UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations
1-1-1998
Lithic analysis of three Lowland Virgin Anasazi sites
Vikki Allen University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds
Repository Citation Allen, Vikki, "Lithic analysis of three Lowland Virgin Anasazi sites" (1998). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 951. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/mtkc-qohd
This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself.
This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter 6ce, while others may be firom any type o f computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct prmt, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, bginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing fi-om left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photogr^hed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back o f the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available fisr any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Ifowell Infoimation Company 300 North Zed) Road, Ann Aibor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LITHIC ANALYSIS OF THREE LOWLAND
VIRGIN ANASAZI SITES
by
Vikki Allen
Bachelor of Arts University of Nevada, Las Vegas 1993
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Master of Arts Degree Department of Anthropology College of Liberal Arts
Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas May 1999
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMX Number: 1393912
Copyright 1999 by Allen, Vikki
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 1393912 Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights restfved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Copyright by Vikki Allen 1999 All Rights Reserved
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thesis Approval UNIV The Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas
April 08 19 99
The Thesis prepared by
Vikki Allen
Entitled
"LITHIC ANLAYSIS OF THREE LOWLAND VIRGIN ANASAZI SITES"
is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
______Meatier of Artra ______
CUJ^>1kU '7(4 Examination Committee Oiair
Mëmtrer Dean o f tha Ciraduate College
Member
^Examination Committee Member
Graduate College Faculty Representative
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT
Lithic Analysis of Three Lowland Virgin Anasazi Sites
by
Vikki Allen
Dr. Margaret Lyneis, Examination Committee Chair Professor of Anthropology University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Lithic analysis, including an intensive debitage analysis, provides answers to
previously posed research questions for the Bovine Bluff (early-Pueblo H), Main Ridge
(mid-Pueblo II), and Adam 2 (late-Pueblo II) sites in the Moapa Valley. At Bovine Bluff
an aceramic area appears to be the result of previous site occupation. Analysis of the Main
Ridge assemblage reveals six house areas with high lithic concentrations. The results for
Adam 2 reveal that while the inhabitants of the site manufactured their own CCS projectile
points, they imported obsidian points in either a finished or preform stage.
This report is the first comparison of Lowland Virgin Anasazi lithic assemblages ever
done. Comparisons reveal a temporal trend toward increasing sedentism at the early to
middle Pueblo II interfecing time period. This finding may be important to future arguments
for fully sedentary Virgin Anasazi communities.
m
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...... Hi
LIST OF nO U RES ...... vi
LIST OF TABLES...... vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... ix
CHAPTER ONE; INTRODUCTION...... 1 Location and Environment ...... 2 Background ...... 3 Research Goals ...... 5
CHAPTER TWO; COMPARISON OF DEBITAGE ANALYSIS METHODS...... 8 Methods of Debitage Analysis ...... 9 R esults...... 14 Lithic Formation Process ...... 23 Tool Manufacturing Process ...... 24
CHAPTER THREE; ADAM 2 ...... 31 Projectile Points ...... 33 Other Chipped Stone Artifacts ...... 38 Projectile Point Manufacture (Site Specific Question) ...... 45 Chipped Stone Summary ...... 48
CHAPTER FOUR: BOVINE BLUFF ...... 50 Projectile Points ...... 51 Other Chipped Stone Artifacts ...... 58 Artifact Distribution (Site Specific Question) ...... 69 Chipped Stone Summary ...... 74
CHAPTER FIVE; MAIN R ID G E ...... 78
IV
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Projectile Points ...... 81 Other Chipped Stone Tools ...... 83 Artifact Distribution (She Specific Question) ...... 94 Chipped Stone Summary ...... 100
CHAPTER SDC; ASSEMBLAGE COMPARISON AND CONCLUSIONS . 102 Toolstone Material ...... 102 Lithic Technology ...... 104 Conclusion ...... I ll
REFERENCES CITED...... 114
APPENDIX A; ADAM 2 ARTIFACT LIST...... 121
APPENDIX B : BOVINE BLUFF ARTIFACT LIST...... 125
APPENDIX C: MAIN RIDGE ARTIFACT L IS T ...... 161
APPENDIX D: OBSIDIAN SOURCING RESULTS...... 183
VITA ...... 194
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF HGURES
Figure I. Map of study a re a ...... 2 Figure 2. Flake size distribution analysis ...... 16 Figure 3. Map of Adam 2 ...... 31 Figure 4. Adam 2 projectile point bar chart ...... 36 Figure 5. Map of Bovine B lu ff ...... 50 Figure 6. Bovine Bluff projectile point bar chart, Rosegate collection ...... 55 Figure 7. Bovine Bluff projectile point bar chart, non-Rosegate collection ...... 56 Figure 8. Map of Main R id g e ...... 79 Figure 9. Main Ridge projectile point bar chart ...... 83 Figure 10. Comparison of sherd and lithic percentages by h o u s e ...... 95
VI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES
Table I. Project Objectives ...... 7 Table 2. Method Comparison ...... 13 Table 3. Decortication Analysis ...... 14 Table 4. Size Grading Data ...... 16 Table 5. Results of Flake Characteristic Analysis...... 18 Table 6. Results of CODA Analysis...... 19 Table 7. Debitage Descriptions ...... 20 Table 8. Adam 2 Projectile Point Shoulder W id th ...... 35 Table 9. Adam 2 Projectile Point Thickness ...... 35 Table 10. C o res ...... 37 Table 11. Hammerstones and Choppers ...... 39 Table 12. Large Bifaces ...... 39 Table 13. Small B ifaces...... 41 Table 14. Other Lithic Artifacts...... 42 Table 15. Debitage Summary ...... 43 Table 16. Chronology of Diagnostic Bovine Bluff Po in ts ...... 51 Table 17. Bovine Bluff Projectile Point Shoulder W idth ...... 53 Table 18. Bovine Bluff Projectile Point Thickness...... 54 Table 19. C o res ...... 58 Table 20. Hammerstones and Choppers ...... 60 Table 21. Large Bifaces ...... 61 Table 22. Small B ifaces...... 62 Table 23. Other Lithic Artifacts...... 64 Table 24. Results of Debitage Analysis ...... 66 Table 25. Material Type by Tool C ategory ...... 69 Table 26. Debitage Count by Material Type ...... 70 Table 27. Main Ridge Projectile Point Thickness and Shoulder W idth ...... 81 Table 28. C ores ...... 84 Table 29. Hammerstones and Choppers ...... 85 Table 30. Large Bifaces ...... 87 Table 31. Small B ifaces...... 88 Table 32. Other Lithic Artifacts...... 89 Table 33. Results of Debitage Analysis ...... 92
vu
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 34. Core Artifacts Comparison ...... 103 Table 35. Hammerstones, Choppers, and Large Bifaces Comparison 105 Table 36. Small Bifaces Comparison ...... 106 Table 37. Other Lithic Artifacts Comparison ...... 107 Table 38. Debitage Comparison ...... 109
vm
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to ©ctend my sincere gratitude to the people who's advice, comments, and
suggestions have aided this project. First, I would like to thank Dr. Margaret Lyneis for all
of her invaluable support through the years; from my first field class, to the inception of the
idea for this thesis, and on through to the very end. Her guidance has kept me on track and
motivated. I would also like to thank Dr. Alan Simmons for allowing me the use of his
personal books and materials, and the use of his extreme patience as a sounding board.
1 think I owe at least a year’s worth of free drinks to Keith Myhrer for his support (and
fortitude) in plowing through every version, of every chapter, without ever saying anything
rude. Gratitude is also extended to Dr. George Urioste, Dr. Geoffrey Spaulding, and Dr.
Fred Bachhuber for their comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this manuscript.
1 would like to thank Leland Patterson of Houston, Texas for the time he spent with me
in telephone communication; discussing analytical techniques, refinements of techniques, and
modifications that were useful for this project. Dr. Jeffrey Flenniken taught me his method
of debitage analysis which has proven to be invaluable to my research. Susan Murphy greatly
aided my scramble for the topographic maps I needed to send to Dr. Richard Hughes - who
did the geochemical analysis of the obsidian artifacts. I am deeply appreciative of the time
and effort extended to me by these individuals.
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Last, but not least, I would like to extend my thanks to the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas for generously allowing me access to the Adam 2, Bovine Bluff, and Main Ridge
collections. Without which, none of this work would have been possible.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This project began with background research into the cultural prehistory of the
southeastern region of Nevada; lithic analyses that have been done in the region, and both past
and cinrent theories for the Anasazi in general, the Virgin Anasazi, and the Lowland Virgin
Anasazi in particular, whose presence in this area is not well understood. There appears to
be a virtual dearth of lithic studies for the Lowland Virgin Anasazi, and not much more for
the Virgin Anasazi, though the Anasazi culture area in Arizona has been much better
documented (Simmons 1982a; Parry and Christenson 1987).
Location and Environment
The Lowland Virgin area is the portion of the Anasazi culture area situated in the
Moapa Valley of southeastern Nevada (Lyneis 1995). This is near where the Muddy River
and the Virgin River join in what is now Lake Mead. This area lies in the northeastern
Mojave Desert within the Colorado River drainage (Figure 1 ). For reference, the project area
is approximately 64 kilometers south of the boundary with the floristically defined Great Basin
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure I. Map of study area
Desert (Cronquist et al. 1986); therefore, valley elevations are lower and temperatures are
slightly higher than the floristically defined Great Basin Desert.
While there have been some climatic changes in the Mojave Desert over the last 8000
years, they have been relatively minor (Spaulding 1995). The entire region is characterized
by north-south trending mountains whose peaks reach as high as 9,900 feet above sea level
and whose valle>'s reach as low as 246 feet below sea level (Fenneman 1931). Temperatures
range fi’om well over 100 degrees F. in the summer to fi’eezing in the winter. The climate is
arid because evaporation exceeds precipitation, and mean annual precipitation is less than 5
inches/yr (extrapolating fi-om Las Vegas weather records). Precipitation is evenly distributed
between summer and winter rains (Houghton et al. 1975).
The environment supports Upper and Lower Sonoran desert plant communities. The
vegetative communities found in lower altitudes include such plants as creosote bush, low
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3
sagebrush, rabbitbrush, antelope brush, greasewood, saltgrass, tobosa, wheat grass, red-top
grass, blue grass, needlegrass, skeleton weeds, desert saltbrush, cat claw, mesquite,
screwbean. Mormon tea, agave, joshua tree, sunflower, and a variety of cacti (Steward
1938). At higher elevations the dominant vegetation is pinon, juniper, service berry,
chokeberry, elderberry, gooseberry, wax currant, willow, martynia, arrowweed, and various
cacti (Steward 1938).
Mammals found in the lower elevations include mule deer, antelope, jackrabbits,
cottontails, coyotes, and numerous varieties of rodents. Beaver and muskrat occur along
stream courses, and wolves, mountain lions, lynxes, and mountain sheep are found in higher
elevations (Steward 1938).
The environment also supports a variety of birds and reptiles. Birds include hawks
and owls, buzzards, quail, roadrunners, and mourning dove. Reptiles include chuckawalla,
gila monster, desert tortoise, collared lizard, sagebrush lizard, whip-tailed lizard, homed toad,
gopher snakes, and rattlesnakes (Steward 1938).
Background
The Lowland Virgin Anasazi occupied the river margins of the Muddy and Virgin
Rivers in southeastern Nevada, building pithouses and pueblos on the gravel terraces above
the water line and using the flood plain areas for farming (Shutler 1961). The Anasazi began
settling into the area in relatively stable pithouse communities sometime around the interface
between the locally defined Gypsum and Saratoga Springs periods (ca. AD 500). This phase
of occupation is termed the Basketmaker II period in broad Southwestern terms. While the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4
time frame for the Basketmaker II period (BMH) is actually about 300 BC - AD 500. sites
recognized as belonging to the BMII period in the Moapa Valley tend to date to the latter
part of the period, and continuous occupation of the valley is believed to have begun at
around AD 500 (Lyneis et al. 1989). Agricultural products grown in the flood plain areas
included com, squash, and beans (Larson and Michaelsen 1990).
The Basketmaker III period (AD 500-800) corresponds to Shutlefs (1961) Muddy
River Phase and is characterized by the introduction of ceramics and the transition to the use
of the bow and arrow from atlatl/dart technology. The addition of cotton as an agricultural
product is believed to have occurred at this time (Lyneis et al. 1989). Pithouse structures
were still the primary architectural form during this period.
The Pueblo I period (AD 800-1000) is equivalent to Shutlefs (1961) Lost City Phase.
It is believed that agricultural intensification became more pronounced in this period than in
the previous period, though a continual increasing dépendance on agriculture is postulated
for the Lowland Virgin Anasazi during their entire occupation span of the area (Allison 1996;
Larson and Michaelsen 1990; Lyneis et al. 1989; Shutler 1961). Above ground adobe
stmctures began to be utilized during this period.
The Pueblo II period (AD 1000-1150 ) is the period with the densest population in
the Moapa Valley. It is broken into three subperiods: Early Pueblo II (AD 1000-1050),
Middle Pueblo II (AD 1050-1100), and Late Pueblo II (AD 1100-1150). These subperiods
appear to be characterized mainly by changes in ceramic styles (Lyneis et al. 1989). The
above ground adobe structures became the dominant architectural form during this period.
While it is unclear if the Lowland Virgin Anasazi were ever fully sedentary or not, certainly
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5
their subsistence pattern was different than that of the hunter-gatherer peoples inhabiting the
region with whom they interacted.
Research Goals
The analysis of lithic collections from three Lowland Virgin Anasazi sites was the
focus for this research. As debitage analysis has been gaining an increasing importance in
lithic analyses, varying methods of ddsitage analysis were studied to determine which method
or combination of methods would be most useful. Five methods of debitage analysis most
commonly used were tested on the smallest collection, the materials from Adam 2. Once the
most effective method had been identified, it was used for the remainder of the collections.
The results of this test are detailed in Chapter 2.
Three collections of Lowland Virgin Anasazi flaked stone artifacts were analyzed.
The collections are from Adam 2 (26CK2059), Bovine Bluff (26CK3130), and Main Ridge
(26CK2148). One of the research goals was to identify any trends in lithic technology that
might exist. Each of these sites fell within a different time frame; Bovine Bluff is early Pueblo
n (A.D. 1000-1050), Main Ridge is from mid-Pueblo II times (A.D. 1050-1100), and Adam
2 is a late Pueblo II site (A.D. 1100-1150). The Lowland Virgin Anasazi abandoned the area
before the developments of Pueblo HI times, which occurred elsewhere (Lyneis 1992:1).
One issue of internal site dynamics from each site was addressed. It had been
proposed that projectile points were being traded into Adam 2 in a complete or preform stage
of manufacture (Lyneis et al. 1989). Thus, this issue was targeted for investigation. The
results are presented in Chapter 2 and discussed further in Chapter 3.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6
An aceramic area was located within the Bovine Bluff site (Myhrer and Lyneis 1985),
but it was unclear if this was a special use area or if it derived from an earlier habitation of the
site. Thus, this issue was also targeted for investigation; results are in Chapter 4.
At Main Ridge, areas of CCTamic concentrations were noted (Lyneis 1992), along with
the possibility that these might be special use areas. This project proposed to determine if
there were lithic concentrations, and if so, if they matched those of the ceramic
concentrations. Results and suggestions are reported in Chapter 5.
All of the chipped stone artifacts from each collection were analyzed. Projectile points
were typed and characterized as arrow or dart points. The characterization of projectile
points as atlatl/dart or arrow points may aid in pinpointing the transition from the use of
atlatl/dart technology to that of the bow and arrow, thus this analysis was performed on the
point collection from each site and the results will be dealt with as part of recognizing trends
or change in tool types and/or tool use. An attempt to track changes in tool technology is
addressed in Chapter 6.
The Lowland area has been little studied until recent times and therefore many areas
of research have gone unexplored. One of those areas is the question of trade and exchange
with the peoples inhabiting the Mojave Desert farther west and the Great Basin Desert farther
north (see Figure 1). Ceramics studies indicate that contact was maintained with other Virgin
Anasazi areas, and the Kayenta area. It was unclear, however, where the Lowland Anasazi
obtained obsidian. Since shell artifacts have revealed trade relations outside the Anasazi
culture area (Lyneis 1992; Warren 1986), it seemed possible that obsidian was also obtained
from outside the Anasazi culture area, probably from trade with people to the west.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. One of the problems encountered in the archaeology of the Lowland Virgin area is the
lack of recent sourcing of obsidian artifacts. Results from previous attempts have generally
listed the sources as "unknown" (Myhrer and Lyneis 1985). Thus, one question that this
research addressed was to discover, if possible, where the obsidian came from. The data base
for obsidian sources has increased greatly over the last ten years or so; therefore, it was hoped
that this project would be able to meet with better success than previous studies. The results
of the obsidian sourcing, however, did little to enhance previous knowledge (see Appendix
D), thus the details of this research will be dealt with within the site chapters.
Table 1 outlines the research questions and methodology utilized by this project.
Research questions that are specifically designed for individual sites will be addressed in each
site chapter; the issues that encompass the final results of analyses from all of the sites are
addressed in separate chapters.
Table 1. Project Objectives OBJECTIVE METHOD REASON
Discover whether projectile points Performmg a detailed It has been h\pothesized that were manufactured on site or if they debitage analysis projectile points were traded mto were being traded in; specific Virgm .Anasazi sites question for Adam 2 Chapter 3
Attempt to identify trade routes: Use of obsidian Little is known about Virgin Anasazi specific question for Adam 2 and sourcing obsidian trade Main Ridge Chapter 3 & 4
Attempt to identity special use areas Analyze tool and Identification of special use areas aids within each site: specific question for debitage categories in understandmg site function as well both Bovine Bluff and Main Ridge within units and then as socio-cultural behavior Chapter 4 & 5 compare units
Identify trend(s) in tool use through Comparing percentages Attempt to gain insight into the ways time: general question of tool types and in which an increasing dependency on Chapter 6 debitage between site agriculture is reflected in the lithic collections record
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER TWO
COMPARISON OF DEBITAGE
ANALYSIS METHODS
The analyses performed for this project have been restricted to the chipped stone
artifacts. Most researchers are conscientious about analyzing all stone tools recovered but,
there are some very different approaches to the analysis of the debitage (waste material)
(Simmons 1982a; Sullivan and Rozen 1985; Patterson 1990; Healan 1995; Flenniken 1996).
This is due to the fact that debitage studies are still relatively new in the region and the
methods for analysis have been going through rapid changes. It is becoming increasingly
obvious that debitage analysis can reveal information about patterns of mobility, settlement
patterns, technology, site function, raw resource utilization, trade and exchange. In addition,
debitage analysis provides information as to the manufacture of tools that are not present at
the site (Amick and Mauldin 1989).
A brief overview of five commonly used methods of debitage analysis is given below,
followed by a chart that indicates the level of training required for each method, the relative
time involved to complete each method, and the effectiveness of each method for maximum
utilization of data.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Methods of Debitage Analysis
Decortication Analysis
Most researchers analyze flakes for presence or absence of cortex. This reveals whether
the activity at the site involved the creation of an artifact from unworked raw material or
previously worked material. This is a quick and easy form of analysis whereby primary,
secondary, and tertiary flakes are identified by the amount of cortex present. This is used as
an indicator for the stage of blank reduction. (Ethnographic studies have revealed that this
is not always accurate, that there are a great many factors involved in the production of flaked
stone tools [Shott 1989].) It is now known that distance from the raw material source plays
an important part in how much cortex will be left on the material before it is transported and
that there are several different ways in which material is worked in order to be made ready
for transport. While presence or absence of cortex is important in making inferences
pertaining to early stage reduction, it does little to enhance understanding of other stages of
reduction (Magne 1989).
Whole Flake Analysis
Sullivan and Rozen (1985) do not believe that flakes exhibit any reliable patterning of
attributes and therefore they have devised a method of analysis based on whether a flake is
whole, broken, fragmented, or debris. They feel that differences in the debitage category
proportions reveal information by which inferences about the site in general can be tested.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10
Their method is fairly simple as it only requires the recognition of a ventral surface and the
presence or absence of a bulb of percussion and flake margins. Unfortunately, their premise
that individual flakes do not exhibit patterned attributes is undermined by the necessity of
identifying ventral surfeces and bulbs of percussion which are, in fact, attributes. Replication
studies have allowed researchers to understand that flakes do have attributes representative
of stages of reduction, quite aside from decortication (see Crabtree 1972; Magne 1989;
Whittaker 1994).
Size Grading
In an effort to create a method by which flakes can be easily analyzed, Leland Patterson
(1990) devised a template for establishing the presence of bifacial-reduction based on flake-
size in a distribution table. It is quick and easy to use, both in the field and in the lab.
Pressure flaking is the final stage of production for many forms of bifacial tools. Since
pressure flakes tend to be small and thin compared to percussion flakes, Patterson feels that
the presence of a high percentage o f small flakes at a site reveals that full bifacial reduction
of specialized tools was the activity performed at the site. This is not necessarily accurate.
Small flakes are produced at all stages of stone tool manufacture. Thus, higher percentages
of small flakes do not represent the stage of manufacture a tool was in when those flakes were
produced (Magne 1989).
Dan Healan (1995) has done studies of flake-size distributions, but his studies are based
on microscopic versus macroscopic flakes. Whether his method can be used or not depends
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Il
on whether collection, multiple screening, and flotation analysis is going to be performed in
order to gather the material required to perform his comparisons. His analysis is further
complicated by the fact that microscopic flakes are not always pressure flakes; indeed, at least
half of them are not. Therefore it can be seen that size grading of flakes is not an accurate
form of debitage analysis (Magne 1989; Tuohy 1987).
Flake Characteristic Analysis
Many researchers (Hayden 1977; Parry and Christenson 1987; Magne 1989; Tomka
1989; Flenniken 1996; Nassaney 1996; Dames and Moore 1997) who are aware of the
limitations of the previously listed forms of analyses have combined the parts that they feel
are the most useful in data interpretation. This means that presence or absence of cortex, as
well as amount of cortex, is analyzed, and noncortical flakes are broken into categories of
eariy and late stages of the reduction process. The early stage noncortical flakes are listed as
percussion flakes and the late stage noncortical flakes are listed as pressure flakes. Early and
late stage noncortical flakes are identified largely by size and type of striking platform.
Percussion flakes are further split into two categories; tertiary flakes are those which are
larger and have few dorsal scars, and biface thinning flakes, which are thiimer and have five
or more dorsal scars. This method of analysis requires training and is not as quick to
accomplish as the individual methods is was derived from. It does, however, provide more
data.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12
While this form of analysis is an improvement over the previously discussed methods,
it has drawbacks as well. Most pressure flakes are recognized by the 'V shape of their
striking platform and the limited amount of flake scars on the dorsal surface. These are not
always accurate forms of identification. Some percussion flakes have "V shaped striking
platforms whereas many pressure flakes do not. The ability to differentiate between these
types of flakes has given rise to a more advanced method of flake characteristic analysis called
composite of debitage attributes (CODA) which is described below.
Composite of Debitage Attributes (CODA)
CODA analysis requires intensive training. It generally requires a fraction more time
to perform than flake characteristic analysis; although the actual time difference depends upon
proficiency. This method fully acknowledges and utilizes the attributes on flakes that are
acquired at the time of their production. Early and late stages for both percussion and
pressure flakes are identified, and secondary and tertiary flakes are sometimes subsumed
under those categories. Furthermore, various types of flakes that do not exhibit a striking
platform are identified as well as the activity that produced them (Whittaker 1994). The
differentiation between notching flakes (flakes resulting fi'om the process of notching
projectile points) and late stage pressure flakes is made. This is especially helpful as notching
flakes are indicative of the type of tool being completed. This, in turn, is useful as an aid in
establishing crude temporal fi'ameworks when no other source is available.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13
Many dd)ttage collections are comprised of an accumulation of flakes from numerous
reduction/manufacturing activities, sometimes spanning long periods of time. The ability to
detect the reduction strategies of these different events is possible when you understand the
distinct types of flakes that only result from specific reduction technologies (Tomka 1989).
The CODA method details what type of material source was exploited and the technology
used to produce lithic tools. This is based on distinct flake types such as flakes with renmant
detachment scars (from flake core technology), bipolar flakes (bipolar technology), flakes
with incipient cone cortex (reduction of talus slope/water deposited cobble technology),
alternate flakes (block core technology), and flakes with rough cortex (quarried material from
an outcropping or pavement). It also allows for the recognition of flake types that have been
selected out for use as tools, even when those tools are absent. All of this greatly raises the
potential for understanding site dynamics.
Summary of Comparisons
Table 2 details the differences between the methods reviewed above. The ease of each
procedure relative to the degree of knowledge necessary to carry out each procedure is given
for each method. The average time necessary, per flake, that each method requires is shown
and each method is rated from low to high for overall effectiveness in the maximum utilization
of all possible data. Decortication analysis, whole flake analysis and size grading are shown
to be the least effective; they also require the least amount of time.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14
Table 2. Methoc Comparison Method Ease of Procedure Average Time Effectiveness
Decortication Easy 2 seconds Low
Whole Flake Minimal Trainmg 3 seconds Low
Size Grading Eas>- 2 seconds Low-
Flake Characteristic Requires Training 4 seconds Moderate
CODA Extensive Trammg 5'/; seconds High
Results
Background
The Adam 2 site (26Ck-2059) was reported by Lyneis, Rusco, and Myhrer in 1989. It
is a late Virgin Anasazi pueblo site that is located on a gravel terrace in the Moapa Valley.
It is heavily disturbed, having been looted more than once. Excavation was done in an
attempt "to diminish the disturbed appearance of the site's surface, viewed as an invitation to
additional pot-hunting, and to investigate the nature and condition of the site" (Lyneis et al.
1989:1). Excavation was stopped upon encountering intact deposits, thus the material
collected is only from the previously disturbed areas and therefore can not be considered a
representative sample.
All of the methods detailed above were applied to the debitage from the Adam 2
collection. The effectiveness of using each method to obtain maximum archaeological data
ft>r satisfying the research question of whether projectile points were being produced on site
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15
or being brought onto the site in either preform or completed stage is described below, along
with a brief comparison.
Decortication Analysis
Table 3 gives the results of decortication analysis. Using this method, it was found that
raw material was being reduced at the site, presumably for the manufacture of bifaces and
other tools. Without sourcing the artifacts, this is the most information this type of analysis
could provide. This is basic information and does not effectively maximize the potential of
the data.
For this analysis, primary flakes were those flakes exhibiting 100% cortex, secondary
flakes were those flakes exhibiting 50 - 99% cortex, tertiary flakes exhibited less than 50%
cortex, and noncortical flakes had no cortex at all. The debris category is for those flakes
which do not have a platform or recognizable stage of reduction (including shatter).
Table 3 Decortication Analysis Primarv Secondary Tertiary Noncortical Debris Total CCS 4 17 10 135 152 318
QZT I 10 1 9 33 54
LM 2 2 1 15 14 34
OB 0 1 2 4 3 10
Total 7 30 14 163 202 416 CCS= Crypto-crystalline silicate, QZT= Qnartzite, LM= Limestone, 0B= Obsidian
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16
Whole Flake Analysis
Whole flake analysis is used as a tool for identifying discrete areas within a site, rather
than as a means of understanding debitage (Sullivan and Rozen 1985). Thus, due to the
nature of the field work at Adam 2, this method could not be effectively utilized. Since
Sullivan and Rozen (1985), the developers of this method, do not recognize that flakes have
recognizable characteristics, there was no way in which to analyze the debitage as individual
artifacts. Magne (1989; 16) has termed this method of analysis as "retrogressive" and Prentiss
(1998:647) determined that while this method is reliable, it "does not appear to be a valid
measuring instrument". Therefore, this method of analysis was not utilized.
Size Grading
Using Patterson's size grading analysis, it appears that some stage(s) of tool
manufecture was carried out at the site. The raw data is presented in Table 4 and the graphed
results of this analysis are detailed in Figure 2. In order to create a distribution chart, the
median of each size category from the raw data in Table 4 was used in a semilog linear
equation expressed in graph form. The equation is in the form:
log(P) = a + bS,
where: P = percent of total flakes and S = flake size
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17
Table 4. Size Grading Data CRYPTO-CRYSTALLINE SILICATE
Size 5mm- 10mm- 15mm- 20mm- 25mm- 30mm- 35mm- Total
71 156 62 19 6 3 ! 318
QUARTZITE 11 26 13 3 I II LIMESTONE 8 15 9 2 II OBSIDIAN
7 3 10
Total 97 200 84 24 7 3 I 416
180 Legend u o — CCS — quartzite 120 -- limestone — - obsidian 100 U.
40
2.5 7.5 12.5 32.5 Size of Flakes in millimeters square
Figure 2. Flake-size distribution analysis
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18
Due to larger sample size, the results of the flake-size distribution analysis are best
exemplified by the ciypto-crystalline silicious (CCS) material (mainly chert and chalcedony).
The graph shows the curve that is predicted for biface manufacture. Even the quartzite and
limestone, however, follow the expected curve of biface manufacture. The obsidian results
do not follow the expected curve, suggesting that the full reduction sequence for the
manufacture of obsidian artifacts did not take place at the site (a fact also revealed by the
sparsity of obsidian debitage).
This method was originally designed to determine whether or not biface manufacture
was being performed (Patterson 1990) and while it appears to be successful, the same curve
can be expected fi'om any type of tool manufacture as all reduction produces varying sizes of
flakes (Magne 1989). No other information regarding debitage could be determined without
combining other types of debitage analysis.
Flake Characteristic Analysis
Table 5 details the results of flake characteristic analysis fi'om the Adam 2 debitage
collection. Using this method it was found that raw material was being reduced at the site
and that the manufacture of biface artifacts of all stages was being done. In addition to
recognizing the two secondary decortication stage flakes, this analysis revealed that four of
the other eight obsidian flakes recovered fi-om Adam 2 were pressure flakes and four were
shatter (debris). The lack of tertiary and bifacial thinning flakes suggests that obsidian
Reproduced with permission of the copyrightowner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19
Table 5. Results of Flake Characteristic Analysis CCS LM OB QZT TOTAL
PRIMARY 4 2 - 1 7
SECONDARY 27 3 2 11 43
TERTIARY 59 9 - 4 72
BIFACIAL THINNING 34 5 - 4 43
PRESSURE 42 I 4 1 48
SHATTER 152 14 4 33 203
TOTAL 318 34 10 54 416 CCS= Crypto-crv stalline Silicate, LM= Limestone, 0B= Obsidian, QZT= Quartzite
projectile points were not being manufectured at the site. Likewise, the presence of all stages
of reduction in the CCS debitage suggests that the manufacture of CCS points probably was
being carried out on site. This method is sound, but it does not maximize the data potential.
Composite of Debitage Attributes (CODA) Analysis
Using CODA analysis (Table 6 with descriptions in Table 7), it was found that water-
deposited pebbles and cobbles were being reduced into specialty tools, with the exception of
obsidian artifacts. It was discovered that despite the presence of obsidian decortication and
undiagnostic flakes, the lack of second and third stage reduction flakes indicates that obsidian
was being brought onto the site already in an advanced state of reduction, probably as late
stage preforms or completed tools. The pressure flakes that were recovered are more
indicative of resharpening or finishing efforts than of manufacturing efforts. The key clue to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20
Table 6. Results of CODA Analysis
TYPE CCS LM OB QZT BT GR RHY SLS Total
1.00 PC 4 2 1 _ _ .- 7 1.01 PI ------1 l o s e 6 2 2 8 - - - 18 1.11 SI 2 -- 1 -- -- 3 1.12SF ------1.20 1C 9 ------9 2 1 21 11 2 ------1.22 IS 3 ------3 123 EM 5 1 - 1 ---- 7
1.24 lA 2 ------2
1.50 BP --- 1 - - -- 1
2.00 BTD 1 _ --- 1 2.01 BTA ------2.02 BTAR ------
2.03 BTE 10 1 ------11 2.04 BTER 1 ------1 2.05 BTF 1 ------1
2.06 BTC ------
3.00 PM 1 - - --- 1 3.01 PMR ------3.02 HP 40 7 - 4 1 --- 52 3.03 EPR 3 1 -----' 4 3 04 LP 33 5 - 4 1 -- - 43 3.05 LPR 1 ------1 3.07 LPC ------
4.00 PM __- ----
4.01 PMR -- 1 - -- -- 1
4.02 HP 15 ------15
4.03 EPR ------4.04 LP 23 1 3 1 - - -- 28 4.05 LPR 1 ------1 4.06 N 3 ------3
- - 4.08 PC ------
9.00 E _ ..---- 9.02 P ------9.03 S 3 2 1 3 -- - - 9 9.10UC 22 4 1 10 - - -- 37 9 11 U1 ------9.12 UN 127 8 2 20 - 1 -- 158
- - 9.13 UF ------
TOTAL 318 34 10 54 2 1 0 0 419 CCS=cryptocrystalline silicate, LM=limestone, OB= obsidian. QZT= quartzite, BT=basalt, GR= granite
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21
Table 7. Debitage Descriptions
1.00 PC. Priman' decortication flake 1.01 PI; Primary decortication flake with incipient cone 1 10 SC: Secondary decortication flake 1.11 SI: Secondary decortication flake with incipient cone 112 SF: Secondary float decortication flake 1.20 IC : Interior flake with cortical platform 1.21 II: Interior flake with cortical platform and incipient cone 1.22 IS: Interior flake with single facet platform 1.23 IM: Interior flake with multiple facet platform 1.24 lA: Interior flake with platform absent 1.50 BP: Bipolar flake
2.00 BTD: Bifacial thinning flake with dorsal remnant bulb from parent flake 2.01 BTA: Bifacial thinning alternate flake 2.02 BTAR: Bifacial thinning alternate flake with remnant detachment scar 2.03 BTE: Bifacial thinning edge preparation flake 2.04 BTER: Bifacial thinning edge preparation flake with remnant detachment scar 2.05 BTF Bifacial thinning float decortication flake 2.06 BTC : Bifacial thinmng with remnant cortex
3.00 PM: Percussion margin removal flake 3.01 PMR; Percussion margin removal flake with remnant detachment scar 3.02 HP: Early percussion flake 3.03 EPR: Early percussion flake with remnant detachment scar 3.04 LP: Late percussion flake 3.05 LPR: Late percussion flake with remnant detachment scar 3.06 EPC : Early stage percussion flake with remnant cortex 3.07 LPC: Late stage percussion flake with remnant cortex
4.00 PM: Pressure flake with margin removal 4.01 PMR: Pressure flake with margin removal and remnant detachment scar 4.02 EP: Early pressure flake 4.03 EPR: Early pressure flake with remnant detachment scar 4.04 LP: Late pressure flake 4.05 LPR. Late pressure flake with remnant detachment scar 4 06 N: Notch flake 4.07 NR: Notch flake with remnant detachment scar 4.08 PC: Pressure flake with remnant cortex
9.00 E: Erailure flake 9.01 PL: Potlid flake 9.02 P. Pooch flake 9.03 S: Sheared flake 9.10 UC: Undiagnostic flake fragment with cortex 9.11 UI: Undiagnostic flake fragment with incipient cone cortex 9.12 UN: Undiagnostic flake without cortex 9.13 UF: Undiagnostic flake with float cortex
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22
making this distinction is the presence of a margin-removal flake with a remnant detachment
scar. Remnant detachment scars are found as the result of flake-core reduction (Flenniken
1996), whereas the decortication flakes were the result of the reduction of a small water-
carried pebble. The fact that the flake is a maigin removal from pressure flaking indicates the
tool was in an almost complete stage of manufacture. The three late stage pressure flakes
could be the result of either retouch or manufacture.
The CODA method established that while the majority of raw material utilized was
water deposited (identified by a smooth cortex with incipient cones [small cone shaped
fractures penetrating the interior surface of the material due to tumbling action from
movement on talus slopes or water deposition]); some quarried material was utilized as well.
Quarried material was identified by lack of incipient cone cortex and by the presence of flakes
that only occur from the reduction of quarried material, such as bifacial alternate flakes (flakes
resulting from the reduction of blocks of material). The identification of flakes with remnant
detachment scars revealed that flake blanks were being used for the manufacture of tools as
well as core blanks. Thus, the methods of reduction used at Adam 2 were shown to be
pd)bIe/cobble reduction of water deposited material (probably from the gravel of the terrace
the site is situated on) and reduction of quarried material, as well as final stage completion of
specialty obsidian tools.
Since the identification of quarried cortex was possible, it is probable that the quarry
source was nearby, otherwise the material would most likely have been decorticated prior to
transport to the site. This shows that the inhabitants of Adam 2 probably did not have to
travel fer for their lithic material, with the exception of obsidian, which is not local. If
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23
quarried material was only identified by the flake attributes and not also by the presence of
cortex without incipient cones, it could be hypothesized that the material was at a distance
far enough away to make portage a problem without first reducing the mass of undesirable
material. Only CODA analysis allows for this distinction.
It was revealed that certain stages of percussion flakes were being selected out for use
as tools. This information came from the identification of lower percentages of early stage
percussion flakes than should have been present given the percentages of the other stages of
reduction that were present. This information was confirmed by identifying the stage of
reduction the retouched and utilized flakes were firom.
In addition to the analysis given above, a comparison of Table 5 and Table 6
demonstrates the difference of intensification between the CODA and flake characteristic
methods of analysis.
The use of the various methods of debitage analysis for the Adam 2 site demonstrates
the limited effectiveness of most of the methods, while demonstrating the comprehensiveness
of the data accumulated by using the CODA method of analysis. Thus, the CODA method
was selected for use on the remaining collections.
Lithic Formation Process
Debitage is the result of tool manufacture and repair. As the CODA method of analysis
demonstrated above, the use of various technologies involved in tool manufacturing can be
detected by the type of debitage preserved in the archaeological record. Lithic assemblage
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24
formation processes are based on the use of various technologies in response to sociocultural
and/or environmental stresses (Shott 1986; Parry and Kelly 1987; Kelly 1988; Torrence 1989;
Bamforth 1991; Kuhn 1994). Thus, an understanding of the various lithic technologies is
necessary in order to gain meaningful interpretation o f a lithic assemblage (Parry and
Christenson 1987; Henry 1989; Torrence 1989b; Carr 1994b). Before beginning analysis of
the three assemblages, the tool manufacturing process is briefly reviewed as a method of
emphasizing the processual aspect from quarried material to tool uses.
The process is organized by functional steps that emphasize cultural-functional variables
such as distance traveled and camp locations. The process has been discussed in other
manners (cf. Henry 1989,4 stages), but all cases present the production and use of lithic tools
as a dynamic process. While trade can occur at any stage of tool manufacture (cf. Hughes
and Bermyhoff 1986; Doyel 1991:231; Renfrew and Bahn 1991:309; Fish et al. 1992:37), this
review does not include this variable.
Tool Manufacturing Process
Step One: Raw Material
Procurement o f the raw material begins the process. Material can be obtained from a
quarry (outcropping or pavement), from talus slopes, and from pebbles, cobbles, or even
boulders that are found in and along waterways (Lyneis 1984; Bamforth 1991, 1992; Doyel
1991; Miller 1991). If the source is close to the camp or habitation site, larger pieces of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25
material are liable to be taken away with little or no flake reduction (Henry 1989). Portage
becomes an issue when material is further away and greater attention toward desirability, size,
and quality of the material is emphasized (Renfrew and Bahn 1991, Magne 1989, Shott 1989,
Johnson and Morrow 1987).
How does this effect tool production? Lower quality material is often more difficult to
knap (Whittaker 1994), which can result in tools that are 'lumpy' due to the knappefs inability
to evenly thin the material or projectile points with shoulders of differing slope which places
the tip of the point off-center. Flaws in good material can cause the projected shape and/or
size of tools to be altered before completion (Kuhn 1994) and good quality material that
allows for a more homogeneous end product is often rare (Bamforth 1992; Whittaker 1994).
A knapper may maximize good material resulting in fewer tool types but larger tools,
more but smaller tools, or a combination of both. This decision is presumably based on
current needs, scarcity of material, and/or cultural desire (as in the manufacture of elite
goods) (Shott 1986; Parry and Christenson 1987; Bamforth 1991; Fish et al. 1992).
If portage is a consideration, variables such as weight will be assessed on the most
efficient means for carrying the material. Certainly weight becomes a factor. If coming from
a quarry, material can be carried as one or more very large flake cores, reduced to one or
more large biface cores, reduced to a number of large blades, or reduced to a number of
smaller flakes, cores, blades, or blanks (Parry and Christenson 1987; Henry 1989; Bamforth
1992; Odell 1996; Thacker 1996). The entire reduction process seldom takes place at the
quarry. These considerations also exist for material found along waterways, but the option
of forming mega-flakes and mega-cores is absent with pebbles and cobbles.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26
Step Two; Primary Reduction
The term 'primary reduction' is distinct from 'primary flake attributes'. Primary and
secondary flakes are the result of primary reduction; the removal of cortex from the raw
material is primary reduction (Hayden 1977; Henry 1989; Flenniken 1996). Often, recovered
tools, even projectile points, retain cortex on one or both sides, which demonstrates that
complete cortical removal is not necessary to produce a fully functional tool.
The location where primary reduction occurs often depends on the method of material
transport. With the transport of m^aflakes (for example), these objects can be primary flakes
(dorsal side is completely covered with cortex) and primary reduction (the removal of cortex)
can begin at the quarry and be completed elsewhere (Henry 1989). Long distance portage
generally requires complete primary reduction at the procurement area (see above), whereas
primary reduction may be completed back at camp (or the main settlement) when a source
is nearby. In any case, primary reduction may be viewed as the process used to attain
'workable' material (Hayden 1977; Odell 1996).
Step Three: Heat Treatment
Igneous material does not respond to the process of heat treating, but most
cryptocrystalline silicates (chert, flint, chalcedony, agate, onyx, and jasper) do (Whittaker
1994:74). Heat treatment enhances the knapping quality of raw material (Mandeville and
Flenniken 1974) and can be done before primary reduction, but it is more efficient to partially
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27
decorticate material in order to ascertain its quality. While heat treating enhances knapping
quality, it also reduces the tensile strength of the material. Thus, material is more likely to
break than if it had not been heat treated (Whittaker 1994:73). While I discuss heat treating
as step three, it can be done at any stage of reduction or entirely omitted (Mandeville and
Flenniken 1974; Bamforth 1991; Whittaker 1994).
Step Four: Secondary Reduction
Secondary reduction takes place once the raw material has been brought to a workable'
stage (Henry 1989). This workable material is generally in the form of cores or blanks and if
small enough, these are often used as tools such as scrapers before being further reduced (see
Arnold 1992:75). These are the artifacts often found in caches, such as "The Great Blade
Cache" in northern California (Rick and Jackson 1992). Secondary reduction begins after
decortication (and usually heat treatment). Since reduction is a process, part of a continuum,
it is difficult to ascertain how much reduction transpired to create a cobble-sized biface core
or blank (for example). In such cases, only the presence of a remnant detachment scar from
the parent flake will indicate that it was derived fi'om a mega-flake rather than from an actual
cobble (Whittaker 1994).
If raw material is easily accessible, small cobble and large pebble-size cores and blanks
can be used to produce a single tool, such as a small knife or projectile point, without regard
to wastage of material. But if material is being used conservatively, then it is far more likely
that tools will be manufactured in such a way that they can be utilized for a longer period of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28
time (Kelly 1988; Kuhn 1994; Hayden et al. 1996). One method is the use of biface cores
which allow flake removal for the manufacture of projectile points and other tools (Larson
1994:65), while still allowing use of the biface as a tool (Kelly 1988; Hayden et al. 1996;
Odell 1996).
Flaws in the material may not appear until after primary reduction. This effects the way
the material can be used for knapping as flaws can cause a core to break (Whittaker 1994).
With small cobble and pebble-size cores, the projected sizes of the tools must be altered in
response to the reduction in the size of the core. Fully expended cores may yet function as
tools such as scrapers (Binford 1979; Odell 1996).
The technology used for secondary reduction can vary depending on the size of the
core. For example, bipolar flaking may be used on small pebbles to yield large enough flakes
which serve as tools or blanks, when regular percussion flaking would be far less efficient
(Odell 1996:70). Hard hammer (early stage percussion) flakes, from any core strategy, tend
to be straighter than soft hammer (late stage percussion) flakes, thus requiring less leveling
of margins in the final reduction stage (Hayden et al. 1996:28).
Step Five: Final Reduction
Final reduction is the stage of manufacture where the knapper selects prepared material
and begins to thin and shape it. Secondary reduction is limited to percussion and bipolar
flaking. Final reduction involves pressure flaking as well.
Reproduced with permission of the copyrightowner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29
This is the stage where the entire process is manifested in the manufacture of specific
use tools, such as projectile points, drills, and small knives. If the material is of poor quality,
pressure flaking will be more difficult and more mistakes are likely to occur (Tankersley 1994;
Whittaker 1994). Knapping errors such as margin alteration, usually in the form of an
outrepasse (see Whittaker 1994:163), can severely alter the shape of the tool (Flenniken and
Raymond 1986:604). Very thin tools are easy to snap during pressure flaking. With
projectile points, most breakage in manufacture occurs during notching (Titmus and Woods
1986, Flenniken and Raymond 1986). These factors take into account problems involved in
flintknapping that affect the size, shape, and appearance of the final product, assuming the
knapper reworks, rather than discards, the broken pieces.
In the event of breakage, the resulting tools are differently sized than initially intended.
If raw material is scarce, then it is far more likely that broken pieces will be reworked
(Hayden et al. 1996; Odell 1996).
There are other factors which effect the size, shape, and appearance of the end product
that are not the result of problems. For example, if a point is manufactured fi'om a flake blank
obtained from a flake core, it may exhibit a remnant detachment scar on the dorsal surface.
This is because the flake blank was already thin enough that it only required pressure flaking
along the margins to shape and sharpen it. Whereas a point that is manufactured from a
biface core will generally be completely covered in flaking scars resulting from reduction,
thinning, shaping, and sharpening. These points have a different appearance from each other,
are the product of different technologies, and yet can occur in the same time period at the
same site (cf. Whittaker 1987, 1994).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30
Step Six: Use
Use can occur throughout all stages of reduction. Depending on the material type and
availability (see above), tools may be modified or further reduced. In the case of specialized
tools, such as projectile points, once the projectile point has been manufactured, it generally
gets halted for use (Bamforth 1991; Hayden et al. 1996). The tip and edges may require
resharpening and the tip may break, requiring the user to modify the shape to create a new
tip Ethnographically, most specialized tools are manufactured to allow for resharpening and
modification (Hayden et al. 1996). If a break occurs across the middle of a specialized tool,
the user decides if either section can be remade into an acceptable tool or else discards it.
Step Seven: Discarded Tools
Necessity plays a large role in whether a tool will be rejuvenated or discarded. Often
a user will rework an unacceptable/substandard (subjective decision) tool and continue to use
it until an opportunity to replace it arises (Ingbar 1994; Hayden et al. 1996; Odell 1996).
Alternatively, broken points and rejected points may be recycled for other functions such as
knives, drills, or scrapers. Sometimes discarded tools are scavenged by other people and
recycled (Hughes and Bennyhoff 1986; Hayden et al. 1996; Rick 1996).
This review shows there are multiple factors involved in tool manufacture. These
technologies are strategies that solve problems imposed upon an individual by the social
and/or physical environment (Torrence 1989:59).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER THREE
ADAM 2
The debitage from Adam 2 was briefly analyzed in the course of the comparisons of
methods in Chapter 2. This chapter describes the excavation and reports the results of the
remaining analyses. Excavations at the Adam 2 site (26Ck-2059) were reported by Lyneis,
Rusco, and Myhrer in 1989. It is a late Pueblo II site that is located in sands, on a gravel
terrace near the Muddy River in the Moapa Valley. It is heavily disturbed, having been looted
more than once and supposedly partially excavated sometime in the early 1930s (Lyneis et al.
1989:1). The 1930s excavation was not performed under controlled conditions. In 1979. and
again in 1981-82, excavation was undertaken in an effort to mitigate impacts to the site and
to determine if there were any intact deposits that might be of interest to future research.
Figure 3 shows the looter’s holes, backdirt piles from the looted areas, and the 1979
excavation units. The backdirt piles were screened with 1/8" mesh, as were all excavated
areas. A list of all lithic artifacts recovered from Adam 2 is presented in Appendix A.
Intact deposits were encoimtered, but excavation was stopped upon encountering them,
having satisfied the project's scope of work. Therefore, the excavated material collected from
Adam 2 is mostly from the previously disturbed areas. Surface collection included the
unlooted area between disturbed areas as well as disturbed areas. The artifacts recovered
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32
from the site must therefore be analyzed in the view that they are not necessarily
representative of the site in general. Some cautious generalizations, however, can be made
based on the surface collection and on the morphology of the artifacts themselves.
O
Figure 3. Adam 2 (Adapted from Lyneis et al 1989)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33
Projectile Points
It is important to understand that the looting of the site was almost entirely restricted
to digging through house floors in search of items associated with burials. The looters were
not especially careful in their search, or were uninterested in the lithic artifacts that they
encountered, and thus missed at least some of the projectile points (which were subsequently
recovered during excavation). This is somewhat surprising as projectile points are generally
easily identified even by amateurs, and are common targets for collection.
Typology
Two basic analyses were mn on the projectile points recovered from Adam 2. The first
was to determine the type of each point and the second was to categorize each point as either
an arrow or dart point. These analyses are both useful in establishing rough temporal
frameworks for aceramic sites, and serve as additional evidence for verifying time parameters
previously established by ceramic analysis.
Eight of the ten projectile points and bases from Adam 2 are made of crypto-crystalline
silicate (CCS) and two are made of obsidian. Of these, nine are Rosegate types and one CCS
point is undiagnostic. The Rosegate term is used here because the morphological variation
between Rosespring and Eastgate projectile points grades into one another (Thomas 1981)
and the temporal occurrence of both points is the same. Rosegate Series points are common
to the Great Basin and Mojave desert regions and to the Puebloan occupation of Southern
Nevada and Utah (Holmer 1986). It has been argued that this point series heralded the use
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34
of the bow and arrow at around 1700 BP (but see Odell 1988) and had replaced atlatl dart
point use by 1400 BP (Holmer 1986). The Rosegate series points were later replaced by
small side-notched points as well as other styles. The dates for these replacements vary
depending on the region, but in the Lowland Virgin area, it is thought that they continued in
use until about 700 BP (Holmer 1986; O'Connell 1975; Thomas 1981). This time frame
corroborates the Adam 2 site dates acquired by ceramic analysis and radiocarbon dating,
which place the site in the Mesa House Phase of about 900 to 850 BP (Lyneis et al. 1989; 1).
Atlatl/Dart Analysis
Even though Rosegate points are usually arrow points, some that have been associated
with earlier time periods (see Lanning 1963; Holmer 1980 for earlier occurrences) are
transitional and may have been dart points. The problem with discriminating between arrow
and dart points has been addressed many times (Amick 1994: Chatters et al 1995: Corliss
1980: Patterson 1994: Thomas 1978) with varying results.
The most recent approach to solving the problem was made by Shott (1997), who
concluded "...shoulder width alone yields results as satisfactory as any multiple-variable
model" (1997:99). He determined that darts have a mean shoulder width of 23 .1 mm and
arrows have a mean shoulder width of 14.7 mm (Shott 1997:91 ). The arguments he presents
are certainly worthy of consideration, but there appears to be one flaw that is difficult to
overlook; shoulder width changes when a point is resharpened. Indeed, many points have
very little shoulder remaining, and were probably discarded as spent' tools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35
To offset the problem of reduced shoulder width after multiple resharpening, I have
proposed that an additional variable of projectile point thickness be added as a stabilizer
(Allen 1997). Thickness appears to be the one variable least effected by use and reuse.
Results from Shott's sample of 171 projectile points lists a mean thickness for dart points at
5 mm and 4 mm for arrow points (1997:91). Using Shott's measurements for shoulder width
and thickness, I have combined both variables and tested them on a sample of 62 projectile
points from throughout the immediate areas of the region. Only four of the 62 points in the
sample had discrepancies between the two variables; two were thick with narrow shoulders
and two were thin with wide shoulders. The two points with narrow shoulders have distinct
signs of use as knives, and the other two were in the Elko Series of points, possessing wide
shoulders, but having thin bodies. The thickness for both Elko points was below the
established 5 mm mean. This suggests a 93 .5% success rate using shoulder width and point
thickness for arrow/dart determination. While 100% is a preferable success rate, if only one
variable is used, there is no apparent way of judging the accuracy of the results unless the
points are still attached to (fore)shafts. The Adam 2 collection was tested using both the
shoulder width and thickness variables. The raw data are presented in Tables 8 and 9.
The raw data presented in Table 8, when statistically analyzed, reveal a median shoulder
width of 15mm with a mean shoulder width of 16.7mm. If the undiagnostic point is removed
from analysis, the remaining points all belong to the Rosegate Series. The median shoulder
width shifts to 17mm with a mean of 17.5mm. Either way, the mean figures are higher than
Shott's established mean for arrow points. However, Shott did not limit his sample of
projectile points to any one specific type of point, but established a generalization for all
points.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36
Table 8. Adam 2 Projectile Point Shoulder Width Artifact # Type Shoulder Width Artifact Type Shoulder Width (mm) # (mm)
738 Rosegate 13 1077 Rosegate 17
770 Rosegate 21 1104 Rosegate 15
782 Rosegate 15 1324 Undiagnosüc 9
823 Rosegate 18 1562 Rosegate 19
973 Rosegate 19 1563 Rosegate 21
A sample of 30 Rosegate points, from sites located within the region, revealed a median
shoulder width of 17mm. with a mean shoulder width of 17.3 mm. While this is a decidedly
small sample, it does suggest that Rosegate points are at the higher end of Shott's accepted
size for arrow shoulder width. Indeed, this makes sense, as Rosegate points are considered
a transitional type from atlatl/dart to bow and arrow use. Viewed in this light, the results
from the Adam 2 collection are well within the expected size range for Rosegate shoulder
width.
Table 9. Adam 2 Projectile Point Thickness Artifact Type Thickness (mm) Artifact Type Thickness (mm)
738 Rosegate 3 1077 Rosegate 4
770 Rosegate 4 1104 Rosegate 3.5
782 Rosegate 4 1324 Undiagnostic 3
823 Rosegate 3 1562 Rosegate 4.3
973 Rosegate 4 1563 Rosegate 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37
When the sample of 30 Rosegate points was analyzed for thickness, a median of 3 .3 mm
and a mean of 3.3 mm was established. This is slightly lower than Shott's mean thickness for
arrows, and yet it suggests that while all arrows may exhibit a fairly wide range in
shoulderwidth. they fall within a much tighter range of body thickness. This makes sense, as
arrow shafts are thinner than atlatl/dart foreshafts. The Rosegate points from the Adam 2
collection have a median thickness of 3 6 mm and a mean thickness of 3.4 mm. Again, while
these figures are slightly below Shott's established mean for arrow points from his generalized
sample, they fell right in line with the expected numbers established by the Rosegate sample
analysis. Figure 4 shows the charted results of the combined variables.
Legend I Width 3 Thickness
25
738 770 782 823 973 1077 1104 1324 1562 1563 projectile point#
Figure 4. Adam 2 projectile point bar chart
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38
Other Chipped Stone Artifacts
Cores
Eight cores were recovered from Adam 2 (see Table 10). This is probably a deceptively
small number, in that it mostly represents disturbed areas. Three cores came from excavated
areas and the other five were recovered in the surface collection.
There is quite a variety among the cores recovered for such a small sample. One
expended crypto-crystalline silicate (CCS) vein core was recovered, which shows that the
inhabitants of Adam 2 supplemented their available toolstone material by procuring quarried
material from off site. CCS occurs in the gravels of the river terrace, but it is often flawed
from natural transport activity.
Table 10. Cores CRYPTO-CRYSTALLINE SILICATE
CORE CORE VEIN MICRO CORE TOOL TOTAL FRAG CORE CORE TOOL FRAG
0 0 I 0 2 0 3
LIMESTONE
0 1 0 0 0 0 I
RHYOLITE 0 0 0 0 2 ■ II 3 OBSIDIAN
0 0 0 1 0 0 I
TOTAL 0 I 1 1 4 1 8 NOTE: all core artifacts are expedient (informal)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39
One limestone core fragment was recovered. It is apparently from a cobble that was
found in the local gravel. Rhyolite and quartzhe are also found in the gravels. Three rhyolite
cores were recovered, and all exfiibit crushing along at least one edge, presumably from use
as tools. No expedient quartzite cores were recovered, though quartzite constitutes
approximately 1/6 of the debitage.
Hammerstones and Choppers
Three hammerstones, six choppers, and five apparent combinations of hammerstone and
chopper tools were recovered fi'om the site (see Table 11 ). Ten of the fourteen tools were
recovered during the surface collection. The combination tool has been termed a
hammer/chopper for convenience. These hammer/choppers all show slight use along at least
one long flaked edge, as though from chopping, and also show use on other edges or ends,
fi'om having been utilized as a hammerstone. In some cases, one end of the tool will be flaked
and show use on the edges, wfiile the other end of the tool will be unflaked and exfiibit
battering.
Chopper material varied between CCS, limestone, and scfiist. All of the hammerstones
and hammer/chopper artifacts were of quartzite. This makes sense, as quartzite is a harder
material, and thus more appropriate for pounding. Also, quartzite is the most commonly
occurring material in the terrace gravels. Quartzite would not seem to be a preferred material
for chopping as it lias a tendency to crumble and leave granular pieces behind rather than flake
when the tolerance has been reached. Thus, it appears that the dual use of some of the
hammerstones as choppers is based on expediency.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40
Table 11. Hammerstones and Choppers CRYPTO-CRYSTALLINE SILICATE
UNFLAKED FLAKED HAMMER/ CHOPPER TOTAL HAMMER HAMMER CHOPPER
0 0 Ü ■>
LIMESTONE
0 0 0 2
QUARTZITE
2 1 5 0 1 « SCHIST
0 0 0 “> 1
TOTAL 2 1 5 6 14
Large Bifaces
Nine biface or biface fragments belonging to the large biface (multifunction tool)
category were recovered from the site (see Table 12). Knives and preforms are often small,
but they have not reached a stage of reduction that limits their use as multifunctional tools.
Table 12. Large Bifaces CRYPT-CRYSTALLINE SILICAT
BIFACE CORE BIFACE BIFACE KNIFE KNIFE TOTAL CORE TOOL BLANK FRAG FRAG.
0 0 0 3 2 3 8
QUARTZITE
0 1 0 0 0 0 1
TOTAL 0 1 0 3 2 3 9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41
For example, knives and preforms can be used as scrapers, cutting implements, digging tools,
and (hafted) spear heads (Knecht 1997b). Thus, knives have been included in this category
because most of the knives are larger and not as well made as the heavily retouched,
specialized biface artifacts, all of which are small. One knife has been manufactured from a
formal blade, and has pressure flaking on both sides.
Only one quartzite biface was recovered; the rest are all made from CCS material. The
quartzite artifact is a bifece core tool of fine-grain quality. No other biface core artifacts were
recovered. The small sample size, due to the nature of the excavation, hampers understanding
of this. Either the manufacture of biface cores was not a regularly utilized form of core
technology at the site, or not enough of the site has been tested. My suspicion is that biface
core technology was not heavily utilized, since this is a technology used more by mobile
peoples than by sedentary ones, except in instances of distant transport. If the material is far
enough away that portage becomes an issue, then greater attention will usually be spent on
the desirability, size, and quality of the material, which is best evidenced by reduction
(Johnson and Morrow 1987; Magne 1989; Renfrew and Bahn 1991; Shott 1989).
Small Bifaces
Twenty artifacts that fall under the category of small bifaces were recovered from the
site (see Table 13). One is a white CCS drill base that was found on the floor of a unit a week
after excavation. The artifact was listed as already clean when found and, due to the nature
of its recovery, it has been excluded from analysis.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42
Table 13. Small Bifaces CRYPTO-CRYSTALLINE SILICATE
POINT POINT POINT POINT FLAKE DRILL TOTAL TIP BASE MID POINT
4 7 4 ■) 0 0 17
OBSIDIAN
1 0 1 0 0 0 2
TOTAL 5 7 5 2 0 0 19
Of the other nineteen small bifeces, two are manufactured from obsidian, the remainder
are made from CCS. All of them are projectile points or point fragments. Four of the point
fragments and one point base were recovered during the surfece collection, the other fourteen
artifacts were recovered during excavation. Ten of the artifacts have been typed (see
projectile point section), of these only one point base was recovered that was not associated
with backdirt from a looter's hole. This suggests that projectile points were included as grave
goods, though there is no way, now, of knowing. Certainly this is in keeping with other
burial sites of Anasazd people (Shutler 1961). Butchered bighorn sheep bone, however, are
part of the feunal assemblage recovered from the site (Lyneis et ai. 1989:95; Ferris 1989), so
it it appears that game animals supplemented the diet of the site's inhabitants.
Other Lithic Artifacts
This category includes unifaces, retouched and utilized flakes, scrapers, pebble tools,
and stone discs (see Table 14). Two small limestone pieces have been shaped into discs
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43
Table 14. Other Lithic Artifacts CRYPTO-CRYSTALLINE SILICATE
UNIFACE RETOUCHED UTILIZED SCRAPER PEBBLE TOTAL FLAKE FLAKE TOOL
0 2 4 0 1 7
LIMESTONE
0 0 2 0 0 2
QUARTZITE
1 0 0 0 «• BASALT
0 0 0 1 Ü 1
TOTAL 1 2 6 1 1 11 NOTE; some scrapers are unifaces, but are listed in the scraper category Also present at Adam 2: 2 small limestone discs, possible game pieces
approximately 16 grams in weight. Their function is unknown. One quartzite uniface appears
to have been used as a scraper. The only other scraper recovered is manufactured from basalt
and is bifacially worked. Two limestone flakes appear to have been used for scraping.
There are four utilized CCS flakes, one is a fortuitous blade, one appears to have been
utilized as a scraper, and the use of the other two is undetermined. All the utilized flakes are
from early stage bifecial reduction. One is a primary decortication ( 1/2 or more cortex) flake,
two are secondary decortication (1/2 or less cortex), and four are from early stage percussion.
The only flakes that show retoucliing are both of CCS material. They are both small and their
function is unknown.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44
Debitage
Crypto-crystalline silicates form the largest category of toolstone material, comprising
about 75% of all debitage. All stages of bifacial reduction are evident in the CCS debitage
(Table 15: also see Table 6, Chapter 2), suggesting the manufacture of both multifunction and
specialized tools. The presence of remnant detachment scars suggests that flake blanks were
utilized for the manufacture of smaller tools. Notching flakes were recovered, which suggests
that the manufacture of projectile points from CCS material occurred on she Bipolar
technology does not appear to have been utilized.
Limestone debhage exhibhs decortication and both early and late stages of percussion.
One late st%e pressure flake is recorded, but it appears to be an anomaly. There is no
evidence of finely worked limestone artifects, nor would these be expected as limestone does
not fracture conchoidally. Limestone makes up approximately 50% of the debitage.
Table 15. Debitage Summary Material Stages Present Amount
CCS All 318
Limestone Decortication & Percussion 34
Quartzite Decortication & Percussion 54
Obsidian Decortication & Pressure 10
Basalt Percussion ■>
Granite Undiagnostic I
TOTAL 419
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45
Quartzite flakes comprise about 16.5% of the debitage. Primary, secondary, and both
early and late stage percussion flakes are present. There are no bifacial edge preparation
flakes, suggesting that quartzite was not used for the manufacture of specialized tools. Since
no finely worked quartzite artifacts were recovered, this tends to support the suggestion. The
sample size and manner of excavation, however, may be oSering misleading information. The
suggestion that quartzite was only used for large, expedient type tools is only tentatively
suggested.
There are only ten obsidian flakes in the collection. Two are secondary decortication
flakes, four are undiagnostic flake fiagments. and four are pressure flakes. The decortication
flakes are small, probably the result of micro-core reduction. An obsidian micro-core was
recovered fi-om the site, adding weight to this observation.
The use of basalt and granite appears to be very limited. One biface and two flakes of
basalt were recovered and only one granite flake was found. The granite flake was
undiagnostic and may actually be the result of natural flaking.
Projectile Point Manufacture
(Site Specific Question)
Background
The 1989 report states, "the predominance of bifacially shaped and thinned specimens
in the Adam 2 point assemblage, in view of the meager evidence for bifacial flaked stone
production and final edge finishing, may indicate that points used by Adam 2 occupants are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46
produced elsewhere" (Lyneis et al. 1989:61). Specialized production at other nearby sites to
supply projectile points to Adam 2 occupants was tendered as a suggestion for the apparent
lack of evidence for projectile point manufacture (Lyneis et al. 1989: 75).
In order to address this problem, an examination of the debitage was in order. It was
felt that a higfily detailed debitage analysis could reveal evidence which might either support
or negate the original findings. The CODA method was then chosen as the best form of
debitage analysis for supplying indepth information (see Chapter 2).
Crypto-crystalline Silicate Points
The results of the CODA analysis (see Table 6, Chapter 2) reveal that though there is
only a small sample of debitage from the site, all stages of biface reduction/manufacture are
represented in CCS material. Decortication of both quarried and water carried CCS material
is present, as is early and late stages of percussion flaking, and early and late stages of
pressure flaking, especially and including, notching flakes. This suggests that CCS projectile
point manufacture did occur on site.
It must also be kept in mind that the projectile points recovered from the site appear to
be associated with burials. It does not seem reasonable to suppose that tool manufacture
would have occurred in the backdirt and pothole areas where the majority of the work was
undertaken ( and where nearly all the points were found). Considering the scope of work for
the excavation, it is surprising that as much debitage as there is was recovered. It seems to
be telling evidence that even such a small sample includes all stages of reduction.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47
Obsidian Points
The results of the debitage analysis concerning obsidian material is directly opposed to
the findings for CCS material. There are only ten obsidian flakes. The two obsidian
decortication flakes are both small, (close to 10 mm- in size). It should be noted that the only
obsidian core recovered is a micro-core wfiich is less than 15 mm- in size. The size of the
decortication flakes corresponds well with that of the micro-core. But the micro-core is not
of suflBcient size to have produced an artifact the size of either obsidian point: point #973 is
19 mm wide at the shoulders and point #738 is 13 mm wide at the shoulders. Both of these
artifacts are Rosegate points and were manufactured from a substantially larger piece of
material. There is no indication that flake blanks were used for the manufacture of either
point, based on a lack of remnant detachment scars. This does not mean flake blanks could
not have been used, only that the flakes would have to have been of sufficient size to be
reduced without leaving any remnant scars.
The remaining obsidian flakes are either undiagnostic fragments or are pressure flakes.
There are no obsidian notching flakes in the collection. Keeping in m«nd the nature of the
excavation, this is not a clear indicator that obsidian points were not manufactured on the site,
but it does seem to support the original theory that (at least some) projectile points were
being manufactured off site.
The results suggest that while CCS points were probably manufectured on-site, obsidian
points were not, and the most likely alternative is that they were being brought to the site in
either a finished or prefiDrm stage. Obsidian does not occur in primary context at Adam 2 and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48
must be brought in from off-site. Attempts at sourcing, regretfully, revealed no insight into
the origination of the obsidian material (see Appendix D and Lyneis et al. 1989).
Chipped Stone Summary
While Adam 2 is a site where agricultural crops provided plant food (Lyneis et al.
1989), the projectile points from the site suggest that the inhabitants supplemented their diet
by procuring meat from hunting. With the exception of artifact #1324 (undiagnostic),
Rosegate points are the sole projectile point type utilized, which suggests that the site was not
used by later people. This agrees with the findings of the ceramic analysis reported by Lyneis,
Rusco, and Myhrer in 1989.
Cores recovered from the site exfiibiting incipient cone cortex suggest the utilization of
the gravels the site is situated on as a source of toolstone material. The presence of cores
without incipient cone cortex and the presence of an expended vein core shows that the
inhabitants supplemented their toolstone material with quarried material.
Six o f the eight cores recovered were core tools with at least one edge exhibiting
crushing or battering. All of these cores and core tools were multidirectional. Hammers and
choppers are often combined in one tool and all of them appear to be made from material
available in the tenace gravels and riverbed. The large bifaces recovered from the site appear
somewhat bulky and utilitarian in nature. The vast majority of small biface tools are projectile
points or point fragments. One drill, one biface scraper, and one formal blade are the only
other chipped stone artifacts that appear to have been formally produced for specific
functions. Retouched and utilized flakes, unifaces, and pebble tools comprise the rest of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49
chipped stone tool assemblage. All of these factors combined suggest that expedient tool
technology was the primary technology employed in tool manufacture at the site. Debitage
analysis reveals the complete reduction sequence for biface manufacture using locally
available material, thus the inhabitants did not have to rely on outside toolstone sources. This
fact, combined with the agricultural production, feunal remains (Ferris 1989), and the
presence of permanent structures at the site suggests a folly self-sufficient occupation of the
site that was most likely supplemented by hunting and gathering forays.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER FOUR
BOVINE BLUFF
Excavations at the Bovine Bluff (26CK-3130; NV-05-2068) site were reported by
Myhrer and Lyneis (1985). It is an early Pueblo II site located on a bluff overlooking the
Muddy River in the upper Moapa Valley. The area was first recorded by Chick Perkins as
three sites, then was recorded again as a single site by Kevin Rafferty in 1982 when St. John's
Catholic Church in Overton, Nevada filed an Application for Land for Recreation or Public
Purposes (serial # N-36669) (Myhrer and Lyneis 1985). Mitigation of the expected impacts
to the site began in 1983 under the direction of Margaret Lyneis, assisted by Keith Myhrer,
and continued through 1984.
Total artifact recovery was deemed unrealistic, thus sample excavation units were
opened throughout the site (Figure 5) and a 25% systematic surface collection was made
(Myhrer and Lyneis 1985:8). All excavated areas were screened with 1/8" mesh. The site
had suffered disturbance from looting activity in the past, especially in the central area. A
100% surface collection of the disturbed central area was, therefore, undertaken. The
research design permitted excavation of undisturbed areas, as well as disturbed ones, and thus
the artifact sample recovered fi'om the site is likely to be representative of the site in general.
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51
Figure 5. Bovine Bluff (map adapted from Myhrer and Lyneis 1985)
Projectile Points
As with Adam 2, two analyses were run on the projectile points recovered from Bovine
Bluff. The first was to determine the type of each point and the second was to categorize
each point as either an arrow or dart point. These analyses are both useful in establishing
rough temporal fiameworks for aceramic sites and serve as additional evidence for verifying
time parameters previously established by ceramic analysis. This is important since an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52
aceramic area in the northeast part of the site was identified by Myhrer and Lyneis (1985)
within the Bovine Bluff site.
Typology
TTiere are twenty-one projectile points in the Bovine Bluff assemblage. Eighteen points
are made of crypto-crystalline silicate material, two are made of obsidian, and one is made out
of rhyolite. Of these, twelve are Rosegate types, three are Elko types, three are made from
flakes, one is a Cottonwood Series, and two are undiagnostic, one of which is heavily
reworked.
Table 16, below, lists \he diagnostic projectile point types recovered from Bovine Bluff
and their approximate Southern Nevada occurrence (dates differ in Northern Nevada for
some points) based on: Fowler et al. 1973; Holmer 1980, 1986; Hester and Heizer 1973;
Thomas 1981; Warren and Crabtree 1986; and Warren 1986.
Rosegate points are common to the region and to the Southern Nevada Puebloan
occupation. Elko points, while common to the region, are generally not associated with
Puebloan sites in the Moapa Valley, because they mostly predate the Pueblo time period.
Conversely, Cottonwood points, also common to the region, are generally not associated with
Table 16. Chronology of Diagnostic Bovine Bluff Points Projectile Point Type Relative Time Frame
Elko Series 4000-1000 BP
Rosegate Series 1400-400 BP
Cottonwood 1000-150 BP
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53
Puebloan sites in the Moapa Valley, because they mostly post-date the area's Pueblo time
period.
Three projectile points are found to type to the Elko series. One of these points (#1750)
was originally listed as "possibly Basketmaker" (Myhrer and Lyneis 1985:49). which is not
seen to be inconsistent with some Elko types. One Elko projectile point (#2334) was
recovered from the aceramic area and another Elko point (# 3287) was recovered from the
northernmost area of the site adjacent to the aceramic area. The third Elko point was found
within the major occupation area of the site. The discovery o f the aceramic area at Bovine
Bluff, prompted Myhrer and Lyneis (1985:65) to suggest a possible Archaic occupation of
the site and the presence o f Elko points tends to support this theory.
A late, brief occupation, attributed to Paiute activity, was suggested by Myhrer and
Lyneis because "indications of cultural activity is spatially associated with two Cottonwood
Series projectile points in the vicinity of unit 220N/406W" (1985 :14). This analysis concurs
with Myhrer and Lyneis (1985:49) on the typing of one of these points (#236) to the
Cottonwood Series. However, one of the projectile points (#232) originally identified as a
Cottonwood Triangular (Myhrer and Lyneis 1985:49) is found to have excessive hinge
fracturing along both shoulders indicating that it is actually the remaining stub' of a larger,
heavily reworked point, and is thus, undiagnostic. Even so, since Paiute artifacts often
overlay abandoned pueblo sites in the Moapa Valley, it seems reasonable to attribute the
presence of the Cottonwood point to Paiute activity even though no Paiute pottery was
recovered.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54
Atlatl/Dart Analysis
After establishing the projectile point typology, the points from Bovine Bluff were then
analyzed for functionality as either arrow or dart points. The data presented in Table 17,
when statistically analyzed, reveal a median shoulder width of 17.5 mm for Rosegate points
with a mean of 17.3 mm. These results nearly duplicate the average shoulder width for
Rosegate points established in Chapter 3.
Shott (1997) determined that darts have a mean shoulder width of 23 .1 mm. Having
no sample (of my own) of Elko points that is large enough to provide meaningful analytical
results, I defer to Shott's (1997) findings for establishing both shoulder width and thickness
for dart points. When the Elko points from the Bovine Bluff collection are statistically
Table 17. Bovine Bluff Pro ectile Point Shoulder Width Artifact Tvpe Shoulder Artifact # Type Shoulder # Width (mm) Width (mm)
232 Undiagnostic 20 1750 Elko 22
236 Cottonwood 12 1889 Rosegate 18
304 Rosegate 16 1928 Rosegate 17
473 Rosegate 18 1969 flake 14
705 Rosegate 20 2334 Elko 25
842 Rosegate 18 2338 flake 12
1004 Rosegate 15 3051 Rosegate 18
1128 Undiagnostic 13 3089 Rosegate 16
1359 flake 9 3287 Elko 23
1561 Rosegate 16 3301 Rosegate 18
1568 Rosegate 17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55
analyzed, a median shoulder width of 23 .5 mm is established, with a mean of 23 .3 mm. This
is slightly higher than Shott's (1997) average, but his sample was not limited to Elko points
which likely effected his results. One of the undiagnostic points has a shoulder width of 20
mm which places it in the gray area between arrows and darts, while the Cottonwood, the
other undiagnostic point, and the flake points all fall well below the average for arrows.
When the data provided in Table 18 is statistically analyzed, Elko points are shown to
have a median thickness of 5.5 mm and a mean thickness of 5.3 mm, while Rosegate points
have both a median and mean thickness of 3 mm. The Rosegate points fi'om Bovine Bluff fall
below Shott's (1997) average of 4 mm for thickness, and are even slightly below the average
of 3.3 mm established by the sample of 30 Rosegate points (discussed in Chapter 3).
Table 18. Bovine Bluff Projectile Point Thickness Artifact Type Thickness Artifact # Type Thickness # (mm) (mm)
232 Undiagnostic 4 1750 Elko 5
236 Cottonwood 4 1889 Rosegate 3
304 Rosegate 3 1928 Rosegate 3
473 Rosegate 3 1969 flake 2
705 Rosegate 3 2334 Elko 6
842 Rosegate 3 2338 flake 3
1004 Rosegate 3 3051 Rosegate 3
1128 Undiagnostic 4 3089 Rosegate 3
1359 flake 2 3287 Elko 5
1561 Rosegate 3 3301 Rosegate 3
1568 Rosegate 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56
Figure 6 shows the graphed results of the combined shoulder width and thickness
analyses for the Rosegate points in the Bovine Bluff assemblage. Both of the undiagnostic
points and the Cottonwood point have thicknesses of 4 mm, which is Shott's (1997)
established mean for arrow points, and all of the flake points fall well below the established
average thickness for arrows.
The results in Figure 6 demonstrate the consistency of thickness in the Rosegate points
from this collection. Shoulder width can not be expected to show this degree of consistency
because of resharpening and reworking during the use life of the point. This is the key
Legend 0 Width g Thickne*»
304 473 70S 842 1004 1561 1568 1889 1928 3051 3089 3301 projectile point #
Figure 6. Bovine Bluff Projectile Point Bar Chart, Rosegate Collection
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57
reason for arguing for the addition of thickness as a stability factor in determination of arrows
and darts.
Figure 7 shows the graphed results for the remainder of the points in the collection. The
Elko points exhibit a degree of consistency in thickness, as do the flake points. The two
undiagnostic points and the Cottonwood point are thicker than the Rosegate collection, which
is where the addition of shoulder width as a variable comes into play. None of these last three
points exceed the shoulder width of any of the Rosegate points, which tend to be in the larger
size range for arrow points (as discussed in Chapter 3). This fact, combined with their
Legend ^ Width ^ Thieknecc
^ 232 236 1126 1359 1750 1969 2334 2338 3287 projectile point #
Figure 7. Bovine Bluff Projectile Point Bar Chart, NonRosegate Collection
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58
thickness, suggests that they are arrow points, as are the flake points. The Elko points clearly
fall in the dart category.
Other Chipped Stone Artifacts
Cores
Three hundred sixty-three cores were recovered from Bovine Bluff (see Table 19). Of
these, only two are not expedient. The use of micro-cores, however, suggests that when high
quality material was procured, it was utilized to its fullest extent. This is evident from the
presence of several CCS micro-cores and four obsidian micro-cores. Two obsidian core
fiagments were also recovered, but as these are fragments and not discarded cores, they tend
to support tfiis theory. A few obsidian cobbles from the Kane Spring source (see Appendix
D) can be found mixed in with the terrace gravels at the site, where they have been washed
down from further up Meadow Valley Wash. These cobbles have an incipient cone cortex
showing the tumbling action of water transport.
Obsidian sourcing reveals that some of the obsidian found at the site is from several
unknown, off-site sources, and one micro-core fragment (#695b) is made from Devil Peak
obsidian (see Appendix D). Devil Peak is located in southern Nevada approximately 137
kilometers west of the Bovine Bluff site. Other cores that appear to be imported to the site
include two blade cores of CCS material. The manufacture of blade cores has been
recognized as one form of efficiently transporting material (Henry 1989:150) and since the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59
Table 19 Cores CRYPTO-CRYSTALLINE SILICATE
CORE VEIN BLADE BIPOLAR MICRO CORE EXP TEST TOT * CORE CORE CORE CORE TOOL
222 2 2 I 3 26 27 17 300
LIMESTONE 6 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 II 25 QUARTZITE 17 0 0 0 I 3 I 3 II 25 OBSIDIAN 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 Ü II 6 RHYOLITE
0 0 Ü 0 0 1 0 ' : BASALT
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
GRANITE 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 II I SILTSTONE
I 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 2
SANDSTONE
I 0 0 0 0 Ü 0 0 I
TOTAL 250 2 2 I 8 51 28 21 363 = expedient (informai) core EXP = expended core
vast majority of the cores at the site are expedient, the presence of two blade cores in the
assemblage suggests that these were imported from some distance off site. Thus, not all
toolstone material found at the site derives from immediate sources.
As Table 19 shows, a wide variety of material was utilized at Bovine Bluff; the highly
predominant material type (83%) being crypto-crystalline silicate. Since there was often no
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60
cortex remaining on these cores, it is unclear whether the majority of the material came from
the terrace gravels or from an off-site source The presence of vein cores, however, does
indicate that quarrying of off-site material was done.
Limestone constitutes 7% of the core material, as does quartzite. The remaining 3%
is divided between obsidian, rhyolite, basalt, granite, siltstone, and sandstone. Seventy-six
percent of the limestone cores exhibit crushing or battering, on at least one edge or end, from
use as tools, while only 12% of the quartzite cores exfiibit use wear. Since quartzite is the
predominant hammerstone material (see Table 20 in the next subsection), it is probable that
many of the flaked quartzite hammerstones served as cores before becoming tools. The
distinction between core tools and other tool categories is based on whether large flakes were
removed for use as tools or tool material, as opposed to flaking to create usable edges for
chopping or hammering. If a core tool exhibited heavy signs of use it was removed from the
core tool category and assigned the tool category of its apparent use. Only 9% of the CCS
cores exhibit use as tools and most of these are of poor quality or flawed material.
Hammerstones and Choppers
One-hundred six hammerstones, fourteen hammer/choppers, and forty-seven choppers
were recovered from the site. Table 20 displays the breakdown of tools and tool fragments
by material type. Quartzite is the dominant material type for hammerstones and
hammer/choppers. Approximately 3/4 of the hammerstones are unflaked which suggests a
high degree of expedient use of readily available material.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61
Table 20. Hammerstones and Choppers CRYPTO-CRYSTALLINE SILICATE
UNFLAKED FLAKED HAMMER HAMMER/ CHOPPER TOTAL HAMMER HAMMER FRAG. CHOPPER
0 0 I 0 0 1
LIMESTONE
7 3 3 1 37 II 51
QUARTZITE
53 13 25 12 7 II 110
BASALT 0 I 0 I ' II ' RHYOLITE
0 0 0 0 1 1
SANDSTONE
0 0 0 0 1 1
TOTAL 60 17 29 14 47 167
As at Adam 2, limestone dominates the material type for choppers and CCS is barely
represented in these artifact categories. The rare use of CCS for these "basic' tool types is an
indication of its importance as a material for more finely made tool types; good material was
not used for tools that could be made from less-knappable, but more readily available
material. The only CCS tool in this category that was recovered from the site is a
hammerstone fragment made fi'om flawed material.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62
Large Bifaces
One-hundred seventy-eight bifaces or biface fragments belonging to large bifaces were
recovered from the site (see Table 21). Of these, 159 artifacts are made from CCS material.
Biface cores exhibit both incipient cone and quarried cortex. This suggests that material was
brought onto the site from outside sources as well as coming from the river gravels.
There are 40 biface cores, biface core fragments, and biface core tools as opposed to
the 297 multi-directional cores and fragments found at the site (see Table 19). This suggests
Table 21. Large Bifaces CRYPT-CRYSTALLINE SILICATE
BIFACE BIFACE CORE BIFACE PREFORM BIFACE KNIFE TOT CORE CORE TOOL BLANK FRAG. FRAG. FRAG.
23 10 7 22 7 61 29 159
LIMESTONE
3 1 1 1 0 0 Ü 6
QUARTZITE
4 0 3 2 0 0 I 10
RHYOLITE
0 0 0 0 0 I 0 II 1
SILTSTONE
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ,
SANDSTONE
0 0 0 I 0 0 0 1
TOTAL 30 11 12 26 7 62 30 178 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyrightowner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63
a high rate of sedentism at the site since biface cores are generally part of a mobile tool kit
and multi-directional cores generally are not (Parry and Christenson 1987). It should be
remembered, however, that "we cannot assume that all tools or debitage found in an
archaeological assemblage were used in a single set of contemporaneous activities" (Larson
1994:58). Thus, while there is no way of making this determination, it is possible that many
of the biface cores and core tools belong to either an earlier or later occupation by more
mobile peoples.
Small Bifaces
Forty-six artifacts that fall under the category of small bifaces were recovered from the
site (see Table 22). Five of these artifacts are drill fragments and the rest are projectile
Table 22. Small Bifaces CRYPTO-CRYSTALLINE SILICATE
POINT POINT OTHER FLAKE DRILL DRILL DRILL TOT BASE POINT FRAG. POINT TIP BASE MID
11 7 17 3 2 1 2 43
OBSIDIAN
0 2 0 ÜÜ 0 0 II 2
RHYOLITE
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
TOTAL 12 9 18 3 2 1 2 47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64
points or point fragments. Of the 2 1 points and point bases, all but one have been typed
successfully (see projectile point section).
As was noted previously, the Elko types were mostly recovered in and around the
aceramic area of the site and the Cottonwood point was associated with what appears to be
a later occupation area near unit 220N/406W. The spatial association of the various point
types seems to suggest three distinct occupation times, with the largest population and
duration of occupation belonging to the Lowland Virgin Anasazi. While the original report
by Myhrer and Lyneis does not include a faunal analysis beyond the radiocarbon dating of
charcoal associated with tortoise bone (1985:57), the quantity of projectile points and point
fragments suggests that hunting was done throughout the occupation of the site.
All of the drills and drill fragments were small and well-made. Drill bases were
manufactured for halting rather than for use as hand drills. This does not preclude the
manufacture of hand drills, but no evidence was recovered to support their use.
Other Lithic Artifacts
This category includes unifaces, retouched flakes, utilized flakes, scrapers, and pebble
tools (see Table 23). One very small scraper may have been used for hide finishing, though
further analysis is necessary in order to make this determination. Some of the scrapers are
unifeces, but have been listed in the scraper category since their function has been determined.
The function of artifacts listed in the uniface and pebble tool categories is unclear. Some of
the pebbletools, however, exhibit battering and may have been used as small hammerstones.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65
Seventy percent of the retouched flakes are of CCS material and represent flakes types
from Stage I through III o f bifacial reduction. Approximately 10% of the retouched flakes
are obsidian and also represent the first three stages o f bifacial reduction. Limestone was
used for approximately 14% of the retouched flakes and flake types represent the second and
third stages of bifacial reduction. Quartzite and siltstone each make up 3% of the retouched
flake category. There is one quartzite flake that is a secondary decortication flake and one
siltstone flake that is an early third stage reduction flake.
Table 23. Other Lithic Artifacts CRYPTO-CRYSTALLINE SILICATE
UNIFACE RETOUCHED UTILIZED SCRAPER PEBBLE TOTAL FLAKE FLAKE TOOL
46
OBSIDIAN
LIMESTONE
QUARTZITE
SILTSTONE
SANDSTONE
TOTAL
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66
The high numbers of retouched flakes from easily knapped material is consistent with
the use of these material types for specialized tools The reduction stages from which flakes
were selected for retouch is fairly general; size appears to have been more important than the
degree of decortication. There does appear to be a higher number of secondary and tertiary
reduction flakes than of primary reduction flakes, but this is consistent with results of cortical
versus noncortical flakes in most knapping events.
Sbcty-four percent of the utilized flakes in the collection are of CCS and represent the
first three stages of bifacial reduction. Quartzite and limestone each comprise 18% of the
utilized flakes. One quartzite flake is actually a mano fragment and another quartzite flake
was bipolared. Two limestone flakes are from primary decortication and both appear to have
been utilized as choppers. All of the utilized flakes are indicative of expedient use.
Debitage
Crypto-crystalline silicates form the largest body of toolstone material, comprising about
86% of all debitage. All stages of bifacial reduction are well represented (see Table 24),
suggesting the manufacture of both multifunction and specialized tools. Cortical analysis
reveals incipient cone cortex, suggesting the use of the readily available river cobbles, and the
presence of material from a quarried context, which suggests the site occupants brought in
toolstone material from off-site as well.
Remnant detachment scars occur on approximately 4% of the CCS debitage, suggesting
that flake blanks were utilized for the manufacture of smaller tools as well as full bifacial
reduction fl-om a single core. Twelve bipolared flakes were identified in the debitage. These
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67
Table 24. Results of Debitage Analysis
TYPE CCS LM OB QZT BT GR RHY SLS ss TOTAL
1 .00 PC 197 31 4 32 3 1 1 0 3 272 1 01 PI 164 0 2 66 0 0 0 0 0 232 1 . 10 SC 443 31 12 44 5 0 6 2 7 550 1.11 SI 227 0 4 88 0 0 0 0 0 319 1.12SF 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.20 IC 84 9 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 107 1.21 II 61 0 1 26 0 0 1 0 0 89 1.22 IS 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 1.23 IM 12 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1.24 lA 7 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 10
1.50 BP 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
2.00 BTD 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 2.01 BTA 171 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 180 2.02 BTAR 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 2.03 BTE 106 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 108 2.04 BTER 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.05 BTF 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.06 BTC 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7
3.00 PM 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 3.01 PMR 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3.02 EP 2108 139 8 233 6 5 21 8 11 2539 3.03 EPR 230 5 0 9 0 0 0 1 0 245 3 04LP 746 33 7 48 1 0 4 1 3 843 3.05 LPR 13 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 3 .07 LPC 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4.00 PM 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 9 4.01 PMR 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.02 EP 213 6 3 19 0 0 0 0 0 241 4.03 EPR 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 4.04 LP 234 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 243 4.05 LPR 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4.06 N 35 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 4 08 PC 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
9.00 E 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9.02 P 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9.03 S 7 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 9.10UC 250 6 4 8 1 0 0 0 I 270 9.11 UI 60 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 72 9 .12 UN 2126 19 17 110 1 1 10 0 0 2284 9.13 UF 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
TOTAL 7601 284 86 726 17 7 43 12 25 8801
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68
were all of high quality material, suggesting that the material came from small nodules or
nearly expended cores. The presence of bipolared flakes indicates that bipolar technology
was utilized at least some of the time and 171 alternate flakes indicate the reduction of block
cores, which generally are formed from quarrying activity. Thirty-five CCS notching flakes
are present in the collection. The presence of these notching flakes suggests the on-site
manufacture of projectile points.
Limestone debitage in the collection comprises approximately 3% of all debitage and
reveals all stages of bifacial manufacture, though the manufacture of small specialized tools
such as projectile points is not indicated. There are only 6 early stage pressure flakes, which
is more suggestive of attempts to remove a small piece from an edge without ruining the
entire edge than of the manufacture of small specialized tools. These findings are consistent
with the limestone tools recovered from the site.
Only about 1% of the debitage in the collection is obsidian. Ail stages of reduction are
present, though there is a noticeably small amount of secondary stage reduction flakes. This
suggests that these flakes have been purposely selected out for special use (Flenniken 1996;
Hayden et al. 1996), possibly for further reduction as tools, though no identifiable ones were
recovered.
Two bipolar obsidian flakes were identified. Since bipolar flakes were also identified
in high quality CCS material, this adds further support to the hypothesis that the site
occupants knew and used this technology. One notching flake of obsidian was also
recovered.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69
Approximately 8% of the debitage in the collection is of quartzite. Ail stages of
reduction are indicated, though there are only a few fourth stage reduction flakes. As with
limestone, most of these late stage flakes are probably the result of edge retouching and not
the manufacture of small, specialized tools. Some quartzite, however, is fine grained enough
to be used for projectile points (Dames & Moore 1997). While no quartzite points were
recovered in the field some fine grained quartzite flakes are in the collection and all of the late
fourth stage reduction flakes are of this material
While one basalt core and several basalt tools were recovered only 17 basalt flakes are
in the collection. This may be due to difficulty in recognition of basalt flakes by students
during the screening process. This is probably also the case for the very low numbers of
recovered flakes of granite, rhyolhe, siltstone, and sandstone, versus the number of cores and
tools of these material types that are present in the collection. The majority of flakes from
these last material types fall into the third stage reduction category, which is the stage in
which they would be the most noticeable in the screening process.
.Artifact Distribution (Site Specific Question)
When the aceramic area of the Bovine Bluff site was first identified it was speculated
that the locus might possibly represent an earlier occupation or that it might have served as
a special use area (Myhrer and Lyneis 1985). If the area had been used for special/specific
purposes, it was eq)ected that it would contain limited tool categories or have a heavy density
of a specific artifect type. Comparison of the lithic artifacts recovered firom the aceramic area
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70
with lithic artifacts from the rest of the site reveals very little difference in tool types. Due to
the small size of the area, not all tool types within each category were expected, though most
of them were found. This finding tends to negate the idea of the aceramic area as a special
use locus while promoting the theory of earlier occupation. There is a total lack of ceramic
artifacts in this area while the rest of the site has a ceramic distribution, with areas of heavier
density around the structural remains. The lack of ceramics, while containing a full lithic tool
assemblage, appears inconsistent with contemporaneous occupation. Since Elko type
projectile points were recovered from the site, one from within the aceramic area and two
others from near the aceramic area, it is proposed that the aceramic area is the result of an
earlier occupation.
While tool types do not appear to differ between the aceramic area and the rest of the
site, a slight difference in material use for tool manufacture does emerge under close analysis.
Table 25 presents the breakdown of the material types by tool categories and Table 26
Table 25. Material Type by Tool Category Core Artifacts Hammers & Large Bifaces Small Bifaces Other Lithic Choppers Artifacts
CCS = 17 (no CCS = 19 (all CCS = 3(2 points, CCS = 2(1 nucro-cores or tvpes) 1 pomt tip) retouched tlake, 1 tool frags) utilized flake)
RHY = 2(1 pomt, 1 point tip)
LM = 1 (frag) LM = 1 (chop)
QZT = I (core) QZT = I (ham frag)
SS = I (core frag)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71
presents the breakdown of debitage totals within each material type. A table demonstrating
the debitage breakdown by flake categories is not Included as this analysis revealed no
differences in the distribution of flake types than is found throughout the rest of the site,
except in total flake counts.
Material types have the greatest diversity in the core artifacts category. Even so,
material types missing from the core artifacts category in the aceramic area, but found in the
rest of the site, include rhyolite, siltstone, basalt, granite, and obsidian. No basalt or siltstone
flakes were recovered from the aceramic area, nor were any tools of these material types
recovered. One possible suggestion for this lack is that these material types were not used
during the earlier occupation. This explanation, however, does not hold up for the other
material types where debitage is present and tool types are not.
The only rhyolite tools or tool fragments recovered from the aceramic area are
projectile points, yet rhyolite debitage from the aceramic area comprises 33% of this material
type for the entire site. A possible trend in material use may exist in this instance. The Elko
projectile point that was recovered from within the aceramic area is made of rhyolite.
Table 26. De )itage Count by Material Type CCS LM OB QZT BT GR RHY SLS SS TOTAL
Aceramic Area 852 23 3 42 - 3 14 - 1 938
Total Site 7601 284 86 726 17 7 43 12 25 8801
% of Material 11% 8% 3% 6% - 43% 33% - 4% 11% Type m Aceramic Area
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72
Rhyolhe was obviously considered appropriate for the manufacture of small bifaces by these
eariier people, as evidenced by the point and point tip which were recovered from this area.
Rhyolite was used throughout the rest of the site as well, during later occupation, but only
occurs in large artifact types. It appears, then, that while the use of rhyolite as toolstone
material is consistent throughout the entire occupation of the site, the tool categories it was
used for shifted from small specialized bifaces to larger expedient tool types. This is only a
tenuous suggestion, as a much larger sample size needs to be analyzed before anything
concrete can be postulated.
As mentioned previously, obsidian nodules from the Kane Spring source can be found
rarely in the terrace gravels on which the site is situated. Therefore, this toolstone material
would have been available to all site occupants through time. If anything, a decrease in the
availability of obsidian nodules might be expected for later occupants as the "source" became
picked over. However, this does not appear to be the case. Only three obsidian flakes were
recovered from the aceramic area, none of which source to Kane Spring (see Appendix D)
and no tools of this material were recovered at all.
Conversely, while obsidian is found in relatively small quantities in the rest of the site,
the Kane Spring source is recognized for at least six artifacts in the main collection (one from
previous sourcing, see Appendix D). This may be due to longer occupation o f the main site
when there would be more time to make the discovery of obsidian nodules in the gravels. It
should be noted that the nodules thus frr examined are completely covered in caliche and look
dirty white in color.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73
The presence of a single sandstone core in the aceramic area suggests that this material
was used, but only occasionally. This appears to be consistent with the rest of the site and
with the debitage counts, where sandstone artifacts are present, but not in large quantities.
The small number of sandstone artifacts precludes any kind of temporal assessment. The
same holds true for artifacts made of granite, even though 43% o f the granite flakes were
recovered from the aceramic area (the percentage is high but the quantity is very low).
Only one hammerstone and chopper were recovered fi’om the aceramic area, but the use
of quartzite for hammerstones is consistent between the aceramic area and the rest of the site,
as is the use of limestone for choppers. One quartzite core was also recovered from the
aceramic area. The high debitage counts for quartzite and limestone material, however,
suggests that these materials were frequently used.
The use of cryptocrystalline silicates as a favored toolstone material for bifaces appears
to be consistent between the aceramic area and the rest of the site. The percentage of CCS
used in the aceramic area is higher than the percentage of CCS used in the overall site.
Eighty-five percent of the tools recovered from the aceramic area are made of CCS and CCS
comprises 91% of the debitage, while 66% of the tools from the whole site are made from
CCS and 86% of the debitage is CCS.
The lower percentage of CCS tools for the whole site appears to be the result of greater
quantities of quartzite and limestone tools than are found in the aceramic area. Quartzite
comprises 18% of the tools for the entire site, whereas quartzite only makes up 4% of the
tools in the aceramic area. Likewise, limestone comprises 12% o f the toolstone material for
the whole she, while comprising only 4% for the aceramic area. If in fact, the aceramic area
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74
represents an earlier occupation of the site, then the higher percentages of quartzite and
limestone (used primarily for hammerstones and choppers) may represent an increasing
dependency on agriculture through time. This would be consistent with findings from other
Anasazi areas (Parry and Christenson 1987). If the aceramic area does not represent an
earlier occupation, then the higher percentage of CCS use remains obscure, as all tool
categories are present.
Chipped Stone Summary
Projectile point typologies, supported by arrow/dart analysis, indicate that the site of
Bovine Bluff had three separate occupations. The presence of Elko type points suggests the
use of atlatl and dart technology, a projectile technology which predates the advent of the
bow and arrow and is not commonly associated with the Lowland Virgin Anasazi Puebloan
occupation. Rosegate points support the ceramic chronologic dating for the major
occupation of the site as belonging to the PII phase (1000-1050 BP) and the recovery of a
Cottonwood point suggests a later occupation, possibly by Paiute peoples after the
abandonment of the site by the Anasazi.
While the quantities of projectile points and point fragments suggests that hunting was
done, the far greater number of artifacts associated with agricultural processing, such as
hammerstones, choppers (Parry and Christianson 1987), and grinding implements, suggests
that hunting was only a supplement to the diet.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75
A small number of formal cores and blade cores were identified in the collection, but
the vast majority of reduction appears to have been done with the use o f expedient core
technology as exemplified by the high numbers of multidirectional cores. There are also
biface cores and one bipolar core.
The only bipolared flakes in the collection are of obsidian and high quality CCS. Bipolar
technology is often considered wastdul (Hayden et al. 1996); however, it does produce flakes
with little or no curvature, making them ideal for modification into projectile points and small
knives. It appears, then, that while this technology was known and utilized, it was generally
reserved for use on high quality material for the manufacture of a specific tool type. This
appears consistent with expedient tool making practices, as is it quicker and easier to modify
a flat flake into a point than it is to make and reduce a biface down to the thinness and size
desirable for projectile points. This would appear to argue against the hypothesis that
toolstone material such as obsidian was prized, but in reality, the shatter produced by the use
of bipolar technology can be sorted through and the larger pieces can be utilized as
opportunistic tools that require no shaping to provide a sharp edge. These traits can, in fact,
be ascribed to "scarcity-induced economizing activities" (Odell 1996:76).
The 167 hammerstones and choppers comprise 20% of the tool types found at the site.
Of these, 42 were combined hammer/choppers. All of these tool types are evident of
expedient tool technology and this is supported by the fact that of the 167 artifacts in the
hammer and chopper category, 162 of them were manufactured from quartzite and limestone
cobbles that comprise the majority of the terrace gravels on which the site rests. The large
numbers of bifaces appear to be multifunctional tools and are derived from mostly local
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76
cryptocrystalline silicate materials, though some are of imported CCS material as well as
quartzite, limestone, rhyolite, siltstone, and sandstone.
While sandstone was a fairly-well available material type, it was probably not a preferred
material for flaked stone tools. It was, however, used for tool types other than groundstone.
as evidenced by the small quantities of sandstone debitage and artifacts.
The vast majority o f the small biface artifacts are projectile points or point fragments.
There are, however, five drill fiagments. The points, drills, scrapers, and the single thumbnail
scraper are the only artifacts that appear to have been formally produced for specific
functions. Retouched and utilized flakes, unifaces, and pebble tools comprise the rest of the
chipped stone tools, all of which are expedient tool types. Debitage analysis reveals all stages
of reduction and is consistent with the various material types of the tools found at the site.
Comparison of tool types and debitage analyses between the aceramic area and the rest
of the site reveal a consistency in tool types, but suggest varying use of material types. One
variance is found in the use of rhyolite fi'om making small bifaces (found in the aceramic area)
to the manufecture of large expedient tool types (found in the rest of the site). An increased
use of obsidian is found in the main portion of the site as opposed to the three flakes found
in the aceramic area and the use of basalt and siltstone are not found in the aceramic area at
all. Quartzite and limestone each comprise 4% of the tools in the aceramic area as opposed
to 18% and 12%, respectively, in the rest of the site.
The variances in toolstone use can be explained if the aceramic area is, in fact, the result
of an earlier occupation. The difference of tool types manufactured fi'om rhyolite can be seen
as a possible shift in the value of riiyolite as a toolstone material; the increased use of obsidian
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77
can be seen as the result of longer site occupation by PH people than by earlier peoples; the
use of basalt and siltstone can be interpreted as a later phenomenon; and the differences in
percentages of quartzite and limestone tools can be viewed as an increased dependency on
agriculture. Also, the presence of Elko type projectile points is best explained by previous
she occupation. If the aceramic area is not the result of a previous site occupation, then the
variances of toolstone material use, the different frequencies of large bifaces and flake tools,
as well as the presence of Elko points remains obscure. These factors, combined with the
absence of ceramics in one particular locus of the site, suggest a previous occupation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER FIVE
MAIN RIDGE
Main Ridge (26CK2I48) is a large site with a concentration of many courtyard style
house groups and burials situated on the gravel terraced ridge above the banks of the Muddy
River within the Moapa Valley, near the convergence of the Muddy and Virgin rivers (Lyneis
1992, 1995). The creation of Lake Mead has drowned the lower portions of the site and
periodic high water levels and erosion associated with wave action endanger the remaining
ruins (Lyneis 1992).
The site was first excavated by Mark Harrington in 1924-25. His notes on the work
were part of a larger effort to record the entire area along the river margin, which he called
Pueblo Grande de Nevada (Shutler 1961; Lyneis 1992). Harrington's work was much
publicized, especially locally and the public was invited to watch the proceedings of work
being done at the site. The newspapers began calling the area Lost City and that name has
stuck.
Fay Perkins and Willis Evans oversaw additional work in the area (though not at the
Main Ridge site) and continued calling the entire area Lost City. In the late 1950s, Richard
Shutler (1961) undertook the task of interpreting and reporting the data from Harrington's
notes and of developing a series of phases for the Lost City area in general (Lyneis 1992:4).
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79
Shutler (1961) reports that the pueblo sites are located along the river margins as the
floodplain areas were used for farming. Cists and other storage areas are common features
at the sites. The subsistence strategy practiced by the inhabitants included the use of wild
resources as well as domesticated ones. Artifacts reported from the sites include pottery, four
types of metates, seven types of manos, paint grinding stones, mortars, pestles, seventeen
differing projectile point forms, thousands of com cobs, screwbeans (mesquite), squash seeds,
"cotton balls and burrs" (Shutler 1961: 51), tortoise shells, cotton cloth, basketry, bones from
wild and domesticated animals, fur blankets, agave quids, and rock salt (Shutler 1961).
Shutlefs (1961) chronology for the Lost City area is broken into four phases: Moapa
Phase (Basketmaker II); Muddy River Phase (Basketmaker III); Lost City Phase (for which
Main Ridge is the type site [Lyneis 1992]: Pueblo I and early Pueblo II); and Mesa House
Phase (late Pueblo II and early Pueblo III). The Moapa Valley was abandoned by the
Lowland Virgin Anasazi during the Pueblo m period. Helen Fairley's (1989) dating system
(listed in Chapter 1 ) for the chronology of the Arizona Strip is also applied to the Moapa
Valley and her dates supercede Shutlefs (Lyneis 1992). Based on ceramics, Lyneis’ work at
Main Ridge has provided a tighter chronology for the site placing it as early Pueblo H.
In 1980, investigations were renewed by Margaret Lyneis at the core area of Lost City
in response to high water levels in Lake Mead and the site was named Main Ridge based on
Harrington's notes that referred to the spine on which the structures are situated (Lyneis
1992:5). "Scale plans were drawn of the visible remains of the houses most in danger, and
grid-controlled surface collections were made in association with them" (Lyneis 1992:8). The
same procedure was followed in 1987 when a small crew from the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas led by Lyneis went into the field again. Figure 8 presents the layout of the site.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80
In 1985, Lyneis began studying Harrington's collections from Lost City and discovered
that Harrir^ton's notebook contained systematic records of his work at Main Ridge. Further
study of Harrington's collections was done by Lyneis in 1987 and 1988. These studies
combined with her own research have provided the temporal framework for the site as
belonging to the mid-Pueblo II times dating between 1050-1100 BP (Lyneis 1992).
r M W r. Wd
M e
C o n td a r mtenral t.5
Figure 8. Map of Main Ridge (Adapted from Lyneis 1992)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81
Projectile Points
It should be noted that for the purposes of this project, only the lithic collections
involved with Lyneis' fieldwork at Main Ridge were analyzed. The site had already been
excavated by Harrington and his notes indicate that the site had also been looted (Lyneis
1992). Thus, though the site is large, it is not surprising that few (only five) projectile points
were recovered during Lyneis' fieldworic, as these artifacts are easily identifiable by amateurs.
Typology
Of the five projectile points recovered, three of them are Rosegate types, one is
undiagnostic, and one was made from a flake. The flake point was made from an early third
stage percussion flake and has a contracting stem. Since Rosegate points are common to the
region during the time of the site's occupation (Holmer 1980, 1986; Hester and Heizer 1973;
Thomas 1981; Warren and Crabtree 1986), the results of the typological analysis are not
unusual. All of the points are made of cryptocrystalline silicate material (CCS).
Atlatl/Dart Analysis
After establishing the projectile point typology, the points from Main Ridge were then
analyzed for fimctionality as either arrow or dart points. The raw data presented in Table 27
and graphed in Figure 9, when statistically analyzed, reveal a mean and median shoulder
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82
Table 27. Main Ridge Projectile Point Thickness and Shoulder Width Artifact # Type Shoulder Width (mm) Thickness (mm)
0021 Rosegate 16 4
0435 Undiagnostic 18.5 4.1
0778 Rosegate 18 2.3
1135 Rosegate 17 3 3
1169 Flake 17 3.1
width of 17mm for Rosegate points. The median width duplicates the expected results
established in Chapter 3, and falls 0.3 mm below the average mean for Rosegate points.
Rosegate point thickness revealed both a mean and median of 3.2 mm which falls 0.1 mm
below the average for Rosegate points. Both analyses place the Rosegate points well within
the arrow category and bolster the results for thickness and shoulder width proposed in
Chapter 3 for Rosegate points.
Both the flake point and the undiagnostic point fall in the upper range of the arrow
category (14.7 mm mean shoulder width, 4 mm mean thickness for arrows; versus 23 .1 mm
mean shoulder width, 5 mm mean thickness for darts) established by Shott (1997:91). The
combined results of theses analyses (Figure 9) reveal the use of a bow and arrow technology
for the occupants of Main Ridge.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83
L egend Width ^ Thickness
20
21 4 3 5 778 1 135 116 9 projectile point #
Figure 9. Main Ridge projectile point bar chart
Other Chipped Stone Artifacts
The low divide between the Virgin Valley and the Moapa Valley ±at ± e site of Main
Ridge rests upon provides an advantage that was not available to the other inhabitants of the
Moapa Valley (Lyneis 1992). This advantage is seen in the material type of the gravels that
comprise the ridge; quartzite, limestone, and CCS are available to the rest of the valley, but
the gravels at Main Ridge also include gneiss, schist, and granite (Lyneis 1992:8).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84
Cores
Two hundred seventy cores from ten different materials were recovered from Main
Ridge (see Table 28) O f these, 33% are CCS. 61% are quartzite. limestone, rhyolite,
siltstone, basalt, sandstone, granite, gneiss, and pumice comprise the remaining 6%. Eighty-
one percent of the core tools and core tool fragments are of quartzite. while 65% of the
expended cores are CCS and all of the micro-cores are CCS. These data suggest a fuller
utilization of high quality material, but a more extensive utilization of poor quality material.
Cortex remaining on the cores indicates the gravels were the source for the majority of
toolstone material, as most exterior surfaces are water smoothed and most CCS cortex
contains incipient cones, presumably from the tumbling of water transport/deposition.
Expended cores, however, have no remaining cortex and, thus, it is unclear where the raw
material was procured from. A few CCS cores have incipient cone cortex, but no water
smoothed exterior surface, suggesting they were procured from a talus slope Additionally,
four of the 89 CCS cores exhibit a quarried cortex. Thus, while the gravels appear to be the
primary source of toolstone material, some off-site procurement of raw material is indicated.
All the cores are multidirectional (informal), which is indicative of the extensive use of
expedient technology (Parry and Kelly 1987; Parry and Christenson 1987, Slaughter et al.
1991; Hayden et al. 1996). There are two flake cores of CCS material, indicating flake core
technology was known, though apparently only minimally utilized. One expended
multidirectional CCS core tool had been further reduced by bipolaring and appears to have
been utilized as a scraper, though this is the sole indication o f the utilization of bipolar
technology and no formal blade core technology is evidenced at all.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85
Table 28. Cores CRYPTO-CRYSTALLINE SILICATE
CORE CORE FLAKE MICRO CORE TOOL EXP TEST TOTAL « FRAG CORE CORE TOOL FRAG
7 39 2 3 10 4 13 11 89
LIMESTONE
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 II 2
RHYOLITE
I 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 I 3
QUARTZITE
16 39 0 0 45 52 7 7 II 166
SILTSTONE
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 I 5
BASALT
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 1
SANDSTONE
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 1
GRANITE
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 II 1
GNEISS
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 II 1
PUMICE
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
TOTAL 26 81 2 3 61 59 20 18 270 * = multidirectional (informal) core EXP = expended core
Heat treated facets were noted on five cores. This suggests that heat treatment was
done after material quality was ascertained and before primary reduction. One heat treated
core, however, appears to be a large chunk from an even larger core. This suggests the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86
reduction of a very large cobble. Since water smoothed incipient cone cortex, such as is
found on terrace gravels, was also noted on these cores, it is proposed that heat treatment
was done on-site.
Hammerstones and Choppers
Eighty-two hammerstones, eighty-five hammer/choppers, and sixteen choppers were
recovered from the site. Table 29 presents the breakdown of tools and tool fragments by
material type. Ninety-seven percent of the 183 hammerstones and choppers are made of
quartzite. Gneiss, basalt, and CCS comprise the remaining 3% of the artifacts in this
category. The high percentage of quartzite appears to reflect the absence of the use of
Table 29. Hammerstones and Choppers CRYPTO-CRYSTALLINE SILICATE
UNFLAKED FLAKED HAMMER HAMMER/ CHOPPER TOTAL HAMMER HAMMER FRAG. CHOPPER
0 0 0 1 0 1
QUARTZITE
31 7 41 82 16 II 177
BASALT
0 0 0 I 0 1
GNEISS
2 ÜI IÜ 4
TOTAL 33 7 42 85 16 183
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87
limestone. It is interesting to note this absence, especially for the manufacture of choppers,
since limestone occurs in the gravels (Gardner 1968) and is often used as toolstone material
for choppers (see Chapters 3 and 4).
Eighty-three percent of the hammerstones are unflaked and five show use wear as
knapping hammerstones. The majority of hammerstones show excessive battering on
unflaked ends and crushing on flaked edges, as though they have been heavily utilized before
discard. With quartzite comprising the majority of the gravel material (Gardner 1968), one
wonders why excessive use wear is so prevalent on these tools. One possible explanation is
that the slope from the ridge where the houses are located, to the river margin, where cobbles
are easiest to acquire, was inconvenient and thus, tools were kept on hand and heavily utilized
before lugging new material up the slope.
Large Bifaces
Sixty-one bifaces or biface fragments belonging to the large biface category were
recovered from the site (Table 30). Of these, 69% are made of CCS. CCS biface cores
exhibit both incipient cone and quarried cortex. As with the multidirectional cores, this
suggests that material was brought onto the site from outside sources as well as coming from
the river gravels.
There are 12 biface cores, biface core fragments, and biface core tools as opposed to
the 270 multidirectional cores and fragments found at the site (see Table 28). Since 96% of
all cores and core fiagments are multidirectional, a high degree of sedentism is suggested for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88
Table 30. Large Bifaces CRYPT-CRYST ALLINE SILICATE
BIFACE BIFACE CORE BIFACE PREFORM BIFACE KNIFE TOT CORE CORE TOOL BLANK FRAG. FRAG.
2 3 I 4 3 26 3 42
QUARTZITE
0 0 5 8 0 4 0 II 17
RHYOLITE
0 0 0 I 0 0 0 II 1
BASALT
0 0 I 0 0 0 0 I
TOTAL 2 3 7 13 3 30 3 61
the occupants o f the site, as multidirectional cores are generally correlated with sedentism
(Torrence 1983; Parry and Christenson 1987; Koldehoff 1987; Hayden et al. 1996).
Biface artifacts tend to be multifunction tools and are generally part of mobile tool kits,
declining in use with increasing sedentism (Torrence 1983; Koldehoff 1987; Hayden et al.
1996). The continued use of bifaces (multifunction tools) at sedentary sites, however, has
given rise to the theory that in the case of sedentary peoples, bifaces represent expedient
technology (Koldehoff 1987; Hayden et al. 1996; Odell 1996).
Small Bifaces
Seventeen artifacts that fall under the category of small bifaces were recovered from the
site (Table 3 1 ). Three of these artifacts are drill fragments and the rest are projectile points
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89
Table 31. Small Bifaces CRYPTO-CRYSTALLINE SILICATE
POfNT POINT POINT POINT POINT FLAKE DRILL TOTAL TIP BASE MID TANG POINT FRAG
2 4 2 2 3 I 3 15
and point fragments (see projectile point section). Ail artifacts in this category are made of
CCS
All of the drill fragments were small and well-made. Unfortunately, no drill bases were
recovered during field work, so there is no way of knowing whether drills were hafted or
hand held. This distinction can give insight into the various activities carried out at a site that
are not readily visible in the archaeological record For example, hand held drills can be used
for various purposes, such as aids in basket weaving and repairing fishing nets, whereas in
instances of actual drilling, "in order to facilitate rapid rotation, it would be advantageous, if
not necessary, to haft drills" (Hayden et al. 1996:28).
Other Lithic Artifacts
This category includes unifaces, retouched flakes, utilized flakes, rejuvenated flakes,
blades, scrapers, pebble tools, and one graver fi-agment (Table 32). A quartzite smoothing
stone, weighing 72.9 grams, used for smoothing wet pottery during ceramic manufacture was
noted in the assemblage. A fragment of gypsum was also noted. The gypsum is unworked.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90
Table 32. Other Lithic Artifacts CRYPTO-CRYSTALLINE SILICATE
UNI RE UTIL REJUV BLADE SCRA GRA PEB TOT FACE TOUCH IZED FLAKE PER VER BLE FLAKE FLAKE FRAG. TOOL
5 8 12 0 2 I 1 3 32
QUARTZITE
1 2 19 93 0 2 0 5 122
SILTSTONE
0 0 1 Ü 0 0 0 0 II 1
SANDSTONE
0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 1
TOTAL 6 10 33 93 2 3 1 8 156 NOTE: some scrapers are unifaces, but are listed in the scraper categor\'
but its presence indicates the use of this material, probably for jewelry (Shutler 1961; Lyneis
1992).
There are 6 unifaces, two of which are fragments. Five of the six unifaces are made
from decortication (primary and secondary) flakes and one CCS uniface is made from an early
third stage percussion flake with a shell fossil embedded in it. The quartzite uniface may have
been used as a chopper, but the evidence is equivocal. The uses of the other unifaces remain
obscure.
Three of the retouched flakes appear to have been used as scrapers, one of which (CCS)
appears to be a thumbnail scraper weighing only 3.2 grams. The other retouched flake
scrapers weigh 25.7 grams (CCS) and 31.9 grams (QZT). Two CCS flakes have been
bifacially retouched and appear to be knives. One retouched quartzite flake may have been
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91
used as a drill. It is an interior flake with a cortical platform, roughly blade-like in shape.
Two formal blades were recorded, both with unifacial retouch and edge wear, and also appear
to be knives.
Of the 32 utilized flakes, 60% are quartzite, 38% are CCS, and the remaining 2% are
siltstone and sandstone. One large quartzite flake is a fragment from a knapping
hammerstone and has excessive use wear as a hammer/chopper. Twelve of the 19 utilized
quartzite flakes show use wear as choppers, whereas none of the utilized flakes of other
material types show evidence of chopper use. This is consistent with the material type of the
other choppers in the collection and appears to be a deliberate selection.
Ninety-three rejuvenation flakes were identified among the debitage and placed in the
"other lithic artifacts" category, as they are actually tool fragments. It is interesting to note
that all of the rejuvenation flakes are quartzite. The large quantity of rejuvenation flakes is
consistent with the excessive use wear exhibited on the hammerstones and choppers, but
again, the reason for the thrifty use of this highly available material is a mystery.
The two blades in the assemblage appear to be fortuitous in manufacture, as they were
not struck from a prepared platform. The extremely small number of blades and the fact that
no formal blade cores were recovered from the site, lend support to this conclusion. Both
blades are made from CCS material and exhibit unifacial retouch.
Of the three scrapers in the collection, two are made o f quartzite and one is made of
CCS. The CCS scraper retains cortex on a portion of the dorsal surface. All three scrapers
have water-smoothed cortex and the CCS scraper has incipient cones in the cortex as well.
This suggests that the material was obtained from the river gravels. The same is true of the
graver fragment, which retains a small portion of incipient cone cortex, and of the pebble
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92
tools. All three of the CCS pebble tools exhibit evidence of use wear on the flaked edges, as
does one of the quartzite pebble tools, but it is unclear what function they served. Four of
the quartzite pebble tools are unflaked and appear to have been used as small hammerstones.
Debitage
Cryptocrystalline silicates form the largest category of toolstone material, comprising
61% of all debitage. All stages of bifacial reduction are well represented (see Table 33),
suggesting the manufacture of both multifunction and specialized tools. Cortical analysis
reveals incipient cone cortex that is both water-smoothed and rough, indicating it was
acquired from the river gravels and from a talus slope, and quarried cortex. These data
suggest that while the site occupants brought in material from off site, the majority of cortical
debitage appears to have come from the river gravels.
Approximately 3% of the CCS debitage exhibits remnant detachment scars. Remnant
detachment scars occur on early and late stage percussion flakes and on pressure flakes,
suggesting that flake core technology was utilized and that flake blanks were utilized for the
manufecture of smaller tools. O f the 1,981 CCS flakes recovered from the site, only 22 are
from second stage bifacial reduction. This suggests that this category was heavily selected
from for the use of tools or as flake blanks.
Only 14 alternate flakes were recovered, suggesting that quarried block core
technology had a limited utilization, and there is no indication for the use of bipolar
technology at all. Only three notching flakes were identified among the debitage, all o f which
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93
Table 33. Results of Debitage Analysis
TYPE CCS LM OB QZT BT OR RHY SLS ss TOTAL
1.00 PC 12 0 76 1 0 0 3 92 l.Ol PI 95 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 95 I l o s e 67 1 - 372 0 - 0 I 6 447 I II SI 239 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 239 1.12 SF 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 1.20 IC 17 0 - 129 0 - 1 0 1 148 1.21 n 63 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 63 1.22 IS 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 1.23 IM 3 0 - 34 0 - 0 Ü 0 37 1.24 lA 2 0 - 1 0 - 0 0 0 3
1.50 BP 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0
2.00 BTD 0 0 0 0 Ü 0 0 0 2.01 BTA 13 0 - 1 0 - 0 0 0 14 2.02 BTAR 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 2.03 BTE 9 0 - 2 0 - 0 0 0 11 2.04 BTER 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 2.05 BTF 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 Ü U 2.06 BTC 0 0 - 0 Ü - 0 0 0 0
3 .00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.01 PMR 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 3.02 EP 501 3 - 406 3 - -> 2 3 920 3.03 EPR 49 0 - 1 0 - 0 0 0 50 3.04 LP 166 0 - 43 0 - 0 0 0 209 3.05 LPR 2 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 3 .06 EPC 5 0 - 9 0 - 0 0 0 14 3.07 LPC •) 0 - 0 u - Ü 0 u n
4.00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 01 PMR 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 4.02 EP 54 0 - 5 0 - 0 0 0 59 4.03 EPR 2 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 u 2 4.04 LP 30 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 30 4.05 LPR 3 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 Ü 3 4.06 N 3 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 4.08 PC 4 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 4
9.00 E 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9.03 S 4 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 9.I0UC 52 1 - 89 0 - 0 0 1 143 9.11 UI 130 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 130 9.12 UN 453 0 - 85 0 - 0 0 0 538 9.13UF 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 1981 5 0 1253 4 0 3 3 14 3263 CCS= cr>plo-crysbUIine silicate. LM= limestone. OB= obsidian. QZT= quartzite. BT~ basalt. GR= granite. RHY= rhyolhe. SLS= siltstone. SS= sandstone
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94
are CCS. This small number is not surprising, since only the surface was collected and
notching flakes are so small they are difficult to see when lying on the ground. Their presence
does indicate, however, that projectile point manufacture was performed on-site.
Quartzite comprises 38% of the debitage material. All stages of reduction are indicated,
but again, there is a very small number of second stage reduction flakes. Since only five
pressure flakes were recovered, this appears more indicative of attempts to remove a small
piece from an edge without ruining the edge than of the manufacture of small specialized
tools. This suggestion is supported by the lack of small specialized quartzite tools in the
assemblage.
The remaining 1% of the debitage consists of limestone, basalt, rhyolite, siltstone, and
sandstone flakes. Clearly, the dominant toolstone materials are CCS and quartzite, to the near
exclusion of any other material types. Since there are so few flakes of these other material
types, no inferences concerning their utilization or the core technology used in their
manufacture can be made.
Artifact Distribution (Site Specific Question)
There are 44 houses at Main Ridge. Thirteen are single room structures, 20 are multiple
room curve-shaped structures, three are constructed in a clustered shape of multiple rooms,
two are detached multiple room structures, five are multiple room structures where room
types could not be determined, and one is irregularly shaped (Lyneis 1992).
I saw artifact distribution as a possible key to pinpointing special use areas. The
previous excavation work and the looting are seen to be factors in altering actual artifact
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95
concentrations, thus a comparison of lithic artifact distribution to ceramic artifact distribution
was done in an attempt to offset this problem.
Twenty-four houses have lithics associated with them and 24 houses have ceramics
associated with them. They are not all the same houses; House 30 has ceramic sherds, but
no lithics; and House 21 has lithics, but no sherds.
Only 3,948 lithics were collected as compared to the 11,936 ceramic sherds. Due to
the proportional differences in quantity between sherds and lithics the differences in
distribution are easier to determine when viewed by percentages. Figure 10 displays the
distribution of lithics and ceramics by house units. House units are referenced by the
descriptions in Lyneis (1992) and Shutler (1961). When viewed by percentages of each
category (lithics and sherds), the distribution is considerably varied. Nine houses, however,
are distinguished as having high concentrations of either lithics or sherds, and in some cases
(see below), both. For sherds. Houses 3, 4, 6/7, 16, 27, 33, and 35 show the largest
percentages. The largest percentages of lithics are distributed between Houses 4, 6/7, 16, 20,
26, and 27.
Of the nine houses with the largest percentage of artifacts, over half the houses appear
to differ in percentage o f artifact distribution between lithics and sherds: Houses 3, 20, 26,
33, and 35. These data provide for several observations: distribution of artifacts does not
appear to have been affected by impacts to the site; there are nine houses with dense artifact
concentrations; and the nine houses do not appear to reflect the same percentages of artifact
types.
Sbc houses have dense lithic concentrations (see above). In an attempt to explain the
reasons for the lithic concentrations, I developed several hypotheses, as follows: these
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96
20 Legend ] S h e rd s : Lithics
15
a>
o.
>r*
3 4 6/7 15 16 17 20 21 2 3 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 40 45 H o u se #
Figure 10. Comparison of sherd and lithic percentages by house. House 45 has five sherds associated with it, but the percentage is so small (.04%), it does not appear on the chart.
concentrations may be the result of special use areas; longer occupation through time; denser
occupation; or a combination of these as they are not mutually exclusive.
Assuming that special use areas are separate from habitation areas, I then established
some basic criteria for testing these hypotheses (see below). It should be noted that these
criteria are fairly general, serving as a base to start fi'om for future research, and more
rigorous testing should be applied.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97
• If concentrations are the result of special use (only), then one might expect to find high
numbers of lithics in a house with three or fewer rooms (allowing for one habitation
room, one storage room, and one work room, though not all of these may be
necessary).
• If concentrations are the result of extended occupation (only), then one might expect
to find houses of varying construction style; houses with four or more rooms, preferably
with abandoned rooms; and some burials containing chronologically older grave goods
than others.
• If concentrations are the result of dense occupation (only), then one might expect to
find houses with four or more rooms; houses built in close proximity to each other,
houses with the same construction style; and burials with grave goods reflecting the
same time period.
Since extended occupation can also be dense, and special use areas might also exist in
either one or both instances, more specific criteria need to be developed in order to
distinguish overlaps in the possible scenarios listed above. However, some success was made
in recognizing loci within the site based on these generalized criteria and the criteria aided in
isolating specific possibilities that might explain the remaining concentrations.
Of the six houses that have large percentages of lithics associated with them, the
following preliminary observations were made:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98
House #4 has multiple rooms and pit structures directly associated with it, for a total
of 29 rooms. The configuration of the attached multiple rooms in House #4 is listed as
a curve, but appears to actually border on a cluster shape, suggestive of room additions.
It also appears to have been partially built over a previous structure (Lyneis 1992:27).
The differing construction styles and the appearance of added rooms, suggests it may
have had an extended occupation. There are also burials associated with House #4 that
contain grave goods from a slightly older time period than is established for the site in
general, which supports the hypothesis that the occupation of House #4 extended
through time and is not the result of a brief dense occupation. Though with 29 rooms,
a dense occupation through time is also possible, thus presenting more than one
scenario, which falls beyond the ability of the criteria to specifically identify.
House #6/7 is actually two pit structures and a third separate room that may not be
temporally associated (see Lyneis 1992:13), only one of which has been identified as a
habitation room, which based on the above criteria, suggests it may be a special use
area.
House #16 is a multi-room curve shaped structure. It is listed by Lyneis (1992) as
having six storage rooms and one habitation room. It is also combined with House # 17
(a pit stmcture) and it is unclear which house has the habitation room. This presents
several possibilities, such as a special use area through time, but falls beyond the ability
of the criteria to specifically identify.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99
• House #20 is a large 14-room cluster and contains the highest concentration of lithics
at the site. It appears to be the result of dense occupation, as the room construction
style is uniform and the associated burials contain grave goods that are temporally
consistent with the established time frame of the site. The high percentage of lithics
compared to sherd presence may also indicate a special use area, but again, this falls
beyond the criteria to identify.
• House #26 is a multi-room curve consisting of nine attached rooms. AH of the room
construction appears to be consistent in style and thus, a dense occupation of the house
is suggested.
• House #27 is a 16 room cluster. As with House #26, room construction appears to be
consistent in style and thus, a dense occupation of the house is suggested.
The findings given above reveal that three of the six houses with high concentrations
of lithics were able to be categorized as special use areas or houses with dense occupations.
The ability to separate "extended occupation" from the other criteria is disappointing, but
does not preclude the probability of extended occupation, at least for House #4. In the case
of House #20, while the criteria carmot specifically categorize the reason for the
concentration, when combined, they offer the probable scenario of a dense occupation locus
with an associated special use area.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100
Chipped Stone Summary
Main Ridge's projectile points are predominantly of the Rosegate typology, with one
flake point and one undiagnostic point. While only five points were recovered, it is proposed
that this small sample is due to recovery during previous work done and possibly from
collectors/looters. All of the points, however, fall into the arrow category and the
combination of the two analyses support the relative time period of the site's occupation as
established by ceramic chronology.
Cores recovered from the site are almost entirely of informal multidirectional technology
and ± e majority of CCS cores exhibit incipient cone cortex. The informal technology and the
presence of incipient cone cortex suggest the site occupants utilized the terrace gravels for
the majority of their toolstone material.
The 183 hammerstones and choppers comprise 31% of the tool types found at the site.
O f these, 67 were combined hammer/choppers. All of these tool types are evident of
expedient tool technology and this is supported by the fact that of the 183 artifacts in the
hammer and chopper category, 178 of them were manufactured from quartzite cobbles, the
material that comprises the majority of the terrace gravels on which the site rests.
Large bifaces appear somewhat bulky and utilitarian in nature, and comprise only 10%
of the tools recovered firom the site. Small bifaces represent 3% of the recovered tools and
11% of the tools fall into the "other tool" category. Debitage analysis reveals all stages of
reduction and is consistent with the various material types of the tools found at the site.
Ninety-three quartzite rejuvenation flakes were identified. These flakes comprise
approximately 1/6 of the tool assemblage. While they are not actual tools, they are fi-agments
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101
of tools that have been deliberately removed in order to resharpen the original tools. Their
presence is indicative o f intense utilization of hammers and choppers, but is perplexing due
to the fact that quartzite is readily available at the site, and there is no apparent reason to be
thrifty with its use.
Six houses with dense concentrations of lithics were identified. A comparison of
debitage and ceramic sherd distribution determined that previous site disturbances did not
account for artifact distributions, thus several hypotheses were developed to account for the
areas of concentration. Limited criteria for testing these hypotheses provide a base for future
research, but offer the tentative proposals that the concentrations are due to extended
occupation in at least one instance (House #4), at least one special use area (House #6/7), and
dense occupation in at least two of the locations (Houses #26 & 27).
As mentioned previously, gneiss is available in the terrace gravels. The occupants used
gneiss for building materials (Lyneis 1992) and also for tools on occasion, as evidenced by
a core tool of this material and several hammerstones. Again, this is an indication of the
expedient use of readily available materials, even though the gneiss is a coarse-grained
material. The extensive use of expedient technology is indicative of sedentism (Torrence
1983; Parry and Kelly 1987; Koldehoff 1987; Johnson 1997; Slaughter et al. 1991; Hayden
et al. 1996). The intensive use of the area, the size of the community, and the time investment
necessary for building permanent structures, pottery manufacture, and crop farming indicates
that the site occupants were semi-sedentary at the very least, and the results of the artifact
distribution, at least for House #4, offer tantalizing evidence that the site may have been used
over an extended period of time.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER SIX
ASSEMBLAGE COMPARISON AND CONCLUSIONS
Toolstone Material
One of the goals of this project (see Chapter One) is to identify any possible temporal
trends in the lithic technologies employed by the occupants of Bovine Bluff (Early Pueblo
n [AD 1000 - 1050]), Main Ridge (Middle Pueblo II [AD 1050-1100]), and Adam 2 (Late
Pueblo n [AD 1100-1150]). The physical environment of the three sites is basically the same.
The difference between Bovine Bluff and the other two sites is the presence of obsidian
cobbles in the gravels. This presence gave the occupants a high quality knapping material not
available to the other sites without the necessity of importing. The obsidian in the gravel,
however, is only manifested in small quantities, and the presence of Devil Peak obsidian, as
well as obsidian from other, unknown sources (see Appendix D), indicates that some
importation was done. Obsidian from unknown sources is also found in the assemblage from
Adam 2, while no obsidian was recovered from Main Ridge.
The major difference for lithic tool manufecture between Main Ridge and the other two
sites is the fact that the occupants of Main Ridge had access to a wider variety of toolstone
material due to the site’s location at the confluence of the Moapa and Virgin Rivers. This
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103
location also provided the occupants of Main Ridge with a higher grade o f quartzite than was
readily available in the terrace gravels of the other two sites.
The use of the wider variety of material at Main Ridge is evident in both the architecture
and the lithic artifact components. Gneiss, only available at Main Ridge, was utilized in the
construction of houses and storage facilities and for hammerstones and core tools.
Limestone, available at all three sites, was used predominantly for the manufacture of
choppers at Adam 2 and Bovine Bluff, whereas the occupants of Main Ridge practically
ignored the limestone cobbles in favor of the higher quality quartzite.
The preference of high quality quartzite over limestone is a choice based on material
quality. A difference in the use of rhyolite, however, does not appear to be based on the
quality of the material. Rhyolite is used for large, expedient tools at Main Ridge, Adam 2,
and the Pueblo II occupation of Bovine Bluff, whereas the peoples from the earlier
occupation of Bovine Bluff utilized rhyolite for small, specialized tools.
Ethnographic accounts reflect the way in which culturally-defined beliefs and mental
constructions often dictate the type of material used for tool manufacture "regardless of their
relative qualities of workability, use-efficiency, durability, and maintainability" (Knecht
1997:207). The shift between earlier peoples and later peoples in the utilization of rhyolite
appears to represent a culturally modified change in perception o f the quality and/or
usefulness of rhyolite as a toolstone material.
The technology utilized by the occupants of Adam 2, Bovine Bluff, and Main Ridge is
presented in the preceding chapters (Chapters Three, Four, and Five), and is found to be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104
similar at all three sites. There are, however, some subtle differences. The following
discussion highlights these similarities and differences. The aceramic area of Bovine Bluff is
excluded from this comparison.
Lithic Technology
Table 34 presents a comparison of the core artifacts from the three sites, expressed in
percentages since the assemblages vary significantly in size. Multidirectional cores and core
tools are the dominant technology in all three assemblages, reflective of an expedient
manufacture and use (Parry and Kelly 1987; Parry and Christenson 1987; Slaughter et al
1991; Hayden et al. 1996). Vein cores are present in both the Adam 2 and Bovine Bluff
assemblages and their presence indicates an off-site quarry source, revealing that the site
occupants did not limit themselves to the materials present in the terrace gravels.
Table 34. Core Artifacts Comparison SITE CORE BI VEIN BLADE FLAKE MICRO CORE E TEST TOT * POLAR CORE CORE CORE TOOL X CORE P * *
Adam 12% - 12% - - 12% 63% -- 99% 2
Bo\Tne 69% 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% - 2% 14% 7 6% 99 5 Bluff % %
Main 40% --- 0.7% 1% 44% 7 7% 99.7 Ridge % % * = Multidirectional ** = Expended
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105
While vein cores are not present at Main Ridge, cores that exhibit quarried cortex are
present. The presence of these cores indicates that the site occupants did not restrict
themselves to readily available gravels material and further supports the contention that the
occupants of Adam 2 and Bovine Bluff used off-site sources, as cores with quarried cortex
are present in those assemblages as well.
The presence of flake cores at Main Ridge can also be construed as an indication of
imported material, as the manufacture of flake cores is one method of transporting quarried
material (see above). An alternative interpretation, however, is that the Virgin River provided
increased size, as well as a wider variety, of toolstone material.
The lack of expended cores and test cores at Adam 2 may be a reflection of recovery
rather than actual lack (see Chapter Three), as these types only represent small percentages
of the assemblages even when present. Bovine Bluff exhibits an added technological
dimension by the presence of two blade cores and one bipolar core. The bipolar core can be
interpreted as an expedient technology (Odell 1996), which is consistent with the dominant
strategy evidenced by the site occupants, but the blade cores reflect formal reduction (Henry
1989). Formal core technology is not evident at the other two sites and may be an indication
that the occupants of Bovine Bluff still adhered slightly to the strategies utilized by more
mobile peoples. As Bovine Bluff is the oldest of the three sites, it is possible this represents
a trend in changing lithic tool strategies from formal, among mobile societies, to informal,
among sedentary societies, that have been documented in other areas (Parry and Kelly 1987;
Parry and Christenson 1987; Slaughter et al. 1991).
This trend is subtly evident in the hammerstone and chopper category, and again in the
large bifece category (see Table 35). In the hammerstone and chopper category, there is an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106
Table 35 Hammerstones, Choppers, and Large Bifaces Comparison HAMMERSTONES AND CHOPPERS
SITE UNFLAKED FLAKED HAMMER HAMMER/ CHOPPER TOTAL HAMMER HAMMER FRAG CHOPPER
Adam 14% 7% - 36% 43% 100% 2
Bonne 36% 10% 17% 8% 28% 99% Bluff
Main 18% 4% 23% 46% 9% 100% Ridge
LARGE BIFACEIS
SITE BIFACE BIFACE BIFACE PREFORM BIFACE KNIFE TOTAL CORE CORE BLANK TOOL
Adam - 11% -- 33% 55% 99% 2
Bovine 25% 7% 16% 4% 32% 16% 100% Bluff
Main 8% 11% 21% 5% 49% 5% 99% Ridge
apparently heavier reliance on hammerstones and choppers as separate tool types, whereas
the occupants of Adam 2 and Main Ridge show a higher utilization of a combination tool.
This indicates an increasing degree of expedient use in tool types.
Biface cores comprise 25% of the Bovine Bluff large bifaces category, whereas the
occupants of the other two sites utilized the biface core strategy to a far lesser extent. It is
possible that the majority of the biface cores are from an earlier time period of site
occupation, though the artifact proveniences do not support this. This indicates a trend in
lithic technology from that of a more mobile society to that of a sedentary one, as biface cores
are part of mobile toolkits (Parry and Kelly 1987; Parry and Christenson 1987; Slaughter et
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107
al. 1991; Odell 1996). This does not mean that the occupants of Bovine Bluff were, in fact,
more mobile (though they might have been), but it appears to indicate the lingering traces of
the mindset that accompanies a mobile lifestyle.
Contrasts appear to exist between the three collections in the small bifaces category.
One difference is noted in the absence of drills at Adam 2 (see Table 36), but. as with the core
artifacts, this lack may be due to recovery methods rather than non-use by site occupants
Another difference noted in the small biface category is in the projectile points and point
fragments. Projectile point fragments were recorded into different categories in an attempt
to discern hunting patterns, and because none of the fragments were able to be refitted, which
indicates the use of a larger number of points than were actually recovered. The Main Ridge
assemblage contains slightly lower percentages of whole points and bases than the other two
collections, but this may be due to the extensive disturbance to the site prior to the survey and
collection performed by Lyneis (1992) (see Chapter Five) The difference noted between the
three assemblages is not found in the types of fragments that were recovered, but in the type
of projectile points represented.
Table 36. Small Bifaces Comparison SITE POINT POINT OTHER FLAKE DRILL DRILL DRILL TOTAL BASE POINT POINT TIP BASE MID. FRAG.
Adam 26% 26% 47% - - - - 99% 2
Bovine 26% 19% 38% 6% 4% 2% 4% 99% Bluff
Main 12% 12% 52% 6% 6% - 12% 100% Ridge
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108
The Bovine Bluff collection contains Elko and Cottonwood type projectile points. The
Elko type points date to a relatively older time period than the Puebloan occupation of the
Moapa Valley and belong to the atlatl/dart category of projectile technology (Holmer 1980;
Thomas 1981). The Cottonwood points belong to a later time period than the Puebloan
occupation of the Moapa Valley (Fowler et al. 1973; Holmer 1980; Thomas 1981). While
they represent bow and arrow technology, their smaller size compared to Rosegate points
reveals a trend toward smaller points during the later part of the prehistoric period that
continued into the historic period. These issues are dealt with in Chapter Four, and are
interpreted as indicators of both an earlier and a later occupation of the Bovine Bluff site. No
discernable trends exist between the collections of Rosegate points.
A distinct trend in the use of flake tools, however, is noted (see Table 37). Fifty-one
percent of Bovine Bluffs other lithic artifacts' category consists of retouched flakes, as
compared to 18% at Adam 2 and 16% at Main Ridge. However, only 15% of Bovine Bluffs
Tab e 37. Other Lithic Artifacts Comparison SITE UNI RE UTIL- BLADE SCRA GRA THUMB PEB TOT FACE TOUCH T7Fn PER VER NAIL BLE FLAKE FLAKE FRAG SCRA TOOL PER -I Adam 9% 18% 55% - 9% - - 9% 100% 2
Bovine 6% 51% 14% - 10% - 1% 18% 100% Bluff
Main 9% 16% 52% 3% 5% 2% - 13% 100% Ridge
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109
'other lithic ardActs' category consists of utilized (unretouched) flakes, as compared to 55%
at Adam 2 and 52% at Main Ridge. Since retouched flakes are formal tools and utilized
flakes are informal tools, the trend toward increasing expediency is observed once again It
should be noted, however, that two blades and one graver fragment were recovered from
Main Ridge, both clearly formal tools.
One category that is not included in Table 37 is that of rejuvenation flakes. Ninety-three
quartzite rejuvenation flakes were recovered from Main Ridge, the other sites had none.
However, 76% of the core, hammer, and chopper artifacts at Main Ridge are made of
quartzite, compared to 36% at Adam 2 and 26% at Bovine Bluff. The extensive use of
quartzite at Main Ridge may be a factor for the presence o f the rejuvenation flakes, but
quartzite was also readily available and therefore the reason to use it in a thrifty manner is
obscure.
Debitage Comparison
The debitage appears consistent with the expectations generated by the tool assemblage
with regard to percentages of material type (Table 38). CCS is the dominant material type.
This is consistent with full reduction of bifaces and the manufacture of specialized tools is
represented in all three assemblages. Thirty-five percent of the Main Ridge debitage is
quartzite, as opposed to 13% at Adam 2 and 8% at Bovine Bluff. This high percentage
supports the findings that quartzite was more extensively utilized at Main Ridge than at the
other two sites.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110
Table 38. Debitage Comparison MATERIAL ADAM 2 BOVINE BLUFF MAIN RIDGE
Cryptocrystalline Silicate 76% 86% 64%
Limestone 8% 3% 0.2%
Obsidian 2% 1% -
Quartzite 13% 8% 35%
Basalt 05% 02% 0.2%
Gramte 0.2% 0.08% -
Rhyolite - 0.5% 0 09%
Siltstone - 0 1% 0.09%
Sandstone - 0.3% 04%
Total 99 7% 99 18% 99 98%
While the &Iain Ridge tool assemblage contains gneiss tools, there is no gneiss debitage.
The absence of gneiss in the debitage assemblage is not surprising, as only minimal flaking of
this material was done in order to produce the expedient tool types it was used for, and the
debitage would probably be difficult to recognize during a surface collection.
The debitage from all three sites reflects the dominant use of the terrace gravels as
toolstone material, but also supports the proposal of the use of imported material. All three
debitage assemblages reflect selection of second stage flakes for tool use, which is a common
practice in lithic technology (Odell 1996).
Debitage reduction stages reflect the tool types present in all three assemblages, with
the exception of obsidian at Adam 2. There are only ten obsidian flakes present and they do
not reflect all stages of bifacial reduction. Two second stage decortication flakes are clearly
from the reduction of a very small micro-core. One flake, approximately 10 mm", was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ill
recovered from a looter's dirt pile, and appears to have been associated with a burial. While
it is possible that flakes from micro-cores were utilized as projectile points, there is no
evidence of the manufacture of the larger Rosegate type points that were recovered from the
site. Therefore, it is proposed that obsidian points were brought onto the site in either a late
preform or finished stage o f manufacture (see Chapter Three).
Conclusion
It has been proposed, elsewhere, that the inhabitants of the Lowland Virgin area were
more mobile and were more dependent upon wild resources during the Basketmaker II Period
than their contemporaries to the east (Lyneis et al. 1989). In Basketmaker III times,
agriculture is thought to have intensified in the Lowland area and the dependence on it
increased, though wild resources appear to have still been exploited (Larson and Michaelsen
1990; Allison 1996). This pattern is thought to continue throughout the rest of the Valley's
occupation by Virgin Anasazi people (Lyneis et al. 1989; Larson and Michaelsen 1990).
Parry and Kelly (1987) propose that decreased mobility caused the shift from formal
tools to informal (more expedient) tools struck from unstandardized cores and this proposal
has been substantiated by a number of other researchers (Koldehoff 1987; Slaughter et al.
1991; Hayden et al. 1996; Johnson 1997). The expedient technology utilized by the
occupants of the sites discussed in this report appear to represent the strategies of a
sedentary, mostly agriculturally subsistent society and these findings are consistent with both
the subsistence pattern described above and with the technological shift proposed by Parry
and Kelly (1987).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112
A shift in assemblage composition from bifaces to hammerstones and choppers was
identified by Parry and Christenson (1987) in other areas of Anasazi occupation. This shift
is also evident in the assemblages analyzed in this thesis and can be observed in the changing
percentages of these tool types around the Bovine Bluff (AD 1000 - 1050) and Main Ridge
(AD 1050 - 1100) interfacing time periods. An increase in multifunction expedient tools is
also indicated.
A change or shift in the usage of rhyolite as a toolstone material is also observed. In
the early occupation phase of Bovine Bluff, rhyolite was used for specialized tool types such
as projectile points, whereas in the later occupation phase of Bovine Bluff and the occupation
periods of the other two sites, rhyolite was used for large expedient tool types such as
choppers. This shift appears to be an earlier occurrence, somewhere before AD 1000, and
appears to reflect a cultural choice. Variances in the use of other toolstone material,
however, appear to be based on resource availability.
As mentioned in Chapter One, one of the problems encountered in the archaeology of
the Lowland Virgin area is the lack of sourcing of obsidian artifacts and the relatively
uninformative results from the few sourcing attempts that have been made. Since results of
most sourcing attempts list the sources as "unknown" (see Appendix D), Lowland Virgin
Anasazi obsidian procurement (and possible trade relationships) will remain conjectural until
these unknown sources are identified.
In conclusion, it can be seen that the lithic technologies employed by the occupants of
Adam 2, Bo\ine Bluff, and Main Ridge reflect a sedentary lifestyle and the majority of the
tool types reflect the processing o f agricultural products. These findings are consistent with
the results of work in other Anasazi areas (Parry and Christenson 1987) and with other
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113
sedentary agricultural societies (Simmons 1982b; Shott 1986; Pany and Kelly 1987; Henry
1989; Cordell and Gumerman 1989; Slaughter et al 1991; Hayden et al. 1996; Odell 1996).
Furthermore, the trends noted at the Bovine Bluff (AD 1000 - 1050) and Main Ridge (AD
1050-1100) interface are suggestive of a change in lifestyle, and may possibly be used to
bolster future arguments for fully sedentary Lowland Virgin Anasazi communities.
Few lithic studies have been done on Lowland Virgin Anasazi assemblages. As this
report shows, there is much to be learned from this type of study and it is hoped that future
work can be combined with the findings in this report. A larger sample size is necessary in
order to determine the degree of significance of the temporal trends discovered in this study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES CITED
Allen, V. 1997 Projectile Points From Three Lakes Valiev South. Indian Springs. Nevada. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Conference of the Nevada Archaeological Association. Allison, J. R. 1996 Comments on Impacts of Climatic Variability and Population Growth on Virgin Anasazi Cultural Development. American Antiquhv. 61(2);414-418. Amick, D. S. 1994 Technological Organization and the Structure of Inference in Lithic Analysis; An Examination of Folsom Huming Behavior in the American Southwest. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by P. Carr. Archaeological Series No. 7. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp.9-34. Amick, D S. and R.P. Mauldin (editors) 1989 Experiments in Lithic Production. BAR International Series 528. Oxford. England. Arnold, J. E. 1992 Early Stage Biface Production Industries in Coastal Southern California. Stone Tool Procurement. Production, and Distribution in California Prehistory, edited by Jeanne E. Arnold. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol 2, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, pp 67-129. Bamforth, D. B. 1991 Technological Organization and Hunter-Gatherer Land Use: A California Example. American Antiquity. 56(2): 216-234. 1992 Quarries in Context: A Regional Perspective on Lithic Procurement. Stone Tool Procurement. Production, and Distribution in California Prehistory, edited by Jeanne E. Arnold. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol 2. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, pp 131-150. Binford, L. R. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes; Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research. 35: 255-273. Carr, P. J. (ed.) 1994 The Organization of Technology: Impact and Potential. The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 7. Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp 1-8.
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115
Chatters, J C , S.K. Campbell, G.D. Smith, and P. Minthom, Jr. 1995 Bison Procurement in the Far West: A 2,1000-Year-Old Kill on the Columbia Plateau. American Antiquity. 60:751-763. Cordell, L. S. and G. J. Gumerman (editors) 1989 Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, DC. Corliss. D. W. 1980 Arrowpoint or Dart Point. An Uninteresting Answer to a Tiresome Question. American Antiquity 45:351-352. Crabtree. D. 1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum, No 28. Pocatello. Idaho. Cronquist, A., A H. Holgren, N. H. Holgren, and J. L. Reveal 1972 Intermountain Flora: Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West. U.S..A. Vol. 1. The New York Botanical Garden, New York. Dames & Moore 1997 Results of the Archaeological Investigation on Three Lakes Valiev South Drv Lake Basin. Near Point Bravo. Nellis Air Force Range. Nevada. Dames & Moore Las Vegas, Nevada. Doyel, D. E. 1991 Hohokam Exchange and Interaction. Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, edited by Patricia Crown and W. James Judge. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. pp 225-252. Fairley, H. C. 1989 Culture History. Man. Models, and Management: An Overview of the .^zo n a Strip and the Management of Its Cultural Resources, by Jeffrey H. Altschul and Helen C. Fairley. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management by Statistical Research, Plateau Archaeology, and Dames and Moore, Inc. pp 85-152. Fenneman, N. M. 1931 Physiography of Western United States. McGraw-Hill Book Company. Inc., New York. Ferris, D.E. 1989 Faunal Bone Analysis of Adam 2 Site (26Ck-2059). Investigations at Adam 2 (26Ck 20591: A Mesa House Phase Site in the Moapa Valiev. Nevada, by M.M. Lyneis, M.K. Rusco, and K. Myhrer. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers No. 22. Carson City, Nevada, pp. 83-96. Fish, S. K., P. R. Fish, and J. H. Madsen 1992 Evolution and Structure of the Classic Period Marana Community. The Marana Community in the Hohokam World. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 56, Tucson, pp 20-40. Flenniken, J.J. 1996 Technological Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. Conferences and Institutes, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116
Flenniken, J. J. and A. W. Raymond. 1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication Experimentation and Technological Analysis. American Antiquity. 51(3): 603-614. Fowler, D.D., D.B. Madsen, and E.M. Hattori 1973 Prehistory of Southeastern Nevada. D.D. Fowler, editor, and A. Smith, associate editor. Desert research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences No. 6. Reno and Las Vegas, pp. 1-95. Gardner, L. R. 1968 The Ouartenarv Geology of the Moapa Valiev. Clark County. Nevada. Ph.D. dissertation. Dept, of Geology and Geophysics, Pennsylvania State University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Hayden, B. (ed.) 1977 Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. Academic Press, New York Hayden, B , N. Franco, and J. Spafford 1996 Evaluating Lithic Strategies and Design Criteria. Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory. Edited by George H. Odell. Plenum Press, New York and London, pp 9-45. Healan, D. M. 1995 Identifying Lithic Reduction Loci with Size-Graded Macrodebitage: A Multivariate •A.pproach. American Antiquity. 60(4): 689-699. Henry, D. O. 1989 Correlations Between Reduction Strategies and Settlement Patterns. 1989 Archaeological Papers of American Anthropology Association, No. 1, Henry, Donald 0. and Odell, George H. (eds ). Hester, T.R. and R.F. Heizer 1973 Review and Discussion of Great Basin Proiectile Points: Forms and Chronology. Archaological research Facility, Dept, of Anthropology, University of California. Holmer, R.N. 1986 Common Projectile Points of the Intermountain West. Anthropolgy of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings. C.J. Condie and D.D. Fowler, editors. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 110:91-115. 1980 Projectile Points. Sudden Shelter bv J D. Jennings, A R_ Schroedl, and R.N. Holmer. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 103:63-83. Houghton, J.G., C.M. Sakamoto, and R.O. Gifford 1975 Nevada’s Weather and Climate. Special Publication No. 2, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Reno. Hughes, R. E. and J. A. Bennyhoff 1986 Early Trade. Great Basin. Warren L. D'Azevado, editor. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 11. William C. Sturdevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, pp. 238-255. Ingbar, E. E. 1994 Lithic Material Selection and Technological Organization. The Organization Of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies. Philip J. Carr (ed ). International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 7, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp.45-56.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117
Johnson, J. K. 1997 Stone Tools, Politics, and the Eighteenth-Century Chickasaw in Northeast Mississippi. American Antiquity. 62(2);215-230. Johnson, J. K. and C A Morrow (eds.). 1987 The Organization of Core Technology. Westview Special Studies in Archaeological Research. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Kelly, R. L. 1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity. 53 717-734. Knecht, H. 1997 Projectile Points of Bone, Antler, and Stone. Proiectile Technology, edited by Heidi Knecht. Plenum Press, New York, pp 191-212. Koldehoff, B. 1987 The Cahokia Flake Tool Industry: Socioeconomic Implications for Late Prehistory in the Central Mississippi Valley. The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Jay Johnson and Carol Morrow. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp 151-185. Kuhn, S. L. 1994 A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity. 59(3): 426-442. Lanning, E. P. 1963 Archaeology of the Rose Spring Site, INY-372. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. Vol. 49. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp. 237-335. Larson, D. O. and J. Michaelsen 1990 Impacts of Climatic Variability and Population Growth on Virgin Branch Anasazi Cultural Developments. American Antiquhv. 55(2):227-249. Larson, M. L. 1994 Toward a Holistic Analysis of Chipped Stone Assemblages. The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technoloigies. Philip J. Carr (ed.) International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 7. Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 57-69. Lyneis, M. M. 1995 The Virgin Anasazi, Far Western Puebloans. Journal of World Prehistory. 9(2): 199-241. 1992 The Main Ridge Community at Lost Citv: Virgin Anasazi Architecture. Ceramics, and Burials. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 117. 1984 An Analysis of Prehistoric Site Records. Overview for the Historic Preservation Plan. Fort Irwin. California, edited by Claude Warren, Margaret Lyneis, and James Cleland. San Francisco: Interagency Archaeological Services, pp B. 1- B 36 Lyneis, M.M., M.K. Rusco, and K. Myhrer 1989 Investigations at Adam 2 f26Ck 20591: A Mesa House Phase Site in the Moapa Valiev Nevada Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers No. 22. Carson City, Nevada.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118
Magne, M P. R. 1989 Lithic Reduction Stages and Assemblage Formation Processes. Experiments in Lithic Technology. Amick, Daniel S. and Mauldin, Raymond P. (eds.) BAR International Series 528, Oxford, England. Mandeville, M. D. and J. J. Flenniken 1974 A Comparison of the Flaking (Qualities of Newhawka Chert before and after Thermal Pretreatment. Plains Anthropologist 64:146-148. Miller, J. C. 1991 Lithic Resources. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Second Edition. George Frison, with contributions by Bruce Bradley, Julie Francis, George Gill, and James Miller. Academic Press, San Diego, California, pp 449-476. Myhrer, K and M. Lyneis 1985 The Bovine Bluff Site: An Early Puebloan Site in the Upper Moapa Valiev. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada, Contributions to the Study of Cultural Resources, Technical Report No. 15, Reno, Nevada. Nassaney, M. S. 1996 The Role of Chipped Stone in the Political Economy of Social Ranking. Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory edited by George H. Odell. Plenum Press, New York, pp 181-224. O'Connell, J F. 1975 Prehistory of Surprise Valley. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 4. Odell, G. H. 1988 Addressing Prehistoric Hunting Practices Through Stone Tool Analysis. American Anthropologist 90:335-356. 1996 Economizing Behavior and the Concept of Curation. Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory. (George H Odell, editor) Plenum Press, New York and London, pp 51-80. Parry, W. J. and A. L. Christenson 1987 Prehistoric Stone Technology on Northern Black Mesa. Arizona. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 12. Parry, W. J. and R. L. Kelly 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. The Organization of Core Technology. Johnson, Jay K. and Morrow, Carol A. (eds.) Westview Special Studies in Archaeological Research. Westview Press, Boulder, pp.285-304. Patterson, L. 1994 Identification of Unifacial Arrow Points. Journal of the Houston Archaeological Society 108:19-24. 1990 Characteristics of Bifecial-Reduction Flake-Size Distribution. American Antiquity. 55(3):550-558. Renfrew, C. and P. Bahn 1991 What Contact Did They Have? Trade and Exchange. Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice. Thames and Hudson Inc., New York. pp.307-338.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119
Rick, J. W. 1996 Projectile Points, Style, and Social Process in the Preceramic of Central Pern. Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory. (George H Odell, editor) Plenum Press, New York and London, pp 245-278. Rick, J. W. and T. L. Jackson. 1992 A funny thing happened on the way from the quarry... Analysis of the Great Blades Cache of Northern California. Stone Tool Procurement. Production, and Distribution in California Prehistory. Jeanne E. Arnold (ed ). Perspectives in California Archaeologr, Vol. 2, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 5-65. Shott, M. J. 1997 Stones and Shafts Redux: The Metric Discrimination of Chipped-Stone Dart and Arrow Points. American Antiquity. 62( 1 ) 86-101. 1989 On Tool-Class Use Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages. American Antiquity 54(l):9-30. 1986 Settlement Mobility and Technological Organization: An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research. 42:15-51. Shutler, Jr., R. 1961 Lost Citv: Pueblo Grande De Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers No. 5, Carson City, Nevada. Simmons, A. H. 1982a Chapter 3, Research Design and Strategy. Prehistoric Adaptive Stratrgies in the Chaco Canyon Region. Northwestern New Mexico. Vol. #1: Introduction. Environmental Studies, and Analytical Approaches. Assembled by Simmons, Alan H., Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology #9.Navajo Nation Cultural Resource Management Program, pp 187-251. 1982b Chapter 16, Technological and Typological Variability in the .ADAPT I Lithic Assemblages. Prehistoric Adaptive Strategies in the Chaco Canvon Region. Northwestern New Mexico. Vol #3: Interpretation and Integration. Assembled by Simmons, Alan H. , Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology #9 Navajo Nation Cultural Resource Management Program, pp 731-779. Slaughter, M. C., L. Fratt, K. Anderson, and R. V.N. Ahlstrom 1991 Making and Using Stone Artifacts: A Context for Evaluating Lithic Sites in Arizona. SWCA Archaeological Report No. 91-8. Submitted to Arizona State Parks. Spaulding, W. G. 1995 Environmental Change, Ecosystem Responses, and the Late Quatnary Development of the Mojave Desert. Late Quaternary Environments and Deep History: A Tribute to Paul S. Martin, edited by David W. Steadman and Jim I. Mead. The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, South Dakota, Inc. Scientific Papers, Vol. 3. Hot Springs, South Dakota. Steward, J. H. 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology. Bulletin 128. Anthropological Papers no. 18. Washington, pp 14-32.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120
Sullivan, A. P. and K. C. Rozen. 1985 Debhage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquitv. 50(4): 755-779. Tankersley, K. B. 1994 The Effects of Stone and Technology on Fluted-Point Morphometry. American Antiquity. 59(3): 498-510. Thacker, P. T. 1996 Hunter-Gatherer Lithic Economy and Settlement Systems: Understanding Regional Assemblage Variability in the Upper Paleolithic of Portuguese Estremadura. Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by George H. Odell. Plenum Press, New York and London, pp 101-124. Thomas, D.H. 1978 Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts; How the Stones Got the Shaft. American Antiquitv 43:461-472. 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology. 3(1):7-43. Titmus, G. L. and J. C. Woods. 1986 An Experimental Study of Projectile Point Fracture Patterns. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology. 8(1): 37-49. Tomka, S. A. 1989 Differentiating Lithic Reduction Techniques: An Experimental Approach. Experiments in Lithic Technology. Amick, Daniel S. and Mauldin, Raymond P (eds.) BAR International Series 528, Oxford, England. Torrence, R. 1983 Time Budgeting and Hunter-(3atherer Technology. Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective, edited by G. Bailey. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 11-22. 1989 Re-tooling; Towards a Behavioral Theory of Stone Tools. Time. Energy, and Stone Tools. Robin Torrence (ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.57-66. Tuohy, D. R. 1987 A Comparison of Pressure and Percussion Debitage from a Crabtree Obsidian Stoneworking Demonstration. Tebiwa 23:23-30. Warren, C. N. 1986 Early Holocene Cultural Adaptation in the Mojave Desert. The Pleistocene Perspective Vol 2. The World Archaeological Congress Sept. 1-7 1986, Southampton and London, pp 1-26. Allen and Unwin, London, England. Warren, C. N. and R. H. Crabtree 1986 Prehistory of the Southwest Area. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 11- Great Basin. Warren L. D'Azevedo (ed) pp 183-193. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Whittaker, J. C. 1987 Individual Variation as an approach to Economic Organization: Projectile Points at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology. 14:465-479. 1994 Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A
ADAM 2 ARTIFACT
LIST
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122
Adam 2 Artifacts
CAT # MATERIAL ARTIFACT UNIT COMMENTS WEIGHT
none quartzite hammer/chopper core fragment, all edges 166.6 g. battered
none CCS test core used as chopper 229 4 g.
none quartzite hammer/chopper bifacially flaked I ll 8g.
none quartzite hammer flaked from use. battered 308 g.
none quartzite hammer/chopper purposely flaked unifacially, 414 3 g. bifacially flaked from use, battered on both flaked and unflaked surfaces
none quartzite hammer battered, no flaking 369 3 g.
none quartzite hammer bifacially flaked, battered on 554 6 g. flaked and unflaked surfaces
552 rhyolite core tool 4S/19W bifacially flaked, appears used 187 8 g. as hammer - slight battering at one end
612 schist chopper lON/OE flaked off scale
626 quartzite imiface lON/OE possible use as scraper 123.8 g.
627 quartzite hammer/chopper lON/OE bifacially flaked 274.9 g.
645 schist chopper 6E/4S bifacially flaked 549 8 g.
771 CCS point tip 9S/I9W
772 CCS pomt rmdsection 9S/16W
756 CCS point tip 9S/19W
783 CCS pomt tip 9S/16W
1504 quartzite biface core tool 4S/6W shows use as hammer on off scale unflaked end, appears to be large chopper
1505 rhyolite core tool 15S/6W bifacially flaked, big cobble, off scale appears reduced to relieve bulk- still quite large
1507 limestone chopper 9S/16W bifacially flaked 576.4 g.
50 CCS utilized flake lON/lW -30 to -40 cm, flake 3.02 EP 2.1 g.
65 CCS utilized flake flake 1.10 SC 3.1g.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123
CAT. # MATERIAL ARTIFACT UNIT COMMENTS WEIGHT
121 CCS retouched flake ON/lOW -30 to -40 cm. flake 1.01 PI. 5.4 g. scraper
544 CCS knife tip 4S/12W
757 limestone utilized flake 9S/19W flake 3.02 EP. appears to have 35.5 g. been used as scraper
773 CCS biface tip 9S/16W made from flake, stage IV
785 limestone chopper 9S/16W bifacially flaked 187 8 g.
807 CCS pebble tool unit 22 possibly edge modified 3 7g.
816a CCS retouched flake 6N/1W flake 3 02 EP 5.3 g.
852 CCS chopper 2S/16W -10 to -20 cm. flaked 346 9 g.
867 CCS point tips (2) 2S/16W -20 to -30 cm
875 CCS knife butt 2S/16W -30 to -40 cm
880 CCS blade knife 2S/16W -50 cm. appears to have been 0 .8 g. hafted. pressure flaked on both sides, is formal blade
934 CCS point tip umt 27 stratum #2. west of pothole #2
935 CCS biface imit 27 west of PH #2. broken tip. 5 4g. stage m, small knife"^
974 CCS point tip 6N/17W old SW dirt pile
995 CCS biface tip old SW dirt pile, stage II
1023 limestone utilized flake umt 29 -21 to -31 cm. flake 3 02 EP. 24 6 g. scraper
1125 CCS point midsection lON/lW pothole #3
1173 CCS knife butt 4N/1W -20 to -30 cm
1218 quartzite hammer/chopper 8N/24W -29 to -40 cm. bifacially 270.4 g. flaked, some flakmg also from use
1332 CCS modified natural 3N/1W -20 to -30 cm, looks like 16.1 g. flake biface on ventral side - natural on dorsal side
1370 CCS utilized flake 2S/0W -20 to -30 cm. flake 1.10 SC 1.6 g. (quamed) with cortex only at proximal end, but not on platform, fortuitous blade
1386 obsidian micro-core 5S/0W 0 to -20 cm, mcipient cone 1 g- cortex, possibly used as a tool
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124
CAT. # MATERIAL ARTIFACT UNIT COMMENTS WEIGHT
1438 basalt scraper 3N/24W -20 to -50 cm. disc-shaped 16 1 g biface
1446 CCS core tool 2S/0W -15 to -20 cm. bifacially 606 1 g. flaked, crappy matenal, appears used as a chopper
1453 limestone core fragment lON/OW -10 to -20 cm 68.6 g.
Weight determined by the use of an Ohaus triple beam balance 610 g.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX B
BOVINE BLUFF ARTIFACT
LIST
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126
BOVINE BLUFF Cat # Material Artifact Unit Level Weight ? CCS CORE 242N/402W 582.1 G Comments from "knapping station" Area 25 0003 QZITE CHOPPER 200N/392W 403.7 G Comments flaked Area SURF 0008 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/394W OFF Comments flaked from use, battered Area SURF 0009 LM CORE TOOL 200N/394W OFF Comments flaked, heavy use, chopper use Area SURF 0010 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/396W 466.6 G Comments flaked from use Area SURF 0010 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/396W 466.6 G Comments flaked from use Area SURF 0015 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/396W 578.2 G Comments flaked from use Area SURF 0016 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/396W 420.7 G Comments flaked, ends battered, chopper Area SURF 0017 LM CHOPPER 200N/396W 427.8 G Comments Area SURF 0018 LM CORE TOOL 200N/396W 465 G Comments use wear Area SURF 0019 LM CHOPPER 200N/396W OFF Comments one flake removed, use wear Area SURF 0022 LM RETOUCHED FLAKE 200N/398W 64 G Comments flake type 3.02 ep Area SURF 0026 LM CHOPPER 200N/398W OFF Comments flaked Area SURF 0027 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/398W 410.5 G Comments flaked from use Area SURF 0028 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/398W 387.3 G Comments flaked from use Area SURF 0033 LM HAMMERSTONE 202N/392W 554.7 G Comments unflaked Area 25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127
BOVINE BLUFF Cat# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 0034 RH CHOPPER 202N/392W 281.4 G Comments flaked Area SURF 0035 LM CHOPPER 202N/392W 285.7 G Comments Area SURF 0036 LM CHOPPER 202N/392W 545 G Comments heavy use wear Area SURF 0044 LM HAMMERSTONE 202N/394W 438 G Comments flaked from heavy use Area 25 0045 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 202N/394W 552.4 G Comments unflaked Area 25 0046 LM CHOPPER 202N/394W 492.4 G Comments unifacially flaked Area 25 0047 LM HAMMER/CHOPPER 202N/394W OFF Comments i flake removed, ends battered Area 25 0048 LM CHOPPER 202N/394W 236.1 G Comments unifacially flaked Area 25 0053 LM CORE TOOL 202N/396W 369.1 G Comments used as anvil & hammer/chopper Area SURF 0054 LM CHOPPER 202N/396W OFF Comments massive Area SURF 0056 LM CORE TOOL 202N/396W OFF Comments Area SURF 0057 LM CORE 202N/398W 274.5 G Comments expended? Area 25 0058 LM CORE 202N/398W OFF Comments Area 25 0059 LM CORE 202N/398W OFF Comments Area 25 0061 LM CORE TOOL 202N/398W OFF Comments Area SURF 0076 LM BIFACE CORE TOOL 204N/390W 244.6 G Comments Area SURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128
BOVINE BLUFF C at# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 0077 LM CORE TOOL 204N/390W OFF Comments Area SURF 0079 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 204N/392W OFF Comments heavy use wear Area 25 0080 LM HAMMERSTONE/ANVIL 204N/392W OFF Comments Area SURF 0081 LM CHOPPER 204N/392W 411.7G Comments flaked Area SURF 0082 LM CHOPPER 204N/392W 450.3 G Comments use wear Area SURF 0083 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 204N/394W 32.7 G FRAGMENT Comments large flake w/ signs of battenng Area SURF 0089 LM CORE TOOL 204N/396W OFF Comments Area SURF 0093 QZITE UTILIZED FLAKE 204N/396W 287.6 G Comments mano fragment Area SURF 0099 CCS CORE TOOL 204N/398W 26.7 G Comments modified edge shows heavy use Area SURF 0101 LM CORE TOOL 204N/398W OFF Comments Area SURF 0103 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 206N/392W 405.8 G Comments heavily battered on ends & edges Area SURF 0110 LM CORE TOOL 206N/392W OFF Comments heavily utilized Area SURF 0111 CCS FLAKE CORE 206N/394W Comments retouched, 3.02 ep flake, large Area sURF 0112 CCS KNIFE TIP 206N/394W Comments Area suRF 0120 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 206N/396W OFF Comments heavily battered Area sURF 0121 BT CHOPPER 206N/396W OFF Comments flaked from use Area sURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129
BOVINE BLUFF Cat# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 0122 QZITE UTILIZED FLAKE 206N/396W Comments bipolared, 1.01 pc, flaked from use Area sURF 0132 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 208N/398W 410.1 G Comments heavy use wear Area sURF 0133 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 208N/398W 535.3 G Comments flaked from use, battered Area sURF 0134 LM CORE TOOL 208N/398W 356.6 G Comments Area sURF 0141 08 FLAKE 210N/394W Comments listed as retouched, 1.00 pc type Area sURF 0142 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 210N/394W OFF Comments flaked unifacially Area 25 0144 LM BIFACE CORE TOOL 210N/394W 254.8 G Comments Area sURF 0146 SS FRAGMENT 210N/394W surface 3.5 g Comments green, looks ground & striated Area EX 0155 LM CORE TOOL 212N/396W OFF Comments Area sURF 0156 LM CORE TOOL 212N/396W 250.5 G Comments use wear Area sURF 0157 LM CHOPPER 212N/396W OFF Comments flaked Area sURF 0164 LM RETOUCHED FLAKE 214N/400W 89.6 G Comments Area sURF 0166 LM HAMMERSTONE 214N/400W 588.4 G Comments modified for size, use wear Area sURF 0168 LM HAMMERSTONE 214N/400W 279.7 G Comments FRAGMENT Area sURF 0173 LM CHOPPER 214N/402W 593.6 G Comments unifacially flaked Area 25 0174 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 214N/402W 573.3 G Comments flaked from use Area 25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130
BOVINE BLUFF Cat # Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 0182 LM CORE TOOL 214N/404W 430.6 G Comments chopper use Area SURF 0196 CCS BIFACE CORE TOOL 216N/402W 6G Comments expended Area SURF 0197 LM CHOPPER 216N/402W 217.4 G Comments flaked Area SURF 0205 LM CHOPPER 218N/400W 267.4 G Comments other half of #206. flaked Area SURF 0206 LM HAMMERSTONE 218N/400W 281 G Comments other half of #205 Area SURF 0218 LM CHOPPER 218N/402W 83.4 G Comments 2 flakes removed Area 25 0226 LM CORE 220N/400W OFF Comments Area SURF 0231 CCS POINT MIDSECTION 220N/404W Comments Area SURF 0238 CCS BIFACE 198N/402W 4.9 G Comments stage iv, probably from flake Area SURF 0246 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/390W OFF Comments heavy use wear Area SURF 0247 CCS TEST CORE 200N/390W OFF Comments crappy material Area SURF 0250 LM BIFACE 200N/390W 150.2 G Comments stage ii (blank) Area SURF 0257 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/400W 340 G Comments Area SURF 0262 QZITE CHOPPER 200N/402W 442.6 G Comments flaked, use wear Area SURF 0264 BT HAMMER/CHOPPER 202N/390W 267.2 G Comments bifacially flaked, heavy battering Area 25 0277 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 202N/400W 239.6 G Comments use wear Area SURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131
BOVINE BLUFF Cat# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 0278 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 202N/400W 594.8 G Comments Area gURF 0279 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 202N/400W 198.1 G Comments 1 Ig flake removed from use Area sURF 0280 LM HAMMERSTONE 202N/402W 379.1 G Comments 1/2 cobble,heavily used, unflaked Area 25 0287 CCS BLADE 202N/402W Comments no retouch, 4.04 Ip flake Area gURF 0290 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 204N/390W Comments Area guRp 0300 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 204N/390W 105.1 G FRAGMENT Comments Area guRP 0302 LM CHOPPER 204N/390W OFF Comments Area gjRP 0303 CCS BIFACE CORE TOOL 204N/390W 320.5 G Comments Area guRP 0305 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 204N/390W Comments Area guRp 0306 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 204N/390W 240.9 G Comments flaked, battered Area gjR p 0307 QZITE CHOPPER 204N/390W OFF Comments flaked, little sign of use wear Area guRF 0308 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 204N/390W 396.4 G Comments flaked, battered Area guRp 0309 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 204N/392W 468.4 G Comments heavy use wear Area guRP 0319 CCS FLAKE 204N/400W Comments flake type 1.10 sc, retouched? Area guRp 0320 CCS BIFACE 204N/402W Comments Area guRp 0325 CCS BIFACE 204N/402W 10.2 G Comments Area guRp
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132
BOVINE BLUFF Cat # Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 0334 QZITE CORE 206N/390W 294.4 G Comments nsted as hammerstone, no wear Area 25 0335 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 206N/390W 254.5 G Comments bifacially flaked, heavy battering Area 25 0342 LM CHOPPER 206N/400W 452.4 G Comments unifacially flaked, use wear Area SURF 0343 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 206N/400W 443.3 G Comments no flaking Area SURF 0344 LM HAMMERSTONE 208N/392W 310.7 G Comments shaped, battered Area SURF 0353 CCS SCRAPER 206N/402W 19.8 G Comments bifacially flaked Area SURF 0354 CCS BIFACE 206N/402W 9.9 G Comments stage ii (blank), small Area SURF 0356 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 206N/402W 209.9 G Comments Area 25 0357 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 206N/402W 351.2 G Comments unflaked, heavily battered Area 25 0358 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 206N/402W 595.4 G Comments unflaked, one end battered Area 25 0359 CCS EXPENDED CORE 208N/390W 6.6 G Comments cortex remnant remaining Area SURF 0372 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 208N/392W OFF Comments 2 flakes removed from one end Area SURF 0373 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 208N/392W 528.6 G Comments flaked from use Area SURF 0380 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 208N/394W 223.2 G Comments ijgbf battering, unflaked Area SURF 0381 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 208N/394W 543 G Comments flaked from use Area SURF 0382 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 208N/394W 180.9 G Comments battered, 1 unrelated flake removed Area SURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133
BOVINE BLUFF Cat# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 0383 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 208N/394W 276.9 G Comments shaped?, battered Area gURF 0385 CCS CORE TOOL 208N/396W 11.6 G Comments Area guRF 0386 CCS BIFACE CORE 208N/396W 13.5 G Comments Area guRF 0406 CCS KNIFE BASE 210N/390W Comments early preform stage, triangular w/ concave base Area SURF 0407 CCS EXPENDED CORE 210N/390W 6.2 G Comments Area SURF 0408 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 210N/390W 30.1 G FRAGMENT . Comments flake w/ dorsal battenng Area 25 0413 CCS PEBBLE TOOL 210N/390W 41.8 G Comments quarried cortex, bifacially flaked at one end Area SURF 0414 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 210N/390W 314.9 G Comments cobble w/ ends removed, battered Area 25 0415 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 210N/390W 308.9 G Comments bifacially flaked, heavy use wear Area 25 0417 LM HAMMER/CHOPPER 210N/390W 355.7 G Comments bifacially flaked Area 25 0418 LM CORE TOOL 210N/392W 220.5 G FRAGMENT Comments Area SURF 0424 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 210N/392W 10.5 G Comments quarried cortex Area SURF 0425 CCS BIFACE 210N/392W 20.1 G Comments Area SURF 043 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 202N/394W 274.7 G Comments 1 flake removed, ends battered Area 25 0430 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 210N/396W 349.5 G Comments flaked from use Area SURF 0434 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 210N/396W 233.4 G Comments all edges flaked and battered Area SURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134
BOVINE BLUFF C at# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 0440 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 210N/396W 464.8 G Comments shaped?, possible chopper use Area sURF 0446 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 210N/400W OFF Comments flaked from use, heavy battering Area gURF 0447 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 210N/400W OFF Comments flaked from use Area sURF 0453 GR CORE TOOL 210N/402W 211.8 G Comments Area 25
0462 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 212N/390W 447.7 G Comments battered, flaked from use Area guRF 0463 QZITE CORE TOOL 212N/370W 143.1 G Comments Area guRF 0464 CCS DRILL MIDSECTION 212N/392W Comments same material as #3132 Area sURF 0470 LM CHOPPER 212N/392W 541.5 G Comments flaked, light use wear Area guRF 0471 LM SCRAPER 212N/392W 150.4 G Comments retouched flake type 3.04 Ip Area guRF 0472 LM CHOPPER 212N/392W 479.6 G Comments flaked, use wear Area sURF 0475 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 212N/392W 491.2 G Comments flaked from use Area sURF 0482 CCS PEBBLE CORE TOOL 212N/394W Comments bifacially flaked Area guRF 0483 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 212N/394W 609.6 G FRAGMENT com m ents flaked from use, chopper use Area guRF 0484 QZITE CHOPPER 212N/394W 350.2 G Comments flaked, use wear Area sURF 0486 LM CHOPPER 212N/394W 314 G Comments flaked Area guRF 0487 OB MICRO CORE 212N/398W 2.3 G FRAGMENT Comments ' Area sURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135
BOVINE BLUFF Cat # Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 0488 CCS CORE TOOL 212N/398W 11.5G Comments bifacial retouch Area SURF 0492 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 212N/398W 192.5 G Comments flaked from use Area SURF 0494 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 212N/398W 91.7 G Comments no sign of wear Area SURF 0500 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 212N/400W 519.9 G Comments flaked from use Area SURF 0501 LM BIFACE CORE TOOL 212N/402W OFF Comments Area SURF 0502 CCS CORE 212N/400W 377.3 G Comments possible use as a tool Area SURF 0503 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 212N/400W 153.4 G Comments Area SURF 0504 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 212N/400W OFF Comments one end battered, no flaking Area SURF 0511 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 212N/402W 281.2 G Comments -j |g flake removed, battered Area SURF 0512 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 212N/402W 98.5 G Comments ^fl^ e w^batteringon dorsal surface Area SURF 0513 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 212N/402W 187.1 G Comments no flaking Area SURF 0515 CCS BIFACE BASE 216N/400W Comments preform stage Area sURF 0550 QZITE EXPENDED CORE 202N/386W 178.1 G Comments bifacially flaked Area 25 0551 LM BIFACE CORE TOOL 202N/386W 416.8 G Comments Area 25 0552 CCS CORE 202N/386W 49.3 G Comments cobble w/ incipient cone cortex Area gURF 0553 LM CHOPPER 202N/386W OFF Comments unifacially flaked Area 25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136
BOVINE BLUFF Cat # Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 0554 CCS POINT MIDSECTION 202N/378W Comments very tip is missing, 2mm ttiick Area SURF 0567 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 202N/386W 495 G Comments unflaked, heavily battered Area 25 0653 LM CORE TOOL 210N/382W 94.1 G Comments chopper use wear Area SURF 0655 CCS CORE TOOL 214N/362W 8.7 G Comments Area SURF 0661 LM CHOPPER 210N/386W 348.4 G Comments unifacially flaked Area 25 0670 CCS BIFACE 210N/406W 177G Comments rejected core, works as tool Area SURF 0671 CCS BIFACE 210N/406W 16.1 G Comments crappy material Area SURF 0702 BT HAMMERSTONE 214N/386W OFF Comments listed as limestone, battered end Area 25 0703 CCS BIFACE 214N/386W 16.2G Comments quarried from vein Area SURF 0704 CCS BIFACE 214N/386W Comments heavily modified flake, knife? Area SURF 0707 CCS CORE 210N/406W 18.8 G Comments incipient cone cortex Area SURF 0719 CCS CORE 214N/390W 16.4 G Comments Area SURF 0720 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 214N/390W 591.4 G Comments i flake removed Area 25 0721 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 214N/390W 512.2 G Comments bifacially flaked Area 25 0724 LM CHOPPER 214N/394W OFF Comments unifacially flaked Area 25 0725 BT CORE 214N/394W 321.5 G Comments Area 25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137
BOVINE BLUFF Cat # Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 0726 ST RETOUCHED FLAKE 214N/394W Comments 3 03 epr flake type Area sURF 0727 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 214N/394W 175.7 G Comments flaked from use Area 25 0728 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 214N/394W 297.8 G Comments unflaked cobble, broken in half Area 25 0729 QZITE CHOPPER 214N/394W 166.5 G Comments no sign of use wear Area 25 0730 CCS CORE 214N/394W 28.8G Comments quarried cortex Area sURF 0743 CCS BIFACE 206N/378W Comments heavily retouched 1.01 flake Area sURF 0744 CCS PEBBLE CORE TOOL 206N/378W 74.4 G Comments pifacially flaked, no retouch Area sURF 0745 CCS POINT FRAGMENT 206N/378W Comments tip to top of one notch remains, 6mm thick, possible Area sURF 0746 QZITE TEST CORE 206N/378W 194.7 G Comments large grained, crappy material Area 25 0751 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 206N/382W OFF Comments unflaked Area 25 0758 CCS PREFORM POINT TIP 206N/382W Comments snap break, probably in manufacture Area sURF 0763 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 206N/386W 546.9 G Comments 1 Make removed, heavy use wear Area 25 0772 QZITE CORE 214N/398W 575.8 G Comments usted as biface, 1 flake removed Area 25 0782 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 214N/390W 471.5 G Comments unflaked Area 25 0782 CCS CORE TOOL 218N/362W 20.9 G Comments Area sURF 0783 CCS BIFACE MIDSECTION 218N/362W Comments Area sURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138
BOVINE BLUFF Cat# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 0789 CCS KNIFE BASE 218N/366W Comments |g stemmed base. 1cm thick Area sURF 0793 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 218N/374W Comments f qi pi flake type Area sURF 0796 0 8 MICRO CORE 218N/374W 3.2 G Comments Area sURF
0808 LM HAMMERSTONE 218N/356W 81.7 G Comments unflaked flat pebble Area 25 0809 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 218N/390W 163.9 G Comments small cobble, broken in half Area 25 0817 CCS BIFACE TIP 218N/394W Comments knife or Ig point fragment Area sURF 0827 CCS REJECTED CORE 218N/398W 86.5 G Comments prepared platform Area sURF 0832 LM CHOPPER 222N/362W 306.5 G Comments 2 flakes removed, unifacially Area 25 0833 QZITE RETOUCHED FLAKE 222N/362W Comments 1.10 sc flake type Area sURF 0848 CCS CORE TOOL 222N/382W 19.2 G Comments Area sURF 0854 CCS BIFACE 218N/406W 31.2 G Comments Area sURF
0855 QZITE BIFACE 218N/406W 28.9 G Comments Area sURF 0858 CCS EXPENDED CORE 218N/402W 18.1 G Comments Area sURF 0870 QZITE CHOPPER 222N/394W 219.8 G Comments no sign of use wear Area 25 0871 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 222N/394W Comments pifacial retouch, 1.10 sc flake Area sURF 0877 CCS BIFACE 222N/406W 9G Comments late stage iii, no pressure flaking Area gURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139
BOVINE BLUFF C at# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 0881 CCS UTILIZED FLAKE 222N/402W Comments possibly retouched, 1.10 sc flake Area sURF 0886 CCS BIFACE CORE TOOL 222N/406W 9.4 G Comments no retouch Area sURF 0904 OB RETOUCHED FLAKE 226N/378W Comments i ,1 o sc flake type Area sURF 0908 QZITE CORE 226N/378W OFF Comments Area 25
0922 LM CHOPPER 226N/402W 294.5 G Comments unifacially flaked Area 25 0923 LM UTILIZED FLAKE 226N/402W 490.5 G Comments chopper, flake type 1.00 pc Area 25 0937 LM HAMMER/CHOPPER 230N/370W 230.6 G Comments battered unflaked end Area 25 0941 CCS CORE TOOL 230N/374W 6.8 G Comments Area sURF 0955 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 230N/394W Comments Area SURF 0977 ST BIFACE PEBBLE TOOL 234N/398W 28.6 G Comments cortex on ends and midsection Area SURF 0989 CCS CORE TOOL 238N/362W 32.2 G Comments Area SURF 0999 CCS BIFACE 238N/382W 12.6 G Comments Area SURF 1007 QZITE BIFACE 242N/362W 28.9 G Comments pressure flaking Area SURF 1018 CCS TEST CORE 242N/386W 94.8 G Comments Area 25 1024 LM CORE 242N/390W 354.1 G Comments refitted flake in bag Area 25 1035 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 242N/406W 68.8 G Comments ^ery little sign of use Area 25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140
BOVINE BLUFF C at# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 1037 CCS BIFACE CORE TOOL 246N/362W 16.2 G Comments Area suR F
1039 ST BIFACE CORE TOOL 246N/366W 43.2 G Comments Area sURF
1049 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 246N/382W Comments stage ii shaped into slight curve, snap break Area sURF 1058 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 246N/398W Comments fiake type 3.03 epr Area sURF 1059 CCS SCRAPER 246N/402W 10 G Comments bifacially flaked from 1.00 pc flake type Area SURF 1071 CCS CORE TOOL 250N/382W 24.3 G Comments Area SURF
1082 CCS EXPENDED CORE 250N/406W 155.7 G Comments Area 25 1086 CCS PEBBLE TOOL 250N/410W Comments Area SURF
1105 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 258N/394W Comments possibly retouched, 2.01 bta type Area SURF 1110 CCS UTILIZED FLAKE 262N/406W Comments possibly retouched Area SURF 1116 CCS TEST CORE 206N/358W Comments crappy material Area 25 1131 OB RETOUCHED FLAKE 218N/358W Comments heavy retouch, 3.04 Ip flake Area SURF 1132 CCS CORE 218N/358W 43.2 G Comments Area SURF 1134 CCS Bl FACE FRAGMENT 210N/358W Comments snap break Area SURF 1140 LM CHOPPER 200N/388W 563.4 G Comments cataloged as a core Area SURF 1141 LM SCRAPER 200N/388W 179.7 G Comments bifacially flaked Area SURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141
BOVINE BLUFF C at# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 1142 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 200N/388W OFF Comments Area SURF 1143 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/400W OFF Comments flaked from use Area SURF 1149 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 202N/388W Comments Make type 3.04 Ip Area SURF 1154 LM HAMMER/CHOPPER 202N/388W 563.2 G Comments flaked, heavy battering Area SURF 1155 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 202N/388W 461.9 G Comments flaked Area SURF 1156 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 202N/388W OFF Comments battered Area SURF 1157 LM CORE TOOL 202N/388W 539.2 G Comments Area SURF 1159 CCS EXPENDED CORE 204N/388W 9.3 G Comments Area SURF 1166 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 204N.388W 22G Comments Area SURF 1178 LM HAMMERSTONE 208N/388W OFF Comments broken in half Area SURF 1192 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 210N/388W OFF Comments flaked, heavy use wear Area SURF 1198 QZITE CORE TOOL 212N/388W OFF Comments Area SURF 1200 LM RETOUCHED FLAKE 212N/398W -14 to -34 cm Comments flake type 3.02 ep Area EX 1201 LM CHOPPER 212N/398W -14 to -34 cm 124.6 g Comments 3 02 ep retouched flake Area EX 1262 CCS FLAKE 212N/398W -29 to -34.1 cm Comments flake type 1.11 si Area EX 1280 LM CHOPPER 212N/398W 0 to -7 cm 573.8 g Comments unifacially flaked Area EX
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142
BOVINE BLUFF C at# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 1293 LM SCRAPER 212N/398W -7 to -28 cm 195 g Comments bifacially flaked Area EX 1299 LM CORE TOOL 212N/392W 254.8 G Comments Area SURF 1301 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 250N/362W Comments Area SURF 1322 CCS BIFACE 210N/392W -35 to -40 cm 18.8 g Comments scraper? Area EX 1327 LM RETOUCHED FLAKE 210N/392W 0 to -30 cm Comments flake type 1.100 pc Area EX 1352 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 210N/392W -50 to -55 cm Comments flake type 1.10 sc Area EX 1369 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 210N/392W -30 to -40 cm Comments Area EX 1423 CCS CORE TOOL 203N/396W 22.7 G Comments Area SURF 1460 CCS BIFACE 204N/398W 42.5 G Comments possible rejected core Area SURF 1501 LM CHOPPER 211N/396W -25 to -30 cm off Comments bifacially flaked Area EX 1504 CCS BIFACE 210N/396W -14 to -20 cm Comments flawed material, incipient cone cortex on one side in Area EX middle 1549 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 209N/397W sur to floor Comments possible base Area EX 1567 CCS CORE TOOL 215N/391W 96.3 G Comments quarried cortex Area SURF 1579 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 204N/378W 257.8 G FRAGMENT Comments use wear Area SURF 1580 CCS CORE 232N/370W 14.8 G Comments water carried pebble Area SURF 1582 CCS VEIN CORE FRAGMENT 232N/370W Comments Area SURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143
BOVINE BLUFF C at# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 1595 CCS BIFACE 236N/374W 25.3 G Comments knife? Area sURF 1603 CCS KNIFE FRAGMENT 240N/368W Comments slightly curved shape Area sURF 1612 CCS EXPENDED CORE 240N/372W 1.7 G Comments ^ery nice material Area sURF 1626 SS CHOPPER 242N/373W 325.7 G Comments flaked, core? Area sURF 1636 CCS BIFACE TIP 244N/368W Comments large knife? Area SURF 1638 CCS PEBBLE TOOL 244N/366W 12.2 G Comments unifacially flaked Area SURF 1640 CCS CORE 244N/364W 34.5 G Comments quarried cortex Area SURF 1641 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 244N/364W 9.2 G Comments cortex remaining Area SURF 1644 QZITE CORE TOOL 244N/372W 191.4 G Comments Area SURF
1648 CCS EXPENDED CORE 246N/364W 10.1 G Comments retouched edge Area SURF 1651 CCS BIFACE CORE 246N/368W 27.9 G Comments ^S4oovcrappy IfiaLmaterial, cortex Area SURF 1652 GR GROUNDSTONE 246N/368W 81.6 G Comments ^un^^d^îyflaked Area SURF 1655 CCS EXPENDED CORE 246N/372W 47.8 G Comments used down to flawed area Area SURF 1668 CCS BIFACE CORE TOOL 252N/402W Comments pebble scraper? Area sURF 1670 LM CHOPPER 249N/362W OFF Comments flaked Area sURF 1682 CCS CORE 253N/403W sur to -1 cm 37.8 g Comments Area g x
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144
BOVINE BLUFF Cat # Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 1703 CCS BIFACE BASE 209N/397W Comments possible knife base Area sURF 1733 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 210N/396W -37 cm Comments Area EX 1735 CCS DRILL BASE 214N/390W Comments Area sURF 1736 CCS DRILL 214N/386W sur to -2 cm Comments extreme end appears missing Area EX 1744 LM CORE TOOL 214N/386W 513.2 G Comments flaked, used as chopper Area SURF 1748 CCS BIFACE EDGE 214N/386W A to -10 cm Comments Area EX 1756 QZITE CORE TOOL 214N/386W -10 cm 518.6 g Comments unifacially flaked Area EX 1772 RH CORE TOOL 204N/378W A to -20 cm 262.4 g Comments unifacially flaked Area EX 1782 QZITE HAM. FRAGMENT 204N/378W A to -20 cm Comments Area EX 1786 CCS BIFACE 203N/378W sur to -2 cm 51.6 g Comments Area EX 1787 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 203N/378W A to -2 cm 174.2 g Comments flaked Area EX 1802 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 241N/371W -1 TO -6.5 CM Comments flake type 3.02 ep Area 1802 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 241N/371W -1 TO -6.5 CM Comments flake type 3.02 ep Area AC 1810 LM CHOPPER 241N/370W -1 TO FLOOR 162.2 G Comments Area 1810 LM CHOPPER 241N/370W -1 TO FLOOR 162.2 G Comments Area AC 1817 CCS BIFACE 240N/371W 0 TO -1 CM 24.6 G Comments Area
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145
BOVINE BLUFF Cat # Material Artifact Unit Level W eight 1817 CCS BIFACE 240N/371W 0 TO -1 CMAC 24.6 G Comments Area 1822 CCS KNIFE TIP 240N/371W -1 TO -6.5 CM Comments Area 1822 CCS KNIFE TIP 240N/371W -1 TO -6.5 CM Comments Area AC 1823 CCS BIFACE TIP 240N/371W -1 TO -6.5 CM Comments knife or early stage preform Area 1823 CCS BIFACE TIP 240N/371W -1 TO -6.5 CM Comments knife or early stage preform Area AC 1824 CCS BIFACE TIP 240N/371W -1 TO -6.5 CM Comments probable knife tip Area 1824 CCS BIFACE TIP 240N/371W -1 TO -6.5 CM Comments probable knife tip Area AC 1825 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 240N/371W -1 TO -6.5 CM Comments midsection of probable knife Area 1825 CCS Bl FACE FRAGMENT 240N/371W -1 TO -6.5 CM Comments midsection of probable knife Area AC 1827 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 240N/371W -6 CM Comments stage iii Area 1827 CCS Bl FACE FRAGMENT 240N/371W -6 CM Comments stage iii Area AC 1828 CCS CORE 240N/371W -12 CM 39.8 G Comments incipient cone cortex Area 1828 CCS CORE 240N/371W -12 CM 39.8 G Comments incipient cone cortex Area AC 1829 CCS BIFACE CORE 240N/371W -6.5 CM 66.7 G Comments Area 1829 CCS BIFACE CORE 240N/371W -6.5 CM 66.7 G Comments Area AC 1840 RH POINT TIP 240N/370W -1 TO -8 CM Comments 4 mm thick Area
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146
BOVINE BLUFF C at# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 1840 RH POINT TIP 240N/370W -1 TO -8 CM Comments 4 mm thick Area AC 1844 CCS BIFACE TIP 240N/370W -8 CM Comments probable knife tip Area 1844 CCS BIFACE TIP 240N/370W -8 CM Comments probable knife tip Area AC 1849 CCS BIFACE TIP 240N/372W -1 TO -2 CM Comments knife or broken in preform manufacture Area 1849 CCS BIFACE TIP 240N/372W -1 TO -2 CM Comments knife or broken in preform manufacture Area AC 1850 CCS BIFACE TIP 240N/372W -2 TO -6.5 CM Comments Area
1850 CCS BIFACE TIP 240N/372W -2 TO -6.5 CM Comments Area AC 1860 CCS CORE 241N/372W -4 CM 49.4 G Comments Area
1860 CCS CORE 241N/372W -4 CM 49.4 G Comments Area AC 1864 CCS KNIFE 241N/372W -5 TO-15 CM 20.3 G Comments slightly curved shape Area 1864 CCS KNIFE 241N/372W -5 TO-15 CM 20.3 G Comments slightly curved shape Area AC 1865 CCS CORE TOOL 241N/372W -5 TO-15 CM 63.6 G Comments Area 1865 CCS CORE TOOL 241N/372W -5 TO-15 CM 63.6 G Comments Area AC 1866 CCS BIFACE CORE TOOL 241N/372W -5 T O -15 CM 13.1 G Comments incipient cone cortex Area 1866 CCS BIFACE CORE TOOL 241N/372W -5 TO-15 CM 13.1 G Comments incipient cone cortex Area AC 1868 QZITE HAMMER FRAG. 241N/372W -5 TO -15 CM Comments heavily utilized Area
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147
BOVINE BLUFF Cat# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 1868 QZITE HAMMER FRAG. 241N/372W -5 TO-15 CM Comments heavily utilized Area AC 1869 QZITE CORE 241N/372W -9 CM 91.7 G Comments Area
1869 QZITE CORE 241N/372W -9 CM 91.7 G Comments Area AC 1877 CCS BIFACE 242N/371W -1 TO -3.5 CM 22.3 G Comments listed as knife Area 1877 CCS BIFACE 242N/371W -1 TO -3.5 CM 22.3 G Comments listed as knife Area AC 1887 CCS CORE 242N/370W -1 TO -5.5 CM 77.5 G Comments Area
1887 CCS CORE 242N/370W -1 TO -5.5 CM 77.5 G Comments Area AC 1888 SS CORE 243N/370W -3 CM 115.4 G Comments millingstone fragment Area 1888 SS CORE 243N/370W -3 CM 115.4 G Comments millingstone fragment Area AC 1889 CCS POINT 243N/370W -1 TO -5 CM Comments rosegate- stem reworked snap break Area 1889 CCS POINT 243N/370W -1 TO -5 CM Comments rosegate- stem reworked snap break Area AC 1896 CCS BIFACE TIP 343N/371W 0 TO -1 CM Comments probable knife tip Area 1896 CCS BIFACE TIP 343N/371W 0 TO -1 CM Comments probable knife tip Area AC 1910 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 224N/276W surface FRAGMENT Comments Area EAST 1911 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 224N/276W surface FRAGMENT Comments Area EAST 1927 LM BIFACE 226N/274W surface 9.8 g Comments Area EAST
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148
BOVINE BLUFF C at# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 1939 CCS POINT TIP 200N/382W Comments Area SURF 1940 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/382W OFF Comments unflaked Area SURF 1945 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/384W 22.3 G Comments ^!s^*tar^^flake Area SURF 1947 CCS CORE 200N/384W 13.9 G Comments incipient cone cortex Area SURF 1950 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/384W 556.5 G Comments unflaked, battered Area SURF 1951 LM CHOPPER 200N/384W 405.7 G Comments appears used as mano first Area SURF 1952 QZITE CHOPPER 200N/384W 238.7 G Comments flaked, heavy use wear Area SURF 1966 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 210N/400W Comments knife? Area sURF 1967 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 222N/370W Comments lateral edge Area sURF 1968 CCS KNIFE TIP 214N/410W Comments Area sURF 1971 CCS POINT TIP 242N/370W Comments 2mm thick Area sURF 1972 CCS POINT TIP 21 ON/41 OW Comments 2 mm thick Area sURF 1973 CCS EXPENDED CORE 226N/402W 6.6 G Comments Area sURF 1974 CCS EXPENDED CORE 218N/402W 3.7 G Comments Area SURF 1975 CCS EXPENDED CORE 218N/402W 4.6 G Comments Area SURF 1976 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 210N/394W Comments Area SURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149
BOVINE BLUFF Cat# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 1978 CCS Bl FACE FRAGMENT 210N/390W Comments knife? Area sURF 1979 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 210N/390W Comments midsection, stage iii Area sURF 1980 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 202N/382W 2.9 G Comments Area sURF 1981 CCS CORE 202N/382W 14.7 G Comments Area sURF 1982 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 206N/390W Comments Area sURF 1984 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 254N/374W Comments possibly retouctied 1.10 sc type Area sURF 1985 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 254N/370W Comments i .12 sf flake type Area sURF 1986 CCS CORE 242N/366W 10 G Comments Area sURF 2024 CCS KNIFE FRAGMENT 200N/368W Comments Area sURF 2028 CCS CORE TOOL 200N/368W 14 G Comments crappy material Area sURF 2029 CCS BIFACE 200N/368W 25.7 G Comments Area sURF 2034 CCS KNIFE FRAGMENT 200N/370W Comments snap break Area gURF 2036 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/370W 130.5 G Comments Area sURF 2040 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/370W 56.1 G Comments Area sURF 2044 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 200N/372W Comments Area sURF 2056 QZITE BIFACE CORE TOOL 200N/378W 8.5 G Comments very knappable material Area sURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150
BOVINE BLUFF Cat # Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 2087 QZITE TEST CORE 202N/368W 57.2 G Comments fine grained, flawed Area sURF 2099 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/374W 203.2 G Comments no flaking Area sURF 2100 LM CHOPPER 200N/376W OFF Comments Area SURF 2101 QZITE CORE TOOL 200N/372W 176.9 G Comments Area SURF 2102 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 200N/376W 36 G Comments broken in 1/2, both pieces here Area SURF 2103 CCS CORE TOOL 204N/372W 36 G Comments appears used as scraper Area SURF 2104 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 204N/368W Comments Area SURF 2105 QZITE PEBBLE TOOL 204N/370W 83.8 G Comments Area SURF 2106 CCS BIFACE 202N/372W Comments scraper? made from 1.01 pi flake Area SURF 2107 LM UNIFACE 202N/372W 132.4 G Comments Area SURF 2108 CCS TEST CORE 202N/372W 32.1 G Comments quarried cortex Area SURF 2110 QZITE BIFACE CORE TOOL 202N/368W 156.4 G Comments fine grained Area SURF 2111 CCS POINT MIDSECTION 204N/374W Comments 4 nim thick Area SURF 2113 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 206N/368W 239.9 G Comments flaked, use wear Area SURF 2114 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 206N/376W 220.6 G Comments flaked from use Area SURF 2115 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 206N/376W OFF Comments Area SURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151
BOVINE BLUFF C at# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 2117 CCS CORE 206N/376W 249.5 G Comments quarried cortex Area sURF 2118 CCS CORE TOOL 206N/368W 396.7 G Comments used as knapping hammer, bad material Area sURF 2120 ST PEBBLE TOOL 206N/374W 54.8 G Comments bifacially flaked at one end Area sURF 2121 CCS CORE TOOL 206N/374W 14.9 G Comments pressure flaked along 2 edges Area sURF 2124 CCS SCRAPER 204N/374W Comments uniface from 3.02 ep flake type Area sURF 2146 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 204N/374W 138.7 G FRAGMENT Comments Area sURF 2165 CCS EXPENDED CORE 206N/376W 12.8 G Comments quarried cortex Area sURF 2165 CCS EXPENDED CORE 206N/376W 14.3 G Comments quarried cortex Area sURF 2170 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 204N/374W 107.5 G FRAGMENT Comments ' Area sURF 2176 CCS EXPENDED CORE 220N/374W 7.6 G Comments quarried cortex Area sURF 2180 CCS TEST CORE 220N/376W Comments usted as scraper Area sURF 2180 CCS TEST CORE 220N/376W Comments usted as scraper Area sURF 2182 LM BIFACE CORE TOOL 220N/376W 150.8 G Comments Area sURF 2186 CCS CORE 240N/374W 20.5 G Comments Area sURF
2189 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 240N/376W 16.8 G Comments Area sURF
2189 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 240N/376W 19.8 G Comments Area sURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152
BOVINE BLUFF Cat# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 2192 CCS EXPENDED CORE 220N/378W 12.9 G Comments quarried cortex Area SURF 2192 CCS EXPENDED CORE 220N/378W 7.3 G Comments quarried cortex Area SURF 2196 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 220N/378W Comments retains remnant cortex Area SURF 2197 CCS BIFACE 220N/378W Comments trace of cortex, micro core tool? Area SURF 2207 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 222N/372W 362.7 G Comments no flaking, heavy use wear Area SURF 2209 QZITE PEBBLE CORE 224N/372W 45.7 G Comments barely knappable Area SURF 2212 CCS CORE 224N/372W 21.4 G Comments quarried cortex Area SURF 2225 QZITE CORE FRAGMENT 240N/366W 46.4 G Comments Area SURF 2228 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 241N/376W 121.9 G Comments Area SURF 2244 ST BIFACE CORE TOOL 244N/374W 26.5 G Comments bifacially flaked at one end Area SURF 2258 ST PEBBLE TOOL 244N/378W 37.1 G Comments Area SURF 2265 LM CHOPPER 248N/376W OFF Comments Area SURF 2268 QZITE KNIFE FRAGMENT 208N/380W Comments fjne grained Area SURF 2278 CCS CORE 203N/379W sur to -14.5 cm 37.4 g Comments Area EX 2294 CCS CORE 204N/377W -14 to -15.5 cm 10 g Comments possible core tool Area EX 2305 CCS CORE 242N/370W 53.9 G Comments Area SURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153
BOVINE BLUFF Cat # Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 2314 CCS FLAKE 205N/378W sur to -7 cm Comments flake type 1.11 si Area EX 2328 CCS VEIN CORE 240N/373W sur to -1 5 cm 16 g Comments Area EX 2332 CCS BIFACE CORE TOOL 240N/373W 28.1 g Comments 3 flakes in bag Area EX 2332 CCS CORE 240N/373W 26.9 g Comments 3 flakes in bag Area EX 2332 QZITE CORE FRAGMENT 240N/373W 32.8 g Comments cataloged as chert, fine grained Area EX 2333 CCS BIFACE TIP 240N/373W -1.5 to -9 cm Comments knife or early preform Area EX 2335 CCS BIFACE TIP 240N/373W -9 cm Comments possible knife or early stage preform Area EX 2336 CCS CORE 242N/372W -4 to -7 cm 6 g Comments Area EX 2336 CCS CORE 242N/372W -4 to -7 cm 20.4 g Comments Area EX 2341 CCS CORE TOOL 242N/372W sur to -4 cm 16.3 g Comments Area EX 2343 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 242N/372W sur to -4 cm Comments Area EX 2344 CCS Bl FACE CORE TOOL 242N/372W -7 cm Comments Area EX 2345 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 244N/370W 140.4 G Comments shaped Area SURF 2350 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 244N/372W -8.5 to -11 cm 6 g Comments incipient cone cortex Area EX 2354 CCS CORE TOOL 244N/370W -15.5 to -20 cm 8 g Comments Area EX 2366 CCS UTILIZED FLAKE 202N/375W -6 cm Comments 1.10 sc flake, possible scraper Area EX
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154
BOVINE BLUFF C at# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 2384 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 202N/379W -10 to -19 cm Comments flake type 1.21 ii Area EX 2393 CCS CORE 203N/375W sur to -9 cm 16 g Comments Area EX 2393 CCS CORE 203N/375W sur to -9 cm 5.4 g Comments Area EX 2404 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 205N/379W sur to -6 cm 292.2 g Comments Area EX 2407 CCS CORE 242N/371W sur to -10 cm 26.8 g Comments Area EX 2432 PEBBLE TOOL 204N/376WSS -8 to -9 cm Comments bifacial flaking only along one edge Area EX 2447 QZITE BIFACE CORE TOOL 242N/371W -12 cm 48.9 g Comments Area EX 2448 CCS KNIFE FRAGMENT 242N/371W -15 cm Comments Area EX 2450 CCS CORE 242N/371W -10 to -15 cm 17.2 g Comments Area EX 2455 CCS KNIFE 242N/371W -10 to -15 cm Comments Area EX 2459 CCS FLAKE 202N/378W sur to -10 cm Comments nasty material, flake type 1.11 si Area EX 2462 QZITE HAM. FRAGMENT 242N/372W -7 to -14 cm Comments Area EX 2463 CCS BIFACE MIDSECTION 242N/372W -7 to -14 cm Comments Area EX 2467 CCS BIFACE CORE TOOL 242N/372W -9 cm 40.1 g Comments Area EX 2481 QZITE HAMMER FRAG. 202N/374W Sur to -14 CM Comments fragmented from use Area 2481 QZITE HAMMER FRAG. 202N/374W Sur to -14 CM Comments fragmented from use Area AC
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155
BOVINE BLUFF Cat # Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 2482 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 202N/374W sur to -14 cm 26.7 g Comments 17 items in bag, probable knapping event Area gX 2482 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 202N/374W sur to -14 cm 36.3 g Comments yj items in bag, probable knapping event Area e x 2482 CCS FLAKE 202N/374W sur to -14 cm Comments -jy items in bag, 3.02 ep flake Area EX 2482 CCS FLAKE 202N/374W sur to -14 cm Comments 17 items in bag, 3.02 ep flake Area EX 2482 CCS FLAKE 202N/374W sur to -14 cm Comments items in bag, 3.02 ep flake Area EX 2482 CCS FLAKE 202N/374W sur to -14 cm Comments -jy items in bag, 3.02 ep flake Area EX 2482 CCS FLAKE 202N/374W sur to -14 cm Comments ty items in bag, 1.01 pi flake Area EX 2482 CCS FLAKE 202N/374W sur to -14 cm Comments ty items in bag, 1.01 pi flake Area EX 2482 CCS FLAKE 202N/374W sur to -14 cm Comments ty items in bag, 1.01 pi flake Area EX 2482 CCS FLAKE 202N/374W sur to -14 cm Comments 17 items in bag, 1.11 si flake Area EX 2482 CCS FLAKE 202N/374W sur to -14 cm Comments t7 items in bag, 1.11 si flake Area EX 2482 CCS FLAKE 202N/374W sur to -14 cm Comments 17 items in bag, 1.11 si flake Area ex 2482 CCS FLAKE 202N/374W sur to -14 cm Comments t7 items in bag, 1.11 si flake Area EX 2482 CCS FLAKE 202N/374W sur to -14 cm Comments t7 items in bag, 1.23 im flake Area EX 2482 CCS FLAKE 202N/374W sur to -14 cm Comments 17 items in bag, 9.12 un flake Area EX 2482 CCS FLAKE 202N/374W sur to -14 cm Comments t7 items in bag, 9.12 un flake Area EX
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156
BOVINE BLUFF Cat # Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 2482 CCS FLAKE 202N/374W sur to -14 cm Comments 17 items in bag. 9.12 un flake Area EX 2505 LM PEBBLE TOOL 204N/374W -12 cm 45.2 g Comments bifacially flaked Area EX 2512 CCS TEST CORE 2Q5N/374W 0 TO -5 CM 28.6 G Comments Area 2512 CCS TEST CORE 205N/374W 0 TO -5 CM 28.6 G Comments Area AC 2541 CCS BIFACE CORE TOOL 240N/373W -9 to -19 cm 8.3 g Comments Area EX 2546 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 240N/373W -11 to -20 cm Comments Area EX 2552 CCS CORE 242N/371W -22 TO -27 CM 13.4 G Comments expended Area 2552 CCS CORE 242N/371W -22 TO -27 CM 13.4 G Comments expended Area AC 2570 CCS CORE 202N/378W -15 TO-18 CM 9.5 G Comments expended Area 2570 CCS CORE 202N/378W -15 TO -18 CM 9.5 G Comments expended Area AC 2613 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 203N/378W -16 to -19 cm 56.9 g Comments Area EX 2620 CCS BIFACE 205N/375W -7 to -12 cm 27.4 g Comments incipient cone cortex Area EX 2626 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 241N/373W -4 to -9 cm 12.7 g Comments knife or early preform Area EX 2627 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 241N/373W -4 to -9 cm Comments knife or early preform Area EX 2635 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 203N/376W -18 cm Comments Area ex 2642 CCS FLAKE CORE TOOL 242N/370W -17 cm Comments 1.11 si flake, retouched Area EX
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157
BOVINE BLUFF C at# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 2644 CCS KNIFE FRAGMENT 242N/370W -10 to -15 cm Comments Area EX 2651 CCS BIFACE 202N/378W ? 4.2 g Comments Area EX 2656 CCS BIFACE MIDSECTION 241N/373W -9 to -16 cm Comments snap breaks, crappy material Area EX 2659 CCS BIFACE TIP 241N/373W -19 to -24 cm Comments knife? preform? Area EX 2665 QZITE BIFACE CORE TOOL 242N/370W -20 to -25 cm 27.1 g Comments Area EX 2673 QZITE BIFACE CORE TOOL 242N/373W sur to -5 cm 119.3 g Comments Area EX 2688 CCS CORE 243N/372W -1 cm 55.2 g Comments Area EX 2700 CCS TEST CORE 203N/374W -11 to -15 cm 116.8 g Comments Area EX 2718 LM CHOPPER 202N/375W -15 to -18 cm 199.2 g Comments unifacially flaked Area EX 2742 CCS PEBBLE CORE TOOL 204N/375W -13.5 t o -18.5 13.2 g cm Comments Area EX 2747 CCS CORE TOOL 204N/375W -17 cm 223.5 g Comments unifacially flaked Area EX 2758 CCS CORE 241N/378W -6 to -7 cm 28.2 g Comments Area EX 2762 CCS FLAKE 241N/378W -7 to -10 cm Comments flake type 1.11 si Area EX 2778 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 246N/377W -9 to -15 cm Comments flake type 1.10 sc Area EX 2779 CCS BIFACE 248N/367W sur to -8 cm 28.7 g Comments Area EX 2783 CCS TEST CORE 248N/367W -8 to -15 cm 22.1 g Comments Area EX
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158
BOVINE BLUFF C at# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 2786 QZITE SCRAPER 248N/371W sur to -7 cm Comments heavily retouched 1.10 sc flake Area EX 2797 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 203N/375W ? Comments knife frage? Area EX 2807 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 203N/378W -18 to -23 cm Comments flake type 1.21 ii Area EX 2824 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 205N/375W -8.5 to -13.5 cm Comments Area EX 2829 LM UNIFACE 242N/369W -15 to -20 cm Comments 1.00 pc flake, has concretion of calcite & ? Area EX 2837 CCS BIFACE CORE 243N/371W -19 cm FRAGMENT Comments 3.02 ep flake Area EX 2841 CCS BIFACE PEBBLE TOOL 243N/372W -15 to -20 cm 19.9 g Comments incipient cone cortex Area EX 2842 LM CORE FRAGMENT 243N/372W -15 TO-20 CM Comments Area 2842 LM CORE FRAGMENT 243N/372W -15 TO-20 CM Comments Area AC 2845 CCS CORE 243N/372W -20 to -25 cm 29.9 g Comments Area EX 2889 LM ANVIL 197N/392W OFF Comments Area SURF 2951 CCS BIFACE CORE TOOL 231N/383W 41.7 G Comments Area SURF 2954 CCS BIFACE CORE 202N/381W sur to -5 cm 11.8 g Comments Area EX 2962 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 201N/380W sur to -13 cm Comments Area EX 2987 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 228N/382W 157.3 G Comments unflaked, use wear Area SURF 2991 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 221N/407W 289.3 G Comments Area SURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159
BOVINE BLUFF Cat# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 3003 CCS TEST CORE 200N/382W -8.5 to -9 cm 81.7 g Comments Area EX 3008 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 200N/382W sur to -9 cm Comments flake type 9.12 un Area EX 3023 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 210N/384W 348.8 G Comments Area sURF 3024 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 198N/392W Comments snap break, remnant cortex Area SURF 3024 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 198N/392W Comments snap break, remnant cortex Area SURF 3030 CCS SCRAPER 198N/392W Comments Area SURF 3042 QZITE HAM. FRAGMENT 220N/407W sur to -16 cm Comments i qq pc flake Area EX 3075 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 202N/384W 441.9 G Comments Area sURF 3076 QZITE CORE 229N/383W -20 to -30 cm 48.7 g Comments Area EX
3082 LM CHOPPER 200N/386W sur to -15 cm 364.3 g Comments unifacially flaked Area EX 3096 QZITE HAM. FRAGMENT 204N/387W sur to -13 cm Comments Area EX
3128 CCS BIFACE 215N/390W sur to -15 cm Comments made from 1.11 si flake, knife? preform? Area EX 3132 CCS DRILL MIDSECTION 207N/375W Comments Area SURF 3147 SS BIFACE 216N/390W sur to -20 cm Comments Area EX 3168 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 201N/387W sur to -10 cm 73.5 g Comments Area EX
3186 CCS CORE 200N/387W sur to -14 cm 32.1 g Comments Area EX
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160
BOVINE BLUFF C at# Material Artifact Unit Level Weight 3257 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 200N/383W sur to -9 cm Comments incipient cone cortex Area ex 3278 CCS UTILIZED FLAKE 221N/406W -15 to -18 cm Comments flake type 3.02 ep Area ex 3282 CCS BIFACE 215N/390W sur to -15 cm Comments heavily retouched flake 1.11 ii Area ex 3287 CCS POINT TIP 234N/411W Comments Area sURF
3306 CCS BIFACE 221N/407W -12 to-22 cm 4.2 g Comments niade from flake, knife? Area EX 3313 CCS BIFACE CORE FRAG 203N/388W -5 to -10 cm Comments Area EX 3321 CCS UTILIZED FLAKE 203N/380W sur to -17 cm Comments flake type 1.21 ii Area ex 3333 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 217N/390W sur to -15 cm 27 g Comments one 1.11 si flake in bag Area ex 3336 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 205N/385W -11 to -14 cm Comments flake type 1.11 si Area ex 3344 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 201N/382W -8 to ? cm Comments Area EX 3350 CCS KNIFE BASE NOT IN UNIT Comments 3 pieces of fire cracked rock associated Area sURF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX C
MAIN RIDGE ARTIFACT
LIST
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162
MAIN RIDGE cat# material artifact house weight 0006 QZITE UTILIZED FLAKE 16 Comments: 1.23 m flake; used as hammer/chopper, all edges used 0012 CCS UTILIZED FLAKE 16 Comments: appasrent use as scraper. 1.11 si flake 0012 QZITE UTILIZED FLAKE 16 Comments: 1.10 sc flake; ver\ large grain 0027 QZITE CQRE TOOL 16 68.5 G Comments: expended core 0033 QZITE CORE TOOL 16 Comments: 0035 QZITE CQRE FRAGMENT 16 Comments: 0035 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 16 Comments: 1.10 sc flake 0088 QZITE RETOUCHED FLAKE ? Comments: possible use as drill?? flake txpe 1.20 ic 0104 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 16-17 299.9 G Comments: heavy battering, appears used more as hammerstone 0105 SLS CQRE TOOL 152 G Comments: silicious siltstone 0107 CCS TEST PEBBLE CORE ’ Comments: badly flawed 0108 QZITE PEBBLE TOOL ’ 71.6 G Comments: used as hammerstone 0114 CCS TEST CORE 49.8 G Comments: flawed material 0 II4 CCS MICRO-CORE FRAGMENT Comments: incipient cone cortex 0120 CCS CQRE TOOL ’ 201.5 G Comments: cobble; incipient cone cortex; not expended, good material 0124 LM CORE TOOL 17 296.9 G Comments: 0147 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 16 226.8 G Comments: used as knapping hammer also; end is battered, other end is broken off. 0152 CCS 16 Comments: stage iv 0161 QZITE TOOL FRAGMENT 16 Comments: undiagnostic use wear 0161 QZITE EXPENDED CORE Comments: possible tool use 0164 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER FRAGMENT 17? Comments: incipient cone cortex
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163
MAIN RIDGE cat# material artifact house weight 0182 QZITE UTILIZED FLAKE 16 128.9 G Comments: 1.00 pc flake type used as chopper 0193 CCS MICRO-CORE TOOL 16 11 8 G Comments: incipient cone cortex: heat treated facet: use wear 0193 CCS CORE TOOL 16 27.8 G Comments: incipient cone cortex: heat treated facet 0203 CCS REJUVENATION FLAKE 16 Comments: 1 .10 sc flake tvpe 0208 QZITE CORE TOOL 16 167G Comments: 0209 CCS DRILL TIP 16 Comments: 0216 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER FRAGMENT 16 Comments: 0250 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 17 196 6 G Comments: well worn 0271 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 16 169 G Comments: all edges battered 0281 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 16 198.5 G Comments: 0289 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 06-07 88.7 G Comments: flaked, alledges battered 0290 QZITE SCRAPER 06-07 31.1 G Comments: uniface: "classic scraper" 0296 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 06-07 229.3 G Comments: 2 artifacts in bag; all edges battered 0296 QZITE UTILIZED FLAKE 06-07 91.4 G Comments: 2 artifacts in bag; 1.00 pc flake used as chopper 0297 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 06-07 Comments: 1.20 ic 0298 QZITE BIFACE 06-07 46.4 G Comments: blank (stage ii) 0300 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 06-07 175.2 G Comments: 0301 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 06-07 Comments: lateral edge 0301 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 06-07 25.7 G Comments: 1.11 si flake, used as scraper 0301 QZITE RETOUCHED FLAKE 06-07 115.5 G Comments: 1.00 pc flake, heaw chopper use wear 0301 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 06-07 Comments:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164
MAINREDGE cat # material artifact house weight 0304 QZITE BIFACE CORE TOOL 07 161.1 G Comments: 0315 QZITE CORE FRAGMENT 07 Comments: 0317 GNEISS CORE TOOL 07 321.2 G Comments: 0321 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 07 243.5 G Comments: battered 0326 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE Comments: 1.20 ic flake 0326 QZITE TOOL FRAGMENT ’ Comments: undiagnostic use wear, flrom boyscout teepee ring 0333 CCS PEBBLE TOOL 06 26 G Comments: possible tool, only 1 flake scar 0334 QZTTE HAMMERSTONE 06 134.2 G Comments: 0339 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 06 Comments; 0339 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 06 Comments: 0341 CCS MICRO-CORE 06 4.2 G Comments: very nice material, fiilly expended 0341 CCS MICRO-CORE FRAGMENT 06 Comments: incipient cone cortex 0342 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 06 Comments: 0342 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 06 Comments: 0342 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 06 147.7 G Comments: lightly battered 0342 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 06 Comments: 1.10 sc flake 0343 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 06 281.9 G Comments: used as knapping hammer, heavily battered 0350 QZITE PEBBLE TOOL 06 68.4 G Comments: small hammer/chopper ? 0351 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 06 256.5 G Comments: unflaked, both ends heavily battered 0352 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 06 151.2 G Comments: battered 0353 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 06 Comments: one end battered
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165
MAIN RIDGE c a t# material artifact house weight 0354 QZITE CHOPPER 06 86.6 G Comments: 1 edge utilized 0354 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 06 Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: 1.10 sc flake 0354 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 06 Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: 3.02 ep flake 0354 Q z rih CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 06 Comments: bagged separately 0354 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 06 Comments: 4 artifacts in bag. 2 show use wear 0354 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 06 Comments: 4 artifacts in bag. 2 show use wear 0354 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 06 Comments: 4 artifacts in bag. 2 show use wear 0354 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 06 Comments: 4 artifacts in bag. 2 show use wear 0355 QZITE CORE TOOL 06 154.8 G Comments: utilized as chopper 0357 QZITE CORE TOOL 06 94.8 G Comments: small reduced cobble: appears utilized as hammerstone 0358 CCS BIFACE TIP 06 Comments: stage ii: blimt tip. cortex present 0359 QZITE CORE TOOL 06 113.2 G Comments: 0367 CCS BIFACE CORE FRAGMENT 07 Comments: incipient cone cortex: use wear 0373 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 07 499.3 G Comments: unflaked cobble 0381 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 07 171.5 G Comments: 2 artifacts in bag 0381 QZITE UTILIZED FLAKE 07 163.2 G Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: flake 1.00 pc: used as hanuner/chopper 0382 QZITE PEBBLE TOOL 07 53.4 G Comments: used as hammerstone 0383 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 07 Comments: quarried cortex 0383 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 07 Comments: lateral edge 0388 QZITE TEST CORE 07 99.3 G Comments: 0393 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 07 231 G Comments: unflaked, 1 end battered
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166
MAIN RIDGE cat# material artifact house weight 0399 CCS DRILL VnDSECTIQN 06 Comments: 0401 QZITE CORE TOOL 06 186.8 G Comments: 0401 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 06 Comments: 0401 QZITE BIFACE CORE TOOL 06 101.8 G Comments: 0410 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 06 Comments: 3.02 ep: 3 artifacts in bag 0410 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 06 Comments: 1.10 sc flake type: 3 artifacts in bag 0410 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 06 Comments: 1.10 sc flake t>T3e: 3 artifacts in bag 0410 QZITE CHOPPER 06 255.1 G Comments: lightly battered 0410 CCS PEBBLE TOOL 06 36.2 G Comments: lightly flaked, use wear 0410 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 06 Comments: 3 artifacts in bag 0410 CCS TEST PEBBLE CORE 06 Comments: 3 artifacts in bag 0410 CCS CORE 06 64.8 G Comments: 3 artifacts in bag: heat treated after splitting into Ig chunk: incipient cone 0410 CCS 06 108 O Comments: 2 arti&cts in bag: incipient cone cortex: heat treated facet evident 0410 CCS CORE TOOL 06 125.7 G Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: incipient cone cortex: heat treated facet evident 0412 CCS KNIFE 06 Comments: triangular, missing "tip": thicker at tip end than expected 0414 QZITE CHOPPER 06 301.8 G Comments: 0415 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 06 142.8 G Comments: 0417 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 06 Comments: unflaked cobble fragment: 3 artifacts in bag 0417 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 06 131 G Comments: 3 artifacts in bag 0417 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 06 Comments: 3 arti&cts in bag: 1.10 sc flake 0417 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER FRAGMENT 06 GULLY Comments:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167
IVIAIN RIDGE cat# material artifact house weight 0424 QZITE REJUVENATIQN FLAKE 06 Comments: chopper reju\'. 1.20 ic flake 0424 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 06 Comments: incipient cone cortex 0424 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 06 14.9 G Comments: 1.00 pc flake, probable knife, crappy material, bifacially flaked 0424 CCS CORE TOOL 06 13.3 G Comments: bifacially flakediexpended core: incipient cone cortex: use wear 0427 QZITE UTILIZED FLAKE 06 255 G Comments: large 1.10 sc flake type: used as hammer/chopper 0427 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 06 187.4 G Comments: 3 artifacts in bag 0427 0 HAMMER/CHOPPER 06 178 G Comments: 3 artifacts in bag: flne grained volcanic material 0427 GNEISS CORE TOOL 06 142.5 G Comments: 3 artifacts in bag: hilly decorticated: appears used as hammer 0427 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 06 Comments: 0427 QZITE CHOPPER 06 137,1 G Comments: light use wean bagged separately 0427 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 06 211.9 G Comments: appears used more as hammerstone: bagged separately 0427 GNEISS HAMMER/CHOPPER 06 145 G Comments: light use wear on chopper edges, battered hammer ends; biface 0433 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 03 Comments: 3.02 ep flake 0434 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 03 Comments: 2 artifacts in bag; use wear 0434 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 03 Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: use wear 0442 CCS MICRO-CQRE FRAGMENT 07 Comments: quarried cortex 0446 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 07 Comments: 0457 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 07 Comments: 0457 CCS CORE TOOL 07 94.4 G Comments: bipolared: incipient cone cortex: use wear, scraper? 0457 RHY CORE 07 62.9 G Comments: 0506 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER FRAGMENT 03 Comments:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168
IVIAIN RIDGE cat# material artifact house weight 0507 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 03 4.5 G Comments: 1.00 pc flake, uniface 0508 CCS MICRO-CORE FRAGMENT 03 Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: incipient cone cortex 0508 CCS MICRO-CORE FRAGMENT 03 Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: incipient cone cortex 0532 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 03 61 G Comments: 5 artifacts in bag 0532 QZITE CORE FRAGMENT 03 Comments: 5 artifacts in bag 0532 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 03 Comments: 5 artifacts in bag: 1.11 sc flake type 0532 Q/II'E REJUVENATION FLAKE 03 Comments: 5 artifacts in bag: 1.11 sc flake type 0564 QZTTE REJUVENATION FLAKE 03 Comments: 3.02 ep flake 0567 QZTTE CHOPPER FRAGMENT 03 Comments: 0573 QZTTE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 03 Comments: heavily battered 0587 CCS EXPENDED CORE 03 9 G Comments: nice material 0600 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 03 83.3 G Comments: 0631 QZTTE REJUVENATION FLAKE 15 Comments: 3 artifacts in bag: 1.10 si flake 0631 QZTTE REJUVENATION FLAKE 15 Comments: 3 artifacts in bag: 1.20 ic flake 0631 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER FRAGMENT 15 Comments: 3 artifacts in bag: 0632 CCS BIFACE BASE 15 Comments: made from flake. Ig remnant detachment scar, tip broken, stage iv 0633 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 15 Comments: 3 artifacts in bag: incipient cone cortex 0633 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 15 Comments: 3 artifacts in bag: incipient cone cortex 0633 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 15 Comments: 3 artifacts in bag: incipient cone cortex 0635 QZTTE EXPENDED CORE 15 47.6 G Comments: 0639 GNEISS HAMMERSTONE 15 244.2 G Comments:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169
IVIAIN RIDGE c a t# material artifact house weight 0659 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 104.8 G Comments: 0661 CCS MICRO-CORE 5.2 G Comments: incipient cone cortex 0673 QZITE HAMMERSTONE MUVGMENT Comments: 2 artifacts in bag 0673 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT Comments: 2 artifacts in bag 0675 QZITE UTILIZED FLAKE Comments: edge used as chopper 0675 QZITE CORE 59.1 G Comments: 0680 CCS MICRQ-CORE FRAGMENT 0 Comments: incipient cone cortex 0690 CCS CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 0 Comments: 3 artifacts in bag 0690 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 0 Comments: 3 artifacts in bag 0690 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 04 Comments: 3 artifacts in bag 0698 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 04 Comments: 0698 RHY BIFACE 04 36.7 G Comments: stage ii 0708 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER FRAGMENT 04 Comments: 0722 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 04 Comments: 1. II sc flake type; 2 artifacts in bag 0722 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 04 Comments: 1.11 sc flake type: 2 artifacts in bag 0731 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 04 3.2 G Comments: 1.01 pi flake, thumbnail scraper 0731 CCS MICRO-CORE FRAGMENT 04 Comments: incipient cone cortex 0732 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 04 6.9 G Comments: 1.11 si flake knife 0739 CCS BIFACE MICRO-CQRE TOOL 04 8.6 G Comments: quarried cortex: use wear 0740 GYPSUM FRAGMENT 04 3 G Comments: 0748 QZITE CORE TOOL 04 192.9 G Comments:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170
MAIN RIDGE c a t# material artifact house weight 0748 QZITE CORE TOOL 04 482.6 G Comments: mostly decorticated 0749 QZITE RETOUCHED IT,AKE 04 68.9 G Comments: 1.20 ic flake 0750 SLS CORE TOOL 04 143.8 G Comments: silicious siltstone 0760 QZITE PEBBLE TOOL 04 133.3 G Comments: used as hammerstone 0771 CCS BIFACE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 04 Comments: incipient cone cortex: flawed material: stage i. use wear 0774 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 04 Comments: 2 artifacts in bag 0774 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 04 177 9 G Comments: 2 artifacts in bag 0783 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 04 225 G Comments: 0803 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 40 Comments: knife butt or early preform base 0806 CCS EXPENDED CORE 40 22.6 G Comments: good material: incipient cone cortex 0808 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 40 Comments: 1.10 sc flake 0811 CCS BIFACE TIP 40 Comments: 0818 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 40 174.3 G Comments: 2 artifacts in bag 0818 QZITE CHOPPER 40 122.6 G Comments: 2 artifacts in bag 0819 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 40 26.4 G Comments: 0825 QZITE PEBBLE TOOL 40 71 G Comments: used as hammerstone 0827 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 40 289.1 G Comments: used as knapping hammer as well 0830 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 40 Comments: 0835 QZITE CORE TOOL 93.2 G Comments: expended core: no grid control 0836 QZITE SMOOTHING STONE 72.9 G Comments: no grid control: used for pot making 0838 CCS BIFACE BASE 20 Comments: small, well made, late stage iii. knife?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171
MAIN RIDGE c a t# material artifact house weight 0839 CCS CORE TOOL 20 179.8 G Comments: 0843 QZITE CORE 20 181.6 G Comments: 4 artifacts in bag 0843 QZITE CORE 20 160.3 G Comments: 4 artifacts in bag 0843 CCS CORE TOOL 20 152.8 G Comments: 4 artifacts in bag: expended as core: fully decorticated 0843 CCS CORE TOOL 20 81.8 G Comments: 4 artifacts in bag: heavy use wear 0844 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 20 Comments: 8 artifacts in bag. some show use wear 0844 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 20 Comments: 8 artifacts in bag. some show use wear 0844 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 20 Comments: 8 artifacts in bag. some show use wear 0844 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 20 Comments: 8 artifacts in bag. some show use wear 0844 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 20 Comments: 8 artifacts in bag. some show use wear 0844 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 20 Comments: 8 arti&cts in bag. some show use wear 0844 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 20 Comments: 8 artifacts in bag. some show use wear 0844 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 20 Comments: 8 artifacts in bag. some show use wear 0857 QZTTE REJUVENATION FLAKE 20 Comments: 5 artifacts in bag: 1.10 sc flake 0857 QZTTE REJUVENATION FLAKE 20 Comments: 5 artifacts in bag: 1.10 sc flake 0857 QZTTE CORE TOOL 20 94.9 G Comments: 5 artifacts in bag: bifacially flaked 0857 QZTTE CORE TOOL 20 73.2 G Comments: 5 artifacts in bag: bifacially flaked 0857 QZTTE RETOUCHED FLAKE 20 31.9G Comments: 5 artifacts in bag: bi&cially flaked, scraper? 0865 QZTTE CORE TOOL 20 467.7 G Comments: 5 artifacts in bag: heavily battered on all edges and unflaked end 0865 QZTTE CORE TOOL 20 84.7 G Comments: 5 artifacts in bag: chopper use wear 0865 QZTTE UTILIZED FLAKE 20 97.8 G Comments: 5 artifacts in bag: 1.10 sc flake chopper
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172
MAIN RIDGE cat# material artifact house weight 0865 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 20 148.3 G Comments: 5 artifacts in bag: "hammer" end is unflaked 0865 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 20 300.5 G Comments: 5 artifacts in bag: bifacially flaked 0866 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 20 Comments: 1.10 sc flake type 0866 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 20 Comments: 0874 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 20 351.9 G Comments: heavily battered 0881 CCS PREFORM TIP 26 Comments: appears to have broken during manufacture 0886 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 26 Comments: 0894 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 26 314.6 G Comments: bagged searately 0894 QZITE CORE TOOL 26 264 G Comments: bagged searately: appears used as chopper 0894 QZTTE CORE 26 324.2 G Comments: bagged searately 0894 QZTTE UTILIZED FLAKE 26 124 9 G Comments: bagged searately: probable chopper 0894 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 26 Comments: 4 artifacts in bag 0894 QZTTE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 26 Comments: 4 artifacts in bag 0894 QZTTE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 26 Comments: 4 artifacts in bag 0894 QZTTE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 26 Comments: 4 artifacts in bag 0899 GNEISS HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 26 Comments: 0899 PUMICE CORE FRAGMENT 26 Comments: 0901 QZITE UTILIZED FLAKE 26 108.6 G Comments: 1.10 sc flake 0906 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 26 81.8G Comments: 0907 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 26 Comments: 3 artifacts in bag 0907 QZTTE CORE 26 86.6 G Comments: 3 artifacts in bag
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17
IVIAIN RIDGE cat# material artifact house weight 0907 QZITE CQRE 26 54 G Comments: 3 artifacts in bag 0908 RHY CQRE TOOL 26 125.5 G Comments: 5 artifacts in bag 0908 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 26 Comments: 5 artifacts in bag; 3.02 ep flake 0908 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 26 Comments: 5 artifacts in bag: 3.02 ep flake 0908 CCS REJUVENATION FLAKE 26 Comments: 5 artifacts in bag: 3.02 ep flake 0908 QZITE CQRE FRAGMENT 26 Comments: 5 artifacts in bag: 0916 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 27 423 G Comments: bifacially flaked 0916 QZITE CHOPPER 27 142.4 G Comments: possible chopper 0917 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 27 Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: 3.02 ep flake 0917 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 27 Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: 3.02 ep flake 0923 QZITE CORE TOOL 27 147.5 G Comments: used as hanuner/chopper 0934 QZITE TEST CORE 27 330.7 G Comments: 3 artifacts in bag 0934 QZITE UNIFACE 27 69.2 G Comments: 3 artifacts in bag: chopper"? 0934 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 27 Comments: 3 artifacts in bag: 3.02 ep flake 0941 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 33 478.7 G Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: unflaked 0941 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 33 57.7 G Comments: 2 artifacts in bag; unflaked 0945 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 33 143.2 G Comments: 2artifacts in bag 0945 QZITE CORE TOOL 33 55 G Comments: 2artifacts in bag 0946 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 33 Comments: 6 artifacts in bag 0946 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 33 Comments: 6 artifacts in bag 0946 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 33 Comments: 6 artifacts in bag
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174
MAIN RIDGE c a t# material artifact bouse weight 0946 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 33 Comments: 6 artifacts in bag 0946 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 33 Comments: 6 artifacts in bag 0946 QZITE REJUVENATIQN FLAKE 33 Comments: 6 artifacts in bag; 3.02 ep flake 0947 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 33 Comments: 0959 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 35 146 G Comments: I end flaked w/ use wear on edges, unflaked end in battered 0960 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 35 Comments: 0961 CCS CORE FRAGMENT 35 Comments: quarried cortex; 0961 QZITE CQRE FRAGMENT 35 Comments: 0972 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 35 OFF Comments: 4 artifacts in bag: heavily utilized 0972 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER 35 322 G Comments: 4 artifacts in bag: possible use as knapping hammer 0972 QZTTE HAMMERSTONE 35 239.7 G Comments: 4 artifacts in bag: flaked 0972 QZITE CHOPPER 35 224.1 G Comments: 4 artifacts in bag: 0973 QZTTE CQRE TOOL 35 274.3 G Comments: very fine grained: flaked: is mano fragment 0973 QZTTE TOOL FRAGMENT 35 Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: imdiagnostic use wear 0973 QZITE TOOL FRAGMENT 35 Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: undiagnostic use wear 0974 CCS UTILIZED FLAKE 35 Comments: 1.11 si flake 0975 QZTTE CORE TOOL 35 110.8 G Comments: coarse grained 0981 QZITE CORE TOOL 36 132.6 G Comments: all edges utilized. 2 artifacts in bag 0981 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 36 Comments: unflaked, use wear. 2 artifacts in bag 0986 QZITE CORE TOOL 36 223.2 G Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: heavily battered 0986 QZTTE CORE TOOL 36 117.1 G Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: edges battered
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175
IVIAIN RIDGE cat# material artifact house weight 0987 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 36 OFF Comments: unflaked. battered 0997 QZITE CORE TOOL 36 164.2 G Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: battered edges, hammer/chopper use 0997 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 36 Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: battered edge 0998 QZTTE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 36 Comments: 2 artifacts in bag 0998 QZTTE REJUVENATION FLAKE 36 Comments: 2 artifacts in bag: 3.02 ep flake w/ battering on dorsal surface 1008 QZTTE REJUVENATION FLAKE 36 Comments: 3.02 ep flake w/ battered dorsal surface: cat # 1008-5 (?) 1016 QZITE PEBBLE HAMMERSTONE 38 42.4 G Comments: 1 end battered: unflaked 1021 QZITE CORE TOOL 38 363 G Comments: 2 artifacts in bag 1021 QZITE CORE TOOL 38 63.7 G Comments: 2 artifacts in bag 1035 CCS POINT TIP 04-D GULLY Comments: 1036 QZTTE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 04-D GULLY Comments: 1039 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 04-D GULL\' Comments: 14 artifacts in bag 1039 QZTTE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 04-D GULLY Comments: 14 artifacts in bag 1039 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 04 -D GULLY Comments: 14 artifacts in bag 1039 QZTTE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 04-D GULLY Comments: 14 artifacts in bag 1039 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 04-D GULLY Comments: 14 artifacts in bag 1039 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER FRAGMENT 04-D GULLY Comments: 14 artifacts in bag 1039 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER FRAGMENT 04-D GULLY Comments: 14 artifacts in bag 1039 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER FRAGMENT 04-D GULLY Comments: 14 artifacts in bag 1039 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER FRAGMENT 04-D GULLY Comments: 14 artifacts in bag 1039 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER FRAGMENT 04-D GULLY Comments: 14 artifacts in bag
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 176
MAIN RIDGE cat# material artifact house weight 1039 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 04-D GULLY Comments: 14 artifacts in bag: 3.02 ep flake 1039 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 04-D GULLY Comments: 14 artifacts in bag: 3.02 ep flake 1039 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 04-D GULLY Comments: 14 artifacts in bag: 3.02 ep flake 1039 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 04-D GULLY Comments: 14 artifacts in bag: 3.02 ep flake 1040 SS CORE TOOL 04 GULLY 306 G Comments: bagged separately 1040 QZITE CORE TOOL 04 GULLY 168.1 G Comments: 9 artifacts in bag: red/brown color, bifacially flaked: hammer/chopper use 1040 QZTTE CORE 04 GULLY 146.8 G Comments: 9 artifacts in bag: red color. 1 side has "natural" flake scan crushing appears 1040 QZITE 04 GULLY 172.4 G Comments: 9 artifacts in bag: pink color, lateral edges are flaked bifacially 1040 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 04 GULLY 273.2 G Comments: 9 artifacts in bag: red & yellow color, bifacial flaking at 1 end 1040 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 04 GULLY 325.3 G Comments: 9 artifacts in bag: yellow color, heavy use wear on all edges 1040 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER 04 GULLY 226.1 G Comments: 9 artifacts in bag: red/brown striped color, heavy use wear, emphasis on 1040 QZTTE T O t e FLAKE 04 GULLY 110.7 G Comments: 9 artifacts in bag: red/gold color, is fragment from knapping hammer, all 1040 QZTTE 04 GULLY 154G Comments: 9 artifacts in bag: yellow color, all edges & ends used: flaked from use: 1040 QZTTE 04 GULLY 156.7 G Comments: 9 artifacts in bag: hght yellow color. 1 end is bev eled, does not look like 1047 QZITE 27 Comments: 1.10 sc flake 1055 QZTTE TOOL FRAGMENT 16 Comments: 1056 QZTTE REJUVENATION FLAKE 16 Comments: 1.10 sc flake 1058 QZTTE BIFACE CORE TOOL 16 Comments: 1062 QZITE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 06-07 Comments: 3 artifacts in bag 1062 QZTTE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 06-07 Comments: 3 artifacts in bag 1062 QZTTE CORE TOOL FRAGMENT 06-07 Comments: 3 artifacts in bag
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177
MAIN RIDGE cat# material artifact house weight 1064 QZTTE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 16 Comments: heavily battered. 2 artifacts in bag 1064 QZTTE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 16 Comments: heavily battered. 2 artifacts in bag 1084 CCS EXPENDED CORE 27 22 G Comments: incipient cone cortex 1088 QZTTE SCRAPER 27 86.4 G Comments: probable scraper but unlikely material 1088 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER 27 212.3 G Comments: 1096 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 27 Comments: possible preform midsection 1103 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER 27 308.2 G Comments: heavily battered on all flaked edges: 3 in bag 1103 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER 27 87.2 G Comments: 3 in bag 1103 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER 27 130.7 G Comments: 3 in bag 1104 QZTTE PEBBLE TOOL 27 44.8 G Comments: 1107 QZTTE HAMMERSTONE 27 309.2 G Comments: flaked. 2 artifacts in bag 1107 QZTTE HAMMERSTONE 27 84.4 G Comments: flaked. 2 artifacts in bag 1113 CCS CORE 27 47.1 G Comments: incipient cone cortex: 2 artifacts in bag 1113 CCS CORE 27 22.8 G Comments: incipient cone cortex: 2 artifacts in bag 1114 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER 26 165.2 G Comments: 1116 CCS BIFACE TIP 26 Comments: has incipient cone cortex on very edge of tip. looks like early stage preform or 1117 CCS 26 4.6 G Comments: was broken, has been glued: stage iii 1118 CCS SCRAPER 26 32.3 G Comments: cobble w/ incipient cone cortex 1130 CCS FLAKE CORE 26 11 G Comments: incipient cone cortex, expended, good material: is large flake from core which 1142 CCS 27 103.7 G Comments: quarried cortex: crappy material: edges show signs of battering 1145 CCS FLAKE CORE 26 32.2 G Comments: incipient cone cortex
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178
MAIN RIDGE cat# material artifact house weight 1147 SLS FLAKE 26 Comments: is either retouched or rejuvenation flake, dorsal edge shows wear 1149 QZITE HAMMER/CHQPPER 26 167.3 G Comments: 5 artifacts in bag 1149 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 26 167 1 G Comments: 5 artifacts in bag 1149 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 26 132.1 G Comments: 5 artifacts in bag 1149 QZTTE HAMMER/CHQPPER 26 82.2 G Comments: 5 artifacts in bag 1149 QZITE HAMMER/CHQPPER 26 316.2 G Comments: 5 artifacts in bag 1151 QZITE CORE TOOL 26 183 .6 G Comments: one unflaked end is battered, the other is flaked w/signs of use wear, also 1 Ig 1152 QZTTE 26 Comments: 1153 QZTTE HAMMER/CHQPPER 26 184.7 G Comments: 1155 QZITE HAMMER/CHQPPER 26 434.9 G Comments: 2 in bag 1155 QZITE HAMMER/CHQPPER 26 214.5 G Comments: 2 in bag 1161 CCS POINT FRAGMENT 33 Comments: midsection portion 1162 QZTTE HAMMER/CHQPPER 20 147.5 G Comments: one end is unflaked and heavily battered, the other end is flaked w/ no sign of 1167 CCS “B r a v e r f r a g m e n t 26 Comments: cortex on central portion of one side 1198 QZTTE HAMMER/CHQPPER FRAGMENT 35 Comments: 4 artifacts in bag 1198 QZTTE CORE TOOL 35 106.2 G Comments: 4 artifacts in bag, battered 1198 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER 35 Comments: 4 artifacts in bag all flaked edges are battered as well as unflaked end 1198 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 35 119G Comments: 4 artifacts in bag 1199 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER 35 68.5 G Comments: 1207 QZTTE CORE TOOL 22-23 107.2 G Comments: heavy edge wear 1208 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER 20-23 129.6 G Comments:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179
MAINIUDGE cat# material artifact house weight 1209 QZITE CORE TOOL 20-23 252.1 G Comments: 1210 QZITE UTILIZED FLAKE 20-23 67.8 G Comments: large flake used as hammer/chopper, use wear 1456 1211 QZITE HAMMER/CHQPPER 20-23 111.1 G Comments: all flaked edges utilized, also unflaked knob on one end 1213 QZITE U n L lZ E D FLAKE 20-23 43.6 G Comments: 1222 QZITE CHOPPER 25 165.5 G Comments: 1223 QZITE CORE TOOL 23 153.5 G Comments: possible use as chopper 1224 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 25 Comments: appears used for knapping as well as hammering 1239 QZITE UTILIZED FLAKE 31 294.6 G Comments: large flake w/ battered distal end 1240 QZITE BIFACE 31 82.7 G Comments: blank (stage ii) 1241 QZITE CHOPPER 31 121 G Comments: 1242 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 31 Comments: 1. lOsc flake type w/ battering on dorsal proximal siuface 1243 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER FRAGMENT 31 Comments: crushed on all flaked edges 1245 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER FRAGMENT 31 Comments: 1267 CCS UNIFACE 9.9 G Comments: 1.10 sc flake type 1269 CCS CORE 33 33.7 G Comments: incipient cone cortex 1276 QZITE CORE T(X)L 32 442.3 G Comments: bifacially flaked, no sign of use wear 1280 CCS UNIFACE 28 25.9 G Comments: 1.01 pi flake type 1298 CCS POINT TIP 36 Comments: 1300 QZITE CORE TOOL 36 64 G Comments: 1301 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 36 514.2 G Comments: 1302 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 36 375 G Comments:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180
IVIAIN RIDGE cat# material artifact house weight 1303 QZITE HAMMER/CHQPPER 36 160.4 G Comments: one unflaked battered end and several flaked edges for apparent chopper use 1304 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 28 Comments: 1311 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 38 229.5 G Comments: pebble size 1315 QZITE CORE 20 153.3 G Comments: no sign of use wear 1316 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 20 Comments: flake type 1.10 sew/ battering on dorsal surface 1317 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 20 307.9 G Comments: pebble size, no flaking 1329 QZITE HAMMER/CHQPPER 36 138.4 G Comments: 3 in bag 1329 QZITE HAMMER/CHQPPER 36 140.6 G Comments: 3 in bag 1329 QZITE HAMMER/CHQPPER 36 143.1 G Comments: 3 in bag 1346 QZITE TEST CORE 23 354.8 G Comments: flawed and poor quality material 1347 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 23 Comments: 1347 CCS HAMMER/CHOPPER 23 136.6 G Comments: really crappy material, may have been a test core that was turned into a tool 1357 CCS UNIFACE FRAGMENT 25 10 G Comments: 1.01 pi flake type, broken 1358 CCS BLADE 25 4.3 G Comments: 1.21 ii flake type with unifacial retouch, all edges utilized 1359 CCS BEFACE 25 29.6 G Comments: cortex on one side, no incipient cone: stgae ii 1367 CCS UNIFACE FRAGMENT 36 Comments: 3.02 ep flake type w/ shell fossil 1368 CCS FLAKE 36 Comments: possibly utilized 1.11 si flake type 1369 QZTTE CHOPPER 36 210.9 G Comments: listed as core tool 1379 QZITE CORE FRAGMENT 31 Comments: 1380 QZITE CORE 31 255.2 G Comments: 1391 QZITE CORE TOOL 45 184 G Comments:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181
MAIN RIDGE cat# material artifact house weight 1391 QZITE HAMMERSTONE FRAGMENT 45 Comments: 1416 QZITE CHOPPER 25 125.5 G Comments: 1418 CCS BIFACE 25 22.1 G Comments: either 1st or 2nd decortication flake, stage ii 1433 QZTTE CORE TOOL 364.5 G Comments: 1434 QZTTE PEBBLE TOOL 34 16 G Comments: 1454 BT BIFACE CORE TOOL 141 G Comments: 1455 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER 31 155.5 G Comments: hsted as core tool 1456 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER OFF Comments: 1476 QZTTE CORE TOOL 129 3 G Comments: 1477 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT 33 Comments: basai portion: broken in 1/2- not thinned enough before pressure flaking 1493 CCS DRILL FRAGMENT 20 Comments: midsection w/ partial basal portion remaining 1494 CCS POINT FRAGMENT 20 Comments: can't tell what part 1495 CCS PREFORM FRAGMENT 20 Comments: either a tip or a shoulder tang, looks broken in manufacture 1496 CCS PEBBLE TOOL 20 72.4 G Comments: incipient cone cortex 1499 CCS RETOUCHED FLAKE 20 Comments: 3.02 ep flake type 1501 CCS UTILIZED FLAKE 20 Comments: flake type 1.11 si. listed as retouched 1507 QZTTE CORE TOOL 20 137 G Comments: 1508 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER 20 105.4 G Comments: heavy use wear 1509 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 20 96.8 G Comments: 1510 QZTTE HAMMER/CHOPPER 20 289.9 G Comments: 1511 QZTTE UTILIZED FLAKE 20 175.1 G Comments: large 1.10 sc flake, heavy use wear, apparently as hanuner/chopper
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182
MAIN RIDGE c a t# material artifact bouse weight 1512 QZITE HAMMERSTONE 20 117.6 G Comments: 1513 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 20 147.1 G Comments: 1514 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 20 272.8 G Comments: all flaked edges utilized and unflaked end is battered 1515 QZITE CQRE TOOL 20 180.9 G Comments: 1524 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 29 237.1 G Comments: flaked edges are crushed, unflaked end is battered 1525 QZITE UTILIZED FLAKE 29 260.3 G Comments: large 1.10 sc flake, heavy use wear, apparently as chopper 1548 QZITE REJUVENATION FLAKE 29 Comments: from a hammer/chopper 1563 QZITE REJUVENATIQN FLAKE 31 Comments: 3.02 flake type w/ battering on dorsal surface 1583 QZITE CQRE TOOL 21 180.8 G Comments: unifacial removal, then flaked from use 1584 QZITE CORE TOOL 21 602.3 G Comments: from grab sample 1585 QZITE CHOPPER 21 206.2 G Comments: from grab sample 1589 QZITE HAMMERSTONE ’ 495.9 G Comments: heavy battering flaked from use 1590 QZITE CORE TOOL 38 OFF Comments: 1591 QZITE CORE TOOL 38 267.8 G Comments: bifacially flaked 1594 CCS BIFACE FRAGMENT ? Comments: tip portion, possible knife fragment 1595 CCS POINT TIP ? Comments: 1609 CCS CORE 20 91.3 G Comments: incipient cone cortex: not expended 1612 GNEISS CHOPPER 31 QFF Comments: flaked flrom use 1622 QZITE HAMMER/CHOPPER 34 472.6 G Comments: heavily utilized on most edges 1627 QZITE UTILIZED FLAKE 140.3 G Comments: large flake. l.lOsc type, all edges utilized
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX D
OBSIDIAN SOURCING
RESULTS'
'Letter to Ms. Alien is from this research. Letters to Dr. Lyneis and Mr. Myhrer are from the Bovine Bluff report (Myhrer and Lyneis 1985) which is a government publication (Bureau of Land Management, Contributions to the Study of Cultural Resources Technical Report No. 15).
183
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184
Geochemical Research Laboratory Letter Report 97-103
Ms.VUddAUcn November 24.1997 4201 South Decatur 9-1149 Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Dear Ms. Allen: Enclosed with this letter you will find a table presenting x-ray fluorescence (xrf) data generated from the analysis of 12 obsidian artifacts from two archaeological sites (26CK20S9, n=3; and 26CK3130, n=9) on the banks of the Muddy River in Clark County, southeastern Nevada. This research was conducted pursuant to your letter request of July 22, 1991. Except as specified below, laboratory analysis condidons, artifact-to-source (geochemical type) attribution procedures and Uterature references applicable to these samples are the same as replied previously for artifacts from 2^CK5423 (Hughes 1997). Five of these artifacts (all of them from Bovine Bluff [26CK3130]) share the trace element composition profile of obsidian of the Kane Spring chemical type, four samples (no. 1386-1 from 26CK2059 and nos. 665, 695a. and 935 from 26CK3130) have the same chemical signature as obsidian termed Unknown at other sites in the area (e g., sample # 60 from 26CK5423 [Hughes 1997]; samples 20 and 26.1 from 26CK4867 [Hughes 199^ and 26CK4946 [Hughes 1994]), and one artifact was fashioned from obsidian like that found in the vicinity of Devil Peak, Nevada. Two projectile points from 29CK2059 (nos. 738 and 973) share a common trace element signature, but it does not match any of the geologic references standards currendy in my regional database. I hope this information will help in your analysis of materials from these sites. Please contact me at my laboratory ([650] 851-1410) if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely, A-- Richard E. Hughes, PhT). Director. Geochemical Research Laboratory encl.
REFERENCES Hughes. Richard E. 1994 X-tay Fluorescence Analysis of Obsidian from the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Clark County, Nevada. Geochemical Research Laboratory Letter Report 94-74 submitted to Gregory L. Fox. National Fade Service. Tucson. October 19.1994.
1995 X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of Obsidan firom 26CK4856 and 26CK4867 on Nellis Air Force Base. Clark County. Nevada. Geochemical Research Laboratory Letter Report 95-13 submined to Elena Nilsson. Dames Sc. Moore. March 21.1995.
1997 X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of Obsidian (rom 26CK5423. Clark County. Nevada. Geochemical Resorch Laboratory Letter Report 97-5 submitted to Robin McMullen. Dames Sc. Moore. February 10. 1997.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185
November 24,1997 26CK2059 & 3130 X if Data R. E. Hughes, Analyst Page I of I
Trace and Selected Minor Element Concentrations Ratio Cat. Obsidian Source N um bs Z a Ca R b 2 r X Zc Nh Ba H M n B bQ s^ Fe/Mn (CbamaLDme)
26CK20S9, 70 13 176 113 27 148 21 595 735 493 1 3 2 29 Unknown. Variety 1 738 ±6 ±3 ±4 ±3 ±3 ± 4 ±3 ±15 ±21 ±9 ±.08
26CK2059. 83 21 198 125 27 157 25 615 594 501 13 7 28 Unknown. Variety 1 973 ±5 ±3 ±4 ±3 ±3 ±4 ±3 ±14 ±17 ±8 ±.08
26CK20S9. 66 21 185 18 51 169 26 63 698 239 133 64 Unknown 1386-1 ±6 ±3 ±4 ±3 ± 3 ±4 ±3 ±13 ±17 ±8 ±.08
26CK3I30. SO 16 192 40 32 147 19 268 nm nm nm nm Kane Spring 141 ±6 ±3 ±4 ±3 ± 3 ±4 ±3 ±14
26CK3I30. 57 22 208 45 37 152 24 277 nm nm nm nm Kane Spring 304 ±6 ±3 ±4 ±3 ±3 ±4 ±3 ±15
26CK3I30. 72 23 193 18 4 7 170 25 75 nm nm nm 63 Unknown 665 ±6 ±3 ±4 ±3 ± 3 ± 4 ±3 ±13
26CK3130. 67 19 190 17 44 162 28 105 746 237 135 70 Unknown 695a ±6 ±3 ±4 ±3 ±3 ±4 ±3 ±14 ±19 ±9 ±.08
26CK3I30, 60 1 194 115 26 99 19 498 721 552 .88 16 Devil Peak 695b ±5 ±3 ±4 ±3 ±3 ±4 ±3 ±14 ±18 ±9 ±.08
26CK3130. 49 12 196 40 35 151 22 277 nm nm nm nm Kane Spring 904 ±6 ±3 ±4 ±3 +3 ±4 ±3 ±14
26CK3130, 59 22 186 17 47 167 31 78 643 236 1 30 64 Unknown 935 ±5 ±3 ±4 ±3 ±3 ±4 ±3 ±13 ±16 ±8 ±.08
26CK3130, 48 20 201 37 34 138 22 231 nm nm nm nm Kane Spring 1004 ±6 ±3 ±4 ±3 ±3 ±4 ±3 ±14
26CK3130. 54 19 197 39 35 145 20 289 nm nm nm 56 Kane Spring 2508 ±6 ±3 ±4 ±3 ±3 ±4 ±3 ±14
Values in pans per million (ppm) except total iron (in weight percent) and Fs/Mn ratios; ± = esumate (in ppm and weight percent) of x ray counting uncertainly and regression fitting error at 3(10 and 600 (*) setonds livetime; ran « not measured.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186
Sonoma State University Academic Foundation, Inc.
anthropological studies center CULTURAL RESOURCES PACIUTY to7«4.jmi November 24, 1986
Dr. Margaret M. Lyneis Department of Anthropology University of Nevada Las Vegas, NV 89154
Dear Margaret- On page 2 of this report you will find a summary table presenting x-ray fluorescence data generated from the analysis of an obsidian flake detached from a obsidian nodule recovered from the Bovine Bluff terrace deposits, Clark County, Nevada. The artifact analyses were conducted pursuant to your letter request of April 15, 1986, and U.N.LV. Purchase Order No. 30894, under Sonoma State University Academic Foundation, Inc. Account 6081, Job X86-25. Laboratory analyses were performed on a Spectrace" 5000 (Tracor X-ray) energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectrometer equipped with a Rh x-ray tube, a 50 kV x-ray generator, 1251 pulse processor (amplifier) 1236 bias/protection module, a 100 mHz analog to digital converter (ADC) with automated energy calibration, and a Si(Ln solid state detector with 150 eV resolution (FWHi) at 5.9 keV in a 30 mm^ area. The x-rw tube was operated at 30.0 kV, .30 mA, using a .127 mm Rh primary beam filter in an air path at 200 seconds livetime to generate quantitative data for elements Zn - Nb. Concentration values for Ba were generated by operating the x-ray tube at 50.0 kV, .35 mA, with a .38 mm Cu filter in an air path at 300 seconds livetime. Data processing for all analytical subroutines is executed by a Hewlett Packard Vectra'" microcomputer with 640K RAM; operating software and analytical results are stored on a Hewlett Packard 20 megabyte fixed disk. Trace element concentrations were computed from a linear least-squares calibration curve established from analysis of 25 international rock standards certified by the US. Geological Survey, the U.S. National Bureau of Standards, the Geological Survey of %^pan, and the Centre de Recherches Petrographiques et Geochimiques (France). All trace element values on the summary table on page 2 are expressed in quantitative units (i.e. parts per million [ppm] by weight), and these were compared directly to values for known obsidian sources that appear in Hushes (1986; unpublished data). Jack (1976), and Nelson and Holmes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187
November 24, 1986 2 Comparison of the diagnostic trace element concentration values (in this case, ppm values for Kb, Sr, Y, Zr, and Ba) with known sources indicates a close agreement with obsidian of the Kane Springs chemical type, which occurs as nodules in Lincoln County, Nevada My Kane Springs source standards were collected from TIIS, R63E, Section 20, and tne trace element data are in good agreement with Nelson's (cf. Nelson and Holmes 1979: Table 111, Source 15), with the exception of Ba Ba ppm values generated for three of my Kane Springs source standards (samples KS-1, IŒ-2, and KS-3B) were 1 9 T 9 ± 3 2 I , 3 2 4 ± 3 2 2 , and 2 2 4 3 ± 3 2 2, respectively; in excellent agreement with your Bovine Bluff specimen.
Trace Element Concentrations Specimen ______Number Zn* Qg» 5r» Y* Nfe» jgg**
B. Bluff 46-0 16.8 190.3 43.9 36.1 148.1 26.5 259.0 ±8.7 ±4.6 ±5.6 ±29 ±24 ±4.5 ±3.5 ±322
* All values in parts per million (ppm). ± Counting and fitting error uncertainty at 200 (* ) and 300 {**) seconds livetime.
Despite the congruence in profiles between your obsidian nodule and others occurring at Kane Springs, only one of the specimens from 26 CK 3130 (Cat no. 1424 ) matches this trace element configuration. This supports your observation that too! stone-quality obsidian was-indeed rare in the immediate vicinity of the site, and suggests the possibility that these rare nodules may have been transported to, and incorporated in, the Bovine Bluff terrace gravels as a result of redeposition from (primary?) occurrences in the Kane Springs area. I hope this information will help in your analysis of these site materials. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Richard E Hughes, Ph.D. Senior Research Archaeologist
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188
November 24, 1986 3
References
Hughes, Richard E 1986 Trace Element Composition of Obsidian Butte, Imperial County, California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences. Vol. 85 (Ik 35-45. Jack, Robert M 1976 Prehistoric Obsidian in California I: Geochemical Aspects, in R.E Taylor (ed.). Advances in Obsidian Glass Studies: Archaeological and Geochemical Perspectives pp. 183-217. Noyes Press. Park Ridge, New Jersey. Nelson, Fred W., and Richard D. Holmes 1979 Trace Element Analysis of Obsidian Sources and Artifacts from Western Utah. Antiouities Section Selected Papers. Vol. VI, No. 15. Utah State Historical Society.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189
September 18. 1985
Mr. Keith Myhrer Department of Anthropology and Ethnic Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Las Vegas. NV 89154
Dear Mr. Myhrer: Enclosed please find xerox copies of data sheets presenting x-ray fluorescence data qeneifeted from the analysis of fourteen artifacts from 26 CK 3130 (n=IOL located about two m iles south of Moapa, Nevada, and 26 NY 809 (n-4) located west of the Manse Ranch near Pahrump, Nevada. This analysis was conducted at the request of Dr. Margaret M. Lyneis, pursuant to U.S.D I , Bureau of Land Management Purchase Order No. NV050-PH5-95 (26 CK 3130) and University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Purchase Order No. 16989 (26 NY 809), under Sonoma State University Academic Foundation, Inc., Account 6081, Job X85-21. Laboratory investigations were conducted at the Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of California, Berkeley, on a Spectrace"' 440 (United Scientific Corporation) energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence machine equipped with a 572 power supply (50 kV, I mA), 534-1 pulsed tube control, 514 pulse processor (amplifier). 588 bias/protection module, Tracor Norther 1221 100 mHz analog to digital converter (ADC), Tracor Northern 2000 computer based analyzer, an Rh x-ray tube and a Si(Li) solid state detector with 142 eV resolution (FWHi) at 5.9 keV in a 30 mm^ area. The x-ray tube was operated at 30.0 kV. .40 mA pulsed, with a .04 mm Rh primary beam filter in an air path at 200 seconds livetime. All trace element measurements on the data sheets are expressed in quantitative units (i.e. parts per million [ppm] by weight), and these were compared directly to values for obsidian sources that appear in Jack (19 7 1, 1976), Hughes (1983, 1985, 1986), Nelson (1984) and Nelson and Holmes ( 1979). Source assignments were made by comparing diagnostic trace element concentration (ppm) values (Rb, Sr, Y and Zr) for artifacts with values for known obsidian sources. Of ten artifacts analyzed from 25 CK 3130, one specimen (Cat no. 1424) matches the trace element signature of Kane Springs obsidian, two specimens (Cat nos. 1230 and 1470) were fashioned from non-obsidian raw material, while the remaining seven specimens (Cat nos. 1345, 1875, 1548, 1747, 1892, 1586 and 1563) do not possess trace element concentration values that correspond with any of the standards in the obsidian source data base. It is clear, however, that all seven of these specimens represent to the same geochemical type; i.e., they very likely represent the same obsidian source. Source attributions also could not be made for three (Cat nos. 1108A, 731 and 710) of the four artifacts analyzed from 26 NY 809. Again, trace element values indicate that these three specimens probably derive from the same “unknown*
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190
September 18. 1935 2
obsidian source, but not the same one identified in the CK 3130 assemblage. The final NY 809 specimen (Cat. no. 1108B) has Rb, Sr and Zr ppm values that overlap with obsidian sources in central eastern California (Mono Craters, Mono Glass Mountain and Fish Springs) and one in western Nevada (Crow Spring). Consequently, it be necessary to conduct an additional analysis on this specimen (to determine, its Fe/Mn ratio) before an obsidian source attribution can be advanced. If you'd like, i would be willing to conduct this analysis as soon as possible. The vast majority of obsidian in this sample of CK 3 130 and NY 809 artifacts was not obtained from known sources. Despite the fact that arti fact-to-source ascriptions cannot be made at this time, one obvious conclusion from this study is that at least two undocumented obsidian sources exist in these portions of southern Nevada and/or adjacent areas, and that they were employed (at least locally) in artifact manufacture. Hopefully, these localities will be discovered in the course of future reconnaissances for obsidian and welded ash-flow tuff sources in southern Nevada. I hope this information w ill help in your analysis of these site materials. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely.
Richard E. Hughes, PhD. Senior Research Archaeologist Anthropological Studies Center Sonoma State University Rohnert Park, CA 94928
cc: Tom Zale, BLM, Las Vegas
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191
September !8, 1985
References Hughes, Richard E. 1983 X-ray Fluorescence Characterization of Obsidian, in David Hurst Thomas, The Archaeology of Monitor Valley: 2 Gatecliff Shelter. Ahthrooological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History Vol. 59, Part I, pp. 401-408.
1985 Obsidian Source Use at Hidden Cave. Id David Hurst Thomas, The Archaeology of Hidden Cave, Nevada. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History Vol. 61, Part 1. pp. 332-353. 1986 Trace Element Composition of Obsidian Butte, Imperial County, California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences Vol. 85. In press.
Jack, Robert N. 1971 The Source of Obsidian A rtifacts in Northern Arizona. Plateau, Vol. 43, No 3, pp. 103-114.
1976 Prehistoric Obsidian in California I: Geochemical Aspects. Id R.E. Taylor (ed.). Advances in Qpsidian Glass Studies: Archaeological and Geochemical Perspectives, pp. .183-217 Noyes Press, Park Ridge. New Jersey. Nelson, Fred W., Jr. 1934 X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of Some Western North American Obsidians. In Richard E Hughes (ed.). Obsidian Studies in the Great Basin. Contributions of the Universitv of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 45. pp. 27-62 Nelson, Fred W. and Richard D. Holmes 1979 Trace Element Analysis of Obsidian Sources and Artifacts from Western Utah. Antiouities Section Selected Papers Vol. VI, No. 15. Utah State Historical Society.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192
'O'C 1:^ C> "3 "> OO no O— *0 0 <•-- • • • • y • •• •• •• •• » e » # o o y» Tf o n n n o o r-, fi r,. o •*. n *•*» , r-f r j cw r f .--i - :
• ' - » I .
iT»o — CM
o wi i.1— '!•* - c ro 4» ta o> o» ^ y irs* — -s. ^ ^ e**-— CM d OB— Ck C3 y* f i 4-» i • • •• •• •• # # •• •• •• •• •• W V • on 'C"**" V V o c 3 I * : # ' I I • • O — — — - - U » O * O# V•• —» —* •• yp •• O •• O — * * •• O Cm. •• - • —» •• C ^ , O O f . O* VP «5 — «0 — r« r» t'^4 •> CD r» C9 uP r * O O O ^ O VP irP mp r « f"# rP r*^ O O rP *o fp v r « pp - i — ep rP »P f i 1-^ E ( : » f • u 01 c— e* c-< VP CM e^ ►«. O o rp o *•< o o O cd n r>^ -- • • •• * # •• * # •• •• •• •• •• ^ «.9 — VP n 0 » n V f # e^ -• r* —. o pp —• #>. r-f or*» ^ n n c-i p« VP n r - ê »p c I ; É Î I » I — * ^* OfV» 3 o f ^ •rr^on*r'»no— 1 • • • • * • • • •• " UlSj vrfpip^«orp«o VP wp> o UP VP wO' fp Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■DCD O Q. C g Q. ■D CD WC/) 3o' O 26 NY 809 XRF 8-14-85 R.E. Hughes ■D8 ‘I Cat. No. çH sa Pb* Th* Rb* Sr* 1 1 l E l Mb* 3i CD ^ MOGA 4.0 30.7 33.1 IC3.3 73.2 26.3 IIJ7.I «- Ï.5 1- .’1.0 4.9 I- 4.1 , . 3.2 I- 3. 3.7 1 4.0 • * 2.3 m IIOBIi 4.7 33.7 32.8 215.2 0.0 1- 13.4 113.1 CD 2.4 .27.4 4.6 1 4.1 I- 0.0 1 3.7 • 3.1 1 - 2.4 4.4 23.4 1 34.2 102.6 67.0 C 1- 23.3 176.0 20.7 2.3 I- 4.6 1 3.0 ». a 2.7 ». 3.6 ». 3.7 +- i ;iû 2.3 3.9 32.7 33.6 ■D 107.9 75.5 23.0 2.6 1 173.7 17.0 O 5.1 4.3 • • 3.3 » - 4.0 ». 4.1 »- 2.6 CD Q. ■D CD C/) C/) *A11 values 1n parts per m illion (ppm); i ■ counting error uncertainty S VITA Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas Vikki Allen Local Address: 2209 Alia Court Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Home Address: 2209 Alia Court Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Degrees: Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, 1993 University of Nevada, Las Vegas Publications: 1992 Exploring Exploitation on the Extra-Board. UNLV Journal of Anthropology. 2: 9-14. 1997 Braving the Waves in an Angry Sea of Ethics: Thoughts on When and Why Archaeologists Should Work with Underwater Salvors. UNLV Journal of Anthropologv. 7; 17-20. 1997 Results of the Archaeological Investigations on Three Lakes South Drv Lake Basin. Near Point Bravo. Nellis Air Force Range. Nevada. Co-author with M. Kelly, E. Nilsson, and K. Hull. Dames & Moore, Las Vegas, Nevada. 1998 The Prospects Look Good: A View of 10 Ranching and Mining Sites on Nellis Air Force Ranee. Co-author with C Harper, M. Kelly, R. McMullen, and S. Rose. Dames & Moore, Las Vegas, Nevada. 1998 Cultural Resources Inventory of Additional Selected Lands and Phase II Offered Land for the Del Webb Assembled Land Exchange: Clark and Washoe Counties. Nevada. Dames & Moore, Las Vegas, Nevada. 1999 Molvcorp. Inc. Mountain Pass Mine Cultural Resources Investigation of 15 Proposed Additional Groundwater Monitoring Wells and Access Routes. Co author with C. Harper and S. Lull-Billings. Dames & Moore, Las Vegas, Nevada. 194 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195 1999 Molvcorp. Inc. Mountain Pass Mine Cultural Resources Investigation of 18 Proposed Additional Groundwater Monitoring Wells and Access Routes. Co author with C. Harper. Dames & Moore, Las Vegas, Nevada. Thesis Title: Lithic Analysis of Three Lowland Virgin Anasazi Sites Thesis Examination Committee: Chairperson, Dr. Margaret Lyneis, Ph. D. Committee Member, Dr. Alan Simmons, Ph. D. Committee Member, Dr. George Urioste, Ph. D. Committee Member, Dr. W. Geoffrey Spaulding, Ph. D. Graduate Faculty Representative, Dr. Fred Bachhuber, Ph. D. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3) y % 1.0 giota ^HHI m là . 922 |r là â ™ 20 1.1 1.25 nil 1.4 iHil 1.6 150mm /A P P L IE D j £ IM/4GE . Inc ■i=g 1653 East Main Street Rochester. NY 14609 USA Phone: 716/482-0300 - = ~ -= Fax 716/288-5989 e 993. Applied Image. Inc.. A« RigMs Raaeiwed Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.