Identifying Dart and Arrow Points in the Great Basin: Comment on Smith Et Al.'s “Points in Time: Direct Radiocarbon Dates on Great Basin Projectile Points“

Hockett, Bryan; Hildebrandt, William R.; King, Jerome

doi:10.7183/0002-7316.79.3.561

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…14 The range of d/a values for the small number of Rosegate arrow points from Hidden Cave (Pendleton, 1985: (Thomas, 1981). The earliest version of the key (Thomas, 1970: 37, Perhaps equally significant to the present study, given the current disagreement on Rosegate/Elko identifications in the western Great Basin (Smith et al, 2013;Hockett et al, 2014), data in supplementary files S4-S6 show that measurements for 152 Rosegate points from the lower Humboldt Valley have a mean thickness of 3.51 ± 0.68 mm, while thickness measured on 83 Elko series points (combined Elko Corner-notched and Elko Eared) yielded a mean thickness value of 5.04 ± 1.06 mm. These values are not significantly different (t = 1.22 <t 0.05 = 1.96).…”

Section: Artifact Classification Issuesmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Rosegate series points are considered time markers for the Underdown phase (cal AD 750-AD 1300) at Hidden Cave (Thomas, 1985), but, as noted above, there are metric differences among some of the small, corner-notched points in lower Humboldt Valley sites that conflict with the Monitor Valley key criteria for Rosegate (as specified by Thomas, 1981). This is not news: for example, weight measurements suggest that projectile points found together in an animal skin pouch at Wa-197 are Elko series (dart) points (Thomas, 1981: 31), whereas maximum thickness/neck width measurements support the classification of these specimens as Rose Spring/ Eastgate (arrow) points (Hockett et al, 2014) as proposed earlier by Hester (1974) and Heizer and Hester (1978: 162). 14 C associations and obsidian hydration data from sites along the Sierra-Cascade front (Hildebrandt and King, 2002) suggest that Rosegate point may be several centuries older in the western Great Basin than previously believed.…”

Section: Temporally Sensitive Formsmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…Heizer and Baumhoff 's conjecture may well account for the change in the size and shape of weapon tips, but it doesn't inform on the geographic direction from which that technological change may have come. Ames et al (2010: 321) argue for bow and arrow use on the Columbia Plateau by 4400 BP, but northern Great Basin data suggest later use to the south (Aikens et al, 2011: 47;Smith et al, 2013;Hockett et al, 2014). Specific dating issues aside, the source-specific results of this lower Humboldt Valley study document a significant shift in obsidian source use toward nonlocal northern sources beginning with Rosegate series arrow points, providing independent evidence for a northern-as opposed to a southern-point of introduction of the technology.…”

Section: Widening the Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Obsidian projectile point conveyance patterns in the lower Humboldt Valley, Nevada

Hughes¹

2022

Anthropol. Pap. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite their ubiquity, surface occurrences of obsidian artifacts at archaeological sites throughout western North America have traditionally been viewed as unworthy of serious attention because of the difficulty in dating them. In the past 40 years, the time sensitivity of certain Great Basin projectile point types has been established, which brings the importance of surface collections more center stage. With the coming of age and refinement of geochemical methods, obsidian artifacts from these surface sites can now be analyzed using nondestructive instrumental methods and matched to their geological eruptive origin on the basis of congruence in trace and rare earth element chemistry. Many of these surface assemblages in the Great Basin contain considerable numbers of obsidian projectile points that, when matched to their chemical source of origin, open up entirely new ways to investigate change and continuity in past land use and social relations. The present study was conducted in the lower Humboldt Valley of western Nevada, where large numbers of obsidian projectile points have been collected by professional archaeologists over the past century and housed in academic institutions and museums. In this study, more than 900 obsidian projectile points and bifaces were analyzed from 24 sites and localities within the lower Humboldt Valley using energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF) to bring data to bear on the question of whether changes in obsidian source use occurred there over the past 5000 years (as determined by time-sensitive projectile points). Significant changes were identified in the direction and distance-to-source of arrow points vs. dart points, and in the source and direction of Humboldt series points and of Humboldt Basal-notched bifaces, which implicate directional shifts through time in social relations among peoples using—and during some periods living at sites in—the lower Humboldt Valley. These results provide independent data to evaluate current views about land use, artifact conveyance, social relations, and technological change in the western Great Basin and beyond.

show abstract

Section: Artifact Classification Issuesmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Temporally Sensitive Formsmentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: Widening the Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Obsidian projectile point conveyance patterns in the lower Humboldt Valley, Nevada

Hughes¹

2022

Anthropol. Pap. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Type assignments were made using a set of morphological and metrical attributes originally described by Thomas (1981) for use in the central Great Basin, with some additions and modifications to accommodate local types (table 6; Hildebrandt and King, 2002). The type assignments also employed a "dart-arrow index" for notched points, to make the key distinction between those generally larger point types that were made to tip darts versus those made to tip arrows (Hildebrandt and King, 2012; see also Smith et al, 2013;Hockett et al, 2014;Smith et al, 2014). This index is simply the neck width plus thickness, which gives an easily measured proxy for the overall robustness of the hafting area.…”

Section: Projectile Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

At the vanishing point : environment and prehistoric land use in the Black Rock Desert

McGuire¹,

Hildebrandt²,

Young³

et al. 2018

Anthropol. Pap. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This volume presents the results of data recovery excavations directed at prehistoric archaeological deposits located near Sulphur Springs, along the southeastern margin of the Black Rock Desert, in Humboldt and Pershing counties, Nevada. Although 20 sites with prehistoric assemblages were identified during this project, intact spatio-temporal components were found at only seven of these sites, of which just five were the focus of intensive data recovery excavations: 26HU1830, 26HU1876, 26HU2871, 26HU3118, and 26HU5621. A total of 372 m 3 of excavation by hand was directed at dateable components within these five sites. The results of this effort yielded a substantial artifact assemblage, including a variety of flaked and ground stone tools, shell and bone beads, as well as large quantities of faunal bone and debitage. Also documented were an assortment of features, including a number of small processing facilities and the remnants of several house floors. Key to this investigation was the isolation of a series of discrete temporal components. Eleven such components were identified representing six temporal intervals: Early Archaic (5700-3800 cal b.p.), Middle Archaic (ca. 3000 cal b.p.), mixed Middle/Late Archaic (3800-600 cal b.p.), Late Archaic A (1340-1165 cal b.p.), Late Archaic B (985-855 cal b.p.), as well as Late Archaic (1300-600 cal b.p.) deposits that could not be further separated into smaller units of time. It is particularly noteworthy that many of these components have very narrow time frames, in many cases smaller than the traditional Great Basin periods. The profile of projectwide time-sensitive projectile points and radiocarbon dates, coupled with a robust artifact and feature assemblage dated to narrow time frames, allows for an assessment of changes in habitation and land-use pattern with an unusual level of resolution. Prior to about years ago, occupations appear to have been sporadic, with people making brief visits to the area during periods of increased effective moisture and spring discharge associated with the Early Holocene, and largely avoiding it for more promising areas during times of drought during the Middle Holocene. Archaeological visibility increases significantly after 4500 cal b.p., including periods when substantial houses were constructed, and people supplemented the local resource base with foods and materials obtained from distant locations possessing richer concentrations of large game and obsidian toolstone. These more intensive habitations were not constant, however, and were abandoned during a major Late Holocene drought cycle that occurred between 2800 and 1500 cal b.p. Robust habitation returns during the initial Late Archaic period but is bimodal with a sudden break at about 1000 b.p., a spike at roughly 985 to 855 cal b.p., followed by another break. The settlement profile may have been in response to the drought-wet-drought cycle of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Along with the role of environmental change in trans-Holocene settlement structure, the large feature...

show abstract

“…Regarding the early Elko points from Bob's and Elephant Mountain caves, Hockett et al (2014) use qualitative observations to argue they are Large Side-notched points. In our article, we acknowledged difficulties classifying the Bob's Cave point using the MVT (Smith et al 2013:587, 589).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Dart and Arrow Points in the Great Basin: A Reply to Hockett Et Al.

Smith¹,

Barker²,

Hattori³

et al. 2014

Am. antiq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hockett et al. 's (2014) comment argues two points: (1) the Nicholarsen Cache does not contain both dart and arrow points;, and (2) the “early“ Elko points in our sample are Large Side-notched points. We appreciate their reanalysis of the Nicholarsen Cache points using a different approach, which leads them to the same conclusion made in our original article. Whereas we concede that one of the Elko points is difficult to classify and could be viewed as a Large Side-notched point, we find no evidence that the other specimen is anything but an Elko point directly dated to the middle Holocene.

show abstract

Identifying Dart and Arrow Points in the Great Basin: Comment on Smith Et Al.'s “Points in Time: Direct Radiocarbon Dates on Great Basin Projectile Points“

Cited by 8 publications

References 3 publications

Obsidian projectile point conveyance patterns in the lower Humboldt Valley, Nevada

Obsidian projectile point conveyance patterns in the lower Humboldt Valley, Nevada

At the vanishing point : environment and prehistoric land use in the Black Rock Desert

Identifying Dart and Arrow Points in the Great Basin: A Reply to Hockett Et Al.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About