University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1988 Variation in the artifact assemblages from five Oxbow sites Douglas Melton The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Melton, Douglas, "Variation in the artifact assemblages from five Oxbow sites" (1988). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 3999. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/3999 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT IN WHICH COPYRIGHT SUBSISTS, ANY FURTHER REPRINTING OF ITS CONTENTS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE AUTHOR, MANSFIELD LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA DATE : 1988 VARIATION IN THE ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGES FROM FIVE OXBOW SITES By Douglas A. Melton B.A., University of Montana, 1981 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts University of Montana 1988 Approved by UMI Number EP36025 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMT DiassrtMkm PubJisbhg UMI EP36025 Published by ProQuest LLC (2012). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Melton, Douglas A., M.A., April 1988 Anthropology Variation in the Artifact Assemblages from Five Oxbow Sites (184 pp.) Director: Dee C. Taylor The chipped stone tool assemblages from five Oxbow Sites were compared. The purpose of this comparison was to ascertain the nature of Oxbow as a cultural-historical unit. Was Oxbow best thought of as an archaeological phase or an archaeological complex? The terms phase and complex as they are used here, follow Reeves's (1969) use of the terms. Additionally, the comparison suggested the presence of two classes of sites. The first were short term campsites with an emphasis on butchering relatively few animals. The second class perhaps represented longer term occupation, with a greater emphasis on a variety of activities being represented. This is evidenced in the features and artifacts reported from the second class of sites. The present evidence suggests Oxbow is best thought of as a complex. Evidence from other reported Oxbow Sites is used to support this conclusion. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all the people who helped in the production of this thesis. I would like to thank my committee, Drs. Taylor, Foor, and Hampton. I particularly would like to thank my chairman, Dr. Taylor, who was able to give some grammatical sense to my otherwise incoherent rambling. Dr. Foor helped me with the statistics and analysis section of this thesis. His assistance was greatly appreciated. Mr. Alan Stanfill of the State Historic Preservation Office provided his insight to the nature of Oxbow and acted as "devil's advocate" for many of my ideas. I found these exchanges very useful. Mr John Brumley of Ethos Consultants answered my questions concerning his excavations of the Southridge Site. I thank him for his time. Mr. Tim Church did the computer graphic that appears as Figure 10. I thank him for his time and effort. Ms. Sharon Rose did her usual fine job of turning my illegible scrawl into something readable. I would also like to thank my long-suffering colleagues and fellow graduate students who have put up with my outbursts and insights into Northern Plains Prehistory. Now maybe I will be a little quieter on Friday evenings. Finally, I would like to thank the archaeologists who dug the five sites used in this thesis; without them I would not have a thesis. It is hoped that I have not greatly misinterpreted their work. As for my own analysis, I am solely responsible for any errors or misinterpretations. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES vi I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS 9 A. Long Creek 12 B. Mummy Cave 16 C. Southridge 29 D. Sun River 34 III. THE OXBOW LEVELS 40 A. Long Creek 40 B. Mummy Cave 50 C. Harder 64 D. Southridge 76 E. Sun River 84 IV. SITE ANALYSIS 102 V. A SUMMARY OF OXBOW 124 A. The Oxbow Point in Space and Time 124 B. Oxbow Settlement and Subsistence Patterns 131 C. Oxbow Technological Systems 135 D. Oxbow Ceremonial and Mortuary Practices 137 E. Relationship of Oxbow to Other Projectile Point Types and Archaeological Complexes 141 F. Summary 144 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 145 APPENDIX I. Sites Reported to Contain Oxbow Points 155 APPENDIX II. Radiocarbon Dates Associated with Sites Producing Oxbow Points 161 REFERENCES CITED 164 iv LIST OF TABLES 1. Artifacts Recovered from the Non-Oxbow Levels at the Long Creek Site, Saskatchewan 14 2. Summary of Cultures at the Long Creek Site, Saskatchewan. (From Wettlaufer and Mayer-Oakes 1960: 114) 17 3. Artifacts Recovered from the Non-Oxbow Layers at Mummy Cave, Wyoming 21 4. Artifacts Recovered from the Non-Oxbow Areas of the Southridge Site, Alberta 32 5. Artifacts Recovered from the Non-Oxbow Levels at the Sun River Site (24CA74), Montana 38 6. Artifacts Recovered from the Oxbow Levels at the Long Creek Site, Saskatchewan 42 7. Artifacts Recovered from the Oxbow Layers at Mummy Cave, Wyoming 51 8. Artifacts Recovered from the Oxbow Zone at the Harder Site, Saskatchewan 69 9. Artifacts Recovered from the Oxbow Subarea at the Southridge Site, Alberta 78 10. Artifacts Recovered from the Oxbow Levels at the Sun River Site, Montana 87 11. Frequencies and Percentages of Selected Classes of Tools from the Five Sites 106 12. Comparison of Combined Assemblages from the Long Creek, Mummy Cave and Harder Sites 114 13. Comparison of Assemblages from Mummy Cave Layers 28 and 30 and from the Harder Site 116 14. Comparison of Assemblages from Mummy Cave Layers 28 and 20 Combined and from the Harder Site 117 15. Comparison of Assemblages from Mummy Cave Layer 28 and from the Harder Site 119 16. Some Definitions of the Oxbow Point Type 126 17. The Oxbow Assemblage 134 v LIST OF FIGURES 1. Location of the Five Sites Selected for Analysis, and Showing General Distribution of Oxbow Points 3 2. Projectile Point Sequence from Mummy Cave, Wyoming, Showing Radiocarbon Dated Levels and Projectile Point Sequence. (After Wedel et al. 1968:185.) 20 3. Stratigraphy and Dates of the Levels from the Sun River Site (24CA74), Montana. (After Greiser et al. 1983:3-2.) 37 4. Plan View of Ash Concentrations in Project B, Level 8, Long Creek Site, Saskatchewan. No Scale. (After Wettlaufer and Mayer-Oakes 1960:66. ) 49 5. Plan View of Harder Site Excavations, Saskatchewan. (After Dyck 1977:29. ) 67 6. Plan View of Subarea B of the Southridge Site (EaOq-17), Alberta. (After Brumley 1981:41.) 77 7. Plan View of Level IV at the Sun River Site, Montana. (After Greiser et al. 1983:5-2.) 89 8. Plan View of Level V at the Sun River Site, Montana. (After Greiser et al. 1983:6-1.) 95 9. Plan View of Level VI at the Sun River Site, Montana. (After Greiser et al. 1983:7-2.) 98 10. Cumulative Graph of Selected Classes of Tools from the Oxbow Components at the Five Sites 107 vi I. INTRODUCTION In this thesis, I compare the artifact assemblages from five archaeological sites assigned to what is currently known as the "Oxbow Complex." Using this comparison, I attempt to answer two questions concerning the status of Oxbow in general. The first is: What exactly is Oxbow? It has been used at various times to define a point type, an archaeological complex, an archaeological phase, and an archaeological culture.1 I examine this question to see what support, if any, exists for such classifications. My second question is related to the apparent longevity of some elements of the Oxbow Complex. Why, for example, do Oxbow Points appear to have been used over such a long period of time? And, if that is so, what were the advantages provided by their continued use? To answer these questions, I have selected five sites containing excavated, largely unmixed Oxbow Components. These sites are listed below and are described in greater detail in the following chapters. The five sites I have selected are: Long Creek (Wettlaufer and Mayer-Oakes 1960) and Harder (Dyck 1977) in Saskatchewan, the Southridge Site in Alberta (Brumley 1981), Sun River in Montana (Greiser et al. 1983), and Mummy Cave in Wyoming (Husted and Edgar n.d.). I selected these sites for several reasons. First, there is at least general agreement that Oxbow was represented at all of the sites. 1The terms phase and complex, and culture, as they are used here, define increasingly more refined geographical and temporal units. In general, my usage follows that commonly found in archaeology (Reeves 1969, 1985? Willey and Phillips 1958). 1 Second, all are thought to be related, in the sense that all contain Oxbow Components, even though they are separated by space and time.