pinto periods in mojave desert prehistory introduction

TIME, FORM AND VARIABILITY: LAKE MOJAVE ANDPINTO PERIODS IN MOJAVE DESERT PREHISTORY

Claude N. Warren

Introduction: Time, Culture,and Chronological Types,

Disagreements and controversy regarding the ageof cultural assemblages and the basis for establishingcultural sequences have characterized the archaeol-ogy of California and southern Nevada deserts sincethe first cultural chronology was established. Eliza-beth and William Campbell (1935, 1937; E. Camp-bell 1936), M. R. Harrington (1933) and M. J. Rogers(1939) all attempted to develop a method of estab-lishing a cultural sequence in the Mojave Desert, wherethere are few stratified sites and where most knownarchaeological assemblages were recovered from thesurface of the ground. Harrington (1933) reported theassociation of the Gypsum point with dung of the ex-tinct ground sloth in Gypsum Cave, and claimed aPleistocene age for the Gypsum point type. TheCampbells, in collaboration with Antevs and othergeologists, reported the association of Lake Mojavepoints with the shorelines of Pleistocene Lake Mojave(Campbell, et al. 1937), and Pinto points with ancientstream channels in Pinto Basin (Campbell and Camp-bell 1935). The Campbells claimed late Pleistoceneand early post-Pleistocene ages for the Lake Mojaveand Pinto points. Rogers (1939), held that these pointtypes were associated with topographic features of thelater wet period of the Little Ice Age. All of theseauthors attempted to demonstrate the relationshipsbetween a point type and a dated geological feature.Once such a connection was made it was then pos-sible to use typological cross dating for other assem-blages containing the same point types.

After 1950, radiocarbon dating was applied wherepossible in conjunction with typological cross datingof projectile points. The difference between culturalequivalency and temporal equivalency became moresignificant as the amount of information to be synthe-sized increased. The concept of chronological period

(a unit of time), based on radiocarbon dates and typo-logical cross dating using projectile points, emergednext. This concept has been used successfully in theMojave Desert since 1974 (Bettinger and Taylor 1974;Warren 1980a, 1984; Warren and Crabtree 1986); how-ever, it is important that concepts of time such as period and horizon, remain distinct from concepts of cul-tural units, such as component and phase.

Period and horizon are both concepts that assistthe archaeologist in organizing temporal relationships,e.g., chronology. The period is a unit of time, not aunit of culture. When that unit of time is recognizedby the presence of an artifact type (called a periodmarker), then the temporal distribution of the artifacttype becomes the basis for defining the unit of time,although they seldom are congruent. A period maybe long or short. It is identified by a period marker;other artifacts and cultural materials associated withthat period marker are thus considered to fall withinthe same period of time. This concept organizes ar-chaeological materials into periods of either short orlong duration. The shorter the periods, the more sen-sitive the chronology is to changes in aspects of theprehistoric culture other than the period marker.

The horizon is also a unit of time marked by anartifact type, an attribute such as a pottery design, oreven a widespread geological stratum such a volcanicash. The horizon is conceived as a very short span oftime or a distinct break in the cultural sequences thatextends through a wide area of space in a "geologicalinstant." The horizon concept is a means of identify-ing chronologically equivalent points in time in twoor more cultural sequences. Therefore, the shorter theduration and the wider the distribution, the better thehorizon marker.

The concept of component and phase are both cul-tural units that are defined without regard to temporalplacement. A component is an assemblage of arti-

FENENGA VOLUME

facts derived from a spatial unit, e.g., a stratum or ar-bitrary unit of midden or an entire site, of appropriatesize for use by a population. The "appropriate size"will vary with the complexity of the cultural remains,the intensity of occupation, and the rate of geologicaldeposition. A component is placed in time by meansof dating that is independent of the specificcomponent's definition.

Components are organized into larger cultural unitscalled "complexes," "phases," "cultures" or "culturaltraditions" on the basis of similarity among the arti-fact assemblages of the different components. Thecontent of the cultural remains is the basis for defin-ing these concepts, and their temporal placement andextent are determined by independent means.

In the California and southern Nevada deserts ty-pological cross dating has been primarily based on"traditional" projectile point types, and secondarilyon "traditional" types of other artifact categories.These traditional types ideally should have been de-fined on the basis of time sensitive attributes. How-ever, traditional projectile point types have been intu-itively identified and described; no time sensitive at-tributes have been formally identified for the Califor-nia and southern Nevada deserts. As a result, archae-ologists have not been consistent in their type descrip-tions and there are disagreements as to which attributesare characteristic of any given type. Most of the pro-jectile points from the early assemblages of the MojaveDesert fall within the traditional Lake Mojave, SilverLake, and Pinto types. All other types are representedby small numbers of specimens. All other types arerepresented by small numbers of specimens. The LakeMojave and Pinto projectile point types appe to func-tion as period markers in a limited but useful way.

Types of types andthe Chronological Type

An artifact typology most often communicates adescription ofclasses of objects based on selected "im-portant" attributes for each class. Such a typology istoo often used as the basis for seriation and chrono-logical placement, for functional categories, for illus-trating "culture change." It is then said to representthe "mental template" of the makers of the artifacts.It should not be surprising that such typologies do notfunction well in all, or even any of these endeavors.To answer questions of technological trajectory, eth-

nic identity, artifact function, or chronology, requiresdifferent sets of data and therefore different types oftypes. Whether or not a type represents the "mentaltemplate" is both irrelevant and unprovable. To dis-tinguish between several taxonomies and apply dif-ferent typologies to different problems as neededshould be a common practice for archaeologists. Typesare conceptual tools for the archaeologist. They workbest when designed for specific tasks, and more thanone taxonomic system may be required to answer thequestions the archaeologist asks (or test the hypoth-eses the archaeologist constructs). As Vaughan andWarren (1987:199) state:

The necessary quality for a temporal type is thecorrelation of physical attribute(s) with a unitof time. It matters not if the attribute(s) resultsfrom a change ofcultural preference or a changein the availability of a lithic source. We neednot know whether the forms we observe resultfrom patterned resharpening of reoccurringfractures patterned by use, from intractabilityof the preferred raw material, or from the "men-tal template" of the prehistoric craftsman. Theonly necessary qualities are reoccurringattribute(s) that are restricted to a definableperiod of time. The temporal type is thearchaeologist's tool for constructing chrono-logical units, not cultural units. It need reflectthe cultural behavior of the prehistoric peopleno more than does the charcoal used in radio-carbon dating.

The Lake Mojave series and Pinto series point typesare tentatively defined below. These definitions shouldbe recognized as working definitions of chronologi-cal types. However, it is stressed that these defini-tions are tentative because they have their foundationsplanted firmly in the early descriptions of Lake Mo-jave, Silver Lake, and Pinto points by Amsden (1935,1937), Rogers (1939) and Harrington (1957). There-fore, the attributes used in the definition cannot beshown to be time sensitive and their validity must betested. Amsden (1935, 1937) provided the type de-scriptions for the Lake Mojave, Silver Lake, and Pintopoints. Rogers' (1939) and Harrington's (1957) de-scriptions vary somewhat from Amsden's in that theirtypes include more attributes and more variations in

130

LAKE MOJAVE AND PINTO PERIODS IN MOJAVE DESERT PREHISTORY

forms. Furthermore, Rogers (1939) and Harrington(1957) each had goals quite different from each otherand from those of Amsden.

The typology that follows is not a combination ofthe types established by Amsden, Rogers, andHarrington. The attributes selected were based onobservations made by these three early archaeologists,but they often disagreed on the importance of the va-lidity of specific characteristics (most obvious inRogers' leaf shaped variant of the Pinto point). In thediscussions below decisions were based on the argu-ments presented by each of these men and on the ba-sis ofmy own experience in developing a chronologyfor the California and southern Nevada deserts. It mustbe clearly understood that the selection of the attributesand their variables, to some degree, has been estab-lished intuitively. Consequently, these type descrip-tions must be tentative and have yet to be adequatelytested. However, if the key presented below sepa-rates the Lake Mojave, Silver Lake and Pinto pointsinto units that are consistent in form and in chrono-logical placement, then they are valid temporal typesand the taxonomy is to some degree successful.

Other archaeologists are currently developing defi-nitions of these traditional point types and their tax-onomies as well as definitions that may be quite dif-ferent from those presented here. Basgall and Hall's(1993) paper on more than 300 points from 24 sitespromises the first definition of Pinto points based onan adequate sample and statistical analysis.

The Taxonomy and TypesWe follow Thomas' (1970,1981) taxonomic meth-

ods, but use attributes based on the descriptions of thetraditional point types of the early occupations of theMojave Desert. Nearly all of the points of the LakeMojave and Pinto series defined here are relativelylarge and stemmed. Consequently, the first few stepsof this taxonomic key are equivalent to those of Tho-mas'. After these initial comparisons, however, thetwo keys are quite different in terms of attribute varia-tions. The criteria used herein to distinguish the pro-jectile point types in the Mojave Desert center onlength of stem and width of shoulders, attributes notincluded in Thomas' key. Therefore, these types arenot comparable to Thomas' without applying the samecriteria to those defined by Thomas (1981).

Lake Mojave and Silver Lake Types:The Lake Mojave Series

The Lake Mojave and Silver Lake types were firstdescribed byAmsden (1937:80-84) more than 50 yearsago. Although the phrasing of that description ap-pears archaic and ambiguous today, the attributes citedby Amsden cited as characteristic of the Lake Mojavepoint type are:

1. Long tapering stem;2. Slight (narrow) shoulders (if present);3. Generally diamond-shaped with longer stem thanblade; and4. Varies in form between an oval form on one handand the Silver Lake type on the other.

The Silver Lake type by contrast is said to exhibit:

1. Greater definition of shoulder than the Lake Mojavetype;2. A shorter stem than the Lake Mojave type, nevermore than one-half the length and usually about one-third of the length; and3. Convex base.

Rogers (1939:35) placed both Lake Mojave and Sil-ver Lake points in a single "Stemmed Blades" cat-egory. He states that this category is:

Characterized by a long, broad stem with arounded base. It was constructed from a leaf-shaped blade by reducing the width of the bladefrom the base end toward the tip for a distanceof one-half to two-thirds the total length. Thisusually left pronounced shoulders at the junc-tion of the stem and blade. The blade section isusually short, stubby and obtusely pointed(Rogers 1939:35).

Rogers (1939:35) also notes that Amsden subdividedthis category into Lake Mojave and Silver Lake types.In this paper the Lake Mojave and Silver Lake typesare recognized as a morphologically and technologi-cally related series of forms herein called the LakeMojave series.

Amsden's (1935, 1937) and Rogers' (1939) de-scriptions formed the basis for the traditional intui-tive types even though Amsden's descriptions were

Warren 131

FENENGA VOLUME

based on only twelve Lake Mojave and fifteen SilverLake points (Amsden 1937:80, 84), and Rogers'(1939:35) were based on a total of twenty-five speci-mens. The attributes given priority by Rogers andAmsden and apparently by later archaeologists were:the Length of Blade (LB), Length of Stem (LS), Proxi-mal Shoulder Angel (PSA), Basal Width (WB), andWidth of Shoulders (WS). The Width of Shouldersmeasurement is calculated by subtracting the NeckWidth (WN) from the Maximum Width at the Shoul-ders (MWSh).

These attributes are described here as linear mea-surements and degrees of angles. A "type" is assumedto represent patterned behavior by the makers; thesemeasurements will reflect that behavior. As Thomas(1981:14-15) notes, however, there are changes thatoccur in these measurements after manufacture, dueto wear, breakage and maintenance. These "use-lifemodifications" change the measurements and intro-duce variability that is not a result of the patternedbehavior of point manufacture.

Rogers (1939:35) states that among his "StemmedBlades" category "many...have blunted irregular tipsas if they had been broken and resharpened." Tuohy(1969) describes the pattern of breakage andresharpening on similar points from the western GreatBasin. There is ample evidence for breaking andresharpening of blades, with breaks often occurringjust above or just below the shoulder (Tuohy1969:138). The attributes of the blade as originallyflaked, are often missing and when present, are highlyvariable because of the use-life modification. Becauseof this high degree of variability in blade form the useof blade attributes in defining the types is limited hereto only those relevant to the shape and size ofthe shoul-ders. This, unfortunately, eliminates one of the tradi-tional attributes for distinguishing lake Mojave fromSilver lake points: the length of stem relative to lengthof blade.

Pinto Point SeriesIn the original description of Pinto points, Amsden

(1935:44) notes as major attributes the "definite al-though narrow shoulders and usually.. .incurving [con-cave] base," as well as the relatively great thickness.Rogers (1939:54) later subdivided Pinto points into

four stemmed types and a leaf-shaped type. The four-stemmed types were based on attributes of stem form.In 1957, Harrington (1957:51-53) redefined the Pintotypes so as to include five stemmed forms based pri-marily on shoulder attributes.

Harrington (1957:51) notes the resharpening of theblades of the Pinto points and its effect on the overallform; however, neither Rogers (1939) nor Amsden(19350 make similar observations. The major crite-ria for determining the Pinto types are attributes ofthe shoulders and stem. Most blade attributes are againomitted from the definition of the types. The basalconcavity is recognized by Amsden (1935) andHarrington (1957) as a distinguishing characteristicof the Pinto types, but Rogers' (1939:54-55) Type 2Pinto exhibits a straight base in all examples he illus-trates. In recent years the indented base has becomean element of the Pinto point definition (Thomas 1970,1981; Vaughan and Warren 1987).

The definition of the Pinto point is recognized byarchaeologists of the desert west as a problem in needof clarification and resolution (Basgall and Hall 1993;Schroth 1994; Warren 1980a, 1980b; Warren andVaughan 1987). Warren and Vaughan (1987) addresssome of the problems, but without a large sample ofpoints and innovative typological analyses, the prob-lem of type identification cannot be resolved (Schroth1994; Vaughan and Warren 1987). The Pinto point,as defined here, is essentially what traditional knowl-edge of Mojave Desert archaeology recognizes asPinto points. The goal here is to describe the shape ofthe stem and shoulders of the traditional Pinto pointsin terms of linear and degrees of angle measurements,clear descriptive observations which can be duplicatedby other archaeologists.

Definition of AttributesThe attributes listed here (Figure 1) include some

borrowed directly from Thomas (1981) and others thatexperience has demonstrated to be important in dis-tinguishing points of the Lake Mojave and Pinto se-ries in the Mojave Desert. These are as follows:

Distal Shoulder Angle - DSA. The Distal Shoul-derAngle is that angle formed between line (A) de-fined by the shoulder at the distal point of junctureand line (B) drawn perpendicular to the longitudinal

132


Figure 1: Projectile Point Attributes

Warren 133

FENENGA VOLUME

axis (C) at the intersection of A and C. DSA rangesbetween 290 and 270 degrees. If points are asym-metrical, the small angle value of the DSA is mea-sured. DSA is recorded to the nearest 5 degrees (Tho-mas 1981:11).

Proximal Shoulder Angle - PSA. The ProximalShoulder Angle is that angle formed between the line(D) defined by the proximal point ofjuncture and line(B) plotted perpendicular to the longitudinal axis atthe intersection ofC and D. PSA ranges between zeroand 270 degrees. Ifpoints are asymmetrical, the largerangle for the PSA is measured. (Thomas measuredthe smaller angle. However, by measuring only thesmaller angle the possibility of recording use-lifemodification is increased.) PSA is recorded to the near-est five degrees (Thomas 1981:11).

Basal Indentation Ration - BIR. The length mea-sured along the longitudinal axis (C) divided by themaximum length measured parallel to the longitudi-nal axis (C). The Basal Indentation Ratio ranges be-tween .0 and about .90 (Thomas 198 1:11).

Basal Width - WB. The width of the widest por-tion of the base (Thomas 1981:13).

Neck Width - WN. The width of the stem at theintersection of the stem and shoulders.

Maximum Width of Shoulder- MWSh. Width ofblade at the intersection of blade edge and shoulder.

Shoulder Width-Maximum Width at Shoulder Ra-tio - WSh/MWSh. Ratio of the Shoulder Width tothe Maximum Width at the Shoulder. Shoulder Width-Maximum Width at Shoulder Ratio = WSh/MWSh.

Stem Length - LS. Stem Length is the length ofthe stem from base to intersection with shoulder, mea-sured parallel to Longitudinal Axis. If shoulders areasymmetrical the smaller value is measured.

An additional term needs to be defined before thiskey can be used in a consistent manner. The term"shoulder" is not defined by Thomas (1970, 1981)although the primary division in his key is based onthe presence or absence of this attribute. In most casesthe presence or absence of a shoulder would be agreedupon by most archaeologists. However, as the shoul-der becomes less pronounced and as the DSA and PSAapproach a difference of 180 degrees, agreement as tothe presence or absence of the shoulder will certainlydecrease. Lake Mojave points often exhibit very slightor no shoulders with the difference between the DSAand PSA approaching or equaling 180 degrees. There

is also a clear continuum from these "lanceolate"points to the clearly shouldered points within whattraditionally is called the Lake Mojave point type. Theterm "shoulder" clearly needs a definition which canbe objectively identified.

The terms "shoulder" and "stem" refer to the proxi-mal end of the projectile point, from the location wherethe width is reduced to facilitate hafting, to the base.The angle formed by the shoulder and the stem equalsthe angle of the notch opening (Thomas 1981:14). Asthe notch opening increases the differentiation betweenthe shoulder and the stem decrease. When the notchopening reaches 180 degrees the shoulder and the stemare no longer differentiated and the point becomes"lanceolate" or "diamond" shaped, and is often de-scribed as lacking a stem. However, the taxonomyused here defines the widest point on lanceolate anddiamond shaped forms as the shoulder with the stemdefined by measurable Proximal Shoulder Angle andDistal Shoulder Angle. If the edge below the shoul-der is convex so the DSA and PSA cannot be mea-sured, or if the difference between the PSA and DSAis greater than 180 degrees, then the projectile pointsis classed as shoulderless and nonstemmed.

It should also be noted that lanceolate and diamondshaped shouldered points can be segregated from the"traditionally" shouldered and stemmed forms by theShoulder Width (Maximum Width at Shoulder[MWSh] minus Neck Width [WN], MWSh-WN=WSh). All lanceolate and diamond shaped pointswill have a shoulder width of zero (MWSh-WN=0)whereas all points with notch openings less than 180degrees will have Shoulder Widths greater than zero(MWSh-WN>0).

The Taxonomy: Key I forLake Mojave and Pinto Series

The taxonomic system utilized here is borroweddirectly from Thomas (1,981); the initial steps are iden-tical to those described in Thomas' Monitor ValleyProjectile Point Key (Thomas 1981:25). Because theunstemmed, side-notched and small stemmed pointsare not part of the Lake Mojave and Pinto Series pointsthat portion of the key has not been reproduced here.The following represents steps added to the MonitorValley Projectile Point Key in order to incorporate thePinto, Lake Mojave, and Silver Lake Points from theMojave Desert.

134


Key I: Lake Mojave and Pinto Point Series

Point is unshoulderedPoint is shoulderedPoint is side-notchedPoint is stemmedPoint is small. Neck width < 10.00 mmPoint has neck width >10.00 mmPoint has basal width 10.00 mmPoint has basal width < 10.00 mmPoint has BIR < .98Point has BIR .98Point has thickness < 6.4 mmPoint has thickness 6.4 mm and WSh < 12.75 mnPoint has WSh/MWSh ration £ 7.4 mm and WSh >

Point has WSh/MWSh ratio £ .15Point has WSh/MWSh ratio > .15Point has PSA £ 105Point has PSA > 105Point has PSA 80Point has PSA < 80Point has DSA > 80Point has DSA < 80Point has DSA 220Point has DSA < 220Point has Basal Width MWShPoint has Basal Width < MWShPoint has DSA 220Point has DSA < 220Point has LS/MWSh ratio < .68Point has LS/MWSh ratio .68Point has LS/MWSh ratio £ .45Point has LS/MWSh ratio > .45Point has PSA > 85Point has PSA £ 85Point has 8.5 mm ShW 2.0 mmOtherPoint has LS/MWSh ratio .25Point has LS/MWSh ratio < .25

Out of key(2)

Out of Key

(3)Out of Key

(4)(5)(14)

(6)(17)

Elko or Gatecliff Seriesn (7)12.75 Elko or Gatecliff Series

Pinto Series

(8)(9)(12)(10)

Out of key(11)

Out of keyPinto sloping shoulder with straight stemPinto square shoulder with straight stem

Out of key(13)

Pinto sloping shoulder with expanding stem

Pinto square shoulder with expanding stem

(15)(16)

Out of KeyLake Mojave Short-stem (formally Silver Lake)Lake Mojave Short-stem (formally Silver Lake)Lake Mojave Long-stem (formally Lake Mojave)

(18)Out of Key

Silver Lake RectangularOut of Key

1.la.2.2a.3.3a.4.4a.5.5a.6.6a.6b.7.7a.8.8a.9.9a.10.10a.11.1la.12.12a.13.13a.14.14a.15.15a.16.16a.17.17a.18.18a.

Warren 135

FENENGA VOLUME

DiscussionThe method of typological cross dating appears to

be relatively simple and straight forward, but differ-entiation between periods and horizons, and betweenthese concepts of time and the concepts of culturalunits are not consistently recognized. The followingdiscussion contains descriptions oftwo uses of the timesensitive artifact types, the (through convention) areforms that are easily recognized, relatively complex,and preferably numerous. Such artifacts may be ei-ther horizon markers or period markers, and the dif-ference between them requires different applicationsfor developing chronologies. Because the differencesbetween the two concepts is not always recognized,scholars have arrived at incorrect evaluations of theeffectiveness of typological cross dating.

Meighan (1989) presents a critical review of thetwo articles that concerned the age of the Pinto points.These articles (Jenkins 1987; Vaughan and Warren1987) were the result of archaeological investigationsat Fort Irwin, and used the Warren (1980, 1984; War-ren and Crabtree 1986) chronology. Meighan's com-ments illustrate some misconceptions regarding theuse if this projectile point chronology.

Both of these articles, and most previous work-ers, started with the assumption that Pinto pointswere time markers and that they could be usedto delineate reasonably short time periods(Meighan 1989:114).

The Pinto period in Warren's chronology extends over3000 years (4000 to 7000 B.P.) and Jenkins (1987)argues for a beginning date of 8400 B.P. for Pintopoints, giving the Pinto points at least a 4400 yearstime span. Clearly, neither Jenkins nor Vaughan andwarren assumed that Pinto points "could be used todelineate reasonably short time periods."

There are few projectile point forms in the Cali-fornia and southern Nevada deserts that can be shownto have persisted for only a brief period of time, andthere is much temporal overlapping of the projectilepoint forms. This leads to a problem of the "tradi-tional" use oftime sensitive artifact types in construct-ing chronologies. Most often time periods are assumedto be equivalent to the temporal distribution of the"time marker" projectile point type. If this were cor-rect, either there is overlapping of time periods (whichis neither logically correct nor archaeologically desir-

able), or one time-sensitive projectile point type re-places an earlier one in an instant, and they do not co-exist. To assume that a projectile point form, charac-teristic of a temporal unit, would be immediately RE-PLACED by another projectile point form character-istic of the succeeding period is to embrace the un-likely. About the only way such a change of pointtypes could take place is I the people of the later pe-riod occupied it. That is a scenario that seldom oc-curs in the prehistory of the world, and is of limiteduse to archaeologists attempting to establish a chro-nology.

Although his numbers may prove to be wrong,Meighan's (1989:114) point is well taken when hewrites:

Pinto points may well occur over a period ofmore than 5000 years, and published age esti-mates span 7000 years. If this is so, use of thesepoints as a time marker provides a pretty bluntinstrument for observing climatic or any othersequential changes...

The Pinto point type is defined here as a part of achronological model that makes it possible to demon-strate cultural continuity and change throughout theearly prehistory of the Mojave Desert. This model isneither fine grained nor chronologically fixed. It is amodel designed to reflect the real time of the past andas such must be modified and adjusted as additionaldata are recovered. The Awl site, CA-SBr-4562(Basgall and Hall 1992; Jenkins and Warren 1984;Jenkins; Warren and Wheeler 1986); site CA-SBr-5251(Hall 1992); Rogers Ridge, CA-SBr-5250 (Hall 1992;Jenkins 1985, 1986); and sites on Nelson Wash (War-ren 1991) have provided data that clearly support aninitial age for Pinto points greater than the 3000 to4000 years ago, generally accepted in 1980. The newdates for the appearance ofPinto points eliminates thehiatus between the Lake Mojave and Pinto occupa-tions and illustrates a cultural continuity between thetwo periods.A single cultural tradition extends from the begin-

ning of the Lake Mojave period (which is not yet ad-equately dated) at earlier than ca. 9500 years, to wellinto the Pinto period. The Lake Mojave period is char-acterized by the Lake Mojave projectile point typesas defined above, e.g., Short Stemmed and LongStemmed Lake Mojave points. The characteristic

136


cultural assemblage of this period (e.g., San Dieguitoor Lake Mojave complex) includes (in addition to theprojectile points) a larger number of leaf-shapedbifaces that served as cutting and piercing tools, coresfrom which flakes could be removed as needed, andother functions still unknown. Other characteristicsof this assemblage are: well formed domed unifaces("scrapers"), shaped rather like tortoise shells; flakedstone crescents and eccentrics; small beaked engrav-

ers, and manos and metates (rare).The materials used in the production of the flaked

stone tools are oddly patterned. The bifaces were pro-

duced most often from basalt and other fine grainedvolcanics and more rarely of cryptocrystalline mate-rials and obsidian. The unifaces, on the other hand,were most often made on flakes of cryptocrystallinematerials, with basalt and other fine grained stonesmaking up a smaller percentage of these tools.

The transition from the Lake Mojave complex tothe Pinto Basin complex of the Pinto period does notoccur at a single moment; but over some as yet unde-termined span of time, which may be on the order of500 to 1000 years. The changes that occur include a

change in projectile types with: first an addition ofPinto points and unnamed forms resembling Pinto andSilver Lake points; an increase in the use of millingstones; the disappearance of the crescents, eccentrics,and small beaked gravers; and the addition of drills.The uniface types continue as do the bifaces. Fur-thermore, the pattern of tool stone use, with basalt andother fine grained volcanics preferred for the manu-

facture ofbifaces and cryptocrystalline materials mostcommon for unifacial tools, is found throughout atleast the first half of the Pinto period.

The end of the Pinto period is marked by the intro-duction of the Gypsum and Elko series points. Thereis an associated change in artifact assemblages with a

greatly reduced use of the large, well-formed domedunifaces, and the occurrence of large numbers ofunifacially worked flakes. In addition, cryptocrystal-line materials were used for the production of uni-faces and bifaces in very high percentages.

Theoretically, the early (Lake Mojave-Pinto peri-ods) portion of the cultural sequence of the Californiaand southern Nevada deserts can be subdivided intoat least three periods based on the occurrence of pro-

jectile point types (Figure 2). Lake Mojave pointscharacterize the Lake Mojave period. The end of the

Lake Mojave period is marked by the introduction ofthe Pinto points. Thus the initial, or early, Pinto pe-riod contains both Lake Mojave and Pinto points, to-gether with Silver Lake and other point forms. Fol-lowing this initial Pinto period the Lake Mojave pointsare no longer found, but Pinto and Silver Lake formscontinue and other forms are developed. This modelpredicts the projectile point assemblages of the RogersRidge site (Jenkins 1987) and the Awl site (Basgalland Hall 1992). However, the validity of this hypo-thetical period has been criticize (Basgall and Hall1992) because they do not accept the dates obtained,or the association of Pinto and Lake Mojave points inthe same geological unit.

Chronological periods are units of time marked bythe use of diagnostic projectile points. Thus the LakeMojave period begins with the introduction of the LakeMojave point series; the Pinto period with the firstoccurrence of Pinto point types, and the Gypsum pe-riod with the occurrence of the Elko point series, Gyp-sum point type, and/or Humboldt point series. Eachperiod ends when a new diagnostic projectile pointtype first occurs, not when the characteristic point typeno longer occurs.

When referring to chronological periods there areno "transitions" between periods, as there are no tran-sitions between years, or months, or days. The defi-nition of a chronological period is not a definition ofa cultural unit. Cultural units do undergo transforma-tions, and those transformations may occur within oracross boundaries of chronological periods; or in rareinstances correspond to the boundary of chronologi-cal periods. It is becoming increasingly clear that thePinto period is a time of major cultural transforma-tions. The cultural assemblage that is characteristicof the late Pinto period is poorly represented, may beabsent in the central Mojave, and where it occurs else-where in the Mojave may be very different from theartifact assemblage that characterizes the early Pintoperiod.

If the concept of periods, marked by a Lake Mo-jave and Pinto point series, is used as a chronologicalframework, the cultural data associated with them arethe material remains ofLate Pleistocene-Early Holocenepeoples. When this chronological framework is usedin conjunction with absolute and relative dating tech-niques, such as radiocarbon, obsidian hydration, se-riation, etc., the associated cultural data can then be

Warren 137

FENENGA VOLUME

FINAL PINTO PERIOD(COILTJECTOR STRATEGY WITH SITE SPECIALIZATION)

9

0

0

INITIAL PINTO PERIOD(FORAGER STRATEGY)

Pinto

(FORAGER STRATEGY)

0

9

Lake Mojave

9*k

Silver Lake

Figure 2: Lake Mojave and Pinto Periods in the Central Mojave Desert

138


analyzed for spatial/temporal units of cultural simi-larities, and for variability of cultural data. The unitsof cultural similarity are the building blocks of cul-tural history; but the framework of temporal periodsfacilitated the identification of a single cultural tradi-tion for the Lake Mojave and Pinto periods.

The temporal units, i.e., periods, identified by timemarkers and subdivided by means of horizon mark-ers, radiocarbon dates, obsidian hydration readings,seriation of artifact types, and other forms of chrono-logical orderings, facilitate in the identification andanalysis of variability within the cultural data. Wehave identified the Lake Mojave-Pinto cultural tradi-tion that persists for several thousand years. Duringthese several thousand years the Mojave becomes in-creasingly arid and resources, including artiodac-tyls, decrease. The human populations must adapt tothese changing conditions or decrease in number.Warren has postulated certain kinds of changes underthese conditions by use of a "subsistence focus model"(Warren 1986; Warren and Lyneis 1986).

Focusing...may be viewed as the process inwhich a group of individuals directs its inter-ests and energies toward a production systemand its application to the environment. Thisresults in the acceptance of innovation arisingwithin the subsystem and resistance to changeoriginating outside the focus. The subsistencefocus thus has an internal dynamic that is sepa-rate from, but interacts with, environmental anddemographic forces. Changes in the subsistencesystem result from these dynamic systems.

The subsistence focus model predicts a two-stage response to declining resources. Becausethe subsistence focus is the production systemwhere creativity is most freely expressed andresistance to innovation minimized, the initialresponse is an attempt to increase productivitywithin the subsistence focus through manipu-lation of the technology and its application, andintensification of these procurement activities.If productivity continues to decrease then thesecond stage response may begin, taking theform of a decrease in population and/or gen-eral reduction in cultural complexity and costof its maintenance. This entails some degreeof cultural disintegration, which in turn weak-

ens the subsistence focus. If the second stageresponse is initiated then new emphasis isplaced on manipulation of, and experimenta-tion with the technologies of other productionsystems and their application, creating diversi-fication within the subsistence system (Warren1986:8).

As a point of illustration, the first stage response isconsidered here. On the basis of the subsistence fo-cus model it may be predicted that as the MojaveDesert dried and artiodactyls became increasinglydifficult to take, the first reaction of the hunters wouldbe to manipulate elements of the artiodactyl huntingfocus. This manipulation would be seenarchaeologically in an increased variability in the hunt-ing tools; for example, increased number of types, and/or increased variability of forms within types. In or-der to demonstrate the correlation of the increasedvariability with changing resources chronological con-trol must be maintained. This is most cleanly donewhen the chronological framework is conceptuallydistinct from the cultural units.

It is in the correlation of cultural variability withinthe Lake Mojave-Pinto tradition with the increasedaridity and changes of local resources that the cul-ture-environment relationships are to be found. Theserelationships form the basis for the study of the ecol-ogy of this prehistoric cultural tradition. This corre-lation of changing cultural variability with changingenvironmental conditions would not be easily madeif the chronological unit were congruent with the cul-tural unit. Changing diversity and variability may beidentified within the Lake Mojave-Pinto cultural tra-dition, and it is the flexibility of this framework oftemporal periods that allows for the investigation ofcultural ecological processes.

In summary, the period concept allows for the in-ferential establishment of culture history, but containsthe flexibility necessary for the investigation of cul-tural processes that involve changing cultural variabil-ity through time, space and cultural units.

References Cited

Amsden, Charles A.1935 The Pinto Basin Artifacts. Southwest

Museum Papers 9:33-50. Los Angeles.1938 Lake Mojave Artifacts. In The Ar-

Warren 139

FENENGA VOLUME

chaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mojave:A Sym-posium, by Elizabeth W. Crozer Campbell, W.H. Campbell, E. Antevs, C. A. Amsden, J. A.Barbeiri, and F. A. Bode. Southwest MuseumPapers 11:51-98. Los Angeles.

Basgall, M. E.1991 The Archaeology ofNelson Basin and

Adjacent Areas, Fort Irwin, San BernardinoCounty, California. Submitted to U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Los Angeles District by FarWestern Anthropological Research Group, Inc.Davis, CA.

Basgall, M. E., and M. C. Hall1991 Archaeology oftheAwl Site (CA-SBr-

4562), Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County,California. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers, Los Angeles.

1993 Observations on Temporal and Mor-phological Variation in Pinto Point Forms fromthe Southwestern Great Basin. TwentyseventhAnnual Meeting of the Society for CaliforniaArchaeology, Asilomar, California.

Bettinger, Robert L., and R. E. Taylor1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeologi-

cal Sequences of the Great Basin in InteriorSouthern California. Nevada ArchaeologicalSurvey Research Papers 5:1-26. Reno.

Campbell, Elizabeth W. Crozer1936 Archaeological Problems in the

Southern California Deserts. American Anti-quity 1(4):295-300. Menasha.

Campbell, Elizabeth W. Crozer, and W. H. Campbell1935 The Pinto Basin Site: An Ancient Ab-

original Camping Ground in the CaliforniaDesert. Southwest Museum Papers 9. Los An-geles.

1937 The Lake Mojave Site. In The Ar-chaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mojave:A Sym-posium. Southwest Museum Papers 11:9-44,Los Angeles.

Campbell, Elizabeth W. Crozer, William H. Camp-bell, Ernst Antevs, Charles A. Amsden, Joseph A.Barbieri, and Francis D. Bode1937 The Archaeology ofPleistocene Lake

Mojave: A Symposium. Southwest MuseumPapers 11. Los Angeles.

Hall, M. C.1992 Final Report on the Archaeology of

Tiefort Basin, Fort Irwin, San Bernardino

County, California. Prepared for U.S. ArmyCorp ofEngineers, Los Angeles District, by FarWestern Anthropological Research Group, Inc.Davis, CA.

Harrington, M. R.1933 Gypsum Cave, Nevada. Southwest

Museum Papers 8. Los Angeles.1957 A Pinto Site at Little Lake, Califor-

nia. SouthwestMuseum Papers 17. Los Ange-les.

Jenkins, D. L.1985 Rogers Ridge (4-SBr-5250): A Fos-

sil Spring Site of the Lake Mojave and PintoPeriods - Phase 2 Test Excavations and SiteEvaluation. Fort Irwin Archaeological Re-search Report 18. Wirth Environmental Ser-vices, San Diego.

1986 Flood, Sweat and Spears in the Val-ley of Death: Site Survey and Evaluation inTiefort Basin, Fort Irwin, California. Fort IrwinArchaeological Research Report 17. WirthEnvironmental Service, San Diego.

1987 Dating the Pinto Occupation atRogers Ridge: A Fossil Spring Site in theMojave Desert. Journal of California andGreat Basin Anthropology 6:44-60.

Jenkins, D. L., and C. N. Warren1984 Obsidian Hydration and the Pinto Chro-

nology in the Mojave Desert. Journal ofCali-fornia and Great Basin Anthropology 6:44-60.

Jenkins, D. L., C. N. Warren, and T. Wheeler1986 Test Excavation and Data Recovery

at the Awl Site, SBr-4562: A Pinto Site at FortIrwin, San Bernardino County, California. FortIrwin Archaeological Research Report 22.Wirth Environmental Services, San Diego.

Meighan, C. W.1989 Further Comments on Pinto Point and

their Dating. Journal of California and GreatBasin Anthropology 11 (1): 113-118.

Rogers, M. J.1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower

Basin of the Colorado River and AdjacentDesert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers 3.San Diego.

Schroth, Adella B.1994 The Pinto Point Controversy in the

Western United States. Ph.D. Dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of

140


California, Riverside.Thomas, David Hurst

1970 Archaeology's Operational Impera-tive: Great Basin Projectile Points as a TestCase. University ofCalifornia ArchaeologicalSurvey Annual Report 12:27-60. Los Angeles.

1981 How to Classify the Projectile Pointsfrom Monitor Valley, Nevada. In Journal ofCali-fornia and Great Basin Anthropology 3:7-43.

Tuohy, Donald R.1969 Breakage, Burin Facets, and the Prob-

able Linage Among Lake Mojave, Silver Lake,and Other Varieties of Paleo-Indian ProjectilePoints in the Desert West. Nevada State Mu-seum Anthropological Papers 14:132-152.Carson City.

Vaughan, Sheila J., and Claude N. Warren1987 Towards a Definition of Pinto Points.

Journal ofCalifornia and Great Basin Anthro-pology 9(2):199-213.

Warren, Claude N. (ed.)1991 Archaeological Investigations atNelson Wash, Fort Irwin, California. Fort IrwinArchaeological Project Research Report 23.Dames and Moore, San Diego.

Warren, Claude N.1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Re-

view and Hypothesis. American Antiquity32:168-187.

1980a The Archaeology and Archaeological

Resources of the Amargosa-Mojave Basin Plan-ning Units. In A Cultural Resource Overviewfor the Amargosa-Mojave Basin PlanningUnits, pp. 1-134. Claude N. Warren, MarthaKnack, and Elizabeth von Till Warren, eds.United States Department of Interior, Bureauof Land Management, Riverside, CA.

1980b Pinto Points and Problems in MojaveDesert Archeology. Anthropological Papers inMemory ofEarl H. Swanson, Jr., pp. 67-76. L.B. Harten, C. N. Warren, and D. R. Tuohy eds.Idaho State Museum of Natural History,Pocatello.

1984 The Desert Region. In CaliforniaArchaeology, pp. 339-430. Michael Morrato ed.Academic Press, Orlando.

1986 Early Holocene Cultural Adaptationin the Mojave Desert. Paper presented at theWorld Archaeological Congress, 1-7 Septem-ber, Southampton and London.

Warren, Claude N., and Robert H. Crabtree1986 Prehistory of the Southwestern Area.

In Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Vol-ume 11: Great Basin, pp. 183-193. WarrenD'Azevedo ed. Smithsonian Institution, Wash-ington D.C.

Warren, Claude N., and Margaret Lyneis1986 Fort Irwin Preservation Plan, Volume

2: The Research Overview. Coyote Press, Sali-nas, CA.

Warren 141

pinto periods in mojave desert prehistory introduction

Documents