One Gun Phase Points: A Reassessment of the Late Side-Notched Projectile Point System in Alberta

Ar

tic

le

Canadian Journal of Archaeology/Journal Canadien d’Archéologie 37: 248–273 (2013)

1University of Calgary, ES 740, Department of Archaeology, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4 [[email protected]]

Abstract. Investigations on the Canadian Plains have been unsuccessful in differen-tiating between pre-contact projectile points recovered from One Gun phase sites—an intrusive group to the region—and points from the locally defined Cayley series, which are frequently used as diagnostic markers of the Old Women’s phase. This paper uses a variety of statistical methods to investigate similarities between points from the One Gun phase Cluny site, and points from the uppermost levels (Old Women’s phase) of the Head Smashed-In Buffalo Jump site. Metrics were collected on digital images from direct 2-D point scans to promote consistency, accuracy, and replicability. While population level differences were found, individual specimens could not be identified to their respective phase. In this case, pro-jectile points are not reliable variables for linking components with phases in the proto-historic period, which suggests that the point type may be best described as a horizon style.

Résumé. L’état actuel des recherches dans les plaines canadiennes ne permet pas encore de différencier les pointes de pro-jectile précontact retrouvées sur les sites de la phase One Gun—un groupe intrusif dans cette région- des pointes définies localement comme appartenant à la série Caley, lesquelles sont fréquemment utilisées comme marqueur diagnostique de la phase Old Women’s. Cette étude utilise différentes méthodes statistiques afin de documenter les similarités entre les pointes de la phase One Gun du site Cluny et les pointes des niveaux supérieurs (phase Old Women’s) du site Head Smashed-In Buffalo Jump. Les mesures ont été

prises sur des images numérisées 2D afin de faciliter la cohérence, la précision et la réplicabilité des données. Bien que des dif-férences à l’échelle de la population aient été notées, les spécimens individuels n’ont cependant pas pu être associés à leur phase respective. Dans le cas présent, les pointes de projectile ne peuvent donc pas être considé-rées comme étant des variables fiables pour associer les composantes d’un site avec les différentes phases protohistoriques, ce qui suggère que les types de pointes devraient plutôt être utilisés pour définir le style d’un horizon.

The typology of the Late Side-notched Projectile Point system

(LSPP) has been the subject of much debate among archaeologists work-ing on the Northern Canadian Plains (e.g., Forbis 1962, 1977; Kehoe 1966; MacNeish 1954; Peck and Ives 2001). One particular problem that has con-strained previous classifications is the strong similarity between points from two very distinct phases in Alberta: the One Gun and Old Women’s phases (Forbis 1977:56). This is an issue because projectile points have been used, and still are (e.g., Peck 2011), as the primary markers of cultural-historical classifi-cation on the Great Plains. Although

One Gun Phase Points: A Reassessment of the Late Side-Notched Projectile Point System in Alberta

Tyler James Murchie†

Journal Canadien d’Archéologie 37 (2013)

ONE GUN PHASE POINTS • 249

archaeologists are painfully aware of their inherently biased and fragmented data (in terms of material survivorship), entire phases are often classified using a similarity in point form without a suf-ficient justification for the typological ability of projectile points to differenti-ate human populations. Projectile points from the intrusive One Gun phase are indistinguishable from Cayley Series points (Peck and Ives 2001:184), yet the Cayley Series point is argued to be a viable diagnostic criterion for identifying Old Women’s components (Peck and Ives 2001:176). This phenomenon does not correlate with the necessary assump-tion that morphological variability in projectile point form is a reliable vari-able for classifying phases in the region.

I initially assumed that the inability to distinguish between the points in previ-ous investigations was due to an insuf-ficient sample size of One Gun points, as well as a lack of first hand investiga-tion into the materials. Peck and Ives (2001:184) were only able to use pub-lished data of the One Gun points from Forbis’ (1977) investigations. This work addresses the premise that point forms recovered from One Gun and Old Wom-en’s contexts should differ in statistically significant ways because they belong to different phases. If projectile points from these two phases can be differenti-ated it will confirm the hypothesis, while the inability to consistently identify individual specimens to their respective populations will challenge the assumed utility of point typologies as diagnostic markers. This question is assessed using points from the One Gun phase, recov-ered from the Cluny site (EePf-1), and points from the uppermost levels (1–3) of the Head Smashed-In Buffalo Jump Site (DkPj-1). These levels are consid-ered to be Old Women’s phase (Peck

2011:386). To test this hypothesis, a rep-licable, standardized, and transparent methodology was used, which was devel-oped by Walde (2012:212). This method allows for an easily distributable visual-ization of measurements, which could promote a discussion of how projectile point measurements should be taken. This involves the use of 2-D scanning to create a digital record of the points, their measurements and overall form, as well as the use of statistical methods in an attempt to create objective and mutually exclusive classifications, devoid of the ambiguity common in point typologies. The creation of 2-D scans allows for the digital storing of measurement records, and the distribution of those records to others via an online database platform.

Archaeological ContextThe archaeological record on the north-western Canadian Plains is traditionally divided into temporal segments referred to as periods. The chronology is divided into the Early, Middle, and Late periods, which is strongly based on the develop-ment of weapon technologies, and can be juxtaposed with their co-occurring cli-mactic episodes: Glacial; Atlantic (often referred to as the Holocene climatic optimum); and NeoGlacial (Dyck 1983). The evolution of other technologies (such as pottery) and cultural develop-ments (such as a long term intensifica-tion of bison hunting) is also reflected in this tripartite culture historical chronology on the northern plains. The Terminal or Protohistoric Late Period is the focus of this paper.

The Late Period is defined by the introduction of pottery and bow and arrow technology that precipitated an adaptive radiation of point forms to function with the new missile system (Lyman et al. 2008). Point forms develop

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 37 (2013)

250 • MUrCHIE

during the Middle-to-Late transition and through the early Late Period into small side-notched, corner-notched, and tri-angular arrowheads. The Avonlea pro-jectile point is traditionally interpreted as representing the introduction of bow and arrow technology to the plains (reeves 1983:162). Many plains archae-ologists follow the definition proposed by reeves (1970; 1983) where he defines Avonlea as a supra-regional phase. How-ever, it has recently been suggested that archaeological evidence of Avonlea is more suggestive of a horizon, with a number of internal regional variants (Meyer and Walde 2009; Walde et al. 1995:24; Walde and Meyer 2003:139). This is important for a discussion of the LSPP because of the large spatial distri-bution and morphological consistency of Cayley Series points, which could be interpreted to mirror aspects of its cul-tural and technological predecessor—Avonlea—if the notion of an Avonlea horizon is considered accurate.

The Avonlea phase has been dated to 1750–1150 B.P. (Dyck 1983:122). The Late Period begins c. 1950 B.P. and transitions into the Protohistoric Period c. 250 B.P., which is marked by the addi-tion of European trade goods into Late Prehistoric assemblages (Peck 2011:417–419). The Protohistoric continues until contact is made between Europeans and Indigenous people on the northwestern plains. The two most relevant phases for this analysis are the Old Women’s phase and the One Gun phase.

The Old Women’s phase succeeds Avonlea, and is located on the north-western Canadian Plains (Figure 1). Materials from this phase can be found in the provinces of Alberta (e.g., reeves 1983), Saskatchewan (e.g., Meyer 1988), and the state of Montana (e.g., Brum-ley and reenie 1995:35). As with most

other entities on the northern plains, large scale bison hunting is the basis of Old Women’s subsistence. The phase is dated 1100–250 B.P. (Peck 2011:375). Old Women’s is defined by its pottery, local or Montana lithics, split pebbles, and the extensive use of petrified wood (reeves 1983:19), in addition to the Cayley Series projectile point (Peck and Ives 2001:176). The ‘diagnostic’ pottery style was defined by Byrne (1973:356), and is referred to as Saskatchewan Basin complex: Late Variant Pottery. recent investigations by Walde and Meyer (2003) have found evidence that man-dates a reinterpretation of Late Period pottery. They contend that Late Variant pottery should be incorporated into the Ethridge Ware designation (2003:142). Furthermore, because of the presence of Ethridge Ware in Avonlea assemblages, and the continued use of it during the Old Women’s phase, there appears to be strong evidence of cultural conti-nuity between the sequential phases (2003:142). This is important to note because of a similar regional continu-ity in point form that was found in this investigation.

Head Smashed-In Buffalo Jump (DkPj-1) was used as the Old Women’s site in this study. It is a bison kill and processing site located on the south-eastern edge of the Porcupine Hills in southwestern Alberta. Cayley series points are argued to be present in levels 1 through 7B at Head Smashed-In (Peck 2011:386). Level 7B is considered to be the oldest Old Women’s level at the site with an associated 14C date of 1270 ± 90 B.P. (rL-257; reeves 1978; in Peck 2011:386). Only projectile points recovered from levels 1–3 at Head Smashed-In were used in my analysis (reeves 1978). This was to control for points made at comparable times, as a



Fig

ure

1. A

map

of

the

nor

ther

n G

reat

Pla

ins

wit

h r

elev

ant

arch

aeol

ogic

al s

ites

, eco

zon

es, a

nd

cult

ure

phas

e di

stri

buti

ons.

Dat

a pr

ojec

ted

wit

h a

NA

D 1

927

Alb

ers

geog

raph

ic c

oord

inat

e sy

stem

. Th

e ec

oreg

ion

dat

a (T

erre

stri

al E

core

gion

s L

evel

1; C

omm

issi

on f

or E

nvi

ron

men

tal

Coo

pera

tion

199

7) w

as a

cqui

red

from

ESr

I’s

Arc

GIS

Geo

data

base

. Th

e sp

atia

l ext

ents

of

the

Old

Wom

en’s

an

d M

ortl

ach

ph

ases

wer

e ba

sed

on a

geo

refe

ren

ced

trac

ing

of F

igur

e 5.

3 fr

om N

ich

olso

n e

t al.

(201

1:15

7). T

he

spat

ial e

xten

t of t

he

On

e G

un p

has

e w

as b

ased

on

the

dist

ribu

-ti

on o

f Clu

ny

Com

plex

cer

amic

s id

enti

fied

by

Byr

ne

(197

3:36

6) a

nd

Wal

de (

2006

).


252 • MUrCHIE

significant temporal difference could become a biasing variable.

The One Gun phase was initially defined by Byrne (1973:478), and is based largely on materials excavated by Forbis (1977) at the Cluny Site. One Gun is currently dated to the end of the Late Period, around 250–200 B.P. (Peck 2011:435), and is spatially situ-ated in southern Alberta (Figure 1). An effective date range for One Gun has yet to be published because of limita-tions related to radiocarbon dating such young materials. The phase is character-ized by Cluny Complex pottery (Bryne 1973:335–338), scapula knives, pitted handstones, grinding slabs, bell-shaped pits, varieties of Plains Side-notched points, and particularly at the Cluny site—fortifications (Peck 2011:435). Two One Gun sites are generally used as the primary examples of the phase—the Cluny Fortified Village and the Morkin site (Bryne 1973:471–504). The One Gun phase is commonly interpreted to represent a relatively short occupation of a protohistoric intrusive group onto the northern plains, which is argued to be related to horticultural village groups of the Middle Missouri area in North Dakota (Bryne 1973; Forbis 1977; Walde 2008:15). The uniqueness of One Gun is manifested in its site structures, pottery (Byrne 1973; Walde et al. 1995), faunal assemblage (Walde et al. 2010:83), lithic type propensities (Hughes 2011), and lithic tools (Forbis 1977), all of which indicate that the One Gun phase is sig-nificantly different from the Old Wom-en’s phase. The similarity in point form has been attributed to the brevity of One Gun occupations, and an alleged con-flation of One Gun and Old Women’s components (Peck and Ives 2001:184).

Although the interpretations of mate-rials excavated at the Cluny site in the

1960s initially suggested a short occupa-tion dating to around 220 B.P. (Forbis 1977:1), recent analyses of bovid fetal bone, a detailed topographic survey and exploratory GIS mapping analysis, the discovery of multiple palisade construc-tions, and the discovery of an extended or frequent use of at least two features have all lead to strong suggestions of a longer term or repeated habitation of the site in excess of what was previ-ous suggested by Forbis (Walde et al. 2010:61, 86). Due to the detailed meth-ods of excavation at the Cluny site since archaeological explorations resumed in 2007 (1 cm levels and the collection of almost all provenience values via digital means using total stations), the confla-tion of historic and One Gun phase materials is no longer as significant an issue, and can now be methodologically separated. The One Gun component at the site shows little evidence of a confla-tion with other phases, which reduces the probability that the lack of distinguish-ability between point forms is due to a mixing of phases at Cluny. All of the pro-jectile points recovered from Cluny to date were analyzed for this investigation.

The Late Side-Notched Projectile PointMacNeish (1954:38–40) provided the first classification scheme of LSPP on the northern plains by creating four types: Plains Triangular, Prairie Side-notched, Plains Side-notched, and the Stott Cor-ner-notched projectile point. Despite many efforts to refine the typology, the Prairie-Plains dichotomy is still the predominant system used for classifica-tion. Forbis (1962) produced a seriated typology by identifying seven point types following the antecedent type, Avonlea. Forbis’ system was based on materials recovered from the Old Women’s Buf-falo Jump (Forbis 1962)—located near



Cayley in southern Alberta—as well as the Cluny site (Forbis 1977). Kehoe (1966) altered Forbis’ typology by chang-ing types into varieties, and reinstituted the Prairie-Plains Side-notched distinc-tion. Generally since the 1960s, the LSPP has been classified by the Prairie-Plains dichotomy, and applications of systems developed by Forbis and Kehoe have been treated with varying degrees of indifference.

Peck and Ives (2001) have worked to restructure the Late Period point tax-onomy on the plains to reflect what they interpret to be subtle gradational mor-phological changes in Alberta and Sas-katchewan between 1250 and 650 B.P., as well as an abrupt significant change in morphology in southeastern Saskatch-ewan after 650 B.P. (Peck 1996; Peck and Ives 2001; Peck 2011:375–442). Peck and Ives propose a reclassification of the side-notched system with all western LSPP points belonging to the Cayley series between 1250 and 650 B.P., and eastern side-notched point forms in Saskatch-ewan belonging to the Mortlach Group after 650 B.P. Cayley series points typi-cally have straight-to-concave bases, side notching, irregular flaking, an overall asymmetrical form and cross-section, a mean length of 20 mm, and a mean base and blade width of 12.5 mm (Peck and Ives 2001:176–177). Despite the One Gun phase clearly representing a sepa-rate group in the region, Peck and Ives (Peck 1996:114, 2011:436; Peck and Ives 2001:184) were unable to distinguish One Gun phase points from the local Cayley Series. Both Forbis (1977:52–56) and Peck have found that Cluny points are indistinguishable from Old Women’s (Cayley Series) points, with Forbis sug-gesting a LSPP horizon with his seriated type classification. Forbis found that the same point types at Cluny (following his

seriated typology) were present in Old Women’s contexts.

MethodA statistical analysis is only useful when there is an acceptable level of consist-ency in data collection. Unfortunately however, consistency can often be over-looked in artifact analysis. The purpose behind digitizing the projectile point data is to facilitate replicable data col-lection, and to encourage others to use similar methodologies to promote the exchange of unbiased data between investigators. While an attribute such as greatest length might appear ini-tially to be an obvious measurement, without a standardized procedure for collecting metrics, multiple investiga-tors can produce statistically significant differences between identical samples. This issue becomes far more apparent when using discrete classifications. In an unpublished investigation of projectile points from the Gull Lake site, Walde (personal communication 2011) statisti-cally tested the results obtained by three independent researchers. The individu-als all analyzed the same sample, yet the results of a statistical comparison of the nominal data indicated that the samples were significantly different (p < 0.00). This is an example of a type 1 error, which is the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis. As many points are asymmetrically formed, the question of discrete classification, attribute measure-ment locations, overall orientation, and overall form can become very subjective. If three independent analysts can gather statistically different data from identi-cal samples, the processes of analysing projectile points, and classifying discrete attributes, is compromised.

To combat these problems, a digital methodology was used. The methods


254 • MUrCHIE

utilized were developed by Walde (2012:212) to minimize the difficulties noted from the Gull Lake site. Whit-taker et al. (1998) discusses the issue of standardization in an archaeological context and its fundamental role in any scientific inquiry. These authors found that there are often large ranges of error present in typological assessments among multiple investigators. The learn-ing genealogy—the genealogical series of supervisors from whom researchers learn typological systems—was found to be a strong factor in the consistency of respondents, as was the relative gen-eration of student of which one was a member (Whittaker et al. 1998:150). To advance typological consistency, it is important to improve the detail and precision of the definitions, as well as to create robust comparative collections and describe the range of ‘acceptable’ variation from the mode for any given typology. This analysis assists in this regard by using imaging software to measure digital point scans. By building this digital database, others can observe how the measurements were taken, and potentially discuss standardized loca-tions and procedures for collecting the data. Minimally, it will assist others in duplicating results and provide a useful tool for understanding how artifacts were evaluated in a given study.

P o i n t s f r o m C l u n y a n d H e a d Smashed-In were initially sorted to find artifacts that were sufficiently intact to collect measurements. Many point tips were identified, however these were not included in the analysis as no relevant measurements could be obtained; a measurement was only taken when the feature was determined to be complete. Bodies were only included if they had at least the maximum shoulder width (SW) as determined by the upper por-

tion of the notches. While all points and suspected point fragments were scanned and organized into individual AdobeTM

IllustratorTM (Adobe Systems 2011a) file types for the purposes of digitization, only points with usable measurements and those which I had a reasonable level of confidence in being projectile points were used for the statistical procedures. A priori typological or nominal classifica-tions were not made. Only point form (notched, stemmed, or triangular) and lithic type was noted in this regard, although the base and notch shapes were outlined in IllustratorTM to facili-tate future work enhancing nominal point classifications. This again is due to the lack of objectivity when using discrete projectile point attributes, and the problem of ‘forcing’ specimens into pre-existing classifications.

Only points from levels 1–3 at Head Smashed-In were analyzed, while all specimens from Cluny were used. This was done in an attempt to control for the temporal variable, i.e., the assumption that the points are reasonably contem-poraneous. This is because One Gun materials are protohistoric, while the Old Women’s phase has a much longer time depth. Whether the levels used from these two sites are contempora-neous, and whether they are culturally distinct are necessary assumptions at this stage. The only diagnostic variables for differentiating One Gun and Old Women’s occupations at a kill site are the projectile points, which is itself problem-atic. But there is no current evidence to suggest a One Gun occupation at Head Smashed-In. This issue will be detailed further in the discussion. In total, 77 points from Cluny were sufficiently intact to collect measurements, as were 101 from Head Smashed-In. Only 25 points have been recovered since exca-



vations resumed at Cluny; none of the earlier points recovered by Forbis (1977) were provenienced.

Digital sliding calipers with a reso-lution of 0.01 mm, an accuracy of 0.02 mm, and repeatability of 0.01 mm, were utilized to collect measurements which could not be obtained digitally using a two dimensional scanner; these measurements were neck thickness (NT) and greatest thickness (GT). A Hewlett PackardTM ScanJetTM 4100C scanner was used to digitally scan projectile points into TIFF files at a resolution of 300 dots per inch (DPI) to ensure no loss of image quality. The accuracy of this method was tested by scanning known length objects (rulers). There do not appear to be any detectable dimen-sional alterations in the digital images of late period projectile points using this method. These bulk scans were then split using the software AdobeTM Photo-shopTM (a bitmap image processing and manipulation program) (Adobe Systems 2011b) and AdobeTM IllustratorTM (a vec-tor-based postscript drawing program) (Adobe Systems 2011a) into individual image files to display a single point. Although only one face of each point was scanned, both faces could be scanned if desired. Each was then modified with dimensional markings in AdobeTM IllustratorTM. The measurement tool (an internal software ruler) was used for the collection of all metric data in millime-tres, with an accuracy of 0.001 mm; how-ever the angle measurements had to be calculated separately and are displayed in degrees with an accuracy of 0.001°. Although the last decimal place can vary with repeated measurements, the digital record of the exact line of measurement aids in replicability. reducing the sig-nificant digits to minimize this problem might be a useful modification in future

tests. AdobeTM was used because of its widespread accessibility. SYSTAT 13TM (a statistics and statistical graphics software package) (SYSTAT Software Inc. 2009), was used to analyze the data. Similar investigations have used more robust scanning hardware (3-D scanners) and software to automate metric collection on lithics (e.g. Grosman et al. 2008). However, because of the low cost of the equipment used in this paper, the abil-ity to scan many artifacts at once, and the relatively two dimensional nature of late period projectile points, I think that the method developed by Walde (2012:212) has a much wider accessibil-ity to other researchers when analyzing relatively 2-D tools for the purposes of developing or investigating typologies. Although the methodology I have used does not yield the same accuracy as those which utilize 3-D scanning technologies (Grosman et al. 2008), it is sufficiently accurate to capture the variability in this study while being cost efficient and rela-tively simple.

All of the measurements were taken with the point tip oriented upward, and the midline being used as the y-axis to center the image. This was done without regard for the base shape and overall skewness; base skew was found to be a complicating factor in other orientation techniques, and simply ignoring asym-metry below the blade was found to be the only way to maximize replicability (see Figure 2 for a listing of variables and an example of the orientation). The most proximal portion of the base was placed on the base line with this orientation, and the point’s midline was used as the center line. This orien-tation was used to ensure consistency, and to reflect the best presumed angle that the point would be hafted at to maximize the puncturing capability of


256 • MUrCHIE

the missile weapon. The greatest and smallest haft height measurements can be significantly affected by asymmetry in the base, although base asymmetry is an issue in presumably all orientations. The measurement locations chosen were not based on a priori interpretations; the

purpose behind using these metrics was to capture the most measureable aspects of a projectile point while minimizing subjectivity and incompatibility due to asymmetry and skew in base shape. Measurements like notch depth were not specifically taken. This is due to the

Figure 2. Variables measured and associated terminology with acronyms for the Late Side-notched Projectile Point.



subjectivity in deciding on a location to measure from, as the shoulder and basal edge of many points have gradual slopes rather than abrupt margins. This measurement was derived instead by cal-culating the difference between overall width and neck width.

Descriptive statistical methods were used initially to observe unimodal and multimodal patterns (the number of populations), assess the degrees of central tendency and dispersion (how similar or dissimilar the points were within and between known popula-tions), investigate differential clustering (whether certain kinds of points are dif-ferent from others within a site because of other common variables), and to assess the normality of the distributions (in a simple sense, whether the numeri-cal distribution of the samples are sym-metrical or skewed when graphed as a histogram). Inferential techniques were used to test for normality again, the difference of means (how different the averages are between two known populations), and categorical depen-dency (how useful certain variables are for predicting other variables that might be used to make typologies). All of the inferential statistics used a confidence level of 95% (α = 0.05), which means that if the p-value is smaller than 0.05, there is at least 95% confidence that the populations are different. If the value is above 0.05, then the assumption is that we are not confident enough to say that they are different, and must assume that the samples are likely derived from the same population. Three tests of normal-ity were used: the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (KS Test), the Shapiro-Wilk test, and the Anderson-Darling test. These were completed on all variables; it is impor-tant to test for normality when using parametric tests because normality is a

necessary assumption. The Shapiro-Wilk test has been argued to be the most powerful test of normality (razali and Wah 2011:26–32). This test was taken to be the most reliable means of assessing normality. A thorough visual analysis of the distributions was used in conjunc-tion with the normality tests to minimize the likelihood of a making a type-1 error (incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis of similarity). A student’s t-test (a para-metric two sample difference of means hypothesis test) was completed on all variables. The non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test, which is subsumed within the Kruskal-Wallis test in SYSTATTM, lacks power in comparison to the t-test, but does not require a normal distribution. It was also completed on all variables to strengthen the results. Discriminant function analysis was used to assess the ability to assign individual specimens to their respective populations. This multi-variate statistic is useful in determining whether a set of variables is effective in predicting the category membership of other variables. The discriminant func-tion test used a backward stepwise esti-mation that was weighted by groups. A discriminant function analysis produces an eigenvalue, which is used as another indicator of significance for hypothesis testing; eigenvalues greater than 1.00 are typically considered significant.

Results

Point FormPoint form refers to the overall shape of a projectile point; in this case, whether it is notched, stemmed, or triangular. At Cluny and Head Smashed-In, side-notched points constitute the bulk of the assemblages, and will be the primary focus of inquiry (Table 1). Stemmed points were identified in both collec-


258 • MUrCHIE

tions, and although their presence as outliers is interesting, they constitute such a small proportion of the assem-blage (n = 4) that they are treated as insignificant. The large disparity in tri-angular points between Cluny and Head Smashed-In is regarded as much more significant however, and will be elabo-rated on further in the discussion section as a differentiating factor between point populations in the two phases.

Lithic TypeLithic type refers to the actual raw material used to make the projectile point—the amalgamation of minerals and/or mineraloids. Chert and porcel-lanite are the predominant lithic types identified in the sample from Cluny (Figure 3). Distinguishing between por-cellanite and chert was difficult as the two can look very similar, particularly with the predominance of low quality chert at Cluny obscuring the differ-ences. It is expected that with a more robust set of diagnostic criteria, the relative proportion of porcellanite will increase at Cluny. At Head Smashed-In, chert, Montana chert, porcellanite, and chalcedony were the predominant lithic types identified (Figure 3). recent sur-veys (e.g., Hughes 2011) have suggested that Cluny lithics are predominantly local, which explains the relatively poor quality of materials recovered to date at Cluny, whereas there appears to be a

wider breadth of lithic types present at Head Smashed-In. This discrepancy will again be elaborated on further in the discussion.

Stratigraphic DistributionMost of the projectile points recovered from Cluny do not have associated provenience values. Forbis (1977) did not record level data for artifacts, and a large proportion of the points recovered in the assemblage were found during his excavations. Points recovered since then have varying ranges of vertical accuracy. Walde (2008; Walde et al. 2010) has used 1 cm levels in the primary One Gun occupation layer to enhance the potential of stratigraphically distinguish-ing components. Most of the projectile point data recovered from Cluny to date have insufficient sample sizes with asso-ciated level data to observe meaningful changes stratigraphically. The thickness measures do show a slight increase in the uppermost levels of the One Gun occupation (Figures 4 and 5). No other variables appear to show stratigraphic patterning. The lowess regression used in Figures 4 and 5 requires a large sample size to produce good models, which is lacking in the Cluny data so far. A default tension of 0.75 was used for the regression; lowess tension relates to the smoothness of the curve and the influence of idiosyncratic data points on the regression line. The larger the

Table 1. Total points analyzed by site.

Site Borden Phase n Stemmed Notched TriangularCluny EePf-1 One Gun 77 1 49 27 (35.1%)Head Smashed-In DkPj-1 Old Women’s 1011 3 98 0Saamis EaOp-6 Old Women’s 3232 – 259 64 (19.8%)

Note: EaOp-6 (Saamis) was included as an Old Women’s camp site for comparison. Triangular percentages are of the total for each site. 1 Site total for DkPj-1 includes only levels 1–3. 2 Milne Brumley 1978:47, 150.



value, the less sensitive the regression is to ‘noise’.

The larger sample size with strati-graphic data from Head Smashed-In allows for the temporal dimension of the data to be investigated, although no obvi-ous patterns were observed in the sub-sample of levels 1–3. A lowess regression suggests that points in level 2 are larger overall than in level 1 or 3, and that there are additional points with larger base widths than shoulder widths in level 2 (Figure 4 and 5). There is a great deal of overlap across all three levels in Head Smashed-In, but the minor observable shifts suggest some degree of temporal change is present, which might be more significant with a larger temporal and spatial range. Until a larger sample of provenienced points is recovered from Cluny, a comparison of stratigraphic differences between Cluny and Head Smashed-In is not possible at this time.

Metric DistributionBased on the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality, only greatest length (GL) and midline length (ML) from Head Smashed-In show a non-normal distri-bution (Table 2 and 3; see Figure 2 for a listing of variable acronyms). If the other inferential tests are also used, notch thickness (NT) from Cluny is also non-normal. Based on the histograms (Figure 6), the most normal distribu-tions appear to be minimum neck width (MNW), shoulder width (SW), greatest thickness (GT), and the index meas-ures. The other distributions are visually suggestive of multiple modes or a high dispersion. This may be due to a small or unrepresentative sample size, a relatively wide ‘acceptable’ range of attribute vari-ation, or multiple populations of points. Importantly, all of the variable values for Cluny are within the range of Head Smashed-In’s distribution. Conversely,

Figure 3. A bar chart of lithic type percentages. Percentages were computed by site. The superscript values after the percentages reference the number of specimens identified to that lithic type in the following list: 1n = 41; 2n = 27; 3n = 11; 4n = 1; 5n = 7; 6n = 11; 7n = 3; 8n = 1; 9n = 13; 10n = 25; 11n = 5; 12n = 3; 13n = 7; 14n = 12; 15n = 6; 16n = 5.


260 • MUrCHIE

Fig

ure

4.

Scat

terp

lots

sh

owin

g th

e st

rati

grap

hic

pat

tern

ing

of M

NW

, G

L,

ML

, A

TS,

AT

B,

SW,

and

BW

wit

h b

oth

Clu

ny

(bla

ck)

and

Hea

d Sm

ash

ed-I

n (

grey

) da

ta p

lott

ed to

geth

er.



Fig

ure

5. S

catt

erpl

ots

show

ing

the

stra

tigr

aph

ic p

atte

rnin

g of

NT,

GT,

ND

I, S

HH

, GH

H, B

BI,

an

d B

BI-

2 w

ith

bot

h C

lun

y (b

lack

) an

d H

ead

Smas

hed

-In

(gr

ey)

data

plo

tted

toge

ther

.


262 • MUrCHIE

Tabl

e 2.

Tes

ts o

f nor

mal

ity

from

Clu

ny.

Clu

nyM

NW

GL

ML

AT

S °

AT

B°

SWB

WSH

HG

HH

NT

GT

ND

IB

BI

BB

I-2

n o

f cas

es48

2221

2416

3936

3539

4849

2626

26

Shap

iro-

Wilk

p-

valu

e0.

066

0.56

70.

297

0.31

60.

221

0.81

20.

751

0.16

30.

192

0.06

20.

857

0.36

40.

950

0.86

5

An

ders

on-D

arlin

g p-

valu

e>0

.151

>0.1

51>0

.151

>0.1

51>0

.151

>0.1

51>0

.151

0.13

9>0

.151

0.02

8>0

.151

>0.1

51>0

.151

>0.1

51

Lill

iefo

rs p

-val

ue0.

778

0.46

00.

854

0.37

50.

179

1.00

01.

000.

131

0.12

10.

142

0.88

50.

499

1.00

00.

734

Not

e: S

ign

ifica

nt v

alue

s ar

e bo

lded

. 1 T

he

p-va

lue

can

not

be

prec

isel

y co

mpu

ted.

Tabl

e 3.

Tes

ts o

f nor

mal

ity

from

Hea

d Sm

ash

ed-I

n.

Hea

d Sm

ashe

d-In

MN

WG

LM

LA

TS

°A

TB

°SW

BW

SHH

GH

HN

TG

TN

DI

BB

IB

BI-

2

n o

f cas

es95

6057

5952

9582

9194

9898

8080

80

Shap

iro-

Wilk

p-

valu

e0.

985

0.00

10.

002

0.09

50.

119

0.21

90.

218

0.18

80.

194

0.68

90.

967

0.06

20.

613

0.54

8

An

ders

on-D

arlin

g p-

valu

e>0

.151

<0.0

11<0

.011

>0.1

51>0

.151

0.08

2>0

.151

>0.1

51>0

.151

>0.1

51>0

.151

0.14

1>0

.151

>0.1

51

Lill

iefo

rs p

-val

ue1.

000

0.04

30.

119

0.25

70.

485

0.13

50.

833

0.70

20.

361

0.70

00.

823

0.22

00.

709

0.57

8

Not

e: S

ign

ifica

nt v

alue

s ar

e bo

lded

. 1 T

he

p-va

lue

can

not

be

prec

isel

y co

mpu

ted.



there are unique clusters within the Head Smashed-In sample that are not found in Cluny materials. This impor-tant discrepancy is further elaborated on in the discussion.

Metric ClustersMetric clusters were investigated in an attempt to find graphical means of separating points from Cluny and Head Smashed-In, or for separating variants

dispersed between or within the sites. Each of the variable distributions have some evidence of differential group-ings (Figure 7). Minimum neck width (MNW) for example can be split into two very distinct groups: one that is present at both sites, and the other that is only manifested at Head Smashed-In. There appears to be a clustering tendency for points from Cluny in width measure-ments that is not expressed in materials

Figure 6. Overlain histograms of side-notched points grouped by site for all variables from Cluny (black) and Head Smashed-In (grey).


264 • MUrCHIE

from Head Smashed-In; this can be seen in shoulder width (SW) and base width (BW). Both base-body index (BBI) and base-body index 2 (BBI-2) show propor-tionally different groupings. This shows differences in the base-to-body width proportions of different points. While none of these clusters have been specifi-cally quantified, visually it does appear as

if there are multiple modes for each vari-able when the dataset is amalgamated. These clusters can allow for the differen-tiation of Cluny and Head Smashed-In at a population level because they have dif-ferent kinds of clustering. However, this also shows that at the individual level, points from Cluny are frequently indis-tinguishable from their ‘noisy’ Head

Figure 7. Graphical methods of isolating variants within the point populations from Cluny and Head Smashed-In. See Figure 2 for a listing of variable acronyms. I: Mirrored dot density graph for MNW. The grey translucent box indicates one of two modes. II: Overlain scatter plot for MNW and SW with three metric clusters. A and F have few points from EePf-1, and E has a generally equal proportion from both sites. III: Overlain scatter plot for GHH and SHH with two metric clusters. H includes predominantly DkPj-1, and L includes both. IV: Overlain scatter plot for BBI and NT with two metric clusters. A value above 100 on the BBI indicates a wider body than base. Values less than 100 indicate a wider base than body. V: Overlain scatter plot for BBI and NT with three metric clusters. This figure shows the primary clustering of EePf-1 metrics in the center, while DkPj-1 vary around this tendency. VI: Overlain scatter plot for BBI and GL with three metric clusters. The lower oval indicates small points, the center indicates middle range points, and the upper indicates large points. The two extremes contain predominatnly points from DkPj-1.



Smashed-In counterparts. The shared clusters of points between the two sites are essentially the same, although it can be said that Cluny lacks certain clusters that are common at Head Smashed-In. For example, Cluny lacks the very small and very large points which are found at Head Smashed-In.

Inferential TestsThe results of the inferential tests are summarized in Table 4. Both the

parametric and non-parametric tests concluded that 8 of the 14 variables tested (potentially 9 of 14 if base width is included with a parametric p-value of 0.057) showed statistically significant dif-ferences between the point populations. All of these variables (except for smallest and greatest haft height) had sufficiently normal distributions within both sites, as shown by the histograms and normal-ity tests. Both test results agree with the metric cluster investigations that specifi-

Table 4. Inferential tests of differences in mean for side-notched points organized by site.

Variable Site n Parametric p-value1 Non-Parametric p-value2

MNWDkPj-1 95 0.003 0.003EePf-1 48

GLDkPj-1 60 0.315 0.213EePf-1 22

MLDkPj-1 57 0.361 0.244EePf-1 21

ATS °DkPj-1 59 0.373 0.433EePf-1 24

ATB °DkPj-1 52 0.921 1.000EePf-1 16

SWDkPj-1 95 0.462 0.312EePf-1 39

BWDkPj-1 82 0.057 0.106EePf-1 36

SHHDkPj-1 91 0.004 0.007EePf-1 35

GHHDkPj-1 94 0.008 0.011EePf-1 39

NTDkPj-1 98 0.002 0.001EePf-1 48

GTDkPj-1 98 0.005 0.009EePf-1 49

NDIDkPj-1 80 0.048 0.066EePf-1 26

BBIDkPj-1 80 0.003 0.005EePf-1 26

BBI-2DkPj-1 80 0.004 0.004EePf-1 26

Note: EePf-1 (Cluny); DkPj-1 (Head Smashed-In). Significant p-values are bolded, and values close to the α are underlined.1 Two sample difference of means student’s t-tests with separate variance (parametric).2 Mann-Whitney U two sample difference of means tests (non-parametric).


266 • MUrCHIE

cally at the population level, points from Head Smashed-In and Cluny can be statistically differentiated.

Next, the predictive ability to assign individual points to either site was assessed using a discriminant function analysis (Table 5). All variables with statistically significant differences were used in a weighted, stepwise-backward estimation. The predictive capability of the discriminant analysis can be assessed here using the jackknifed classification matrix, which is a sampling method used to reduce bias for the discriminant test. Its purpose here is to show the percent-age of correctly differentiated points (by site) using all of the statistically significant variables identified in the dif-ference of means tests. The jackknifed classification percentage correct value was determined to be 95% for Head Smashed-In (DkPj-1) and 8% for Cluny (EePf-1), with an eigenvalue of 0.137. These results clearly indicate that there is no statistical way to individually assign points to either site. This can be seen in the insignificant eigenvalue, and the low classification percentage of the func-tion’s ability to accurately predict that a point was from the Cluny site based on all of its measurable variables. The same discriminant function analysis was used to assess the ability to differentiate

points by other nominal variables to see if there were any correlated clusters, but the results were the same. All other multivariate methods used to differenti-ate individual points, and predict their assemblage source, found that there were no meaningful differences between individual points in the two populations.

There were two overall results that can be summarized from this analysis. First, point populations differ in statisti-cally significant ways between Head Smashed-In and Cluny. These differ-ences can be observed using descrip-tive and inferential techniques. With a broader statistical database, span-ning much more space and time, the temporal and spatial centers of these tendencies could be assessed—if they exist on that scale. This would allow the investigation of meaningful varietal clustering. The differences observed are in population statistics however, and it is fallacious to apply this distinction to the individual level. Second, despite the population level differences, there are no culturally meaningful types that can be classified statistically in this dataset. At the individual level, points cannot be assigned reliably to either site. The discriminant function analysis makes this second result clear. The people at these two sites used the same point type.

Table 5. A classical discriminant function analysis using weighted groups by size, and stepwise-backward estimation to differentiate projectile points by site.

Discriminant Function AnalysisPercent Correctly Identified1

DkPj-1 EePf-1 Total CorrectDkPj-1 76 4 95EePf-1 22 2 8Total 98 6 75

Eigenvalue 0.137Canonical Correlations 0.347

Note: Important values are bolded.1 Based on a jackknifed classification of the samples.



The variable ranges overlap too much to distinguish whether an individual point belongs to either population.

Discussion

Triangular Preforms and Lithic TypesPoint form was found to be a strong source of variation between the two sites (Table 1). Triangular points have been argued by Dawe (1987:155–158) to be preforms that were traded among groups on the plains. This argument purportedly accounts for differential flaking patterns between notching and preform construction, the lack of pri-mary and secondary reduction debris of exotic lithics, and the differential presence of triangular and side-notched points at different site types (camp and kill sites). Peck (1996:120) disagrees with the argument, noting that only a small proportion of specimens he ana-lyzed were made from exotic lithics, and that the differences in flaking can also be accounted for by intra-group artisans, rather than other inter-group knappers. Although unsubstantiated, it seems plausible that the predominance of triangular points at camps as opposed to kill sites could indicate either that triangular points are preforms that were intended to be finished at or near a kill (however plausible this might be), or that triangular points are a differ-ent kind of artifact (or just a different kind of point) with a divergent utilitar-ian function that was not appropriate for kill sites. Unfortunately, there are no ethnohistoric sources on the plains that mention hafting techniques, which makes it difficult to conceive of a kind of evidence that would assist in interpreting this point form.

The Saamis site (EaOp-6), an Old Women’s phase camp (Milne Brum-

ley 1978:37) located within the city of Medicine Hat in southeastern Alberta, was also investigated for this analysis. None of the projectile points from the site were analyzed using the same methodology as outlined previously; instead, the relative frequencies of point forms were used for comparison. This comparison is intended to take into account the possibility of correlating unlike variables—those being points from a kill (Head Smashed-In) and a camp site (Cluny)—and the potential problems that could exist in this differ-ence. Like Cluny, a large portion of the assemblage from Saamis consisted of tri-angular points (Table 1; Milne Brumley 1978:47, 150). The varying proportions of triangular points between Saamis and Cluny might be a sample size remnant, insignificant, or another marker of dif-ferentiation between their associated phases. To better understand this differ-ence, it would be useful to investigate the circumstances relating to the presence and absence of triangular points in a broader context. The data suggest that the difference in point form observed between Cluny and Head Smashed-In is correlated with site type rather than cul-tural historical entity. The ratio between these point forms can be viewed as a rea-sonable way to help distinguish between campsites and kill sites. At this time, the ratio is not useful for discriminating between One Gun and Old Women’s phase occupations.

Dawe (1997) also suggests that not all projectile points had the same utilitar-ian function. He argues that children’s versions of these points might make up a portion of the assemblages, which is responsible for increasing the range of variation. The identification of a point recovered from Cluny with ground lateral blades could be an example of


268 • MUrCHIE

alleged projectile points with alternative functions that are yet unknown. It might also account for poorly made points and isolated cases of divergent forms. Dawe suggests that ‘children’s’ points might be differentiated from ‘adult’ ones based on size, with children’s points being too small to function effectively as puncturing tips for missile weapons. Interestingly in Dawe’s (1997) work, the most diagnostic variable was mini-mum neck width, which was also found to be a strong discriminatory variable between the two sites in this analysis. All of the points used for this investigation were recovered from the kill at Head Smashed-In and were presumably used to kill bison; therefore, the alleged presence of ‘children’s’ points in point assemblages cannot be assessed in this study. One of the important aspects of Dawe’s research is acknowledging our assumption that these similarly shaped artifacts share the same utilitarian func-tion, often with insufficient evidence. A potentially profitable future study could involve tests of varying body angles, thickness, and overall sharpness to deter-mine criteria for differentiating point ‘functions’ based on performance clus-tering as missile weapons. Whether or not the small points are a different class of point form, it is largely irrelevant to this investigation because the conclusion remains the same in either case.

Lithic type is also notably different between the two sites. Porcellanite is far more common at Cluny than Head Smashed-In for example. The differ-ences in lithic type might be related to site location, ethnic lithic preferences, trade discrepancies, group restricted quarries, or a number of other possibili-ties. Hughes (2011) has found locations of many porcellanite outcroppings near Cluny, and a large quantity of porcel-

lanite debitage has been excavated from the site in recent years. It is expected that many of the lithics identified as chert at Cluny (specifically poor quality specimens) could be re-classified as por-cellanite with a stronger set of diagnostic criteria. Lithic type is a useful means of distinguishing the point assemblages at the population level, but cannot be used to predict site membership.

The Ubiquitous Side-notched Projectile PointKehoe (1966:827) described the Late Period Side-notched Projectile Point as being ubiquitous and relatively useless in detailed chronologies or ethnic studies (Kehoe and McCorquodale 1961:179). This notion was dismissed by Peck and Ives (2001:164), who argued that the point is useful in both chronological and ethnic applications. I think that the evidence presented in this paper sug-gests that Peck and Ives (2001:184-185) might have overstated the utility of these side-notched points for differentiating human populations; specifically, their utility in differentiating One Gun and Old Women’s components.

When using population statistics, obvious differences emerge between the variables at Cluny and Head Smashed-In. This coincides with the well-established differences between Old Women’s and One Gun phases in pottery, overall lithic type and form, faunal, and site type features as discussed in the previ-ous research section. However, a close inspection of the statistical data related to projectile point metrics reveals a significant overlap. This precludes indi-vidual point assignment to either site. The data show that there is only one point type expressed at Cluny and the uppermost levels of Head Smashed-In. Peck’s creation of the Cayley Series echoes this phenomenon, although in



an unintended respect because Cayley is defined as an Old Women’s artifact. Peck and Ives (2001:174) note that meaning-ful types cannot be created within the Cayley Series; there is a remarkable simi-larity in all side-notched points during the Late Period in the region.

This is the third instance where an investigation of One Gun points has failed to find categorical differences with the local Old Women’s point forms; both Forbis (1977) and Peck and Ives (2001) were unable to define what a ‘One Gun point’ was. Although this analysis uses an entirely different method from Peck and Ives (2001), the result is the same. I think that the explanations provided by Peck and Ives (2001:184) for this unan-ticipated similarity are now insufficient given the observed lack of conflation of Old Women’s and One Gun materials at the Cluny site, as well as recent dis-coveries that suggest a longer One Gun habitation of Cluny than was previously documented. This becomes more evi-dent with the results of this investigation which shows that the populations of points at the two sites are statistically different, but not consistently different enough to allow individual specimens to be replicabil-ity identified with their associated phase.

I think that the evidence presented here shows that Forbis (1977:52–56) was correct in his assessment of these arti-facts; the side-notched projectile point type is a horizon style with regional and temporal variation. The form appeared relatively rapidly, and spread spatially over a wide range, which is similar to recent interpretations of the Avonlea point (Meyer and Walde 2009). Due to high levels of trade and inter-group con-tact, the point and knowledge of its cre-ation was spread among different groups and consistency was maintained through this perpetual contact, with regional vari-

ants potentially developing in areas with reduced information flow. If this assess-ment is accurate, and the side-notched point is not a defining feature of the Old Women’s phase, it explains why an iden-tical form is found in an unquestionably distinct population. The Blackfoot, the most commonly assigned ethnicity for the Old Women’s phase, were never a single unified group; rather, this modern conglomerate was at most a collection of independent nations that did have hos-tile relations at times. It is disingenuous to retroactively mold prehistoric materi-als to the contemporary confederacy that was formed primarily because of changing social circumstances due to European contact.

The One Gun phase is clearly a very different set of groups from groups of the Old Women’s phase. The existence of the same point in both phases, despite it being argued to be one of the distin-guishing features of the Old Women’s phase (Peck 1996:97), indicates that the side-notched projectile point cannot be used to identify the phases of sites where only points are found. This means that we cannot differentiate between One Gun and Old Women’s kill sites. Indi-vidual points, or even relatively small collections of points, cannot be said to belong to a particular phase in this dataset, and cannot be associated with a particular group. The relatively small ‘acceptable range’, or central tendency, is likely due to a restricted ‘palette’ of attributes available for alteration, in addition to attribute constraints due to a strong conformist transmission of point construction methods (Eerkens and Lipo 2005:323–325).

The benefit of studying the Late Period is that there are far more means of identifying groups than in either the Early or Middle Periods. Since the


270 • MUrCHIE

archetypical means of differentiating archaeological groups on the plains—the projectile point—is largely ineffec-tive in the Late Period, what does that say about the phases derived from the distributions of earlier points? Without the benefit of additional material types, site features, and historical information, there are far fewer checks in the earlier prehistoric periods to verify the validity of phases where points are used as diag-nostic artifacts. Ultimately, I think we should adopt a greater degree of skepti-cism regarding the utility of projectile point typologies, particular in terms of their cultural-historical accuracy as a means of differentiating phases. More investigations need to be done to assess whether using points as diagnostic arti-facts of phases or groups is useful for other regions and time periods, because in the Late Period, particularly in the case of the One Gun phase, they are not. If the Cayley Series point and the Avonlea point are considered to be hori-zon styles, how many more horizons are present in earlier periods and in other regions?

The digital methodology used in this paper allows for more detailed, exchangeable, and replicable means of data collection than other techniques that rely heavily on calipers and other more subjective (and less transparent) kinds of analysis. The method maximizes accuracy, and the feasibility for redis-tribution to other researchers, while minimizing the costs of both hardware and software. Any relatively flat artifacts could be analyzed in the same way, regardless of the geographic region. This allows for detailed digital records of the artifacts to be stored and reanalyzed without the need for the actual objects. Despite the inability to distinguish between these two point populations in

this analysis, the statistical investigation was able to detect population level differ-ences, and explain why typological clas-sification of One Gun points has failed in previous analyses. Typological classifica-tions for other cultural-historical entities can be reassessed for their accuracy and the consistency at which they are applied by using this approach. This is important because artifact typologies are often uti-lized without a sufficient justification for their accuracy at differentiating human populations.

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Dale Walde of the Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, for his long term assis-tance with this research, in addition to Mary Lynn Tobiasz, Nathan Haylett, and Christina Pitre (also of the University of Calgary) for their help during the initial writing. My thanks to Nikki Oakden for providing the projectile point drawing (Figure 2). Evan Strangward of Stantec Inc. helped greatly with ArcGIS tutorials when making Figure 1, with much of the data and a custom pro-jection being originally compiled by Keith Wilford of Stantec Inc. Scott Hamilton of the Department of Anthropology, Lakehead University, provided a thorough and critical review of the manuscript, which helped to significantly improve the quality of the work. Two anonymous reviewers also provided helpful critiques, in addition to the very con-structive review by the editor Gary Coupland, University of Toronto.

References CitedAdobe Systems, Inc.

2011a Adobe Illustrator CS5, Version 15.0.0 [computer software].

2011b Adobe Photoshop CS5, Ver-sion 15.0.0 [computer software].

Brumley, J. H., and P. J. rennie1995 A Culture History Model for the



Plains of Northern Montana and Sur-rounding Regions. Manuscript on file, Ethos Consulting, Havre, Montana.

Byrne, W. J. 1973 The Archaeology and Prehistory of Southern Alberta as Reflected by Ceram-ics. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper No. 14. National Museum of Man Mercury Series, National Muse-ums of Canada, Ottawa.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation

1997 Ecological Regions of North America: Toward a Common Perspective. Published and hosted online by The Communi-cations and Public Outreach Depart-ment of the CEC Secretariat as part of the North American Environmental Atlas. The Terrestrial Ecoregions Level 1 data was posted by the user ‘kar-richardson’ on the ArcGIS Online Database on 12/10/2010. http://www.cec.org/Storage/42/3484_eco-eng_EN.pdf, accessed July 05, 2013.

Dawe, r.1987 The Triangular Projectile Point in Plains Prehistory: A Preform Trade Hypothesis. In Archaeology in Alberta 1986, edited by Martin Magne, pp. 150–162. Occasional Paper No. 31, Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Edmonton.

1997 Tiny Arrowheads: Toys in the Toolkit. Plains Anthropologist 42(161):303–318.

Dyck, I.1983 The Prehistory of Southern Sas-katchewan. In Tracking Ancient Hunt-ers: Prehistoric Archaeology in Saskatch-ewan, edited by H. T. Epp and I. Dyck, pp. 63–139. Saskatchewan Archaeo-logical Society, Saskatoon.

Eerkens, J. W., and C. P. Lipo.2005 Cultural Transmission, Copy-

ing Errors, and the Generation of Variation in Material Culture and the Archaeological record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24(1):316–334.

Forbis, r. G.1962 The Old Women’s Buffalo Jump, Alberta. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 130:56–125, Ottawa, Canada.

1977 Cluny: An Ancient Fortified Villag-es in Alberta. Occasional Paper No. 4, Department of Archaeology, Univer-sity of Calgary, Calgary.

Grosman, L., O. Smikt, and U. Smilansky

2008 On the Application of 3-D Scan-ning Technology for the Documen-tation and Typology of Lithic Arti-facts. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(12):3101–3110.

Hughes, C.2011 Cretaceous Outcrop Survey of the Siksika Nation. Paper presented at the 44th Annual Chacmool Archaeo-logical Conference.

Kehoe, T. F.1966 The Small Side-Notched Point System of the Northern Plains. Ameri-can Antiquity 31(6):827–824.

Kehoe, T. F., and B. A. McCorquodale1961 The Avonlea Point: A Horizon Marker for the Northwestern Plains. Plains Anthropologist 6:179–188.

Lyman, r. L., T. L. VanPool, and M. J. O’Brien

2008 Variation in North American Dart Points and Arrow Points When One or Both are Present. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(1):2805–2812.

MacNeish, r. S.1954 The Stott Mound and Village, Near Brandon, Manitoba. Annual


272 • MUrCHIE

Report of the National Museum of Cana-da, 1952–1953, Bulletin No. 152:20–65, Ottawa.

Meyer, D.1988 The Old Women’s Phase on the Saskatchewan Plains: Some Ideas. In Archaeology In Alberta 1987, edited by M. Magne. Occasional paper No. 32:55–63. Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Edmonton.

Meyer, D., and D. Walde2009 rethinking Avonlea: Pottery Wares and Cultural Phases. Plains Anthropologist 54(209):49–73.

Milne Brumley, L. A.1978 The Saamis Site: A Late Prehistoric-Protohistoric Campsite in Medicine Hat, Alberta. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 79. National Muse-um of Man Mercury Series, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

Nicholson, B. A., D. Meyer, G. Oetelaar, and S. Hamilton

2011 Human Ecology of the Cana-dian Praire Ecozone ca. 500 BP: Plains Woodland Influences and Hor-ticultural Practice. In Human Ecology of the Canadian Prairie Ecozone, 11,000 to 300 BP, edited by B. A. Nicholson. Canadian Plains research Centre, regina, SK.

Peck, T. r.1996 Late Side-Notched Projectile Points on the Northwestern Plains. Unpub-lished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton.

2011 Light from Ancient Campfires: Archaeological Evidence for Native Life-ways on the Northern Plains, Athabasca University Press, Alberta.

Peck, T. r., and J. W. Ives2001 Late Side-Notched Projectile

Points in the Northern Plains. Plains Anthropologist 46(176):163–193.

razali, M. N., and Y. B. Wah2011 Power Comparisons of Shaprio-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling Tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics 2(1):21–33.

reeves, B. O. K.1970 Culture Change in the Northern Plains, 1000 B.C.-A.D. 1000. Unpub-lished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary.

1978 Head-Smashed-In: 5500 Years of Bison Jumping in the Alberta Plains. In Bison Procurement and Utilization: A Symposium, edited by L. B. Davis, and M. Wilson, pp. 151–174. Plains Anthropologist Memoir 14.

1983 Culture Change in the Northern Plains: 1000 B.C.-A.D. 1000. Occa-sional paper No. 20. Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Edmonton.

SYSTAT Software, Inc.2009 SYSTAT 13 for Windows, Ver-sion No. 13.00.05 [computer soft-ware].

Walde, D.2006 A Descriptive Analysis of Little Bow Ceramic Assemblages. report to FMA Heritage resources Consultants Inc.

2008 The 2008 Archaeological Field Sea-son at Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park: Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park Archae-ological Research Project, Annual Report # 1. Manuscript on file, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary.

2012 Finding and Not Finding Athapaskans in the Archaeological record Using Percentage Stratigra-phy. In From the Land of Ever Winter:



Athapaskan Migrations from the Subarctic to the American Southwest, edited by D. Seymour, pp. 198–224. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Walde, D., L. Evans, H. Boss, J. Eddy, L. Fulton, and K. Ginter

2010 The 2009/2010 Archaeological Field Seasons at Blackfoot Crossing His-torical Park: Blackfoot Crossing Histori-cal Park Archaeological Research Project, Annual Report # 2 and 3. Manuscript on file, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary.

Walde, D., and D. Meyer2003 Pre-Contact Pottery in Alberta: An Overview. In Archaeology in Alberta: A View from the New Millennium. Edited by J. W. Brink, and J. F. Dormaar, pp. 132–152. Archaeological Society of Alberta, Medicine Hat, Alberta.

Walde, D., D. Meyer, and W. Unfreed1995 The Late Period on the Cana-dian and Adjacent Plains. Journal of American Archaeology 9(1):7–66.

Whittaker, J. C., D. Caulkins, and K. A. Kamp

1998 Evaluating Consistency in Typology and Classification. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5(2):129–164.

Manuscript received March 4, 2013. Final revisions September 24, 2013.

One Gun Phase Points: A Reassessment of the Late Side-Notched Projectile Point System in Alberta

Documents

Transcript of One Gun Phase Points: A Reassessment of the Late Side-Notched Projectile Point System in Alberta