Cindy A. Eccles, Department of Anthropology
Introduction
This research project began in pursuit of three goals: (1) establishing the temporal and spatial distribution of distinctive stone blfaces labeled as “Shoshone” knives, (2) determining the function and range of morphological variability of these bifaces and (3) ascertaining whether the label “Shoshone” knives, which centers on ethnic affiliation, is appropriate. Use of this term also raises the issue of style versus function as a cause for the distinctive shape of this biface. Studying this element of the archaeological record will further our understanding of the little studied Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric eras.
History of previous research. George Frison, University of Wyoming, first identified these bifaces as “bulb-shaped in outline form on one end and long lanceolate points opposite,” (1971) and labeled them Shoshone knives. This label has become widely used to describe various bifaces that do not fit any other previously established category.
Data Set Specimens studied for this project included 1) 70 from the Hunter Collection-Heron Springs, Utah Lake; 2) 16 from the Bee Collection representing various Utah Lake sites; 3) 23 from the University of Wyoming; and 4) 4 individual specimens from Nevada. Total specimens numbered 113 bifaces which were treated as a sample set of the population.
Methodology. This project recorded the biface’s physical elements including weight in grams, three length measurements, three width measurements and three thickness measurements in centimeters. Material composition, edge damage, edge profile, general descriptions and rough sketches completed this recording. Each biface was viewed under a standard lighted magnifying glass. Several select bifaces were also analyzed with stereoscopic microscopes for more detailed study of edge damage and profile. Dr. Clark produced three obsidian bifaces in varying stages and with varying flintknapping techniques. These replicas were used in comparison to the original bifaces from each data set.
Of the 113 artifacts analyzed, 96 match Janetski’s “large shouldered biface,” description (1991). In addition to the general morphology, indices were created to assist In typing a distinguishing attribute. The length Index was calculated by taking the measurement from the distal point to the biface’s maximum width and dividing It by the biface’s total length. The width index was calculated by bisecting the biface’s total length and dividing it by the maximum width. The mode for both length and width indices fell in the 0.6-0. 7 ratio range. The pattern of occurrences for each data set is illustrated as Figure 1a.
Empirical Data
Function. Dr. Clark produced several obsidian replicas which provided objects for edge damage and re-tooling comparative studies. Using Clark (1988), Keeley (1980) and Tringham’s et al. (1974) data on mlcrowear analysis as a guide, a macroscopic analysis of the artifacts was performed. Tringham (et a! 197 4) notes “fish scales seem to present more resistance than mammal flesh … and produced larger more clearly defined scars.” Figure 1 b illustrates the results of macroanalysis study of edge damage of each data set, showing slightly more instances of large shallow scars than small shallow scars, and more occurrences of serrated edges over crushed and abrasion and irregular. This may support a hypothesis by Janetski that the bifaces were fish processing tools. Interestingly, most sites containing these bifaces occur near rivers or lakes (as illustrated by the cover sheet) supporting lacustrine resources.
Spatial Distribution. Plotting the sites containing bifaces fitting the morphological and length index attributes produced a spatial pattern. While these bifaces are found all over Wyoming, they appear to be restricted to one location in Utah–Utah Valley. A pattern of artifact occurrences, illustrated by Figure 1c, shows a distribution through Nevada and Wyoming which are known regions for Shoshone occupations. However, the highest concentration of these bifaces is found in Utah Valley, documented homeland of the Ute.
Temporal Distribution. Table 1 below illustrates the time periods during which these bifaces are found. The dates put forth on this table represent a tight temporal patterning of these bifaces from approximately AD 1250 to 1750. An exception to this tight patterning is an artifact from Dry Susie Creek in Nevada that fits the general morphological category and length index, but is associated with data yielding tight carbon 14 and obsidian hydration dates of 2800-3200 B.C.
Conclusion
Temporally, with the exception of the Dry Susie Creek biface, these bifaces all fit the same time period from approximately AD 1250 to AD 1750–the Late Prehistoric.
Spatially, the distribution of these bifaces is shown as an angular region through Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. The sites containing these bifaces are either kill sites or campsites, with the exception of the Nevada sites which are generally individual surface finds (Maggie Brown, curator Nevada State Museum, personal communication). While the scope of this project did not include providing an explanation for these spatial occurrences, identifying these relationships could provide invaluable information on the social relationships between groups of peoples using these bifaces.
With the exception of the Utah Lake sites, these bifaces appear in regions generally noted for Shoshone occupations. Although Utah Valley sites contained the most bifaces, Utah Valley was home of the Ute people Uanetski, 1991). The Utah Valley sites are, however, within the Numic speaking inhabitants’ regions which includes Shoshone occupations.
In determining function verses style, the study of edge-damage and edgewear suggests that function may be the causal factor for the distinctive shape. However, if the use of the term “Shoshone” is appropriate, then stylistic factors may be contributing to the morphology of this biface. In further understanding the function versus style issue, more detailed microscopic analysis, including experimental archaeology will test these assumptions.
Additionally, a closer review of contextual data containing microflakes (if available) may help determine production and re-tooling techniques of these bifaces. A closer study of bifaces found in Late Prehistoric sites may identify those in a preform stage to the end product which was the object of study for this project. Identifying non-Shoshone sites that contain these bifaces for comparison may also produce information to resolve this issue. A re-thinking of classification of drill-like bifaces should be considered as these bifaces may have been thrown into the drill category based on their appearance and not considered as re-tooled bifaces.
Stone tools are an important part of the society which uses them. These implements can provide valuable information about the technological, ideological and subsistence skills of the society and can also be used as a horizon marker for these societies. With more detailed studies, these bifaces may provide insight into the lifeways of the people that used them, providing us a look into our not so distant past.
Challenges and Accomplishments
This project offered many challenges, especially the element of data collection. Taking ten different measurements of nearly a hundred artifacts, and viewing each one macroscopically took the majority of the allotted time. While the Hunter collection from Heron Springs provided a good working data set, analysis of other data sets out-of-state was necessary in order to obtain a broader spatial and temporal distribution. Unfortunately, a large collection located at the Hutchings Museum in Lehi was not available for study.
Working towards the goals outlined in the proposal afforded the opportunity to become intimately familiar with this distinctive biface. Handling the artifacts from the different data sets provided hands-on knowledge and allowed for first time recordings of the data to further temporal and spatial studies. Acquisition of the data sets also provided for plotting a temporal outline. Finally, while the goal of determining function was not fully met, the data recovered provided a stronger basis for hypothesizing function and supports a functional factor as causing the distinctive shape rather than stylistic production.
References
- Callister, Kathleen Emily, Mobility Strategies And Chipped Stone -Analysis of Two Late Prehistoric Sites in Utah Valley, Utah. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 1993.
- Clark, John E. “The Lithic Artifacts of La Libertad, Chiapas, Mexico: An Economic Perspective.” Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, No. 52. Brigham Young University, Provo, 1988.
- Frison, George C. “Shoshonean Antelope Procurement in the Upper Green River Basin, Wyoming.” Plains Anthropologist. 1971. 16(54):258-84.
- Holmer, Richard N. “In Search of Ancestral Northern Shoshone.” Across the West. _Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by D. B. Madsen and D, Rhode, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1994. 179-187.
- Janetski, joel C. “Wetlands in Utah Valley Prehistory. “Wetland Adaptations in the Great Basin, edited by J, C. Janetski and D. B. Madsen,Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 1. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1990. 233-258.
- Keeley, Lawrence H. Experimental Determination of Stone Too Uses. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1980.
- Larson, Mary Lou and Marcel Kornfeld “Betwixt and Between the Basin and the Plains: The Limits of Numic Expansion.” Across the West Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by D. B. Madsen and D. Rhode, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1994. 200-210.
- Tringham, Ruth, Glenn Cooper, George Odell, Barbara Voytek, and Anne Whitman “Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis.” Journal of Field Archaeology, 1974. 173- 196.