| |
Prehistoric Projectile PointsAn Attribute ClassificationAttributes with Potential Interpretive Significance -- Reported Attribute Occurrences -- References CitedAn alternative to a typology for classifying projectile points is to use selected attributes to describe and analyze the points. Some attributes, individually or in small sets, are hypothesized to have been restricted in their chronological, geographical, or functional distributions. However, the current state of archaeological research in Baja California usually does not yet make it possible to confirm these hypotheses. In general, attribute classifications are not based on any clear-cut discontinuities. Instead, the differences are gradational, and, to some extent, the divisions are arbitrary. The interpretive value of such classifications is likely to be statistical and probabilistic, rather than being definitive at the level of the individual specimen. It may be possible to say with some confidence, for instance, that small points, or expanding-stem points, or some other attribute category, are likely to be associated with a particular time period, a cultural tradition, or a function. But it is usually not possible to say with complete confidence that an individual specimen must pertain to that period, tradition, or function. Attributes with Potential Interpretive SignificancePoint Size -- Stem Morphology -- Base Morphology -- Shoulder Morphology -- Blade Morphology -- Width-to-Length Ratio -- Thickness-to-Width Ratio -- Flaking Techniques -- Material TypePoint Size The size of projectile points may be one of the most interpretively useful attributes. It appears to be strongly correlated with chronology and point function. Specifically, small points may postdate the introduction of the bow and arrow. The timing of that introduction in Baja California is not well established, and it may have varied substantially on a north-south gradient. The bow and arrow were present in western North America by ca. A.D. 400, but they may not have reached the Cape Region until the early historic period. To measure point size, four possible dimensions are length, width, thickness, and weight; combinations of those are also possible. Aerodynamically, weight seems to be the most logical choice, in that heavy points would likely be unstable on arrows. Franklin Fenenga (1953) looked at a large sample of projectile points from North American sites and found a marked dip in the frequency of weights at 4.0 g. Such a dip is what one might expect if small and large points represented distinct (but overlapping) populations reflecting different technologies. However, this dip is not replicated in a collection of weight frequencies for whole points from California and the Great Basin (Justice 2002:422-442). In the latter data set, the most plausible dip occurs at about 2.2 g. To distinguish late prehistoric points in the Great Basin, David Hurst Thomas (1981) suggested a cutoff of 1.5 g; this weight does not correspond to any dip in recorded point frequencies for Alta California and the Great Basin. A drawback in using weight as an index for point size is that weights have frequently not been reported for Baja California point assemblages, and weights are less likely than linear dimensions to be measured in the field during non-collecting studies. Graphic illustrations of points include usable information on linear dimensions but not on weights. In some archaeological reports, it may not be clear whether a recorded weight refers to a point fragment or to a whole specimen. For many point fragments, it is possible to extrapolate an original linear measurement, but extrapolating the original weight from a fragment is more problematic. Alternatives to weight as indices for point size include length, width, and thickness. For thickness, the problem of measurement error is probably most severe. Thickness is not documented for many points that are only recorded through plan-view photographs or drawings. Width may have an advantage of being less subject than length to alteration through point reworking after breakage (cf. Bettinger and Eerkens 1999), but measurement error is probably also higher for width than with length. On balance, length may be the most convenient index of point size. Plotting the frequencies of length measurements on a sample of points from Baja California, Alta California, and the Great Basin does not suggest any dip in length frequencies that might naturally distinguish large from small populations (Carmean 1994b; Justice 2002; Ritter and Burcell 1998). While point length is correlated with point size in the sample of Alta California and Great Basin points, the relationship is only a rough one. Consequently, defining a dividing line between large and small points based on length is necessarily rather arbitrary at this stage of investigations. Thomas (1981:25) used a cutoff of 3 cm. This may be the most expedient index to use at present. Stem Morphology This attribute has figured very prominently in most point typologies. Functionally, it likely relates to the manner in which the points were fastened to the projectile shafts or foreshafts. Six general categories of stem forms may be suggested:
Base Morphology This attribute has been incorporated in many typologies. Functionally, it may relate to the ways in which points were joined to projectile shafts or foreshafts. The proximal edges of points may be classified as concave, straight, convex, or pointed. Shoulder Morphology Occasionally, typologies have taken note of whether points' shoulders are sharp or rounded. Also of interest has been whether the proximal edges below the shoulders slope toward the point's proximal end, are perpendicular to the points’ log axis, or slope back toward the distal end (i.e., are barbed). Points with barbed shoulders may have been designed to be more resistant to becoming dislodged from a wound. Blade Morphology The distal edges of a point may be noted as straight, convex, or (much more rarely) concave. Probably more important is the presence or absence of serration or notching. Serrated edges have sharp projections where the indentations overlap; notched points have flat portions of blade between the indentations. Blade serration and notching may have served to increase tissue damage during penetration. A more speculative suggestion is that they may have been designs used to mark ownership of the point. Width-to-Length Ratio A width-to-length ratio that is either atypically high or low might be suggestive of point reworking after use damage. In cases of extreme point narrowness, such points may have been quite fragile, perhaps suggesting that they had social or ideological functions rather than being used on utilitarian projectiles. Thickness-to-Width Ratio Atypically thick points may have been extensively reworked, or they may have served some particular function. Atypically thin points may have been excessively fragile and might have served other functions, as in the case of atypically narrow points. Flaking Techniques Crude or refined flaking, and the use of percussion or pressure flaking techniques, have sometimes been distinguished. Eduardo Serafín Esquivel (1995) classified the flaking of Baja California points as irregular or regular, and in the latter case distinguished wide (>4 mm), medium (2-4 mm), and narrow (<2 mm) flaking. A specific flaking technique of interpretive importance is the removal of fluting flakes from the base of some terminal Pleistocene (“Clovis”) points. Material Type The lithic (or non-lithic) material from which a point was manufactured is an attribute of evident potential interpretive significance. While material type has typically been noted in point descriptions, this attribute has not usually been incorporated into type definitions. Materials were variously local or imported, and they may have been selected on the basis of such considerations as their relative availability, nodule size, workability, strength, and durability. Reported Attribute OccurrencesSize: lg = large (length at least 3 cm); sm = small (length less than 3 cm) Stem: tr = triangular point, no stem (the maximum width is at or near the proximal end; no side notches); ns = no shoulders (e.g., leaf-shaped, diamond=shaped point); wi = wide (e.g. side-nothced; thestem is wider than the blade); ex = expanding (e.g., corner-notched point); st = straight; ct = contracting Base: cc = concave; st = straight; cx = convex; pt = pointed Other: se = serrated (blade is serrated or has multiple notches); fl = fluted (a fluting flake has been removed from one or both faces of the base); ec = eccentric; ba = barbed (shoulder extends farther proximally than the distal end of the stem) Type Names: These are designations have been applied to the attribute groups by one or more of the cited sources. They do not represent a consensus terminology. References: Symbols in parentheses indicate general geographic regions within the peninsula: N = north; C = central; S = south; U = unspecified.
References CitedBettinger, Robert L., and Jelmer Eerkens. 1999. Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-and-Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64:231-242. Carmean, Kelli. 1994a. Archaeological Investigations in the Cape Region’s Cañon de San Dionisio. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 30(1):24-51. -----. 1994b.A Metrical Study of Baja California Sur Projectile Points. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 30(1):52-74. Davis, Emma Lou. 1968. An Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Central Desert of Baja California. University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report 10:176-208. Des Lauriers, Matthew R. 2005. Rediscovering Huamalgua, the Island of Fogs: Archaeological and Ethnhistorical Investigations of Isla Cedros, Baja California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. -----. 2008a. A Paleoindian Fluted Pont from Isla Cedros, Baja California. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 3:271-276. -----. 2008b. Proyecto arqueológico Isla de Cedros: ¿una sociedad antigua, marítima e insular? In Memorias de Balances y Perspectivas de la Antropología e Historia de Baja California, 2002-2004, pp. 49-59. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexicali. Fenenga, Franklin. 1953. The Weights of Chipped Stone Points: A Clue to their Functions. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9:134-141. Figueroa Beltrán, Carlos. 2009. La arqueología del Holoceno en el corredor costero Colnett-El Rosario (Baja California, México): un análisis orientado a la gestión. Doctoral thesis, Instituto de Investigaciones Oceanológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California. Gruhn, Ruth, and Alan Bryan. 2008. Reporte parcial sobre dos resguardos rocosos con ocupación del Holoceno temprano en el norte de la península de Baja California. In Memorias de Balances y Perspectivas de la Antropología e Historia de Baja California, 2000-2001, pp. 125-134. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexicali. -----. 2009. An Interim Report on Two Rockshelter Sites with Early Holocene Occupation in the Northern Baja California Peninsula. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 42(2-3):1-16. Gutiérrez, María de la Luz, and Justin R. Hyland. 2002. Arqueología de la sierra de San Francisco. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Hyland, Justin R. 1997. Image, Land, and Lineage: Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in Central Baja California, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. -----. 2006. The Central Sierras. In The Prehistory of Baja California: Advances in the Archaeology of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 117-134. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. -----, and María de la Luz Gutiérrez. 1995. An Obsidian Fluted Point from Central Baja California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 17:126-128. Justice, Noel D. 2002. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Massey, William C. 1955. Culture History in the Cape Region of Baja California, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. -----. 1961. The Cultural Distinction of Aboriginal Baja California. In Homenaje a Pablo Martínez del Río en el vigésimoquinto aniversario de la primera edición de “Los orígenes americanos”, pp. 411-422. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. -----. 1966a. The Castaldí Collection from Central and Southern Baja California. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 2. Berkeley. -----. 1966b. Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Lower California. In Archaeological Frontiers and External Connections, edited by Gordon F. Ekholm and Gordon R. Willey, pp. 38-58. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 4. University of Texas Press, Austin. Meighan, Clement W. 1978. Analysis of Rock Art in Baja California. In Seven Rock Art Sites in Baja California, edited by Clement W. Meighan and V. L. Pontoni, pp. 1-18. Ballena Press Publications on North American Rock Art No. 2. Socorro, New Mexico. Moore, Jerry D. 2006. The San Quintín-El Rosario Region. In The Prehistory of Baja California: Advances in the Archaeology of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 179-195. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Porcayo Michelini, Antonio. 2007. El Complejo San Dieguito analizado desde el sitio Ignacio Zaragoza, Ensenada, Baja California. In Memoria del seminario de arqueología del norte de México, edited by Cristina García M. and Elisa Villalpando C., pp. 25-35. Centro INAH Sonora, Hermosillo. (CD) Ritter, Eric W. 1979. An Archaeological Study of South-Central Baja California, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. -----. 1991. Los primeros bajacalifornianos: enigmas cronológicos, ecológicos y socioculturales. Estudios Fronterizos 24-25:9-30. -----. 1998. Investigations of Prehistoric Behavioral Ecology and Culture Change within the Bahía de los Angeles Region, Baja California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 34(3):9-43. -----. 2001. Observations Regarding the Prehistoric Archaeology of Central Baja California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 37(4):53-80. -----. 2006a. South-Central Baja California. In The Prehistory of Baja California: Advances in the Archaeology of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 99-116. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. -----. 2006b. The Vizcaíno Desert. In The Prehistory of Baja California: Advances in the Archaeology of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 135-152. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. -----. 2006c. Bahía de los Angeles. In The Prehistory of Baja California: Advances in the Archaeology of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 167-178. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. -----. 2008a. Observations Regarding the Prehistoric Archaeology of Central Baja California. In Memorias de Balances y Perspectivas de la Antropología e Historia de Baja California, 2000-2001, pp. 15-29. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexicali. -----. 2008b. The Archaeology of the Three Sisters Lagoons, Baja California, Mexico. In Memorias de Balances y Perspectivas de la Antropología e Historia de Baja California, 2002-2004, pp. 61-74. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexicali. -----. 2008c. The Practicality of Turning Stones into Flaked Tools among Prehistoric Peoples of West-Central Coastal Baja California. In Memorias de Balances y Perspectivas de la Antropología e Historia de Baja California, 2002-2004, pp. 181-193. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexicali. -----, and Julie Burcell. 1998. Projectile Points from the Three Sisters’ Lagoons of West Central Baja California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 34(4):29-66. -----, John W. Foster, Robert I Orlins, Louis A Payen, and Paul D. Bouey. 1994. Archaeological Insights within a Marine Cornucopia: Baja California’s Bahía de las Ánimas. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 30(1):1-23. -----, and Louis A. Payen. 1992. Archaeological Discoveries along Laguna Ojo de Liebre, Baja California, Mexico. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by Terry L. Jones, pp. 251-266. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication No. 10. University of California, Davis. -----, Louis A. Payen, and Carol H. Rector. 1984. An Archaeological Survey of Laguna La Guija, Baja California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 20(1):17-26. Rosales-López, Alfonso, and Harumi Fujita. 2000. La antigua California prehispánica: la vida costera en El Conchalito. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Serafín Esquivel, Eduardo. 1995. Análisis tipológico de puntas de proyectil del área central de la península de Baja California, México. Unpublished thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Thomas, David Hurst. 1981. How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3:7-43. Tuohy, Donald Raymond. 1978. Culture History in the Comondu Region, Baja California, Mexico. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. |