouldered and/or lanceolate in form and feature contracting stems (Oetting

1994a). Radiocarbon dates from sites in the nearby Fort Rock Basin and Paisley Caves 40 indicate a temporal range for GBS points between ~11,340 and 7,000 14C B.P. (Jenkins et al. 2012; Oetting 1994a).

Great Basin Concave Base Points. GBCB projectile points are often confused with GBF projectile points due to their similar lanceolate forms and concave bases (Beck and Jones 1997). They feature basal thinning that is sometimes confused with channel flakes but GBCB points are not fluted (Beck and Jones 1997). These points remain poorly dated but are widely acknowledged to represent Paleoindian occupations (Beck and Jones 2009).

Crescents. Crescents are bifacially flaked stone tools that are crescentic in shape

(Beck and Jones 1997). Crescents are typically associated with stemmed point assemblages in the Great Basin, which may sometimes also contain fluted points. Their exact function(s) remain unknown although they commonly occur in areas that once contained pluvial wetlands and/or lakes. While not numerous, radiocarbon dates associated with crescents indicate that they predate ~8,000 14C B.P. in the region (Smith et al. 2014).

Large Side-notched Points. Large Side-notched projectile points feature pronounced side notches, large concave bases, and squared ears (Oetting 1994a). In the northern Great Basin, they date from ~7,000 to 4,000 14C B.P., corresponding to the Early

Archaic Period (Oetting 1994a).

Elko Series Points. The Elko series consists of Elko Eared and Elko Corner- notched types. Both are broad necked and corner-notched. Elko Corner-notched points have straight bases while Elko Eared points have bifurcated bases (Oetting 1994a).

Radiocarbon dates associated with Elko points in the northern Great Basin suggest both 41 types were primarily used between ~4,500 and 1,400 14C B.P. (Oetting 1994a). This large age range spans both the Middle and Late Archaic periods, which potentially limits their utility when trying to identify fine-grained diachronic shifts; however, Oetting’s

(1994a) reexamination of radiocarbon dates associated with Elko points in the Fort Rock

Basin shows that 80 percent of all Elko points there dated to ~4,550 14C B.P.

Additionally, Oetting’s (1994a) point chronology for the nearby Lake Abert-Chewaucan

Basin places 60 percent of Elko series points at ~5,000 14C B.P. With the majority of

Elko points occurring ~5,000-4,500 14C B.P. in nearby areas, here I assume that most

Elko points in the NWVSA represent Middle Archaic occupations.

Gatecliff Series Points. The Gatecliff series consists of two types: Gatecliff Split

Stem points and Gatecliff Contracting Stem points. Both are large notched points: the former possesses bifurcated bases while the latter possess contracting stems (Oetting

1994a; Thomas 1981). Both types date to between 5,000 and 3,000 14C B.P. and are diagnostic of the Middle Archaic Period (Oetting 1994a).

Rosegate Points. Rosegate points are small arrow points. They possess narrow necks, are corner-notched, and feature expanding or contracting stems as well as straight or concave stem bases (Oetting 1994a). Rosegate points are diagnostic of the Late

Archaic Period and feature a temporal range of ~2,000 14C B.P. to Euroamerican Contact.

Desert Side-notched Points. Desert Side-notched points are small, side-notched,

Triangular arrow points (Hester and Heizer 1978; Hildbrandt and King 2002). The point type was used throughout the Great Basin during the Late Prehistoric Period (post-700

14C B.P.) and into ethnographic times. Radiocarbon dates from Crooks Canyon in northeastern California indicate that Desert Side-notched points may postdate 200 14C 42

B.P., suggesting that they may be better suited as a temporal marker for only the most recent portion of prehistory of the northern Great Basin. Because Desert Side-notched points are rare in the NWVSA, I include them with Rosegate points as Late Archaic

(post-2,000 14C B.P.) time markers.

Cottonwood Triangular Points. Cottonwood Triangular points are small, un- notched triangular arrow points commonly associated with Late Prehistoric occupations

(Hester and Heizer 1978; Hildebrandt and King 2002). Like Desert Side-notched points,

Cottonwood points are considered here to be Late Archaic time markers.

Humboldt Points. Humboldt points are lanceolate or leaf shaped with deep concave bases (Hester and Heizer 1978; Hildebrandt and King 2002). The age of these projectile points is debated with little agreement over their antiquity. Some researchers

(e.g., Delacorte 1997) suggest that Humboldt points are diagnostic of the Early Archaic

Period while others (e.g., Thomas 1981) suggest that they range from ~5,000 to 1,300 14C

B.P. Due to the large temporal spans of Humboldt projectile points, they are a poor time marker and have little utility in tracking fine-grained change through time (Oetting

1994a); therefore, they were not used to assign sites to particular time periods. If

Humboldt points occurred at sites with other, better dated point types, then those sites were considered to be multi-component.

Unmodified Flake Collection. Prior to the 2013 field season, only diagnostic projectile points were collected from the NWVSA; these were later subjected to laboratory analysis including morphological classification and, in some cases, geochemical characterization using XRF. As discussed in Chapter 1, Eerkens et al.

(2007) have demonstrated that incorporating unmodified flakes in source provenance 43 analyses may yield more complete reconstructions of lithic technological organization than using projectile points alone. Therefore, as my thesis research developed, it became clear that my study should include submitting samples of unmodified flakes from sites of varying ages for XRF analysis to gain a more complete understanding of prehistoric land- use and mobility in the NWVSA. I chose five single-component sites representing various time periods and selected 25 flakes from each for XRF analysis (Table 2.4).

Because previous surveys in the NWVSA failed to locate Early Archaic sites with enough debitage to sample, I submitted flakes from two Paleoindian sites instead. The remaining sites from which debitage was sampled date to the Middle Archaic and Late

Archaic periods. Only complete obsidian flakes (i.e., those featuring a striking platform) were selected. Using a standard technological typology, I assigned each flake to one of the following categories: (1) decortication flakes (flakes exhibiting cortex); (2) core reduction flakes (flakes featuring no cortex and simple platforms); (3) biface thinning flakes (flakes featuring complex platforms); and (4) retouch flakes (flakes less than 1 cm2 in size) (Table 2.5).

Table 2.3. Diagnostic Projectile Point Sample from the NWVSA.

POINT TYPE

Cultural eat Basin

reat Basin r ateclif

Stemmed G Fluted G Concave Base Crescent Large Side Notched Elko Series G Series Rosegate Series Desert Side Notched Cottonwood Triangular Humbodlt Period Great Basin Paleoindian 123 11 2 11 ------Archaic - - - - 7 16 28 17 9 5 14

Table 2.4. Sites Selected for Unmodified Flake Collection.

Site Number Associated Diagnostic Artifacts Cultural Period Debitage Estimate

G-43 10 Great Basin Stemmed Paleoindian 25-100 Flakes T-7 4 Great Basin Stemmed Paleoindian 100-500 Flakes C-3 4 Elko series, 1 Gatecliff series Middle Archaic 100-500 Flakes G-20 1 Rosegate Late Archaic 25-100 Flakes G-29 5 Cottonwood Triangular, Late Archaic 100-500 Flakes 6 Desert Side-notched

Table 2.5. Flake Type Frequencies by Site.

FLAKE TYPE Site Number Cultural Period Decortication Core Reduction Biface Thinning Retouch G43 Paleoindian - 2 21 2 T7 Paleoindian 3 3 15 3 C3 Middle Archaic 10 4 9 2 G20 Late Archaic - - 22 3 G29 Late Archaic 3 11 8 3

Methods: Evaluating Changing Land-use in the NWVSA on a Local and Regional Scale

I used the 2011-2013 survey data to address the hypothesis that a pronounced shift occurred in the lifeways of prehistoric groups in northern Warner Valley following the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. Because Lake Warner’s southward retreat left the

NWVSA dry by the onset of the Early Archaic Period (~7,000 14C B.P.) and perhaps as early as ~8,700 14C B.P. (D. Weide 1975), I expected that prehistoric groups during the various Archaic periods used the area to a lesser degree than Paleoindians and exploited different resource zones. Data from survey are well-suited to evaluate the hypothesis that such a shift occurred at both a local and regional scale. 45

Evaluating Changing Land-use at a Local Scale: Site Attributes and Debitage

To identify changing land-use patterns within the NWVSA, I examined the character and distribution of prehistoric sites. Most of my analyses focused on the 50 single-component sites in my sample. Because multi-component sites contain diagnostic projectile points suggesting that those locations were visited at different times during humans’ tenure in the area, they have less utility for my study since I cannot determine what site characteristics are associated with particular cultural periods. These sites were generally excluded from my analysis of local land-use.

Site attributes used in my analysis include site area, site location, the numbers and types of tools, projectile point frequencies, quantities and types of lithic detritus, and frequencies of flake types. I obtained most of these data from either the IMACS site forms used to record the sites or the Trimble GPS/hand-drawn site maps. Below, I outline how I used each of these attributes.

Site Area. I obtained site area in two ways: (1) for sites recorded with Trimble

GPS units, site area was calculated using the identify feature tool in ArcMap 10.1; (2) for sites mapped using the pace and-and-compass technique, I used site length and width to calculate the area of an oval (½L x ½W x π). Before comparing site areas between periods, I used the SPSS statistics software package to determine if my data were normally distributed. Results suggested that Paleoindian and Archaic site areas were not normally distributed, but instead heavily skewed; therefore, I compared the areas of

Paleoindian and Archaic sites using a Mann-Whitney U test because the test compares means without assuming that data are normally distributed. 46

Site Location. To develop an understanding of how prehistoric groups used the

NWVSA across time, I compared the locations of sites from different periods. All sites recorded with Trimble GPS units were imported into a master GIS database supported by

ArcMap 10.1. For sites mapped using the pace-and-compass technique, I digitized site polygons and the locations of lithic tools found at each site and imported these into the database. All site data were projected onto a digital topographic map of the study area.

Similar survey projects aimed at examining prehistoric land-use (e.g., Cannon et al. 1990; Kelly 2001; McGuire 2002; Thomas 1983) often divide their respective study areas into resource zones (e.g., the pinyon-juniper zone) to better understand those resources exploited by prehistoric groups, as indicated by the distribution of sites within the zones. Following suit, I divided the NWVSA into three zones that likely served as resource exploitation/processing foci: (1) uplands; (2) fossil beach ridges; and (3) valley bottoms. The canyon landform initially recognized by Smith et al. (2012a) was consolidated with the uplands since canyons are arguably components of higher elevation settings and because those parcels were insufficiently sampled during fieldwork. I projected the resource zones as polygons onto the digital topographic map of the study area along with the site locations. Additionally, I created and projected polygons of the beach ridge marking a pause in Lake Warner’s regression that Wriston and Smith (2012) dated to ~10,400 14C B.P. as well as a drainage, which we have named Clovis Creek, situated directly to the northeast. These areas were likely important resource locales for early groups due to a greater availability of lacustrine resources. To analyze distance relationships, I performed a series of spatial joins that calculated the straight-line distance of each site to the dated lakeshore (i.e., the beach ridge) and Clovis Creek. I then tested 47 whether the distances of Paleoindian and Archaic sites to each resource locale were normally distributed. In each case, results indicated that the distances were heavily skewed. Therefore, I compared mean site distances by cultural period to the beach ridge as well as Clovis Creek using a Mann-Whitney U test. I also compared the frequency of sites by cultural period in the three resource zones using a Fisher’s exact test.

To determine the spatial relationship between sites and the three resource zones I manually performed a Nearest Neighbor analysis. Nearest Neighbor analysis determines whether data (e.g., prehistoric sites, projectile points) within a given study area are significantly distributed in one of three patterns: (1) random; (2) clustered; and (3) dispersed (Connolly and Lake 2006:163). Unfortunately, Nearest Neighbor analysis automatically creates a boundary that encompasses the dataset a user is analyzing, which can distort the distance relationships between observed data (i.e., site and/or artifacts recorded in the NWVSA) and the expected random data Nearest Neighbor generates

(Pinder et al. 1979). As such, data in a large study area may be identified as dispersed while data in a small study area may be identified as clustered or vice versa (Connolly and Lake 2006; Pinder et al. 1979). By manually calculating Nearest Neighbor values I was able to specify the specific survey parcels in each resource zone where I wanted to analyze the spatial relationships of Paleoindian and Archaic sites. Using ArcMap 10.1, I created shapefiles of the three resource zones as well as of all survey parcels distributed throughout the zones. Survey parcels were clipped from each resource zone and made into separate shapefiles that represented the total land area that was covered in each zone.

I used these shapefiles to analyze the distribution of sites. 48

Debitage: Amount and Type. As an additional way to identify diachronic shifts in prehistoric land-use, I compared the amount of debitage at sites of different ages. Crew members estimated the amount of lithic debitage at each site using the following categories: (1) 1-9; (2) 10-25; (3) 25-100; (4) 100-500; and (5) 500+ flakes. Due to small sample sizes, the categories of 1-9 and 10-25 flakes were combined into a <25 flakes category, the categories of 100-500 and 500+ flakes were combined into a >100 flakes category, and the various periods of the Archaic were combined into a single temporal category. A chi-square test was performed to identify significant differences in debitage frequencies at Paleoindian and Archaic sites.

To identify diachronic shifts in lithic technological organization, I examined the dominant flakes types represented at Paleoindian and Archaic sites. These data facilitate determining what condition toolstone was in as it was transported into the NWVSA as well as the primary tool production activities that occurred at sites. Dominant flake types were tallied for each cultural period and then compared using a Fisher’s exact test.

Evaluating Changing Land-use at a Local Scale: Lithic Tools

To better understand how prehistoric populations used the NWVSA and if technological, land-use, mobility, and/or subsistence strategies varied diachronically, I compared the frequencies and types of tools represented at Paleoindian and Archaic sites using the methods outlined below.

Projectile Points. To test for shifts in the intensity that the NWVSA was used through time, following Bettinger (1999) I assume that projectile point frequencies can be 49 used as a proxy for population density. To test for changes in population density, I developed projectile point frequencies that I expected would be deposited in the NWVSA if the area were continuously occupied with no changes in population density. Expected frequencies were calculated by first dividing the number of years in each respective cultural period by the number of years that represented the duration of human tenure in the NWVSA (n=11,000). For example, the number of years comprising the Paleoindian

Period (n=4,000) was divided by the total number of years (n=11,000) to obtain a percentage, which represented the amount of time each cultural period contributed to the length of human occupation. These values were then multiplied by the total number of projectile points recovered during survey (n=243). The resulting values reflected the number of points that I expect to be deposited over the span of each cultural period assuming continuous occupation. These frequencies were compared to the observed frequencies of the projectile points recovered on survey using a chi-square test for goodness of fit.

Bifaces. Determining the importance of bifaces by cultural period may yield clues to mobility strategies, assuming that bifaces were components of portable toolkits employed by residentially mobile foragers (e.g., Andrefsky 1994; Kelly 1988). I applied

Carey’s (2013) method of calculating a biface index (BI), which measures the number of bifaces at a site relative to other tool types. Although projectile points are technically often bifacial, I excluded them from my analysis because they were likely specialized hunting implements. Instead, I wanted to determine if bifaces, which may have served as cores within a mobile toolkit (Kelly 1988, but see Prasciunas 2007), were a central 50 component of Paleoindian and Archaic technological organization. I averaged BI values for each period and compared these using a t-test. BI values were calculated as follows:

of Bifaces BI= Total of stone tools

According to Kelly (1988), bifaces used as efficient cores may serve one function in a mobile toolkit, whereas bifaces used as long-use life tools (e.g., projectile points) may serve as another. Therefore, as an additional measure of group mobility through time I combined the number of bifaces and projectile points at each single-component site and calculated a projectile point/biface index (PBI) to determine their importance relative to other stone tool types. I averaged PBI values for each period and compared them again using a t-test. PBI values were calculated as follows:

Pro ectile points bifaces PBI= Total of stone tools

Evaluating Changing Land-use at a Regional Scale

To evaluate if and how the NWVSA’s role in regional land-use patterns changed across time, I compared source provenance data for samples of diagnostic projectile points and unmodified flakes. Diagnostic point frequencies for the NWVSA were also compared to those of surrounding study areas to identify potential diachronic shifts in regional population densities. 51

Source Provenance Analysis. I submitted 112 Paleoindian and 73 Archaic projectile points manufactured on obsidian or FGV to the Northwest Research Obsidian

Studies Laboratory to be geochemically characterized. As discussed in Chapter 1, determining the geochemical signatures of artifacts can help model lithic conveyance zones, which Jones et al. (2003, 2012), Smith (2010), and others argue approximate prehistoric foraging territories. The boundaries of these zones can be reconstructed by measuring artifact distance to source and direction, which may roughly indicate the scale and direction of group movements (Connolly and Jenkins 1997; Jones et al. 2003, 2012;

Skinner et al. 2004; Smith 2010). In addition to sourcing projectile points, I submitted

125 unmodified flakes from five single-component sites representing different cultural periods (see Table 2.5). Data derived from geochemically characterizing the flakes compliment projectile point data and permit more complete reconstructions of lithic technological organization. To identify possible shifts in settlement strategies and technological organization, I followed other researchers (e.g., Jones et al. 2003, 2012;

Skinner et al. 2004; Smith 2010) and used raw material source frequencies, average distance from the NWVSA to lithic sources, and average source diversity of Paleoindian and Archaic artifacts to delineate lithic conveyance zones as well as the frequency and direction of group movements through time.

Of the 112 Paleoindian points, three were made on material from geographically unknown geochemical sources so calculating distance to source and transport direction of those artifacts was not possible; this reduced the total number of Paleoindian points analyzed to 109. Out of 73 Archaic points, one is made on material from an unknown geochemical source, which reduced the total number of Archaic points analyzed to 72. 52

Of the 50 unmodified flakes collected from Paleoindian sites, two were too small to be geochemically analyzed. As a result, my total number of unmodified flakes from

Paleoindian sites dropped to 48. Of the 75 unmodified flakes recovered from Archaic sites, three originated from unknown geochemical sources, which brought the number of flakes analyzed to 72. The three unmodified flakes from unknown geochemical sources as well as the three Paleoindian points and one Archaic point could not be used in any further studies other than calculating average source diversity.

The average distance to source and direction for artifacts in the NWVSA were calculated using free Forward-Inverse software, which measures the straight line distance of an artifact’s geographic position to the source of the raw material on which it is manufactured. The locations of these toolstone sources are provided on the Northwest

Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory website. I compared average distance to source of artifacts between cultural periods using a series of two-tailed probability tests.

Directions from artifact to source for each artifact were assigned to one of four directional categories based on azimuths calculated by the Forward Inverse program: (1) northeast (0-90°); (2) southeast (91-180°); (3) southwest (181-270°); and (4) northwest

(271-360°). I compared the transport directions of toolstone by cultural period using a chi-square test that analyzed the frequencies of artifacts from each respective direction.

In addition to the analyses described above, I also compared the proportions of local and non-local toolstone in the projectile point and unmodified flake samples.

Determining if groups incorporated higher amounts of local or non-local toolstone in their production of stone tools can yield a rough impression of overall group mobility assuming that the tool assemblages of less mobile groups will feature higher amounts of 53 local toolstone (Smith 2011). Following Smith (2011) and Surovell (2003), I considered all toolstone occurring ≤20 km from the NWVSA as local and all toolstone occurring >20 km from the NWVSA as non-local. The 20 km break is based on the maximum distance an individual can reasonably walk in a day, which assumes that the maximum daily foraging radii of hunter-gatherers is 20 km, or a 40 km roundtrip (Surovell 2003). To test for significant differences between cultural periods, I used either a Fisher’s exact test or a chi-square test depending on sample size.

For source diversity, simply counting the number of raw material sources represented in each cultural period is not appropriate since sample sizes generally differ between periods and the two variables are closely related (Grayson 1984). As Eerkens et al. (2007) and Smith (2010) have demonstrated, bootstrapping samples permits comparisons of uneven groups – in this case, Paleoindian and Archaic projectile points and debitage. Bootstrapping draws a sample equal in size to the smallest group (in this case, artifacts from a particular cultural period) from larger groups. The number of sources represented in the smallest group is then compared to the average number of sources obtained from running multiple iterations (i.e., drawing multiple random samples) using the larger groups. For my projectile point comparisons, I used the smallest point sample (Early Archaic, n=7) and drew random samples of seven from each of the other larger samples of points from different cultural periods. Using a macro program written using Microsoft Excel (Geoff Smith, personal communication, 2014), seven artifacts were selected from each of the cultural periods 1,000 times and the average number of sources represented in each sample was calculated. To test for significant differences in the average number of sources between cultural periods, I 54 performed a series of two-tailed probability t- tests that compared the average number of sources represented in the Paleoindian Period to the various Archaic periods. Results of my analysis of both average transport distance and source diversity help provide a sense of from where and how far groups travelled to the NWVSA and, in turn, the location’s importance in regional land-use patterns at different points in prehistory.

Regional Projectile Point Frequencies. Following Bettinger (1999), I compared projectile point frequencies from different cultural periods in the NWVSA to those from other study areas in the northern Great Basin to gauge the NWVSA’s relative importance in regional prehistoric land-use strategies. These other areas, which include the Fort

Rock (Aikens and Jenkins 1994), Lake Abert-Chewaucan (Oetting 1995), and Massacre

Lake (Leach 1988) basins as well as Steens Mountain (Jones 1984) provide a diverse sample with which to compare to the NWVSA. I performed chi-square tests to identify significant differences in point frequencies between the NWVSA and the adjacent study areas. Additionally, I used analyses of the standardized residuals to identify over- and under-represented point types and in turn, cultural periods.

Research Expectations

Using the materials and methods outlined in this chapter, I developed a series of expectations related to the hypothesis that Paleoindian and later Archaic groups used the

NWVSA in fundamentally different ways. Reflecting change at a local level, Paleoindian projectile points should be overrepresented compared to later Archaic projectile points.

As Lake Warner receded from northern Warner Valley, Archaic population densities 55 likely dropped due to declining water availability and wetland resources in the NWVSA.

Aikens and Jenkins (1994) have suggested that a similar shift occurred in the nearby Fort

Rock Basin due to the desiccation of Lake Fort Rock by the Early Archaic period.

Paleoindian sites should be located closer to the dated beach ridge and nearby Clovis

Creek. Considering the availability of resources through time, those areas should have been more important resource loci for Paleoindians than later Archaic groups.

Paleoindian sites should also be clustered in the beach ridge resource zone while Archaic sites should be more dispersed throughout the three resource zones and show no clear association with any particular one. With higher Paleoindian population densities,

Paleoindian sites should be larger and feature more lithic detritus while Archaic sites should be smaller and feature less lithic detritus. Paleoindian sites should also feature a higher proportion of bifaces relative to other tools while Archaic sites should feature fewer bifaces relative to other tools. Dominant flake types at Paleoindian sites should indicate later-stage reduction of stone tools (primarily bifaces) while flake types at

Archaic sites should reflect all stages of reduction of a variety of tool types. Debitage characteristics will provide data complimentary to those provided by flaked stone tools

(i.e., projectile points, bifaces, unifaces, and cores) and help reconstruct Paleoindian and

Archaic technological organization. More mobile Paleoindian groups transporting bifaces into the NWVSA from distant sources should be reflected in more later-stage flakes at sites. Conversely, Archaic groups using more local raw material sources and transporting fewer bifaces into the NWVSA should be reflected by flakes representing all stages of lithic reduction at sites (Kelly 1988:721). 56

Reflecting change at a regional level, I expect Paleoindian artifacts and unmodified flakes to be manufactured from raw materials originating at greater distances from the NWVSA and reflect more diverse source profiles than Archaic artifacts. This expectation is based on other recent source provenance studies (e.g., Jones et al. 2003,

2012; Smith 2010, 2011) that have demonstrated that Paleoindian groups in the Great

Basin operated within larger lithic conveyance zones, and moved around more within those zones, than subsequent Archaic groups. Assuming that Paleoindian groups were more mobile than subsequent Archaic groups, unmodified flakes at Paleoindian sites should feature less cortex while unmodified flakes at Archaic sites should feature varying degrees of cortex.

Paleoindian points should be overrepresented in the NWVSA relative to their occurrence in other nearby study areas, some of which contained pluvial wetlands and some of which did not. Conversely, later Archaic points should be underrepresented in the NWVSA, reflecting less intense use of the area possibly due to decreased productivity associated with a loss of wetlands. Finally, Paleoindian artifacts should be manufactured from non-local toolstone more often than Archaic artifacts. This expectation is based on

Smith’s (2010) source provenance study of toolstone in the northwestern Great Basin, which suggests that as overall mobility decreased, groups increasingly utilized local toolstone sources. Table 2.6 summarizes these expectations. In the following chapter, I present the results of my analysis.

Table 2.6. Summary of Expectations for the NWVSA Dataset.

EXPECTATIONS FOR CULTURAL PERIODS Local Measures Paleoindian Archaic

Site Area Higher Lower

Site Distance to Resource Locales Closer Further

Site clustering Clustered Dispersed

Amount of lithic detritus Higher Lower

Bifaces More Common Less Common

Projectile point frequencies High Low

Regional Measures Paleoindian Archaic

Average distance to raw material High Low source for projectile points

Average raw material source High Low diversity for projectile points

Average distance to source for High Low unmodified flakes

Average raw material source High Low diversity for unmodified flakes

Reduction stages reflected in Later stages All stages unmodified flake types

Frequency of artifacts fashioned Low High from local toolstone

Projectile point frequencies in the Higher Lower NWVSA compared to surrounding study areas

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

In this chapter, I present the results of my analysis of prehistoric artifacts and sites within the NWVSA. Diachronic shifts in lithic technological organization, mobility, and land-use are apparent at both a local and regional scale; however, certain measures suggest some continuity in lifeways. I use these results to evaluate the hypothesis that prehistoric lifeways changed in northern Warner Valley following the Pleistocene-

Holocene transition.

Local Measures

Site Area

With northern Warner Valley dry by ~8,700 14C B.P., I assumed that Paleoindian sites should be larger than Archaic sites due to more intensive use of the NWVSA when a shallow lake or wetland was present prior to this date. Of the 50 single-component sites, four did not have dimensions recorded; this reduced the total number of sites to 46 (Table

3.1). Due to the small number of sites from the respective Archaic periods, I grouped them into a single Archaic sample. Paleoindian (n=29; x 7,718 m2) and Archaic (n=17; x 3,574 m2) site areas were compared and while Paleoindian sites are on average twice 59 as large as Archaic sites; this difference is not significant at the .05 level (U=164, Z=-

1.612, p=.107).

Table 3.1. Site Areas by Cultural Period.

Cultural Period Site Number Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic Total Archaic A1 4,496 m - - - - A6 11,518 m - - - - C2 - - 1,988 m - 1,988 m C3 - - 12,548 m - 12,548 m C13 - - - 1,520 m 1,520 m C14 - - 1,999 m - - G4 15,632 m - - - - G9 2,890 m - - - - G10 19,083 m - - - - G13 13,141 m - - - - G14 50,662 m - - - - G18 - 2,934m - - 2,934 m G19 4,514 m - - - - G20 - - - 3,257 m 3,257 m G22 - - 269 m - 269 m G27 - - - 292 m 292 m G29 - - - 6,898 m 6,898 m G30 - - 3,194 m - 3,194 m G31 2,349 m - - - - G33 2,398 m - - - - G37 - - - 5,254 m 5,254 m G40 4,800 m - - - - G42 1,796 m - - - - G43 2,708 m - - - - J2 3,952 m - - - - J3 - - 3,837 m - 3,837 m J6 2,453 m - - - - J7 5,494 m - - - - P3 3,008 m - - - P5 - - - 5,850 m 5,850 m P7 3,905 m - - - - P8 - - 1,873 m - 1,873 m P10 8,527 m - - - - P11 4,159 m - - - - T7 2,733 m - - - - T8 4,995 m - - - - T9 2,224 m - - - - T10 1,913 m - - - - T11 2,924 m - - - - T12 15,386 m - - - - T14 2,387 m - - - - T16 9,425 m - - - - T17 14,358 m - - - - T18 - - - 3,299 m 3,299 m 60

Cultural Period Site Number Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic Total Archaic T20 - - 2,927 m - 2,927 m T26 - - 2,827 m - 2,827 m 7,718 m 2,934 m 3,425 m 3,835 m 3,574 m Mann-Whitney test: U=164, Z=-1.612, p=.107

Site Distribution

Many researchers (e.g., Cannon et al. 1990; Kelly 2001; Thomas 1983; M. Weide

1968) argue that the distributions of sites within different resource zones reflect prehistoric land-use. A Fisher’s exact test indicates that the frequencies of Paleoindian and Archaic sites differ significantly (p=.008) within the beach ridge, valley bottom, and upland zones described in Chapter 2 (Table 3.2). Although a Fisher’s exact test cannot provide standardized residuals that help identify what is driving the significant p value, a simple comparison of site counts within each zone provides a rough impression of where these differences may lie: 80 percent of Paleoindian sites are situated within the beach ridge zone compared to 58 percent of Archaic sites. Conversely, only 20 percent of

Paleoindian sites are located in the valley bottom zone compared to 40 percent of Archaic sites. No Paleoindian sites and one Archaic site are situated in the upland zone.

Table 3.2. Frequency of Sites Across Resource Zones in the NWVSA.

Resource Zone Cultural Period Beach Ridge Valley Bottom Upland Paleoindian 56 14 0 Archaic 37 26 1 Fisher’s exact test: p=.008

Site Distance Relationships

Following other studies (e.g., Christian 1997; Jones et al. 2003; Pinson 2011) suggesting that Paleoindians exploited wetlands, I expected early sites to be on average closer to the beach ridge dated to ~10,400 14C B.P. by Wriston and Smith (2012). This date likely roughly corresponds with the earliest visits to Warner Valley based on the presence of GBF and GBS points in the NWVSA. That beach ridge and other lower- elevation ridges that mark subsequent pauses in Lake Warner’s regression were likely more important resource loci for Paleoindian groups than Archaic groups visiting the area following the lake’s retreat. I compared the distances of Paleoindian sites (n=70) to

Archaic sites (n=63) and results show that they differ significantly (U=1,533, Z=-3.15, p=.002): Paleoindian sites (x =1,328 m) are located closer to the beach ridge than Archaic sites (x =1,888 m).

I also measured the distance between sites and Clovis Creek. Although dry today,

Clovis Creek likely flowed into Lake Warner during the late Pleistocene and offered a rich deltaic environment. Ethnographically, such locations attracted foragers due to their abundant resources (Fowler 1992). Paleoindian (x =1,503 m) sites are located significantly closer to Clovis Creek than Archaic (x =2,481 m) sites (U=1,211, Z=-4.584, p<.001), suggesting that following the Pleistocene-Holocene transition drier conditions prevailed and Clovis Creek ceased flowing.

Spatial Relationships in Site Distribution

Because of the major hydrographic shift in the NWVSA that occurred following the Pleistocene-Holocene transition, I expected Paleoindian sites to cluster within the beach ridge resource zone and Archaic sites to exhibit no clear clustering within that or any other zone. Results of my Nearest Neighbor analysis indicate that Archaic sites are dispersed and Paleoindian sites are randomly distributed in the beach ridge zone, while

Paleoindian sites are clustered and Archaic sites are randomly distributed in the valley bottom resource zone (Table 3.3). The upland resource zone was excluded from this analysis because only one site was recorded there.

Table 3.3. Spatial Distribution of Sites in Each Resource Zone.

Number of Sites Nearest Neighbor Spatial Resource Zone in Resource Zone Value Z-Score Distribution Beach Ridge Paleoindian 47 0.087 -1.619 Random Archaic 29 1.43 +4.50 Dispersed

Valley Bottom Paleoindian 12 0.556 -2.90 Clustered Archaic 20 0.836 -1.39 Random

Lithic Debitage

Debitage Amount. Surovell (2003) suggests that the amount of artifacts at sites may reflect occupational intensity. I expected the prehistoric “footprint” (i.e., evidence for human occupation) in the NWVSA to be more pronounced during the Paleoindian

Period due to the greater availability of subsistence resources in the area at that time. My 63 comparison of the amount of debitage at Paleoindian sites (n=30) and Archaic sites

(n=20) indicates that it differs significantly (2=6.34, df=2, p=.042) (Table 3.4).

Although standardized residuals failed to indicate which cells are driving this significant result, the general trend is that Paleoindian sites contain higher amounts of debitage than

Archaic sites. This finding corresponds with the fact that Paleoindian sites are generally larger than Archaic sites, although again that difference is not statistically significant.

Table 3.4. Amount of Debitage by Cultural Period.

, Debitage Amount

Cultural Period <25 25-100 >100 Paleoindian 3 (-1.38) 17 (+0.57) 10(+0.47) Archaic 8 (+1.66) 8 (-0.69) 4 (-0.57)

2=6.34, df=2, p=.042 Note: Standardized residuals in parentheses.

Debitage Type. Flake types at Paleoindian and Archaic sites reflect the state of toolstone packages as they were transported into the NWVSA and the primary lithic technological activities that occurred at prehistoric sites there. Due to small sample sizes,

I combined the decortication, core reduction, and shatter categories into a single “other” category since they each can reflect earlier stages of lithic reduction. Of the 50 single- component sites, five lacked flake type data, so my sample was reduced to 45. A Fisher’s exact test indicates that dominant flake types differ significantly (p=.048). Biface thinning flakes occur primarily at Paleoindian sites while “other” flake types are more common at Archaic sites (Table 3.5).

Table 3.5. Dominant Flake Types by Cultural Period.

Dominant Flake Type Cultural Period Other Biface Thinning Paleoindian 4 21 Archaic 9 11 Fisher’s exact test: p=.048

Chipped Stone Tools

Projectile Points. To determine if population densities changed across time in the

NWVSA, I used diagnostic projectile point frequencies as a proxy for population density

(sensu Bettinger 1999). To test for changes in population density, I developed expected projectile point frequencies based on the premise that the area was continuously occupied with no changes in population density using the respective time spans over which different point types were used (see Chapter 2 for how I calculated the expected values).

I compared these expected and observed (i.e., those based on our survey results) point frequencies using a chi-square goodness of fit test and results show that they differ significantly (2 =85.76, df=3, p<.001) (Table 3.6). Paleoindian points are overreprensted while Archaic points underrepresented. Interestingly, raw projectile point counts show a pronounced decrease during the Early Archaic Period (~7,000-5,000 14C

B.P.). A similar pattern is expressed in radiocarbon dates and diagnostic projectile point frequencies reflecting the Early Archaic Period in the nearby LSP-1 rockshelter, the closest stratified and well-dated site to the NWVSA (Carey et al. 2014; Pellegrini 2014).

Together, these data point to a substantial reduction in the intensity to which the NWVSA was occupied during the Early Archaic Period, which corresponds loosely with the warm and dry Middle Holocene period. 65

Table 3.6. Expected and Observed Projectile Point Frequencies in the NWVSA.

Projectile Point Cultural Period Frequencies Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic Expected 83.3 41.6 62.4 41.6 Observed 147 7 44 31 2 =85.76, df=3, p<.001

Bifaces. Researchers (e.g., Andrefsky 1994; Kelly 1988) suggest that bifaces servings as cores and/or long-use life tools (e.g., projectile points) were important components of mobile toolkits. I considered the importance of bifaces across time by calculating biface index (BI) values that reflect the importance of such tools at sites.

Among the 50 single-component sites in my sample, only 19 Paleoindian and eight

Archaic sites contained bifaces, thereby reducing the total number of sites analyzed in this way to 27. Due to small sample sizes, I combined all Archaic sites into a single group. In a comparison of Paleoindian and Archaic sites, results indicate no significant difference in BI values between cultural periods (t=.550, df=25, p=.587) (Table 3.7).

When projectile points, which are also bifaces, were included and Projectile Point Biface

Index (PBI) values calculated and compared using the same method, there is still no significant difference in the relative importance of bifaces between periods (t=.973, df=25, p=.340) (see Table 3.7).

Table 3.7. Lithic Tool Totals and BI/PBI Averages by Cultural Period.

Tools

Biface

Point Undiagnostic Projectile Point Biface Flake Tool Biface Index Projectile Point Index Site Number Projectile Paleoindian P3 2 - 1 2 .2 .4 T10 1 - 4 - .8 1.0 T11 1 - 3 2 .5 .68 G31 1 - 2 2 .4 .6 T8 2 - 8 - .8 1.0 T16 2 - 3 1 .5 .83 T17 2 - 6 1 .67 .88 G19 6 - 2 4 .17 .67 A1 1 - 1 8 .1 .2 A6 1 - 2 11 .14 .21 G14 1 - 2 2 .4 .6 G43 10 - 1 - .09 1.0 J7 4 - 2 1 .29 .85 T9 2 - 7 1 .7 .9 T14 1 - 3 1 .6 .8 T12 5 - 7 5 .41 .71 T7 4 - 11 10 .44 .6 G4 6 1 8 3 .44 .78 G13 2 - 4 - .67 1.0 Total 34 1 77 44 n/a n/a - - - - .44 .72

Middle Archaic C3 1 - 4 1 .67 .83 T26 1 - 3 2 .5 .67 T20 2 - 1 3 .17 .5 G30 1 - 1 4 .17 .33 C14 1 - 3 2 .5 .67 Total 6 - 12 12 n/a n/a - - - - .40 .6

Late Archaic G29 12 3 7 9 .23 .61 P5 2 - 1 3 .17 .5 C2 2 - 4 - .67 1.0 Total 16 3 12 12 n/a n/a - - - - .36 .7

Summary of Local Measure Results

Results of my analysis of variables reflecting land-use within the NWVSA at a local scale suggest some pronounced differences between Paleoindian and Archaic assemblages. First, northern Warner Valley was used more intensively (i.e., visited by larger groups and/or more frequently) by Paleoindians than Archaic groups. Second, there was a greater emphasis on the beach ridge resource zone including the dated Lake

Warner shoreline and related Clovis Creek by Paleoindians. Third, lithic reduction activities in the NWVSA differed based on the quantity and types of lithic debitage discarded at Paleoindian and Archaic sites. While these lines of evidence point to diachronic variability in land-use, there does not appear to have been a major difference in the proportions of tool types used and discarded by each group. In the next section, I discuss the results of my comparisons of variables that reflect the importance of northern

Warner Valley within regional settlement and land-use systems.

Regional Measures

Projectile Points

Distance. As other researchers (e.g., Jones et al. 2003, 2012; Lyons et al. 2001;

Skinner et al. 2004; Smith 2010) have demonstrated, the distances between artifacts and the sources of toolstone on which they are made can be used to delineate lithic conveyance ranges. These ranges can yield rough impressions of overall group mobility 68 and may approximate the extent of foraging territories (Jones et al. 2003, 2012; Kelly

1992, 1997; Smith 2010). To better understand prehistoric lithic conveyance ranges/foraging territories and how northern Warner Valley fit into them during

Paleoindian and Archaic times, I submitted 112 Paleoindian and 73 Archaic projectile points manufactured from obsidian and FGV for geochemical characterization with the expectation that Paleoindian points would exhibit the greatest transport distances (Table

3.8). Table 3.9 shows the average distances that Paleoindian and Archaic points were transported before being discarded in the NWVSA. Two-tailed probabilities calculated using an Excel macro indicate that although Paleoindian points were on average transported slightly farther than later point types, there are no significant differences in transport distance between cultural periods (Table 3.10).

Table 3.8. Geochemical Data for NWVSA Projectile Points.

Direction Paleoindian Archaic Geochemical Sources to Source Points Points Alturas FGV SW 1 (<1%) - Badger Creek SE 1(<1%) - Bald Butte NW 3 (3%) - Beatys Butte SE 20 (18%) 24 (33%) Big Stick NW 4 (4%) 2 (3%) Blue Spring NW 1 (<1%) 1 (1%) BS/PP/FM SW 1 (<1%) - Buck Mountain SW 3 (3%) 2 (3%) Buck Spring NW/SE/NE 8 (7%) 7 (10% Camp Creek NE 1 (<1%) - Coglan Buttes SW 1 (<1%) - Cowhead Lake SW 1(<1%) 5 (7%) Coyote Spring FGV SE 1 (<1%) - Delintment Lake NE - 1 (1%) DH/WH SE 1 (<1%) - Double O NE 2 (2%) 2 (3%) Double O FGV NE 2 (2%) - Double H/Whitehorse SW - 1 (1%) Glass Buttes NW 9 (8%) 7 (10%) Gregory Creek NW 2 (2%) - Hawks Valley SE 1 (<1%) - 69

Direction Paleoindian Archaic Geochemical Sources to Source Points Points Horse Mountain NW 15 (13%) 3 (4%) Indian Creek Buttes NE 1 (<1%) 2 (3%) Long Valley SW 1 (<1%) - McComb Butte NW 1 (<1%) 1 (1%) ML/GV SE 4 (4%) 2 (3%) McKay Butte NW - - Mosquito Lake SW 2 (2%) 2 (3%) Mud Ridge NE 1 (<1%) - Riley NE 2 (2%) 1 (1%) Round Top Butte NW - 1 (1%) Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh NW 1 (<1%) - South Creek NW 1 (<1%) - Sugar Hill SW 1 (<1%) - Surveyor Spring SW 1 (<1%) 1 (1%) Tank Creek SW 4 (4%) 3 (4%) Tucker Hill SW 3 (3%) 1 (1%) Quartz Mountain NW - - Unknown FGV 1 - 2 (2%) - Unknown Obsidian 1 - 1 (<1%) 1 (1%) Unknown Obsidian 2 - - - Venator FGV NE 1 (<1%) 1 (1%) Wagontire NW 2 (2%) - Warner Valley FGV SW 2 (2%) 1 (1%) Wild Horse Canyon SE 1 (<1%) - Yreka Butte NW 2 (2%) 1 (1%) TOTAL - 112 (100%) 73 (100%)

Table 3.9. Average Transport Distances for Projectile Points by Cultural Period.

Cultural period Average Distance Paleoindian 73.2 km Archaic 60.4 km Early Archaic 64.9 km Middle Archaic 52.3 km Late Archaic 64.1 km

Table 3.10. Comparisons of Average Transport Distances of Projectile Points by Cultural Period.

Comparison p Paleoindian vs. Archaic .521 Paleoindian vs. Early Archaic .198 Paleoindian vs. Middle Archaic .486 Paleoindian vs. Late Archaic .155 Early Archaic vs. Middle Archaic .774 Early Archaic vs. Late Archaic .850 Middle Archaic vs. Late Archaic .447

Diversity. I analyzed the number of geochemical sources represented in each sample of projectile points and expected that source diversity would be highest in the

Paleoindian sample. When the different sample sizes were adjusted following Eerkens et al.’s (2007) bootstrapping routine (Table 3.11), two-tailed probability tests indicate that average source diversity for the projectile point samples differs significantly between cultural periods (Table 3.12). Paleoindian projectile points are manufactured on a significantly more diverse suite of raw materials than grouped Archaic projectile points

(p=.035). When Early and Middle Archaic points are compared to Paleoindian points there are no significant differences (p=.293 and p=.103, respectively); however,

Paleoindian and Late Archaic points do differ significantly (p=.016) with Paleoindian points manufactured on a more diverse suite of toolstone sources. Significant differences also occur between Early Archaic points and both Middle Archaic (p<.001) and Late (p

<.001) Archaic points. Middle and Late Archaic points do not differ significantly in source diversity (p=.251).

Table 3.11. Average Source Diversity for Diagnostic Projectile Points.

Cultural Period Average # of Sources Paleoindian (n=112) 6.1 Grouped Archaic (n=73) 5.2 Early Archaic (n=7) 6.0 Middle Archaic (n=38) 4.8 Late Archaic (n=28) 5.4

Table 3.12. Comparisons by Cultural Period for the Average Source Diversity of Diagnostic Projectile Points.

Comparison p Paleoindian vs. Grouped Archaic .035 Paleoindian vs. Early Archaic .293 71

Comparison p Paleoindian vs. Middle Archaic .103 Paleoindian vs. Late Archaic .016 Early Archaic vs. Middle Archaic <.001 Early Archaic vs. Late Archaic <.001 Middle Archaic vs. Late Archaic .251 Note: Comparisons in bold are statistically significant.

Transport Direction. Connolly and Jenkins (1997), Skinner et al. (2004), Jones et al. (2003) and others have suggested that geochemical data can be used to identify trends in the directions that toolstone was transported, which also in turn may reflect the directions from which groups arrived at particular locations. Paleoindian points are most commonly (41 percent) manufactured from toolstone located to the northwest with the second highest frequency (28 percent) of points made on sources located to the southeast

(Figure 3.1). Conversely, Archaic points manufactured from toolstone to the northwest comprise only 26 percent while the highest frequency of points (31 percent) are made on toolstone located to the southwest. As is the case with the Paleoindian sample, toolstone sources to the southeast are also moderately (29 percent) represented. However, results of a chi-square test comparing the directions that Paleoindian and grouped Archaic points were transported to the NWVSA indicate that there is no significant difference (2=6.06, df=3, p=.109) (Table 3.13).

Table 3.13. Direction of Toolstone for Diagnostic Projectile Points.

Direction Cultural Period 0-90° (NE) 91-180° (SE) 181-270° (SW) 271-360° (NW) Paleoindian 14 (-0.12) 31 (-0.06) 19 (-1.15) 45 (+1.04) Archaic 10 (+0.15) 21 (+0.07) 22 (+1.41) 19 (-1.28) 2  =6.06, df=3, p=.109 Note: Standardized residuals and directions in parentheses.

Figure 3.1. Rose diagrams for the direction to source of diagnostic projectile points in the NWVSA: (A) Paleoindian projectile points; and (B) Archaic projectile points.

Local vs Non-Local Toolstone: Projectile Points

I expected the Paleoindian projectile point sample (n=109) to feature a higher frequency of non-local toolstone than the Archaic point sample (n=72) based on the assumption that Paleoindians were more mobile than Archaic groups; however, the results of a chi-square test shows that there is no significant difference between cultural periods (2=0.33, df=1, p=.570) (Table 3.14). In both periods, non-local toolstone was used to make most of the projectile points discarded in the NWVSA.

Table 3.14. Frequencies of Local and Non-Local Toolstone Represented in Diagnostic Projectile Points from the NWVSA.

Toolstone Cultural Period Local Non-local Paleoindian 8 (-0.35) 101 (+0.11) Archaic 8 (+0.43) 65 (-0.13) 2=0.33, df=1, p=.565 Note: Standardized Residuals in Parentheses. 73

Unmodified Flakes

Distance. I supplemented my XRF analysis of projectile points with a sample of

120 unmodified flakes collected from five temporally discrete sites (Table 3.15); however, as discussed in Chapter 2, five flakes were unfit for analysis. I calculated the average transport distance for flakes from each site (Table 3.16) and compared them between cultural periods. I expected flakes from Paleoindian sites to exhibit higher average transport distances than those from Archaic sites assuming that Paleoindians operated within larger lithic conveyance zones in the Great Basin

Two-tailed probability tests indicate that the average transport distances of flakes in the NWVSA differ significantly by cultural period in multiple comparisons (Table

3.17). For instance, flakes from Paleoindian sites are manufactured on toolstone from sources occurring at greater distances from the NWVSA than those from grouped

Archaic sites, Middle Archaic sites, and early Late Archaic sites. Interestingly, the average transport distance of flakes at G29, a site dating to the latter part of the Late

Archaic Period (i.e., the Late Prehistoric period), is the highest of any cultural period.

When compared to the average transport distances of flakes at the Middle Archaic, early

Late Archaic, and Paleoindian sites, the differences are significant. Smith et al. (2012b; also see Smith 2010), McGuire (2002), and other researchers working in the northwestern

Great Basin have noted similar increases in toolstone transport distances after ~1,300 14C

B.P.

Table 3.15. Geochemical Sources for NWVSA Unmodified Flakes.

Unmodified Flakes Geochemical Source Direction Paleoindian Sites Archaic Sites Alturas FGV SW - - Badger Creek SE - - Bald Butte NW - - Beatys Butte SE 17 (35%) 20 (27%) Big Stick NW - - Blue Spring NW - - BS/PP/FM SW - 1 (1%) Buck Mountain SW - 2 (3%) Buck Spring NW/SE/NE 2 (4%) 27 (36%) Camp Creek NE - - Coglan Buttes SW - - Cowhead Lake SW 2 (4%) 1 (1%) Coyote Spring FGV SE - - Delintment Lake NE - - DH/WH SE - - Double O NE 2 (4%) - Double O FGV NE - - Double H/Whitehorse SW - - Glass Buttes NW 3 (6%) 12 (16%) Gregory Creek NW - 2 (3%) Hawks Valley SE - - Horse Mountain NW 8 (17%) 6 (8%) Indian Creek Buttes NE - - Long Valley SW - - McComb Butte NW - - ML/GV SE 7 (15%) - McKay Butte NW 1 (2%) - Mosquito Lake SW - - Mud Ridge NE - - Riley NE - - Round Top Butte NW - - Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh NW 1 (2%) 1 (1%) South Creek NW - - Sugar Hill SW - - Surveyor Spring SW - - Tank Creek SW 1 (2%) - Tucker Hill SW 2 (4%) - Quartz Mountain NW 2 (4%) - Unknown FGV 1 - - - Unknown Obsidian 1 - - 1 (1%) Unknown Obsidian 2 - - 2 (3%) Venator FGV NE - - Wagontire NW - - Warner Valley FGV SW - - Wild Horse Canyon SE - - Yreka Butte NW - - TOTAL - 48 (100%) 75 (100%)

Table 3.16. Average Transport Distances for Unmodified Flakes in the NWVSA.

Site Number Cultural Period Average Distance T7 Paleoindian 50.7 km G43 Paleoindian 67.5 km C3 Middle Archaic 31.5 km G20 Late Archaic 16.7 km G29 Late Archaic 82.4 km

Table 3.17. Comparisons by Cultural Period for the Average Distances to Source of Unmodified Flakes in the NWVSA.

Comparisons p Grouped Paleoindian vs. Grouped Archaic .019 T7 (Paleoindian) vs. C3 (Middle Archaic) .002 G43 (Paleoindian vs. C3 (Middle Archaic) <.001 T7 (Paleoindian) vs. G20 (Early Late Archaic) <.001 G43 (Paleoindian) vs. G20 (Early Late Archaic ) <.001 T7 (Paleoindian) vs. G29 (Late Late Archaic) .002 G43 (Paleoindian) vs. G29 (Late Late Archaic) .165 C3 (Middle Archaic) vs. G20 (Early Late Archaic) .032 C3 (Middle Archaic) vs. G29 (Late Late Archaic) <.001 G20 (Early Late Archaic) vs. G29 (Late Late Archaic) <.001 Note: Comparisons in bold are statistically significant.

Diversity. I calculated the average diversity of sources for samples of unmodified flakes using the same bootstrapping routine described for projectile points (Table 3.18) and compared it across cultural periods. I expected flakes from Paleoindian sites to exhibit more diverse source profiles than those from Archaic sites assuming that

Paleoindians operated within larger lithic conveyance ranges and moved within them more frequently, but two-tailed probability tests indicate that there are some significant differences in source diversity between periods (Table 3.19). For example, G20, an early

Late Archaic site whose flake sample exhibits the lowest source diversity of any site, differs significantly from Paleoindian, Middle Archaic, and the late Late Archaic sites

(p=.030, p=.030, and p=.049, respectively). 76

Table 3.18. Average Source Diversity of Unmodified Flakes by Cultural Period in the NWVSA.

Site Number Cultural Period Adjusted Diversity T7 Paleoindian 7.0 G43 Paleoindian 8.0 C3 Middle Archaic 7.8 G20 Early Late Archaic 3.94 G29 Late Late Archaic 6.92

Table 3.19. Comparisons by Cultural Period for the Average Source Diversity of Unmodified Flakes in the NWVSA.

Site Comparison p Grouped Paleoindian vs Grouped Archaic .177 T7 (Paleoindian) vs C3 (Middle Archaic) .406 G43 (Paleoindian) vs C3 (Middle Archaic) .572 T7 (Paleoindian) vs G20 (Early Late Archaic) .102 G43 (Paleoindian) vs G20 (Early Late Archaic) .030 T7 (Paleoindian vs G29 (Late Late Archaic) .400 G43 (Paleoindian) vs G29 (Late Late Archaic) .535 C3 (Middle Archaic) vs G20 (Early Late Archaic) .030 C3 (Middle Archaic) vs G29 (Late Late Archaic) .400 G20 (Early Late Archaic) vs G29 (Late Late Archaic) .049 Note: Comparisons in bold are significant.

Transport Direction. I compared the directions from which flakes from

Paleoindian and grouped Archaic sites were transported to the NWVSA using a Fisher’s exact test and results indicate that they varied significantly through time (p<.001) (Table

3.20). Archaic groups appear to have transported more toolstone from sources to the northeast than Paleoindians. Transport of toolstone from sources in all other directions seems to have remained consistent through time (Figure 3.2).

Table 3.20. Direction of Toolstone for Unmodified Flakes by Cultural Period.

Direction Cultural Period 0-90° (NE) 91-180° (SE) 181-270° (SW) 271-360° (NW) Paleoindian 4 26 2 16 Archaic 29 20 3 20 Fisher’s exact test: p<.001 77

Figure 3.2. Rose diagrams for the direction to source of unmodified flakes in the NWVSA: (A) Paleoindian unmodified flakes; and (B) Archaic unmodified flakes.

I also compared the directions from which all Paleoindian artifacts (i.e., projectile points and unmodified flakes) (n=157) and all Archaic artifacts (n=144) were transported to the NWVSA using a chi-square test. Results indicate significant differences across time (2=15, df=3, p=.002) (Table 3.21). Standardized residuals show that like the unmodified flake sample, Archaic groups transported material to the NWVSA from northeastern sources (e.g., Buck Spring) more so than Paleoindian groups, while the use of toolstone sources located to the northwest, southeast, and southwest changed little over time (Figure 3.3).

Table 3.21. Direction of Toolstone for Paleoindian and Archaic Artifacts.

Direction Cultural Period 0-90° (NE) 91-180° (SE) 181-270° (SW) 271-360° (NW) Paleoindian 18 (-2.15) 57 (+0.82) 21 (-0.61) 61 (+1.22) Archaic 39 (+2.25) 41 (-0.86) 25 (+0.64) 39 (-1.28) 2=15, df=3, p=.002 Note: Standardized residuals and directions in parentheses.

Figure 3.3. Rose diagrams for the direction to source of all prehistoric artifacts in the NWVSA: (A) Paleoindian artifacts; and (B) Archaic artifacts.

Local vs Non-Local Toolstone: Unmodified Flakes

I expected unmodified flakes from Paleoindian sites to be made more often on non-local toolstone than flakes from Archaic sites. Results of a Fisher’s exact test comparing grouped sites indicate that this is the case for grouped Paleoindian and

Archaic sites (p<.001) (Table 3.22); however, comparisons between individual sites indicate no significant differences. Flakes exhibiting little difference in the frequencies of local and non-local toolstone contrast with the significant differences noted in the comparisons of toolstone used for projectile points presented above which suggests that projectile points and flakes at Paleoindian and Archaic sites exhibit different source profiles – a possibility that I consider below.

Table 3.22. Comparisons by Cultural Period for the Frequencies of Local/Non-Local Toolstone Represented in Unmodified Flakes in the NWVSA.

Site Comparison by Cultural Period p Grouped Paleoindian vs. Grouped Archaic <.001 T7 (Paleoindian) vs. C3 (Middle Archaic) .667 G43 (Paleoindian) vs. C3 (Middle Archaic) .109 T7 (Paleoindian) vs. G20 (Early Late Archaic) 1.43 79

G43 (Paleoindian) vs. G20 (Early Late Archaic) 5.55 T7 (Paleoindian) vs. G29 (Late Late Archaic) .234 G43 (Paleoindian) vs. G29 (Late Late Archaic) 1.0 C3 (Middle Archaic) vs. G20 (Early Late Archaic) 7.13 C3 (Middle Archaic) vs. G29 (Late Late Archaic) 1.09 G20 (Early Late Archaic) vs. G29 (Late Late Archaic) 5.55 Note: Comparisons in bold are statistically significant.

Local vs. Non-Local Toolstone: Projectile Points and Unmodified Flakes

Due to the contrasting results of my comparisons of local and non-local toolstone frequencies in projectile points (no significant difference) and flakes (significant difference) between the Paleoindian and Archaic samples, I also compared the frequencies of local and non-local toolstone represented in projectile points and flakes within each period. A Fisher’s exact test indicates that there is no significant difference

(p=.724) in local/non-local toolstone frequencies between Paleoindian points and flakes; in both cases, non-local toolstone dominates the samples (Table 3.23). Conversely,

Archaic points and flakes feature significantly different frequencies of local and non- local toolstone (2=12.53, df=1, p<.001) (Table 3.24). Standardized residuals show that local toolstone is significantly underrepresented in Archaic projectile points and significantly overrepresented in flakes, which may reflect a shift in occupation span and/or mobility patterns during the Archaic period.

Table 3.23. Local vs. Non-Local Toolstone for Paleoindian Projectile Points and Unmodified Flakes.

Artifact Type Local Non-Local Projectile Points 8 104 Unmodified Flakes 2 47 Fisher’s exact test: p=.724

Table 3.24. Local vs. Non-Local Toolstone for Archaic Projectile Points and Unmodified Flakes.

Artifact Type Local Non-Local Projectile Points 7 (-2.22) 64 (+1.22) Unmodified Flakes 27 (+2.16) 48 (-1.19) 2=12.53, df=1, p<.001 Note: Standardized residuals in parentheses.

Regional Projectile Point Frequencies

Finally, I compared projectile point frequencies within the NWVSA to those recorded at the nearby Fort Rock Basin, Abert-Chewaucan Basin, Steens Mountain, and

Massacre Lake Basin with the assumption that those featuring more projectile points from a particular period reflect more people on the landscape at that time. Chi-square tests show that in each of my four comparisons of point frequencies in the NWVSA and the other study areas, there are significant differences (Table 3.25). Standardized residuals indicate that in each comparison, Paleoindian points are significantly overrepresented and Archaic points from various periods are significantly underrepresented in the NWVSA relative to other areas. These results arguably suggest that population densities were higher in northern Warner Valley than in surrounding areas during the Pleistocene-Holocene transition, but they dropped substantially during the remainder of the Holocene.

Table 3.25. Projectile Point Frequencies of the NWVSA and Nearby Study Areas.

Cultural Period Comparisons of Study Areas Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic NWVSA 147 (+13.74) 7 (-1.09) 44 (-2.83) 31 (-6.99) Fort Rock Basin, OR 52 (-7.95) 35 (+0.63) 224 (+1.64) 373 (+4.04) 2=329.5, df=3, p=<.001

NWVSA 147 (+11.1) 7 (-3.66) 44 (-2.32) 31 (-5.52) Abert-Chewaucan Basin, OR 29 (-8.04) 67 (+2.65) 137 (+1.68) 203 (+4.00) 2=263.03, df=3, p=<.001

NWVSA 147 (+20.28) 7 (-3.73) 44 (-5.58) 31 (-4.75) Steens Mountain, OR 12 (-10.2) 122 (+1.88) 450 (+2.81) 321 (+2.39) 2=599.96, df=3, p=<.001

NWVSA 147 (+7.56) 7 (-2.12) 44 (-4.09) 31 (-3.00) Massacre Lake Basin, NV 5 (-7.88) 22 (+2.24) 109 (+4.32) 69 (+3.17) 2=181.7, df=3, p=<.001 Note: Standardized Residuals in Parentheses.

Summary of Results for Regional Measures

Overall, my results reflect a blend of change and continuity in mobility, lithic technological organization, and occupational intensity across time. Projectile points from each cultural period are predominantly manufactured on non-local toolstone with average transport distances varying little over time. Paleoindian projectile points generally reflect more diverse source profiles than Archaic points but no significant differences were noted in the direction/movement of projectile points between cultural periods.

Unmodified flakes at Paleoindian sites generally exhibit higher transport distances than those at Archaic sites but during the latter part of the Late Archaic period, the average distance to source and source diversity for flakes increases. Non-local toolstone is more common among flakes at Paleoindian sites, but no significant differences in source diversity of the flake samples were noted. Significant differences exist in toolstone 82 transport direction between the Paleoindian and Archaic periods. Paleoindian projectile points and flakes do not differ significantly in proportions of local and non-local toolstone; both are predominantly made on non-local obsidian. Conversely, Archaic points and flakes differ significantly, with Archaic points most often made on non-local material but flakes most often made on local material. Finally, regional projectile point frequencies suggest that the NWVSA was used more intensively by Paleoindian groups relative to other nearby areas while the opposite holds true for Archaic groups; later in time, northern Warner Valley saw less use than surrounding areas. In the next chapter, I discuss the significance of these results and how they may be used to both reconstruct prehistoric lifeways in the NWVSA and consider its importance to northern Great Basin populations.

CHAPTER 4

Discussion

Lake Warner regressed from northern Warner Valley by ~8,700 14C B.P. (D.

Weide 1975; Wriston and Smith 2012), substantially altering the range of resources available there. Following other studies (e.g., Aikens and Jenkins 1994; Beck and Jones

1997, 2010; Jenkins et al. 2004; Jones et al. 2003, 2012), I hypothesized that a pronounced shift occurred in prehistoric lifeways following the Pleistocene-Holocene transition in response to changing environmental conditions. In the previous chapter, I tested this hypothesis through series of measures that compared lifeways at both a local and regional scale. Results indicate a mix of change and continuity in Paleoindian and

Archaic lifeways, which are reflected in site distribution and composition as well as lithic technological organization. In the following sections I discuss the significance of those results and their utility in reconstructing human behavior in the NWVSA and at a broader scale, the northern Great Basin.

Diachronic Shifts in Local Lifeways

Land-use in Northern Warner Valley

Paleoindian Subsistence. My analysis of site distributions in the NWVSA suggests that prior to Lake Warner’s regression, Paleoindians targeted wetland resources 84 on the peripheries of Lake Warner – in particular, its interface with Clovis Creek. This interpretation is based on the fact that there are high frequencies of Paleoindian sites in beach ridge parcels, including clusters near both the beach ridge dated to ~10,400 14C

B.P. and nearby Clovis Creek. Concentrations of GBF and GBS projectile points, occurring both within sites and as isolated artifacts, are also located near the beach ridge and creek, generally at elevations just above the dated beach ridge hinting at the possibility that Paleoindians initially occupied northern Warner Valley around that time.

Paleoindian artifacts exhibited no rounding or polishing suggesting that they were not redeposited in secondary contexts as a result of natural processes by Clovis Creek or

Lake Warner. Therefore, artifact distributions likely reflect those spots visited by

Paleoindians, presumably to target wetland resources along the lake’s edge. Other researchers (e.g., Aikens and Jenkins 1994; Grayson 2011; Jenkins et al. 2004) working in the nearby Fort Rock Basin have noted evidence that Paleoindians targeted wetland resources there.

Paleoindian sites, GBS points, and a two GBF points also occur below the dated beach ridge in the valley bottom resource zone. Site and artifact distributions suggest that GBS-using groups likely followed Lake Warner south as it retreated from northern

Warner Valley. Fauna from the nearby LSP-1 rockshelter, which overlooks the

NWVSA, indicate that by ~8,700 14C B.P. when the site was first occupied, GBS- and foliate-point-using late Paleoindian groups processed, cooked, and consumed large numbers of leporids (Pellegrini 2014). Although most open-air Paleoindian sites in the

NVWSA can only be coarsely dated using projectile points as index fossils (for example,

GBS points were perhaps used over a ~4,000-year period), based on site distribution it 85 appears that Paleoindian subsistence varied considerably in northern Warner Valley.

Groups may have employed two subsistence strategies within the period that GBS points were the dominant projectile technology: (1) early Paleoindians (including GBF point- using groups) appear to have targeted nearshore settings surrounding Lake Warner and

Clovis Creek, likely focusing on wetland resources; and (2) as the lake retreated from the

NWVSA, late Paleoindians moved out onto the newly dry valley floor. Based on subsistence residues at LSP-1, these later groups shifted to a reliance on leporids, whose populations likely exploded due to expanding habitat (sensu Schmitt et al. 2002).

Oetting’s (1994b) work at early Holocene sites in the nearby Fort Rock Basin suggests that late Paleoindians collected and processed jackrabbits there in large numbers, perhaps communally, as early as ~9,000 14C B.P.

Archaic Subsistence. In contrast to the Paleoindian period, the distribution of

Archaic sites exhibit no clear clustering within the three resource zones and are located at greater distances from both the dated beach ridge and Clovis Creek, indicating that those areas were less important to Archaic groups. Previous research in Warner Valley (e.g.,

Cannon et al. 1990; Eiselt 1998; Tipps 1998; D. Weide 1975; M. Weide 1968; Young

2000) suggests that Archaic groups instead moved out of the NVWSA and exploited the lake and marsh systems as well as big game and plant resources in upland settings in southern Warner Valley. Northern Warner Valley may have continued to factor into

Archaic subsistence strategies from time to time; for example, after a ~4,500 year hiatus, people returned to LSP-1 and leporids again dominate fauna from the site (Pellegrini

2014). The mortality profiles of the jackrabbits at that site suggest that they were likely hunted during fall or winter months (Pellegrini 2014). 86

Paleoindian Occupational Intensity. Paleoindian site attributes and projectile point frequencies indicate that northern Warner Valley was used more intensively (i.e., visited by larger groups and/or more frequently) during the Paleoindian Period than subsequent Archaic periods. Paleoindian sites are on average two times larger than

Archaic sites and generally feature higher amounts of lithic debitage. Additionally,

Paleoindian points are significantly overrepresented there, suggesting a greater human presence in the NWVSA before ~7,500 14C B.P. (the terminal age of GBS points) than during any other cultural period. More intensive Paleoindian use of the NWVSA likely reflects the fact that it was a better-watered, more attractive locale during the majority of the Paleoindian Period than later times.

Archaic Occupational Intensity. During the Early Archaic Period (7,000 14C

B.P.), northern Warner Valley experienced a pronounced decrease in occupational intensity reflected by low frequencies of Large Side-notched projectile points. The paucity of Early Archaic markers in the survey data corresponds with a lack of radiocarbon dates and Early Archaic points indicating a hiatus at the LSP-1 rockshelter

(Carey et al. 2014; Pellegrini 2014). Researchers (e.g., Aikens and Jenkins 1994;

Louderback et al. 2011) working elsewhere in the northern Great Basin have noted similar evidence for population decreases in multiple lake basins at that time. High frequencies of Large Side-notched points in southern Warner Valley (Tipps 1998) suggest that Early Archaic groups retreated to areas in the valley that still featured reliable water sources and perhaps other subsistence resources. In the NWVSA, projectile point frequencies increased during the Middle Archaic period, suggesting that groups once again began to revisit northern Warner Valley following the Early Archaic 87 period, although less frequently and/or in smaller numbers than Paleoindians. Resumed use of the northern valley might reflect the seasonal exploitation of jackrabbits on the valley floor following ~4,000 14C B.P. – the time when LSP-1 was reoccupied.

Prehistoric Mobility in Northern Warner Valley

Bifaces – generally considered as hallmarks of mobile toolkits – are common at

Paleoindian sites as well as Middle and Late Archaic sites in the NWVSA, suggesting that mobility remained high except for a brief interruption during the Early Archaic

Period when the area may have been largely abandoned. Occupational intensity likely increased during the Middle Archaic Period and continued into the Late Archaic Period, as reflected by increased site and artifact frequencies. Tipps (1998) and Eiselt (1998) note that bifaces are common at both Archaic lowland and upland sites in southern

Warner Valley. According to several researchers (e.g., Cannon et al. 1990; M. Weide

1968), Archaic groups in southern Warner Valley exploited upland resources during the summer months and lowland resources in the fall and winter. This seasonal pattern of subsistence and land-use by groups occupying the well-watered southern valley may have also included periodic visits to the drier northern valley where, based on evidence from

LSP-1, they collected and processed leporids in a fairly systematic fashion.

Lithic Tool Production

Dominant flake types differ at Paleoindian and Archaic sites in the NWVSA.

Biface thinning flakes are common at Paleoindian sites while decortication and core reduction flakes as well as shatter are common at Archaic sites. These data suggest that later stage lithic reduction (e.g., biface finishing and/or maintaining) primarily occurred at Paleoindian sites with groups bringing partially-reduced bifaces into northern Warner

Valley (sensu Beck et al. 2002). Conversely, earlier stage lithic reduction (e.g., flake production, initial cobble reduction) occurred more often at Archaic sites with groups bringing less reduced toolstone packages into northern Warner Valley. When coupled with the fact that toolstone in Paleoindian assemblages is predominantly non-local, this suggests that early groups geared up with partially-reduced toolstone packages (e.g., bifacial cores) before entering the relatively toolstone-poor NWVSA. Archaic groups instead appear to have relied more on lower quality, local Buck Spring obsidian, and because it occurs closer to the NWVSA, did not invest as much effort in reducing it at quarries prior to transport. These trends shed light on the degree of mobility through time and more broadly, Paleoindian and Archaic land-use, which I address later in this chapter.

Summary of Prehistoric Lifeways in Northern Warner Valley on a Local Scale

My results generally conform to the expectations that I developed regarding the hypothesis that prehistoric lifeways changed in northern Warner Valley following the

Pleistocene-Holocene transition. First, the frequencies and distribution of Paleoindian 89 and Archaic sites throughout the three resource zones indicate diachronic shifts in land- use and likely subsistence strategies. Second, shifts in occupational intensity are suggested by changes in site attributes (e.g., site size and debitage quantity) and time- sensitive projectile point frequencies. Finally, shifts in the dominant flake types reflect changes in lithic technological organization across time. Continuity in the importance of bifaces across time was an unexpected result that failed to meet my expectations. In sum, these differences suggest that prehistoric lifeways changed in northern Warner Valley following the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. When considered with other studies in the southern valley and more recently, the LSP-1 rockshelter, data from the NWVSA suggest that groups coped with changing environmental conditions by following the retreating lakes and marshes southward, diversifying their land-use strategies, and ultimately, returning to northern Warner Valley with a different adaptive strategy following a substantial hiatus.

Diachronic Shifts in Regional Lifeways: The View from Northern Warner Valley

Lithic Conveyance Zones and Prehistoric Foraging Ranges

Extent and Frequency of Movements. Paleoindians in the NWVSA generally utilized larger lithic conveyance ranges and moved around more frequently than Archaic groups. Paleoindian points are fashioned from a more diverse suite of toolstone sources than Archaic points and flakes from Paleoindian sites reflect greater transport distances than those from Archaic sites. These data support higher Paleoindian mobility, assuming 90 that more mobile groups would have come into contact with more toolstone sources as they moved across the landscape (Skinner et al. 2004; Smith 2010) and that greater average transport distances reflect movements within lithic conveyance ranges (Jones et al. 2003, 2012).

Paleoindian artifacts are predominately made from non-local (>20 km) toolstone sources, which further supports the notion that Paleoindians moved frequently and did not remain in northern Warner Valley long enough for local toolstone to accumulate at sites (sensu Smith 2011; Surovell 2009). Archaic points are also primarily fashioned from non-local toolstone, although flakes are more often made on local Buck Spring obsidian. Based on the higher proportions of Buck Spring obsidian in samples of flakes from Archaic sites, it is reasonable to infer that later groups stayed for longer periods of time in the NWVSA and produced tools from local Buck Spring obsidian to replace exhausted implements made on non-local materials brought into the valley. In turn, replacement tools produced on Buck Spring obsidian were likely transported out of the

NWVSA, as evidenced by the low frequency of projectile points fashioned from that source in the project area.

Source profiles of Paleoindian and Archaic artifacts also exhibit unexpected variation in a number of ways: (1) a GBS projectile point fashioned from Wild Horse

Canyon obsidian is located ~745 km to the southeast of the NWVSA in western Utah; and (2) unmodified flakes from the latter part of the Late Archaic Period (i.e., the Late

Prehistoric period) show a pronounced increase in transport distance and slight increase in source diversity. The substantial distance that the GBS point traveled to northern

Warner Valley may suggest that Paleoindians in the NWVSA and surrounding region 91 participated in exchange with neighboring groups over a broad area as direct procurement of toolstone from Wild Horse Canyon seems unlikely considering that the northern Great

Basin features a ubiquity of toolstone sources and points made on obsidian just do not last that long (Lafayette and Smith 2012). In terms of toolstone source variation exhibited within the Archaic samples, Smith et al. (2012b), Smith (2010), and McGuire

(2002) note similar trends in assemblages from other areas in the northwestern Great

Basin and suggest that these could be due to increased interaction with neighboring groups or increased residential mobility, especially after ~1,300 14C B.P.

Toolstone Transport Direction. Paleoindian and Archaic toolstone procurement data differ in direction and distance to source. Identifying the directions from which toolstone originated facilitates reconstructions of how groups moved into the NWVSA from the surrounding region (Connolly and Jenkins 1997). For instance, the relative source frequencies of Paleoindian projectile points and unmodified flakes (see Figures

3.1 and 3.2) indicate that groups entered the NWVSA from the northwest based on the fact that the highest frequency of finished stone tools come from that direction. Once there, groups discarded exhausted tools made on those northwestern sources in the

NWVSA and appear to have reprovisioned their toolstone supply at obsidian sources located to the southeast, primarily Beatys Butte, based on the fact that Paleoindian sites feature high frequencies of unmodified flakes made on that material. Beatys Butte is the second closest obsidian source to the NWVSA (~38 km) after Buck Spring (~10 km); however, Buck Spring, which often occurs as small nodules (Craig Skinner, personal communication, 2013), is generally unsuitable for manufacturing large Paleoindian 92 projectile points. As such, early groups apparently did not rely heavily on that material and elected instead to procure toolstone from the relatively near Beatys Butte.

Conversely, obsidian source frequencies for Archaic points and flakes (see

Figures 3.1 and 3.2) suggest that groups predominantly entered the NWVSA from the southwest. This interpretation is based on the facts that: (1) the highest frequency of finished tools are made on obsidian sources in that direction; and (2) toolstone supplies may have been near exhaustion before arriving in the NWVSA. Groups appear to have replenished their toolstone supplies using the local Buck Spring source located immediately northeast of the NWVSA, as evidenced by the fact that flakes of that material dominate the debitage samples from Archaic sites. Higher use of the Buck

Spring source by Archaic groups suggests that nodule-size constraints, which may have discouraged Paleoindian groups from using it to produce large GBF and GBS points and other tools, appear to have been lifted for later groups manufacturing smaller dart and arrow points. The Beatys Butte source continued to be exploited by Archaic groups, but not to the same degree that it was by Paleoindians.

Regional Land-Use

Paleoindian Land-use. Based on the source profile of Paleoindian GBF and GBS points from the Dietz Site in the Alkali Basin, just northwest of northern Warner Valley,

Pinson (2011) argues that Paleoindians frequently moved between resource-rich lake basins including Warner Valley. She notes that artifacts from the Dietz Site are made on toolstone from raw material sources situated either near once productive lake basins (e.g., 93 the Fort Rock Basin) or major travel routes (e.g., lower-elevation passes) between those basins.

Multiple aspects of the NWVSA dataset support Pinson’s (2011) model. For at least the early part of Paleoindians’ tenure in northern Warner Valley, groups likely exploited lacustrine resources tied to Lake Warner and Clovis Creek. Additionally, the source profiles of Paleoindian artifacts from the NWVSA indicate that groups moved frequently within large lithic conveyance ranges and occupied the valley for short periods. These data suggest that during the Paleoindian period, northern Warner Valley may have factored into regional land-use strategies that featured groups traveling between productive basins and exploiting wetland resources. Groups likely entered northern Warner Valley via the Alkali Basin after visiting the Fort Rock, Lake Malheur, and/or Lake Abert-Chewaucan basins; this possibility is suggested by the fact that Horse

Mountain obsidian is very well-represented in Warner Valley assemblages. The Horse

Mountain obsidian source lies at the confluence of low elevation passes in the Alkali

Basin, not far from the Dietz Site, that link those basins to northern Warner Valley. This could indicate that groups visited the area to replenish their toolstone supplies before making the journey into northern Warner Valley (Pinson 2011). Although Beatys Butte is the most common obsidian type in the sample of Paleoindian projectile points from the

NWVSA, the high occurrence of unmodified flakes from that toolstone source suggests that groups exploited Beatys Butte only after arriving to the valley (sensu Jones et al.

2003).

My comparisons of projectile point frequencies in the NWVSA to those in the nearby Fort Rock Basin, Lake Abert-Chewaucan Basin, Massacre Lake Basin, and Steens 94

Mountain indicate that northern Warner Valley was visited more frequently and/or by larger groups than those adjacent areas. The more intensive use of northern Warner

Valley may reflect the valley’s greater importance to broader land-use systems in the northern Great Basin and the possibility that certain locales were favored over others.

Christian’s (1997) study of Paleoindian assemblages from the nearby Hawksy Walksy

Valley identified a similar pattern in which early groups frequently moved between locales in a manner akin to that suggested by Pinson (2011).

Archaic Land-use. Unlike Paleoindians, Archaic groups in the NWVSA appear to have practiced more restricted land-use strategies in the region, which is manifested in my results in a number of ways: (1) the intensity to which northern Warner Valley was used decreased; (2) lithic conveyance range size generally decreased; and (3) occupation span increased. This reduction in regional mobility and lithic conveyance range size was likely part of a risk reduction strategy designed to cope with regional environmental fluctuations that affected the distribution of resources in multiple lake basins including

Warner Valley (Aikens and Jenkins 1994; Jenkins et al. 2004; Minckley et al. 2004;

Wigand et al. 1995; Wriston and Smith 2012). Kelly (2007) has suggested that foragers will often decrease mobility as a result of increased uncertainty regarding the distribution of subsistence resources on the landscape and remain at more reliable resource locales.

Such behavior may be reflected by the substantial habitation features dating to the

Archaic periods in southern Warner Valley (Cannon et al. 1990; Eiselt 1998). As a result of regional environmental fluctuations, groups may have elected to settle around the well- watered southern valley and other reliable locations like it in the northern Great Basin and as a result, did not move across the landscape to the same degree as Paleoindians. 95

Summary of Prehistoric Lifeways in Northern Warner Valley on a Regional Scale

Expectations associated with the regional measures that I evaluated were generally met and reflect change in multiple aspects of prehistoric lifeways across time.

For instance, source provenance results for Paleoindian and Archaic artifacts indicate diachronic shifts in lithic conveyance range size and mobility. Source profiles also suggest that groups moved in and out of northern Warner Valley differently as well as focused on different toolstone sources once there. These results, paired with projectile point frequencies and subsistence strategies, reflect that northern Warner Valley was an important resource locale in regional land-use systems during the Paleoindian Period but became less important during the Archaic Period relative to other locations. Average transport distances of projectile points did not change through time, which failed to meet my expectations. This may be due to the possibility that points fashioned from local

Buck Spring obsidian were transported out of the valley or small cobble sizes precluded their manufacture.

My results suggest that prehistoric groups used northern Warner Valley and the surrounding region differently during different periods. Paleoindians incorporated northern Warner Valley into a regional land-use system that included multiple lake basins with groups moving cyclically between important resource patches. Highly variable environmental conditions during the various Archaic periods may have resulted in a collapse of regional land-use systems, or at least northern Warner Valley’s decreased importance within those strategies. Rather, Archaic groups appear to have practiced reduced residential mobility within smaller foraging ranges and instead elected to 96 intensify use of the reliable water sources in the southern valley. Northern Warner

Valley was used less intensively at some times – especially during the Early Archaic

Period – and perhaps on a seasonal basis during others.

CHAPTER 5

Conclusions

In this study, I tested the hypothesis that a pronounced shift occurred in prehistoric lifeways in northern Warner Valley, Oregon following the Pleistocene-

Holocene transition. I focused on the strategies that Paleoindian and Archaic groups employed to cope with changing environmental conditions there and how those may be reflected in settlement patterns and lithic technological organization. I tested the hypothesis using survey data collected by the GBPRU during the 2011-2013 field seasons by analyzing: (1) source provenance data for Paleoindian and Archaic artifacts; (2) distributions of sites relative to important resource areas; and (3) the character of sites

(e.g., site area, amount and type of lithic detritus and stone tools present).

In Chapter 1, I highlighted studies (e.g., Aikens and Jenkins 1994; Cannon et al.

1990; Grayson 2011; Jenkins et al. 2004; Oetting 1989; M. Weide 1968; Wriston and

Smith 2012) that have reconstructed major diachronic environmental and cultural trends in the northern Great Basin. Such studies facilitated situating Warner Valley within regional socioeconomic systems. Additionally, I presented studies (e.g., Jones et al.

2003, 2012; Kelly 2001, 2007; McGuire 2002; Pinson 2011; Skinner et al. 2004; Smith

2010; Thomas 1983, 1988; M. Weide 1968) that have used aspects of the Great Basin’s archaeological record (e.g., stone tools and settlement patterns) to reconstruct prehistoric behavior. These studies informed the methods I used to infer diachronic shifts in prehistoric lifeways in northern Warner Valley. 98

In the first half of Chapter 2, I provided detailed descriptions of Warner Valley and the GBPRU’s 2011-2013 pedestrian survey of the NWVSA, which produced a large sample of diagnostic projectile points and prehistoric sites. Data recovered over the three field seasons comprised the materials of this study. Prehistoric sites were assigned to specific cultural periods or classified as multi-component based on the presence of diagnostic projectile points. Using projectile points as index fossils proved well-suited for sites in the NWVSA due to a lack of dateable organic material. Later in Chapter 2, I discussed the methods employed to track diachronic shifts in mobility, occupation intensity, and overall land-use in northern Warner Valley on both a local and regional scale. My dataset was better suited to address such aspects of prehistoric lifeways since it is comprised entirely of lithic scatters. To test for changes in mobility, I submitted 112

Paleoindian and 73 Archaic projectile points as well as 125 unmodified flakes from five temporally discrete sites for XRF analysis. The geochemical characterization of

Paleoindian and Archaic artifacts facilitated reconstructions of lithic conveyance ranges, how often groups moved across the landscape in pursuit of toolstone or subsistence resources, and how and where populations moved across the landscape. I reconstructed occupation intensity by evaluating projectile point frequencies represented in the

NWVSA as well as analyzed the composition of sites (e.g., site area, amount and type of lithic detritus, and the types of tools featured) by cultural period. I used these measures to determine how often northern Warner Valley was visited and/or the size of prehistoric populations entering the valley. Additionally, I compared point frequencies in the valley to neighboring study areas to consider northern Warner Valley’s relative importance within the broader socioeconomic systems of the northern Great Basin. To test for 99 diachronic shifts in land-use, I used ArcMap 10.1 to analyze the distribution and spatial relationships of sites across the three resource zones that comprised the NWVSA. Those data yielded a rough impression of Paleoindian and Archaic subsistence strategies and how they may have changed due to variable environmental conditions across time. At the end of Chapter 2, I developed a series of expectations regarding the results of the measures I performed.

Chapter 3 highlighted the results of my study. My analysis of site attributes and projectile point frequencies indicates that there were a number of changes in prehistoric lifeways in northern Warner Valley following the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. Site distributions across the three resource zones and their locations relative to important resource locales (e.g., the dated beach ridge and Clovis Creek) as well as evidence from the nearby LSP-1 rockshelter suggest that Paleoindians used northern Warner Valley more intensively and may have employed two subsistence strategies across time due to the retreat of Lake Warner from the NWVSA ~8,700 14C B.P.: (1) early Paleoindians

(i.e., GBS- and some GBF-point users) likely focused on lacustrine resources on the fringes of Lake Warner and Clovis Creek, based on the concentration of such artifacts in those areas; and (2) late Paleoindians (i.e., GBS-point users) likely exploited leporids or other resources on the dry valley floor following Lake Warner’s retreat (Pellegrini 2014).

Conversely, evidence suggests that Archaic groups may have largely followed the shrinking lake to the remaining well-watered areas in southern Warner Valley, where they harvested resources in both upland and lowland settings (Cannon et al. 1990; Eiselt

1998; Tipps 1998; Young 2000). Diagnostic projectile points at open-air sites and faunal remains associated with the Middle and Late Archaic periods (i.e., post-4,000 14C B.P.) at 100 the LSP-1 rockshelter indicate that northern Warner Valley may have been visited periodically by later groups to harvest jackrabbits, cottontails, and other resources

(Pellegrini 2014).

Flake types at sites indicate that Paleoindians transported toolstone packages into the NWVSA that were reduced to a greater degree than those transported by Archaic groups. Those and other data yield rough impressions of toolstone conveyance and overall mobility, which informed the results of my regional measures. Additionally, the fact that bifaces are well-represented at both Paleoindian and Archaic sites suggested that in some ways, mobility strategies within Warner Valley changed little over time. Source provenance data indicate that Paleoindians generally operated within larger lithic conveyance ranges and moved more frequently within these ranges than Archaic groups.

Transport directions of Paleoindian and Archaic artifacts also suggest that groups moved across the landscape differently and regularly targeted different toolstone sources. This difference was especially evident in the higher use of local Buck Spring obsidian by

Archaic groups. Additionally, artifact source profiles exhibited variation by period; for example, there was an increase in average transport distance/diversity of unmodified flakes during the latter part of the Late Archaic period. These data suggest that informal exchange, shifts in mobility, and/or increased interaction with neighboring populations may have occurred – suggestions made by other researchers working in the region (Smith

2010; Smith et al. 2012b; McGuire 2002).

Source provenance data, paired with my comparison of projectile point frequencies in the NWVSA to other resource locales (e.g., the Fort Rock Basin, Abert-

Chewaucan, and Massacre Lake basins, Steens Mountain), reflect diachronic shifts in 101 regional land-use systems. Paleoindians in the NWVSA may have participated in a regional land-use system where groups frequently rotated between productive resource areas with northern Warner Valley representing one such stop (sensu Christian 1997;

Pinson 2011). Conversely, Archaic groups may have generally practiced more-restricted land-use strategies that did not exploit surrounding resource areas or northern Warner

Valley to the same extent as Paleoindians, but rather intensified their use of reliable water sources in the southern valley (Cannon et al. 1990; Eiselt 1998; Tipps 1998). Overall, my expectations for the NWVSA dataset were met, which indicates that there were a number of shifts in prehistoric lifeways in northern Warner Valley following the Pleistocene-

Holocene transition.

Limitations and Future Research

My study has furthered understandings of how prehistoric groups used northern

Warner Valley as well as how the major environmental and cultural trends in the valley compared to those in the northern Great Basin across time. More importantly, when considered together with previous studies in southern Warner Valley, my results provide a more complete picture of prehistoric behavior in Warner Valley. Having said that, my dataset limited interpretations in a number of ways. First, small sample sizes required me to combine artifacts or sites dating to various Archaic periods into a single temporal category on multiple occasions. This made tracking change between cultural periods problematic and resulted in only the broadest generalizations of Archaic lifeways.

Second, insufficient sampling of the uplands surrounding northern Warner Valley yielded 102 little evidence for upland occupations during any period. Therefore, my interpretations regarding Paleoindian and Archaic subsistence and/or land-use may be incomplete.

Finally, my dataset was not well-suited to address other factors (e.g., sociopolitical organization, ideology, inter-group interactions) that may have influenced changes in land-use and/or settlement patterns. Instead, my study focused heavily on the relationship that hunter-gatherers had with the environment and its influence on their decision-making.

Future research should include additional survey of northern Warner Valley to increase artifact and site samples and mitigate overly broad generalizations of prehistoric lifeways especially for those of Archaic groups. Greater focus on uplands surrounding the valley will also lead to a more complete impression of Paleoindian and Archaic settlement and land-use systems. Furthermore, larger artifact samples may yield additional evidence for variation in artifact source profiles. This should facilitate more robust interpretations of group interactions and exchange systems, which could potentially shed light on factors other than the environment’s influence on human behavior. Such further research will increase our understanding of prehistoric behavior there, but more importantly provide further insight on how prehistoric populations coped with the variable environmental and cultural landscapes of the northern Great Basin.

103

REFRENCES CITED

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.

Andrefsky, W., Jr. 1991 Inferring Trends in Prehistoric Settlement Behavior from Lithic Production Technology in the Southern Plains. North American Archaeology 12(2):129-144. 1994 Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59(1):21-34.

Bacon, S.N., R.M. Burke, S.K. Pezzopane, and A.S. Jayko 2006 Last Glacial Maximum and Holocene Lake Levels of Owens Lake, Eastern California, USA. Quaternary Science Reviews 25:1264-1282.

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. 2009 The Archaeology of the Eastern Nevada Paleoarchaic, Part 1: The Sunshine Locality. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 126, Salt Lake City. 2010 Clovis and Western Stemmed: Population Migration and the Meeting of Two Technologies in the Intermountain West. American Antiquity 75(1):81-116. 2012 Clovis and Western Stemmed Again: Reply to Fiedel and Morrow. American Antiquity 77(2):386-397. 2013 Complexities of the Colonization Process: A View from the North American West. In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by K.E. Graf, C.V. Ketron, and M.R. Waters, pp.273-291. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University.

104

Beck, C., A.K. Taylor, G.T. Jones, C.M. Fadem, C.R. Cook, and S.A. Millward 2002 Rocks are Heavy: Transport Costs and Paleoarchaic Quarry Behavior in the Great Basin. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:481-507.

Benson, L.V., D.R. Currey, R.I. Dorn, K.R. Lajoie, C.G. Oviatt, S.W. Robinson, G.I. Smith, and S. Stine 1990 Chronology of Expansion and Contraction of Four Great Basin Lake Systems During the Past 35,000 Years. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 78:241-286.

Bettinger, R.L., and M.A. Baumhoff 1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American Antiquity 47(3):485-503.

Bettinger, R.L. 1999 What Happened in the Medithermal. In Models for the Millennium: Great Basin Anthropology Today, edited by C. Beck, pp.62-74. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Binford, L.R. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35(3):255-273. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.

Brashear, A. 1994 Assemblage Variation, Site Types, and Subsistence Activities in the Boulder Village Uplands, 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.385-430. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.

Broughton, J.M., D.A. Byers, R.A. Bryson, W. Eckerle, and D.B. Madsen 2008 Did Climatic Seasonality Control Late Quaternary Artiodactyl Densities in Western North America? Quaternary Science Reviews 27:1916-1937.

Bryan, A.L. 1988 The Relationship of the Stemmed Point and the Fluted Point Traditions in the Great Basin. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis-Archaic Interface, edited by J.A. Willig, C.M. Aikens, and J.L. Fagan, pp.53-74. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 21, Carson City.

105

Cannon, W.J., C.C. Creger, D.D. Fowler, E.M. Hattori, and M.F. Ricks 1990 A Wetlands and Uplands Settlement-Subsistence Model for Warner Valley, Oregon. In Wetland Adaptations in the Great Basin, edited by J.C. Janetski and D.B. Madsen, pp. 173-182. Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, Utah.

Carey, P.A. 2013 A Diachronic Study of Land-use in the Bodie Hills, Mono County, California. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno. UMI Dissertation Publishing, Ann Arbor, MI.

Carey P.A., G.M. Smith, J.B. Finley, and E.J. Pellegrini 2014 A First Look at the Early Holocene Assemblage from LSP-1: A Stratified Rockshelter in Oregon’s Warner Valley. Symposium paper presented at the 79th Annual Society for American Archaeology National Conference, Austin, Texas.

Christian, L.J. 1997 Early Holocene Typology, Chronology, and Mobility: Evidence from the Northern Great Basin. Department of Anthropology, Sundance Archaeological Research Fund Report No. 3, University of Nevada, Reno.

Connolly, T.J., and D.L. Jenkins 1997 Population Dynamics on the Northwestern Great Basin Periphery: Clues from Obsidian Geochemistry. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 19(2):241-250.

Connolly, J., and M. Lake 2006 Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Davis, L.G., S.C. Willis, and S.J. Macfarlan 2012 Lithic Technology, Cultural Transmission, and the Nature of the Far Western Paleoarchaic/Paleoindian Co-Tradition. In Meetings at the Margins: Prehistoric Cultural Interactions in the Intermountain West, edited by D. Rhode, pp.47-64. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Dean, E. 1994 Faunal Remains From Structure 3 at the Big M Site, Fort Rock, Oregon. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C.M. Aikens and D.L. Jenkins, pp.505-530. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.

106

Delacorte, M.G. 1997 Culture Change Along the Eastern Sierra Nevada/Cascade Front: Volume I-History of Investigations and Summary of Findings. Report Prepared for Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company, Reno.

Eerkens, J.W., J.R. Ferguson, M.D. Glascock, C.E. Skinner, S.A. Waechter 2007 Reduction Strategies and Geochemical Characterization of Lithic Assemblages: A Comparison of Three Case Studies from Western North America. American Antiquity 72(3):585-597.

Eiselt, B.S. 1998 Household Activity and Marsh Utilization in the Archaeological Record of Warner Valley: The Peninsula Site. Department of Anthropology, Technical Report 98-2, University of Nevada, Reno.

Fiedel, S.J., and J. Morrow 2012 Comment on “Clovis and Western Stemmed Population Migration and the Meeting of Two Technologies in the Intermountain West” by Charlotte Beck and George T. Jones. American Antiquity 77(2):376-385.

Fowler, C.S. 1992 In the Shadow of Fox Peak: An Ethnography of the Cattail-Eater Northern Paiute People of Stillwater Marsh. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Cultural Resource Series 5.

Freidel, D.E. 1994 Paleolake Shorelines and Lake Level Chronology of 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.21-40. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.

Goebel, T., B.S. Hockett, K.D. Adams, D. Rhode, and K.E. Graf 2011 Climate, Environment, and Humans in North America’s Great Basin During the Younger Dryas, 12,900-11,600 Calendar Years Ago. Quaternary International 242:479-501.

Goebel, T. and J. Keene 2014 Making a Long Story Short: Contextual and Chronological Hygiene and the Earliest Stemmed Point of the Intermountain West. In Archaeology for All Times: Essays in Honor of Don D. Fowler, edited by J.C. Janetski. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, in press.

107

Goldberg, P., F. Berna, and R.I. Macphail 2009 Comment on “DNA from Pre-Clovis Human Coprolites in Oregon, North America.” Science 325:148-c.

Grayson, D.K. 1979 Mount Mazama, Cimatic Change, and Fort Rock Basin Archaeofaunas. In Volcanic Activity and Human Ecology, edited by P.D. Sheets and D.K. Grayson, pp.427-454. Academic Press, New York. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press, Inc, Orlando, Florida. 2006 Holocene Bison in the Great Basin, Western USA. The Holocene 6(6):913-925. 2011 The Great Basin: A Natural Prehistory. University of California Press, Berkley.

Haynes, G. 2009 The Early Settlement of North America: The Clovis Era. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Hershler, R., D.B. Madsen, and D.R. Currey 2002 Great Basin Aquatic Systems History. Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences No. 33, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Hester, T.R., and R.F. Heizer 1978 Review and Discussion of Great Basin Projectile Points: Forms and Chronology. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico.

Hildebrandt, W.R., and J.H. King 2002 Projectile Point Variability Along the Northern California-Great Basin Interface: Results from the Tuscarora-Alturas Projects. In Boundary Lands: Archaeological Investigations Along the California-Great Basin Interface, edited by K.R. McGuire, pp.5-28. Anthropological Papers, vol. 24, Nevada State Museum, Carson City.

Hildebrandt, W.R., and K.R. McGuire 2002 The Ascendance of Hunting During the California Middle Archaic: An Evolutionary Perspective. American Antiquity 67(2):231-256.

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. 108

Hughes, R.E. 2011 Sources of Inspiration for Studies of Prehistoric Resource Acquisition and Materials Conveyance in California and the Great Basin. In Perspectives on Prehistoric Trade and Exchange in California and the Great Basin, edited by R.E. Hughes, pp.1-21. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

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.

Jenkins, D.L., T.J. Connolly, and C.M. Aikens 2004 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., L.G. Davis, T.W. Stafford Jr., P.F. Campos, B.S. 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 337:223-228.

Jones, G.T. 1984 Prehistoric Land Use in the Steens Mountain Area, Southeastern Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

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.

Jones, G. T., L.M. Fontes, R.A. Horowitz, C. Beck, and D.G. Bailey 2012 Reconsidering Paleoarchaic Mobility in the Central Great Basin. American Antiquity 77(2):351-367.

Kelly, I.T. 1932 Ethnography of the Surprise Valley Paiute. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 31(3):67-210.

109

Kelly, R.L. 1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53(4):717-734. 1992 Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures, and Effects. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:43-66. 2001 Prehistory of the Carson Desert and Stillwater Mountains: Environment, Mobility, and Subsistence in a Great Basin Wetland. University of Utah Anthropological Papers Number 123, Salt Lake City. 2007 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Percheron Press, New York.

Lafayette, L.M., and G.M. Smith 2012 Use-Wear Traces on Experimental (Replicated) and Prehistoric Stemmed Points from the Great Basin. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 32(2):141-160.

Leach, M. 1988 Subsistence Intensification and Settlement Change Among Prehistoric Hunters and Gatherers of the Northwestern Great Basin. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Louderback, L.A., D.K. Grayson, and M. Llobera 2011 Middle-Holocene Climates and Human Population Densities in the Great Basin, Western USA. The Holocene 21(2):366-371.

Lyons, W.H., S.P. Thomas, and C.E. Skinner 2001 Changing Obsidian Sources at the Lost Dune and McCoy Creek Sites, Blitzen Valley, Southeast Oregon. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 23(2):273-296.

Madsen, D.B. 2007 The Paleoarchaic to 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. 3-20. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

McGuire, K.R. 2002 Obsidian Production in Northeastern California and the Northwestern Great Basin: Implications for Land Use. In Boundary Lands: Archaeological Investigations Along the California-Great Basin Interface, edited by K.R. McGuire, pp.85-103. Anthropological Papers, vol. 24, Nevada State Museum, Carson City.

110

Mehringer, P.J., Jr. 1985 Late-Quaternary Pollen Records from the Interior Pacific Northwest and Northern Great Basin of the United States. In Pollen Records of Late- Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V.M. Bryant, Jr., and R.G. Holloway, pp.167-190. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists, Dallas, TX.

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 in 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 Late 14,000 Years. Quaternary Science Reviews 26:2167- 2184.

Napton, L.K. 1997 The Spirit Cave Mummy: Coprolite Investigations. Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 40:97-104.

Oetting, A.C. 1989 Villages and Wetlands Adaptations in the Northern Great Basin: Chronology and Land Use in the Lake Abert-Chewaucan Marsh Basin, Lake County, Oregon. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 41, Eugene. 1995 Archaeological Survey and Preliminary Site Evaluations for the Rivers End Ranch Project, Lake County, Oregon. Heritage Research Associates, Inc. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District. 1994a 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. 1994b Early Holocene Rabbit Drives and Prehistoric Land-use Patterns on Buffalo Flat, Christmas Lake Valley, Oregon. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C.M. Aikens and D.L. Jenkins, pp. 155-171. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.

111

Pellegrini, E.J. 2014 Kammidikadi of Little Steamboat Point-1: Terminal Early Holocene Leporid Processing in Northern Warner Valley. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno. UMI Dissertation Publishing, Ann Arbor, MI.

Pendleton, L.S. 1979 Lithic Technology in Early Nevada Assemblages. Master’s Thesis, California State University, Long Beach.

Pinder, D., I. Shimada, and D. Gregory 1979 The Nearest Neighbor Statistic: Archaeological Application and New Developments. American Antiquity 44(3):430-445.

Pinson, A.O. 2007 Artiodactyl Use and Adaptive Discontinuity Across the Paleoarchaic/Archaic Transition in the Northern 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. 2011 The Clovis Occupation of the Dietz Site (35LK1529), Lake County, Oregon, and its Bearing on the Adaptive Diversity of Clovis Foragers. American Antiquity 76(2):285-313.

Poinar, H., S. Fiedel, C.E. King, A.M. Devault, K. Bos, M. Kuch, R. Debruyne 2009 Comment on “DNA from Pre-Clovis Human Coprolites in Oregon, North America.” Science 325:148-a.

Prasciunas, M.M. 2007 Bifacial Cores and Flake Production Efficiency: An Experimental Test of Technological Assumptions. American Antiquity 72(2):334-348.

Rhode, D. 2012 Intergroup and Interregional Interactions in and Around the Intermountain West. In Meetings at the Margins: Prehistoric Cultural Interactions in the Intermountain West, edited by D. Rhode, pp.1-22. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Skinner, C.E., J.J. Thatcher, D.L. Jenkins, and A.C. Oetting 2004 X-Rays, Artifacts, and Procurement Ranges: A Mid-Project Snapshot of Prehistoric Obsidian Procurement Patterns in the Fort Rock Basin. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology in the Northern Great Basin, 112

edited by D.L. Jenkins, T.J. Connolly, and C.M. Aikens, pp. 221-232. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene. 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. 2011 Shifting Stones and Changing Homes: Using Toolstone Ratios to Consider Relative Occupation Span in the Northwestern Great Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:461-469.

Smith, G.M., D.D. Pattee, and T. Field 2012a UNR’s Return to Warner Valley: A Study of Changing Land-use Patterns During the Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene in Southcentral Oregon. Symposium paper presented at the 33rd Biennial Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Stateline, NV.

Smith, G.M., S.J. LaValley, and K.M. Wiggins 2012b Late Holocene Lithic Procurement Strategies in the Northwestern Great Basin: The View from Paiute Creek Shelter, Nevada. North American Archaeologist 33(4):399-427.

Smith, G.M., P. Barker, E.M. Hattori, A. Raymond, and T. Goebel 2013 Points in Time: Direct Radiocarbon Dates on Great Basin Projectile Points. American Antiquity 78(3):580-594.

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, in press.

Spier, L. 1930 Klamath Ethnography. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Surovell, T.A. 2003 The Behavioral Ecology of Folsom Lithic Technology. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. 2009 Toward a Behavioral Ecology of Lithic Technology: Cases from Paleoindian Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Thomas, D.H. 1981 How to Classify Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):7-43

Thomas, D.H., R.R. Kautz, W.N. Melhorn, R.S. Thompson, D.T. Trexler. 1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley: 1. Epistemology. Anthropological Papers vol. 59, Pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 113

Tipps, J.A. 1998 High, Middle, and Low: An Analysis of Resource Zone Relationships in Warner Valley, Oregon. Department of Anthropology Technical Report 98-1, University of Nevada, Reno.

Thomas, D.H., S.L. Bierwirth, D.K. Grayson, R.R. Kautz, R.L. Kelly, C.S. Larson, W.N. Melhorn, T. Thomas, D.T. Trexler 1988 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley: 3. Survey and Additional Excavations. Anthropological Papers vol. 66, Pt. 2. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Thompson, R.S. 1990 Late Quaternary Vegetation and Climate in the Great Basin. In Packrat Middens: The Last 40,000 Years of Biotic Change, edited by J.L. Betancourt, R.R. Van Devender, and P.S. Martin, pp. 200-239. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Weide, D.L. 1975 Postglacial Geomorphology and Environments of the Warner Valley-Hart Mountain Area, Oregon. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Weide, M.L. 1968 Cultural Ecology of Lakeside Adaption in the Western Great Basin. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California Press, Berkley.

Wigand, P.E., and D. Rhode 2002 Great Basin Vegetation History and Aquatic Systems: The Last 150,000 Years. In Great Basin Aquatic Systems History, Smithsonian Contributions to Earth Sciences 33, edited by R. Hershler, D.B. Madsen, and D.R. Currey, pp.309-368. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Wigand, P.E., M.L. Hemphill, S.E. Sharpe, and S. Patra 1995 Great Basin Semi-Arid Woodland Dynamics During the Holocene. In Climate Change in the Four Corners and Adjacent Region: Implications for Environmental Restoration and Land-use Planning, edited by W.J. Waugh, K.L. Peterson, P.E. Wigand, B.D. Louthan, and R.D. Walker, pp.51-70. U.S. Department of Energy CONF-94093250, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.

114

Willig, J.A., and C.M. Aikens 1988 The Clovis-Archaic Interface in Far Western North America. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis- Archaic Interface, edited by J.A. Willig, C.M. Aikens, and J.L. Fagan, pp.1-40. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 21, Carson City.

Wriston, T., and G.M. Smith 2012 The Pluvial Lake History of Warner Valley, Oregon and its Impact on Prehistoric Land Use. Symposium paper presented at the 33rd Biennial Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Stateline, NV.

Young, D.C., Jr. 2000 Late Holocene Landscapes and Prehistoric Land Use in Warner Valley, Oregon. Department of Anthropology, Sundance Archaeological Research Fund Technical Paper No. 7, University of Nevada, Reno.