ASSESSING PRE-NEWBERRY OCCUPATION BASED ON MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION AND TEMPORAL-SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF DART POINTS IN THE INYO-MONO REGION, CALIFORNIA A Thesis Presented to the faculty of the Department of Anthropology California State University, Sacramento Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in Anthropology by Brian Noel James II SUMMER 2016 © 2016 Brian Noel James II ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ASSESSING PRE-NEWBERRY OCCUPATION BASED ON MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION AND TEMPORAL-SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF DART POINTS IN THE INYO-MONO REGION, CALIFORNIA A Thesis by Brian Noel James II Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Mark E. Basgall, PhD __________________________________, Second Reader Michael G. Delacorte, PhD ____________________________ Date iii Student: Brian Noel James II I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis. __________________________ Graduate Coordinator, ___________________ Jacob L. Fisher, PhD Date Department of Anthropology iv Abstract of ASSESSING PRE-NEWBERRY OCCUPATION BASED ON MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION AND TEMPORAL-SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF DART POINTS IN THE INYO-MONO REGION, CALIFORNIA by Brian Noel James II The Pre-Newberry period in the Inyo-Mono Region has garnered debate in terms of population and land use pattern. Initial thought centered on the abandonment of areas due to climatic fluctuations that prompted population depression. Subsequently, however, the focus turned to the role of different settlement shifts during the middle Holocene and how these changes generated a more ephemeral archaeological record in response to short-term occupation and high mobility. In conjunction with this alternative is the potential for buried deposits to exist under recent Holocene alluvium, and that the visibility of this portion of the record is obscured by taphonomic processes. In order to assess the viability of these alternative explanations, data on numerous dart points from multiple regional reports and projects, along with new data from the Harry Riddell and Rollin and Grace Enfield collections was compiled. Morphometric analysis was undertaken to address variability in middle Holocene dart forms and obsidian sourcing and hydration data were enumerated and added to new sourcing and hydration data from the Enfield sample. These data were then analyzed across landforms of differing ages within the region. The underrepresentation v of points on particular landforms of differing age was addressed and artifact frequencies corrected in an attempt to identify biases. Known point morphologies remained consistent in many cases adhering to previous conclusions. Identification of a Wide-Stemmed form was established with the possibility that it represents a generalized form related to Pinto points, potentially a preform. Timing of point forms also adhered closely to expected ranges, albeit conditioned by the limitations inherent in obsidian hydration dating (OHD). The perceived gap in pre-Newberry occupation breaks down with the addition of new data, particularly data obtained from the Inyo-White Mountains east of Owens Valley. Occupation of the region appears to gradually increase throughout the middle Holocene with a slight acceleration post 4000 B.P. and a more dramatic pulse during the Late Newberry interval (ca. 2000 B.P.). _______________________, Committee Chair Mark E. Basgall, PhD _______________________ Date vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis could not have been possible without the help and guidance of faculty, staff, and fellow students, as well as the practical experience gained at the Archaeological Research Center, at California State University, Sacramento. I would like to acknowledge Natasha Johnson at the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, at UC Berkeley for allowing me access to the Harry Riddell collection materials, as well as Gregory Haverstock (BLM) and William Kerwin (USDAFS) for helping facilitate the acquisition of the Rollin and Grace Enfield Collection. A personal thank you to Bridget Wall for making sure that collection was properly handled, and for help with graphics throughout the many presentations given during my grad school tenure. Thanks goes to Anthony Pohl, Nick Altieri, and Martijn Kyupers for helping draw some of the projectile points. Thank you to Bill Norton and Dave Glover for being supportive and informative while I was doing this and offering advice for all life’s issues and oddities. Particular thanks to Bill Larson and Michelle Noble for being my permanent archaeological family. A very important thank you goes out to Seabrook Joe Griffin for being my consistent friend and cohort, offering advice and talking about archaeology among other things… good buddy. I would like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. Mark Basgall and Dr. Michael Delacorte, for always being amenable and offering guidance during this process. Thank you to Mark for steering me toward this idea and expanding my scope throughout, always pushing me to think larger and recognize the bigger picture. Thanks to Michael for providing visual sourcing on my points, improving my writing by means of comprehensive thesis edits, and for providing a seemingly never ending wealth of knowledge. I would like to thank my parents Brian and Cheryl James immensely for the unbridled support, moral and monetary alike. Everything you have ever done for me I know was because you vii love me, and I Love you guys too. Lastly, I would like to thank the most important person, my wife and best friend Kimberly James. Together we have created something greater than anything I have ever done on my own, a family. I love you and Logan, and can’t wait to meet Carson when he gets here. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ vii List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... xii List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xv Chapters 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 2. GEOLOGY AND PALEOENVIRONMENT ..................................................................... 4 Geologic Context ......................................................................................................... 4 Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 8 Climate ...................................................................................................................... 10 Paleoenvironment ...................................................................................................... 12 Implications for the Pre-Newberry Archaeological Record ...................................... 17 3. PREHISTORIC CONTEXT .............................................................................................. 20 Previous Archaeological Research ............................................................................ 21 Culture History .......................................................................................................... 25 4. RESEARCH ISSUES ........................................................................................................ 36 Variability in Dart Points ........................................................................................... 36 Middle Holocene Gap ................................................................................................ 46 5. METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 48 Existing Data.............................................................................................................. 49 Harry S. Riddell Jr. Collection ................................................................................... 50 Rollin and Grace Enfield Collection .......................................................................... 50 ix Projectile Point Attributes .......................................................................................... 54 Projectile Points ......................................................................................................... 58 Metrical Analysis ....................................................................................................... 64 Obsidian Sourcing ...................................................................................................... 66 Obsidian Hydration .................................................................................................... 67 Effective Hydration Temperature (EHT) Model ...................................................... 69 Obsidian Hydration Rates .......................................................................................... 74 Spatial Analysis ......................................................................................................... 75 6. PROJECTILE POINT ATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS ............................................................ 78 Corner-notched Macro Group ...................................................................................