University of Nevada, Reno

Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Cave Use in Oregon’s Fort Rock Basin: An Examination of Western Stemmed Tradition Projectile Point Assemblages from Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves

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

by Sophia A. Jamaldin

Dr. Geoffrey M. Smith/Thesis Advisor

May, 2018

 by Sophia A. Jamaldin 2018 All Rights Reserved

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by

SOPHIA A. JAMALDIN

Entitled

Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Cave Use in Oregon's Fort Rock Basin: An Examination of Western Stemmed Tradition Projectile Point Assemblages from Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Geoffrey M. Smith, Ph.D., Advisor

Christopher S. Jazwa, Ph.D., Committee Member

Kenneth D. Adams, Ph.D., Graduate School Representative

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

May, 2018

i

ABSTRACT

Luther Cressman‟s pioneering investigations of northwestern Great Basin caves in the late 1930‟s established that humans were in the region during the terminal

Pleistocene/early Holocene (TP/EH) (~16,000-8300 cal BP). The Paleoindian assemblages recovered from Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley

Caves suggest that these sites served as longer-term residential bases, although most other caves and rockshelters in the region saw shorter stays. In this thesis, I test the hypothesis that those three caves served as longer-term (weeks or months) residential bases. My results reveal that: (1) local-to-nonlocal projectile point toolstone proportions suggest that shorter-term occupations occurred at each site; (2) local-to-nonlocal debitage proportions suggest that longer-term occupations occurred at Fort Rock Cave and the

Connley Caves; and (3) Fort Rock Cave projectile points manufactured on nonlocal toolstone are significantly more curated than those manufactured on local toolstone. ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are numerous individuals, organizations, and institutions who helped me to complete this thesis. My advisor Dr. Geoffrey Smith guided me during my graduate studies at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR). He welcomed me to the Great Basin the summer before I began graduate school and provided me with invaluable experience in field and classroom settings. His efforts toward developing my abilities as a student, writer, and researcher were immense and I am eternally grateful. Drs. Christopher Jazwa and Kenneth Adams provided valuable feedback throughout the thesis writing process and helped me formulate my research design. UNR‟s Anthropology faculty broadened my writing and critical thinking skills, and my graduate cohorts and companions helped me in countless ways during my two years at UNR.

The Great Basin Paleoindian Research Unit, Desert Research Institute, Jonathan

O. Davis Scholarship, Nevada Archaeological Association, UNR Graduate Student

Association, UNR Anthropology Department, Herbert E. Splatt Scholarship, and AM-

ARCS of Nevada provided financial support for my research endeavors.

The Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History (UOMNCH) allowed me to analyze materials from the Fort Rock Cave and Connley Caves collections. Dr. Pam

Endzweig and Elizabeth Kallenbach assisted me during my time at the UOMNCH and I am thankful for their kindness and patience. Drs. Pam Endzweig, Dennis Jenkins, and

Thomas Connolly (UOMNCH) shared important insight with me throughout my research that helped me to understand the complex history of work at my study sites and provided me with unpublished data that benefitted this study. Pat McMillan welcomed me to the iii

Favell Museum and facilitated my visits there to analyze the Cougar Mountain Cave collection.

District Archaeologist Jennifer Gantt and District Ranger Kevin Larken of the

Deschutes National Forest granted me permission to collect geologic obsidian samples within the Newberry National Volcanic Monument. They took time out of their busy schedules to support my request and helped me to broaden UNR‟s comparative collection and perform my analyses.

Lastly, a thousand thank-you‟s to my parents, my siblings, and Derek for their continuous encouragement and daily efforts toward putting a smile on my face.

Completing this thesis would have seemed impossible without their endless support.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ii

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Research Background ...... 4 Fort Rock Basin Regional Setting and TP/EH Environment ...... 4 The Western Stemmed Tradition Technological Complex ...... 8 Models of Paleoindian Land Use ...... 9 Hunter-Gatherer Cave and Rockshelter Use ...... 12 Lithic Technological Organization ...... 14 Factors that Influenced LTO ...... 14 Central Place Foraging Theory and LTO...... 17 Lithic Tool Curation ...... 17 Factors that Influenced Curation ...... 18 LTO Studies in the Intermountain West: Scales of Analysis ...... 19 Individual Tools and Site Assemblages ...... 21 Regional Assemblages ...... 22 Summary ...... 25

CHAPTER 2: MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 27 Materials ...... 27 Fort Rock Basin Caves...... 27 Fort Rock Cave (35LK1) ...... 29 v

Fort Rock Cave Stratigraphy ...... 40 The Fort Rock Cave Paleoindian Lithic Assemblage ...... 44 Cougar Mountain Cave (35LK55) ...... 46 The Cougar Mountain Cave Paleoindian Lithic Assemblage ...... 49 The Connley Caves (35LK50) ...... 51 The Connley Caves Stratigraphy ...... 54 The Connley Caves Lithic Assemblage ...... 58 Methods...... 59 Portable X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis ...... 59 Exponential Regression Analysis ...... 64 Projectile Point Classification and Curation Analyses ...... 65 Debitage Analysis and Classification ...... 68 Expectations and Hypotheses ...... 71 Hypothesis 1...... 74 Hypothesis 2...... 74

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS ...... 76 Source Provenance Analysis ...... 76 Fort Rock Cave ...... 76 Projectile Point Sample Composition ...... 76 Debitage Sample Composition ...... 79 Bedwell‟s Early Assemblage ...... 83 Cougar Mountain Cave ...... 84 Projectile Point Sample Composition ...... 84 Bifacial Preform/Knife Sample Composition ...... 86 The Connley Caves ...... 86 Projectile Point Sample Composition ...... 86 Debitage Sample Composition ...... 88 Regression Analysis ...... 90 Fort Rock Cave ...... 91 vi

Cougar Mountain Cave ...... 91 The Connley Caves ...... 91 Projectile Point Curation Analyses ...... 92 Basic Metric Data Comparisons ...... 93 Fort Rock Cave ...... 95 Cougar Mountain Cave and the Connley Caves ...... 95 Allometric Ratio Comparisons ...... 95 Fort Rock Cave ...... 98 Cougar Mountain Cave and the Connley Caves ...... 98 Qualitative Comparisons: Projectile Point Resharpening ...... 99 Fort Rock Cave ...... 99 Cougar Mountain Cave ...... 99 Qualitative Comparisons: Projectile Point Discard ...... 100 Fort Rock Cave ...... 100 Cougar Mountain Cave ...... 100 The Connley Caves ...... 101 Summary of Comparisons...... 101

CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION ...... 102 Hypothesis 1: Longer-Term Occupations ...... 102 Fort Rock Cave ...... 103 Cougar Mountain Cave ...... 105 The Connley Caves ...... 108 Hypothesis 2: Shorter-Term Occupations ...... 110 Fort Rock Cave ...... 111 Cougar Mountain Cave ...... 112 The Connley Caves ...... 114 Summary and Discussion ...... 115 Fort Rock Basin Caves in a Broader Context: The Paleoindian Record in the Northwestern Great Basin ...... 116 vii

Local: The Fort Rock Basin TP/EH Record ...... 116 Regional: TP/EH Mobility in the Northwestern Great Basin ...... 120 Site-Specific: Beyond Projectile Points ...... 124

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...... 126 Future Research Directions ...... 128

NOTES ...... 130

REFERENCES CITED ...... 131

APPENDIX 1 – BEDWELL‟S ANALYTICAL UNITS...... 150

APPENDIX 2 – METRIC DATA AND SOURCE ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE PROJECTILE POINT, BIFACE, AND UNIFACE SAMPLES ...... 151

APPENDIX 3 – TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS GENERATED WITH UNR‟S PXRF FOR THE PROJECTILE POINT, BIFACE, AND UNIFACE SAMPLES ...... 162

APPENDIX 4 – TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR FORT ROCK CAVE PROJECTILE POINTS GENERATED BY THE NWROSL ...... 180

APPENDIX 5 – ARTIFACT PHOTOGRAPHS ...... 183

APPENDIX 6 – FORT ROCK CAVE PRE-MAZAMA DEBITAGE SAMPLE MASS ANALYSIS DATA ...... 216

APPENDIX 7 – FORT ROCK CAVE DEBITAGE SAMPLE METRIC DATA AND SOURCE ASSIGNMENTS ...... 220 viii

APPENDIX 8 – TRACE ELEMENT CONCETRATIONS GENERATED WITH UNR‟S PXRF FOR THE FORT ROCK CAVE DEBITAGE SAMPLE...... 225

APPENDIX 9 – THE CONNLEY CAVES DEBITAGE SAMPLE WITH SOURCE ASSIGNMENTS ...... 234

APPENDIX 10 – REGRESSION ANALYSIS ...... 241

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1. Preliminary TP/EH Lake Level Chronology for Lake Fort Rock in the Fort Rock Basin, Oregon ...... 6

Table 2.1. Radiocarbon Dates from Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves ...... 33

Table 2.2. Chipped Stone Artifacts from Fort Rock Cave Included in this Study ...... 46

Table 2.3. Chipped Stone Artifacts from Cougar Mountain Cave Included in this Study ...... 50

Table 2.4. Chipped Stone Artifacts from the Connley Caves Included in this Study...... 58

Table 2.5. Local and Nonlocal Sources for the Fort Rock Basin Cave Sites Based on the 20 km Daily Foraging Catchment Zones...... 63

Table 2.6. Ethnographic Logistical Trips (Days) and Estimates of Travel Distances ...... 64

Table 2.7. Allometric Ratios Definitions and Expectations Used in this Study ...... 68

Table 2.8. Expected Patterning of Lithic Artifact Assemblages at Longer- And Shorter-Term Bases Accounting for Occupation Span and Raw Material Availability ...... 73

Table 3.1. Fort Rock Cave‟s Local and Nonlocal Projectile Point Toolstone Proportions ...... 76

Table 3.2. Fort Rock Cave Obsidian Projectile Point Source Profile ...... 77

Table 3.3. Totals of Complete and Incomplete Projectile Points in the Fort Rock Cave Sample ...... 79

Table 3.4. Fort Rock Cave‟s TP/EH Debitage Source Profile ...... 80

Table 3.5. Geochemically Characterized Fort Rock Cave Debitage by Size Class ...... 81

x

Table 3.6. Local and Nonlocal Fort Rock Cave Debitage Using the Technological Typology ...... 81

Table 3.7. Size-sorted Debitage from the Pre-Mazama Levels of Squares 4, 5, 8, and 9 in Fort Rock Cave ...... 82

Table 3.8. Weight Proportions for the Fort Rock Cave Size-Sorted Pre-Mazama Debitage Sample ...... 83

Table 3.9. Source Profile for Bedwell‟s Early Assemblage from Fort Rock Cave ...... 83

Table 3.10. Cougar Mountain Cave‟s Local and Nonlocal Projectile Point Toolstone Proportions ...... 84

Table 3.11. Cougar Mountain Cave‟s Obsidian Projectile Point Source Profile ...... 84

Table 3.12. Totals of Complete and Incomplete Projectile Points in the Cougar Mountain Cave Sample ...... 85

Table 3.13. Source Profile for Additional TP/EH Bifacial Tools from Cougar Mountain Cave ...... 86

Table 3.14. The Connley Caves‟ Local and Nonlocal Projectile Point Toolstone Proportions ...... 86

Table 3.15. The Connley Caves‟ Obsidian Projectile Point Source Profile ...... 87

Table 3.16. Totals of Complete and Incomplete Projectile Points in the Connley Caves‟ Sample ...... 88

Table 3.17. The Connley Caves‟ TP/EH Debitage Sample ...... 88

Table 3.18. Cortical and Tertiary Flakes in the Connley Caves‟ Debitage Sample ...... 90

Table 3.19. Exponential Regression Results for the Fort Rock Basin Cave Samples...... 90

Table 3.20. Projectile Point Sample Sizes Used in Statistical Comparisons ...... 92

Table 3.21. Summary of Metric Attributes for the TP/EH Projectile Point Samples ...... 93

xi

Table 3.22. Summary of Metric Data Averages for the TP/EH Projectile Point Samples ...... 94

Table 3.23. Summary of Mean and Median Metric Attribute Comparisons for TP/EH Projectile Point Samples ...... 95

Table 3.24. Summary of Allometric Ratio Values for the TP/EH Projectile Point Sample ...... 96

Table 3.25. Averages of Allometric Ratios for the TP/EH Projectile Point Samples ...... 97

Table 3.26. Summary of Mean and Median Metric Allometric Ratio Comparisons for the TP/EH Projectile Point Samples ...... 98

Table 3.27. Results of Comparisons of Qualitative Evidence of Retouching...... 99

Table 3.28. Results of Comparisons of Qualitative Evidence of Discard Behavior ...... 100

Table 4.1. Hypothesis 1 Data Trends from the Fort Rock Cave Assemblage ...... 103

Table 4.2. Hypothesis 1 Data Trends from the Cougar Mountain Cave Assemblage ...... 106

Table 4.3. Hypothesis 1 Data Trends from the Connley Caves Assemblage ...... 108

Table 4.4. Hypothesis 2 Data Trends from the Fort Rock Cave Assemblage ...... 111

Table 4.5. Hypothesis 2 Data Trends from the Cougar Mountain Cave Assemblage ...... 113

Table 4.6. Hypothesis 2 Data Trends from the Connley Caves Assemblage ...... 114

Table 4.7. Source Profile of the Geochemically Analyzed WST Sample from the CONUS OTH-B Cultural Resources Survey and Testing Project 1986-1988 at Buffalo Flat ...... 118

Table 4.8. Summary of Statistical Comparisons for Adjusted Source Diversity Based on the Paulina Lake Source Profile ...... 120

Table 4.9. Northwestern Great Basin TP/EH Sites with Distances to Nearest Toolstone Source, Number of Projectile Points Made on Local and Nonlocal Toolstone, and Local-to-Nonlocal Toolstone Ratios ...... 122

xii

Table 4.10. Summary of the Fort Rock Basin Cave Sites‟ Analysis Results and Discussion vs. Expectations for Hypotheses 1 and 2 ...... 124

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Map of the northern, western, and central Great Basin showing the locations of relevant sites ...... 3

Figure 2.1. Location of Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves...... 28

Figure 2.2. Overview of Fort Rock Cave ...... 30

Figure 2.3. Planview of Fort Rock Cave showing the locations of excavation units and different grid systems used during the 1938, 1966, and 1967 field seasons ...... 31

Figure 2.4. Locations of 1938, 1966, 1967, 2015, and 2016 test pits superimposed on a planview that depicts absolute elevations inside Fort Rock Cave ...... 39

Figure 2.5. North profile of Square 10 recorded during Bedwell‟s 1967 excavation ...... 41

Figure 2.6. North profile of Probe 5/Unit A recorded during the UOMNCH 2015 excavations ...... 43

Figure 2.7. Bedwell‟s “early assemblage” recovered from the basal gravels of squares 10 and 11 in Fort Rock Cave ...... 45

Figure 2.8. Overview of Cougar Mountain Cave ...... 47

Figure 2.9. General profile of the Cougar Mountain Cave strata ...... 48

Figure 2.10. Preforms and knives from the lowest 2.5 ft of Cougar Mountain Cave ...... 50

Figure 2.11. Overview of the Connley Caves ...... 52

Figure 2.12. East wall stratigraphic profile of Connley Cave 5A ...... 55

Figure 2.13. Stratigraphic profile of Units 7 and 8 from Connley Cave 4 showing the context of radiocarbon assays from the UO 2015 excavations ...... 57

xiv

Figure 2.14. 20-km buffers and obsidian sources represented in the chipped stone artifact assemblages analyzed in this study ...... 62

Figure 3.1. Obsidian source frequency for the Fort Rock Cave projectile point sample ...... 78

Figure 3.2. Obsidian source frequency for the Fort Rock Cave debitage sample ...... 80

Figure 3.3. Obsidian source frequency for the Cougar Mountain Cave projectile point sample ...... 85

Figure 3.4. Obsidian source frequency for the Connley Caves projectile point sample ...... 87

Figure 3.5. Obsidian source frequency for the Connley Caves debitage sample ...... 89

Figure 3.6. Metric data averages for the local and nonlocal projectile point Sample from each site ...... 94

Figure 3.7. Allometric ratio averages for the local and nonlocal projectile point samples from each site ...... 97

Figure 4.1. Sites discussed in Chapter 4 ...... 117 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The first archaeological investigations of northern Great Basin caves and rockshelters occurred in the late 1930‟s during Luther Cressman‟s expeditions across southern Oregon. Cressman excavated six cave sites and argued that the cultural remains he recovered were of great antiquity. Without radiocarbon dating, Cressman et al. (1940) attempted to corroborate the long-standing presence of Native Americans in the region by discerning the ages of tephra deposits at multiple sites. Based on this method of relative dating, he asserted that the cultural assemblages were well over 4,000 years old

(Cressman et al. 1940). His ideas were later confirmed with the development of radiocarbon dating, after two sandals from Fort Rock Cave returned a weighted age of

9053±350 14C BP (10,200-8800 cal BP) (Arnold and Libby 1951)1. Throughout the 20th century, the depth of human history apparent in the Great Basin peaked other researchers‟ interests (e.g., Aikens and Jenkins 1994; Bedwell 1970; Connolly 1999; Jenkins et al.

2004, 2016), who built on Cressman‟s legacy and contributed to our understanding of terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene (TP/EH) (~16,000-8300 cal BP) archaeology. Their work has highlighted the importance of the northwestern Great Basin to discussions of

New World colonization (Bedwell 1973; Cressman et al. 1940, 1942; Jenkins et al. 2012,

2014:491-492, 2016).

Historically, the Fort Rock Basin in southcentral Oregon has received considerable attention for its stratified cave sites. In this thesis, I assess TP/EH cave use 2 in the Fort Rock Basin and relate cave occupations to broader mobility patterns in the northwestern Great Basin. I test two hypotheses about recurring TP/EH occupations at three cave sites:

(1) Paleoindians spent longer-term periods (i.e., weeks or months) at Fort Rock Cave,

Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves, using these locations as central

places; and

(2) Paleoindians were highly mobile and inhabited Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain

Cave, and the Connley Caves for shorter periods (i.e., a few days).

To test these hypotheses, I use source provenance data generated on obsidian projectile points and debitage from each site (Figure 1.1). I compare projectile point curation intensity by toolstone provenance and consider how debitage source profiles reflect those of projectile point assemblages from each site. I use these comparisons to highlight how source provenance analyses and curation measures provide implications for TP/EH mobility frequency, occupation span, and lithic procurement strategies in the Fort Rock

Basin. 3

Figure 1.1. Map of the northern, western, and central Great Basin showing the locations of relevant sites.

4

Research Background

Fort Rock Basin Regional Setting and TP/EH Environment

The Fort Rock Basin is an internally draining, fault-blocked structural depression in southcentral Oregon covering ~3900 km2 in the transition zone between the Basin and

Range and western High Lava Plains geographic provinces (Allison 1979; Bedwell

1970). It consists of three sub-basins separated by low volcanic ridges: (1) Fort Rock

Valley in the northwest; (2) Christmas Lake Valley in the northeast; and (3) Silver Lake

Valley in the southwest (Bedwell 1973; Jenkins et al. 2004a) (see Figure 1.1). Minckley et al. (2004) propose that throughout the terminal Pleistocene (~16,000-11,600 cal BP), increased solar radiation heightened contrasts between summer and winter temperatures.

During this time, the Fort Rock Basin was infilled by pluvial Lake Fort Rock (Allison

1979). At its terminal Pleistocene maximum, Lake Fort Rock stood ~50 m above the valley floor (~1364-1367 m above sea level, or ASL) (Allison 1979; Connolly et al.

2016a; Freidel 1994). The Fort Rock Basin‟s basaltic peripheries were relatively resistant to wave erosion, limiting the current chronological understanding to the position of a few wave-cut volcanic buttes, fault scarps, and terraces, and the age of this early shoreline complex is unknown (Allison 1979; Hampton 1964). A series of subsequent still stands at

~1353-1356 m ASL are signaled by notches in remnant volcanic cones and fault scarps

(Allison 1979; Freidel 1994:31-32), and this is likely the elevation at which Fort Rock

Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves were formed or further eroded.

Lake Fort Rock probably regressed from this elevation shortly before 13,200±720 14C BP 5

(17,900-13,800 cal BP) (Bedwell 1973:35), when all three sites were dry and available for occupation (Table 1.1). Mollusk shells and caliche recovered from gravels on Seven

Mile Ridge along the basin‟s southcentral rim (see Figure 1.1) at ~1335 m ASL returned radiocarbon ages of 12,980±230 14C BP (16,200-14,800 cal BP) and 9780±220 14C BP

(12,000-10,600 cal BP) (Bedwell 1973:36; Freidel 1994:29-31, 36), providing a minimum range for the sites‟ dewatering and regression from the lake‟s earlier terminal

Pleistocene shoreline (see Table 1.1).

Lake Fort Rock shallowed to ~17 m (1332 m ASL) at ~13,000 14C BP (~15,800 cal BP) (Bedwell 1973; Freidel 1994; Minckley et al. 2004). The onset of the Younger

Dryas Chronozone (YDC) (12,900-11,600 cal BP) (Rasmussen et al. 2006) near the end of the terminal Pleistocene provided a period of climatic volatility, when temperatures fell and pluvial lakes increased in volume and decreased in biotic productivity (Grayson

2011; Steffensen et al. 2008). Some researchers have proposed that these climatic shifts were relatively mild in the northern Great Basin and it remains unclear if associated environmental change was noticeable over the average human lifespan (Goebel et al.

2011; Meltzer and Holliday 2010); however, others have suggested that rapid climatic transitions during the YDC were apparent on a decadal scale (Madsen 2002; Stuiver et al.

1995). Lake Fort Rock‟s YDC chronology is poorly understood, but ostracods dated to

11,490±90 14C BP (13,500-13,100 cal BP) indicate that a shallow lake or wetland existed shortly before the YDC although its elevation is unknown (Freidel 1994:36; McDowell and Benjamin 1991) (see Table 1.1). 6

Table 1.1. A Preliminary TP/EH Lake Level Chronology for Lake Fort Rock in the Fort Rock Basin, Oregon.

Elevation Lab No. 14C BP Age 2σ cal BP Rangea Material Dated Context Reference(s) 1355 m GaK-1738 13,200±720b 17,854-13,776 Unidentified charcoal Basal Pleistocene gravels of Bedwell (1973:35) Fort Rock Cave 1335 m GaK-1752 12,980±230b 16,244-14,750 Mollusk shells Seven Mile Ridge shoreline Bedwell (1973:36)

1335 m GaK-1753 9780±220b 12,003-10,573 Gravel caliche Seven Mile Ridge shoreline Bedwell (1973:36)

1312 m Beta-23957 11,490±90 13,485-13,130 Ostracods Buffalo Flat, Christmas Valley McDowell and Benjamin (1991)

1312 m Beta-23593 9130±130 10,751-9956 Unidentified charcoal Buffalo Flat Bunny Pits Oetting (1994:160) (35LK2095), TP-1, 20-30 cmbs a Radiocarbon dates calibrated using OxCal 4.3 online program (Bronk Ramsey 2009) with the IntCal13 curve (Reimer et al. 2013). b These dates were run by the Gakushian Laboratory during the late 1960‟s when the laboratory often returned erroneous ages. All possess large standard errors and should be interpreted with caution.

7

The early Holocene (11,600-8300 cal BP) was a period of warming and drying but it was still relatively cooler compared to the middle and late Holocene (Grayson

2011:217). Minckley et al. (2004) propose that winters were colder and summers were warmer than present. Warmer summer temperatures resulted in increased evapotranspiration and decreased effective moisture in the northern Great Basin

(Minckley et al. 2004). Archaeological sites on Lake Fort Rock‟s playa indicate that wetlands in Christmas Valley desiccated prior to 9200±130 14C BP (10,800-10,000 cal

BP) (Freidel 1994; Grayson 1979; Oetting 1994:160) (see Table 1.1). The shifting TP/EH climate led to significant but locally variable paleoecological change. Although the Fort

Rock Basin‟s TP/EH paleoecology is poorly understood, researchers have outlined general trends for the northern Great Basin (Baker 1983; Grayson 2011, 1979; Minckley et al. 2004, 2007; Nials 1999). In this region, increased warming and aridity during the early Holocene led to a general upslope shift in open forests and sagebrush steppe (Baker

1983; Minckley et al. 2007). As the basin floors dried, fringing grasslands and desert vegetation expanded and the abundance of cool adapted mammals declined (Baker 1983;

Grayson 1979, 2011; Minckley et al. 2004).

Despite trends toward aridity, brief mesic intervals occurred throughout the early

Holocene (Droz 1997; Jenkins et al. 2004b). Geoarchaeological data from the Locality III and Bergen sites in the Fort Rock Valley indicate that arid periods were punctuated by episodes of greater effective moisture which produced multiple marsh stands during the early and middle Holocene (see Figure 1.1) (Droz 1997; Jenkins et al. 2004b).

8

The Western Stemmed Tradition Technological Complex

The Western Stemmed Tradition (WST) technological complex recognizes a technological and stylistic tradition associated with TP/EH groups in the Intermountain

West. The WST may represent a related ethnolinguistic tradition which persisted during the TP/EH and/or a suite of stylistic and technological attributes adopted by unrelated groups (Bryan 1980:77). It is marked by multiple elements including: (1) a lithic toolkit comprised of lanceolate and shouldered projectile points with ground haft elements, crescents, and various tools including scrapers and gravers (Beck and Jones 1997, 2010,

2014; Davis et al. 2012); (2) bone and wood tools such as spear foreshafts, projectile points, and awls (Cressman 1942; Irwin and Moody 1978; Jenkins et al. 2014; Root and

Gustafson 2004); and (3) a complex and diverse weaving tradition (Connolly and Barker

2004; Connolly et al. 2016; Smith and Barker 2017; Tuohy and Dansie 1997). Stylistic and functional similarities in material culture across the Great Basin suggest that diagnostic WST technology was utilized for nearly six millennia (Beck and Jones 1997;

Jenkins et al. 2012, 2014, 2017).

Models of Paleoindian Land Use

Binford‟s (1980) forager-collector continuum and concepts of residential and logistical mobility remain pervasive in models of hunter-gatherer land use. Residential and logistical mobility describe how ethnographic hunter-gatherers settle but also move across the landscape to meet subsistence needs. They provide an analog for explaining 9 variability seen at prehistoric sites (Jones et al. 2003; Kelly 2007). Binford (1980) defined foragers as groups who practice a residentially mobile settlement-subsistence strategy, meaning they move between residential camps and gather food daily within short foraging radii of those camps. Collectors practice a logistical strategy, where task specific groups travel to and from residential camps to procure, process, and store resources at logistical sites (i.e., field camps, locations, and caches), sometimes at considerable distances (Binford 1980; Kelly 2007:117, 2011). Together, the notions of residential and logistical movements form the foundation of many prehistoric settlement- subsistence models.

Many models of land use and settlement-subsistence have sought to explain variability in the TP/EH archaeological record (Bedwell 1973; Elston and Zeanah 2002;

Elston et al. 2014; Jones et al. 2003, 2012; Willig 1989). Bedwell‟s (1973:170) Western

Pluvial Lakes Tradition (WPLT) proposed that Paleoindians were tethered to lacustrine, marsh, and grassland environments. The WPLT characterized all groups as sharing a homogenous adaptation to the Great Basin‟s vast and variable geography, a view that has been criticized in recent decades for not acknowledging the full range of adaptive flexibility apparent in the archaeological record (Hoffman 1996; Pinson 2004; Willig

1989). The technological traditions and stylistic forms that marked the WPLT are now encompassed by the WST.

Western Stemmed Tradition groups are commonly characterized as having been residentially mobile with large annual and lifetime ranges (Beck and Jones 2014; Jones et al. 2003). Researchers based this view largely on distributions of Paleoindian sites, the general composition of lithic assemblages (e.g., high ratios of formal to informal tools 10 and small assemblages suggesting ephemeral use of most locations), and source provenance data. Using expectations derived from Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE),

Jones et al. (2003) constructed lithic conveyance zones (LCZs), or maximum approximations of prehistoric foraging territories, travel routes, and formal/informal exchange networks, using projectile points and other artifacts. The source profiles of

TP/EH assemblages indicate that groups traversed larger foraging ranges than later groups (Jones et al. 2003; Smith 2010). Jones et al. (2003) attributed these patterns to changing climatic conditions and variability in TP/EH resource patch quality and abundance, which influenced groups to retain a mobile lifestyle.

Elston and Zeanah (2002) and Elston et al. (2014) employed a HBE optimization framework to model variability in Paleoindian diet and land use. To explain growing evidence for an early broad-spectrum hunting and gathering adaptation, Elston and

Zeanah (2002) initially suggested that continual movement within and between productive wetlands best served the hunting goals of men and the small game and plant collecting goals of women. Elston et al. (2014) built on their initial model by synthesizing expectations from HBE, ethnographic evidence, and archaeological data. To explain the low archaeological visibility of TP/EH groups, they proposed that mobility frequency and the degree to which labor division was sexually divergent was conditioned by the distances between wetland patches. When wetlands were bigger (i.e., during the YDC), travel distances between patches would have been shorter, which should have increased the frequency of residential camp movement, decreased residential occupational span, and promoted convergent foraging efforts toward the procurement of high-energy resources (i.e., large game). As wetlands desiccated after the YDC, increased distances 11 between wetland patches would have entailed higher travel costs and promoted extended occupations. Women‟s and men‟s foraging goals should have diverged during that time, with women focusing on lower-ranked resource procurement. After many wetlands disappeared, milling stone technology proliferated as a means of risk aversion (sensu

Pinson 1999) and increased investments in seed processing and storage provided food during lean periods.

Although the TP/EH record suggests that Great Basin Paleoindians were mobile, some researchers have proposed alternative land use models (Heizer 1967; Heizer and

Napton 1970; Madsen 2002, 2007; Raven 1983). Heizer‟s (1967) “limnosedentary” hypothesis posited that wetlands were sufficient to sustain sedentary hunter-gatherer groups year-round; however, no year-round prehistoric occupations are evident in the region‟s archaeological record (Hemphill and Larsen 1999; Kelly 1997). Similarly,

Madsen (2002, 2007) envisioned a “lowland” strategy guided by expectations derived from HBE and the ethnographic record. The lowland strategy posits that prehistoric groups were not strictly sedentary but moved residential camps within large marsh systems to optimize a sexual division of labor. Madsen (2002, 2007) proposed that camps were situated near wetlands so women could procure and process low risk, high cost resources that were not easily transported (e.g., seeds and tubers), while men traveled to and from nearby uplands to procure high risk/high return game. He conceived of the lowland strategy as being flexible and varied, punctuated by periods of both residential stability and residential mobility related to changes in marsh productivity. Additionally,

Madsen (2002, 2007:18) envisioned this strategy as a post-YDC adaptation, acknowledging that Paleoindian mobility likely alternated between frequent longer- 12 distance movements and ephemeral residential occupations in areas with small and scattered marshes, and shorter movements with relatively sedentary occupations in areas with large and productive marshes.

Hunter-Gatherer Cave and Rockshelter Use

Archaeological deposits in many Great Basin caves and rockshelters indicate that such places were important to early populations; however, varying artifact densities reveal that cave and rockshelter use was not uniform (Aikens 1970; Aikens et al. 2011;

Bedwell 1973; Cressman et al. 1940, 1942; Goebel 2007; Goebel et al. 2011).

Differences in cave and rockshelter records likely reflect differences in settlement- subsistence strategies (e.g., logistical and/or residential use). Ethnographic examples of hunter-gatherer cave and rockshelter use highlight this and can help to elucidate why such places were utilized for shorter- or longer-term periods in the past. Nicholson and

Crane (1991) observed that aboriginal Australians used rockshelters as short-term camps to wait out inclement weather during wet seasons. Binford‟s (1978) ethnoarchaeological examination of Nunamiut settlement-subsistence practices in Alaska revealed that small groups sometimes used caves and rockshelters during seasonal hunting forays for one or two nights and repeatedly throughout generations (Binford 1978:490). Gorecki (1991) noted that hunting and gathering horticultural groups in Papua New Guinea also used rockshelters for shorter-term periods, and that these locations were most frequently occupied by male hunting parties and, at times, nuclear families. 13

While many ethnographic examples highlight caves‟ and rockshelters‟ utility as sheltered refuges during hunting and gathering trips and/or periods of inclement weather, these locations also hold significance to the spiritual realm of hunter-gatherer lifeways.

Blakeslee (2012) reviewed the ethnographic use of caves in North America‟s Great

Plains, demonstrating that in addition to providing shelter visited for short-term periods during foraging rounds, they also served as sacred precincts. Such examples show that prehistoric hunter-gatherer cave use may have been tempered with spiritual beliefs, which may have determined the length of occupation span at a given site and affected the composition and density of the archaeological remains left behind.

While cultural factors are important to consider when assessing prehistoric cave and rockshelter use, environmental and structural features also probably influenced occupation span at these locations. Favored sites near stable and productive resource patches were probably returned to periodically throughout individuals‟ lifetimes. Variable use of and occupation span at caves and rockshelters over synchronic periods may reflect their proximity to important resources but may also relate to differences in their visibility and placement as well as the amount and quality of space they offered (Walthall

1998:224-235). Although discerning infrequently occupied logistical camps within caves may be straightforward by analyzing the ephemeral and task-specific residues left behind, it can be difficult to separate discrete occupation episodes on horizontal living floors in caves that were frequently revisited during logistical and/or residential stop-overs archaeologically. Generally, research has demonstrated that these sites were seldom used as longer-term residential bases in the Great Basin (Elston 1986; Elston et al. 2014;

Felling 2015; Goebel 2007; Goebel et al. 2011; Jenkins et al. 2012, 2014, 2016; but see 14

Aikens 1977; Layton 1970:200). The discovery of TP/EH open-air residential structures in the northwestern Great Basin suggests that groups may have occupied relatively stable residential bases for at least part of the year and that caves may have served as logistical destinations (Connolly 1999; Pinson 2004; Ruby 2016).

Lithic Technological Organization

Lithic technological organization (LTO) is the study of adaptive behaviors that guide the life history of stone artifacts, and it involves examining land use and procurement strategies as well as the design, production, transportation, maintenance, and discard of lithic implements (Andrefsky 2009:66; Nelson 1991:57). The analysis of LTO considers human behaviors (i.e., social variables) and technological plans responsive to resource conditions and adaptive constraints (i.e., economic variables) that structures them (Nelson 1991:57, 87). In this section, I discuss factors that influenced LTO across varied contexts and introduce the concept of curation. I review how LTO has been used to interpret prehistoric mobility, with a focus on research conducted at the artifact, site, and regional level in the Intermountain West. I also discuss how central place foraging theory has implications for LTO.

Factors That Influenced LTO

While the structure and design of a lithic assemblage is best understood in the context of the local environment (Nelson 1991), it was probably conditioned by factors 15 such as individual/group mobility, the quality and geographic distribution of toolstone, time stress, and risk (Kelly 2013:123; Nelson 1991; Torrence 1983). Kelly (1988:718) proposed that mobility frequency dictated tool needs and access to raw material since mobile groups could only carry a limited amount of raw materials, and tool needs could not always be anticipated. Mobile hunter-gatherers would have been encumbered by carrying costs, which structured the needs that an individual‟s lithic toolkit had to supply

(Kelly 2013; Shott 1986). Generally, a mobile individual‟s toolkit should have been comprised of a few transportable and multifunctional tools, resulting in a low diversity of tool classes (Shott 1986). Kuhn (1994) defined high utility toolkits as those with large surface areas and a potential to continually produce usable edges relative to a small mass

(i.e., flake tools and blanks), although the archaeological record across space and time supports that diverse toolkits (e.g., finished tools, cores) were often transported together.

Lithic raw material (i.e., toolstone) availability also influenced the ways that hunter-gatherers manufactured, used, and maintained lithic tools (Andrefsky 2009:75;

Bamforth 1986, 1991). Furthermore, it may have determined basic technological strategies, such as the functional effectiveness of tools, retouch intensity, and other material manifestations of risk management (Andrefsky 2009:76). Lithic raw materials vary in durability and package size, which likely determined their use for different social and/or functional purposes. Because toolstone is often abundant at source locales, reduced access to lithic raw materials was theoretically due to settlement-subsistence behaviors that restricted it (Bamforth 1986; Kelly 1988; Kuhn 1995; Nelson 1991:71).

Therefore, raw material scarcity may have been a socially or economically fabricated condition and not a primary conditioner of LTO, although it did probably influence the 16 degrees to which lithic implements were maintained, recycled, and discarded (Nelson

1991:71).

Time stress relates to problems within an environment and probably influenced the structure of LTO in highly seasonal climates. Because technology is responsive to different stresses, formal tool production was probably scheduled and designed for the most efficient use of one‟s energy (Bleed 1986; Nelson 1991; Torrence 1983). The effects of time stress on a lithic assemblage can be recognized through toolkit diversity

(the number of tool types present), complexity (the number of parts per tool, or

“elaborateness”), and assemblage composition (the number and kinds of functional categories present), which may reflect prehistoric hunter-gatherers‟ responses to environmental stresses (Bleed 1986; Nelson 1991; Oswalt 1973, 1976; Torrence

1983:13).

Risk refers to food scarcity and is a characteristic of environments that display variation in resource availability (Kelly 2013:68). Anything that constrains movement

(e.g., tethering to marshlands) can increase risk in foraging societies (Kelly 2013; Nelson

1991; Thomas 1985). Generally, a reduction in hunter-gatherer mobility will increase diet breadth and lower foraging efficiency, which eventually heightens risk (Kelly 2013:126).

Kelly (2013:123) suggests that increased risk should result in more complex tools so that foragers are less likely to fail at procuring mobile and/or seasonal resources (Oswalt

1973, 1976). Investments in producing and maintaining a complex technology (i.e., toolstone procurement and tool production/maintenance) entail costs for foragers who could otherwise use that time to acquire resources with a generalized and less efficient technology (Kelly 2013:126, 128). 17

Central Place Foraging Theory and LTO

Within the realm of central place foraging (CPF) and field processing models, residential bases are viewed as the center of food processing activities (Kelly 2013:68).

Such models conceive of logistical foraging as a trip with a given point of departure and return from a residential base to a resource patch, and assume that round-trip travel influences handling (i.e., processing and transport) time (Bettinger et al. 2015:105; Kelly

2013:66). Central place foraging not only has implications for how and where food resources should be procured, processed, and transported, but it also underpins expectations for how toolstone should be procured and processed. It also has implications for what kinds of remains should be left behind at processing sites versus residential camps. Later in this chapter, I discuss how CPF theory has been used to study LTO.

Lithic Tool Curation

Andrefsky (2006:743) and Shott (1996:267) define lithic tool curation as a measure of a lithic tool‟s actual utility relative to its maximum potential utility. Although maximum potential utility varies across tool types and is difficult to quantify, archaeologists have developed methods of quantifying tool maintenance and use intensity, or retouch (Andrefsky 2006; Clarkson 2002; Johnson 1981; Wilson and

Andrefsky 2008). Retouch can be understood as a decision to extend or alter a tool‟s use life through a morphological modification, which can extract more utility from a tool in light of the initial time invested in manufacture (Quinn et al. 2008:151). Generally, high 18 values of retouch should correspond with high curation values, and decisions to retouch a tool relate to risk minimization behaviors so that an individual is provisioned with an adequate tool at short notice or in anticipation of future use. Curation has also been understood as a combination of different factors, including: (1) tool production in anticipation of use; (2) tool design for multiple functions; (3) transport of tools between locations; (4) tool maintenance; and (5) tool recycling (Bamforth 1986:39). High measures of both curation and retouch may be the product of one or all of these behaviors, and may reflect factors such as mobility frequency, time stress, and lithic raw material scarcity (Andrefsky 1994; Bamforth 1991; MacDonald 2008; Nelson 1991;

Shott 1986, 1996; Torrence 1983).

Factors That Influenced Curation

Binford (1977:34) argued that mobility frequency influenced curation, which he simply defined as the transport of a tool from one locale to another in anticipation of use.

Binford (1977) also linked curation as transported technology to efficiency so that returns on the initial investment in manufacturing tools were derived (Andrefsky 2009:70-71;

Torrence 1983:12). Torrence (1983:12) suggested that curation was a response to the need to schedule time effectively, and that it was influenced by both mobility and time- stress. She proposed that in environments where time stress is common, broken tools should have been repaired or recycled (Torrence 1983:12). Additionally, when managing time efficiently was a goal groups should have scheduled toolstone procurement, tool production, and tool discard (Torrence 1983:13). Thus, embedding lithic raw material 19 procurement into other subsistence forays should be expected if groups wished to maximize foraging efficiency (Torrence 1983:12).

Bamforth (1986) noted that certain aspects of curation, such as maintenance and recycling, not only reflect settlement organization or the time limits on lithic tool using activities but also raw material availability. Using ethnographic and archaeological examples, he proposed that curation should be viewed as a response to localized raw material conditions and should be evinced by frequent tool retouch in assemblages when raw material was scarce and the cost of replacing diminished tools was high (Bamforth

1986:40). Bamforth‟s (1986:48) work demonstrates that curation was a complex set of behaviors that cannot be explained by one single factor, and it highlights how toolstone availability, settlement patterns, and other characteristics influenced curation.

LTO Studies in the Intermountain West: Scales of Analysis

Because lithic tools generally preserve, they comprise the majority of evidence for past adaptive systems at many cave and open-air sites, especially in the Great Basin. As such, a multitude of analyses have been performed on lithic assemblages and projectile points in particular because they carry functional and temporal information (Andrefsky

2006; Bamforth 2009; Smith and Kielhofer 2011). Projectile point analyses include defining the culture-history of a “type” by examining the spatial and temporal distribution of morphologically distinct and related styles (e.g., Braje et al. 2013; Scott 2016; Smith et al. 2013), experimental and archaeological use-wear analyses (e.g., Beck and Jones 2009;

Lafayette 2006), assessing the circumstances in which they were manufactured, 20 transported, maintained, and recycled (Harper and Andrefsky 2008; Quinn et al. 2008;

Surovell 2009), and discerning when, where, and why they were discarded using patterning in the archaeological record (Andrefsky 2006, 2010). All offer a better understanding of broader adaptive systems. Here, I focus on curation and lithic conveyance to provide insight into prehistoric LTO at different scales of analysis ranging from individual artifacts to regional samples. To narrow my discussion further, I use examples of research on lithic assemblages in the Intermountain West, a region with a range of lithic raw materials (e.g., obsidian and other fine grained volcanic materials) amenable to geochemical characterization. This fact facilitates linking the toolstone from which lithic assemblages were manufactured to geographic locations where that toolstone was procured.

Individual Tools and Site Assemblages

Projectile points are versatile and transportable tools that may be maintained or altered to meet multiple needs (Nelson 1991). Most researchers view them as ideal tools for mobile populations (Andrefsky 2005:217; Bamforth 1991). Although Nelson

(1991:63) suggested that curation is often conflated with tool design, projectile points are seen as consequences of the differential implementation of curation (MacDonald 2008;

Nelson 1991:62; Smith 2015; Thomas 1983:476). In support of these ideas, use-wear analyses reveal that points were multifunctional and, in addition to tipping projectiles, were used for various activities including cutting and drilling (Beck and Jones 2009;

Lafayette 2006). Beck and Jones‟ (2009:183-192) use-wear analysis of WST points from 21 eastern Nevada‟s Sunshine Locality revealed that stylistic variations among types may be the result of function as opposed to size regressions due to resharpening continuums and, potentially, different populations (see Figure 1.1). While many use-wear traces were removed by resharpening, axial blade dulling and lateral blade impacts suggest that points were used for throwing, thrusting, cutting, and scraping (Beck and Jones

2009:189-190). Lafayette‟s (2006; Lafayette and Smith 2012) analysis of WST projectile points reproduced Beck and Jones‟s (2009) results. Her actualistic study of WST use- wear accrued via different activities (i.e., throwing, piercing, and cutting) and comparison to use-wear on WST projectile points from northwestern Great Basin sites supported the notion that the various WST point types were used for different but not necessarily exclusive tasks throughout their use lives. Overall, Beck and Jones (2009:236) used the evidence from the Sunshine Locality to propose that the functional diversity and stylistic variation of WST points reflects the strategies undertaken by early populations to adjust their lithic technology to an unfamiliar lithic terrain and distribution of food resources.

Retouch measures are calculated for individual tools but can reveal organizational strategies at the site level when paired with source provenance data. On a tool by tool basis, retouch patterns may reveal whether or not groups used some tool classes more intensively than others or preferred different lithic raw materials for certain artifact types.

Andrefsky‟s (2006, 2010) study of projectile points from Middle Archaic components at the Birch Creek Site, Oregon highlights this approach (see Figure 1.1). Although raw materials such as chert and basalt were locally available, most projectile points were manufactured on obsidian found ~35 km and ~85 km away, reflecting a preference for that material. Andrefsky‟s (2006, 2010) analysis demonstrated that projectile points 22 manufactured on distant obsidians exhibited more retouch, which he interpreted as reflecting implements that were resharpened and retained while groups were on logistical trips more than two days‟ travel from the camp. Alternatively, points made on local obsidian exhibited less retouch but more impact fractures, which he interpreted as implements broken in the field but brought back to camp for repair or replacement

(Andrefsky 2010).

Smith et al. (2013) examined breakage and retouch among WST projectile points and other tools manufactured on local and nonlocal obsidian at the Parman localities in northwestern Nevada to assess whether the occupants of the sites shifted from a strategy of provisioning individuals to provisioning places (Kuhn 1995) (see Figure 1.1). They found no difference in use intensity between local and nonlocal artifacts, suggesting that occupations were brief (Smith et al. 2013). Smith et al.‟s (2013) analysis demonstrates that patterns of toolstone use and use intensity at residential sites within the Great Basin are context-dependent.

Regional Assemblages

Retouch on lithic tools can aid in understanding how groups scheduled LTO around land use and mobility patterns on a regional scale. Smith (2015) examined differences in projectile point retouch and curation relative to raw material availability.

By analyzing evidence for reworking on dart and arrow points from multiple sites within the obsidian rich northwestern Great Basin and the obsidian poor central Great Basin, he noted significant differences between the size and shape of projectile points from each 23 region. Smith (2015) demonstrated that patterns of retouch can be viewed on a regional scale and suggested that curation should be greater in areas where toolstone was scarce and acquiring new material was costly.

Source provenance studies have figured prominently not only in analyses of retouch and curation but also within the reconstruction of LCZs, which have direct implications for LTO. Although it is difficult to discern whether LCZs represent the maximum extent of a territory in which a group lived and foraged (both residentially and logistically) on annual or lifetime socioeconomic ranges (Jones et al. 2012; Smith and

Harvey 2017; Wilson 2007), they nevertheless provide a sense of where raw materials were procured and conveyed (Smith and Kielhofer 2011). Despite these issues, provenance studies and LCZs remain important for discerning patterns of land use at both inter-site and regional scales. Smith and Kielhofer (2011) examined how the source diversity and transport distances of projectile points compared to those of more expedient tool classes from the Parman localities (residential bases) and Last Supper Cave, ~20 km away (see Figure 1.1). Smith and Kielhofer (2011) found that projectile points were predominantly manufactured from nonlocal toolstone and had high source diversity levels while most expedient tools were manufactured from local toolstone. They suggested that the patterning of certain toolstone for curated (nonlocal) and expedient (local) tools reflects technological planning in light of anticipated toolstone distributions. This pattern of toolstone use was observed throughout repeated TP/EH occupations at both sites although they served different functions, which Smith and Kielhofer (2011) interpreted to reflect the importance of predictable resource patches to TP/EH groups. 24

Using dacite artifacts from central and eastern Great Basin assemblages, Beck et al. (2002) identified biface reduction sequences reflecting field processing efforts at two quarries and associated residential sites (i.e., central places) located ~9 km and ~60 km away. They found that the quarry associated with the more distant residential site had higher percentages of later stage bifaces and interpreted that trend as representing more intensive field processing than the quarry associated with the residential sites 9 km away.

Beck et al. (2002) explained variation in biface assemblages as a function of transport costs, where increased travel time from the quarry to the central place 60 km away (or vice versa) led flintknappers to more intensively reduce bifaces and remove more cortex

(the low-utility portion of toolstone nodules) to increase the utility of transported tools.

Beck et al. (2002) demonstrated that biface manufacture was staged differently at workshop localities at each quarry site and that residential assemblages can be interpreted using CPF models.

Finally, the application of projectile point provenance data for LCZ reconstruction has helped researchers understand land use patterns and the distributions of and relationships between TP/EH groups at a multi-regional scale (Jones et al. 2003, 2012;

Smith 2010). Jones et al. (2003, 2012) constructed LCZs for the entire Great Basin using provenance data from a large sample of obsidian and other fine-grained volcanic (FGV)

(i.e., basalt) projectile points and debitage. Jones et al. (2003) initially argued that

Paleoindians were more mobile than later groups and traversed larger foraging ranges.

They also showed that each region had a distinctive pattern of source use with little movement of toolstone between zones. They suggested that limited interactions occurred between groups on the peripheries of conveyance boundaries. 25

In light of Jones et al.‟s (2003) research, the LCZ concept was initially used to argue for high residential mobility among Paleoindian groups; however, its accuracy and meaning has been called into question in recent years (Newlander 2012, 2015; Newlander and Lin 2017; Smith and Harvey 2017). Newlander (2012, 2015; Newlander and Lin

2017) proposed that chert and FGV were conveyed differently than obsidian in the eastern Great Basin, where obsidian sources are scarce and chert and FGV sources are common. Although cherts are difficult to source, Newlander (2012, 2015; Newlander and

Lin 2017) demonstrated that it is possible using trace element data paired with visual attributes. This has implications for understanding LCZs, most of which are built using obsidian artifacts. While LCZs have been further refined in some cases, suggesting that

Paleoindian mobility was not as expansive as initially conceived (Jones et al. 2012; Smith

2010), these boundaries have implications for mobility strategies, toolstone use, and social/economic interconnectedness across time and space during the TP/EH. Lithic conveyance zones also provide an explanation for why variable patterns of obsidian,

FGV, and chert use as well as LTO in general occur across the region.

Summary

Analyzing LTO may never fully reveal the varied behaviors and mobility strategies that produced archaeological assemblages; however, understanding temporally discrete lithic assemblages at different scales of analysis (i.e., artifact-specific, local/site- specific, and regional) can elucidate the relationship between tool morphology and raw material distribution and provide insight into prehistoric settlement-subsistence strategies 26

(Binford 1980; Torrence 1983). Although there are problems associated with only using obsidian projectile points to reconstruct LCZs (Bamforth 2009; Hughes 1986; Ingbar

1994; Newlander 2012, 2015; Smith and Harvey 2017), they nevertheless provide some understanding of land use and mobility. Different patterns of conveyance and curation between tool classes can serve as a starting point for investigating LTO across space and time in both the cave and open-air record.

27

CHAPTER 2

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials

Fort Rock Basin Caves

Caves and rockshelters in the Intermountain West have remained integral to discussions of early hunter-gatherer lifeways in the region. Their excellent preservation conditions have offered a wealth of knowledge about Paleoindians and the environments they inhabited during the TP/EH. In the following sections, I discuss the history of work at three cave sites containing records of Paleoindian occupation in Oregon‟s Fort Rock

Basin: (1) Fort Rock Cave; (2) Cougar Mountain Cave; and (3) the Connley Caves

(Figure 2.1). I review current interpretations of how the caves were used with a focus on how they have contributed to our understanding of Paleoindian behavior. I also highlight the interpretive and methodological issues that characterized the work conducted at those sites. Finally, I discuss the sites‟ respective geologic and cultural stratigraphic sequences, as well as their Paleoindian lithic assemblages and how I incorporated them in my analyses.

28

Figure 2.1. Location of Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves.

29

Fort Rock Cave (35LK1)

Fort Rock Cave is situated within a small volcanic butte in the Fort Rock Valley.

During the terminal Pleistocene, the southeast facing portion of the butte was eroded by wave action to form an opening ~5 m high, ~21 m wide, and ~18 m deep that sits at

~1355 m ASL (Allison 1979) (Figure 2.2). Formal archaeological investigation at the cave began in 1938 when Cressman excavated ~55 m2 of deposits (Bedwell 1973;

Connolly et al. 2017; Cressman et al. 1940) (Figure 2.3). Using a gridded system,

Cressman excavated according to natural strata and removed 1.3 m of deposits above

Pleistocene lake gravels. He noted that a solid band of tephra, whose origin and age was unclear at the time, overlaid a rich artifact assemblage that included WST projectile points, scrapers, bone and wooden tools, and ~100 sagebrush sandals (Connolly et al.

2017; Cressman et al. 1940, 1942).

Cressman returned to Fort Rock Cave in 1966 and 1967 with his graduate student

Stephen Bedwell and found that the cave had been extensively looted (Bedwell 1970).

Despite this fact, Cressman and Bedwell located undisturbed deposits and excavated eight additional test units with the help of a backhoe and dynamite (Bedwell 1970)

(Figure 2.3). Their excavations yielded additional datable materials including two sagebrush sandals and four charcoal samples (Bedwell 1970; Bedwell and Cressman

1971; Connolly et al. 2017). 30

Figure 2.2. Overview of Fort Rock Cave (from Bedwell and Cressman 1971:5).

Of the eight test units excavated in 1966 and 1967, Bedwell (1970) felt that only two exhibited completely intact deposits (squares 10 and 11; see Figure 2.3). The deepest charcoal sample, recovered from atop Pleistocene lake gravel in Square 10 and purportedly associated with artifacts and a “fire area”, returned a radiocarbon date of

13,200±720 14C BP (17,900-13,800 cal BP) (Bedwell 1970:57-58, 1973:35).

Descriptions of the materials recovered by Cressman‟s and Bedwell return to Fort

Rock Cave are limited (Bedwell 1970, 1973; Cressman et al. 1940, 1942). In his dissertation, Bedwell (1970) attempted to identify patterns of diachronic change not only at Fort Rock Cave but at other nearby caves. 31

Figure 2.3. Planview of Fort Rock Cave showing the locations of excavation units and different grid systems used during the 1938, 1966, and 1967 field seasons (Connolly et al. 2017:560). 32

Towards that goal, Bedwell (1970) grouped materials recovered from the 1938, 1966, and

1967 excavations, which were conducted using different grid systems, excavation methods, and stratigraphic controls (see Figure 2.3). Based on radiocarbon assays, changes in artifact densities and morphologies, and consistencies in the strata in the Fort

Rock Basin cave sites, Bedwell (1970:173-180) posited that four major cultural periods were represented: (1) Analytical Unit 4, the early hunter period (~17,000-12,800 cal BP);

(2) Analytical Unit 3, the early pre-ash period (~12,800-8800 cal BP); (3) Analytical Unit

2, the late pre-ash period (~8800-7800 cal BP); and (4) Analytical Unit 1, the post-ash period (~4700-3200 cal BP) (Table 2.1) (see Appendix 1 for a breakdown of the strata from Fort Rock Cave and the Connley Caves into Bedwell‟s analytical units).

33

Table 2.1. Radiocarbon Dates from Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves.

Site Lab No. 14C BP Age 2σ cal BP Rangea Material Dated Context Reference(s) 35LK1 C-428a 9188±480b 12,004-9270 Sagebrush bark, Fort Rock sandal Arnold and Libby (1951) 35LK1 C-429b 8916±540b 11,705-8644 Sagebrush bark, Fort Rock sandal Cressman (1951) 35LK1 I-1917 8500±140 9904-9124 Sagebrush bark, Fort Rock sandal Bedwell and Cressman (1971) 35LK1 GaK-1738 13,200±720c 17,854-13,776 Unidentified charcoal Square 10, Lvl. 10 Bedwell (1973) 35LK1 GaK-2145 4450±100c 5433-4845 Unidentified charcoal Square 10, Lvl. 4 Bedwell (1973) 35LK1 GaK-2146 8550±150c 10,135-9138 Unidentified charcoal Square 10, Lvl. 6 Bedwell (1973) 35LK1 GaK-2147 10,200±230c 12,568-11,236 Unidentified charcoal Square 10, Lvl. 8 Bedwell (1973) 35LK1 AA-101454 8384±49 9500-9285 Sagebrush bark, Fort Rock sandal Connolly et al. (2016) 35LK1 AA-101455 8447±49 9537-9324 Sagebrush bark, Fort Rock sandal Connolly et al. (2016) 35LK1 AA-19150 4430±60 5287-4866 Tule, Catlow Twine basketry Connolly et al. (1998) 35LK1 AA-30060 6277±55 7318-7013 Tule, open diagonal twine basketry Connolly et al. (2016) 35LK1 AA-9249 9215±140 11,059-9945 Sagebrush bark, Fort Rock sandal Connolly and Cannon (1999) 35LK1 AA-9250 8715±105 10,151-9530 Sagebrush bark, Fort Rock sandal Connolly and Cannon (1999) 35LK1 AA-99757 8281±54 9441-9092 Tule, open twine basketry Connolly et al. (2016) 35LK1 UCIAMS-127300 8365±25 9468-9305 Sagebrush bark, Fort Rock sandal Connolly et al. (2016) 35LK1 UCIAMS-127301 8450±25 9523-9441 Sagebrush bark, Fort Rock sandal Connolly et al. (2016) 35LK1 UCIAMS-87419 8480±30 9534-9463 Sagebrush bark, Fort Rock sandal Connolly et al. (2016) 35LK1 Beta-221343 8460±40 9532-9433 Sagebrush bark, Fort Rock sandal Connolly et al. (2016) 35LK1 AA-9248 1920±75 2050-1633 Tule, Catlow Twine basketry Connolly et al. (2017) 35LK1 Beta-419976 550±30 639-517 Unidentified dicot twig Unit 6, Top of Str. G1 Connolly et al. (2017) 35LK1 Beta-419977 8280±30 9405-9137 Artemisia twig Unit 7, Base of Str. G1 Connolly et al. (2017) 35LK1 Beta-419978 1240±30 1266-1074 Herbivore coprolite Unit 7, Top of Str. G1 Connolly et al. (2017) 35LK1 Beta-440728 3270±30 3572-3409 Artemisia (?) bark Unit 15, Feat. 1, Lvl. 10 Connolly et al. (2017) 35LK1 Beta-440729 Modern NA Charcoal Unit C/19, Lvl. 16 Connolly et al. (2017) 34

Site Lab No. 14C BP Age 2σ cal BP Rangea Material Dated Context Reference(s) 35LK1 D-AMS-014508 321±27 468-305 Herbivore coprolite Unit 6, Top of Str. G1 Connolly et al. (2017) 35LK55 UCLA-122 8510±250 10,232-8807 Tule, Fort Rock sandal NA Connolly and Barker (2004) 35LK50 GaK-1739 8290±310c 10,151-8520 Unidentified charcoal Cave 3, Str. 3, Lvl. 24 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 Gak-2144 3080±140c 3593-2886 Unidentified charcoal Cave 3, Str. 1, Lvl. 17 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-1740 3420±140c 4081-3371 Unidentified charcoal Cave 4A, Str. 1, Lvl. 17 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-1741 7900±170c 9284-8391 Unidentified charcoal Cave 4A, Str. 4, Lvl. 28 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-1742 10,100±400c 12,731-10,592 Unidentified charcoal Cave 4A, Str. 4, Lvl. 35 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-2138 9150±150c 10,748-9888 Unidentified charcoal Cave 4A, Str. 4, Lvl. 31 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-2137 3140±80c 3560-3164 Unidentified charcoal Cave 4A, Str. 2, Lvl. 18 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-2138 3730±90c 4405-3862 Unidentified charcoal Cave 4A, Str. 2, Lvl. 16, Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-2140 7240±150c 8375-7790 Unidentified charcoal Cave 4B, Str. 3, Lvl. 30 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-2141 11,200±200c, 13,420-12,720 Unidentified charcoal Cave 4B, Str. 4, Lvl. 32 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-2142 9670±180c 11,687-10,507 Unidentified charcoal Cave 4B, Str. 4, Lvl. 34 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-2143 10,600±190c 12,882-11,834 Unidentified charcoal Cave 4B, Str. 4, Lvl. 38 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-1743 9800±250c 12,129-10,505 Unidentified charcoal Cave 5A, Str. 3, Lvl. 27 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-2133 3330±110c 3862-2248 Unidentified charcoal Cave 5A, Str. 1, Lvl. 12 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-2134 4320±100c 5288-4586 Unidentified charcoal Cave 5A, Str. 2, Lvl. 18 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-1744 9540±260c 11,709-10,211 Unidentified charcoal Cave 5B, Str. 3, Lvl. 33 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-2135 7430±140c 8512-7970 Unidentified charcoal Cave 5B, Str. 3, Lvl. 27 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-1745 9710±880c 13,542-9020 Unidentified charcoal Cave 6, Str. 4, Lvl. 22 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-2130 3720±270c 4835-3451 Unidentified charcoal Cave 6, Str. 2, Lvl. 7 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-2131 4350±100c 5303-4646 Unidentified charcoal Cave 6, Str. 2, Lvl. 17 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 GaK-2132 4720±200c 5892-4880 Unidentified charcoal Cave 6, Str. 4, Lvl. 20 Bedwell (1973) 35LK50 D-AMS-12798 8833±44d 10,154-9704 Artemisia charcoal Cave 4, LU1, Unit 1, Lvl. 56 Jenkins et al. (2017) 35LK50 D-AMS-12796 10,234±38 12,125-11,803 Artemisia charcoal Cave 4, LU3, Unit 3, Lvl. 52 Jenkins et al. (2017) 35

Site Lab No. 14C BP Age 2σ cal BP Rangea Material Dated Context Reference(s) 35LK50 D-AMS-12791 10,371±43d 12,409-12,042 Artemisia charcoal Cave 4, LU2, Unit 5, Lvl. 52 Jenkins et al. (2017) 35LK50 D-AMS-12791 10,398±44 12,517-12,068 Artemisia charcoal Cave 4, LU3, Unit 1, Lvl. 52 Jenkins et al. (2017) 35LK50 D-AMS-12793 10,443±39 12,530-12,128 Artemisia charcoal Cave 4, LU3, Unit 5, Lvl. 46 Jenkins et al. (2017) 35LK50 D-AMS-12797 10,455±39 12,544-12,130 Salix charcoal Cave 4, LU3, Unit 3, Lvl. 45 Jenkins et al. (2017) 35LK50 D-AMS-12795 10,769±43 12,745-12,644 Artemisia charcoal Cave 4, LU2, Unit 3, Lvl. 54 Jenkins et al. (2017) 35LK50 D-AMS-12790 10,933±42 12,901-12,705 Pinus charcoal Cave 4, LU2, Unit 7, Lvl. 47 Jenkins et al. (2017) 35LK50 D-AMS-12792 11,062±40 13,052-12,802 Salix charcoal Cave 4, LU2, Unit 5, Lvl. 52 Jenkins et al. (2017) 35LK50 D-AMS-12794 11,080±42d 12,064-12,813 Artemisia charcoal Cave 4, LU3, Unit 5, Lvl. 39 Jenkins et al. (2017) Str.=Stratum; Lvl.=Level; Feat.=Feature; NA=Not Available. a Radiocarbon dates calibrated using OxCal 4.3 online program (Bronk Ramsey 2009) with the IntCal13 curve (Reimer et al. 2013). b When averaged together, these two dates produce the 9053 ± 350 14C BP age commonly cited for the “Fort Rock Sandal.” c These dates were run by the Gakushian Laboratory. Several researchers have expressed concern about the reliability of GaK dates. GaK-1738, GaK-1739, GaK-1741, GaK-1742, GaK-1743, GaK-1744, GaK-1745, GaK-2130, GaK-2132, GaK-2141, and GaK-2147 all possess very large standard errors, which must be considered when interpreting the site chronology. d Interpreted as out of sequence.

36

Analytical Unit 4 was associated with the stratum encountered in squares 10 and

11 dated to ~15,000 cal BP. It contained unshouldered WST projectile points, scrapers, gravers, and a mano (Bedwell 1970:182-183). A second piece of charcoal found slightly above the basal gravels in Square 10 returned a Younger Dryas age of 10,200±230 14C

BP (12,400-11,400 cal BP) (Bedwell 1973:35; Goebel et al. 2011:493), which potentially supports the use of the cave during the terminal Pleistocene; however, the date appears too young for its context and must be interpreted with caution (Connolly et al. 2017:568).

Bedwell (1970:208) interpreted Analytical Unit 4 as representing an “early hunter” period when groups were highly mobile, hunted large and small game, and intermittently used the Fort Rock Basin. Although the earliest radiocarbon date associated with this period is intriguing, the find was poorly documented, making the claim of a pre-Younger

Dryas occupation at Fort Rock Cave unsubstantiated (Connolly et al. 2017; Jenkins et al.

2004a:20).

Analytical Unit 3 at Fort Rock Cave corresponded with an increased artifact density, interpreted as greater cave usage. Materials recovered include WST projectile points, scrapers, knives, gravers, bone awls, and abundant leporid and deer remains

(Bedwell 1970:248-250). Bedwell (1970:192) indicated that the strata associated with

Analytical Unit 3 contained the sagebrush sandals recovered by Cressman in 1938. Those specimens offer the best evidence for intensive use of the cave during the early Holocene, as radiocarbon dates on 11 sandals span ~10,400-9400 cal BP (Connolly 1994; Connolly et al. 2016, 2017) (see Table 2.1).

Bedwell (1970:58) referenced a regional decrease in occupation during Analytical

Unit 2, although it is unclear if he meant Fort Rock Cave specifically. Despite less use of 37 caves during this period, he described the composite evidence from sites as reflecting cultural continuity and change, the latter marked by new flaking techniques, increased use of obsidian relative to basalt, and more expedient tools (Bedwell 1970:210).

Analytical Unit 1 received little attention from Bedwell (1970, 1973) but he did imply that the Fort Rock Basin was marked by increased cave use during the period

(Bedwell 1970:58). Bedwell (1970:206-207) noted that there was more basketry, cordage, and matting found above the pumice stratum during Cressman‟s 1938 excavation of Fort Rock Cave. An examination of Bedwell‟s (1970:299-306) artifact distribution tables reveals that multiple artifact types were recovered from the strata associated with Analytical Unit 1, but his results must be interpreted with caution as there is no discussion of how extensively looting mixed the deposits prior to his excavations

(Bedwell 1970:299-306).

The Fort Rock Cave record suggests that site use varied diachronically. The earliest strata purportedly associated with the early Paleoindian period reflect intermittent use including brief stop-overs en route to other destinations. The early Holocene clearly saw increased use of the cave. Aikens et al. (2011) suggest that the location was used as a residential base during that time due to the density and diversity of the assemblage.

Radiocarbon dates on Fort Rock-style sandals support increased cave use then. Faunal remains rich in deer and leporid bones and a multitude of scrapers may point to the cave being used longer-term to process meat and animal hides (Jenkins et al. 2004a:11).

Recently, however, Jenkins et al. (2016:130) have suggested that during the early

Holocene Fort Rock Cave was occupied for shorter periods relative to other nearby caves and that the occupations may not have been residential in nature but associated with a 38 special task – producing sagebrush sandals. Cressman (1940:69) noted continued use of

Fort Rock Cave following the eruption of Mt. Mazama; however, artifact densities from

Bedwell‟s excavations do appear to decrease (Bedwell 1970). Finally, interpretations of

Bedwell‟s (1970) latest period (~4700-3200 cal BP) remain unclear for Fort Rock Cave, although it may have seen more frequent but intermittent use during the late Holocene based on increased artifact density.

Both Bedwell and Cressman‟s excavations were poorly documented relative to modern practices, making it difficult to understand their excavation methods and discern the stratigraphic distribution of artifacts. Bedwell‟s use of a backhoe and dynamite has complicated future investigations at the site. Additionally, the Gakushiun Laboratory, which produced many of the Fort Rock Cave dates, is now known to have generated erroneous results (Blakeslee 1994). Because of these issues, the University of Oregon

Museum of Natural and Cultural History (UOMNCH) returned to Fort Rock Cave in

2015 and 2016 to assess the integrity of remaining deposits and evaluate the context of

Bedwell‟s earliest date (Figure 2.4) (Connolly et al. 2017). Three radiocarbon assays recovered from the basal strata of the cave returned ages too young for their context, indicating thorough disturbance (see Table 2.1). Additionally, there was significant mixing of temporally diagnostic artifacts, suggesting that the cave has little if any intact deposits remaining (Connolly et al. 2017).

39

Figure 2.4. Locations of 1938, 1966, 1967, 2015, and 2016 test pits superimposed on a planview that depicts absolute elevations inside Fort Rock Cave (Connolly et al. 2017:565).

40

Fort Rock Cave Stratigraphy

In 1938, Cressman distinguished two stratigraphic zones by their relationship to an extensive layer of tephra. These were later correlated with strata observed in the 1966 and 1967 excavations by Bedwell (1970, 1973) and Kittleman (1968). Cressman et al.‟s

(1942) strata included: (1) an ash occupation, which encompassed all strata observed above the tephra layer; and (2) a pre-ash occupation, which included all strata below the tephra layer (Cressman 1942). Bedwell (1973:14) noted that the “ash (occupation)” corresponded with the “pumiceous sandy silt” layers recorded during the 1967 excavations, which he designated strata A-F in his field notes (Figure 2.5) (Connolly et al. 2017:566). Kittleman (1968:2) designated these same strata as depositional Unit V, a post-Mazama sandy pumice. While the solid band of tephra Cressman et al. (1942) observed in 1938 was not encountered during the 1966 and 1967 excavations, its absence may be explained by the position of the units excavated during those field seasons, which were located near the dripline of the cave where tephra would not have been protected, and the extensive looting that occurred after Cressman‟s excavations (see Figure 2.4).

Bedwell (1973:14) noted that Cressman‟s pre-ash occupation corresponded with the zone of “brown silt with large cobbles” that he observed in Square 10 (see Figure

2.5). However, Kittleman‟s (1968) depositional Unit IV, described as a thin and discontinuous silty sand, better resembles Cressmans‟ pre-ash occupation (Connolly et al.

2017:566). The origin of Bedwell‟s (1970) “brown silt with large cobbles” stratum in

Square 10 is unknown and it was not observed during subsequent excavations.

41

Figure 2.5. North profile of Square 10 recorded during Bedwell’s 1967 excavation (Bedwell 1970:29).

Lastly, Cressman et al. (1942) described the cave‟s basal stratum as a gravel layer.

Bedwell (1973:14) confirmed that this zone corresponds to the red and gray water-worn gravel and sand observed during the 1966 and 1967 excavations (see Figure 2.5).

Kittleman (1968) further divided Bedwell‟s (1970) basal “red and gray sand and gravel layer” into stratigraphic units. Kittleman (1968) described the deepest of these strata, depositional Unit I, as containing angular fragments of talus and roof fall overlain by depositional Unit II, a layer of rounded pebble- to cobble-sized basaltic lake gravels, designated as Stratum H in Bedwell‟s (1967) field notes. Depositional Unit III, which corresponds with Bedwell‟s (1967) Stratum G, also contained rounded pebble- to cobble- 42 sized lake gravels which occurred in a matrix of “clayey, silty sand” (Kittleman 1968:2-

3).

Excavations by the UOMNCH in 2015 and 2016 expanded upon Bedwell and

Cressman‟s brief descriptions of the Fort Rock Cave strata, providing more detail on the origin of intact deposits where observed. Although the crew determined that the bulk of deposits was a backfill mainly comprised of “…loose gravelly silt with a dominant component of sand- and granule- sized pumice” (Connolly et al. 2017:566-568) from both pre- and post-Mazama deposits (Stratum Y), three stratigraphic zones correlated with Cressman (1942), Bedwell (1970, 1973), and Kittleman‟s (1968) stratigraphic descriptions. Stratum IV, pictured in Figure 2.6, is a silty sand that correlated with

Cressman‟s (1942) pre-ash occupation zone and Kittleman‟s depositional Unit IV

(Connolly et al. 2017:566). Connolly et al.‟s (2017:567) Stratum G and H correlated with

Kittleman‟s (1968) depositional Units II and III, and Bedwell‟s (1967) Stratum G and H

(see Figures 2.5 and 2.6). Stratum H is a gravel comprised of red and gray basalt clasts reaching 25 cm in diameter, intermixed in a matrix of coarse sands and gravels, which

Connolly et al. (2017:567) interpret to have been deposited during Lake Fort Rock‟s still stand at 1,353-1,356 m ASL. Connolly et al. (2017:567) describe Stratum G as a “…silty gravel with clasts up to 10 cm in maximum diameter in a clast supported framework”, with voids infiltrated by dark-yellowish brown silts. There are two current hypotheses for the origin of Stratum G: (1) it is a terminal Pleistocene beach gravel with a post- depositional eolian component that originated from the nearby shoreline as Lake Fort

Rock regressed; and (2) it is clasts deposited by the lake during one of its many still stands (Connolly et al. 2017:567; Freidel 1994:32). Between the deposition of strata G 43 and H, people first visited Fort Rock Cave, evidence of which was observed in the form of debitage and processed bones intermixed throughout the upper eolian component of

Stratum G (Connolly et al. 2017:567). Additionally, the contact between Stratum G and

Stratum H is where Bedwell recovered the (1970:182-183) “early assemblage” and obtained the early radiocarbon date.

Figure 2.6. North profile of Probe 5/Unit A recorded during the UOMNCH 2015 excavations (Connolly et al. 2017:3).

44

The Fort Rock Cave Paleoindian Lithic Assemblage

Of the hundreds of lithic artifacts recovered from the lower strata at Fort Rock

Cave, I selected 129 projectile points and a crescent manufactured on obsidian and other

FGV toolstone (e.g., basalt) for geochemical and metric analysis. Because a number of projectile points (n=87) were recovered without detailed provenience information, I only included diagnostic WST points. While it is unclear if Cressman collected any debitage,

Bedwell collected debitage larger than ¼” during his 1966 and 1967 excavations from both disturbed and undisturbed contexts. I analyzed debitage from the pre-Mazama levels in Fort Rock Cave from four excavation units that Bedwell (1966, 1967) felt contained relatively intact deposits: squares 4, 5, 8, and 9 (see Figure 2.5). I analyzed 3,177 pieces of debitage from Fort Rock Cave. Of those, I geochemically characterized 135 flakes.

In addition to the projectile point and debitage samples, I analyzed the artifacts recovered atop Pleistocene gravels from Bedwell‟s (1970:193-185, 1973:144) alleged

~15,000 cal BP strata in squares 10 and 11 to assess their provenance and potential patterns of source use within a presumably interrelated expended toolkit (Figure 2.7).

Table 2.2 summarizes all artifacts analyzed for this study.

45

Figure 2.7. Bedwell’s “early assemblage” recovered from the basal gravels of squares 10 and 11 in Fort Rock Cave: projectile points (11-10/3-2, 11-10/3-1), unifacial tools (10-10/3-28, 10-10/3-18, 10- 10/3-19, 10-11/3-6, 10-11/3-4), scrapers (11-10/3-10, 11-12/3-12, 11-11/3-10, 11-12/3-12, 11-12/3-11, 11- 11/3-7), and a mano (11-11/3).

46

Table 2.2. Chipped Stone Artifacts from Fort Rock Cave Included in this Study.

Projectile Points Crescents Unifaces Scrapers Debitage TOTAL Fort Rock Cave 129 1 5 5 3177 3317

Cougar Mountain Cave (35LK55)

Cougar Mountain Cave lies ~16 km northeast of Fort Rock Cave and ~22 km northeast of the Connley Caves. It is located near the base of an eroded rhyolitic dome, standing ~14 m wide and ~10 m deep at 1356 m ASL in elevation (Bedwell and

Cressman 1971; Cowles 1960; Layton 1972a) (Figure 2.8). In 1958, John Cowles excavated the entire cave in 1-ft levels down to basal Pleistocene gravels (~6.5 ft, or ~2 m, in total) over a four-month period (Cowles 1960) (Figure 2.9). About 4 ft below the surface Cowles encountered Mazama tephra which overlaid numerous textile and leather fragments, bone awls, shouldered and unshouldered projectile points, bone atlatl shafts and awls, large scrapers, debitage, and six Fort Rock-style sandals (Connolly 1994;

Cowles 1960) (Figure 2.8). Faunal remains from the lower 2.5 ft of the deposits included bison, elk, deer, and mountain sheep (Cowles 1960:29-30). One tule Fort Rock-style sandal found below the Mazama tephra returned a date of 8510±250 14C BP (9800-9200 cal BP), providing a minimum age of occupation for the site (Connolly and Barker

2004:246) (Table 2.1). Above tephra, Cowles (1960:15-16, 19) found over 200 side- and corner-notched projectile points mostly manufactured on obsidian, wooden atlatl and bow fragments, bone and shell beads, and bone needles (Cowles 1960:22-27). Post-Mazama fauna included fewer elk, sheep, and deer than the TP/EH deposits (Cowles 1960:29-31,

49-50). Lastly, the levels above Mazama tephra included multiple mat, basketry, and 47 cordage fragments as well as a number of Multiple Warp-style sandals (Cowles 1960:32-

46).

\

Figure 2.8. Overview of Cougar Mountain Cave (Cowles 1960:7).

48

Figure 2.9. General profile of the Cougar Mountain Cave strata (Cowles 1960:11).

It is difficult to characterize Cougar Mountain Cave‟s occupational history as few analyses have been performed on materials from the cave (but see Connolly and Barker

2004; Lafayette 2006; Layton 1972a, 1972b). The assemblage recovered from the earliest strata is strikingly similar to that recovered from Fort Rock Cave and the Connley Caves, and Jenkins et al. (2004a:12, 2016:130) and Aikens et al. (2011:67) suggest that it was used as a winter residential camp due to the presence of abundant lithic artifacts and artiodactyl bones. Because Cowles (1960) reported the above pumice deposits, which spanned nearly 4 ft in depth, inconsistently throughout his publication, interpretations of its use or lack of use during subsequent periods are unavailable; however, the abundance of complete lithic artifacts in the upper levels may reflect its importance to the peoples of the Fort Rock Basin, perhaps because the site sits on the Cougar Mountain obsidian source that is represented in many middle and late Holocene assemblages in the region

(Skinner et al. 2004).

While there are few interpretations associated with the assemblage from Cougar

Mountain Cave, the excavation warrants discussion of serious methodological problems.

The 1-ft levels in which Cowles excavated the deposits were arbitrary and did not record 49 fine-grained changes in cultural or geologic strata (see Figure 2.9). Cowles (1960) kept no records of his excavation so all stratigraphic designations that he offers are drawn from memory and cannot be relied upon (Layton 1968:10). Additionally, it appears that

Cowles (1960) excavated most of or all of the deposits from the cave. When Layton

(1968:10) returned to the cave in 1966 to document its stratigraphy, he was unable to find undisturbed deposits, which limits the cave‟s future research potential.

The Cougar Mountain Cave Paleoindian Lithic Assemblage

My sample of Paleoindian artifacts from Cougar Mountain Cave consists of 117 obsidian and FGV projectile points. While one crescent is pictured in Cowles (1960), I was not able to relocate the specimen in the collection. Cowles (1960) noted that no debitage was recovered from the site; therefore, I did not perform a debitage analysis.

However, I did study seven large obsidian bifacial preforms/knives that Cowles

(1960:18) described as being “…made in the cave”. Although those specimens have no provenience information, Cowles (1960:18) depicted them on a plate in his publication and described them as originating in the pre-Mazama deposits in the bottom 2.5 ft of the cave. I matched the specimens to the plate and included them in my analysis (Figure

2.10). Table 2.3 summarizes the artifacts I analyzed from Cougar Mountain Cave. 50

Figure 2.10. Preforms and knives from the lowest 2.5 ft of Cougar Mountain Cave.

Table 2.3. Chipped Stone Artifacts from Cougar Mountain Cave Included in this Study.

Projectile Points Large Knives/Preforms TOTAL Cougar Mountain Cave 117 7 132

51

The Connley Caves (35LK50)

The Connley Caves are located ~16 km southeast of Fort Rock Cave in the

Connley Hills, a basaltic ridge that separates Fort Rock and Silver Lake sub-basins. The eight caves face south and are generally smaller than Fort Rock and Cougar Mountain caves, although the largest (Cave 6) measures ~10 m wide by ~9 m deep (Bedwell

1970:23) (Figure 2.11). The caves sit at ~1355 m ASL, the same elevation as Fort Rock

Cave and Cougar Mountain Cave (Bedwell 1970:23). They were first formally investigated by Bedwell in 1966 and 1967 after nearly a century of looting (Bedwell

1973:16). Bedwell (1973:19) excavated test units in six of the caves, using a backhoe to excavate through the post-Mazama sediments thoroughly disturbed by looting. Despite the disturbances, he located unbroken layers of Mazama tephra overlying undisturbed

TP/EH deposits in a few of the caves (Bedwell 1970:19). Artifacts from those strata became the focus of his dissertation.

Bedwell (1970) used the aforementioned analytical units (1-4) to interpret cultural change at the Connley Caves. Because no radiocarbon dates from the caves‟ earliest strata fell within the temporal span of Analytical Unit 4 (~17,000-12,800 cal BP),

Bedwell‟s (1970:174) discussion began with Analytical Unit 3. Similar to Fort Rock

Cave, Bedwell (1970) recovered abundant and diverse cultural materials from Analytical

Unit 3 strata and radiocarbon dates indicated intensive and recurrent use between

~10,600 and 7200 14C BP (~12,500 and 8000 cal BP) (see Table 2.1), offering additional support for increasing early Holocene populations within the Fort Rock Basin (Bedwell

1973:34-35, 58-61). 52

Figure 2.11. Overview of the Connley Caves (Bedwell and Cressman 1971:5).

Analytical Unit 3 strata produced multiple cores, scrapers, and other tools similar to those recovered from Fort Rock Cave. The faunal assemblage included waterfowl, sage grouse, leporid, and artiodactyl remains. Grayson‟s (1979) analysis of the Connley Caves fauna provided support for the hypothesis that Fort Rock Basin caves served as winter residential camps during the early Holocene. Following his examination of sage grouse sex and age abundances and ratios in the pre-Mazama strata and comparison to known patterns of sage grouse aggregations, Grayson (1979:446) suggested that groups at the

Connley Caves likely preyed on the species between the late fall and late spring at nearby

Paulina Marsh. Additional researchers (e.g., Aikens et al. 2011:65-66; Jenkins et al.

2004a:11, 2016) similarly postulated that the Connley Caves were used as a winter residential camp throughout the early Holocene. 53

The Connley Caves strata deposited just prior to and following the eruption of Mt.

Mazama (coinciding with the middle Holocene) were “virtually uninhabited” (Bedwell

1970:215). Although Bedwell obtained 21 radiocarbon assays, there was a marked absence radiocarbon dates between 7000 and 5000 14C BP (see Table 2.1). Bedwell

(1970:215-217) suggested that reduced cave use during that time reflected intensified aridity in the region and the decline of nearby wetlands. Grayson‟s (1979) faunal analysis suggested increased aridity as well, evident in a reduction of waterfowl and disappearance of pikas in middle Holocene deposits. Additionally, he noted decreased mesic adapted white-tailed jackrabbits and increased xeric adapted black-tailed jackrabbits in the post-Mazama deposits (Grayson 1979). The middle Holocene hiatus evident at the Connley Caves is also apparent in many other caves across the northwestern Great Basin (Ollivier 2016; Ollivier et al. 2017), which has been interpreted as reflecting variability in land use patterns due to changing ecological conditions

(Jenkins et al. 2004a).

During the period that coincides with Analytical Unit 1 (i.e., the late Holocene), cave use appears to have increased and is marked by a diverse array of artifact classes including manos, metates, and mortars. Bedwell (1970:218-219) related the increased cave use during the early late Holocene to ameliorating climatic conditions, which fostered the return of sizable wetlands in the Fort Rock Basin.

Bedwell‟s early excavations at the Connley Caves have the same issues as those of Fort Rock Cave – poor documentation, expedient and problematic excavation methods, inconsistent radiocarbon ages within strata, and unclear associations between artifacts and dates. Additionally, many of Bedwell‟s (1970:231) interpretations of the 54 pre-Mazama occupations are problematic, specifically regarding the WPLT concept that he applied to all cave records in the Fort Rock Basin. This concept was based on the abundant waterfowl remains recovered from the Connley Caves, which was the only site in the Fort Rock Basin that provided firm support for intensive wetland exploitation during the early Holocene (Jenkins et al. 2004a:16). The use of the WPLT as a culture- historic designation for early Holocene groups in the northwestern Great Basin was later dismissed after some researchers (e.g., Bryan 1980; Grayson 2011:301; Willig 1989) argued that it did not fully encompass the diversity of Paleoindian lifeways in the region

(see Chapter 1).

In light of the issues associated with Bedwell‟s (1970) work, the UOMNCH returned to the Connley Caves in 1999 and has been conducting summer fieldwork since that time to build a more reliable paleoecological record for the Fort Rock Basin (Beck et al. 2004). The UOMNCH has successfully located undisturbed deposits and obtained radiocarbon assays integral to reconstructing the site‟s history (Beck et al. 2004; Jenkins et al. 2017). Single-piece charcoal fragments associated with the deepest artifact-bearing level in Cave 4 returned radiocarbon ages as old as 11,062±40 14C BP (13,100-12,900 cal

BP) (Jenkins et al. 2017:5) (see Table 2.1).

The Connley Caves Stratigraphy

Bedwell (1970:39) noted that the same strata were apparent in the six excavated caves although they varied in thickness. He considered the stratigraphic sequence in Cave

5A as representative of all of the caves‟ sequences (Figure 2.12). 55

Figure 2.12. East wall stratigraphic profile of Connley Cave 5A (Bedwell 1970:41).

56

Bedwell (1970:39) described Stratum I (the basal layer) as water-worn gravels and cobbles interspersed with dark brown fine silt. Stratum II was a two-component zone comprised of angular roof fall overlain by light brown sandy silt intermixed with sand- size pumice grains and varied densities of organic matter. Stratum III was an undisturbed

15-20 cm layer of Mazama tephra. Stratum IV encompassed all post-Mazama sediments and Bedwell (1970:42) described it as light tan sandy silt intermixed with angular roof fall and Mazama tephra.

The UOMNCH‟s recent work at the Connley Caves has provided additional details about the origin and extent of the early strata. While much of the middle and late

Holocene strata are thoroughly disturbed, Jenkins et al. (2017) distinguished three intact

TP/EH lithostratigraphic units (LUs) in Cave 4 (see Figure 2.13). The basal unit, LU1, is a package of sands and subrounded pebbles and cobbles deposited by Lake Fort Rock during its regression. LU2, a greyish to dark yellowish brown moderately sorted sand intermixed with subrounded pebbles and cobbles, conformably overlies LU1. Periodic water table fluctuations are evident in LU2 by subaerial weathering (i.e., calcium carbonate cementation and iron staining). Lastly, LU3 shares a slightly undulating boundary with LU2 and overlays the unit unconformably. While the nature of this boundary is currently uncertain, LU3 represents the primary artifact bearing deposit at the site and has yielded the bulk of the WST material.

57

Figure 2.13. Stratigraphic profile of Units 7 and 8 from Connley Cave 4 showing the context of radiocarbon assays from the UO 2015 excavations (Jenkins et al. 2017:3). Note: Dates are presented in radiocarbon years.

58

The Connley Caves Lithic Assemblage

I included data for 73 projectile points from the Connley Caves in my analyses.

Of those, I generated metric data on 37 specimens from the UOMNCH 2001-2017 excavations and geochemically analyzed nine obsidian points. The other 28 projectile points were previously characterized by the Northwest Research Obsidian Studies

Laboratory (NWROSL) in Corvallis, Oregon, and Dr. Dennis Jenkins (UOMNCH) generously shared those source assignments with me. I collected additional geochemical and metric data for 36 points from Bedwell‟s 1966 and 1967 excavations from Thatcher‟s

(2001) thesis. I also included a modest sample of debitage recently recovered from

TP/EH deposits in my analysis. The debitage sample was previously geochemically characterized by the NWROSL, and many specimens within the sample were recovered from WST projectile point bearing levels in Connley Caves 4, 5, and 6. Although I was not able to collect metric and typological data on the debitage sample due to time constraints, the presence/absent of cortex was recorded by Dr. Jenkins and is considered in this study. Table 2.4 presents the artifacts from the Connley Caves included in this study.

Table 2.4. Chipped Stone Artifacts from the Connley Caves Included in this Study.

Projectile Points Debitage Total The Connley Caves 73 188 261

59

Methods

In the following section, I review the methods used to generate and analyze the data used in this study. I used these methods to accomplish three goals: (1) determine the provenance of TP/EH projectile point and debitage samples from Fort Rock Cave and

Cougar Mountain Cave; (2) compare various measures of retouch and curation between nonlocal and local projectile points; and (3) compare source profile composition and diversity within the projectile point and debitage samples from Fort Rock Cave, Cougar

Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves.

Portable X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis

I generated geochemical data for the Fort Rock Cave and Cougar Mountain Cave samples using an Olympus Delta DP-6000 GeoChem Analyzer attached to an Olympus

Portable WorkStation using the fundamental parameters calibration supplied by the

Olympus INNOV-X Systems software (Pilloud et al. 2017). I ran the instrument using the two-beam GeoChem mode at 60 seconds per beam, operating at 40 kV and 10 kV. I exported all trace element data into an Excel database, where I converted the mid-Z elements (Sr, Zr, Rb, Nb, and Y) into parts per million (PPM) to facilitate comparison between archaeological and geologic samples. I characterized artifacts by comparing their trace element data to those generated from the University of Nevada, Reno‟s

(UNR‟s) comparative collection, which contains over 90 geochemically distinct obsidian and FGV types. I analyzed all data in R Studio (R Core Team 2017) using the Plotly 60 package (Sievert et al. 2017), which allowed me to create bivariate scatterplots of all trace element combinations and match obsidian artifacts to known geochemical types.

Alex Nyers of the NWORSL characterized 18 additional diagnostic artifacts from the Fort Rock Cave assemblage (see Appendixes 2, 3, 4). Because the NWROSL uses empirical calibrations based on geologic standards different from that of UNR‟s Great

Basin Paleoindian Research Unit (GBPRU), our PPM data are not directly comparable because trace element data generated with pXRF instruments are generally machine- specific (Goodale et al. 2011; Shackley 2011). While this factor is a limitation, it does not preclude UNR‟s ability to conduct in-house research. The accuracy of the GBPRU‟s source assignments was previously assessed by submitting 43 obsidian artifacts from the

Parman localities, Nevada (Smith 2007) characterized in-house to the NWROSL for a blind test (see Reaux et al. 2018). All source assignments from the NWROSL matched the GBPRU‟s characterizations, indicating that our results are accurate.

After I geochemically characterized the artifacts, I assigned them to two categories, local and nonlocal, using a definition based on ethnographic data. First, I defined toolstone as local if it occurred within 20 km of a site (Surovell 2003, 2009;

Smith 2011). The 20-km cutoff represents a hypothetical foraging trip during which individuals travel 5 km/hr for 8 hr/day. Importantly, the hypothetical trip and travel distances based on it does not consider terrain or return rates. Because most ethnographic hunter-gatherers enact daily round-trip forays of ~10 km (Kelly 1995, 2011), a 20-km catchment zone (i.e., a 40-km roundtrip) may seem excessive for a daily foraging trip; however, all obsidian sources considered local to Cougar Mountain Cave and the 61

Connley Caves in this study are <10 km from each site. Also, I employed a 20-km radius because there are no obsidian sources within 10 km of Fort Rock Cave.

I used ArcGIS 10.5.1 to create a 20-km buffer around each site (Figure 2.14). If toolstone sources fell within the catchment zone, I considered them to be local and obtainable during a daily trip. I considered toolstone sources that fell beyond the 20-km catchment zone to be nonlocal. Presumably, those materials were brought to the sites from elsewhere rather than being procured, used, and discarded during occupations at each (Table 2.5).

62

Figure 2.14. 20-km buffers and obsidian sources represented in the chipped stone artifact assemblages analyzed in this study. Red circles show 20-km catchment zone around each site.

63

Table 2.5. Local and Nonlocal Sources for Fort Rock Basin Cave Sites Based on the 20-km Daily Foraging Catchment Zones.

Fort Rock Cougar Mountain Source Group Cave Cave The Connley Caves Bald Butte, OR NL NL NL Beatys Butte, OR - NL - Big Obsidian, OR NL - NL Big Stick, OR - - NL Brooks Canyon, OR - NL - Buck Mountain, CA NL NL NL Coglan Buttes, OR - - NL Cougar Mountain, OR L L NL Cowhead Lake, OR-NVa NL - NL Double O, OR NL NL - Glass Buttes Varieties, OR NL NL NL Hager Mountain, OR NL NL L Horse Mountain, OR - NL NL Klamath Marsh 1, OR - - NL Massacre Lake/Guano Valley, OR-NV NL - NL McComb Butte, OR - - NL McKay Butte, OR NL NL NL Obsidian Cliffs, OR NL - - Quartz Mountain, ORb NL NL NL Round Top Butte, OR NL NL - Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, OR NL NL L Spodue Mountain, OR NL NL NL Sugar Hill, CA - - NL Tank Creek, OR - NL - Tucker Hill, OR NL NL NL Variety 5, OR - NL - Wagontire, OR - NL - West McKay, OR NL - - Yreka Butte, OR NL NL NL Note. L=Local, NL=Nonlocal. Short dashes indicate that an obsidian type is not represented in a site‟s projectile point or debitage sample. a Fagan et al. (2016) identified a second Cowhead Lake obsidian variety, which they believe occurs in an unknown location west of Goose Lake in CA-OR. At present, UNR does not have the ability to distinguish between the two, but if my assignments do match with the unknown variety it would probably be >20 km from each site. b While Quartz Mountain obsidian occurs in secondary deposits in the Fort Rock Valley ≤20 km from Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves, Skinner et al. (2004:223) note that the nodules in these deposits are too small for tool manufacture.

While I defined local and nonlocal toolstone based on the criteria described above, I also considered the possibility that groups logistically procured toolstone from the study sites during extended occupations. Ethnographically, the total distances traveled 64 during multi-day logistical forays are not well documented but data do exist for the number of days spent on roundtrips. Assuming that humans can walk 40 km a day, Kelly

(2011) calculated the distances covered by collectors on documented multi-day logistical trips (Table 2.6). Kelly (2011:176) rounded the average one-way travel distance for documented logistical forays to ~175 km. He also cut this distance in half (~88 km) to provide a more “realistic” estimate. Kelly (2011:196-197) admits that these figures are exaggerated, especially considering the lack of procurement costs in their equations.

Later in this study I discuss logistically procured toolstone with Kelly‟s (2011) criteria in mind.

Table 2.6. Ethnographic Logistical Trips (Days) and Estimates of Travel Distances (after Kelly 2011:196).

Group Logistical Mobility One-Way Distance Estimate One-Way Distance (Days, Round Trip) (Radius km, at Maximum 40 Estimate (Radius km, at 20 km/Day) km/Day) G/wi (≠Kade) 10 200 100 Kua 6 120 60 Walapai 6 120 60 Ngadadjara 8-16 (12) 160-320 (240) 80-160 (120) Hadza 4 80 40 Ju/'hoansi 6-10 (8) 120-200 (160) 60-100 (80) Alywara 7 140 70 Mardudjara 15 300 150 Average 8.5 days 170 km 85 km Note. Table excludes the Kidutokado (Paiute) logistical mobility span presented in Kelly (2011:196).

Exponential Regression Analysis

Lithic source profiles from residential sites should exhibit a distance decay pattern, showing that nearby sources are more common than more distance sources

(Fagan et al. 2016; Mills et al. 2013; Renfrew 1977). To assess the strength of the 65 relationship between source distance and frequency in the sites‟ projectile point source profiles, I performed a nonlinear regression analysis using an exponential curve. I used expected values and standardized residuals generated by the regression analysis to examine the projectile point and debitage samples‟ fall-off pattern, which can help reveal the order in which toolstone sources were visited during residential and/or logistical movements (Beck and Jones 2011; Jones et al. 2003; Wilson 2007). I defined any obsidian source with a standardized residual value of greater than +2.0 as significantly overrepresented and those less than -2.0 as underrepresented. Overrepresented obsidian sources may reflect toolstone used to replenish toolkits at a prior residential base or procured during logistical forays from the sites. I defined standardized residual values that exceeded +1.0 or -1.0 as reflecting non-cultural behaviors, such as sampling bias and viewed them as insignificant deviations from the regression model. I performed the nonlinear regression analysis using SPSS Statistics v.24.

Projectile Point Classification and Curation Analyses

I analyzed projectile points from Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the

Connley Caves to assess whether there are morphological differences related to retouch and curation behaviors between points manufactured on local and nonlocal toolstone.

I analyzed and photographed the Fort Rock Cave and the Connley Caves points at the

UOMNCH in Eugene, Oregon. In some cases, I relied upon photographs of Connley

Caves‟ projectile points provided by Thatcher (2001). I analyzed and photographed the

Cougar Mountain Cave points at the Favell Museum in Klamath Falls, Oregon. For each 66 sample, I recorded metric attributes on complete and broken points including maximum length, maximum width, maximum thickness, blade length, and blade width to the nearest

0.1 mm using digital sliding calipers. I recorded point weight to the nearest 0.1 g using a digital scale (see Appendix 2). While I collected metric data for all specimens, certain dimensions of incomplete projectile points were not included in the curation analysis; therefore, measurement counts vary. I entered data into Microsoft Excel 2017 and used

SPSS Statistics v.24 for statistical comparisons.

Although my samples exhibit morphological variability and include different

WST subtypes (e.g., Haskett, Windust, Parman) (see Appendix 5), I did not divide my sample by point morphology. Instead, I divided it by toolstone provenance (i.e., local and nonlocal) to ensure that my samples were large enough for statistical comparisons. I assessed metric and ratio data by testing each set of measures for normality using the

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and I tested for significant differences between local and nonlocal projectile points using Independent Student‟s t tests for parametric samples and the Mann-Whitney U test for nonparametric samples. I assessed differences in qualitative data which reflect resharpening and discard patterns between local and nonlocal projectile points with chi-square and Fisher‟s exact tests.

To determine whether nonlocal projectile points within my samples exhibited more intensive resharpening than local projectile points, I only used complete or nearly complete specimens with mostly intact blade portions in my comparisons of projectile point resharpening. I classified projectile points as resharpened if they exhibited asymmetrical blade margins, different blade and haft element flaking patterns, and/or shortened, narrowed blades (sensu Andrefsky 2010; Smith 2015). 67

I compared nonlocal and local projectile points to assess trends in the condition

(i.e., fragmentary or complete) they were discarded at each site. While this analysis does not account for the specific projectile point portions that comprise my incomplete sample

(e.g., blade fragment, stem fragment), I used this comparison to examine whether nonlocal toolstone comprises a significant proportion of the incomplete, expended specimens.

Lastly, I compared measures of length, width, thickness, and weight between local and nonlocal projectile points from Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves. To track differences in resharpening intensity between local and nonlocal projectile points, I used five allometric ratios: (1) blade width-to-thickness

(BW/T); (2) length-to-thickness (L/T); (3) weight-to-thickness (W/T); area-to-thickness

(A/T); and (4) weight-to-area (W/A). All five ratios operate under the assumption that once a projectile point is inserted into a haft, its exposed blade will be the focus of retouch and maintenance following use. Table 2.7 outlines the ratio values expectations for intensively retouched bifaces.

68

Table 2.7. Allometric Ratios Definitions and Expectations as Used in this Study.

Ratio Expectation What it measures Interpretation Reference(s)

Blade width-to-thickness As a lithic tool is Diminishing tool More retouched Andrefsky (1997, 2005) (BW/T) resharpened, its initial width relative to a bifaces exhibit higher Graf (2001) blade length decreases constant thickness ratio values, while while its medial less retouched bifaces thickness remains exhibit ratios close to relatively constant 0

Length-to-thickness (L/T) As a lithic tool is Diminishing tool More retouched Shott et al. (2007) resharpened, its initial length relative to a bifaces exhibit lower blade length decreases constant thickness ratio values, while while its medial less retouched bifaces thickness remains exhibit higher ratio unaltered values

Weight-to-thickness (W/T) A lithic tool's weight Diminishing tool More retouched Shott et al. (2007) serves as a measure of size relative to a bifaces exhibit lower the size of a tool, constant thickness ratio values, while which should less retouched bifaces decrease following exhibit higher ratio resharpening episodes values

Area-to-thickness (A/T) A lithic tool's length Diminishing tool More retouched Shott et al. (2007) and width will area relative to a bifaces exhibit lower diminish as its constant thickness ratio values, while thickness remains less retouched bifaces constant exhibit higher ratio values

Weight-to-area (W/A) As a lithic tool's Diminishing tool More retouched Johnson (1981) length and width area relative to bifaces exhibit higher Shott et al. (2007) diminish during diminishing tool size ratio values, while resharpening less retouched bifaces episodes, weight also exhibit lower ratio decreases values Note. Area is calculated by multiplying maximum length by maximum width.

Debitage Analysis and Classification

I analyzed debitage samples from Fort Rock Cave at the UOMNCH. I size sorted debitage samples into three categories: (1) <2 cm2; (2) 2-4 cm2; and (3) >4 cm2.

Additionally, I separated debitage samples by raw material type. I counted all debitage within each raw material and size category and weighed the composite sample in these categories to the nearest 0.1 g using a digital scale. I geochemically characterized 5-20 69 pieces of debitage from each stratum using UNR‟s pXRF unit. I intuitively selected debitage from all three size grades for geochemical analysis based on the size of the complete sample from each stratum. As such, elements of each size grade are represented at different quantities between samples. I recorded measurements on the geochemically characterized debitage sample including maximum length, maximum width, and maximum thickness to the nearest 0.1 mm. I recorded individual debitage weight within the geochemically characterized sample to the nearest 0.1 g and noted platform type and cortex percentage. I classified flake platforms into five categories after Andrefsky (2005):

(1) flat, a simple platform exhibiting one facet; (2) complex, a platform exhibiting multiple facets; (3) abraded, a platform exhibiting a rough surface indicative of grinding; and (4) cortical, a platform exhibiting cortex. I recorded cortex percentage using five ordinal categories: (1) 0 percent; (2) 1-25 percent; (3) 25-50 percent; (4) 50-75 percent; and (5) 75-100 percent, and simplified cortex presence using Andrefsky‟s (2005) Triple

Cortex Typology, which measures cortex cover but does not account for what type of lithic reduction or tool production is represented in an assemblage (i.e., core/bifacial).

Primary flakes. Primary flakes are comprised of >50 percent cortex and are produced during the early stages of lithic reduction.

Secondary flakes. Secondary flakes retain <50 percent cortex, and may signal the early and middle stages of lithic reduction.

Tertiary Flakes. Tertiary flakes retain no cortex and are often produced during middle- and late-stage lithic reduction and tool production.

I also classified debitage in the geochemically characterized sample using

Andrefsky‟s (2005) Technological Typology. The Technological Typology reflects the 70 behavioral decisions a flintknapper made; however, the classification scheme has been criticized for its lack of replicability and comparability. I describe categories and their characteristics represented in my debitage samples below, after Andrefsky (2004) and

Odell (2004).

Cortication flakes. Cortication flakes exhibit >50 percent cortex and are indicative of the early stages of lithic reduction.

Decortication flakes. Decortication flakes exhibit <50 percent cortex and are produced during early and middle reduction stages.

Interior flakes. Interior flakes generally exhibit flat platforms and no dorsal cortex, with flake scars apparent on the dorsal surface. Interior flakes may represent early and mid-stage core reduction.

Biface thinning flakes. Biface thinning flakes (BTFs), also referred to as flakes of bifacial retouch, are flakes believed to be detached from a biface for the purpose of thinning and trimming a bifacial tool. They exhibit high-angle platforms and lips on the ventral edges of the platforms, and often exhibit complex multi-faceted platforms. Biface thinning flakes typically retain little to no cortex or flake scars on the dorsal surface.

They are indicative of mid- to late-stages of bifacial tool production.

Flake fragments. Flake fragments are broken debitage lack identifiable platforms and/or bulbs of force.

I entered all data generated on the Fort Rock Cave debitage samples into

Microsoft Excel 2017. Appendix 6 presents the Fort Rock Cave debitage sample

(n=3177) analyzed from the relatively undisturbed pre-Mazama levels of squares 4, 5, 8, and 9. Appendixes 7 and 8 lists the metric, qualitative classifications, and sourcing data 71 for the characterized Fort Rock Cave debitage sample. Appendix 9 provides the source assignments and cortex presence of the Connley Caves debitage sample (n=188) generated by Dr. Jenkins and the NWROSL.

Expectations and Hypotheses

The frequency of residential mobility will affect the toolstone signature present at residential sites. I expect groups who were highly residentially mobile to have left behind a different toolstone signature at residential sites than those who did not relocate camp frequently. In general, if groups stayed for a short amount of time, their transported toolkit presumably manufactured on nonlocal toolstone may have supplied enough material for all activities (Smith 2011). In such situations, assemblages should be dominated by nonlocal toolstone and exhibit low proportions of local toolstone.

However, as occupation span increased, lithic toolkits should have diminished through use and been replaced using local toolstone. In this case, assemblages should exhibit high proportions of local toolstone compared to nonlocal toolstone (Smith 2011). Furthermore, longer occupation spans should correspond with increased rates of tool discard as people depleted their inventories (Jones et al. 2003).

Discarded formal tools should display relatively high ratios of nonlocal toolstone, while cores and large debris from tool manufacture should reflect a narrow range of local raw material sources (Eerkens et al. 2007). Where toolstone is locally available, the debitage assemblage should represent the full spectrum of manufacturing activities and be comprised of high proportions of local toolstone, while debitage manufactured on 72 nonlocal toolstone should only be evident as small debris related to tool maintenance

(Eerkens et al. 2007). Small debris should, in part, reflect the source profile of the curated toolkit transported to the site and represent a greater diversity of nonlocal sources compared to that of larger manufacturing debris (Eerkens et al. 2007).

Source diversity and transport distances should differ between tool classes (Smith and Kielhofer 2011). Specifically, projectile points are thought to have remained within toolkits for longer periods of time than other tool classes (Bamforth 2009; Jones and

Beck 1999; Smith and Kielhofer 2011; Smith and Harvey 2017; Smith et al. 2013; Speth et al. 2010). As such, points found at residential sites should possess a different source signature than other tool classes such as non-hafted bifaces and unifaces, with the former displaying greater transport distances and source diversity and perhaps provide a better representation of lifetime subsistence ranges (Jones et al. 2003; Smith 2007, 2011; Smith and Kielhofer 2011) or socioeconomic boundaries (Kelly 2011; Newlander 2012, 2015).

Overall, source diversity for projectile points recovered from residential camps should be high, reflecting transported tools manufactured on a broad variety of lithic material during residential movements and/or toolstone procured during logistical activities which took place over the course of occupation (Keene 2016). If toolstone sources are available near a site, source diversity may decrease as occupation span increases, again, with the closest raw material sources dominating the assemblage (Jones et al. 2003).

With toolstone availability in mind, I developed a detailed list of the expected lithic tool and debitage assemblage composition, characteristics, and source diversity for shorter-term and longer-term occupations (Table 2.8). Based on these lists, I formulated two hypotheses for the debitage and projectile point assemblages from Fort Rock Cave, 73

Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves. Because most of the assemblages were recovered using crude excavation techniques, I was not able to include non-diagnostic and unprovenienced tools other than Bedwell‟s early assemblage from Fort Rock Cave and the preforms from Cougar Mountain Cave in this study. As such, my hypotheses only focus on the characteristics of the projectile point and debitage assemblage.

Table 2.8. Expected Patterning of Lithic Artifact Assemblages at Longer- And Short-Term Bases Accounting for Occupation Span and Raw Material Availability.

Occupation Span

Short Long

Lithic debitage represent all stages of manufacture (local

and non-local source profile; high source diversitya) e

l Tool resharpening, rejuvenation, core Assemblage dominated by lithic debris; small debris b

a transformation evident through late-stage,

l dominated by non-local toolstone i

a non-modified lithic debitage (non-local source

v profile; low source diversityb) Cores and tools represent all stages of manufacture (local A

and non-local source profile, high source diversitya)

y l i Discard of distal blade tips from hafted tools, d Low rates of discard of hafted bifacial bases as well as a segments of other tools broken during use

e curated, exhausted tools (non-local source profile; high R (non-local source profile; low source a t b source diversity )

o diversity ) N

/ All discarded tools exhibit intensive resharpening/retouch

e n c Possible: lithic raw material/tool caching for a

r (non-local source profile; high source diversity )

o a

i later recovery

t c i

S Stockpiling of lithic raw material (possible), some site d

n furniture (i.e., hearthstones, manos, metates)

o

C

l

a

i

r

e t

a Lithic debitage, complete and fragmented cores, unifaces,

M Tool resharpening, rejuvenation, core transformation and non-hafted bifaces represent all stages of manufacture

evident through late-stage, non-modified lithic a

w (local source profile; moderate-high source diversity ) a

e debitage (non-local source profile; low source l

R b b diversity )

a High rates of discard of hafted projectile point bases and

l i

a exhausted projectile points (local and non-local source

v Discard of distal blade tips from hafted tools, segments profile, high source diversitya) A

of other tools which break during use (non-local source y

l b

i profile; low source diversity ) Small debris manufactured on both non-local and local d

a toolstone (high source diversitya)

e Some discard of exhausted lithic implements (non-

R / t local source profiles; low source diversityb) n Increased percentage of cores relative to bifacial forms a a d discarded on site (local source profile; low source diversity )

n Expedient tools evident though discard of homogenous u b flake forms exhibiting modification (local source Expedient flake production evident through high rates of A profile; low source diversity) flakes homogenous in form which exhibit modification (local source profile, low source diversitya) Possible: lithic raw material/tool caching for later recovery Stockpiling of lithic raw material and tools/tool blanks, site furniture (i.e., hearth stones, manos, metates)

a Source diversity at longer-term bases are influenced by the geologic distribution of sources and frequency of residential and logistical mobility. b Source diversity at short-term bases are relative to that of long-term bases. 74

Hypothesis 1

Paleoindians in the Fort Rock Basin and adjacent regions spent longer-term periods (i.e., weeks or months) at Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the

Connley Caves and recurrently used these locations as central places. Projectile point samples from these locations should exhibit a source profile dominated by local sources with low-to-moderate source diversity levels. The projectile point and debitage samples should reflect a clear distance decay curve, indicating that local sources comprise the majority of each assemblage and that obsidian sources fall out of the sample as distance increases. Points manufactured on local toolstone should exhibit less retouch than points manufactured on nonlocal sources transported to the caves from elsewhere and discarded at the site upon or shortly after arrival. Debitage should exhibit high proportions of local toolstone and be characterized by low source diversity levels. Debitage should also reflect all stages of tool manufacture.

Hypothesis 2

Paleoindians in the Fort Rock Basin and adjacent regions were highly mobile and visited Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves for short periods of time (i.e., a few days). Their projectile point samples‟ source profiles should be marked by a high proportion of nonlocal sources relative to local sources and source diversity levels should be moderate-to-high. The projectile point and debitage samples may still adhere to a distance decay pattern if the last locations where groups geared up 75 with toolstone were close to the sites. Nonlocal projectile points may exhibit greater retouch than local projectile points but the overall results should be ambiguous. For the purpose of this study, I assume that local toolstone was not procured during short-term stays for tool manufacture; therefore, debitage should exhibit high source diversity levels and be dominated by nonlocal toolstone. Additionally, debitage should reflect late-stage reduction and tool maintenance and retouch activities. 76

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

In this chapter, I describe the results of my analyses of the TP/EH projectile points and debitage from Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley

Caves. First, I present the results of the projectile point and debitage source provenance analysis and the sites‟ local-to-nonlocal toolstone proportions. Second, I present the results of the regression analysis. Third, I present the projectile point curation analyses results using the quantitative and qualitative measures that I outlined in Chapter 2.

Finally, I summarize the comparisons and highlight curation differences between nonlocal and local projectile points.

Source Provenance Analysis

Fort Rock Cave

Projectile Point Sample Composition. The Fort Rock Cave projectile point sample is dominated by obsidian types located >20 km from the site (n=18; 78.0%) (Table 3.1) and is manufactured on 19 different obsidian types (Table 3.2).

Table 3.1. Fort Rock Cave’s Local and Nonlocal Projectile Point Toolstone Proportions.

Local Obsidian (%) Nonlocal Obsidian (%) TOTAL (%) 22.0 78.0 100.0 77

Table 3.2. Fort Rock Cave Obsidian Projectile Point Source Profile.

Source Group n % Distance to Source (km)a L/NL Bald Butte, OR 3 2.4 93 NL Big Obsidian, OR 3 2.4 35 NL Buck Mountain, CA 1 0.8 191 NL Cougar Mountain, OR 27 22.0 16 L Cowhead Lake, CA-NV 4 3.3 177 NL Double O, OR 1 0.8 143 NL Glass Buttes, OR 12 9.8 79 NL Hager Mountain, OR 5 4.1 28 NL Hawks Valley, OR 1 0.8 233 NL McKay Butte, OR 8 6.5 42 NL Massacre Lake/Guano Valley, OR-NV 1 0.8 178 NL Obsidian Cliffs, OR 1 0.8 105 NL Quartz Mountain, OR 17 13.8 28 NL Round Top Butte, OR 1 0.8 95 NL Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, OR 23 18.7 27 NL Spodue Mountain, OR 9 7.3 40 NL Tucker Hill, OR 1 0.8 103 NL West McKay, OR 1 0.8 44 NL Yreka Butte, OR 4 3.3 67 NL TOTAL 123 100.0 - - Note. Six obsidian projectile points and the crescent from Fort Rock Cave were classified as unknown and were excluded from the toolstone proportion and curation analyses (see Appendixes 2, 3, and 4). a All distances to source (km) presented in this thesis are approximations of the Euclidean distance between a site and each source area.

Cougar Mountain obsidian comprises the highest proportion represented in the projectile point source profile (n=27; 22.0%) (see Table 3.2; Figure 3.1). Cougar

Mountain is the only local obsidian source, located ~16 km northeast of Fort Rock Cave.

Between 20 and 30 km from Fort Rock Cave, Quartz Mountain (~28 km) and Silver

Lake/Sycan Marsh (~27 km) obsidian are available and those types comprise the second and third most common sources (see Table 3.1; Figure 3.1). Together, the three closest toolstone sources account for over half of the obsidian represented in the projectile point sample (n=67; 54.5%).

78

30 Projectile point frequency 28 22.0% 26 24 18.7% 22 20 18 13.8%

16 n 14 9.8% 12 7.3% 10 6.5% 8 4.1% 6 3.3% 3.3% 4 2.4% 2.4% 2 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%

0

Bald Butte (44 km)

Double O (143 km)

YrekaButte (67 km)

Glass Buttes(79 km)

Tucker (103Hill km)

WestMcKay (44 km)

McKay Butte (42 km)

Hawks Valley (233 km)

Cowhead Lake (177 km)

HagerMountain (29 km)

Obsidian (105Cliffs km)

Buck Mountain km) (191

Quartz Mountainkm) (28

Round Top Butte (95 km)

Cougar Mountain (16 km)

Spodue Mountain (40 km)

Big Big Obsidian Group (35 km) Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh (27 km)

Distance MassacreValley (178 Lake/Guano km)

Figure 3.1. Obsidian source frequency for the Fort Rock Cave projectile point sample.

Of the 123 characterized projectile points, most are broken (n=100; 81.3%) (Table

3.3). Most complete and broken projectile points are manufactured from nonlocal toolstone (n=17; 73.9%). I present comparisons of discard rates between projectile points manufactured on local and nonlocal toolstone later in this chapter.

79

Table 3.3. Totals of Complete and Incomplete Projectile Points in the Fort Rock Cave Sample.

Local/Nonlocal Complete Incomplete TOTAL Local 6 21 27 Nonlocal 17 79 96 TOTAL 23 100 123

Debitage Sample Composition. Geochemically characterized debitage from the pre-Mazama levels at Fort Rock Cave includes 135 specimens manufactured on 11 obsidian types (Table 3.4; Figure 3.2). Of the 11 obsidian types, three (Big Stick, Horse

Mountain, and Tank Creek) are not represented in the Fort Rock Cave projectile point sample (see Table 3.2). The debitage sample is dominated by local obsidian (n=91;

67.4%).

Table 3.4. Fort Rock Cave’s TP/EH Debitage Source Profile.

Source Group n % Distance to Source (km) L/NL Big Obsidian, OR 1 0.7 35 NL Big Stick, OR 1 0.7 107 NL Cougar Mountain, OR 91 67.4 16 L Glass Buttes, OR 6 4.4 79 NL Hager Mountain, OR 1 0.7 29 NL Horse Mountain, OR 1 0.7 80 NL McKay Butte, OR 1 0.7 42 NL Quartz Mountain, OR 29 21.5 28 NL Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, OR 1 0.7 27 NL Tank Creek, OR 2 1.5 102 NL Yreka Butte, OR 1 0.7 67 NL TOTAL 135 100.0 - -

80

100 67.4% Debitage frequency 90 80 70

60

n 50 40 21.5% 30 20 10 4.4% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 1.5% 0.7%

0

Big Big Stick(107 km)

YrekaButte (67 km)

Glass Buttes(79 km)

Tank Creek (102 km)

McKay Butte (42 km)

Horse Mountain km) (80

HagerMountain (29 km)

Quartz Mountainkm) (28

Cougar Mountain (16 km)

Big Big Obsidian Group (35 km) Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh (27 km)

Distance

Figure 3.2. Obsidian source frequency for the Fort Rock Cave debitage sample.

Local Cougar Mountain obsidian dominates all three size categories of sourced debitage (Table 3.4; Figure 3.2). Quartz Mountain obsidian is the second most common obsidian type (see Tables 3.4 and 3.5; Figure 3.2) and is especially prominent within the

2 ≥4 cm category relative to the smaller size classes. Together, Cougar Mountain and

Quartz Mountain obsidian comprise most of the debitage sample (n=120; 88.9%). The remaining debitage manufactured on the more distant sources (n=15; 11.1%) are primarily represented in the ≤2 cm2 and 2-4cm2 size categories. These flakes were mostly 81 fragments (n=9) although some were classified as BTF/retouch (n=3), decortication

(n=2), and interior (n=1) flakes (Table 3.6, see Appendix 7).

Table 3.5. Geochemically Characterized Fort Rock Cave Debitage by Size Class.

≤2 cm2 2-4cm2 ≥4cm2 Source Group n % n % n % Big Obsidian, OR 1 4.2 - - - - Big Stick, OR - - 1 1.1 - - Cougar Mountain, OR 16 66.7 61 69.3 14 60.9 Glass Buttes, OR 1 4.2 4 4.5 1 4.3 Hager Mountain, OR 1 4.2 - - - - Horse Mountain, OR - - 1 1.1 - - McKay Butte, OR - - 1 1.1 - - Quartz Mountain, OR 3 12.5 19 21.6 7 30.4 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, OR - - 1 1.1 - - Tank Creek, OR 2 8.3 - - - - Yreka Butte, OR - - - - 1 4.3 TOTAL 24 100.0 88 100.0 23 100.0

Table 3.6. Local and Nonlocal Fort Rock Cave Debitage Using the Technological Typology.

Decortication Interior BTF/Retouch Fragment TOTAL Local/Nonlocal n % n % n % n % n % Local 23 17.0 22 16.3 24 17.8 22 16.3 91 67.4 Nonlocal 6 4.4 6 4.4 9 6.7 23 17.0 44 32.6 TOTAL 29 21.4 28 20.7 33 24.5 45 33.3 135 100.0

Nonlocal obsidian mostly occurs in the form of flake fragments. They are also common in the BTF/retouch category. Nonlocal decortication and interior flakes, which are typically larger than BTF/retouch flakes, are also present in the characterized sample.

Local debitage is more evenly dispersed across all four flake types (see Table 3.6).

Concordant with this trend is the fact that local Cougar Mountain obsidian is distributed across all size classes (see Table 3.5). 82

Although I biased my debitage size grades by preferentially selecting specimens large enough to geochemically analyze (>1 cm2), the 2-4 cm2 size class exhibits the most common and heaviest size category not only in the characterized sample but the entire pre-Mazama debitage samples from squares 4, 5, 8, and 9 (Tables 3.7 and 3.8), although many of these specimens were fragments of larger flakes (see Appendix 6).

Table 3.7. Size-sorted Debitage from the Pre-Mazama Levels of Squares 4, 5, 8, and 9 in Fort Rock Cave.

≤2 cm2 2-4cm2 ≥4cm2 TOTAL Unit and Level n Weight (g) n Weight (g) n Weight (g) n Weight (g) Square 4 Level 8 488 235.2 216 468.7 15 153.5 719 857.4 Level 9 186 104 129 297 4 111.5 319 512.5 Square 5 Level 6 538 309.2 406 887 21 209.9 965 1406.1 Level 7 221 121 253 634.2 20 211.2 494 966.4 Square 8 Level 10 57 17.9 17 45.7 2 32.3 76 95.9 Level 11 54 20.5 25 40.8 2 25.7 81 87 Level 12 59 26.6 18 34.6 3 33.6 80 94.8 Level 13 10 6 16 21.9 2 16.2 28 44.1 Level 14 12 5.3 2 4.4 2 1.1 16 10.8 Square 9 Level 6 114 37.3 22 53.4 2 44.7 138 135.4 Level 7 32 13.7 5 18.7 - - 37 32.4 Level 8 184 40.3 37 56.1 3 34.7 224 131.1

83

Table 3.8. Weight Proportions for Fort Rock Cave Size-Sorted Pre-Mazama Debitage Samples.

≤2 cm2 2-4cm2 ≥4cm2 Unit and Level Weight (%) Weight (%) Weight (%) TOTAL Square 4 Level 8 27.4 54.7 17.9 100.0 Level 9 20.3 58.0 21.8 100.0 Square 5 Level 6 22.0 63.1 14.9 100.0 Level 7 12.5 65.6 21.9 100.0 Square 8 Level 10 18.7 47.7 33.7 100.0 Level 11 23.6 46.9 29.5 100.0 Level 12 28.1 36.5 35.4 100.0 Level 13 13.6 49.7 36.7 100.0 Level 14 49.1 40.7 10.2 100.0 Square 9 Level 6 27.5 39.4 33.0 100.0 Level 7 42.3 57.7 0.0 100.0 Level 8 30.7 42.8 26.5 100.0

While the debitage sample does contain CCS and FGV debitage, obsidian dominates the complete sample in count and weight amounts (n=3060 or 96.3%; wt=3914.1 g or 89.5%; see Appendix 6 for raw material breakdowns for the pre-Mazama debitage sample).

Bedwell’s Early Assemblage. Bedwell‟s (1973:144) early assemblage, purportedly recovered from atop Pleistocene gravels in squares 10 and 11, included 14 artifacts. Of those, one is a basalt mano and one is a unifacial CCS tool. The remaining artifacts

(n=12) are manufactured from local Cougar Mountain obsidian and other sources located within or along the boundaries of the Fort Rock Basin (Table 3.9).

Table 3.9. Source Profile for Bedwell’s Early Assemblage from Fort Rock Cave.

Source Group Projectile Point Uniface Scraper Distance to Source (km) L/NL Cougar Mountain, OR - 2 4 16 L Hager Mountain, OR - 1 - 29 NL Horse Mountain, OR - - 1 82 NL McKay Butte, OR 1 2 - 42 NL Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, OR 1 - - 27 NL TOTAL 2 5 5 - - 84

Cougar Mountain Cave

Projectile Point Sample Composition. Nonlocal obsidian dominates the assemblage (n=81; 71.7%) (Table 3.10). Nineteen obsidian types are represented in the

Cougar Mountain Cave projectile point sample (Table 3.11; Figure 3.3).

Table 3.10. Cougar Mountain Cave’s Local and Nonlocal Projectile Point Toolstone Proportions.

Local Obsidian (%) Nonlocal Obsidian (%) TOTAL (%) 28.3 71.7 100.0

Table 3.11. Cougar Mountain Cave’s Obsidian Projectile Point Source Profile.

Source Group n % Distance to Source (km) L/NL Bald Butte, OR 3 2.7 40 NL Beatys Butte, OR 2 1.8 143 NL Brooks Canyon, OR 2 1.8 53 NL Buck Mountain, CA 1 0.9 188 NL Cougar Mountain, OR 32 28.3 <1 L Double O, OR 2 1.8 126 NL Glass Buttes, OR 8 7.1 63 NL Hager Mountain, OR 5 4.4 26 NL Horse Mountain, OR 7 6.2 66 NL McKay Butte, OR 7 6.2 50 NL Quartz Mountain, OR 9 8.0 22 NL Round Top Butte, OR 2 1.8 75 NL Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, OR 9 8.0 25 NL Spodue Mountain, OR 7 6.2 47 NL Tank Creek, OR 1 0.9 91 NL Tucker Hill, OR 3 2.7 97 NL Variety 5, OR 2 1.8 41 NL Wagontire, OR 1 0.9 94 NL Yreka Butte, OR 10 8.8 51 NL TOTAL 113 100.0 - - Note. Four obsidian projectile points from Cougar Mountain Cave were classified as unknown and were not considered in the toolstone proportion or curation analyses (see Appendixes 2 and 3).

85

34 28.3% Projectile point frequency 32 30 28 26 24 22

20

n 18 16 14 12 8.8% 8.0% 8.0% 10 7.1% 8 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6 4.4% 2.7% 2.7% 4 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 2 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%

0

Variety (41 km)5

Wagontire (94 km)

Bald Butte (40 km)

Double O (126 km)

Tucker (97Hill km)

Tank Creek (91 km)

YrekaButte (51 km)

Glass Buttes(63 km)

McKay Butte (50 km)

Beatys (143Butte km)

BrooksCanyon (53 km)

Horse Mountain (66 km)

HagerMountain (26 km)

Buck Mountain km) (188

Quartzkm)Mountain (22

Round Top Butte (75 km)

Spodue Mountain (47 km) Cougar Mountain (<1km)

Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh (25 km) Distance

Figure 3.3. Obsidian source frequency for the Cougar Mountain Cave projectile point sample.

Broken projectile points comprise the majority of the Cougar Mountain Cave sample

(n=75; 66.3%) (Table 3.12). Most broken projectile points are manufactured from nonlocal obsidian (n=55; 73.3%). Nonlocal obsidian also dominates the sample of complete points (n=26; 68.4%).

Table 3.12. Totals of Complete and Incomplete Projectile Points in the Cougar Mountain Cave Sample.

Local/Nonlocal Complete Incomplete TOTAL Local 12 20 32 Nonlocal 26 55 81 TOTAL 38 75 113 86

Bifacial Preform/Knife Sample Composition. Among the sample of TP/EH bifacial preforms and knives from Cougar Mountain Cave (n=7), five are manufactured from Cougar Mountain obsidian (Table 3.13). The remaining two are manufactured from

Glass Buttes and Hager Mountain obsidians.

Table 3.13. Source Profile for Additional TP/EH Bifacial Tools from Cougar Mountain Cave.

Source Group n % Distance to Source (km) L/NL Cougar Mountain, OR 5 71.4 <1 L Glass Buttes, OR 1 14.3 63 NL Hager Mountain, OR 1 14.3 26 NL TOTAL 7 100 - -

The Connley Caves

Projectile Point Sample Composition. The Connley Caves projectile point sample is mostly comprised of nonlocal obsidian (n=56; 76.7%) (Table 3.14). Twenty obsidian types are represented in the point sample (Table 3.15; Figure 3.3).

Table 3.14. The Connley Caves’ Local and Nonlocal Projectile Point Toolstone Proportions.

Local Obsidian (%) Nonlocal Obsidian (%) TOTAL (%) 23.3 76.7 100.0

87

Table 3.15. The Connley Caves’ Obsidian Projectile Point Source Profile.

Source Group n % Distance to Source (km) L/NL Bald Butte, OR 1 1.4 22 NL Big Obsidian, OR 1 1.4 56 NL Big Stick, OR 3 4.1 97 NL Buck Mountain, CA 2 2.7 170 NL Coglan Buttes, OR 2 2.7 74 NL Cougar Mountain, OR 8 11.0 22 NL Cowhead Lake, CA-NV 3 4.1 155 NL Glass Buttes, OR 8 11.0 77 NL Hager Mountain, OR 1 1.4 8 L Horse Mountain, OR 4 5.5 66 NL Klamath Marsh 1, OR 1 1.4 57 NL McComb Butte, OR 1 1.4 74 NL McKay Butte, OR 1 1.4 64 NL Massacre Lake/Guano Valley, OR-NV 1 1.4 158 NL Quartz Mountain, OR 7 9.6 44 NL Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, OR 16 21.9 5 L Spodue Mountain, OR 5 6.8 24 NL Sugar Hill, CA 2 2.7 164 NL Tucker Hill, OR 1 1.4 81 NL Yreka Butte, OR 5 6.8 68 NL TOTAL 73 100.0 - -

18 21.9% Projectile point frequency 16 14 12

10 11.0% 11.0% n 8 9.6% 6.8% 6.8% 6 5.5% 4.1%4.1% 4 2.7% 2.7%2.7% 2 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%

0

SL/SM km) (5

ML/GV(158 km)

Big Stick (97km)Big

Bald Butte (22 km)

Tucker (81Hill km)

Sugar Hillkm)(164

YrekaButte (66 km)

Glass Buttes(77 km)

Big Big Obsidian (56 km)

McKay km) (64 Butte

Coglan (74Butteskm)

HagerMountain (8 km)

McComb Butte (74 km)

Cowhead Lake (155 km)

Horse Mountain (66 km)

Buck Mountain km) (170

Quartz Mountainkm) (44

Klamath Marsh (57 km)1

Cougar Mountain (22 km) Spodue Mountain (24 km)

Distance

Note. SL/SM=Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh; ML/GV=Massacre Lake/Guano Valley

Figure 3.4. Obsidian source frequency for the Connley Caves projectile point sample. 88

The Connley Caves point sample is dominated by broken specimens (n=64; 87.7%)

(Table 3.16), which are mostly manufactured on nonlocal toolstone (n=49; 76.6%).

Table 3.16. Totals of Complete and Incomplete Projectile Points in the Connley Caves’ Sample.

Local/Nonlocal Complete Incomplete TOTAL Local 2 15 17 Nonlocal 7 49 56 TOTAL 9 64 73

Debitage Sample Composition. Fifteen obsidian sources are represented in the

Connley Caves debitage sample (Table 3.17; Figure 3.5). Of these, three obsidian types

(Beatys Butte, Blue Spring, and Drews Creek/Butcher Flat) are not represented in the

TP/EH projectile point sample (see Table 3.15). Although the Connley Caves debitage sample is dominated by nonlocal toolstone (n=153; 81.4%), the near-local Cougar

Mountain obsidian, only ~22 km away, comprises 59.6% of the nonlocal debitage.

Table 3.17. The Connley Caves’ TP/EH Debitage Sample.

Source Group n % Distance to Source (km) L/NL Beatys Butte, OR 1 0.5 134 NL Blue Spring, CA 1 0.5 170 NL Brooks Canyon, OR 1 0.5 69 NL Bald Butte (Carlon), OR 1 0.5 22 NL Coglan Buttes, OR 1 0.5 74 NL Cougar Mountain, OR 112 59.6 22 NL Drews Creek/Butcher Flat, OR 1 0.5 103 NL Glass Buttes, OR 9 4.8 77 NL Hager Mountain, OR 7 3.7 8 L Horse Mountain, OR 5 2.7 66 NL McKay Butte, OR 2 1.1 64 NL Quartz Mountain, OR 12 6.4 44 NL Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, OR 28 14.9 5 L Spodue Mountain, OR 5 2.7 24 NL Tucker Hill, OR 2 1.1 81 NL TOTAL 188 100.0 - -

89

120 59.6% Debitage frequency 110 100 90 80

70

n 60 50 40 14.9% 30

20 6.4% 4.8% 10 3.7% 2.7% 2.7% 0.5% 1.1% 0.5% 0.5% 1.1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

0

Bald Butte (22 km)

Tucker (81Hill km)

GlassButtes (77 km)

Blue Blue Spring(170 km)

McKay Butte (64 km)

Beatys Butte (134 km)

Coglan (74Butteskm)

HagerMountain (8 km)

Brooks Canyon (69 km)

Horse Mountain (66 km)

Quartz Mountainkm) (44

Cougar Mountain (22 km) Spodue Mountain km) (24

Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh km)(5 Distance DrewsCreek/Butcher Flat km) (103

Figure 3.5. Obsidian source frequency for the Connley Caves debitage sample.

The characterized Connley Caves debitage sample is mostly tertiary flakes (n=173;

92.0%) (Table 3.18). Most cortical flakes are manufactured on local or near-local obsidian sources (Hager Mountain, Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, Cougar Mountain) (n=14;

93.3%). The additional cortical specimen is manufactured from Glass Buttes obsidian, located ~80 km from the Connley Caves.

90

Table 3.18. Cortical and Tertiary Flakes in the Connley Caves Debitage Sample.

Source Group Cortical Tertiary TOTAL Beatys Butte, OR - 1 1 Blue Spring, CA - 1 1 Brooks Canyon, OR - 1 1 Bald Butte (Carlon), OR - 1 1 Coglan Buttes, OR - 1 1 Cougar Mountain, OR 6 106 112 Drews Creek/Butcher Flat, OR - 1 1 Glass Buttes, OR 1 8 9 Hager Mountain, OR 1 6 7 Horse Mountain, OR - 5 5 McKay Butte, OR - 2 2 Quartz Mountain, OR - 12 12 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, OR 7 21 28 Spodue Mountain, OR - 5 5 Tucker Hill, OR - 2 2 TOTAL 15 173 188

Regression Analysis

Table 3.19 presents the results of the exponential regression analysis using distance to source as the dependent variable and frequency as the independent variable.

Additional outputs from the exponential regression analysis, including plots and standardized residual tables, are presented in Appendix 10.

Table 3.19. Exponential Regression Results for the Fort Rock Basin Cave Samples.

Site and samples R R2 F p Slope Y-intercept Fort Rock Cave Projectile Point 0.652 0.426 12.594 0.002 -0.012 9.344 Debitage 0.381 0.145 1.528 0.248 -0.019 7.295 Cougar Mountain Cave Projectile Point 0.716 0.513 17.881 0.001 -0.015 10.396 The Connley Caves Projectile Point 0.245 0.060 1.15 0.298 -0.004 3.339 Debitagea 0.610 0.372 7.108 0.021 -0.015 7.679 a Cougar Mountain debitage excluded from the Connley Caves regression analysis due to it being an extreme outlier, comprising ~60% of the sample alone (see Table 3.17).

91

Fort Rock Cave. While the regression model for the projectile point sample indicates that distance predicts 42.6% of the variation in source frequency (R2=0.426,

F=12.594, p=0.02), distance only accounts for 14.5% of the debitage sample‟s source frequency variation (R2=0.145, F=1.528, p=0.248). Significantly overrepresented nonlocal sources in the projectile point sample include Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, Quartz

Mountain, and Glass Buttes. Quartz Mountain obsidian is also significantly overrepresented in the debitage sample (see Appendix 10, Tables 10.1 and 10.2).

Cougar Mountain Cave. The results indicate that distance accounts for 51.3% of the variation in obsidian type frequency (R2=0.513, F=17.881, p=0.001) (see Table 3.19) although three nonlocal sources are significantly overrepresented (Yreka Butte, Glass

Buttes, Horse Mountain) (see Appendix 10, Table 10.3). One nonlocal source, Variety 5, is significantly underrepresented (see Appendix 10, Table 10.3).

The Connley Caves. The projectile point fit is weak (R2=0.060, F=1.15, p=2.98), indicating that only ~6.0% of the variation in frequency can be explained by distance to source (see Table 3.19; see Appendix 10; Table 10.4). The model better accounts for the variation in source frequency for the Connley Caves debitage sample (R2=0.610,

F=0.372, p=0.021), but still leaves 62.8% of the variation unexplained. Additionally, the debitage regression model does not take nonlocal Cougar Mountain obsidian, which comprises 59.6% of the sample, into account (see Table 3.17). Significantly overrepresented nonlocal sources in the projectile point sample include Cougar

Mountain, Quartz Mountain, Yreka Butte, and Glass Buttes obsidian (see Appendix 10,

Table 10.4). Quartz Mountain and Glass Buttes obsidian are also significantly overrepresented in the debitage sample (see Appendix 10, Table 10.5). 92

Projectile Point Curation Analyses

I employed four different methods to assess retouch and curation between local and nonlocal projectile points: (1) comparisons of metric data for local and nonlocal projectile points; (2) comparisons of allometric ratios; (3) comparisons of local and nonlocal projectile points using qualitative evidence of resharpening; and (4) comparisons of complete and broken projectile points manufactured from local/nonlocal toolstone to assess patterns of discard. I used statistical comparisons to test the hypothesis that nonlocal TP/EH projectile points exhibit greater degrees of retouch (i.e., smaller metric attribute and ratio values indicating greater retouch) than local projectile points.

Because these analyses depend on complete measurements of projectile point dimensions, Table 3.20 presents reduced sample sizes for each site after I excluded specimens that were too fragmentary for comparison.

Table 3.20. Projectile Point Sample Sizes Used in Statistical Comparisons.

Site Projectile Points Reference(s) Fort Rock Cave Complete 21 This Study Incomplete 95 This Study TOTAL 116 Cougar Mountain Cave Complete 40 This Study Incomplete 70 This Study TOTAL 110 The Connley Caves Complete 10 Jenkins (Unpublished Data), Thatcher (2001), This Study Incomplete 50 Jenkins (Unpublished Data), Thatcher (2001), This Study TOTAL 59

93

Basic Metric Data Comparisons

Tables 3.21, 3.22, and Figure 3.6 present summaries of metric attribute data for the three projectile point samples used in my comparisons. Table 3.23 presents the results of statistical comparisons.

Table 3.21. Summary of Metric Attributes for the TP/EH Projectile Point Samples.

Site Length (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Weight (g) Fort Rock Cave x =60.1 x 27.4 x 7.4 x 19.6 s=42.2 s=8.4 s=1.8 s=29.7 Local range=26.2-141.9 range=20.9-40.8 range=4.1-12.4 range=3.7-64.4 n=6 n=12 n=25 n=4 x 48.9 x 23.7 x 7.8 x 7.4 s=9.7 s=4.2 s=1.5 s=2.9 Nonlocal range=35.1-68.5 range=15.7-32.9 range=4.7-13.7 range=3.7-14.0 n=15 n=41 n=78 n=15 Cougar Mountain Cave x 69.4 x 24.3 x 7.5 x 11.6 s=8.7 s=3.1 s=1.2 s=3.7 Local range=60.2-86.5 range=18.3-28.7 range=5.3-9.2 range=7.1-18.9 n=12 n=23 n=26 n=12 x 77.5 x 24.2 x 7.6 x 14.2 s=26.6 s=3.9 s=1.2 s=6.9 Nonlocal range=49.4-139.4 range=15.5-34.1 range=4.4-10.2 range=3.9-36.9 n=28 n=56 n=76 n=28 The Connley Caves x 96.2 x 24.0 x 7.1 x 45.9 s=47.2 s=3.5 s=1.5 s=NA Local range=65.0-150.5 range=20.0-27.9 range=5.0-10.0 range=NA n=3 n=5 n=12 n=1 x 79.4 x 24.7 x 7.1 x 7.2 s=29.3 s=5.7 s=1.5 s=2.8 Nonlocal range=40.6-116.0 range=14.0-32.0 range=3.7-10.0 range=5.2-9.1 n=7 n=14 n=44 n=2

94

Table 3.22. Summary of Metric Data Averages for the TP/EH Projectile Point Samples.

Metric Data Averages Site Length (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Weight (g) Fort Rock Cave Local 60.1 (n=6) 27.4 (n=12) 7.4 (n=25) 19.9 (n=4) Nonlocal 48.9 (n=15) 23.7 (n=41) 7.8 (n=78) 7.4 (n=15) TOTAL (n=21) (n=53) (n=103) (n=19) Cougar Mountain Cave Local 69.4 (n=12) 24.3 (n=23) 7.5 (n=26) 11.6 (n=12) Nonlocal 77.5 (n=28) 24.3 (n=56) 7.6 (n=76) 14.2 (n=28) TOTAL (n=40) (n=79) (n=102) (n=40) The Connley Caves Local 96.2 (n=3) 24.0 (n=5) 7.1 (n=12) 45.9 (n=1) Nonlocal 79.4 (n=7) 24.7 (n=14) 7.1 (n=44) 7.2 (n=2) TOTAL (n=10) (n=19) (n=56) (n=3)

110.0 Local 100.0 Nonlocal 90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

Weight(g) Weight(g) Weight(g)

Width (mm) Width Width (mm) Width (mm)

Length (mm) Length (mm) Length (mm)

Thickness(mm) Thickness (mm) Thickness (mm) Fort Rock Cave Cougar Mountain Cave The Connley Caves

Figure 3.6. Metric data averages for the local and nonlocal projectile point samples from each site.

95

Table 3.23. Summary of Mean and Median Metric Attribute Comparisons for the Point Samples.

Metric Data Comparisons Site Maximum Length Maximum Width Maximum Thickness Weight Fort Rock Cave t=5.695 U=184.00 t=-1.159 U=25.50 Local vs. Nonlocal df=45 Z=-1.318 df=101 Z=-0.450 p=<0.001 p=0.188 p=0.249 p=0.652 Cougar Mountain Cave U=165.50 t=0.022 t=-0.422 t=-1.206 Local vs. Nonlocal Z=-0.074 df=77 df=100 df=38 p=0.941 p=0.982 p=0.674 p=0.235 The Connley Caves U=9.00 U=9.00 U=252.50 Not Local vs. Nonlocal Z=-0.343 Z=-0.343 Z=-0.231 Available p=0.732 p=0.732 p=0.817 Note. Two-tailed p-values reported with significant results in bold. Significance level for all statistical comparisons set at 0.05.

Fort Rock Cave. Local projectile points are significantly longer than nonlocal projectile points (t=5.695, df=45, p<0.001) (see Table 3.23). No significant differences were apparent between the additional metric attributes except nonlocal projectile points are narrower on average than nonlocal projectile points (see Tables 3.21 and 3.22).

Cougar Mountain Cave and the Connley Caves. There are no significant differences between local and nonlocal metric attributes for the Cougar Mountain Cave and Connley Caves point samples (see Table 3.23). On average, nonlocal Cougar

Mountain Cave points are longer and heavier than local projectile points and local

Connley Caves projectile points are longer than nonlocal points (Tables 3.21 and 3.22).

Allometric Ratio Comparisons

Tables 3.24, 3.25, and Figure 3.7 present the allometric ratio values for the local and nonlocal point samples. Table 3.26 presents the results of statistical comparisons. 96

Table 3.24. Summary of Allometric Ratios Values for the TP/EH Projectile Point Samples.

Ratio Site BW/T L/T W/T A/T W/A Fort Rock Cave x 0.29 x 7.4 x 2.0 x 244.8 x 0.0069 s=0.05 s=3.6 s=2.5 s=242.0 s=0.0018 Local range=0.22-0.36 range=4.1-12.7 range=0.6-5.8 range=96.7-605.6 range=0.0055-0.0095 n=13 n=6 n=4 n=4 n=4 x 0.34 x 6.7 x 1.0 x 142.1 x 0.0068 s=0.06 s=1.5 s=0.2 s=32.3 s=0.0010 Nonlocal range=0.27-0.53 range=4.4-10.5 range=0.6-1.4 range=107.4-218.1 range=0.0055-0.0093 n=41 n=15 n=15 n=15 n=15 Cougar Mountain Cave x 0.30 x 9.9 x 1.6 x 228.9 x 0.0071 s=0.05 s=1.7 s=0.3 s=46.6 s=0.0009 Local range=0.23-0.45 range=7.5-14.1 range=1.2-2.1 range=138.7-300.8 range=0.0059-0.0083 n=22 n=12 n=12 n=12 n=12 x 0.32 x 10.4 x 1.9 x 248.6 x 0.0074 s=0.06 s=3.4 s=0.8 s=92.4 s=0.0010 Nonlocal range=0.16-0.51 range=6.2-20.7 range=0.8-3.8 range=143.2-502.2 range=0.0051-0.0098 n=57 n=28 n=26 n=26 n=26 The Connley Caves x 0.35 x 10.6 x 4.9 x 268.2 x 0.0109 s=0.05 s=4.9 s=NA s=154.6 s=NA Local range=0.29-0.40 range=6.5-16.0 range=NA range=175.5-446.7 range=NA n=4 n=3 n=1 n=3 n=1 x 0.33 x 10.8 x 1.1 x 269.7 x =0.0059 s=0.08 s=2.8 s=0.4 s=128.5 s=1.1635 Nonlocal range=0.22-0.47 range=6.4-14.5 range=0.8-1.3 range=121.3-412.4 range=0.0059-0.0059 n=13 n=7 n=2 n=7 n=2

97

Table 3.25. Averages of Allometric Ratios for the TP/EH Projectile Point Samples.

Allometric Ratio Averages Site BW/T L/T W/T A/T W/A Fort Rock Cave Local 0.29 (n=13) 7.43 (n=6) 2.00 (n=4) 244.83 (n=4) 0.0069 (n=4) Nonlocal 0.34 (n=41) 6.67 (n=15) 0.96 (n=15) 142.14 (n=15) 0.0068 (n=15) TOTAL (n=54) (n=21) (n=21) (n=21) (n=21) Cougar Mountain Cave Local 0.30 (n=22) 9.90 (n=12) 1.61 (n=12) 228.89 (n=12) 0.0071 (n=12) Nonlocal 0.32 (n=57) 10.37 (n=28) 1.85 (n=26) 248.55 (n=26) 0.0074 (n=26) TOTAL (n=79) (n=40) (n=38) (n=38) (n=38) The Connley Caves Local 0.35 (n=4) 10.55 (n=3) 4.88 (n=1) 268.23 (n=3) 0.0109 (n=1) Nonlocal 0.33 (n=13) 10.84 (n=7) 1.08 (n=2) 269.68 (n=7) 0.0059 (n=2) TOTAL (n=17) (n=10) (n=3) (n=10) (n=3)

280.0 Local 260.0 Nonlocal 240.0 220.0 200.0 180.0 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0

0.0

Weight-to-Area Weight-to-Area Weight-to-Area

Area-to-Thickness Area-to-Thickness Area-to-Thickness

Length-to-Thickness Length-to-Thickness Length-to-Thickness

Weight-to-Thickness Weight-to-Thickness Weight-to-Thickness

Blade Width-to-Thickness Blade Width-to-Thickness Blade Width-to-Thickness

Fort Rock Cave Cougar Mountain Cave The Connley Caves

Figure 3.7. Allometric ratio averages for the local and nonlocal projectile points samples from each site.

98

Table 3.26. Summary of Mean and Median Metric Allometric Ratio Comparisons for the Point Samples.

Allometric Ratios Site BW/T L/T W/T A/T W/A Fort Rock Cave U=124.00 t=0.701 U=26.00 U=30.00 U=28.50 Local vs. Nonlocal Z=-2.890 df=19 Z=-0.400 Z=0.00 Z=-0.150 p=0.004 p=0.492 p=0.689 p=1.000 p=0.881 Cougar Mountain Cave t=-1.122 t=-0.458 t=-1.166 t=-0.090 t=-0.936 Local vs. Nonlocal df=77 df=38 df=38 df=38 df=38 p=0.265 p=0.649 p=0.251 p=0.929 p=0.355 The Connley Cavesa U=18.50 U=10.00 U=10.00 Local vs. Nonlocal Z=-0.853 Z=-0.114 Not Available Z=-0.114 Not Available p=0.394 p=0.909 p=0.909 a Sample size for local Connley Cave projectile points in the length-to-thickness (L/T) and area-to- thickness (A/T) ratio comparisons extremely small (n=3).

Fort Rock Cave. Nonlocal projectile points have narrower blades than local projectile points (U=124.00, Z=-2.890, p=0.004). The allometric ratio averages indicate that nonlocal Fort Rock Cave projectile points evince higher measures of retouch on average (see Tables 3.24 and 3.25) but these differences are not significant (see Table

3.26).

Cougar Mountain Cave and the Connley Caves. There are no significant differences in allometric ratios for the Cougar Mountain Cave and Connley Caves projectile point samples (see Table 3.26). While average ratio values indicate that nonlocal projectile points from both sites exhibit greater retouch than local projectile points according to certain allometric measures (see Tables 3.24 and 3.25) these differences are not significant (see Table 3.26).

99

Qualitative Comparisons: Projectile Point Resharpening

Table 3.27 presents the results of comparisons using these qualitative data between local and nonlocal resharpened and not resharpened projectile points.

Table 3.27. Results of Comparisons of Qualitative Evidence of Retouching.

Site Resharpened Not Resharpened Fort Rock Cave Local 5 (−0.83) 10 (−0.86) Nonlocal 20 (+0.56) 13 (−0.58) 휒2=2.08, df=1, p=0.15

Cougar Mountain Cave Local 2 (−2.19) 24 (+1.61) Nonlocal 25 (+1.56) 26 (−1.15) 휒2=11.17, df=1, p<0.0001 Note. Chi-square results calculated using Yates' correction for continuity. Note. Standardized residuals presented in parenthesis with significant values in bold. Note. Comparisons for the Connley Caves sample were not performed due to small size of projectile point sample with intact/mostly intact blades.

Fort Rock Cave. Proportions of nonlocal and local resharpened projectile points are not significantly different (see Table 3.27). Nonlocal projectile points appear to have been resharpened to a greater degree than local projectile points but this observation may reflect the small sample of complete and near complete projectile points suitable for this comparison.

Cougar Mountain Cave. There are significant differences between resharpened and unresharpened projectile point proportions, indicating that there are fewer resharpened local projectile points than resharpened nonlocal projectile points (휒2=11.17, df=1, p<0.001) (see Table 3.27). 100

Qualitative Comparisons: Projectile Point Discard

Table 3.28 presents the results of comparisons between proportions of incomplete and complete projectile points from Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the

Connley Caves.

Table 3.28. Results of Comparisons of Qualitative Evidence of Discard Behavior.

Site Complete Incomplete Fort Rock Cave Local 6 (+0.20) 21 (−0.10) Nonlocal 17 (−0.11) 79 (+0.05) 휒2=0.06, df=1, p=0.81

Cougar Mountain Cave Local 12 (+0.23) 20 (−0.16) Nonlocal 26 (−0.14) 55 (+0.10) 휒2=0.11, df=1, p=0.74

The Connley Caves Local 2 15 Nonlocal 7 49 Fisher's exact test p=1.00 Note. Chi-square results calculated using Yates' correction for continuity. Note. Standardized residuals presented in parenthesis.

Fort Rock Cave. While broken projectile points dominate the sample, there are no significant proportional differences in discard rates between complete and fragmentary local and nonlocal projectile points (see Table 3.28). Despite this result, it is apparent that nonlocal broken projectile points dominate the sample.

Cougar Mountain Cave. Local incomplete projectile points dominate the sample but proportional differences between local and nonlocal projectile points are not significant (see Table 3.28). 101

The Connley Caves. Incomplete projectile points comprise the majority of the projectile point sample; however, there are no proportional differences between local and nonlocal incomplete and complete projectile points (see Table 3.28).

Summary of Comparisons

Comparisons of local and nonlocal projectile points from Fort Rock Cave, Cougar

Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves yielded three significant results: (1) local Fort

Rock Cave projectile points are longer than nonlocal projectile points; (2) nonlocal Fort

Rock Cave projectile points exhibit greater blade retouch than local projectile points, indicating higher curation; and (3) there is a greater proportion of resharpened nonlocal projectile points at Cougar Mountain Cave relative to resharpened local projectile points.

While the statistical tests yielded a number of significant results, in many cases, local projectile points exhibited greater average metric attribute measures and average retouch values indicating less retouch intensity. The overall inability to replicate those results across the various curation measures reveals that morphological differences between local and nonlocal projectile points from Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves are equivocal.

102

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

In this chapter, I discuss the implications of my results to the following hypotheses:

(1) Paleoindians spent longer-term periods (i.e., weeks or months) at Fort Rock Cave,

Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves, using these locations as central

places; and

(2) Paleoindians were highly mobile and inhabited Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain

Cave, and the Connley Caves for shorter periods (i.e., a few days).

Hypothesis 1: Longer-Term Occupations

Expectations for Hypothesis 1 included high proportions of local toolstone in the projectile point and debitage samples and low measures of curation intensity for local projectile points. The projectile point source profiles should also reflect a general distance decay pattern. Finally, the Fort Rock Cave debitage for which size/weight proportions and technological classifications are available should reflect early-, middle-, and late-stages of core and tool manufacture; however, early reduction debris should be 103 relatively uncommon due to the site‟s location some distance from the nearest toolstone source.

Fort Rock Cave

Table 4.1 summarizes the expectations and results for Fort Rock Cave. Cougar

Mountain obsidian (the only toolstone within ≤20 km) comprises 22% of the projectile point sample. Three obsidian sources located roughly equidistant from the site (Silver

Lake/Sycan Marsh, Quartz Mountain, Hager Mountain) comprise an additional ~37% of the point sample but they fall beyond the 20 km radius. Overall, the local and nonlocal toolstone proportions for Fort Rock Cave do not support Hypothesis 1 and suggest that

Fort Rock Cave was occupied for shorter periods.

Table 4.1. Hypothesis 1 Data Trends from the Fort Rock Cave Assemblage.

Hypothesis Expectations Data Trends Meets H1? H1: Paleoindians Projectile point source Local sources comprise 22% of the No spent extended profile dominated by local source profile at 20 km local/nonlocal amounts of time at sources, low-to-moderate boundary, with 19 obsidian types Fort Rock Cave source diversity represented using it as a central place Local projectile points less Local projectile points are significantly Yes retouched than nonlocal longer and exhibit less blade retouch projectile points than nonlocal projectile points

Debitage exhibits high Debitage source profile dominated by Yes proportions of local local toolstone (~67%) with a lower toolstone and a low source diversity (n=11) relative source diversity Note. Projectile point source diversity is relative and is discussed later in this chapter. Debitage source diversity is relative to that of the projectile point sample for each site sample.

104

Debitage from the pre-Mazama deposits provides support for Hypothesis 1.

Cougar Mountain obsidian comprises ~67% of the sample. The abundant smaller flakes

(≤2cm2 and 2-4cm2) in the characterized sample reflect mid- and late-stage lithic reduction and the paucity of nonlocal large flakes indicates that groups did not typically transport large toolstone packages from distant sources to Fort Rock Cave. Only one- third of the larger (≥4 cm2) obsidian flakes contained cortex (see Appendix 6). These trends are congruent with expectations derived from CPF and field processing models, where large, low utility cortical flakes should have been removed prior to transporting cobbles to a residential base (Beck 2008; Beck et al. 2002; Kessler et al. 2010; Shott

2015).

The debitage and projectile point samples both indicate that nearby toolstone sources are common, which provides support for Hypothesis 1; however, the exponential regression analysis (see Appendix 10; Tables 10.1 and 10.2) demonstrates that they do not strictly adhere to a traditional distance-decay curve. While the regression model fits the projectile point source profile moderately well, distance only accounts for ~15% of the debitage sample‟s variation in source frequency. The debitage fit is primarily diverted by an overrepresentation of Quartz Mountain obsidian (see Appendix 10, Table 10.2).

Because Quartz Mountain obsidian occurs in both the 2-4 cm2 and ≥4 cm2 size classes, larger cobbles of Quartz Mountain obsidian were probably transported to Fort Rock Cave during logistical or residential movements.

Quartz Mountain obsidian is also overrepresented in the projectile point assemblage, as is Glass Buttes obsidian (76 km away). There is also a relatively high proportion of Glass Buttes obsidian in the debitage sample but it is not significantly 105 overrepresented. The abundance of these two northeasterly obsidian sources may represent the primary direction from which residentially-mobile groups arrived at the cave and/or areas visited during logistical forays. The high proportions of Glass Buttes obsidian is mirrored in the Cougar Mountain Cave and the Connley Caves source profiles, discussed later in this chapter. While sources located to the northeast are frequently overrepresented in all three site samples, the overrepresentation of the second closest obsidian source (Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh) in the Fort Rock Cave projectile point sample may reflect a logistical destination visited while groups occupied Fort Rock Cave, or that residentially-mobile groups traveled to the cave from the southeast. Interestingly, all overrepresented sources fall within Kelly‟s (2011) conservative logistical range (~88 km; see Chapter 2), and may reflect areas from which toolstone were procured during multi-day trips.

The projectile point metric data also provide support for Hypothesis 1. Nonlocal projectile points are significantly shorter and have narrower blades than local projectile points. Additionally, local projectile points are heavier on average than nonlocal projectile points. While these differences are not significant, they suggest that nonlocal points are more retouched than local points (which is expected of longer-term stays).

Cougar Mountain Cave

Table 4.2 summarizes the expectations and results for Cougar Mountain Cave.

Most of Cougar Mountain Cave‟s projectile points are made from nonlocal obsidian.

Unlike Fort Rock Cave and the Connley Caves, Cougar Mountain Cave is within <1 km 106 of the Cougar Mountain obsidian source where large nodules are available for tool manufacture (Cowles 1960). If Cougar Mountain Cave was occupied for extended amounts of time, then local obsidian should comprise the majority of the assemblage.

While local obsidian does comprise a slightly higher proportion of the Cougar Mountain

Cave projectile point source profile than at Fort Rock Cave and the Connley Caves, nonlocal sources still dominate the sample. This observation does not support Hypothesis

1.

Table 4.2. Hypothesis 1 Data Trends from the Cougar Mountain Cave Assemblage.

Hypothesis Expectations Data Trends Meets H1? H1: Paleoindians Projectile point source Local toolstone comprises ~28% of No spent extended profile dominated by local the source profile, with 19 source amounts of time at sources, low-to-moderate types represented Cougar Mountain source diversity Cave, using it as a central place Local projectile points Significantly higher proportions of Yes exhibit less retouch than nonlocal points relative to nonlocal projectile points resharpened local points

The exponential regression analysis affords more support for the site‟s use as a longer-term residential base. It indicates that distance to source predicts variation in the frequency of obsidian types in the Cougar Mountain Cave sample moderately well although the fit of the curve is weakened by significantly overrepresented sources (see

Appendix 10, Table 10.3). Three obsidian sources (Yreka Butte, Glass Buttes, and Horse

Mountain) located >40 km from Cougar Mountain Cave exhibit high frequencies atypical of the expected distance decay curve. Similar to Fort Rock Cave, the overrepresentation of these sources may reflect the last locations where groups replenished their toolkits before visiting the site or logistical destinations where toolstone procurement occurred. 107

The frequent occurrence of obsidian located between 20 km and 88 km (Kelly‟s proposed

~88 km logistical radius) may indicate that visitors transported tools or blanks obtained during logistical forays back to the site and provides support for Hypothesis 1.

Logistical toolstone procurement may be further reflected in the bifacial blanks and/or knives recovered from the site‟s TP/EH strata: of the seven bifacial tools, five are manufactured from Cougar Mountain obsidian while two are manufactured from Hager

Mountain and Glass Buttes obsidian located ~26 km and ~63 km from the site. Bifacial blanks are ideal tools for mobile hunter-gatherers (Goodyear 1989; Keeley 1982; Kelly

1988) and have long been recognized as integral to Paleoindian LTO (Bamforth 2002;

Beck and Jones 1990, 1997; Beck et al. 2002; Kelly and Todd 1988; but see Wiggins

2016). The presence of nonlocal bifacial blanks at the nearby Paulina Lake site located northwest of the Fort Rock Basin further supports their use by Paleoindians in the region

(Connolly and Hughes 1999).

Contrary to the expectations for Hypothesis 1, local Cougar Mountain Cave projectile points are on average smaller than nonlocal points. This could reflect the many different morphological types present in the sample but it may also relate to occupation span. Nonlocal points may have been discarded in a relatively unexpended form, or local points manufactured onsite may have been extensively utilized and discarded during longer occupations. Although the quantitative curation intensity analyses do not clearly indicate that nonlocal projectile points were discarded in a more expended form than local projectile points, the qualitative analysis demonstrates that there are significantly higher proportions of resharpened nonlocal points relative to resharpened local points and provides support for Hypothesis 1. 108

The Connley Caves

Table 4.3 summarizes the expectations and results for the Connley Caves. Most of the obsidian types from which the Connley Caves projectile points are manufactured are located >20 km from the site; only ~23% are manufactured from local obsidian

(Hager Mountain, Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh). An additional ~19% of the points are manufactured from obsidian sources located 20-30 km away.

Table 4.3. Hypothesis 1 Data Trends from the Connley Caves Assemblage.

Hypothesis Expectations Data Trends Meets H1? H1: Paleoindians Projectile point source profile Local obsidian comprises ~23% of the No spent extended dominated by local sources, source profile, with 20 source types amounts of time low-to-moderate source represented at the Connley diversity Caves, using them as central Local projectile points exhibit No significant trends No places less retouch than nonlocal projectile points Debitage exhibits high Debitage source profile comprised of Yes proportions of local toolstone a small amount of local toolstone and a lower relative source (~20%) is with a lower source diversity diversity (n=15)

The exponential regression analysis accounts for the variation in source frequency for the Connley Caves debitage sample moderately well but leaves ~63% of the variation unexplained and does not take Cougar Mountain obsidian, a major outlier, into account

(Appendix 10, Table 10.5). Cougar Mountain obsidian, located ~22 km from the site, vastly outnumbers the closer Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh and Hager Mountain obsidian sources. While there are issues associated with combining the debitage and projectile point samples from all caves, Cougar Mountain obsidian dominates all characterized 109 debitage in caves 4, 5, and 6. The nearest source, Silver Lake Sycan/Marsh, commonly contains phenocrysts and other inclusions that make it difficult to work (Dennis Jenkins, personal communication, 2018). Based on these visual characteristics, Dennis Jenkins

(UOMNCH [personal communication, 2018]) estimates that Cougar Mountain obsidian, which is usually opaque black in color without inclusions, also dominates the uncharacterized TP/EH debitage from the site. While Cougar Mountain obsidian is only located a few kilometers beyond the local foraging radius, it may have been procured during residential stays because of its higher quality as well as its relative ease of access compared to local or other equidistant sources that outcrop in the uplands beyond the basin‟s southwestern rim (Bald Butte, Variety 5, Hager Mountain, Spodue Mountain).

The Connley Caves point sample displays a similar pattern of source use to that of the debitage sample. Unlike the Fort Rock Cave and Cougar Mountain Cave point samples, the exponential regression model does not fit the Connley Caves sample well and indicates that only 6% of the variation in frequency can be explained by distance to source area (see Appendix 10; Table 10.4). Overrepresented nonlocal sources in the point sample include Cougar Mountain, Quartz Mountain, Yreka Butte, and Glass Buttes, all of which are located northeast of the site. Quartz Mountain and Glass Buttes obsidian are also overrepresented in the debitage sample, as is the outlying Cougar Mountain source although it was not considered in the analysis. As discussed above, this trend may indicate that groups procured obsidian northeast of the Connley Caves during logistical forays, which could provide support for Hypothesis 1. Alternatively, the overrepresentation of these northeasterly sources may indicate that the Connley Caves were visited by residential groups arriving from that direction. 110

On average, local projectile points are longer than nonlocal projectile points but not significantly so. The results of the projectile point curation analyses are not as straightforward as those for Fort Rock Cave and Cougar Mountain Cave, and they do not support Hypothesis 1. This could be a function of the small number of points available for study or the fact that few complete specimens have been found. Overall, the toolstone proportion, exponential regression, and curation analyses for the Connley Caves projectile point and debitage samples do not support Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2: Shorter-Term Occupations

Hypothesis 2 posits that Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the

Connley Caves did not serve as longer-term central places and were instead occupied briefly during residential or logistical stop-overs. This hypothesis assumes that groups did not procure local obsidian during visits, but if “local” toolstone was procured by people just before visiting Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves then nonlocal projectile points should still exhibit greater retouch than local points. Also, if the local toolstone discarded at the three sites was transported from nearby residential bases, then a distance decay curve may also be evident in the projectile point samples. The point and debitage samples should be dominated by nonlocal toolstone and have relatively moderate and/or high source diversity, reflecting the broad range of nonlocal tools transported to and maintained at the site during reoccurring short-term visits. In light of this expectation, the Fort Rock Cave and Connley Caves debitage samples should primarily reflect late-stage reduction and/or tool maintenance. 111

Fort Rock Cave

Table 4.4 summarizes the expectations and results for Fort Rock Cave. The projectile point sample is dominated by nonlocal toolstone (~78%) and conforms to my expectations for Hypothesis 2; however, ~67% of the debitage sample is comprised of local toolstone, which could indicate that the site was occupied for longer periods (see

Table 4.4).

Table 4.4. Hypothesis 2 Data Trends from the Fort Rock Cave Assemblage.

Hypothesis Expectations Data Trends Meets H2? H2: Paleoindians Projectile point source Projectile point source profile Yes were highly mobile profile dominated by dominated by nonlocal sources and inhabited Fort nonlocal sources, moderate- (~78%) Rock Cave during to-high source diversity short-term stop-overs Nonlocal projectile points Local points are significantly longer Yes

exhibit more retouch than and exhibit less blade retouch than local projectile points nonlocal points Debitage sample exhibits Debitage source profile dominated No high levels of source by local toolstone with a relatively diversity and is dominated low source diversity (11 sources) by nonlocal toolstone

A distance decay curve fits the Fort Rock Cave projectile point source profile moderately well and indicates that distance accounts for ~43% of the variation in source frequency (see Appendix 10, Table 10.1). The unexplained variation in the source profile may relate to the projectile point sample‟s temporal issues – it may be a product of multiple occupations where groups arrived from different directions. The debitage sample‟s weak fit may also be a factor of small sample size; however, if groups stayed at

Fort Rock Cave for relatively short periods then the debitage assemblage should not 112 necessarily follow a distance decay curve for the reasons discussed above. The smaller debitage does exhibit greater diversity than larger debitage. While our inability to source microdebitage probably biased my diversity results (Eerkens et al. 2007, 2008), the dominance of Cougar Mountain obsidian in all three size grades supports that local toolstone was commonly brought to the site, although the mode of procurement (i.e., residential or logistical) remains unclear. Overall, the abundant debitage of various sizes from the pre-Mazama sample suggests that all stages of lithic reduction occurred at the site (see Appendix 6). While the source profile data for the projectile point sample supports that Fort Rock Cave was used as a short-term base, the debitage sample does not support Hypothesis 2.

Further support for Hypothesis 2 is afforded by the projectile point curation analysis. On average, local points are significantly longer and exhibit less blade retouch than nonlocal points. While this trend, paired with the debitage evidence, suggests that the site was provisioned with local toolstone and supports longer-term use of the cave, these observations may also reflect groups transporting toolstone from prior residential bases near the Cougar Mountain obsidian source and could still provide support for

Hypothesis 2.

Cougar Mountain Cave

Table 4.5 summarizes my expectations and results for Cougar Mountain Cave.

The Cougar Mountain Cave source profile is dominated by nonlocal toolstone but the proportion of local obsidian at Cougar Mountain Cave is slightly greater for that of Fort 113

Rock Cave and the Connley Caves (see Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3). This is expected because the site sits on the Cougar Mountain obsidian source.

Table 4.5. Hypothesis 2 Data Trends from the Cougar Mountain Cave Assemblage.

Hypothesis Expectations Data Trends Meets H2? H2: Paleoindians Projectile point source profile Projectile point source profile Yes were highly mobile dominated by nonlocal sources, mostly comprised of nonlocal and inhabited Cougar moderate-to-high source sources (~72%) Mountain Cave during diversity short-term residential Nonlocal projectile points Significantly higher proportions Yes or logistical stop- exhibit more retouch than local of resharpened nonlocal points overs projectile points relative to resharpened local

points

While projectile point discard at Cougar Mountain Cave was probably influenced by this fact, the exponential regression analysis indicates that a distance decay curve is apparent

(see Appendix 10, Table 10.3). As mentioned earlier, the overrepresented nonlocal sources discussed above may represent obsidian procured during residential movements and discarded at Cougar Mountain Cave which could support Hypothesis 2. Overall, the point sample‟s source profile supports that Cougar Mountain Cave was used as a short- term camp.

The projectile point curation analyses also support Hypothesis 2. Differences in basic measurements between local and nonlocal projectile points are minimal but significant qualitative differences in resharpening are apparent. It is possible that points transported to and discarded at Cougar Mountain Cave were not commonly resharpened because they could easily be replaced onsite. As such, local and nonlocal projectile points may not exhibit great quantitative differences. 114

Lastly, the bifacial blanks, most of which were manufactured on local toolstone, may reflect groups gearing up for travel to other locales (Kuhn 1995). This notion, combined with the high proportions of nonlocal toolstone and nonlocal resharpened points, suggests that the site could have been occupied briefly during residential or logistical movements.

The Connley Caves

Table 4.6 summarizes the expectations and results for the Connley Caves.

Nonlocal toolstone dominates the projectile point and debitage samples and provides support for Hypothesis 2.

Table 4.6. Hypothesis 2 Data Trends from the Connley Caves Assemblage.

Hypothesis Expectations Data Trends Meets H2? H2: Paleoindians Projectile point source Projectile point source profile Yes were highly mobile profile dominated by dominated by nonlocal sources and inhabited the nonlocal sources, moderate- (~77%) Connley Caves during to-high source diversity short-term residential or logistical stop- Nonlocal projectile points Local projectile points are longer Yes overs exhibit more retouch than and heavier on average than local projectile points nonlocal points, but samples were too small for comparison Debitage sample is Debitage source profile dominated Yes dominated by nonlocal by nonlocal toolstone (~80%), toolstone and exhibits high with a low-to-moderate source levels of source diversity diversity (15 sources)

The Connley Caves debitage exhibits greater source diversity than the Fort Rock Cave debitage assemblage, but more source types are represented in the Connley Caves projectile point sample than the debitage sample. The exponential regression model does 115 not fit the projectile point sample well (see Appendix 10, Table 10.4), and the absence of a clear distance decay curve in this sample may relate to disparate occupations that occurred in the different caves. The lack of a fall-off pattern in the debitage sample does not contradict expectations for Hypothesis 2 because debris created during short-term occupations should typically reflect a variety of nonlocal sources and have low proportions of local toolstone (Eerkens et al. 2008). Additionally, the overrepresentation of northeastern sources in the debitage and projectile point samples from the Connley

Caves could reflect the direction from which the site was visited during residential movements. Overall, the debitage source profile along with the projectile point provenance and curation analyses suggest that the Connley Caves were used as short- term residential and/or logistical bases.

Summary and Discussion

My results potentially support both hypotheses. The Fort Rock Basin caves‟ projectile point samples could support Aikens et al.‟s (2011) suggestion of periodic residentially-stable occupations. The curation analyses for the Fort Rock Cave sample clearly demonstrate that nonlocal projectile points are smaller than local projectile points, and the debitage sample is mostly comprised of local toolstone. The ambiguous curation analysis results for Cougar Mountain Cave and the Connley Caves do not refute the first hypothesis; instead, they could relate to the complex discard behaviors that occurred at each site because both are located near toolstone sources. The source profiles for the three sites indicate that local toolstone comprises nearly one-quarter of the projectile 116 point samples. If nonlocal toolstone was logistically procured from the sites, then the projectile point and debitage assemblages become overwhelmingly dominated by local and nonlocal (i.e., <88 km) toolstone. Overall, my discussion highlights the fact that distinguishing between shorter- and longer-term residential occupations requires examining more than just projectile point and debitage samples, although they do represent one line of evidence with which to begin addressing these hypotheses.

Fort Rock Basin Caves in a Broader Context: The Paleoindian Record in the

Northwestern Great Basin

Local: The Fort Rock Basin TP/EH Record

Open-air sites in the Fort Rock Basin provide evidence for repeated visits throughout the TP/EH and support the notion that the basin was important to early groups. Paleoindian projectile points are commonly found as isolates and at larger sites

(Bedwell 1970; Jenkins and Aikens 1994; Oetting 1993; Toepel and Beckham 1981;

Toepel and Minor 1994). The Buffalo Flat Bunny Pits are four localities in Christmas

Lake Valley that produced TP/EH-aged roasting features filled with rabbit and hare bones

(Oetting 1993) (Figure 4.1). 117

Figure 4.1. Sites discussed in Chapter 4.

118

Since no Buffalo Flat sites contained more than three WST projectile points, those tools seem to have been transported and discarded during brief rabbit procurement and processing events (Jenkins et al. 2004a:12; Oetting 1993, 1994). Although WST point samples from the Buffalo Flat samples are too few to compare with the Fort Rock Basin caves sample, the source profile for the complete geochemically characterized WST sample (n=29) from the CONUS OTH-B Cultural Resources Survey and Testing Project

(Oetting 1993), a relatively small area (~10.6 km2), helps to reveal patterns of TP/EH source use in the eastern Fort Rock Basin and can be used to consider alongside the profiles of Fort Rock Basin Cave sites (Table 4.7).

Table 4.7. Source Profile of the Geochemically Analyzed WST Sample from the CONUS OTH-B Cultural Resources Survey and Testing Project 1986-1988 at Buffalo Flat (from Oetting 1993:595- 602).

Source Group n % Bald Butte, OR 2 6.9 Big Stick, OR 2 6.9 Coglan Buttes, OR 1 3.4 Double O, OR 2 6.9 DCBF, OR 1 3.4 Glass Buttes, OR 3 10.3 Horse Mountain, ORa 2 6.9 Inman Creek A, OR 1 3.4 McComb Butte, OR 1 3.4 Quartz Mountain, OR 2 6.9 Riley, OR 1 3.4 Round Top Butte, OR 2 6.9 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, OR 6 20.7 Spodue Mountain, OR 3 10.3 TOTAL 29 100.0 Note. Of the 29 geochemically characterized projectile points, 13 occurred as isolates in the survey area. aHorse Mountain is the only obsidian available within a 20 km radius from certain sites within the survey area.

119

All source types present in the Buffalo Flat WST point sample besides Riley and

Inman Creek A obsidian are represented in the debitage and projectile point samples for

Fort Rock, Cougar Mountain, and the Connley Caves. Cougar Mountain obsidian, which comprises significant proportions of the caves‟ samples, is notably absent at Buffalo Flat.

Because patterns of source use are generally similar to those apparent in the Fort Rock

Basin cave record, this suggests that related groups utilized both areas of the Fort Rock

Basin during their annual foraging rounds. This may indicate seasonal use of Buffalo

Flat, which was visited prior to or following periodic occupations at the caves, at which point Cougar Mountain obsidian had dropped out of the toolkits.

The Paulina Lake site (35DS34) is located in Newberry Crater along the northwestern edge of the Fort Rock Basin (see Figure 4.1). It contained one of the few known early Holocene domestic structures and was interpreted as a longer-term summer residential camp (Aikens et al. 2011; Connolly 1999). Together, Paulina Lake and the cave sites provide a picture of seasonal landscape use in the northwestern Great Basin, although all sites were probably not occupied every year (Connolly 1999). At present, the

Paulina Lake site provides the best example of a longer-term TP/EH residential camp.

Because of this, the source diversity apparent in Paulina Lake‟s WST projectile point sample provides a dataset with which to compare the Fort Rock Basin caves‟ source profiles. Geochemically characterized WST points from the earliest two components

(~11,480-8800 cal BP) at Paulina Lake include 44 specimens manufactured from 12 different obsidian types (see Table 4.8).

120

Table 4.8. Summary of Statistical Comparisons for Adjusted Source Diversity Based on the Paulina Lake Source Profile.

Source Diversity Sample Comparison p Significant? Paulina Lake (12.0) vs. Fort Rock Cave (13.02) 0.575 No Paulina Lake (12.0) vs. Cougar Mountain Cave (14.80) 0.637 No Paulina Lake (12.0) vs. Connley Caves (16.40) 0.173 No Note. Adjusted source diversity values obtained by bootstrapping the Fort Rock, Cougar Mountain, and Connley caves samples. Because the greater the sample size the more likely exotic obsidian will appear in a sample‟s source profile (Page and Duke 2015; Smith and Harvey 2017), the bootstrapping technique adjusts the larger samples to the smaller sample size of the Paulina Lake sample (Smith 2010).

The results indicate that, compared to the Paulina Lake site, the projectile point source diversity for the Fort Rock, Cougar Mountain, and Connley caves‟ samples do not differ significantly. All three cave samples meet the expectations for a typical TP/EH residential site source diversity signature potentially occupied for longer periods.

Regional: TP/EH Mobility in the Northwestern Great Basin

There are few sites in the northwestern Great Basin with large samples of geochemically characterized obsidian WST points. Table 4.9 presents local-to-nonlocal toolstone ratios for the projectile point source profiles for the sites in a variety of geographic settings: (1) Last Supper Cave in northwestern Nevada; (2) Hanging

Rockshelter in northwestern Nevada; (3) Parman localities 1 and 3 in northwestern

Nevada; (4) Hawksy Walksy in southeastern Oregon/northwestern Nevada; (5) Catnip

Creek Delta in southeastern Oregon; and (7) Paulina Lake in central Oregon (see Figure

4.1). These sites are all posited to represent repeated residential occupations and contain the most comprehensive geochemically analyzed projectile point assemblages in the 121 northwestern Great Basin. Additionally, they are all within 20 km of one or more obsidian sources. As such, they are good samples with which to compare the Fort Rock

Basin caves‟ local-to-nonlocal toolstone ratios. Higher ratios of local-to-nonlocal toolstone suggest longer stays while smaller ratios suggest shorter residential stays. Table

4.9 demonstrates that the Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and Connley Caves projectile point samples have the lowest local-to-nonlocal ratio values for the region.

With toolstone availability held constant, differences in the ratios are probably the result of mobility frequency and occupation span. The Fort Rock Basin cave sites‟ toolstone ratios do not provide support for the hypothesis that they served as longer-term residential camps.

122

Table 4.9. Northwestern Great Basin TP/EH Sites with Distances to Nearest Toolstone Source, Number of Projectile Points Made on Local and Nonlocal Toolstone, and Local-to-Nonlocal Toolstone Ratios (adapted from Reaux et al. 2018).

Nearest Local Nonlocal Site Local:Nonlocal Ratio Reference Toolstone (km) Toolstone Toolstone Last Supper Cave <1 22 13 1.69 Smith (2008) Hanging Rock Shelter ~7 13 17 0.76 Smith et al. (2011) Parman Locality 1 ~5 28 32 0.88 Smith (2007) Parman Locality 3 ~3 11 16 0.69 Smith (2007) 35HA840 (Hawksy Walksy) <1 40 35 1.14 Unpublished 35HA2587 (Hawksy Walksy) <1 16 12 1.33 Unpublished 35HA2598 (Hawksy Walksy) <1 9 7 1.29 Unpublished 35HA2599 (Hawksy Walksy) <1 20 18 1.11 Unpublished Catnip Creek Delta <1 315 224 1.41 Reaux et al. (2018) 35DS34 (Paulina Lake) ~4 18 26 0.69 Connolly and Hughes (1999) 35LK1 (Fort Rock Cave) ~16 27 96 0.28 This Study 35LK55 (Cougar Mountain Cave) <1 32 81 0.40 This Study 35LK50 (The Connley Caves) ~5 17 56 0.30 This Study

123

These results may signal that the groups who used these locations were highly mobile. As Connolly and Hughes (1999:162) have proposed, groups‟ movements were probably not solely driven by the need for toolstone. Lithic raw material procurement probably fluctuated between strategies of “provisioning individuals”, where individuals keep themselves supplied with portable tools in anticipation of future use, and

“provisioning places”, where toolstone was stored at residential bases in anticipation of future need (Kuhn 1995:22). During the TP/EH, the Fort Rock Basin was characterized by numerous ecotones that would have offered diverse resources. Groups may have employed varied strategies in response to resource availability. Such strategies may have ranged from increasing the frequency of residential moves within and between resource patches to maximize their caloric gains to reducing the frequency of residential moves, establishing residential bases in rich ecotones, and intensifying both daily and multi-day, logistical foraging ranges to target food in various ecological settings.

In sum, the frequency and magnitude of TP/EH residential and logistical mobility probably changed according to variations in resource productivity. Toolstone ratios and

LCZs based on the projectile point assemblages from the caves probably reflect a complex history of site use and broader fluctuations in the ecological and cultural landscape. Table 4.10 provides a summary of the results previously discussed and their implications to my two hypotheses. In the end, discerning between longer-term or shorter-term occupations at reoccupied sites using lithic assemblages may be impossible if mobility strategies differed annually, and occupation span and mobility regimes are especially hard to infer archaeologically without knowing where every contemporaneous logistical and residential occupation occurred during the TP/EH (Jochim 1991:319). 124

Table 4.10. Summary of the Fort Rock Basin Cave Sites’ Analysis Results and Discussion vs. Expectations for Hypotheses 1 and 2.

Occupation Span Site/Sample/Measure H1: Longer-Term H2: Shorter-Term Fort Rock Cave Projectile Point Sample Local-to-Nonlocal Toolstone Proportions + Curation Analysis + + Exponential Regression Curve Fit + + Relative Source Diversity + Regional Local-to-Nonlocal Toolstone Ratios + Debitage Sample Local-to-Nonlocal Toolstone Proportions + Size Grade Analysis + + Exponential Regression Curve Fit + + Cougar Mountain Cave Projectile Point Sample Local-to-Nonlocal Toolstone Proportions + Curation Analysis + + Exponential Regression Curve Fit + + Relative Source Diversity + Regional Local-to-Nonlocal Toolstone Ratios + The Connley Caves Projectile Point Sample Local-to-Nonlocal Toolstone Proportions + Curation Analysis + Exponential Regression Curve Fit + Relative Source Diversity + Regional Local-to-Nonlocal Toolstone Ratios + Debitage Sample Local-to-Nonlocal Toolstone Proportions + Exponential Regression Curve Fit + +

Site-Specific: Beyond Projectile Points

While lithic tools represent some of the only direct evidence for TP/EH lifeways at most sites, using projectile points alone can be problematic when reconstructing settlement-subsistence practices. Projectile points were often transported longer distances than other tool classes (Bamforth 2002, 2009; Madsen et al. 2015; Smith and Kielhofer

2011; Smith and Harvey 2017) and create conveyance zones which exceed the annual 125 territories of most ethnographic hunter-gatherers (Kelly 2011). Fortunately, the Fort Rock

Basin cave assemblages offer more than just interpretations of Paleoindian LTO.

Textiles, leather, sandals, faunal remains, bone and wooden tools, shell beads, and other lithic artifacts suggest that activities other than hunting occurred there. The assemblages have the potential to contribute to our understanding of the varied activities of men and women of different ages and can provide deeper insight into the cultural and demographic realm of the TP/EH (see Connolly et al. 2016). To gain a better understanding of residential mobility patterns and the use of caves in the Fort Rock

Basin, these additional classes of artifacts must be analyzed for provenance and life history characteristics to bolster the case that they served longer-term residential bases.

Only then can the TP/EH settlement behavior in the Fort Rock Basin be understood against the larger backdrop of the cultural and ecologic variability that characterized the period.

126

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, I tested two hypotheses about TP/EH occupations at Fort Rock

Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves using expectations derived from

LTO: (1) the cave sites were inhabited for longer-term periods and served as central places from which toolstone and other resources were procured; and (2) the cave sites were occupied for shorter-term periods during residential or logistical stop-overs.

Although the sites have the potential to provide information on early lifeways in the northwestern Great Basin beyond the study of LTO, their lithic assemblages had never been thoroughly analyzed. My study adds to the growing body of research on Paleoindian

LTO in caves and rockshelters in the northwestern Great Basin and has contributed to current understandings of TP/EH mobility and cave use by discerning source use and curation patterns.

The results of my analyses support the hypothesis that TP/EH occupations in Fort

Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves were short-term, but they can be interpreted in multiple ways. While the greater proportion of nonlocal toolstone relative to local toolstone in the Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the

Connley Caves projectile point samples suggest shorter-term occupations, their source diversity compares well with the longer-term Paulina Lake residential site, and most of the obsidian types in each source profile are available within multi-day logistical forays.

The overrepresented sources in the sites‟ projectile point and debitage profiles could 127 reflect logistical procurement; however, the apparent northeastern directionality may signal areas visited during residential travels before groups arrived at the Fort Rock Basin cave sites. Because the projectile point and debitage samples from all three sites probably reflect activities that occurred over several millennia, their source profiles may be the result of both strategies.

Of the three sites, Fort Rock Cave best exhibits a signature consistent with expectations for a longer-term residential base. The qualitative and quantitative retouch analyses indicate that nonlocal projectile point from Fort Rock Cave were more curated than local projectile points and the characterized debitage sample is dominated by local obsidian. Additionally, the presence of larger flakes indicates that a range of reduction activities occurred there. While these results could support longer-term occupations, it is possible that Fort Rock Cave‟s location far from a toolstone source conditioned these trends and influenced visitors to provision their individual toolkits prior to occupying the site. As such, less curation for local formal tools such as projectile points, as well as larger debris from transported cores and tool blanks, would be expected. The toolstone proportions as well as the curation and regression analyses results for the Connley Caves samples primarily corresponded with expectations for a shorter-term residential camp, while Cougar Mountain Cave‟s results could potentially support that shorter-term and longer-term occupations occurred there.

Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and the Connley Caves exhibited the lowest local-to-nonlocal toolstone ratios of any TP/EH sites in the northwestern Great

Basin. This suggests shorter-term occupations; however, occupation span using toolstone provenance may be better understood as relative to the context-specific factors that 128 influenced their duration at a given site, including food and resource availability which fluctuated over time and space.

Future Research Directions

The general uniformity of the Fort Rock Basin cave assemblages and available radiocarbon dates suggest that the sites were used in similar ways during the TP/EH, possibly synchronously. The assemblages reflect a residential camp signature and signal that activities other than hunting occurred at or near each location. Whether they were occupied for longer (i.e., weeks or months) or shorter periods (i.e., a few days) and their frequency of reoccupation should be evaluated with other lines of evidence. By considering patterns apparent in their faunal and textile assemblages alongside the information provided by their lithic assemblages, a better representation of early lifeways in the northwestern Great Basin may emerge. Such efforts should provide a stronger understanding of how these three cave sites were used.

In addition to studying other artifact classes from the sites, future research should include source provenance and technological/curation analyses of other tool types to elucidate how the full spectrum of activities at Fort Rock Cave, Cougar Mountain Cave, and Connley Caves assemblages reflect TP/EH cave use. For the Cougar Mountain Cave assemblage, Layton‟s (1972a, 1972b, 1979) obsidian hydration analysis of WST projectile points could be updated with source-specific rates to refine the site‟s chronology. Similar to Cougar Mountain Cave, there is little potential of remaining, intact deposits at Fort Rock Cave (Connolly et al. 2017). While provenience information 129 for specimens recovered by Cressman in the late 1930‟s is unavailable, Bedwell recorded general provenience for artifacts recovered in 1967 and they have the potential to provide a better understanding of diachronic change in mobility and site use at that site. Lastly, lithic artifacts from the Connley Caves have the best chronostratigraphic control for its earliest deposits and hold potential for future research. Future studies that feature analysis of the complete TP/EH assemblages from Fort Rock Cave and the Connley Caves will help to refine and reinterpret early mobility patterns and changes in cave use in the northwestern Great Basin.

130

NOTES

1I calibrated all radiocarbon ages noted in the text using OxCal 4.3 online program (Bronk Ramsey 2009) with the IntCal13 curve (Reimer et al. 2013). All calibrated ranges are presented at 2σ. All calibrated ranges presented in the text are rounded following Stuiver and Polach (1977).

131

REFERENCES CITED

Aikens, C. Melvin 1970 Hogup Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 93, Salt Lake City.

Aikens, C. Melvin, and Dennis L. Jenkins (editors) 1994 Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 50, Eugene.

Aikens C. Melvin, David L. Cole, and Robert Stuckenrath 1977 Excavations at Dirty Shame Rockshelter Southeastern Oregon. Tebiwa 4:1-29.

Aikens, C. Melvin, Thomas J. Connolly, and Dennis L. Jenkins 2011 Oregon Archaeology. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

Allison, Ira S. 1979 Pluvial Fort Rock Lake, Lake County, Oregon. State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Special Paper No. 7, Portland.

Andrefsky, William, Jr. 1994 Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59(1):21-34. 2005 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2006 Experimental and Archaeological Verification of an Index of Retouch for Hafted Bifaces. American Antiquity 71:743-757. 2009 The Analysis of Stone Tool Procurement, Production, and Maintenance. Journal of Archaeological Research 17:65-103. 2010 Human Land Use Strategies and Projectile Point Damage, Resharpening, and Discard Patterns. Human Evolution 25(1-2):13-30.

Arnold, James R., and Willard F. Libby 1951 Radiocarbon Dates. Science 113(2927):111-120.

Baker, Richard G. 1983 Holocene Vegetation History of the Western United States. In Late Quaternary Environment of the United States, Vol. 2, The Holocene, edited by Herbert E. Wright, Jr., pp. 109-127. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

132

Bamforth, Douglas B. 1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51(1):38-50. 1991 Technological Organization and Hunter-Gatherer Land Use: A California Example. American Antiquity 56(2):216-234. 2002 High-Tech Foragers? Folsom and Later Paleoindian Technology on the Plains. Journal of World Prehistory 16(1):55-98. 2009 Projectile points, people, and Plains Paleoindian perambulations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28(2):142-157.

Beck, R. Kelly 2008 Transport Distance and Debitage Assemblage Diversity: An Application of the Field Processing Model to Southern Utah Toolstone Procurement Sites. American Antiquity 73(4):759-780.

Beck, Charlotte, George T. Jones, Dennis L. Jenkins, Craig E. Skinner, and Jennifer J. Thatcher 2004 Fluted or Basally-Thinned? Re-Examination of a Lanceolate Point from the Connley Caves. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 281-316. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 62, Eugene.

Beck, Charlotte, and George T. Jones 1990 Toolstone Selection and Lithic Technology in Early Great Basin Prehistory. Journal of Field Archaeology 17(3):283-299. 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 75:81-116. 2011 The Role of Mobility and Exchange in the Conveyance of Toolstone During the Great Basin Paleoarchaic. In Perspectives on Prehistoric Trade and Exchange in California and the Great Basin, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 55-82. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2014 Complexities of the Colonization Process: A View from the North American West. In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by Kelly E. Graf, Caroline V. Ketron, and Michael R. Waters, pp. 273-291. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.

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

133

Bedwell, Stephen F. 1966 Unpublished field notes from the 1966 Fort Rock Cave excavation. Manuscript on file, University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene. 1967 Unpublished field notes from the 1967 Fort Rock Cave excavation. Manuscript on file, University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene. 1970 Prehistory and Environment of the Pluvial Fort Rock Lake Area of Southcentral Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. 1973 Fort Rock Basin: Prehistory and Environment. University of Oregon Books, Eugene.

Bedwell, Stephen F., and Luther S. Cressman 1971 Fort Rock Report: Prehistory and Environment of the Pluvial Fort Rock Lake Area of South-Central Oregon. In Great Basin Anthropological Conference 1970: Selected Papers, edited by C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 1-25. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 1, Eugene.

Bettinger, Robert L., Raven Garvey, and Shannon Tushingham 2015 Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory, 2nd ed. Springer, New York.

Binford, Lewis R. 1977 Forty-seven Trips: A Case Study in the Character of Archaeological Formation Processes. In Stone tools as cultural markers: change, evolution, and complexity, edited by Richard V. Wright, pp. 24-36. Humanities Press, New Jersey. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.

Blakeslee, Donald J. 1994 Reassessment of Some Radiocarbon Dates from the Central Plains. Plains Anthropologist 39(148):203-210. 2012 Caves and Related Sites in the Great Plains of North America. In Sacred Darkness: A Global Perspective on the Ritual Use of Cave Sites, edited by Holley Moyes, pp. 522-535. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Bleed, Peter 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability of Reliability. American Antiquity 51(4):737-747.

134

Braje, Todd J., Jon M. Erlandson, and Torben C. Rick 2013 Points in Space and Time: The Distribution of Paleocoastal Points and Crescents on the Northern Channel Islands. In California’s Channel Islands: The Archaeology of Human-Environment Interactions, edited by Christopher S. Jazwa and Jennifer E. Perry, pp. 26-39. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Bronk Ramsey, Christopher 2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337-360.

Bryan, Alan L. 1980 The Stemmed Point Tradition: An Early Technological Tradition in Western North America. In Anthropological Papers in Memory of Earl H. Swanson, Jr., edited by Lucille B. Harten, Claude N. Warren, and Donald R. Tuohy, pp. 77-107. Special Publication of the Idaho Museum of Natural History, Pocatello.

Clarkson, Chris 2002 An Index of Invasiveness for the Measurement of Unifacial and Bifacial Retouch: A Theoretical, Experimental and Archaeological Verification. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:65-75.

Connolly, Thomas J. 1994 Prehistoric Basketry from the Fort Rock Basin and Vicinity. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C. Melvin Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins., pp. 63-84. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 50, Eugene.

Connolly, Thomas J. (editor) 1999 Newberry Crater: A Ten Thousand-Year Record of Human Occupation and Environmental Change in the Basin-Plateau Borderlands. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 121, Salt Lake City.

Connolly, Thomas J., and William J. Cannon 1999 Comments on “America‟s Oldest Basketry.” Radiocarbon 41:309-313.

Connolly, Thomas J., and Pat Barker 2004 Basketry Chronology of the Early Holocene in the Northern Great Basin. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 241- 250. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 62, Eugene.

135

Connolly, Thomas J., and Richard E. Hughes 1999 Obsidian Source Analysis. In Newberry Crater: A Ten Thousand-Year Record of Human Occupation and Environmental Change in the Basin-Plateau Borderlands, edited by Thomas J. Connolly, pp. 157-165. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 121, Salt Lake City.

Connolly, Thomas J., Catherine S. Fowler, and William J. Cannon 1998 Radiocarbon Evidence Relating to Northern Great Basin Basketry Chronology. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 20:88-100.

Connolly, Thomas J., Pat Barker, Catherine S. Fowler, Eugene M. Hattori, Dennis L. Jenkins, and William J. Cannon 2016 Getting Beyond the Point: Textiles of the Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene in the Northwestern Great Basin. American Antiquity 81(3):490- 514.

Connolly, Thomas J., Judson Byrd Finley, Geoffrey M. Smith, Dennis L. Jenkins, Pamela E. Endzweig, Brian L. O‟Neill, and Paul W. Baxter 2017 Return to Fort Rock Cave: Assessing the Site‟s Potential to Contribute to Ongoing Debates about How and When Humans Colonized the Great Basin. American Antiquity 82(3):558-573.

Cowles, John 1960 Cougar Mountain Cave in South Central Oregon. Daily News Press, Rainier.

Cressman, Luther S. 1942 Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington D.C. 1951 Western Prehistory in the Light of Carbon 14 Dating. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7:289-313

Cressman, Luther S., Howel Williams, and Alex D. Krieger 1940 Early Man in Oregon: Archaeological Studies in the Northern Great Basin. University of Oregon Monographs Studies in Anthropology No. 3, Eugene.

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

Droz, Michael S. 1997 Geomorphic and Climatic History of Holocene Channel, Playas, and Lunettes in the Fort Rock Basin, Lake County, Oregon. Master‟s thesis, Department of Geography, University of Oregon, Eugene. 136

Eerkens, Jelmer W., Amy M. Spurling, and Michelle A. Gras 2008 Measuring Prehistoric Mobility Strategies Based on Obsidian Geochemical Signatures in the Owens Valley, California. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:668-680.

Eerkens, Jelmer W., Jeffrey R. Ferguson, Michael D. Glascock, Craig E. Skinner, and Sharon A. Waechter 2007 Reduction Strategies and Geochemical Characterization of Lithic Assemblages: A Comparison of Three Case Studies from Western North America. American Antiquity 73(3):585-597.

Elston, Robert G., and David W. Zeanah 2002 Thinking outside the Box: A New Perspective on Diet Breadth and the Sexual Division of Labor in the Prearchaic Great Basin. World Archaeology 34(1):103-130.

Elston, Robert G., Dave W. Zeanah, and Brian F. Codding 2014 Living Outside the Box: An Updated Perspective on Diet Breadth and Sexual Division of Labor in the Pre-Archaic Great Basin. Quaternary International 352:200-211.

Fagan, John L., Nicholas J. Smits, Eva Hulse, Jason A. Cowan, Terry L. Ozbun, Jo Reese, Lucie Tisdale, Sarah L. Dubois, Kristen A. Fuld, Karla Hotze, Ron Adams, Cam Walker, Kelley Martinez, Christine L. Plimpton, Maureen M. Zehendner, Morgan Frazier, and Dave Cox. 2016 Ruby Pipeline Project Archaeological Site Testing and Evaluation and Data Recover Oregon Segment: Lake and Klamath Counties. Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc. Report No. 3446, Portland.

Felling, Danielle C. 2015 Paleoindian Settlement Strategies Across Time and Space in the Northwestern Great Basin: Lithic Technological Organization at Last Supper Cave, Nevada. Master‟s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

Freidel, Dorothy 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. Melvin Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. 21-40. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 50, Eugene.

137

Goebel, Ted 2007 Prearchaic and Early Archaic Technological Activities and Bonneville Estates Rockshelter: A First Look at the Lithic Artifact Record. In Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic? Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition, edited by Kelly E. Graf and Dave N. Schmitt, pp. 156-184. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Goebel, Ted, Bryan Hockett, Kenneth D. Adams, David Rhode, and Kelly 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.

Goodale, Nathan, David G. Bailey, George T. Jones, Catherine Prescott, Elizabeth Scholtz, Nick Stagliano, and Chelsea Lewis 2011 pXRF: A Study of Inter-Instrument Performance. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:875-883.

Goodyear, Albert C. 1989 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials Among Paleoindian Groups of North America. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by Christopher Ellis and John. C. Lothrop, pp. 1-9. Westview Press, Boulder.

Gorecki, Paul P. 1991 Horticulturalists as Hunter-Gatherers: Rock Shelter Usage in Papua New Guinea. In Ethnoarchaeological Approaches to Mobile Campsites, edited by Clive S. Gamble and William A. Broismier, pp. 237-262. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Graf, Kelly E. 2001 Paleoindian Technological Provisioning in the Western Great Basin. Master‟s thesis, Department of Anthropology and Ethnic Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Grayson, Donald K. 1979 Mount Mazama, Climatic Change, and Fort Rock Basin Archaeofaunas. In Volcanic Activity and Human Ecology, edited by Payson D. Sheets and Donald K. Grayson, pp. 427-440. Academic Press, New York. 2011 The Great Basin: A Natural Prehistory. University of California Press, Berkeley.

138

Harper, Cheryl, and William Andrefsky, Jr. 2008 Exploring the Dart and Arrow Dilemma: Retouch Indices as Functional Determinants. In Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use, and Curation, edited by William Andrefsky, Jr., pp. 175-193. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Heizer, Robert F. 1967 Analysis of Human Coprolites from a Dry Nevada Cave. University of California Archaeological Survey Report 70, pp. 1-20, Berkeley.

Heizer, Robert F., and Lewis K. Napton 1970 Archaeological Investigations in Lovelock Cave, Nevada. In Archaeology and the Prehistoric Great Basin Lacustrine Subsistence Regime as Seen from Lovelock Cave, Nevada, edited by Robert F. Heizer and Lewis K. Napton, pp. 1-86. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 10, Berkeley.

Hemphill, Brian E., and Clark Spencer Larsen 1999 Prehistoric Lifeways in the Great Basin Wetlands: Bioarchaeological Reconstruction and Interpretation. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Hoffman, Clinton C. 1996 Testing the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition Hypothesis: Early Holocene Mobility and Land Use in the Northwestern Great Basin. Master‟s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada Reno.

Hughes, Richard E. 1986 Diachronic Variability in Obsidian Procurement Patterns in Northeastern California and South-central Oregon. University of California Publications in Anthropology No. 17, Berkeley.

Ingbar, Eric E. 1994 Lithic Material Selection and Technological Organization. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by Phillip J. Carr, pp. 45-56. Archaeological Series Vol. 7. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Irwin, Ann M., and Ula Laura Moody 1978 The Lind Coulee Site (45GR97). Washington State Archaeological Research Report No. 56, Pullman.

139

Jenkins, Dennis L., and C. Melvin Aikens 1994 Paulina Marsh Archaeological Survey. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C. Melvin Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. 259-274. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 50, Eugene.

Jenkins, Dennis L., Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens 2004a Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology in the Northern Great Basin: Dynamic Natural and Cultural Ecologies. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 1-20. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 62, Eugene.

Jenkins, Dennis L., Michael S. Droz, and Thomas J. Connolly 2004b Geoarchaeology of Wetland Settings in the Fort Rock Basin, South-Central Oregon. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 31-52. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 62, Eugene.

Jenkins, Dennis L., Justin A. Holcomb, and Katelyn N. McDonough 2017 Current Research at the Connley Caves (35LK50): Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Western Stemmed Tradition Occupations in the Fort Rock Basin, Oregon. PaleoAmerica 3(2):1-20.

Jenkins, Dennis L., Loren G. Davis, Thomas W. Stafford, Jr., Paula F. Campos, Bryan Hockett, George T. Jones, Linda Scott Cummings, Chad Yost, Thomas J. Connolly, Robert M. Yohe II, Summer C. Gibbons, Maanasa Raghavan, Morten Rasmussen, Johanna L. A. Paijmans, Michael Hofreiter, Brian M. Kemp, Jodi Lynn Barta, Cara Monroe, M. Thomas P. Gilbert, and Eske Willerslev 2012 Clovis Age Western Stemmed Projectile Points and Human Coprolites at the Paisley Caves. Science 337:223-228.

Jenkins, Dennis L., Loren G. Davis, Thomas W. Stafford, Jr., Paula F. Campos, Thomas J. Connolly, Linda S. Cummings, Michael Hofreiter, Bryan Hockett, Katelyn McDonough, Ian Luthe, Patrick W. O‟Grady, Karl J. Reinhard, Mark E. Swisher, Frances White, Bonnie Yates, Robert M. Yohe II, Chad Yost, and Eske Willerslev 2014 Geochronology, Archaeological Context, and DNA at the Paisley Caves. In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by Kelly E. Graf, Caroline V. Ketron, and Michael R. Waters, pp. 485-510. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.

140

Jenkins, Dennis L., Loren G. Davis, Thomas W. Stafford Jr., Thomas J. Connolly, George T. Jones, Michael Rondeau, Linda Scott Cummings, Bryan Hockett, Katelyn McDonough, Patrick W. O‟Grady, Karl J. Reinhard, Mark E. Swisher, Frances White, Robert M. Yohe II, Chad Yost, and Eske Willerslev 2016 Younger Dryas Archaeology and Human Experience at the Paisley Caves in the Northern Great Basin. In Stones, Bones, and Profiles: Exploring Archaeological Context, Early American Hunter-Gatherers, and Bison, edited by Marcel Kornfeld and Bruce B. Huckell, pp. 127-205. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Jochim, Michael A. 1991 Archaeology as Long-Term Ethnography. American Anthropologist 93(2):308-321.

Johnson, Jay K. 1981 Yellow Creek Archaeological Project. Vol. 2. Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology No. 28. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Jones, George T., and Charlotte Beck 1999 Paleoarchaic Archaeology in the Great Basin. In Models for the Millennium: Great Basin Anthropology Today, edited by Charlotte Beck, pp. 83-95. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Jones, George T., Charlotte Beck, Eric E. Jones, and Richard E. Hughes 2003 Lithic Source Use and Paleoarchaic Foraging Territories in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68(1):5-38.

Jones, George T., Lisa M. Fontes, Rachel A. Horowitz, Charlotte Beck, and David G. Bailey 2012 Reconsidering Paleoarchaic Mobility in the Central Great Basin. American Antiquity 77(2):351-367.

Keeley, Lawrence H. 1982 Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 46(4):798-809.

Keene, Joshua L. 2016 Geoarchaeology, Paleoecology, and Holocene Subsistence Change on the Upper Snake River Plain. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Texas A & M University, College Station.

Kelly, Robert L. 1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53(4):717-734. 1997 Late Holocene Great Basin Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 11(1):1- 49. 141

2007 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Percheron Press, New York. 2011 Obsidian in the Carson Desert: Mobility or Trade? In Perspectives on Prehistoric Trade and Exchange in California and the Great Basin, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 189-200. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2013 The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers: The Foraging Spectrum. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Kelly, Robert L., and Lawrence C. Todd 1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity 53(2):231-244.

Kessler, Rebecca A., Charlotte Beck, and George T. Jones 2010 Trash: The Structure of Great Basin Paleoarchaic Debitage Assemblages in Western North America. In Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies, edited by Brian Adams and Brooke S. Blades, pp. 144-159. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex.

Kuhn, Steven L. 1994 A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 59(3):426-442.

Lafayette, Linsie M. 2006 Use-Wear Analysis of Great Basin Stemmed Points. Master‟s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

Lafayette, Linsie M., and Geoffrey 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.

Layton, Thomas N. 1968 A Definition of the Cougar Mountain Type Projectile Point and Its Relations with Other Early Stemmed Forms in the Northern Great Basin and Western Great Plains. Manuscript on file, University of Nevada, Reno. 1970 High Rock Archaeology: An Interpretation of the Prehistory of the Northwestern Great Basin. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge. 1972a Lithic Chronology in the Fort Rock Valley, Oregon: An Obsidian Hydration Study from Cougar Mountain Cave. Tebiwa 15(2):1-21. 1972b A 12,000 Year Obsidian Hydration Record of Occupation, Abandonment, and Lithic Change from the Northwestern Great Basin. Tebiwa 15:22-28.

142

MacDonald, Douglas H. 2008 The Role of Lithic Raw Material in Determining Tool Kit Size, Tool Function, and Degree of Retouch: A Case Study from Skink Rockshelter (46NI445), West Virginia. In Lithic Technology, Measures of Production, Use, and Curation, edited by William Andrefsky Jr., pp. 216-232. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Madsen, David B. 2002 Great Basin Peoples and Late Quaternary Aquatic History. In Great Basin Aquatic Systems History, edited by Robert Hershler, David B. Madsen, and Donald R. Currey, pp. 387-405. Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences No. 33, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 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 Kelly E. Graf and Dave N. Schmitt, pp. 1-20. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Madsen, David B., Dave N. Schmitt, and David Page (editors) 2015 The Paleoarchaic Occupation of the Old River Bed. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 128, Salt Lake City.

Meltzer, David J., and Vance T. Holliday 2010 Would North American Paleoindians Have Noticed the Younger Dryas Age Climate Change? Journal of World Prehistory 23:1-41.

Minckley, Thomas A., Patrick J. Bartlein, and Jessica J. Shinker 2004 Paleoecological Response to Climate Change in the Great Basin since the Last Glacial Maximum. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 21-30. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 62, Eugene.

Minckley, Thomas A., Cathy Whitlock, and Patrick J. Bartlein 2007 Vegetation, Fire, and Climate History of the Northwestern Great Basin During the last 14,000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews 26:2167-2184.

Mills, Barbara J., Jeffery J. Clark, Matthew A. Peeples, W. Randy Haas, John M. Roberts, J. Brett Hill, Deborah L. Huntley, Lewis Borck, Ronald L. Breiger, Aaron Clauset, and M. Steven Shackley 2013 Transformation of Social Networks in the Late Pre-Hispanic US Southwest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(15):5785-5970.

Nelson, Margaret C. 1991 The Study of Technological Organization. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3(1):57-100. 143

Newlander, Khori 2012 Exchange, Embedded Procurement, and Hunter-Gatherer Mobility: A Case Study the North American Great Basin. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 2015 Beyond Obsidian: Documenting the Conveyance of Fine-Grained Volcanics and Cherts in the North American Great Basin. PaleoAmerica 1(1):123-126.

Newlander, Khori, and Ying Lin 2017 Integrating Visual and Chemical Data to Source Chert Artifacts in the North American Great Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11:578- 591.

Nicholson, Annie, and Scott Crane 1991 Desert Camps: Analysis of Australian Aboriginal Proto-historic Campsites. In Ethnoarchaeological Approaches to Mobile Campsites, edited by Clive S. Gamble and William A. Boismier, pp. 263-354. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ethnoarchaeological Series 1. Ann Arbor.

Nyers, Alex J. 2017 X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis of Obsidian and Fine Grained Volcanic Artifacts from Fort Rock Cave (35-LK-1), Lake County, Oregon. Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory Report No. 2017-107. 2018 X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis of Obsidian and Fine-Grained Volcanic Artifacts from Fort Rock Cave (35-LK-1), Lake County, Oregon. Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory Report No. 2018-02.

Odell, George H. 2004 Lithic Analysis. Springer, New York.

Oetting, Albert C. 1993 The Archaeology of Buffalo Flat: Cultural Resources Investigations for the CONUS OTH-B Buffalo Flat Radar Transmitter Site, Christmas Lake Valley, Oregon Vols. 1 and 2. Heritage Research Associates Report No. 151, Eugene. 1994 Early Holocene Rabbit Drives and Prehistoric Land-Use Patterns on Buffalo Flat, Christmas Lake Valley, Oregon. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C. Melvin Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. 155-170. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 50, Eugene.

Ollivier, Aaron P. 2016 Evaluating Gaps in Radiocarbon Sequences of Northwestern Great Basin Sandals. Master‟s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

144

Ollivier, Aaron P., Geoffrey M. Smith, and Pat Barker 2017 A Collection of Fiber Sandals from Last Supper Cave, Nevada, and Its Implications for Cave and Rockshelter Abandonment During the Middle Holocene. American Antiquity 82(2):325-340.

Oswalt, Wendell H. 1973 Habitat and Technology. Holt, Winehart, and Winston, New York. 1976 An Anthropological Analysis of Food Getting Technology. Wiley, New York.

Pilloud, Marin A., Derek J. Reaux, Geoffrey M. Smith, and Kristina M. Wiggins 2017 Using Fordisc Software to Assign Obsidian Artifacts to Geological Sources: Proof of Concept. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:428-434.

Pinson, Ariane O. 1999 Foraging in Uncertain Times: The Effects of Risk on Subsistence Behavior During the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in the Oregon Great Basin. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New México, Albuquerque. 2004 Of Lakeshores and Dry Basin Floors: A Regional Perspective on the Early Holocene Record of Environmental Change and Human Adaptation at the Tucker Site. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 53-76. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 62, Eugene.

Quinn, Colin P., William Andrefsky, Jr., Ian Kuijt, and Bill Finlayson 2008 Perforation with Stone Tools and Retouch Intensity: A Neolithic Case Study. In Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use, and Curation, edited by William Andrefsky, Jr., pp. 150-174. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

R Core Team 2017 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/.

Rasmussen, S. Olander, Katrine K. Andersen, Anders M. Svensson, Jørgen P. Steffensen, Bo Vinther, Henrik B. Calusen, Marie-Louise Siggaard-Andersen, Sigfús J. Johnsen, Louise Bjoern Larsen, Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, M. Bigler, Regine Röthlisberger., H. Fischer, Kumiko Goto-Azuma, Margarita E. Hansson, and Urs Ruth 2006 A New Greenland Ice Core Chronology for the Last Glacial Termination. Journal of Geophysical Research 111:D06102.

145

Reaux, Derek J., Geoffrey M. Smith, Kenneth D. Adams, Sophia Jamaldin, Nicole George, Katelyn Mohr, and Richard Rosencrance II 2018 A First Look at the Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Record of Guano Valley, Oregon, USA. PaleoAmerica, in press.

Reimer, Paula J., Edouard Bard, Alex Bayliss, J. Warren Beck, Paul G. Blackwell, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Caitlin E. Buck, Hai Cheng, R. Lawrence Edwards, Michael Friedrich, Pieter M. Grootes, Thomas P. Guilderson, Haflidi Haflidason, Irka Hajdas, Christine Hatté, Timothy J. Heaton, Dirk L. Hoffmann, Alan G. Hogg, Konrad A. Hughen, K. Felix Kaiser, Bernd Kromer, Sturt W. Manning, Mu Niu, Ron W. Reimer, David A. Richards, E. Marian Scott, John R. Southon, Richard A. Staff, Christian S.M. Turney, and Johannes van der Plicht 2013 IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0-50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1975-1997.

Renfrew, Colin 1977 Alternative Models for Exchange and Spatial Distribution. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory. Academic Press, New York.

Root, Matthew J., and Carl E. Gustafson 2004 Modified Bone and Antler. In Marmes Rockshelter: A Final Report on 11,000 Years of Cultural Use, edited by Brent A. Hicks, pp. 229-252. Washington State University Press, Pullman.

Ruby, Allika 2016 High Rock Country Summary of Findings. In Prehistory of Nevada’s Northern Tier: Archaeological Investigations Along the Ruby Pupeline, edited by William Hildebrant, Kelly McGuire, Jerome King, Allika Ruby, and D. Craig Young, pp. 155-180. Anthropological Papers No. 101. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Scott, Lindsay D. 2016 The Western Stemmed Point Tradition: Evolutionary Perspectives on Cultural Change in Projectile Points During the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition. Master‟s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Montana, Missoula.

Shackley, M. Steven 2011 X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF) Geoarchaeology. Springer, New York.

Shott, Michael J. 1986 Settlement Mobility and Technological Organization: An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42:15-51. 146

1996 An Exegesis of the Curation Concept. Journal of Anthropological Research 52(3):259-280. 2015 Glass is Heavy, Too: Testing the Field-Processing Model at the Modena Obsidian Quarry, Lincoln County, Southeastern Nevada. American Antiquity 80(3):548-570.

Shott, Michael J., David A. Hunzicker, and Bob Patton 2007 Pattern and Allometric Measurement of Reduction Experimental Folsom Bifaces. Lithic Technology 32(2):203-217.

Sievert, Carson, Chris Parmer, Toby Hocking, Scott Chamberlain, Karthik Ram, Marianne Corvellec, Pedro Despouy 2017 plotly: Create Interactive Web Graphics via „plotly.js‟. R package version 4.7.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=plotly.

Skinner, Craig E., Jennifer J. Thatcher, Dennis L. Jenkins, and Albert 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 of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 221-230. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 62, Eugene.

Smith, Geoffrey M. 2007 Pre-Archaic Mobility and Technological Activities at the Parman Localities, Humboldt County, Nevada. In Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic? Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition, edited by Kelly E. Graf and Dave N. Schmitt, pp. 139-155. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2008 Results from the CRF Analysis of Pre-Archaic Projectile Points from Last Supper Cave, Nevada. Current Research in the Pleistocene 25:144-146. 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. 2015 Modeling the Influences of Raw Material Availability and Functional Efficiency on Obsidian Projectile Point Curation: A Great Basin example. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 3:112-121.

Smith, Geoffrey M., and Pat Barker 2017 The Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Record in the Northwestern Great Basin: What We Know, What We Don‟t Know, and How We May Be Wrong. PaleoAmerica 3(1):13-47.

147

Smith, Geoffrey M., and David C. Harvey 2017 Reconstructing Prehistoric Landscape Use at a Regional Scale: A Critical Review of the Lithic Conveyance Zone Concept with a Focus on its Limitations. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, in press.

Smith, Geoffrey M., and Jennifer Kielhofer 2011 Through the High Rock and Beyond: Placing the Last Supper Cave and Parman Paleoindian Lithic Assemblages into a Regional Context. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:3568-3576.

Smith, Geoffrey M., Stephen LaValley, and Craig Skinner 2011 Looking to the North: Results from the XRF Analysis of Pre-Archaic Projectile Points from Hanging Rock Shelter, Northwestern Nevada. Current Research in the Pleistocene 28:81-83.

Smith, Geoffrey M., Emily S. Middleton, and Peter A. Carey 2013 Paleoindian Technological Provisioning Strategies in the Northwestern Great Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:4180-4188.

Speth, John D., Khori Newlander, Andrew A. White, Ashley K. Lemke, Lars E. Anderson 2010 Paleoindian Big-game Hunting in North America: Provisioning or Politics? Quaternary International 285:111-139.

Steffenson, Jørgen P., Katrine K. Andersen, Matthias Bigler, Henrik B. Clausen, Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Hubertus Fischer, Kumiko Goto-Azuma, Margareta Hansson, Sigfús J. Johnsen, Jean Jouzel, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, Trevor Popp, Sune O. Rasmussen, Regine Röthlisberger, Urs Ruth, Bernhard Stauffer, Marie-Louise Siggaard-Andersen, Árný E. Sveinbjörnsdóttir, Anders Svensson, and James W. White 2008 High-Resolution Greenland Ice Core Data Show Abrupt Climate Change Happens in a Few Years. Science 321:680-684

Stuiver, Minze, and Henry A. Polach 1977 Discussion Reporting of 14C Dating. Radiocarbon 19(3):355-363.

Surovell, Todd A. 2003 The Behavioral Ecology of Folsom Lithic Technology. 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.

148

Thatcher, Jennifer 2001 The Distribution of Geologic and Artifact Obsidian from the Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh Geochemical Source Group, South-Central Oregon. Master‟s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Thomas, David H. 1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 2: Gatecliff Shelter. Anthropological Papers Vol. 59, Pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1985 The Archaeology of Hidden Cave, Nevada. Anthropological Papers Vol. 61, Pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Toepel, Kathryn A., and Stephen Dow Beckham 1981 Survey and Testing of Cultural Resources Along the Proposed Bonneville Power Administration’s Buckley-Summer Lake Transmission Line Corridor, Central Oregon. Bonneville Cultural Resources Group Report No. 100-5, Eastern Washington University, Cheney.

Toepel, Kathryn Anne, and Rick Minor 1994 100 Sites, 1000 Isolates, 10,000 Acres: A Survey on Prehistoric Land-Use Patterns in the Fort Rock Basin. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C. Melvin Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. 125-154. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 50, Eugene.

Torrence, Robin 1983 Time Budgeting and Hunter-gatherer Technology. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective, edited by Geoff Bailey, pp. 11-22. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Tuohy, Donald R., and Amy Dansie 1997 New Information Regarding Early Holocene Manifestations in the Western Great Basin. Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 40(1):24-53.

Walthall, John A. 1998 Rockshelters and Hunter-Gatherer Adaptation to the Pleistocene/Holocene Transition. American Antiquity 62(2):223-238

Willig, Judith A. 1989 Paleo-Archaic Broad Spectrum Adaptations at the Pleistocene-Holocene Boundary in Far Western North America. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene.

149

Wiggins, Kristina M. 2016 The Core Problem: Examining the Role of Bifacial Cores in Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Lithic Technological Organization in the Great Basin. Master‟s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

Wilson, Lucy 2007 Understanding Prehistoric Lithic Raw Material Selection: Application of a Gravity Model. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14:388-411.

Wilson, Jennifer K., and William Andrefsky Jr. 2008 Unpacking Production, Resharpening and Hammer Type. In Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use, and Curation, edited by William Andrefsky Jr., pp. 86-105. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

150

APPENDIX 1 – BEDWELL’S ANALYTICAL UNITS

Fort Rock Cave Strata and Levels Assigned to Analytical Units (adapted from Bedwell 1973:139)

Analytical Unit 1 Analytical Unit 2 Analytical Unit 3 Analytical Unit 4 Square (4700-3200 cal BP) (8800-7800 cal BP) (12,800-8800 cal BP) (17,000-12,800 cal BP) 4 Lvls. 1-7 Lvl. 8 Lvl. 9 Not represented 5 Lvls. 1-4 Str. 1, Lvls. 5-6 Str.2, Lvls. 2-6 Not represented 6 Not represented Lvl. 5 Lvl. 6 Not represented 7 All Not represented Not represented Not represented 8 Lvls. 1-13 Lvl. 14 Not represented Not represented 9 Lvls. 1-7 Lvl. 9 Not represented Not represented 10 Lvls. 1-6 Lvl. 7 Lvls. 8-9 Lvl. 10 11 Lvls. 1-6 Lvl. 7 Str. 2, Lvls. 8-10 Str. 3, Lvls. 10-13 Str.=Stratum; Lvl.=Level.

The Connley Caves Strata and Levels Assigned to Analytical Units (adapted from Bedwell 1973:138)

Analytical Unit 1 Analytical Unit 2 Analytical Unit 3 Cave (4700-3200 cal BP) (8800-7800 cal BP) (12,800-8800 cal BP) 1 Lvls. 4-9 Lvls. 10-15 Lvls. 16 and below 3 Lvls. 9-21 Lvls. 22-23 Lvls. 24 and below 3 ext. Not represented Lvls. 1-7 Not represented 4A Lvls. 10-27 Lvls. 28-30 Lvls. 31 and below 4B Not represented Str. 3, Lvls. 26-32 Str. 4, Lvls. 29 and below 5A Lvls. 6-21 Lvls. 22-23 Lvls. 24 and below 5B Not represented Lvls. 24-28 Lvls. 29 and below 6 Lvls. 3-21 Not represented Lvls. 22 and below

151

APPENDIX 2 – METRIC DATA AND SOURCE ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE

PROJECTILE POINT, BIFACE, AND UNIFACE SAMPLES

152

Site Catalog No. Class Cave Unit Lvl. Str. Len. C? Wid. C? Thi. C? Wei. C? Geochemical Source 35LK1 1-9??? PPT - - - - 51.0 N 23.7 Y 7.3 Y 8.4 N McKay Butte 35LK1 1-9046 PPT - - - - 75.4 N 30.7 Y 9.4 N 19.2 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9106 PPT - - - - 71.5 N 24.1 Y 8.8 Y 14.9 N Yreka Butte 35LK1 1-9108 PPT - - - - 57.5 N 31.3 N 8.0 Y 14.3 N Glass Buttes Variety 7 35LK1 1-9109 PPT - - - - 38.1 N 29.8 N 9.1 Y 10.1 N Big Obsidian Group 35LK1 1-9116 PPT - - - - 40.7 N 22.5 Y 7.5 N 6.0 N Quartz Mountain 35LK1 1-9157 PPT - - - - 53.1 N 21.6 Y 6.8 Y 7.5 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 1-9165 PPT - - - - 57.6 N 19.8 N 8.7 Y 10.8 N Round Top Butte 35LK1 1-9169 PPT - - - - 41.2 N 24.6 Y 6.6 N 7.4 N Quartz Mountain 35LK1 1-9178 PPT - - - - 42.2 Y 20.8 Y 7.0 Y 5.1 Y Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9188 PPT - - - - 54.8 N 28.7 N 8.3 Y 15.9 N Bald Butte 35LK1 1-9190 PPT - - - - 51.9 N 19.9 Y 5.7 N 6.1 N Spodue Mountain 35LK1 1-9198 PPT - - - - 28.2 N 20.5 N 7.6 Y 4.4 N Glass Buttes Variety 1 35LK1 1-9199 PPT - - - - 38.0 N 19.0 N 7.8 Y 5.3 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9201 PPT - - - - 19.3 N 23.0 N 7.4 Y 2.9 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9202 PPT - - - - 45.5 N 24.5 Y 10.1 N 11.6 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9264 PPT - - - - 22.8 N 18.3 N 6.2 Y 3.3 N Quartz Mountain 35LK1 1-9272 PPT - - - - 45.6 N 27.5 N 9.9 Y 10.2 N Quartz Mountain 35LK1 1-9283 PPT - - - - 37.0 N 20.2 N 8.9 Y 5.7 N Hager Mountain 35LK1 1-9284 PPT - - - - 36.5 N 31.2 N 8.3 N 11.3 Y Bald Butte 35LK1 1-9288 PPT - - - - 70.8 N 28.8 Y 8.3 Y 20.4 N Spodue Mountain 35LK1 1-9295 PPT - - - - 53.7 Y 17.0 Y 7.4 Y 7.1 Y Glass Buttes Variety 5 35LK1 1-9296 PPT - - - - 40.8 N 19.5 Y 5.3 N 4.5 N Glass Buttes Variety 5 35LK1 1-9297a PPT - - - - 55.2 Y 19.3 Y 8.3 Y 7.3 Y Hager Mountain 35LK1 1-9304 PPT - - - - 44.4 Y 21.0 Y 7.3 Y 5.6 Y Hawks Valley 35LK1 1-9305 PPT - - - - 49.8 N 21.1 N 7.6 Y 8.5 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9311 PPT - - - - 44.5 N 20.9 Y 7.5 Y 7.6 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 1-9312 PPT - - - - 62.0 N 22.3 Y 7.8 Y 9.7 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 1-9314 PPT - - - - 33.7 N 18.4 N 5.1 Y 3.1 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9316 PPT - - - - 45.9 N 25.4 Y 8.3 Y 12.3 N Hager Mountain 35LK1 1-9318 PPT - - - - 57.4 N 33.1 Y 8.3 Y 12.2 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 1-9340 PPT - - - - 94.8 N 36.8 Y 12.4 Y 41.2 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 1-9342 PPT - - - - 39.0 Y 19.1 Y 6.7 Y 4.3 Y Spodue Mountain 35LK1 1-9343 PPT - - - - 29.6 N 21.6 N 9.2 Y 5.1 N Glass Buttes Variety 5 35LK1 1-9350 PPT - - - - 69.3 N 18.6 Y 8.3 Y 10.5 N Spodue Mountain 35LK1 1-9359 PPT - - - - 50.1 N 19.3 N 8.2 Y 7.8 N Spodue Mountain 35LK1 1-9367 PPT - - - - 34.4 N 21.5 N 9.3 Y 6.7 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9371 PPT - - - - 54.0 N 22.5 Y 7.3 N 10.0 N Quartz Mountain 153

Site Catalog No. Class Cave Unit Lvl. Str. Len. C? Wid. C? Thi. C? Wei. C? Geochemical Source 35LK1 1-9372 PPT - - - - 69.7 N 28.8 Y 8.9 Y 18.4 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9373 PPT - - - - 141.9 Y 47.8 Y 11.2 Y 64.4 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK1 1-9375 PPT - - - - 69.4 N 25.2 Y 9.5 Y 17.0 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9383a PPT - - - - 31.5 N 29.6 N 6.2 Y 7.2 N Quartz Mountain 35LK1 1-9385 PPT - - - - 69.8 N 29.3 Y 9.7 Y 17.1 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9387a PPT - - - - 57.2 Y 21.3 Y 8.4 Y 9.0 Y Obsidian Cliffs 35LK1 1-9397-1 PPT - - - - 63.3 Y 24.4 Y 7.4 Y 10.1 Y Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9397-2 PPT - - - - 51.9 Y 24.8 Y 8.2 Y 9.6 Y Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9410a PPT - - - - 39.9 N 29.4 N 7.3 N 7.7 N Unknown FGV 35LK1 1-9412 PPT - - - - 36.9 N 25.5 N 8.2 Y 7.2 N Quartz Mountain 35LK1 1-9413 PPT - - - - 58.0 N 32.6 N 8.9 Y 12.9 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9450 PPT - - - - 38.3 Y 18.9 N 9.3 Y 6.2 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 1-9465 PPT - - - - 57.4 N 24.9 N 10.7 Y 13.6 N Spodue Mountain 35LK1 1-9466a PPT - - - - 42.5 N 24.2 N 7.7 Y 8.2 N Buck Mountain 35LK1 1-9469 PPT - - - - 55.5 N 25.7 Y 13.7 Y 17.2 N Quartz Mountain 35LK1 1-9474c PPT - - - - 36.7 N 25.6 N 7.4 Y 7.6 N Big Obsidian Group 35LK1 1-9478 PPT - - - - 43.6 N 20.8 Y 8.1 Y 6.6 N McKay Butte 35LK1 1-9481 PPT - - - - 15.3 N 23.8 N 5.4 Y 2.1 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9491 PPT - - - - 68.5 Y 20.7 Y 6.5 Y 8.6 Y McKay Butte 35LK1 1-9493b PPT - - - - 44.0 Y 23.4 Y 6.7 Y 6.8 Y Hager Mountain 35LK1 1-9496 PPT - - - - 60.6 N 25.7 Y 8.1 N 11.1 N McKay Butte 35LK1 1-9499 PPT - - - - 54.6 N 24.9 N 6.3 Y 9.5 N Hager Mountain 35LK1 1-9505 PPT - - - - 37.1 N 26.1 Y 7.1 Y 8.1 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9531b PPT - - - - 38.5 N 28.6 Y 8.7 Y 10.2 N Quartz Mountain 35LK1 1-9562 PPT - - - - 66.4 Y 28.7 N 6.2 Y 12.5 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 1-9566 PPT - - - - 58.6 N 29.1 Y 9.4 Y 17.7 N Quartz Mountain 35LK1 1-9567 PPT - - - - 66.9 N 21.5 Y 4.9 N 8.1 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 1-9589 PPT - - - - 15.1 N 19.9 N 5.1 Y 1.7 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 1-9594 PPT - - - - 42.9 Y 15.7 Y 5.3 Y 3.7 Y Cowhead Lake 35LK1 1-9604 PPT - - - - 30.5 N 25.2 N 6.1 Y 5.2 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 1-9606 PPT - - - - 42.8 N 21.5 Y 7.5 N 7.5 N Spodue Mountain 35LK1 1-9607 PPT - - - - 41.5 N 22.1 N 7.9 Y 8.0 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 1-9609 PPT - - - - 55.4 Y 27.2 Y 11.2 Y 14 Y Yreka Butte 35LK1 1-9617a PPT - - - - 30.8 N 18.1 N 6.1 Y 3.5 N Tucker Hill 35LK1 1-9622 PPT - - - - 44.0 N 18.3 N 6.3 Y 4.5 N Quartz Mountain 35LK1 1-9623 PPT - - - - 29.8 N 21.6 N 7.6 Y 5.3 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 1-9624 PPT - - - - 23.8 N 16.3 N 6.4 Y 3.1 N Glass Buttes Variety 1 35LK1 1-9862 PPT - - - - 39.7 Y 22.3 Y 7.6 Y 5.8 Y Cougar Mountain 154

Site Catalog No. Class Cave Unit Lvl. Str. Len. C? Wid. C? Thi. C? Wei. C? Geochemical Source 35LK1 1-46598 PPT - - - - 23.1 N 24.5 N 7.7 Y 5.0 N Quartz Mountain 35LK1 FRC-66/50 PPT - - - - 25.7 N 21.1 N 7.7 Y 4.2 N Quartz Mountain 35LK1 FRC-66/119 PPT - - - - 42.6 N 16.4 N 7.1 Y 4.9 N Glass Buttes Variety 1 35LK1 FRC-66/123 PPT - - - - 41.4 Y 32.9 Y 9.4 Y 9.9 Y Cowhead Lake 35LK1 FRC-66/164 PPT - - - - 43.6 N 28.7 Y 10.1 Y 12.9 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 FRC-66/186 PPT - - - - 29.3 N 19.5 N 7.1 Y 4.3 N Quartz Mountain 35LK1 FRC-66/189 PPT - - - - 43.2 N 22.3 N 8.9 Y 7.1 N Yreka Butte 35LK1 FRC-66/191 PPT - - - - 29.3 N 22.6 N 8.2 Y 5.9 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 FRC-66/202 PPT - - - - 26.6 Y 22.9 Y 6.3 Y 3.7 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK1 FRC-66/249 PPT - - - - 13.9 N 16.9 N 5.0 N 1.1 N Cowhead Lake 35LK1 FRC-66/252 PPT - - - - 25.7 N 18.2 N 8.0 Y 3.7 N Massacre Lake/Guano Valley 35LK1 1x/4y Surf.-6 PPT - - Surface - 23.7 N 18.6 N 6.5 Y 3.2 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 8-10/1-1 PPT - 8 10 1 16.8 N 17.5 N 5.4 N 0.9 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 8-13/1-1 PPT - 8 13 1 31.7 N 25.5 N 8.3 Y 9.0 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 9-5/1-3 PPT - 9 5 1 19.1 N 21.2 N 4.1 Y 1.9 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 10-4/2-2 PPT - 10 4 2 27.2 N 23.8 N 7.9 Y 6.2 N Spodue Mountain 35LK1 10-8/2-16 a CRE - 10 8 2 14.9 Y 47.6 Y 6.8 Y 1.7 Y Unknown FGV 1 35LK1 10-8/2-18 PPT - 10 8 2 41.5 N 31.1 Y 8.5 Y 9.3 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 10-9/2-24 PPT - 10 9 2 32.3 N 20.5 N 7.8 Y 4.4 N Glass Buttes Variety 1 35LK1 10-9/2-38 PPT - 10 9 2 28.1 N 26.9 N 7.0 Y 5.8 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 10-9/2-39 PPT - 10 9 2 21.2 N 20.4 N 8.9 Y 3.8 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 10-9/2-41a PPT - 10 9 2 55.1 N 30.5 Y 10.6 Y 17.9 N Bald Butte 35LK1 10-9/2-7 PPT - 10 9 2 15.8 N 18.0 N 7.7 N 2.2 N McKay Butte 35LK1 10-10/3-18 UNI - 10 10 3 34.2 N 24.4 N 4.4 N 3.0 N Hager Mountain 35LK1 10-10/3-19 UNI - 10 10 3 29.4 N 20.9 N 4.4 N 2.3 N McKay Butte 35LK1 10-10/3-28 UNI - 10 10 3 45.7 N 17.2 N 8.6 N 7.0 N McKay Butte 35LK1 10-11/3-4 UNI - 10 11 3 32.4 N 27.3 N 10.8 N 8.0 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 10-11/3-6 UNI - 10 11 3 22.3 N 25.7 N 13.5 N 7.0 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 11-7/3-2 PPT - 11 7 3 26.8 N 18.3 N 7.5 Y 3.8 N Quartz Mountain 35LK1 11-8/2-1d PPT - 11 8 2 55.5 Y 17.6 Y 7.7 Y 7.2 Y Unknown- see note d 35LK1 11-8/2-2b PPT - 11 8 2 22.2 N 18.7 N 5.1 Y 2.2 N Double O 35LK1 11-9/2-3 PPT - 11 9 2 22.9 N 17.1 N 4.7 Y 1.8 N Spodue Mountain 35LK1 11-9/2-9 PPT - 11 9 2 26.6 N 19.2 N 7.6 Y 4.2 N Quartz Mountain 35LK1 11-10/2-1a PPT - 11 10 2 39.7 N 19.1 Y 7.1 Y 5.7 N West McKay 35LK1 11-10/2-3 PPT - 11 10 2 16.4 N 16.5 N 4.5 N 1.3 N Cowhead Lake 35LK1 11-10/2-5a PPT - 11 10 2 26.5 N 18.5 N 7.1 N 3.2 N Unknown FGV 1 35LK1 11-10/2-13 PPT - 11 10 2 18.9 N 18.8 N 7.1 Y 3.1 N Glass Buttes Variety 5 35LK1 11-10/3-1 PPT - 11 10 3 35.1 Y 18.4 Y 5.4 Y 3.8 Y McKay Butte 155

Site Catalog No. Class Cave Unit Lvl. Str. Len. C? Wid. C? Thi. C? Wei. C? Geochemical Source 35LK1 11-10/3-2 PPT - 11 10 3 39.8 Y 19.7 Y 7.3 Y 5.6 Y Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 11-10/3-4 PPT - 11 10 3 15.8 N 17.4 N 6.6 N 1.5 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 11-10/3-10 SCR - 11 10 3 48.3 N 40.1 N 12.8 N 25.5 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 11-11/3-4 PPT - 11 11 3 29.3 N 19.6 N 8.6 Y 4.6 N Glass Buttes Variety 2 35LK1 11-11/3-7 SCR - 11 11 3 40.4 N 32.3 N 11.0 N 12.3 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 11-11/3-10 SCR - 11 12 3 47.7 N 29.6 N 11.2 N 15.9 N Horse Mountain 35LK1 11-12/3-11 SCR - 11 12 3 44.6 N 33.6 N 8.5 N 11.8 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 11-12/3-12 SCR - 11 12 3 47.3 N 55.1 N 16.3 N 38.8 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 669-4-1 PPT - NA NA NA 60.5 Y 27.8 Y 7.6 Y 15.7 Y Unknown FGV 35LK1 669-4-2 PPT - NA NA NA 69.6 N 27.8 Y 7.2 Y 19.3 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 707-4-1 PPT - 1 98.37-98.27 1 14.7 N 21.8 N 5.4 Y 1.8 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 707-10-1 PPT - 1 98.17-98.07 1 29.1 N 25.7 N 5.2 Y 3.9 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 707-10-2c PPT - 1 98.17-98.07 1 23.73 N 25.8 N 7.2 Y 4.4 N Big Obsidian Group 35LK1 707-29-1 PPT - 1 4 (97.97-97.87) 2 27.9 N 23.3 N 4.8 Y 3.9 N Glass Buttes Variety 5 35LK1 707-29-2a PPT - 1 4 (97.97-97.87) 2 22.7 N 21.2 N 4.0 N 2.2 N Unknown FGV 1 35LK1 2302-SF-1 PPT - - Surface - 19.8 N 23.2 N 6.4 Y 3.3 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK1 2302-A-1-4 PPT - A 1 - 34.2 N 21.2 Y 6.9 N 5.1 N McKay Butte 35LK1 2302-A-13-1 PPT - A 13 - 70.9 N 24.9 N 10.1 Y 17.2 N Glass Buttes Variety 1 35LK1 2302-1-7-4 PPT - 1 7 - 20.6 N 16.7 N 5.7 N 1.8 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 2302-3-6-3 PPT - 3 6 - 47.4 Y 21.0 Y 6.2 Y 5.5 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK1 2302-10-3-3 PPT - 10 3 - 27.9 N 21.7 N 6.6 Y 5.1 N Cougar Mountain 35LK1 2363-19-11-1 PPT - 19 11 - 22.3 N 20.5 N 6.7 Y 2.7 N Quartz Mountain 35LK1 2363-19C-5-1 PPT - 19C 5 - 18.4 N 15.9 N 5.2 N 1.5 N McKay Butte 35LK1 2363-19C-6-1 PPT - 19C 6 - 19.2 N 18.2 N 6.8 Y 2.2 N Yreka Butte 35LK1 2363-19C-13-3 PPT - 19C 13 - 27.5 N 18.4 N 7.3 N 3.4 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK55 25-1 PPT - - - - 86.7 N 24.6 Y 10.2 Y 23.8 N Round Top Butte 35LK55 25-2 PPT - - - - 71.8 N 25.6 N 8.4 Y 17.1 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-3 PPT - - - - 76.4 N 20.7 Y 5.9 N 9.4 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-5 PPT - - - - 80.4 N 30.6 N 7.9 Y 17.3 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK55 25-6 PPT - - - - 58.9 N 25.4 Y 6.3 Y 11.1 N Hager Mountain 35LK55 25-7 PPT - - - - 47.2 N 27.7 Y 7.2 Y 8.4 N McKay Butte 35LK55 25-8 PPT - - - - 45.4 N 25.3 Y 7.4 Y 9.3 N Hager Mountain 35LK55 25-9 PPT - - - - 68.1 Y 24.7 Y 8.9 Y 13.1 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-10 PPT - - - - 46.3 N 21.8 N 6.6 Y 7.1 N Horse Mountain 35LK55 25-11 PPT - - - - 39.4 N 20.1 N 6.7 Y 5.5 N Horse Mountain 35LK55 25-12 PPT - - - - 54.8 N 22.0 N 6.4 Y 7.7 N Yreka Butte 35LK55 25-26 PPT - - - - 87.4 Y 27.0 Y 8.7 Y 19.5 Y Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK55 25-27 PPT - - - - 63.0 Y 26.3 Y 7.2 Y 11.4 Y Bald Butte 156

Site Catalog No. Class Cave Unit Lvl. Str. Len. C? Wid. C? Thi. C? Wei. C? Geochemical Source 35LK55 25-33 PPT - - - - 89.3 N 28.5 Y 9.1 N 22.1 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK55 25-34 PPT - - - - 80.3 N 34.1 Y 7.4 Y 20.5 N Yreka Butte 35LK55 25-35 PPT - - - - 51.3 N 21.0 N 7.6 Y 9.1 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK55 25-36 PPT - - - - 68.3 N 21.6 Y 6.5 Y 9.6 N Horse Mountain 35LK55 25-37 PPT - - - - 68.3 Y 27.6 Y 8.5 Y 15.1 Y Wagontire 35LK55 25-40 PPT - - - - 43.4 N 24.6 Y 7.7 Y 6.8 N McKay Butte 35LK55 25-41 PPT - - - - 53.1 Y 26.6 Y 8.3 Y 11.0 Y Yreka Butte 35LK55 25-42 PPT - - - - 65.3 Y 28.5 Y 7.4 Y 13.9 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-44 PPT - - - - 38.1 N 18.5 N 6.6 Y 4.6 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-45 PPT - - - - 70.8 N 22.1 Y 8.1 Y 12.1 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-46 PPT - - - - 78.3 N 26.1 Y 8.6 N 18 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-50 PPT - - - - 56.7 Y 27.9 Y 4.4 Y 7.6 N Glass Buttes Variety 5 35LK55 25-51 PPT - - - - 61.8 N 23.5 N 7.1 Y 10.6 N Horse Mountain 35LK55 25-52 PPT - - - - 82.4 N 22.4 N 9.1 Y 20.3 N Beatys Butte 35LK55 25-53 PPT - - - - 86.7 Y 23.8 Y 8.1 Y 15.6 Y Tucker Hill 35LK55 25-54 PPT - - - - 81.1 Y 20.0 N 6.7 Y 11.4 N Quartz Mountain 35LK55 25-55 PPT - - - - 84.7 Y 24.2 Y 8.0 Y 16.1 Y Glass Buttes Variety 5 35LK55 25-56 PPT - - - - 77.7 Y 21.7 Y 5.9 Y 11.3 Y Unknown 35LK55 25-57 PPT - - - - 84.0 Y 24.0 Y 8.7 Y 16.6 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-58 PPT - - - - 87.8 N 26.5 Y 6.2 Y 15.7 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-59 PPT - - - - 93.2 Y 26.8 Y 7.9 Y 19.1 Y Yreka Butte 35LK55 25-60 PPT - - - - 36.3 N 20.0 N 9.1 Y 6.1 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-61 PPT - - - - 42.2 N 21.8 N 8.6 Y 7.3 N Hager Mountain 35LK55 25-65 PPT - - - - 64.5 N 23.8 N 9.2 Y 12.3 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-66 PPT - - - - 71.3 N 24.1 N 8.5 Y 15.4 N Brooks Canyon 35LK55 25-67 PPT - - - - 71.6 N 18.4 Y 7.0 Y 9.7 N Quartz Mountain 35LK55 25-68 PPT - - - - 49.0 N 20.3 N 8.9 Y 9.6 N Yreka Butte 35LK55 25-70 PPT - - - - 62.0 N 26.2 N 8.1 Y 14.9 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-73 PPT - - - - 84.7 N 25.3 N 7.4 Y 15.9 N McKay Butte 35LK55 25-72 PPT - - - - 67.1 N 24.2 N 8.4 N 13.2 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-74 PPT - - - - 97.0 N 29.5 N 9.6 Y 26.7 N McKay Butte 35LK55 25-75 PPT - - - - 66.1 N 25.7 N 7.5 Y 11.9 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-76 PPT - - - - 62.5 N 23.2 N 8.7 Y 16.9 N Yreka Butte 35LK55 25-77 PPT - - - - 74.2 N 29.6 N 9.6 N 16.0 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-79 PPT - - - - 44.6 N 20.2 N 5.9 Y 5.9 N Round Top Butte 35LK55 25-80 PPT - - - - 76.4 N 21.9 Y 6.9 Y 10.7 N Unknown 35LK55 25-82 and 25-429 PPT - - - - 114.7 Y 25.8 Y 6.9 Y 20.3 Y Double O 35LK55 25-83 PPT - - - - 75.3 N 29.1 Y 9.1 N 19.3 N McKay Butte 157

Site Catalog No. Class Cave Unit Lvl. Str. Len. C? Wid. C? Thi. C? Wei. C? Geochemical Source 35LK55 25-84 PPT - - - - 101.5 N 25.4 Y 10.6 N 34.3 N Glass Buttes Variety 2 35LK55 25-86 or 25-81 PPT - - - - 139.4 Y 27.0 Y 9.6 Y 36.9 Y Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK55 25-88 PPT - - - - 49.8 N 25.2 N 6.5 Y 9.4 N Horse Mountain 35LK55 25-89 PPT - - - - 77.4 N 26.7 Y 7.2 Y 14.6 N Beatys Butte 35LK55 25-90 PPT - - - - 70.6 N 25.9 Y 7.5 Y 17.5 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-91 PPT - - - - 60.9 N 22.4 N 8.2 Y 12.3 N Double O 35LK55 25-92 PPT - - - - 80.3 N 28.3 N 7.8 N 19.3 N Unknown 35LK55 25-93 PPT - - - - 62.2 N 19.3 N 6.0 N 7.6 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-94 PPT - - - - 77.6 N 23.9 Y 6.2 Y 13.5 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-95 and 25-428 PPT - - - - 123.3 Y 24.1 Y 8.9 Y 25.2 Y Hager Mountain 35LK55 25-96 PPT - - - - 106.9 N 28.6 Y 7.7 N 24.4 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-99 PPT - - - - 99.2 N 25.6 Y 9.7 Y 27.9 N Variety 5 35LK55 25-100 PPT - - - - 78.1 Y 20.1 Y 6.8 Y 9.6 Y Yreka Butte 35LK55 25-101 PPT - - - - 86.4 Y 21.4 Y 8.4 Y 13.7 Y Yreka Butte 35LK55 25-102 PPT - - - - 101.0 N 21.2 Y 7.2 Y 15.1 N Yreka Butte 35LK55 25-106 PPT - - - - 113.3 Y 24.5 Y 8.8 Y 23.0 Y Variety 5 35LK55 25-107 PPT - - - - 136.4 Y 24.3 Y 6.6 Y 21.9 Y Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK55 25-109 PPT - - - - 70.9 N 18.9 N 4.5 Y 6.4 N McKay Butte 35LK55 25-110 PPT - - - - 139.2 N 28.7 Y 6.8 Y 33.4 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-111 PPT - - - - 60.2 Y 18.8 Y 6.4 Y 7.9 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-112 PPT - - - - 74.5 Y 21.4 Y 5.3 Y 9.5 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-113 PPT - - - - 69.8 Y 22.6 Y 6.3 Y 10.5 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-114 PPT - - - - 58.5 N 16.9 Y 6.5 Y 6.4 Y Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK55 25-115 PPT - - - - 64.6 N 20.0 Y 6.4 Y 8.4 N Horse Mountain 35LK55 25-116 PPT - - - - 53.6 Y 20.3 Y 7.5 Y 7.2 Y Spodue Mountain 35LK55 25-117 PPT - - - - 58.5 Y 20.8 Y 8.5 Y 9.6 Y Hager Mountain 35LK55 25-118 PPT - - - - 48.9 N 23.2 Y 6.1 Y 7.5 Y Bald Butte 35LK55 25-120 PPT - - - - 55.7 Y 24.8 Y 7.7 Y 11.6 Y Yreka Butte 35LK55 25-122 PPT - - - - 57.8 N 26.7 Y 8.1 Y 14.1 N Glass Buttes Variety 5 35LK55 25-125 PPT - - - - 49.4 Y 15.5 Y 4.7 Y 3.9 Y Glass Buttes Variety 1 35LK55 25-126 PPT - - - - 47.2 N 17.5 Y 8.9 Y 5.5 N Spodue Mountain 35LK55 25-132 PPT - - - - 51.8 Y 26.7 Y 8.3 Y 10.3 Y Quartz Mountain 35LK55 25-133 PPT - - - - 62.2 Y 19.3 Y 5.7 Y 7.1 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-135 PPT - - - - 50.2 Y 24.5 Y 7.7 Y 8.4 Y McKay Butte 35LK55 25-138 PPT - - - - 62.9 Y 18.3 Y 8.3 Y 9.6 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-139 PPT - - - - 68.1 N 22.6 Y 8.2 Y 12.2 N Quartz Mountain 35LK55 25-140 PPT - - - - 69.4 N 27.1 Y 7.1 Y 14.6 N Spodue Mountain 35LK55 25-141 PPT - - - - 89.2 N 25.4 Y 7.8 Y 18.7 N Cougar Mountain 158

Site Catalog No. Class Cave Unit Lvl. Str. Len. C? Wid. C? Thi. C? Wei. C? Geochemical Source 35LK55 25-142 PPT - - - - 89.9 N 25.8 Y 8.6 Y 24.3 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-143-1 PPT - - - - 86.5 Y 26.6 Y 9.1 Y 18.9 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-143-2 PPT - - - - 63.2 Y 23.8 Y 8.6 Y 12.8 Y Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK55 25-150 PPT - - - - 80.9 Y 26.4 Y 6.8 Y 15.7 Y Spodue Mountain 35LK55 25-151 PPT - - - - 61.2 Y 22.1 Y 6.7 Y 8.2 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-152 PPT - - - - 61.2 Y 23.1 Y 6.3 Y 9.3 Y Spodue Mountain 35LK55 25-154 PPT - - - - 73.0 Y 25.8 Y 6.8 Y 13.7 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-156 PPT - - - - 60.6 N 21.7 Y 6.8 Y 9.8 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK55 25-158 PPT - - - - 67.7 Y 32.4 Y 7.5 Y 14.1 Y Brooks Canyon 35LK55 25-159 PPT - - - - 67.8 N 26.1 Y 8.5 Y 15.2 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-160 PPT - - - - 63.1 N 22.4 Y 9.2 Y 13.5 N Spodue Mountain 35LK55 25-161 PPT - - - - 65.6 Y 25.9 Y 6.4 Y 10.3 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-162 PPT - - - - 54.9 Y 21.9 Y 6.5 Y 8.3 Y Bald Butte 35LK55 25-163 PPT - - - - 56.2 Y 21.9 Y 7.2 Y 8.1 Y Tank Creek 35LK55 25-207 PPT - - - - 45.0 N 18.3 Y 5.3 Y 4.3 N Glass Buttes Variety 4 35LK55 25-323 BIF - - - - 100.6 N 75.4 N 18.1 N 122.6 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-329 BIF - - - - 110.9 N 61.2 N 15.6 N 103.2 N Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-333 BIF - - - - 114.6 Y 41.1 Y 8.7 Y 48.9 Y Hager Mountain 35LK55 25-337 BIF - - - - 107.9 Y 35.9 Y 10.3 Y 43.8 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-338 BIF - - - - 108.3 Y 44.4 Y 10.8 Y 47.0 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-341 BIF - - - - 171.8 N 46.8 Y 11.2 Y 94.0 N Glass Buttes Variety 2 35LK55 25-342 BIF - - - - 158.8 Y 47.1 Y 14.2 Y 107.2 Y Cougar Mountain 35LK55 25-416 PPT - - - - 42.8 N 33.0 Y 9.3 Y 16.0 N Horse Mountain 35LK55 25-418 PPT - - - - 65.8 N 26.2 N 8.3 Y 13.4 N Quartz Mountain 35LK55 25-420 PPT - - - - 35.5 N 23.7 N 8.1 Y 8.8 N Buck Mountain 35LK55 25-422 PPT - - - - 76.0 N 22.9 N 8.4 Y 14.1 N Quartz Mountain 35LK55 25-423 PPT - - - - 82.1 N 29.5 Y 9.7 Y 21.7 N Quartz Mountain 35LK55 25-424 PPT - - - - 45.4 N 18.9 Y 6.8 Y 5.8 N Spodue Mountain 35LK55 25-426 PPT - - - - 45.4 N 23.9 N 8.4 Y 9.9 N Tucker Hill 35LK55 25-432 PPT - - - - 50.9 N 26.2 N 6.6 N 13.1 N Unknown FGV 1 35LK55 25-433 PPT - - - - 36.3 N 23.8 N 6.7 N 6.9 N Quartz Mountain 35LK55 25-435 PPT - - - - 42.5 N 20.7 Y 6.4 Y 6.6 N Tucker Hill 35LK55 25-438 PPT - - - - 38.6 N 15.7 N 6.9 Y 4.7 N Quartz Mountain 35LK55 25-439 PPT - - - - 68.7 N 20.8 Y 7.2 N 13.2 N Glass Buttes Variety 5 35LK55 25-440 PPT - - - - 66.3 N 28.6 N 9.7 Y 23.2 N Glass Buttes Variety 3 35LK50 1195-CC-2-A-42-1 PPT 5 2 42 - 12.4 N 16.6 N 5.2 N 1.0 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1195-CC-2-A-42-2 PPT 5 2 42 - 39.6 N 24.1 Y 6.9 Y 6.5 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1195-CC-2-A-43-3 PPT 5 2 43 - 23.3 N 21.2 Y 4.9 N 2.8 N Hager Mountain 159

Site Catalog No. Class Cave Unit Lvl. Str. Len. C? Wid. C? Thi. C? Wei. C? Geochemical Source 35LK50 1195-CC-2-A-43-1 PPT 5 2 43 - 16.9 N 15.1 N 5.7 N 1.2 N Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-2-C-40-1 PPT 5 2 40 - 15.7 N 18.3 N 5.1 N 1.1 N McKay Butte 35LK50 1195-CC-6-A-15-1 PPT 6 6 15 - 23.3 N 19.4 N 6.5 Y 3.3 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1195-CC-6-B-8-1 PPT 6 6 8 - 15.6 N 19.1 N 5.6 N 1.7 N McComb Butte 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-35-1 PPT 6 6 35 - 40.6 Y 21.8 Y 6.3 Y 5.2 Y Big Obsidian Group 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-40-1 PPT 6 6 40 - 11.6 N 21.3 N 6.2 Y 1.4 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-43-1 PPT 6 6 43 - 25.8 N 20.3 N 6.7 Y 3.3 N Yreka Butte 35LK50 1195-CC-TR6-6 PPT - - - - 16.6 N 16.6 N 5.4 N 1.5 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1265-CC-10-D-22-3 PPT 5 10 22 - 54.1 N 28.0 Y 6.9 Y 11.7 N Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1265-CC-10-D-39-1 PPT 5 10 39 - 13.7 N 15.8 N 7.1 N 1.4 N Klamath Marsh 1 35LK50 1265-CC-11-B-59-1 PPT 5 11 59 - 45.9 N 23.8 N 8.1 N 8.6 N Cowhead Lake 35LK50 1265-CC-6-A-20-2 PPT 6 6 20 - 20.7 N 15.7 N 6.6 N 1.8 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1265-CC-6-A-44-1 PPT 6 6 44 - 32.1 N 23.1 N 6.9 Y 5.7 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1265-CC-6-A-50-1 PPT 6 6 50 - 13.9 N 15.5 N 5.8 N 1.4 N Yreka Butte 35LK50 1265-CC-6-B-33-1 PPT 6 6 33 - 12.1 N 19.1 N 4.7 N 1.0 N Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1265-CC-6-B-48-4 PPT 6 6 48 - 23.9 N 15.6 N 3.7 Y 1.4 N Horse Mountain 35LK50 1265-CC-6-B-50-1 PPT 6 6 50 - 31.9 N 22.9 N 6.3 Y 5.0 N Sugar Hill 35LK50 1265-CC-6-C-41-1 PPT 6 6 41 - 43.3 N 22.5 Y 8.0 Y 7.6 N Quartz Mountain 35LK50 1265-CC-6-D-WC-2 PPT 6 6 Wall Collapse - 13.1 N 18.7 N 5.2 N 1.0 N Quartz Mountain 35LK50 1265-CC-6-WC-5 PPT 6 6 Wall Collapse - 75.4 Y 17.7 Y 6.8 Y 9.1 Y Quartz Mountain 35LK50 1265-CC-9-D-35-3 PPT 5 9 35 - 13.1 N 17.1 N 6.4 N 1.1 N Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1265-CC-9-D-48-1 PPT 5 9 48 - 17.9 N 15.9 N 4.4 Y 1.3 N Spodue Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-35-1978 PPT 5 3 35 - 150.5 Y 27.9 Y 9.4 Y 45.9 Y Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2286-CC-4/1-49-605 PPT 4 1 49 - 29.0 N 20.1 N 7.3 Y 4.7 N Coglan Buttes 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-45-402 PPT 4 3 45 - 34.8 N 22.2 N 7.3 Y 5.4 N Glass Buttes 3 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-42-1422 PPT 4 5 42 - 31.9 N 19.0 N 5.8 Y 3.8 N Spodue Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-44-1791 PPT 4 5 44 - 30.7 N 22.4 N 6.5 Y 4.6 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2286-CC-4/7-33-512 PPT 4 7 33 - 37.6 N 24.5 N 6.9 Y 6.3 N Coglan Buttes 35LK50 2286-CC-4/7-37-1032 PPT 4 7 37 - 55.4 N 27.7 N 8.9 Y 14.9 N Big Stick 35LK50 2286-CC-4/8-31-1241 PPT 4 8 31 - 32.9 N 20.1 N 5.2 Y 3.7 N Glass Buttes 3 35LK50 2286-CC-4/8-35-878 PPT 4 8 35 - 22.6 N 15.0 N 6.5 Y 2.2 N Horse Mountain 35LK50 2380-CC-4/11-16-9 PPT 4 11 16 - 32.4 N 26.1 N 7.3 Y 7.4 N Spodue Mountain 35LK50 2380-CC-4/12-10-1 PPT 4 12 10 - 17.2 N 16.4 N 5.2 Y 1.3 N Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2380-CC-4/12-16-25 PPT 4 12 16 - 14.9 N 14.1 N 5.3 N 0.9 N Quartz Mountain 35LK50 3-fill-2e PPT 3 - Backfill - 43.0 N 18.0 N 7.0 Y NA NA MLGV 35LK50 3XT-2/1-8e PPT 3 Ext. 2 1 39.0 N 20.0 N 6.0 Y NA NA Yreka Butte 35LK50 4A-14/1-12e PPT 4 A 14 1 35.0 N 25.0 N 8.0 Y NA NA Cougar Mountain 35LK50 4A-31/4-1e PPT 4 A 31 4 65.0 Y 27.0 Y 10.0 Y NA NA Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 160

Site Catalog No. Class Cave Unit Lvl. Str. Len. C? Wid. C? Thi. C? Wei. C? Geochemical Source 35LK50 4A-31/4-6e PPT 4 A 31 4 20.0 N 17.0 N 7.0 Y NA NA Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 4A-32/4-12e PPT 4 A 32 4 85.0 N 32.0 Y 10.0 Y NA NA Cowhead Lake 35LK50 4A-32/4-15e PPT 4 A 32 4 69.0 N 30.0 Y 10.0 Y NA NA Cougar Mountain? 35LK50 4A-33/4-12e PPT 4 A 33 4 68.0 Y 23.0 Y 7.0 Y NA NA Cowhead Lake 35LK50 4A-34/4-8e PPT 4 A 34 4 24.0 N 22.0 N 7.0 Y NA NA Buck Mountain 35LK50 4B-27/3-2e PPT 4 B 27 4 35.0 N 22.0 N 6.0 Y NA NA Yreka Butte 35LK50 4B-30/4-6e PPT 4 B 30 4 88.0 Y 32.0 Y 7.0 Y NA NA Cougar Mountain 35LK50 4B-31/4-1e PPT 4 B 31 4 41.0 N 19.0 Y 9.0 Y NA NA Big Stick 35LK50 4B-31/4-3e PPT 4 B 31 4 27.0 N 15.0 N 6.0 Y NA NA Buck Mountain 35LK50 4B-31/4-6e PPT 4 B 31 4 26.0 N 22.0 N 8.0 Y NA NA Glass Buttes 2 35LK50 4B-32/4-16e PPT 4 B 32 4 116.0 Y 27.0 Y 8.0 Y NA NA Horse Mountain 35LK50 4B-32/4-21e PPT 4 B 32 4 53.0 N 23.0 Y 10.0 Y NA NA Sugar Hill 35LK50 4B-32/4-8e PPT 4 B 32 4 51.0 N 26.0 N 8.0 Y NA NA Glass Buttes 2 35LK50 4B-33/4-30e PPT 4 B 33 4 40.0 N 24.0 N 7.0 Y NA NA Yreka Butte 35LK50 4B-33/4-32e PPT 4 B 33 4 42.0 N 22.0 N 8.0 Y NA NA Spodue Mountain 35LK50 4B-35/4-17e PPT 4 B 35 4 47.0 N 22.0 N 8.0 Y NA NA Cougar Mountain 35LK50 4B-38/4-6e PPT 4 B 38 4 34.0 N 19.0 N 6.0 Y NA NA Glass Buttes 3 35LK50 5B-27/3-2e PPT 5 B 27 3 46.0 N 36.0 N 9.0 Y NA NA Quartz Mountain 35LK50 5B-28/3-10e PPT 5 B 28 3 17.0 N 21.0 N 7.0 N NA NA Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 5B-29/3-1e PPT 5 B 29 3 29.0 N 25.0 N 5.0 Y NA NA Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 5B-30/3-1e PPT 5 B 30 3 52.0 Y 14.0 Y 6.0 Y NA NA Tucker Hill 35LK50 5B-30/3-2e PPT 5 B 30 3 67.0 N 24.0 N 6.0 N NA NA Glass Buttes 2 35LK50 5B-31/3-8e PPT 5 B 31 3 21.0 N 17.0 N 7.0 Y NA NA Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 5B-31/3-15e PPT 5 B 31 3 116.0 Y 32.0 Y 9.0 Y NA NA Big Stick 35LK50 5B-31/3-20e PPT 5 B 31 3 15.0 N 11.0 N 4.0 Y NA NA Spodue Mountain 35LK50 5B-31/3-9e PPT 5 B 31 3 42.0 N 24.0 N 7.0 Y NA NA Quartz Mountain 35LK50 5B-32/3-11e PPT 5 B 32 3 24.0 N 23.0 N 6.0 Y NA NA Quartz Mountain 35LK50 5B-32/3-12e PPT 5 B 32 3 30.0 N 20.0 N 8.0 Y NA NA Horse Mountain 35LK50 5B-33/3-9e PPT 5 B 33 3 18.0 N 21.0 N 5.0 Y NA NA Bald Butte 35LK50 6-22/4-4e PPT 6 - 22 4 41.0 N 24.0 Y 8.0 N NA NA Glass Buttes 2 35LK50 6-22/4-19e PPT 6 - 22 4 31.0 N 16.0 N 6.0 Y NA NA Glass Buttes 3 35LK50 6-22/4-7e PPT 6 - 22 4 73.0 Y 20.0 Y 8.0 Y NA NA Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh Class=Artifact Class; PPT=Projectile Point Tip; BIF=Bifacial Tool; SCR=Scraper; UNI=Unifacial Tool; CRE=Crescent; Len.=Length; Wid.=Width; Thi.=Thickness; Wei.=Weight; C?=Complete?, NA=Not Available. Length, width, and thickness measurements are in centimeters, weight measurements are in grams. Note. Glass Buttes Varieties 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are specific to UNR‟s geologic comparative collection and do not match those identified by the NWROSL. Note. I excluded all “unknown” specimens from the curation analyses but they are pictured in Appendix 5. 161

a I initially assigned these specimens as unknown because their PPM data did not match any in our comparative collection or I skipped over them as I was generating geochemical data. There specimens were characterized by the NWROSL. b I characterized these specimens with UNR‟s pXRF and sent to them to the NWROSL to verify my assignments to certain source types for which we have small (<10) geologic samples. These specimens matched the source assignment I initially identified them as. c I characterized these specimens with UNR‟s pXRF and sent to them to the NWROSL to verify my assignments to certain source types for which we have small (<10) geologic samples. I initially assigned these specimens as Wagontire obsidian but the NWROSL characterized it as Big Obsidian Group. We do not have all the geochemical Big Obsidian Group variants, so I reassigned these specimens to the NWROSL‟s identification. There is one artifact in the Cougar Mountain Cave assemblage (25-37) that I assigned to the Wagontire obsidian type. I found this specimen to better match our small Wagontire sample than the PPM data (generated with UNR‟s pXRF) from the archaeological Big Obsidian Group specimens. d I skipped over this artifact while scanning and sent it to the NWROSL for characterization, who identified it as Glass Buttes 7. While compiling data I did not switch its source assignment from “unknown” to “Glass Buttes 7” and it was not included it in my analysis. e These data were adapted from Thatcher (2001), who took length, width, and thickness measurements in centimeters. Thatcher (2001) did not record weight.

162

APPENDIX 3 – TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS GENERATED WITH

UNR’S PXRF FOR THE PROJECTILE POINT, BIFACE, AND UNIFACE

SAMPLES

163

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK1 1-9??? PPT 59 207 129 15 38 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9046 PPT 9 346 113 21 52 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9106 PPT 74 398 85 25 71 Yreka Butte ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9108 PPT 104 133 85 8 24 Glass Buttes Variety 7 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9109 PPT 42 360 105 25 53 Big Obsidian Group ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9116 PPT 61 182 129 8 41 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9157 PPT 34 124 91 14 53 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9165 PPT 28 63 131 16 33 Round Top Butte ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9169 PPT 63 188 133 11 43 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9178 PPT 8 354 115 23 52 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9188 PPT 57 259 102 30 39 Bald Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9190 PPT 43 118 103 22 22 Spodue Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9198 PPT 22 87 84 14 52 Glass Buttes Variety 1 ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9199 PPT 4 349 116 20 52 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9201 PPT 3 354 117 23 53 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9202 PPT 5 347 119 22 52 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9264 PPT 58 182 129 10 40 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1

164

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK1 1-9272 PPT 60 186 132 11 42 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9283 PPT 50 123 102 15 30 Hager Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9284 PPT 56 261 102 31 38 Bald Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9288 PPT 44 119 104 24 22 Spodue Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9295 PPT 67 99 97 11 25 Glass Buttes Variety 5 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9296 PPT 74 102 96 11 25 Glass Buttes Variety 5 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9297a PPT NA NA NA NA NA Hager Mountain ± NA NA NA NA NA 35LK1 1-9304 PPT 14 133 224 37 42 Hawks Valley ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9305 PPT 8 349 115 23 53 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9311 PPT 34 126 93 14 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9312 PPT 34 129 96 14 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9314 PPT 7 351 115 23 53 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9316 PPT 53 122 105 15 30 Hager Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9318 PPT 35 125 92 16 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9340 PPT 37 128 96 17 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9342 PPT 42 112 101 19 21 Spodue Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9343 PPT 72 101 100 10 25 Glass Buttes Variety 5 ± 1 1 1 1 1

165

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK1 1-9350 PPT 44 116 103 22 23 Spodue Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9359 PPT 43 117 105 21 22 Spodue Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9367 PPT 3 351 118 24 53 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9371 PPT 59 185 131 13 43 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9372 PPT 2 354 119 25 54 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9373 PPT 35 125 92 16 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9375 PPT 3 359 119 25 55 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9383a PPT NA NA NA NA NA Quartz Mountain ± NA NA NA NA NA 35LK1 1-9385 PPT 3 349 114 24 53 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9387b PPT 106 90 77 12 15 Obsidian Cliffs ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9397-1 PPT 3 350 117 22 53 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9397-2 PPT 3 350 118 23 51 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9410b PPT 177 251 72 11 26 Unknown FGV ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9412 PPT 60 185 132 12 42 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9413 PPT 3 354 120 25 54 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9450 PPT 34 125 91 15 53 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9465 PPT 43 121 101 22 23 Spodue Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1

166

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK1 1-9466a PPT NA NA NA NA NA Buck Mountain ± NA NA NA NA NA 35LK1 1-9469 PPT 68 179 126 11 42 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9474d PPT 45 365 108 23 52 Big Obsidian Group ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9478 PPT 58 195 126 12 37 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9481 PPT 8 353 112 21 54 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9491 PPT 58 206 132 16 39 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9493c PPT 50 149 105 13 30 Hager Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9496 PPT 59 205 130 15 39 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9499 PPT 49 133 104 12 30 Hager Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9505 PPT 3 355 117 25 55 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9531c PPT 59 183 128 11 42 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9562 PPT 35 126 93 16 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9566 PPT 61 186 131 15 44 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9567 PPT 35 127 95 16 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9589 PPT 36 125 93 12 54 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9594 PPT 4 71 119 23 30 Cowhead Lake ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9604 PPT 36 126 95 15 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1

167

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK1 1-9606 PPT 42 114 103 20 23 Spodue Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9607 PPT 35 126 91 16 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9609 PPT 75 427 66 23 60 Yreka Butte ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9617b PPT 56 85 114 16 17 Tucker Hill ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9622 PPT 62 185 131 11 42 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9623 PPT 3 354 119 25 53 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9624 PPT 23 86 80 12 50 Glass Buttes Variety 1 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-9862 PPT 34 123 93 13 55 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 1-46598 PPT 62 189 135 12 43 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 FRC-66/50 PPT 60 182 130 8 41 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 FRC-66/119 PPT 22 84 83 14 52 Glass Buttes Variety 1 ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 FRC-66/123 PPT 9 79 130 19 27 Cowhead Lake ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 FRC-66/164 PPT 3 355 119 25 52 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK1 FRC-66/186 PPT 60 185 131 9 43 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 FRC-66/189 PPT 74 401 86 27 70 Yreka Butte ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK1 FRC-66/191 PPT 35 127 93 16 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 FRC-66/202 PPT 35 122 88 13 54 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1

168

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK1 FRC-66/249 PPT 8 77 129 17 26 Cowhead Lake ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 FRC-66/252 PPT 0 603 209 39 88 Massacre Lake/Guano Valley ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK1 1x/4y Surf.-6 PPT 34 122 88 14 54 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 8-10/1-1 PPT 7 352 116 21 54 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 8-13/1-1 PPT 35 125 93 16 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 9-5/1-3 PPT 36 129 96 14 57 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 10-4/2-2 PPT 42 117 104 19 21 Spodue Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 10-8/2-16b CRE 179 315 51 13 43 Unknown FGV 1 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 10-8/2-18 PPT 35 127 94 15 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 10-9/2-24 PPT 23 83 82 12 49 Glass Buttes Variety 1 ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 10-9/2-38 PPT 34 128 94 14 55 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 10-9/2-39 PPT 35 126 94 14 57 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 10-9/2-41b PPT 50 278 103 20 44 Bald Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 10-9/2-7 PPT 56 198 127 10 36 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 10-10/3-18 UNI 49 122 104 14 31 Hager Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 10-10/3-19 UNI 58 203 129 15 37 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 10-10/3-28 UNI 56 197 125 14 36 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1

169

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK1 10-11/3-4 UNI 34 125 92 12 54 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 10-11/3-6 UNI 35 129 97 17 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 11-7/3-2 PPT 61 187 133 12 42 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 11-8/2-1a,e PPT NA NA NA NA NA Glass Buttes Variety 7 ± NA NA NA NA NA 35LK1 11-8/2-2c PPT 47 288 150 19 34 Double O ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 11-9/2-3 PPT 43 114 102 20 23 Spodue Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 11-9/2-9 PPT 60 181 128 8 40 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 11-10/2-1b PPT 77 251 115 13 38 West McKay 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 11-10/2-3 PPT 3 71 117 20 30 Cowhead Lake ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 11-10/2-5b PPT 193 372 63 22 42 Unknown FGV 1 ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK1 11-10/2-13 PPT 69 96 96 7 24 Glass Buttes Variety 5 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 11-10/3-1 PPT 57 194 130 13 36 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 11-10/3-2 PPT 8 351 113 19 52 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 11-10/3-4 PPT 2 352 118 20 53 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 11-10/3-10 SCR 34 125 93 16 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 11-11/3-4 PPT 51 115 70 13 44 Glass Buttes Variety 2 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 11-11/3-7 SCR 34 126 94 17 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1

170

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK1 11-11/3-10 SCR 0 653 128 49 105 Horse Mountain ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK1 11-12/3-11 SCR 36 130 95 21 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 11-12/3-12 SCR 34 126 92 23 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 669-4-1 PPT 177 249 70 11 26 Unknown FGV ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 669-4-2 PPT 35 128 96 15 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 707-4-1 PPT 35 126 93 15 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 707-10-1 PPT 36 129 93 14 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 707-10-2d PPT 43 365 108 23 53 Big Obsidian Group ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK1 707-29-1 PPT 69 99 99 12 25 Glass Buttes Variety 5 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 707-29-2b PPT 182 325 54 17 43 Unknown FGV 1 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 2302-SF-1 PPT 8 347 114 22 54 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 2302-A-1-4 PPT 57 203 127 13 38 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 2302-A-13-1 PPT 23 86 83 16 52 Glass Buttes Variety 1 ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 2302-1-7-4 PPT 36 123 92 14 54 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 2302-3-6-3 PPT 35 125 95 15 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 2302-10-3-3 PPT 34 124 98 15 54 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 2363-19-11-1 PPT 60 176 124 9 39 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1

171

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK1 2363-19C-5-1 PPT 57 202 129 10 36 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 2363-19C-6-1 PPT 75 401 85 23 71 Yreka Butte ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK1 2363-19C-13-3 PPT 8 346 113 20 50 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-1 PPT 29 65 129 19 34 Round Top Butte ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-2 PPT 34 125 93 15 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-3 PPT 34 129 94 19 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-5 PPT 8 354 116 27 54 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-6 PPT 51 127 107 14 30 Hager Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-7 PPT 58 205 132 14 38 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-8 PPT 51 130 109 15 31 Hager Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-9 PPT 35 127 93 14 57 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-10 PPT 0 651 126 51 106 Horse Mountain ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-11 PPT 0 682 130 54 111 Horse Mountain ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-12 PPT 74 405 85 27 71 Yreka Butte ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-26 PPT 2 356 118 24 54 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-27 PPT 50 280 105 20 44 Bald Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-33 PPT 8 349 114 25 52 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 2 1 1 1

172

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK55 25-34 PPT 74 405 87 28 71 Yreka Butte ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-35 PPT 9 353 118 23 53 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-36 PPT 0 669 127 51 108 Horse Mountain ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-37 PPT 38 341 101 29 56 Wagontire ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-40 PPT 58 201 128 11 37 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-41 PPT 75 407 87 25 73 Yreka Butte ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-42 PPT 34 126 94 14 56 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-44 PPT 34 124 92 16 55 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-45 PPT 35 130 96 15 57 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-46 PPT 34 128 95 18 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-50 PPT 62 91 96 16 24 Glass Buttes Variety 5 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-51 PPT 0 671 128 52 110 Horse Mountain ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-52 PPT 175 164 126 14 12 Beatys Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-53 PPT 46 66 102 16 23 Tucker Hill ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-54 PPT 62 188 134 13 42 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-55 PPT 68 99 99 12 26 Glass Buttes Variety 5 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-56 PPT 190 313 80 16 38 Unknown ± 1 1 1 1 1

173

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK55 25-57 PPT 38 135 101 20 61 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-58 PPT 36 130 94 19 58 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-59 PPT 83 415 91 29 74 Yreka Butte ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-60 PPT 36 131 98 16 58 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-61 PPT 51 138 107 17 31 Hager Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-65 PPT 35 127 92 16 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-66 PPT 42 395 89 26 65 Brooks Canyon ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-67 PPT 61 182 130 12 41 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-68 PPT 72 392 85 24 67 Yreka Butte ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-70 PPT 35 128 93 18 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-73 PPT 57 203 128 15 38 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-72 PPT 35 128 94 16 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-74 PPT 61 208 133 17 40 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-75 PPT 36 129 95 17 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-76 PPT 75 395 83 25 70 Yreka Butte ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-77 PPT 35 127 92 17 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-79 PPT 33 65 132 14 32 Round Top Butte ± 0 1 1 1 1

174

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK55 25-80 PPT 27 241 181 69 60 Unknown ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-82 and 25-429 PPT 52 293 157 27 38 Double O ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-83 PPT 57 204 131 16 40 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-84 PPT 45 111 73 18 48 Glass Buttes Variety 2 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-86 or 25-81 PPT 9 370 122 31 54 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-88 PPT 0 665 128 50 107 Horse Mountain ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-89 PPT 166 161 124 16 12 Beatys Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-90 PPT 35 127 94 17 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-91 PPT 48 295 157 23 35 Double O ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-92 PPT 39 278 124 18 46 Unknown ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-93 PPT 34 130 93 18 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-94 PPT 34 129 93 18 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-95 and 25-428 PPT 51 154 103 17 32 Hager Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-96 PPT 37 129 95 19 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-99 PPT 33 181 108 15 36 Variety 5 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-100 PPT 84 408 87 28 73 Yreka Butte ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-101 PPT 76 406 86 26 71 Yreka Butte ± 1 2 1 1 1

175

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK55 25-102 PPT 76 403 86 26 71 Yreka Butte ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-106 PPT 33 181 109 16 37 Variety 5 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-107 PPT 8 357 119 26 53 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-109 PPT 58 205 130 17 38 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-110 PPT 35 126 91 16 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-111 PPT 36 128 94 16 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-112 PPT 36 129 95 19 58 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-113 PPT 35 127 92 17 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-114 PPT 2 357 120 24 54 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-115 PPT 0 650 123 49 106 Horse Mountain ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-116 PPT 45 113 102 19 21 Spodue Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-117 PPT 48 125 104 14 31 Hager Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-118 PPT 50 274 101 18 43 Bald Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-120 PPT 75 396 84 24 69 Yreka Butte ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-122 PPT 69 101 99 12 26 Glass Buttes Variety 5 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-125 PPT 23 89 86 17 53 Glass Buttes Variety 1 ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-126 PPT 41 114 101 22 21 Spodue Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1

176

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK55 25-132 PPT 60 183 130 11 41 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-133 PPT 36 123 92 18 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-135 PPT 59 206 131 12 38 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-138 PPT 35 127 92 17 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-139 PPT 59 182 128 10 42 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-140 PPT 43 122 102 21 21 Spodue Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-141 PPT 36 128 95 16 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-142 PPT 34 128 93 18 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-143-1 PPT 35 127 93 16 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-143-2 PPT 3 362 123 23 55 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-150 PPT 43 116 106 24 23 Spodue Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-151 PPT 35 125 91 16 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-152 PPT 43 116 103 20 21 Spodue Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-154 PPT 36 128 95 18 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-156 PPT 3 348 117 24 52 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-158 PPT 43 402 90 25 67 Brooks Canyon ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-159 PPT 36 131 96 21 58 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1

177

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK55 25-160 PPT 43 121 102 23 22 Spodue Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-161 PPT 31 126 89 15 54 Cougar Mountain ± 2 3 3 3 2 35LK55 25-162 PPT 49 276 102 17 43 Bald Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-163 PPT 42 156 108 22 43 Tank Creek ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-207 PPT 5 85 115 18 68 Glass Buttes Variety 4 ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-323 BIF 36 128 95 17 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-329 BIF 36 130 96 19 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-333 BIF 49 138 106 19 33 Hager Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-337 BIF 36 129 94 19 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-338 BIF 36 129 96 14 56 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-341 BIF 45 108 70 18 49 Glass Buttes Variety 2 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-342 BIF 34 127 93 18 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-416 PPT 0 658 126 51 107 Horse Mountain ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-418 PPT 60 187 133 15 43 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-420 PPT 67 93 108 18 17 Buck Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-422 PPT 60 188 132 11 43 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-423 PPT 60 186 132 12 42 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1

178

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK55 25-424 PPT 44 114 101 22 22 Spodue Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-426 PPT 48 65 102 16 23 Tucker Hill ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-432 PPT 186 367 60 23 42 Unknown FGV 1 ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK55 25-433 PPT 59 184 131 13 40 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-435 PPT 13 70 113 17 23 Tucker Hill ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-438 PPT 59 181 126 12 41 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-439 PPT 68 101 97 10 26 Glass Buttes Variety 5 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK55 25-440 PPT 54 89 105 11 28 Glass Buttes Variety 3 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK50 1195-CC-2-A-42-2 PPT 3 353 118 21 55 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK50 1195-CC-6-A-15-1 PPT 4 344 114 22 52 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-40-1 PPT 9 341 113 23 51 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-43-1 PPT 73 397 83 23 70 Yreka Butte ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK50 1195-CC-TR6-6 PPT 2 349 120 20 51 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK50 1265-CC-6-A-20-2 PPT 6 341 114 21 52 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK50 1265-CC-6-D-WC-2 PPT 59 184 128 8 41 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK50 1265-CC-9-D-35-3 PPT 34 125 94 10 55 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 NA RGM-2 NA 112 231 155 20 27 RGM-2 Reference Standard ± 1 1 1 1 1

179

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Artifact Class Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source NA BCR-2 NA 352 195 48 23 41 BCR-2 Reference Standard ± 2 2 1 1 1 NA AGV-2 NA 678 242 69 26 22 AVG-2 Reference Standard ± 3 2 1 1 1 a I accidently skipped over these select artifacts while I was generating geochemical data and were sent to the NWROSL for characterization (see Appendix 2, note a). b I was initially unable to match these artifacts to a known geochemical type using our geologic comparative collection and sent these artifacts to the NWROSL who provided the characterizations (see Appendix 3, note b). c I analyzed these artifacts and characterized them in house prior to sending them to the NWROSL for characterization. These artifacts were matched with geochemical types for which UNR currently has a small geologic sample for. I The NWROSL confirmed my characterizations (see Appendix 2, note b). d I analyzed these specimens with UNR‟s pXRF and sent to them to the NWROSL to verify my assignments to certain source types for which we have small (<10) geologic samples. I initially assigned these specimens as Wagontire obsidian but the NWROSL characterized it as Big Obsidian Group. We do not have all the geochemical Big Obsidian Group variants, so I reassigned these specimens to the NWROSL‟s identification. All other artifacts from Fort Rock Cave assigned to Big Obsidian Group had similar trace element combinations (generated with UNR‟s pXRF) as these specimens (see Appendix 2, note b). E I skipped over this artifact while scanning and sent it to the NWROSL for characterization, who identified it as Glass Buttes 7. While compiling data I did not switch its source assignment from “unknown” to “Glass Buttes 7” and it was not included it in my analysis (see Appendix 2, note d).

180

APPENDIX 4 – TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR FORT ROCK

CAVE ARTIFACTS GENERATED BY THE NRWOSL

181

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Ratios Site Catalog No. Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Ti Mn Ba Fe2O3T Fe:Mn Fe:Ti Geochemical Source 35LK1 11-10/2-1 113 78 43 248 13 NM NM 888 NM NM NM West McKay ± 3 3 2 4 2 NM NM 37 NM NM NM 35LK1 11-10/2-5 47 188 45 310 16 NM NM 662 NM NM NM Unknown FGV 1 ± 3 4 2 4 2 NM NM 33 NM NM NM 35LK1 10-9/2-41 97 48 42 252 15 NM NM 1077 NM NM NM Bald Butte (Carlon) ± 3 2 2 4 2 NM NM 37 NM NM NM 35LK1 10-8/2-16 47 196 46 316 16 NM NM 959 NM NM NM Unknown FGV 1 ± 3 4 2 4 2 NM NM 36 NM NM NM 35LK1 11-8/2-1 86 95 27 124 9 NM NM 1175 NM NM NM Glass Buttes 7 ± 3 3 2 3 2 NM NM 35 NM NM NM 35LK1 1-9110 99 33 34 164 10 NM NM 936 NM NM NM Variety 5 ± 3 2 2 3 2 NM NM 34 NM NM NM 35LK1 1-9387 67 99 14 85 6 NM NM 803 NM NM NM Obsidian Cliffs ± 3 3 2 3 2 NM NM 32 NM NM NM 35LK1 1-9617 112 60 20 82 7 NM NM 351 NM NM NM Tucker Hill ± 3 2 2 3 2 NM NM 33 NM NM NM 35LK1 1-9410 63 181 29 241 9 NM NM 849 NM NM NM Unknown FGV ± 3 3 2 4 2 NM NM 29 NM NM NM 35LK1 707-29-2 46 191 44 313 16 NM NM 905 NM NM NM Unknown FGV 1 ± 3 4 2 4 2 NM NM 35 NM NM NM NA RGM-1 144 109 28 218 11 NM NM 801 NM NM NM RGM-1 Reference Standard ± 3 3 2 3 2 NM NM 28 NM NM NM 35LK1 11-8/2-2 149 55 39 280 15 NM NM 771 NM NM NM Double O FGV ± 3 2 2 3 2 NM NM 34 NM NM NM 35LK1 1-9531 126 62 42 173 9 NM NM 867 NM NM NM Quartz Mountain ± 3 2 2 3 2 NM NM 27 NM NM NM 35LK1 1-9466 101 67 15 91 9 NM NM 686 NM NM NM Buck Mountain ± 3 2 2 2 2 NM NM 29 NM NM NM 35LK1 1-9493 104 54 33 124 9 NM NM 836 NM NM NM Hager Mountain ± 3 2 2 2 2 NM NM 27 NM NM NM 35LK1 1-9383 144 70 42 186 8 NM NM 924 NM NM NM Quartz Mountain ± 3 2 2 3 2 NM NM 30 NM NM NM 35LK1 1-9297 105 48 28 151 6 NM NM 980 NM NM NM Hager Mountain ± 4 3 3 3 3 NM NM 35 NM NM NM 35LK1 1-9474 110 52 56 401 18 NM NM 909 NM NM NM Big Obsidian Flow 182

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Ratios Site Catalog No. Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Ti Mn Ba Fe2O3T Fe:Mn Fe:Ti Geochemical Source ± 3 2 2 4 2 NM NM 27 NM NM NM 35LK1 707-10-02 106 48 48 374 20 NM NM 887 NM NM NM Big Obsidian Flow ± 3 2 2 4 2 NM NM 28 NM NM NM NA RGM-1 150 110 25 227 11 NM NM 858 NM NM NM RGM-1 Reference Standard ± 3 3 2 3 2 NM NM 25 NM NM NM Note. Data adapted from Nyers (2017, 2018). a artifact not included in this study.

183

APPENDIX 5 – ARTIFACT PHOTOGRAPHS

Fort Rock Cave Projectile Point Sample

184 185 186 187 188

189

190

Fort Rock Cave Debitage Samples

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

Cougar Mountain Cave Projectile Point Sample

205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212

213

The Connley Caves Projectile Point Sample

214 215

216

APPENDIX 6 – FORT ROCK CAVE PRE-MAZAMA DEBITAGE SAMPLE

MASS ANALYSIS RESULTS

217

<2 cm2 2-4 cm2 >4 cm2 TOTAL TOTAL Site Unit Lvl. Str. Material Type Count Weight (g) Count Weight (g) Count Weight (g) COUNT WEIGHT 35LK1 4 8 1 Obsidian (no cortex) 467 215.9 188 392.1 8 73.5 663 681.5 Obsidian (with cortex) 10 13.3 16 44.9 7 80 33 138.2 Basalt/FGV 11 6 12 31.7 0 0 23 37.7 CCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 488 235.2 216 468.7 15 153.5 719 857.4

35LK1 4 9 1&2 Obsidian (no cortex) 179 95.3 115 247.5 1 7.2 295 350 Obsidian (with cortex) 1 0.5 7 26.1 2 20.4 10 47 Basalt/FGV 6 8.2 7 23.4 1 83.9 14 115.5 CCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 186 104 129 297 4 111.5 319 512.5

35LK1 5 6 2 Obsidian (no cortex) 520 288.2 380 785.8 21 209.9 921 1283.9 Obsidian (with cortex) 5 5 7 21.3 0 0 12 26.3 Basalt/FGV 12 15 18 78.8 0 0 30 93.8 CCS 1 1 1 1.1 0 0 2 2.1 TOTAL 538 309.2 406 887 21 209.9 965 1406.1

35LK1 5 7 1&2 Obsidian (no cortex) 216 118.6 230 540.6 13 116.4 459 775.6 Obsidian (with cortex) 2 0.6 9 53.6 4 50.9 15 105.1 Basalt/FGV 2 0.8 13 37.8 3 43.9 18 82.5 CCS 1 1 1 2.2 0 0 2 3.2 TOTAL 221 121 253 634.2 20 211.2 494 966.4

35LK1 8 10 1 Obsidian (no cortex) 57 17.9 13 30.9 0 0 70 48.8 Obsidian (with cortex) 0 0 2 8.1 2 32.3 4 40.4 Basalt/FGV 0 0 2 6.7 0 0 2 6.7 CCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 57 17.9 17 45.7 2 32.3 76 95.9

35LK1 8 11 1 Obsidian (no cortex) 52 19.3 21 33.2 1 12.2 74 64.7 Obsidian (with cortex) 1 0.4 3 6.2 1 13.5 5 20.1 Basalt/FGV 1 0.8 1 1.4 0 0 2 2.2 CCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 54 20.5 25 40.8 2 25.7 81 87 218

<2 cm2 2-4 cm2 >4 cm2 TOTAL TOTAL Site Unit Lvl. Str. Material Type Count Weight (g) Count Weight (g) Count Weight (g) COUNT WEIGHT

35LK1 8 12 1&2 Obsidian (no cortex) 59 26.6 13 25.1 1 6.9 73 58.6 Obsidian (with cortex) 0 0 3 5.3 2 26.7 5 32 Basalt/FGV 0 0 2 4.2 0 0 2 4.2 CCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 59 26.6 18 34.6 3 33.6 80 94.8

35LK1 8 13 1 Obsidian (no cortex) 9 5.4 14 18.1 2 16.2 25 39.7 Obsidian (with cortex) 1 0.6 2 3.8 0 0 3 4.4 Basalt/FGV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 10 6 16 21.9 2 16.2 28 44.1

35LK1 8 14 1 Obsidian (no cortex) 5 2 0 0 2 1.1 7 3.1 Obsidian (with cortex) 0 0 1 2.7 0 0 1 2.7 Basalt/FGV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 5 2 1 2.7 2 1.1 8 5.8

35LK1 8 14 2 Obsidian (no cortex) 7 3.3 1 1.7 0 0 8 5 Obsidian (with cortex) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Basalt/FGV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 7 3.3 1 1.7 0 0 8 5

35LK1 9 6 1 Obsidian (no cortex) 109 33.9 19 37.3 0 0 128 71.2 Obsidian (with cortex) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Basalt/FGV 5 3.4 3 16.1 2 44.7 10 64.2 CCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 114 37.3 22 53.4 2 44.7 138 135.4

35LK1 9 7 1 Obsidian (no cortex) 27 6.9 4 9.2 0 0 31 16.1 Obsidian (with cortex) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Basalt/FGV 5 6.8 1 9.5 0 0 6 16.3 CCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 219

<2 cm2 2-4 cm2 >4 cm2 TOTAL TOTAL Site Unit Lvl. Str. Material Type Count Weight (g) Count Weight (g) Count Weight (g) COUNT WEIGHT TOTAL 32 13.7 5 18.7 0 0 37 32.4

35LK1 9 8 1 Obsidian (no cortex) 141 31.5 26 32.1 1 5 168 68.6 Obsidian (with cortex) 0 0 1 3.5 0 0 1 3.5 Basalt/FGV 2 0.6 3 7.8 0 0 5 8.4 CCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 143 32.1 30 43.4 1 5 174 80.5

35LK1 9 8 2 Obsidian (no cortex) 41 8.2 7 12.7 1 6.7 49 27.6 Obsidian (with cortex) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Basalt/FGV 0 0 0 0 1 23 1 23 CCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 41 8.2 7 12.7 2 29.7 50 50.6

220

APPENDIX 7 – FORT ROCK CAVE DEBITAGE SAMPLE METRIC DATA AND

SOURCE ASSIGNMENTS

221

Site Catalog No. Cave Unit Lvl. Str. Size C? Len. Wid. Thi. Wei. Cortex % Plat. Type TT TCT Geochemical Source 35LK1 673-1-1 - 4 8 1 >4cm2 N 43.5 39.5 8.5 11.2 0-25 Flat DEC SEC Quartz Mountain 35LK1 673-1-2 - 4 8 1 >4cm2 N 37.3 68.9 15.1 23.3 25-50 NA DEC SEC Quartz Mountain 35LK1 673-1-3 - 4 8 1 >4cm2 N 41.6 31.8 13.2 18.1 50-75 Flat DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-1-4 - 4 8 1 2-4cm2 N 40.5 29.8 6.9 7.4 0 Complex FRAG TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 673-1-5 - 4 8 1 2-4cm2 N 36.9 32.1 6.8 7.2 0 Flat FRAG TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 673-1-6 - 4 8 1 2-4cm2 N 17.1 50.6 16.6 17 0 NA FRAG TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 673-1-7 - 4 8 1 2-4cm2 N 28.5 32.6 3.6 3.3 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-1-8 - 4 8 1 2-4cm2 N 19.4 29.7 6.3 4.3 0 NA FRAG TER McKay Butte 35LK1 673-1-9 - 4 8 1 2-4cm2 N 26.2 34.4 13.7 7.4 0 NA FRAG TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 673-1-10 - 4 8 1 2-4cm2 N 25.8 40.3 10 10.4 0 NA FRAG TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 673-2-1 - 4 9 1&2 >4cm2 N 27.9 50.8 10 11.1 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-2-2 - 4 9 1&2 >4cm2 N 46.6 22.1 8.7 7.2 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-2-3 - 4 9 1&2 2-4cm2 N 36.9 39.3 8.3 10.6 0 Complex FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-2-4 - 4 9 1&2 2-4cm2 N 24.7 37.1 12.2 10.7 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-2-5 - 4 9 1&2 2-4cm2 N 32.5 17.2 2.3 1.4 0 Complex BTF/RET TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-2-6 - 4 9 1&2 2-4cm2 N 37.7 17.1 6.3 4.3 0 Complex FRAG TER Big Stick 35LK1 673-2-7 - 4 9 1&2 2-4cm2 N 30.8 37.5 5.1 4.2 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-2-8 - 4 9 1&2 2-4cm2 N 28.3 37.7 6.8 6.4 0 Complex BTF TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-2-9 - 4 9 1&2 <2cm2 N 15.5 18.1 2.9 0.9 0 Complex BTF/RET TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-2-10 - 4 9 1&2 <2cm2 N 16.6 21.5 2.5 0.8 0 Flat RET TER Tank Creek 35LK1 673-3-1 - 5 6 2 >4cm2 Y 23.4 42.3 9.2 7.5 0 Flat INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-3-2 - 5 6 2 >4cm2 N 36.3 32.2 5.9 7.6 0 Flat INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-3-3 - 5 6 2 >4cm2 N 33 43.6 5.5 5.9 0 NA FRAG TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 673-3-4 - 5 6 2 >4cm2 N 43.3 33.6 6.7 7.8 0 NA FRAG TER Glass Buttes Variety 2 35LK1 673-3-5 - 5 6 2 2-4cm2 N 34.1 34 10.2 7.9 0-25 Flat DEC SEC Quartz Mountain 35LK1 673-3-6 - 5 6 2 2-4cm2 N 23.7 29.4 1.9 1.4 0 Complex BTF TER Glass Buttes Variety 1 35LK1 673-3-7 - 5 6 2 2-4cm2 Y 32.2 22.2 3.3 2.1 0-25 Complex DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-3-8 - 5 6 2 2-4cm2 Y 40.9 27.1 5 4.4 0-25 Flat INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-3-9 - 5 6 2 <2cm2 N 17.1 16 3.4 0.9 0 Complex BTF/RET TER Glass Buttes Variety 1 35LK1 673-3-10 - 5 6 2 <2cm2 Y 15.2 16.5 1.8 0.5 0 Abraded BTF/RET TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-4-1 - 5 To 97.63 2 >4cm2 N 26.6 45.3 6.6 8.3 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-4-2 - 5 To 97.63 2 >4cm2 N 38.2 22.6 4.2 3.7 0 Complex BTF TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-4-3 - 5 To 97.63 2 2-4cm2 N 29.7 36.9 8.7 9.9 25-50 Flat DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-4-4 - 5 To 97.63 2 2-4cm2 Y 17.8 21.2 7.1 2.5 0-25 Flat DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-4-5 - 5 To 97.63 2 2-4cm2 N 31.9 39.1 6.7 3.8 0 NA BTF TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 673-4-6 - 5 To 97.63 2 2-4cm2 Y 15.9 22.4 6.2 2 0 Flat INT TER Cougar Mountain 222

Site Catalog No. Cave Unit Lvl. Str. Size C? Len. Wid. Thi. Wei. Cortex % Plat. Type TT TCT Geochemical Source 35LK1 673-4-7 - 5 To 97.63 2 2-4cm2 N 24.4 28.8 3.6 2.6 0 Complex BTF TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-4-8 - 5 To 97.63 2 2-4cm2 N 26.3 23.6 3.1 2.1 0 NA FRAG TER Glass Buttes Variety 1 35LK1 673-4-9 - 5 To 97.63 2 <2cm2 N 20.3 19 3.1 1.1 0 Complex BTF TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-4-10 - 5 To 97.63 2 <2cm2 Y 19.1 17.1 3 1 0 Complex BTF/RET TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-5-1 - 5 To 97.63 2 >4cm2 Y 62.3 17.6 3.9 4.3 0 Flat BTF TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 673-5-2 - 5 To 97.63 2 >4cm2 N 40.2 36 5.1 8.1 0-25 NA DEC SEC Quartz Mountain 35LK1 673-5-3 - 5 To 97.63 2 2-4cm2 Y 36 29.5 14.2 9.2 0-25 Flat DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-5-4 - 5 To 97.63 2 2-4cm2 N 42.3 26.4 7 6.9 0-25 NA DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-5-5 - 5 To 97.63 2 2-4cm2 Y 26 26.9 2.4 1.7 0 Flat INT TER Glass Buttes Variety 1 35LK1 673-5-6 - 5 To 97.63 2 2-4cm2 Y 34.5 28.6 4.4 3.2 0 Complex INT TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 673-5-7 - 5 To 97.63 2 2-4cm2 Y 33.4 26.5 5.5 2.9 0 Flat INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-5-8 - 5 To 97.63 2 2-4cm2 N 34.1 19.1 6.6 3.3 0 NA FRAG TER Glass Buttes Variety 5 35LK1 673-5-9 - 5 To 97.63 2 <2cm2 N 18.6 19.8 2.6 0.9 0 Complex BTF/RET TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 673-5-10 - 5 To 97.63 2 <2cm2 N 19.5 13.7 2.1 0.5 0 Complex BTF/RET TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-1-1 - 8 10 1 >4cm2 N 46.8 29.4 7.8 11.4 0-25 NA DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-1-2 - 8 10 1 >4cm2 N 60.3 25.7 17 20.9 50-75 NA DEC PRI Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-1-3 - 8 10 1 2-4cm2 N 34 26.1 8.3 5.7 0-25 NA DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-1-4 - 8 10 1 2-4cm2 N 34.5 33.2 6.8 5.6 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-1-5 - 8 10 1 2-4cm2 Y 27.6 28.6 5.3 3.1 0 Flat INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-1-6 - 8 10 1 2-4cm2 Y 38.8 21.1 1.9 1.8 0 Flat BTF TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 677-1-7 - 8 10 1 2-4cm2 N 27.2 21.1 3.8 2.6 0-25 NA DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-1-8 - 8 10 1 2-4cm2 N 19.2 23.4 2.5 1.5 0 Flat INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-1-9 - 8 10 1 2-4cm2 Y 15.8 29.6 6.7 2.6 0 Complex INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-1-10 - 8 10 1 2-4cm2 N 26.8 19.8 2.4 1.2 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-2-1 - 8 11 1 >4cm2 N 39.4 39.2 11.2 13.5 50-75 NA DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-2-2 - 8 11 1 >4cm2 N 33.4 44.2 7.8 12.2 0-25 NA FRAG TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 677-2-3 - 8 11 1 2-4cm2 N 24.7 39.1 8.4 5.6 0-25 NA DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-2-4 - 8 11 1 2-4cm2 Y 28.6 23.4 2.8 1.5 0 Complex BTF TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-2-5 - 8 11 1 2-4cm2 Y 20.7 28.9 2.3 1.1 0 Flat INT TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 677-2-6 - 8 11 1 2-4cm2 Y 31.2 18.2 3.6 2.3 0 Complex INT TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 677-2-7 - 8 11 1 2-4cm2 N 15.3 23.6 3.2 1.2 0 Complex INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-2-8 - 8 11 1 2-4cm2 N 22.3 18.2 5.5 3.3 0-25 NA DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-2-9 - 8 11 1 2-4cm2 N 21.4 26.5 3.6 2.1 0 NA FRAG TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 677-2-10 - 8 11 1 2-4cm2 N 19.4 22.8 4.4 2 0 Complex INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-3-1 - 8 12 1 >4cm2 Y 43.5 40.9 7.8 14.6 25-50 Complex DEC SEC Yreka Butte 35LK1 677-3-2 - 8 12 1 >4cm2 Y 41.8 41.3 8.4 12 25-50 Complex DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 223

Site Catalog No. Cave Unit Lvl. Str. Size C? Len. Wid. Thi. Wei. Cortex % Plat. Type TT TCT Geochemical Source 35LK1 677-3-3 - 8 12 1 >4cm2 Y 44.3 29.8 5.1 6.8 0 Abraded BTF TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-3-4 - 8 12 1 2-4cm2 N 23.1 26.9 5 2.9 50-75 Complex DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-3-5 - 8 12 1 2-4cm2 N 30.6 35.6 6.3 6.8 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-3-6 - 8 12 1 2-4cm2 Y 20.9 31.2 6.3 3.9 0 Flat INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-3-7 - 8 12 1 2-4cm2 N 24.5 25.4 1.9 1.5 0 NA FRAG TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 677-3-8 - 8 12 1 2-4cm2 N 18.8 21.5 4.3 1.9 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-3-9 - 8 12 1 2-4cm2 N 15.5 29.2 3.1 1.6 0 Flat INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-3-10 - 8 12 1 <2cm2 N 15 18.1 2.3 0.6 0 Complex BTF TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-4-1 - 8 13 1 >4cm2 N 47.6 21.6 3.8 2.3 0 Complex BTF TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-4-2 - 8 13 1 2-4cm2 N 18.7 24.9 4.6 2.4 0-25 NA DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-4-3 - 8 13 1 2-4cm2 Y 26.2 29.3 4.4 3 0 Complex INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-4-4 - 8 13 1 2-4cm2 Y 21.7 19.7 5.5 2 0 Complex INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-4-5 - 8 13 1 2-4cm2 N 20 29.4 6.7 3.5 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-4-6 - 8 13 1 2-4cm2 N 20.7 24.2 2.7 1 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-4-7 - 8 13 1 2-4cm2 Y 24.4 18.2 4.7 1.9 0-25 Complex DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-4-8 - 8 13 1 2-4cm2 N 19.8 21.4 4.3 1.4 0-25 Flat DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-4-9 - 8 13 1 <2cm2 Y 12.1 20 2.4 0.5 0-25 Flat DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-4-10 - 8 13 1 <2cm2 N 18.3 16.8 3.4 0.8 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-5-1 - 8 14 1 2-4cm2 Y 18.2 6.5 18.9 2.7 0-25 Flat DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-5-2 - 8 14 1 2-4cm2 N 14.9 24.1 1.9 0.7 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-5-3 - 8 14 1 2-4cm2 Y 23.7 13.8 1.8 0.6 0 Complex BTF TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-5-4 - 8 14 1 <2cm2 N 10.6 16.1 3.1 0.6 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-5-5 - 8 14 1 <2cm2 N 13.1 11.7 2.5 0.01 0 NA FRAG TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 677-6-1 - 8 14 2 2-4cm2 N 23.9 18 5.7 1.7 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-6-2 - 8 14 2 <2cm2 N 16.3 13.1 1.6 0.01 0 Complex BTF/RET TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-6-3 - 8 14 2 <2cm2 N 13.9 20.3 5.5 1.2 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-6-4 - 8 14 2 <2cm2 N 21.6 11 1.3 0.01 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-6-5 - 8 14 2 <2cm2 Y 10 10.9 2.2 0.01 0 Flat BTF/RET TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-7-1 - 9 6 1 2-4cm2 N 37.9 25.9 3.6 2.7 0 Flat INT TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 677-7-2 - 9 6 1 2-4cm2 Y 27.5 30.9 11.6 9.9 0-25 Flat DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-7-3 - 9 6 1 2-4cm2 N 22.2 18.1 5.8 2 0-25 NA DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-7-4 - 9 6 1 2-4cm2 N 21.5 15.1 3.2 1.1 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-7-5 - 9 6 1 2-4cm2 Y 22.4 14.5 2.8 1 0 Complex BTF/RET TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-7-6 - 9 6 1 2-4cm2 Y 26.8 20.3 2.3 0.9 0 Flat INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-7-7 - 9 6 1 2-4cm2 N 14.8 24.8 3.7 1.4 0 Complex INT TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 677-7-8 - 9 6 1 2-4cm2 Y 19 20.6 2.4 0.8 0 Flat BTF/RET TER Cougar Mountain 224

Site Catalog No. Cave Unit Lvl. Str. Size C? Len. Wid. Thi. Wei. Cortex % Plat. Type TT TCT Geochemical Source 35LK1 677-7-9 - 9 6 1 <2cm2 N 14.3 17.3 2.5 0.6 0 Flat INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-7-10 - 9 6 1 <2cm2 N 15.2 17.2 3.2 1 0 Complex INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-8-1 - 9 7 1 2-4cm2 N 31.7 26.5 3.9 2.4 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-8-2 - 9 7 1 2-4cm2 N 15.8 35.4 6 4.3 0 NA FRAG TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 677-8-3 - 9 7 1 2-4cm2 N 23.3 23.4 2.2 1.1 0 Flat INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-8-4 - 9 7 1 2-4cm2 Y 25.4 16.2 3 1.3 0 Complex INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-8-5 - 9 7 1 <2cm2 N 20.7 18.1 3.1 1 0 NA FRAG TER Big Obsidian Group 35LK1 677-9-1 - 9 8 2 >4cm2 Y 39.5 38.5 6.9 6.6 0 Complex BTF TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-9-2 - 9 8 2 2-4cm2 Y 31.5 34.3 3.9 3.6 0 Flat BTF TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-9-3 - 9 8 2 2-4cm2 Y 20 33.4 8 3.7 0 Flat BTF TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 677-9-4 - 9 8 2 2-4cm2 N 25.8 18 3.6 2 0 Complex BTF TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-9-5 - 9 8 2 2-4cm2 N 14 24.5 2.3 0.7 0 NA FRAG TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 677-9-6 - 9 8 2 2-4cm2 N 22.7 17.2 3.4 1 0 Flat BTF TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 677-9-7 - 9 8 2 2-4cm2 N 20.6 23.8 3.3 1.2 0 NA FRAG TER SL/SM 35LK1 677-9-8 - 9 8 2 2-4cm2 N 24.5 14.6 2.1 0.6 0 NA FRAG TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-9-9 - 9 8 2 <2cm2 N 15.8 17.1 1.5 0.01 0 Complex BTF/RET TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 677-9-10 - 9 8 2 <2cm2 N 15.7 13.7 1.9 0.2 0 NA FRAG TER Hager Mountain 35LK1 677-10-1 - 9 8 1 >4cm2 N 47.9 23 5.4 5.1 0 NA FRAG TER Quartz Mountain 35LK1 677-10-2 - 9 8 1 2-4cm2 Y 19.7 31.5 5.8 3.5 0-25 Complex DEC SEC Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-10-3 - 9 8 1 2-4cm2 N 26.5 25.3 13.4 8.2 25-50 NA DEC SEC Horse Mountain 35LK1 677-10-4 - 9 8 1 2-4cm2 Y 22.6 24.3 4.6 2.3 0 Flat INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-10-5 - 9 8 1 2-4cm2 N 29.7 18.6 6.1 2.8 0 Complex INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-10-6 - 9 8 1 2-4cm2 Y 26.5 27.1 3 1.6 0 Complex BTF TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-10-7 - 9 8 1 2-4cm2 Y 28 20.4 3.2 1.3 0 Flat BTF TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-10-8 - 9 8 1 2-4cm2 Y 19.3 18 2.7 0.9 0 Flat INT TER Cougar Mountain 35LK1 677-10-9 - 9 8 1 <2cm2 N 19.2 20.4 2.7 0.9 0 NA FRAG TER Tank Creek 35LK1 677-10-10 - 9 8 1 <2cm2 N 15.1 19.3 1.8 0.6 0 NA FRAG TER Quartz Mountain Len.=Length; Wid.=Width; Thi.=Thickness; Wei.=Weight; C?=Complete?; Cortex %=Cortex Percentage; Plat. Type=Platform Type; TT=Technological Typology; TCT=Triple Cortex Typology; Frag=Flake Fragment; INT=Interior Flake; DEC=Decortication Flake; BTF=Biface Thinning Flake; RET=Retouch Flake; TER=Tertiary Flake; SEC=Secondary Flake; PRI=Primary Flake. Length, width, and thickness measurements are in centimeters, weight measurements are in grams.

225

APPENDIX 8 – TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS GENERATED WITH

UNR’S PXRF FOR THE FORT ROCK CAVE DEBITAGE SAMPLE

226

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK1 673-1-1 65 189 136 14 45 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-1-2 63 191 136 18 44 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-1-3 35 128 96 17 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-1-4 61 183 130 13 41 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-1-5 61 185 133 10 41 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-1-6 58 177 128 11 41 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-1-7 36 131 98 21 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-1-8 58 206 130 13 38 McKay Butte ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-1-9 60 186 133 11 42 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-1-10 61 184 131 14 43 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-2-1 35 127 93 16 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-2-2 34 123 90 13 54 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-2-3 34 126 93 14 54 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-2-4 35 126 92 15 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-2-5 35 125 94 15 55 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-2-6 56 192 106 22 43 Big Stick ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-2-7 35 127 94 15 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-2-8 36 126 92 15 56 Cougar Mountain 227

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-2-9 36 127 95 14 54 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-2-10 43 156 109 22 45 Tank Creek ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-3-1 34 125 94 13 55 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-3-2 33 127 93 14 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-3-3 62 186 134 13 42 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-3-4 50 115 68 18 46 Glass Buttes Variety 2 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-3-5 63 188 135 12 42 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-3-6 25 90 89 20 57 Glass Buttes Variety 1 ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-3-7 34 126 94 16 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-3-8 35 126 93 16 58 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-3-9 24 87 88 15 53 Glass Buttes Variety 1 ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-3-10 39 136 103 23 62 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-4-1 35 127 94 17 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-4-2 33 123 91 13 53 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-4-3 35 127 93 18 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-4-4 34 125 93 13 55 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-4-5 66 193 142 20 45 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 228

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK1 673-4-6 34 126 96 13 54 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-4-7 36 129 97 21 59 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-4-8 26 93 88 20 56 Glass Buttes Variety 1 ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-4-9 34 127 94 14 55 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-4-10 35 126 97 13 57 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-5-1 60 184 130 11 42 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-5-2 62 186 132 12 44 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-5-3 35 127 94 14 54 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-5-4 35 130 95 20 58 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-5-5 26 85 78 21 62 Glass Buttes Variety 1 ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-5-6 64 187 134 16 43 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-5-7 34 123 91 15 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-5-8 65 93 92 6 23 Glass Buttes Variety 5 ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-5-9 36 128 95 14 58 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 673-5-10 40 135 100 19 61 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-1-1 36 128 93 17 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-1-2 39 134 98 23 59 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-1-3 35 127 92 18 56 Cougar Mountain 229

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-1-4 35 126 94 18 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-1-5 37 128 95 17 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-1-6 62 187 135 13 43 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-1-7 36 128 94 19 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-1-8 39 134 101 21 60 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-1-9 33 120 90 12 51 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-1-10 37 132 99 18 59 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-2-1 36 131 96 15 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-2-2 60 183 129 12 42 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-2-3 34 128 97 15 55 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-2-4 42 140 106 25 65 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-2-5 65 193 143 19 44 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-2-6 61 186 133 15 42 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-2-7 35 124 93 14 55 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-2-8 35 128 93 18 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-2-9 60 185 129 10 43 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-2-10 37 129 97 17 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 230

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK1 677-3-1 82 446 68 33 64 Yreka Butte ± 1 2 1 1 1 35LK1 677-3-2 36 134 100 18 60 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-3-3 36 128 95 15 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-3-4 34 123 92 14 55 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-3-5 35 127 94 18 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-3-6 37 130 96 16 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-3-7 63 189 136 14 43 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-3-8 34 125 93 14 56 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-3-9 35 129 96 15 56 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-3-10 38 133 98 21 60 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-4-1 38 134 101 20 59 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-4-2 34 126 93 16 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-4-3 37 130 100 18 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-4-4 33 125 92 13 53 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-4-5 35 128 95 15 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-4-6 36 127 93 17 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-4-7 35 126 92 14 57 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-4-8 34 125 93 15 55 Cougar Mountain 231

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-4-9 35 126 93 15 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-4-10 35 127 94 13 57 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-5-1 36 128 96 17 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-5-2 38 133 101 17 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-5-3 40 135 105 20 62 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-5-4 37 127 97 14 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-5-5 62 190 135 12 43 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-6-1 38 134 98 21 59 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-6-2 41 136 106 21 63 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-6-3 35 128 95 16 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-6-4 41 134 102 20 61 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-6-5 35 127 95 16 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-7-1 63 187 135 12 45 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-7-2 35 130 96 18 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-7-3 36 132 99 21 58 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-7-4 36 127 93 16 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-7-5 34 126 92 15 55 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 232

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source 35LK1 677-7-6 40 134 102 19 61 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-7-7 62 186 136 10 43 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-7-8 36 130 96 19 57 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-7-9 37 129 95 16 58 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-7-10 35 127 94 14 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-8-1 36 130 96 20 58 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-8-2 61 186 132 12 43 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-8-3 40 135 103 24 61 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-8-4 35 127 93 15 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-8-5 42 358 107 23 53 Big Obsidian Flow ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-9-1 35 124 92 13 53 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-9-2 35 127 94 18 56 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-9-3 64 181 128 12 42 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-9-4 35 128 95 17 58 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-9-5 64 193 141 13 44 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-9-6 65 193 141 12 44 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-9-7 3 361 123 24 56 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-9-8 39 133 103 20 62 Cougar Mountain 233

Trace Element Concentrations (PPM) Site Catalog No. Sr Zr Rb Nb Y Geochemical Source ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-9-9 64 189 139 13 45 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-9-10 51 150 110 15 32 Hager Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-10-1 63 188 136 16 44 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-10-2 37 130 99 18 58 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-10-3 0 658 125 51 107 Horse Mountain ± 0 2 1 1 1 35LK1 677-10-4 35 128 96 15 56 Cougar Mountain ± 0 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-10-5 36 125 92 17 54 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-10-6 36 130 97 17 59 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-10-7 39 135 102 20 60 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-10-8 39 131 100 20 59 Cougar Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-10-9 45 158 113 22 45 Tank Creek ± 1 1 1 1 1 35LK1 677-10-10 63 188 135 13 45 Quartz Mountain ± 1 1 1 1 1 NA RGM-2 112 231 155 20 27 RGM-2 Reference Standard ± 1 1 1 1 1 NA BCR-2 352 195 48 23 41 BCR-2 Reference Standard ± 2 2 1 1 1 NA AGV-2 678 242 69 26 22 AGV-2 Reference Standard ± 3 2 1 1 1

234

APPENDIX 9 – THE CONNLEY CAVES DEBITAGE SAMPLE WITH SOURCE

ASSIGNMENTS

235

Site Catalog No. Cave Unit Lvl. Cortex? Lab No. Specimen No. Source 35LK50 1195-CC-1-C-55-1-1 5 1 55 N BO-01-23 48 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-1-C-55-1-2 5 1 55 N BO-01-23 49 Glass Buttes 1 35LK50 1195-CC-1-C-55-1-3 5 1 55 N BO-01-23 50 Spodue Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-1-C-56-1-1 5 1 56 N BO-01-23 52 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-1-C-56-1-2 5 1 56 N BO-01-23 53 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1195-CC-2-A-41-3-1 5 2 41 N BO-01-23 38 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1195-CC-2-A-41-3-2 5 2 41 N BO-01-23 39 Quartz Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-2-A-42-4-1 5 2 42 N BO-01-23 40 Hager Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-2-A-42-4-2 5 2 42 N BO-01-23 41 Quartz Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-2-A-42-4-3 5 2 42 N BO-01-23 42 Quartz Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-56-3-1 5 3 56 N BO-01-23 43 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-56-3-2 5 3 56 N BO-01-23 44 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-56-3-3 5 3 56 N BO-01-23 45 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-56-3-4 5 3 56 N BO-01-23 46 Horse Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-56-3-5 5 3 56 N BO-01-23 47 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-20-1A 5 3 20 N BO-01-62 69 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-20-1B 5 3 20 N BO-01-62 70 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-22-1A 5 3 22 N BO-01-62 71 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-22-1B 5 3 22 Y BO-01-62 72 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-24-1A 5 3 24 N BO-01-62 73 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-24-1B 5 3 24 Y BO-01-62 74 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-26-2A 5 3 26 N BO-01-62 75 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-26-2B 5 3 26 N BO-01-62 76 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-28-1A 5 3 28 N BO-01-62 77 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-29-1A 5 3 29 N BO-01-62 78 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-30-1A 5 3 30 Y BO-01-62 79 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-30-1B 5 3 30 N BO-01-62 80 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-32-1A 5 3 32 N BO-01-62 81 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-32-1B 5 3 32 N BO-01-62 82 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-34-1A 5 3 34 N BO-01-62 83 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-34-1B 5 3 34 N BO-01-62 84 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-36-1A 5 3 36 N BO-01-62 85 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-36-1B 5 3 36 N BO-01-62 86 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-38-1A 5 3 38 N BO-01-62 87 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-38-1B 5 3 38 N BO-01-62 88 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-44-1A 5 3 44 N BO-01-62 89 Cougar Mountain 236

Site Catalog No. Cave Unit Lvl. Cortex? Lab No. Specimen No. Source 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-44-1B 5 3 44 N BO-01-62 90 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-46-2A 5 3 46 N BO-01-62 91 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-46-2B 5 3 46 N BO-01-62 92 Quartz Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-48-1A 5 3 48 N BO-01-62 93 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-48-1B 5 3 48 N BO-01-62 94 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-50-1A 5 3 50 N BO-01-62 95 Quartz Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-50-1B 5 3 50 N BO-01-62 96 Hager Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-52-1A 5 3 52 N BO-01-62 97 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-52-1B 5 3 52 N BO-01-62 98 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-55-2-1 5 3 55 N BO-01-23 51 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-58-1A 5 3 58 N BO-01-62 99 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-58-1B 5 3 58 N BO-01-62 100 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-58-1C 5 3 58 N BO-01-62 101 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-60-1A 5 3 60 N BO-01-62 102 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-60-1B 5 3 60 N BO-01-62 103 Quartz Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-64-2A 5 3 64 N BO-01-62 105 Tucker Hill 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-65-1A 5 3 65 N BO-01-62 106 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-65-1B 5 3 65 N BO-01-62 107 Horse Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-3-A-65-1C 5 3 65 N BO-01-62 108 Horse Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-34-1A 6 6 34 N BO-01-62 109 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-34-1B 6 6 34 Y BO-01-62 110 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-36-3A 6 6 36 N BO-01-62 111 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-36-3B 6 6 36 N BO-01-62 112 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-36-5A 6 6 36 N BO-01-62 113 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-36-5B 6 6 36 N BO-01-62 114 McKay Butte 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-40-12A 6 6 40 Y BO-01-62 115 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-40-12B 6 6 40 N BO-01-62 116 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-42-3A 6 6 42 N BO-01-62 117 Hager Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-42-3B 6 6 42 N BO-01-62 118 Blue Spring 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-44-1A 6 6 44 N BO-01-62 119 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-44-1B 6 6 44 N BO-01-62 120 Quartz Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-46-2A 6 6 46 N BO-01-62 121 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-46-2B 6 6 46 N BO-01-62 122 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-48-1A 6 6 48 N BO-01-62 123 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-48-1B 6 6 48 N BO-01-62 124 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-50-5A 6 6 50 N BO-01-62 125 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 237

Site Catalog No. Cave Unit Lvl. Cortex? Lab No. Specimen No. Source 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-50-5B 6 6 50 N BO-01-62 126 Hager Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-52-2A 6 6 52 N BO-01-62 127 Hager Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-52-2B 6 6 52 N BO-01-62 128 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 1195-CC-6-D-52-2C 6 6 52 N BO-01-62 129 Beatys Butte 35LK50 1195-CC-6-A-54-1B 6 6 54 N BO-01-62 132 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-1-29-1354a 4 1 29 N WA-14-41 12 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-1-29-1347 4 1 29 N WA-14-41 13 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-1-30-1415a 4 1 30 N WA-14-41 14 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-1-30-1392 4 1 30 N WA-14-41 15 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-1-30-1404 4 1 30 N WA-14-41 16 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-1-30-1385 4 1 30 N WA-14-41 17 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-1-31-1580 4 1 31 N WA-14-41 18 Brooks Canyon 35LK50 2202-CC-1-31-1594 4 1 31 N WA-14-41 19 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-1-38-2240 4 1 38 N WA-14-41 20 Drews Creek/Butcher Flat 35LK50 2202-CC-1-39-2282 4 1 39 N WA-14-41 21 Spodue Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-1-39-2287 4 1 39 N WA-14-41 22 Tucker Hill 35LK50 2202-CC-1-39-2293 4 1 39 N WA-14-41 23 Quartz Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-1-40-2345 4 1 40 N WA-14-41 24 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2202-CC-1-40-2346 4 1 40 N WA-14-41 25 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-1-40-2347 4 1 40 N WA-14-41 26 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-28-1262 4 3 28 N WA-14-41 27 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2202-CC-3-29-1363a 4 3 29 N WA-14-41 28 Quartz Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-30-1551a 4 3 30 N WA-14-41 29 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-30-1551b 4 3 30 N WA-14-41 30 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-30-1551c 4 3 30 N WA-14-41 31 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-30-1403 4 3 30 N WA-14-41 32 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-31-1578 4 3 31 N WA-14-41 33 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-31-1600 4 3 31 N WA-14-41 34 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-31-1648 4 3 31 N WA-14-41 35 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-31-1650 4 3 31 N WA-14-41 36 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-32-1759a 4 3 32 N WA-14-41 37 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-32-1759b 4 3 32 N WA-14-41 38 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-32-1760 4 3 32 N WA-14-41 39 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-32-1786 4 3 32 N WA-14-41 40 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-33-1847 4 3 33 N WA-14-41 41 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-34-1885 4 3 34 N WA-14-41 42 Cougar Mountain 238

Site Catalog No. Cave Unit Lvl. Cortex? Lab No. Specimen No. Source 35LK50 2202-CC-3-34-1887 4 3 34 N WA-14-41 43 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-35--2003a 4 3 35 N WA-14-41 44 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-39-2252a 4 3 39 N WA-14-41 45 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-39-2252b 4 3 39 N WA-14-41 46 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-39-2252c 4 3 39 N WA-14-41 47 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-39-2256 4 3 39 N WA-14-41 48 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-39-2264 4 3 39 N WA-14-41 49 Spodue Mountain 35LK50 2202-CC-3-40-2358a 4 3 40 N WA-14-41 50 Glass Buttes 3 35LK50 2202-CC-3-40-2358b 4 3 40 N WA-14-41 51 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-41-27 4 3 41 N BO-15-70 34 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-42-99 4 3 42 N BO-15-70 35 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-42-114 4 3 42 N BO-15-70 36 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-42-116 4 3 42 N BO-15-70 37 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-43-207 4 3 43 N BO-15-70 38 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-43-202 4 3 43 Y BO-15-70 39 Hager Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-43-187 4 3 43 N BO-15-70 40 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-43-190 4 3 43 N BO-15-70 41 Glass Buttes 1 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-44-287 4 3 44 N BO-15-70 43 Coglan Buttes 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-45-377 4 3 45 N BO-15-70 44 Quartz Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-45-391 4 3 45 N BO-15-70 45 Glass Buttes 1 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-48-845 4 3 48 Y BO-15-70 46 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-49-1053 4 3 49 Y BO-15-70 47 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-49-1056 4 3 49 N BO-15-70 48 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-50-1137 4 3 50 N BO-15-70 49 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-53-1722B 4 3 53 N BO-15-70 51 Glass Buttes 3 35LK50 2286-CC-4/3-53-1695 4 3 53 N BO-15-70 52 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/4-44-59 4 4 44 Y BO-15-70 42 Glass Buttes 1 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-32-30 4 5 32 N BO-15-70 53 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-32-31 4 5 32 N BO-15-70 54 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-32-37 4 5 32 N BO-15-70 55 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-33-134 4 5 33 N BO-15-70 56 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-36-416 4 5 36 N BO-15-70 57 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-36-418 4 5 36 N BO-15-70 58 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-37-487 4 5 37 N BO-15-70 59 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-38-594 4 5 38 N BO-15-70 60 Glass Buttes 1 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-39-790 4 5 39 N BO-15-70 61 Cougar Mountain 239

Site Catalog No. Cave Unit Lvl. Cortex? Lab No. Specimen No. Source 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-39-816 4 5 39 Y BO-15-70 62 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-39-818 4 5 39 Y BO-15-70 63 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-39-820 4 5 39 N BO-15-70 64 Horse Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-40-1073 4 5 40 N BO-15-70 65 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-41-1208 4 5 41 N BO-15-70 66 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-41-1213 4 5 41 N BO-15-70 67 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-41-1220 4 5 41 N BO-15-70 68 Spodue Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-42-1131 4 5 42 N BO-15-70 69 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-42-1371 4 5 42 N BO-15-70 70 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-42-1415 4 5 42 N BO-15-70 71 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-42-1425 4 5 42 N BO-15-70 72 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-42-1454 4 5 42 N BO-15-70 73 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-42-1492 4 5 42 Y BO-15-70 74 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-43-1593 4 5 43 N BO-15-70 75 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-43-1598 4 5 43 Y BO-15-70 76 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-43-1663 4 5 43 N BO-15-70 77 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-43-1668 4 5 43 Y BO-15-70 78 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-43-1669 4 5 43 N BO-15-70 79 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-43-1675 4 5 43 N BO-15-70 80 Quartz Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-44-1788 4 5 44 N BO-15-70 81 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-44-1792 4 5 44 N BO-15-70 82 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-44-1797 4 5 44 N BO-15-70 83 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-44-1806a 4 5 44 N BO-15-70 84 Spodue Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-44-1806b 4 5 44 N BO-15-70 85 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-44-1806c 4 5 44 N BO-15-70 86 Horse Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-45-1886 4 5 45 N BO-15-70 87 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-46-001 4 5 46 N BO-15-70 88 Glass Buttes 3 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-46-1956 4 5 46 N BO-15-70 89 McKay Butte 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-46-1957 4 5 46 Y BO-15-70 90 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-46-1959 4 5 46 N BO-15-70 91 Hager Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-46-1967 4 5 46 N BO-15-70 92 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-46-1974 4 5 46 N BO-15-70 93 Glass Buttes 3 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-46-1978 4 5 46 N BO-15-70 94 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-46-2010a 4 5 46 N BO-15-70 95 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-46-2010b 4 5 46 N BO-15-70 96 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-46-2010c 4 5 46 N BO-15-70 97 Cougar Mountain 240

Site Catalog No. Cave Unit Lvl. Cortex? Lab No. Specimen No. Source 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-47-2043 4 5 47 N BO-15-70 98 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-47-2044 4 5 47 N BO-15-70 99 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-47-2045 4 5 47 N BO-15-70 100 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-47-2062a 4 5 47 N BO-15-70 101 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-47-2062b 4 5 47 N BO-15-70 102 Bald Butte 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-47-2062c 4 5 47 N BO-15-70 103 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-48-2015 4 5 48 N BO-15-70 104 Cougar Mountain 35LK50 2286-CC-4/5-49-1057 4 5 49 N BO-15-70 105 Quartz Mountain Note. Geochemical data for the Connley Caves debitage sample is unpublished and not presented in this thesis.

241

APPENDIX 10 – REGRESSION ANALYSES

Fort Rock Cave

Table 10.1. Exponential Regression Results for the Fort Rock Cave Projectile Point Sample.

Obsidian Source Distance n Predicted Residual Std. Residual Cougar Mountain, OR 16 km 27 7.73031 19.26969 8.23751 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, OR 27 km 23 6.78589 16.21411 6.93129 Quartz Mountain, OR 28 km 17 6.70598 10.29402 4.40054 Hager Mountain, OR 29 km 5 6.62701 -1.62701 -0.69552 Big Obsidian, OR 35 km 3 6.17234 -3.17234 -1.35613 Spodue Mountain, OR 40 km 9 5.81738 3.18262 1.36052 McKay Butte, OR 42 km 8 5.68117 2.31883 0.99127 Bald Butte, OR 44 km 3 5.54816 -2.54816 -1.08930 West McKay, OR 44 km 1 5.54816 -4.54816 -1.94427 Yreka Butte, OR 67 km 4 4.22497 -0.22497 -0.09617 Glass Buttes, OR 79 km 12 3.66513 8.33487 3.56303 Round Top Butte, OR 95 km 1 3.03232 -2.03232 -0.86879 Tucker Hill, OR 103 km 1 2.75816 -1.75816 -0.75159 Obsidian Cliffs, OR 105 km 1 2.69358 -1.69358 -0.72398 Double O, OR 143 km 1 1.71726 -0.71726 -0.30662 Cowhead Lake, CA-NV 177 km 4 1.14794 2.85206 1.21921 Massacre Lake/Guano Valley, OR-NV 178 km 1 1.13443 -0.13443 -0.05747 Buck Mountain, CA 191 km 1 0.97252 0.02748 0.01175 Hawks Valley, OR 233 km 1 0.59132 0.40868 0.17470 Note. Standardized residual values that exceed two standard deviations are in bold.

Table 10.2. Exponential Regression Results for the Fort Rock Cave Debitage Sample.

Obsidian Source Distance n Predicted Residual Std. Residual Cougar Mountain, OR 16 km 91 5.40146 85.59854 9.21605 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, OR 27 km 1 4.39309 -3.39309 -0.36532 Quartz Mountain, OR 28 km 29 4.31134 24.68866 2.65813 Hager Mountain, OR 29 km 1 4.23111 -3.23111 -0.34788 Big Obsidian, OR 35 km 1 3.78011 -2.78011 -0.29932 McKay Butte, OR 42 km 1 3.31434 -2.31434 -0.24918 Yreka Butte, OR 67 km 1 2.07224 -1.07224 -0.11544 Glass Buttes, OR 79 km 6 1.65402 4.34598 0.46791 Horse Mountain, OR 80 km 1 1.62324 -0.62324 -0.06710 Tank Creek, OR 102 km 2 1.07374 0.92626 0.09973 Big Stick, OR 107 km 1 0.97748 0.02252 0.00242 Note. Standardized residual values that exceed two standard deviations are in bold.

242

Figure 10.1. Fort Rock Cave projectile point exponential regression analysis plot. Symbol for overrepresented sources in bold.

243

Figure 10.2. Fort Rock Cave debitage exponential regression analysis plot. Symbol for overrepresented sources in bold.

244

Cougar Mountain Cave

Table 10.3. Exponential Regression Results for the Cougar Mountain Cave Projectile Point Sample.

Obsidian Source Distance n Predicted Residual Std. Residual Cougar Mountain, OR <1 km 32 10.34591 21.65409 15.32715 Quartz Mountain, OR 22 km 9 7.49196 1.50804 1.06742 Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, OR 25 km 9 7.16937 1.83063 1.29575 Hager Mountain, OR 26 km 5 7.06495 -2.06495 -1.46161 Bald Butte, OR 40 km 3 5.75318 -2.75318 -1.94875 Variety 5, OR 41 km 2 5.66939 -3.66939 -2.59726 Spodue Mountain, OR 47 km 7 5.19168 1.80832 1.27996 McKay Butte, OR 50 km 7 4.96813 2.03187 1.43819 Yreka Butte, OR 51 km 10 4.89578 5.10422 3.61286 Brooks Canyon, OR 53 km 2 4.75421 -2.75421 -1.94948 Glass Buttes, OR 63 km 8 4.10547 3.89453 2.75662 Horse Mountain, OR 66 km 7 3.9287 3.0713 2.17392 Round Top Butte, OR 75 km 2 3.44275 -1.44275 -1.02120 Tank Creek, OR 91 km 1 2.72246 -1.72246 -1.21919 Wagontire, OR 94 km 1 2.60523 -1.60523 -1.13621 Tucker Hill, OR 97 km 3 2.49306 0.50694 0.35882 Double O, OR 126 km 2 1.62914 0.37086 0.26250 Beatys Butte, OR 143 km 2 1.26953 0.73047 0.51704 Buck Mountain, CA 188 km 1 0.65603 0.34397 0.24347 Note. Standardized residual values that exceed two standard deviations are in bold.

245

Figure 10.3. Cougar Mountain Cave projectile point exponential regression analysis plot. Symbol for over- and underrepresented sources in bold.

246

The Connley Caves

Table 10.4. Exponential Regression Results for the Connley Caves Cave Projectile Point Sample.

Obsidian Source Distance n Predicted Residual Std. Residual Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, OR 5 km 16 3.26858 12.73142 10.91806 Hager Mountain, OR 8 km 1 3.22691 -2.22691 -1.90973 Bald Butte, OR 22 km 1 3.03936 -2.03936 -1.74889 Cougar Mountain, OR 22 km 8 3.03936 4.96064 4.25409 Spodue Mountain, OR 24 km 5 3.01347 1.98653 1.70358 Quartz Mountain, OR 44 km 7 2.76642 4.23358 3.63058 Big Obsidian, OR 56 km 1 2.62802 -1.62802 -1.39614 Klamath Marsh 1, OR 57 km 1 2.6168 -1.6168 -1.38652 McKay Butte, OR 64 km 1 2.53962 -1.53962 -1.32033 Horse Mountain, OR 66 km 4 2.51799 1.48201 1.27092 Yreka Butte, OR 68 km 5 2.49654 2.50346 2.14689 Coglan Buttes, OR 74 km 2 2.43329 -0.43329 -0.37158 McComb Butte, OR 74 km 1 2.43329 -1.43329 -1.22914 Glass Buttes, OR 77 km 8 2.40227 5.59773 4.80044 Tucker Hill, OR 81 km 1 2.36152 -1.36152 -1.16760 Big Stick, OR 97 km 3 2.20532 0.79468 0.68149 Cowhead Lake, CA-NV 155 km 3 1.72083 1.27917 1.09698 Massacre Lake/Guano Valley, OR-NV 158 km 1 1.6989 -0.6989 -0.59935 Sugar Hill, CA 164 km 2 1.65585 0.34415 0.29513 Buck Mountain, CA 170 km 2 1.6139 0.3861 0.33111 Note. Standardized residual values that exceed two standard deviations are in bold.

Table 10.5. Exponential Regression Results for the Connley Caves Debitage Sample.

Obsidian Source Distance n Predicted Residual Std. Residual Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh, OR 5 km 28 7.12915 20.87085 10.47533 Hager Mountain, OR 8 km 7 6.81854 0.18146 0.09108 Bald Butte, OR 22 km 1 5.53872 -4.53872 -2.27804 Cougar Mountain, ORa 22 km 112 Excluded Excluded Excluded Spodue Mountain, OR 24 km 5 5.37665 -0.37665 -0.18905 Quartz Mountain, OR 44 km 12 3.99519 8.00481 4.01771 McKay Butte, OR 64 km 2 2.96867 -0.96867 -0.48619 Horse Mountain, OR 66 km 5 2.88181 2.11819 1.06315 Brooks Canyon, OR 69 km 1 2.75625 -1.75625 -0.88148 Coglan Buttes, OR 74 km 1 2.55903 -1.55903 -0.78250 Glass Buttes, OR 77 km 9 2.44753 6.55247 3.28876 Tucker Hill, OR 81 km 2 2.3064 -0.3064 -0.15379 Drews Creek/Butcher Flat, OR 103 km 1 1.66365 -0.66365 -0.33309 Beatys Butte, OR 134 km 1 1.04991 -0.04991 -0.02505 Blue Spring, CA 170 km 1 0.61517 0.38483 0.19315 Note. Standardized residual values that exceed two standard deviations are in bold. a Cougar Mountain obsidian excluded from analysis due to it being an extreme outlier.

247

Figure 10.4. The Connley Caves projectile point exponential regression analysis plot. Symbol for overrepresented sources in bold.

248

Figure 10.5. The Connley Caves debitage exponential regression analysis plot. Symbol for over- and underrepresented sources in bold.