Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-17T02:16:03.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-and-Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert L. Bettinger  and
Jelmer Eerkens
Robert L. Bettinger
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis 95616
Jelmer Eerkens
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara 93106
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Decrease in projectile point size around 1350 B.P. is commonly regarded as marking the replacement of the atlatl by the bow and arrow across the Great Basin. The point typology most widely employed in the Great Basin before about 1980 (the Berkeley typology) uses weight to distinguish larger dart points from smaller, but similarly shaped, arrow points. The typology commonly used today (the Monitor typology) uses basal width to distinguish wide-based dart points from narrow-based arrow points. The two typologies are in general agreement except in central Nevada, where some dart points are light, hence incorrectly typed by the Berkeley typology, and in eastern California, where some arrow points are wide-based, hence incorrectly typed by the Monitor typology. Scarce raw materials and resharpening may explain why dart points are sometimes light in central Nevada. That arrow point basal width is more variable in eastern California than central Nevada likely reflects differences in the cultural processes attending the spread and subsequent maintenance of bow-and-arrow technology in these two localities.

Résumé

Résumé

La disminución en el tamaño de las puntas proyectil hacia 1350 AP se considera generalmente una indicación de la sustitución del atlatl por el arco y flecha en la Gran Cuenca de los Estados Unidos. La tipología común en esta área antes de 1980 (tipología de Berkeley) utilizó el peso para distinguir puntas más grandes de puntas más pequeñas pero de forma parecida. La tipología generalmente empleada hoy (Monitor tipología) utiliza el ancho para distinguir puntas de bases anchas de puntas de bases estrechas. Tipicamente, estos dos sistemas de tipología están de acuerdo con la exceptión de Nevada central donde algunas puntas proyectil ligeras están clasificadas equivocamente en la tipología de Berkeley. Además, en California oriental algunas puntas de proyectil tienen bases anchas y están clasificadas equivocamente en la tipología Monitor. Probablemente, las puntas de Nevada central son ligeras debido a la falta de materia prima y alproceso de reafilación. Hay más variabilidad en el ancho de las puntas en California oriental que en Nevada central y probablamente refleja diferencias en los procesos culturales relacionados a la propagación y mantenimiento suhsiguiente de la tecnología de arco yflecha en estas dos localidades.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 64 , Issue 2 , April 1999 , pp. 231 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Ainsworth, P., and Skinner, E. 1994 Appendix 1. In Archaeological Resources Evaluation at CA-INY-384, CA-INY-3790, CA-INY-4547, CA-INY-4549H, CA-INY-4550, Inyo County California, edited by Wickstrom, B., Jackson, R., and Jackson, T.L., pp Al-1-89. Report submitted to California Department of Transportation, Environmental Branch, District 9, Bishop, California. Contract 09H077.Google Scholar
Basgall, M. E., and McGuire, K. R. 1988 The Archaeology of CA-INY-30: Prehistoric Culture Change in the Southern Owens Valley, California. Report submitted to California Department of Transportation, Sacramento. Contract No. 09G519. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis, California.Google Scholar
Basgall, M.E., and Giambastiani, M.A. 1995 Prehistoric Use of a Marginal Environment: Continuity and Change in Occupation of the Volcanic Tablelands, Mono and Inyo Counties, California. Publication 12. Center for Archaeological Research, Davis, California.Google Scholar
Baumhoff, M.A., and Byrne, J.S. 1959 Desert Side-Notched Points as a Time Marker in California. Archaeological Survey Reports 48: 32–65. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bettinger, R.L. 1975 The Surface Archaeology of Owens Valley, Eastern California: Prehistoric Man-Land Relationships in the Great Basin. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.Google Scholar
Bettinger, R.L. 1989 The Archaeology of Pinyon House, Two Eagles, and Crater Middens: Three Residential Sites in Owens Valley, Eastern California. Anthropological Papers 67. American Museum of Natural History, New York.Google Scholar
Bettinger, R.L. 1991 a Aboriginal Occupation at High Altitude: Alpine Villages in the White Mountains of Eastern California. American Anthropologist 93: 656–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettinger, R.L. 1991b Native Land Use: Archaeology and Anthropology. In Natural History of the White-Inyo Range, Eastern California, edited by Hall, C. A., pp. 463–486. University of California Press, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettinger, R.L. and Baumhoff, M.A. 1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American Antiquity 47: 485–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettinger, R. L., Richerson, P. J., and Boyd, R. 1996 Style, Function, and Cultural Evolutionary Processes. In Darwinian Archaeologies, edited by Maschner, D.G., pp. 133–164. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettinger, R.L., and Eerkens, J.W. 1997 Evolutionary Implications of Metrical Variation in Great Basin Projectile Points. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory and Archaeological Explanation, edited by Barton, C. M. and Clark, G.A. pp. 177–191. Archaeological Papers 7. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
Bouscaren, S. 1985 Archaeological Excavations in the Lowlands of Northern Owens Valley: Report on the Sawmill Road Site (CAINY-1386). Unpublished Master's thesis. University of California, Riverside.Google Scholar
Boyd, R., and P. J., Richerson 1985 Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Burton, J.F. 1986 Archaeological Investigations at Bajada Camp (CA-Iny-2596), Inyo County California. Prepared for Baxter Ranch by Trans-Sierran Archaeological Research, Columbia, California.Google Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, L. 1988 Cultural Transmission and Adaptation. International Social Science Journal 40: 239–253.Google Scholar
Clark, M., Jones, T., Fung, T., and Grantham, S. 1991 Extended Phase I Investigation of CA-INY-3694, CAINY-3695, CA-INY-3696IH, and CA-INY-3697IH, Near Lone Pine, Inyo County, California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, District 9, Bishop, California. Contract Number 09-INY-395, P.M 54.6/59.0, 09-213000.Google Scholar
Clewlow, C. W. Jr. 1967 Time and Space Relations of Some Great Basin Projectile Point Types. Archaeological Survey Reports 70: 141–150. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Clewlow, C. W. Jr. 1968 Surface Archaeology of the Black Rock Desert, Nevada. Archaeological Survey Reports TS: 1-94. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Davis, J. T. 1963 Test Excavations at Site Iny-372 Conducted in 1961. In Archaeology of the Rose Spring Site Iny-372,by Lanning, E., Appendix 5, pp. 296–304. Publications in AmericanArchaeology and Ethnology 49(3): 237-336. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Delacorte, M. G. 1994 The Role of Population in Relation to the Use of Alpine Environments in the White Mountains of California and Nevada. Areta Archaeological Carpathia. Warsaw. In press.Google Scholar
Delacorte, M. G., Hall, M. C., and Basgall, M. E. 1995 Final Report on the Evaluation of Twelve Archaeological Sites in the Southern Owens Valley, Inyo County, California. Report submitted to California Department of Transportation, Sacramento. ContractNo. 09HO78. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis, California.Google Scholar
Delacorte, M. G., and McGuire, K. R. 1993 Report of Archaeological Test Evaluations at Twenty - Three Sites in Owens Valley, California. Report prepared for Contel of California and the Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District. Contract No. SC-3 3-90. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis, California.Google Scholar
Eerkens, J.W, and Bettinger, R.L. 1994 Variance in Great Basin Projectile Points. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Anaheim.Google Scholar
Eerkens, J.W. 1998 Field Notes from Archaeological Survery and Excavation in Southern Owens Valley, California. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of California-Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Fenenga, F. 1953 The Weights of Chipped Stone Points: A Clue to their Functions. Southwest Journal of Anthropology 9: 309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilreath, A. J. 1995 Archaeological Evaluation of Thirteen Sites for the Ash Creek Project, Inyo County, California. Report submitted to California Department of Transportation, Sacramento. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis, California.Google Scholar
Hardin, R. 1968 Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162: 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, M.C., and Jackson, R.J. 1989 Obsidian Hydration Rates in California. In Current Directions in California Obsidian Studies, edited by Hughes, R.E., pp. 31–58. Contributions No. 48. Archaeological Research Facility, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Heizer, R.F., and Baumhoff, M.A. 1961 The Archaeology of Wagon Jack Shelter. InTheArchaeology of Two Sites at Eastgate, Churchill County, Nevada. Anthropological Records 20(4): 119–138. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Heizer, R.F., Baumhoff, M.A., and Clewlow, C.W. Jr. 1968 Archaeology of South Fork Shelter (NV-E1-11), Elko County, Nevada. Archaeological Survey Reports 71: 1–58. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Heizer, R.F., and Clewlow, C.W. Jr. 1968 Projectile Points from Site NV-CH-15, Churchill County, Nevada. Archaeological Survey Reports 71: 59–88. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Jennings, J.D. 1986 Prehistory: Introduction. In Great Basin, edited by D'Azevedo, W. L., pp. 113–119. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11, W C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Lanning, E.P. 1963 Archaeology of the Rose Spring Site Iny-372. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(3): 237–336. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Madsen, D. B., and Rhode, D. R. (editors) 1994 Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Moore, O. K. 1965 Divination: A New Perspective. American Anthropologist 59: 69–74. Google Scholar
O'Connell, J. F. 1967 Elko Eared/Elko Corner-notched Projectile Points as Time Markers in the Great Basin. Archaeological Survey Reports 70: 129–140. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1997 Stones and Shafts Redux: The Metric Discrimination of Chipped Stone Dart and Arrow Points. American Antiquity 62: 86–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1970 Archaeology's Operational Imperative: Great Basin Projectile Points as aTest Case. University of California Archaeological Survey Annual Report 12: 27–60. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3: 7–43.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 2. Gatecliff Shelter. Anthropological Papers 59(1). American Museum of Natural History, New York.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1988 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 3. Survey and Additional Excavations. Anthropological Papers 66(2). American Museum of Natural History, New York.Google Scholar
Yohe, R. M. II 1992 Reevaluation ofWestern Great Basin Cultural Chronology and Evidence for the Timing of the Introduction of the Bow and Arrow to Eastern California Based on New Excavations at the Rose Spring Site (CA-INY-372). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.Google Scholar