at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 4180e4188

Contents lists available

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http: / /www.elsevier .com/locate/ jas

Paleoindian technological provisioning strategies in the northwesternGreat Basin

Geoffrey M. Smith*, Emily S. Middleton, Peter A. CareyGreat Basin Paleoindian Research Unit, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno, 1664 No. Virginia Street, MS0096, Reno, NV 89557, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 21 April 2013Received in revised form20 June 2013Accepted 28 June 2013

Keywords:Lithic technologyGreat BasinMobility

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 775 682 7687; faxE-mail addresses: geoffreys@unr.edu (G.M.

gmail.com (E.S. Middleton), petercarey86@gmail.com

0305-4403/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.06.024

a b s t r a c t

Great Basin populations during the PleistoceneeHolocene Transition (PHT) are often characterized asbeing mobile and focused on wetlands; however, the factors that influenced where Paleoindians selectedresidential campsites are poorly understood. Using predictions derived from optimal foraging-basedpatch choice models and GIS reconstructions of the PHT landscape, some researchers have arguedthat occupations in smaller wetlands should have been shorter than occupations in larger wetlands butsuch arguments have rarely been evaluated using empirical data. The PHT lithic record provides anopportunity to evaluate the relationship between wetland size and occupation span by applying Kuhn’s(1995) concept of technological provisioning. Kuhn expects more mobile populations to provision in-dividuals and more sedentary populations to provision places and suggests that: (1) a strategy of pro-visioning individuals should be reflected by a high proportion of more extensively used artifacts made onnon-local raw materials; and (2) a strategy of provisioning places should be reflected by a high pro-portion of less extensively used artifacts made on local raw materials. We apply the technological pro-visioning concept to lithic assemblages from two of the Parman localities, extensive PHT sites in thenorthwestern Great Basin, and compare local and nonlocal artifacts to determine if Paleoindians shiftedfrom provisioning individuals while moving to/from the sites to provisioning the place while occupyingthem. There is no relationship between artifact transport distance and artifact use intensity. We interpretthese findings as evidence that Paleoindians did not alter their provisioning strategies while occupyingthe Parman localities, likely because occupations were brief within a small wetland poorly-suited tosupport groups for long periods.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Technological and source provenance studies have shown thatthere is a predictable relationship between lithic artifact transportdistance and use intensity. Generally, tools made on non-localtoolstone are smaller, more intensively retouched, and exhibithigher breakage rates than tools made on local toolstone(Andrefsky, 2010; Bamforth, 1986; Beck et al., 2002; MacDonald,2008; Morrow, 1997; Shott, 1986; but see Bamforth, 2009; Close,1999; Eerkens et al., 2008). In the absence of clear differences inrawmaterial availability that might influence the character of lithicassemblages (sensu Andrefsky,1994), differences in the condition oflocal and non-local tools are often attributed to mobility and theconstraints it imposes on toolkit design (e.g., Morrow, 1997; Shott,1986).

: þ1 775 327 2226.Smith), emily.s.middleton@(P.A. Carey).

All rights reserved.

Kuhn (1995:22) has linked variability in lithic assemblages todifferent provisioning strategies, or how groups ensured thattoolstone was available when needed. He outlines two strategies:(1) provisioning individuals, where people kept a small number oftools in anticipation of use, maintained them, and transportedthem between locations; and (2) provisioning places, where peoplestockpiled toolstone at locations where it was expected to be used.Kuhn (1995:22) ties a strategy of provisioning individuals to mobilesocieties, who, at least among ethnographic groups, transport somepersonal gear (sensu Binford, 1979) when they travel. Becausemobility constrains the amount of goods that pedestrian hunteregatherers can carry, replacement gear should be uncommon andKuhn (1995:23) expects implements in a mobile toolkit to sufferhigh rates of breakage and attrition e an argument also made byother researchers (Kelly, 1988; Kelly and Todd, 1988; Shott, 1986).As occupation span increases, travel-related technological con-straints disappear and groups may instead provisioning the place ifthey know theywill be there for an extended period or return in thefuture. Within such a strategy, especially if it was additionally

G.M. Smith et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 4180e4188 4181

supported by abundant high quality lithic resources, Kuhn(1995:24) expects efforts to extend the utility of tools beyond theiroptimal utility via resharpening/reworking to be uncommon.Surovell’s (2009) study of Paleoindian assemblages in the RockyMountains and Northern Plains, which demonstrated that artifactuse intensity is inversely correlated with occupation span, providesempirical support for Kuhn’s (1995) predictions.

The provisioning strategy concept is ideally suited for applica-tion to Paleoindian assemblages in the northwestern Great Basin,where most early sites are open-air scatters comprised of obsidianand fine-grained volcanic (FGV) artifacts amenable to geochemicalsourcing. By conducting detailed technological analyses of toolsmade on raw materials whose geologic origins are known, re-searchers can develop a good understanding of how individualartifacts were transported, used, and discarded. Furthermore,because obsidian and FGV are ubiquitous, we can discount rawmaterial availability as a major influence on technological organi-zation in that region. In this paper, we present the results ofdetailed technological comparisons of projectile points, bifaces, andunifaces made on local and non-local obsidian from Parman lo-calities 1 and 3, two open-air lithic scatters containing stemmedprojectile points and other artifacts indicative of PleistoceneeHo-locene Transition (PHT) occupations in the Great Basin. Our resultsindicate that there are few significant differences in the conditionof tools made on local and non-local toolstone, suggesting thatearly groups did not shift provisioning strategies as they traveledto/from and occupied marshside residential campsites. We inter-pret these results as evidence that the Parman localities wereoccupied for brief periods because they were adjacent to a smallwetland that was poorly-suited to support groups for long periods.

2. Paleoindian mobility in the Great Basin

Current data from the northern Great Basin suggest that humanscolonized the region w12,000 radiocarbon (14C B.P.) year ago(Jenkins et al., 2012, but see Fieldel and Morrow, 2012). Althoughvariable, conditions at that time were generally cooler and moister(Grayson, 2011) and shallow lakes and marshes were common(Goebel et al., 2011;Madsen, 2007). Montane trees and shrubs grewat lower elevations and sagebrush-grass steppe covered mid-elevation zones (Wigand and Rhode, 2002). Lifeways during thisearly phase of human occupation in the Great Basin are widelyregarded as having included frequent and sometimes distant resi-dential moves and wetlands appear to have been hubs of Paleo-indian activity (Elston and Zeanah, 2002; Goebel et al., 2011; Joneset al., 2003; Smith, 2010, 2011). This view is supported by variouslines of evidence: (1) most early sites are located near PHTwetlands(Beck and Jones, 2009; Duke and Young, 2007; Elston and Zeanah,2002; Jones et al., 2003; Smith, 2007); (2) early sites are often smalland exhibit high tool-to-debitage ratios (Oviatt et al., 2003; Schmittet al., 2007); (3) source provenance data indicate that tools weretransported substantial distances (Jones et al., 2003, 2012; Smith,2010); (4) architectural and storage features are virtually nonexis-tent (Elston and Zeanah, 2002; Jones and Beck, 1999); and (5)Paleoindian tools appear to have been multifunctional (Beck andJones, 2009; Lafayette and Smith, 2012).

While most researchers acknowledge that Paleoindians weremobile, three models have been advanced to more fully account forthe behaviors that produced the trends noted above. Jones et al.(2003) have posited that early groups practiced high levels of resi-dential mobility (sensu Binford, 1980) as they moved between wet-lands, and this model has found support from other technologicaland source provenance studies (Goebel, 2007; Goebel et al., 2011;Smith, 2011). More than 10 years ago, Elston and Zeanah (2002)proposed that while Paleoindians practiced high residential

mobility between wetlands, a gender-based division of laborallowed male logistical parties to hunt in low- and mid-elevationzones from marshside camps positioned to maximize women’sforaging opportunities. More recently, they have refined this modelto suggest that if encounter rates with large game were sufficientlyhigh, men and women may have worked together in such pursuitsuntil encounter rates dropped and a gender-based division of laborbecame pronounced enough to prompt residential camp relocationto new resource patches (i.e., wetlands). The abundance of PHTwetlands and the large game contained therein would have sup-ported frequent residential moves between basins as encounterrates dropped in each location (Bob Elston, personal communica-tion, 2013). Finally, Madsen (2007:16) has suggested that trends inthe PHT record primarily reflect long-distance logistical movementsby males and not the residential movements that both Jones et al.(2003) and Elston and Zeanah (2002) have emphasized.

Although they differ in their treatments of PHT mobility re-gimes, each model emphasizes the importance of wetlands.Furthermore, each stresses that the size and productivity ofparticular wetlands as well as the distance between resourcepatches likely dictated how long groups remained residentiallystable. Drawing from patch-choice models (e.g., MacArthur andPianka, 1966), Madsen (2007:18) predicts that Paleoindian settle-ment strategies should have entailed shorter overall stays in indi-vidual basins and more distant residential moves in regions wherewetlands were small and widely scattered. Conversely, he predictsthat longer overall stays should occur in large wetlands, althoughdeclining resource return rates within an effective foraging radiusof camp (sensu Kelly, 2007:135) would likely have promotedfrequent, short-distant residential moves within larger patches.

While intuitively reasonable and in accordance with patch-choice models, the hypothesis that wetland patch size influencedPaleoindian occupation span in the Great Basin has rarely beentested using empirical data. Kuhn’s (1995) concept of technologicalprovisioning offers a frameworkwithinwhich to conduct such tests,but Duke and Young’s (2007) effort to do so at early sites on the OldRiver Bed (ORB) delta in the Bonneville basin represents one of theonly applications of the provisioning model thus far (also see Graf,2001). At the ORB delta, likely the largest (w1000-km2) PHT lacus-trine patch in the Great Basin, Duke and Young (2007; also see Duke,2011) concluded that the expansive wetlands fostered extendedstays. Their studyof lithic assemblages strongly suggests that groupsprovisioned that place with toolstone, gearing up with large FGVflake blanks and bifacial cores before travelingw30e65 km into thetoolstone-poor ORB delta for predictable, extended stays (Duke andYoung, 2007). In this paper, we apply Kuhn’s concept of technolog-ical provisioning to one of the smallest (w17-km2) PHT wetlands eLake Parman in northwest Nevada (Mifflin andWheat,1979).We doso by sampling two PHT Parman localities and geochemicallysourcing their lithic assemblages to reconstruct degrees of toolmodification, reuse, and repair relative to distance to quarries. Weuse these data to assess likely occupational durations at these sitesand consequently the types and degrees of mobility employed byPHT hunteregatherers. Our results suggest that a strategy of pro-visioning individuals was favored over a strategy of provisioningplaces in the northwestern Great Basin, likely due to the relativelysmall and low-return Lake Parman resource patch.

3. Characterizing Paleoindian provisioning strategies in theGreat Basin

3.1. Materials

The Parman localities are four dense concentrations of Paleo-indian artifacts located in northwest Nevada (Fig. 1). They were

Table 1Sample of geochemically-characterized flaked stone tools from the Parmanlocalities.

Geochemical type Artifact class Total (%) Distancefrom sites

Projectiles Bifaces Unifaces

ML/GVa 58 72 64 194 (66.2) 3 kmCraine Creekb 13 3 3 19 (6.5) 17 kmCoyote Spring 3 12 4 19 (6.5) 28 kmBadger Creek 5 6 2 13 (4.5) 37 kmHawks Valley 7 e 1 8 (2.7) 40 kmBS/PP/FMc 8 e 1 9 (3.1) 50 kmLong Valley 3 e e 3 (1.0) 63 kmDH/WHd 1 2 1 4 (1.4) 86 kmCowhead Lake 4 e e 4 (1.4) 87 kmSurveyor Spring 1 e e 1 (0.3) 89 kmBeatys Butte 5 e e 5 (1.7) 94 kmBuck Mountain 2 e e 2 (0.7) 98 kmWhitehorse 7 2 e 9 (3.1) 113 kmMt. Majuba e e 1 1 (0.3) 113 kmIndian Creek Butte 1 e e 1 (0.3) 191 kmVenator 1 e e 1 (0.3) 229 kmTotal 119 97 77 293 (100.0) e

Note: This table does not include four artifacts made on unknown geochemicaltypes, three cores made on ML/GV obsidian, and two unmodified flakes made onML/GV obsidian originally reported by Smith (2006, 2007).

a ML/GV ¼ Massacre Lake/Guano Valley.b This geochemical type, whose geologic source location was until recently un-

known, has long been referred to by Craig Skinner (Northwest Research ObsidianStudies Laboratory) as Bog Hot Springs. Based on the discovery of cortical flakesmade on that material found near Bog Hot Springs along Nevada Highway 140,Skinner assumed that the geologic source was somewhere nearby. Recent work byLaValley (2013) has shown that obsidian previously referred to as Bog Hot Springs iswhat Richard Hughes (Geochemical Research Laboratory) refers to as Craine Creek,whose geologic source is known. Following Skinner, we referred to this geochemicaltype as Bog Hot Springs elsewhere (e.g., Smith, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011); here, werefer to it as Craine Creek for the first time.

c BS/PP/FM ¼ Bordwell Spring/Pinto Peak/Fox Mountain.d DH/WH ¼ Double H/Whitehorse.

G.M. Smith et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 4180e41884182

originally recorded by Layton (1970, 1979), who interpreted thesites as lakeside camps based on their uniform distribution along arelict pluvial lake shoreline w1785 m above sea level. Mifflin andWheat (1979) suggest that when the localities were occupied, ashallow (�4 m) lake (which they named Lake Parman) coveredw17 km2. According to their estimates, Lake Parman was the thirdsmallest pluvial lake in Nevada during the PHT (see Appendix A,Mifflin and Wheat, 1979).

In 2004, the four Parman localities were re-recorded andintensively surface-collected by a crew from the University ofNevada, Reno (UNR). A variety of artifact types were identified inthe assemblages, the bulk of which came from Locality 1 and 3(Smith, 2006). Over 900 flaked stone tools were collected including252 stemmed points, 12 unfluted concave base points, 10 crescents,63 Archaic (i.e., post-7500 14C B.P.) points, 310 bifaces, and 225unifaces. Cores (n ¼ 5) were rare and the fact that w64 percent(n ¼ 917) of sampled flakes possessing intact platforms are bifacethinning or small retouch flakes indicates that biface reductionwasa major technological activity at the sites (Smith, 2006). Becausediagnostic Paleoindian artifacts (stemmed/concave base points,crescents) outnumber Archaic points more than four to one, mostartifacts in the Parman assemblages can be attributed to Paleo-indian occupation(s) of the sites (Smith, 2006).

As part of a broader study of Paleoindian toolstone use in thenorthwestern Great Basin, Smith (2010) submitted 297 obsidianand FGV artifacts to the Northwest Research Obsidian StudiesLaboratory for non-destructive x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis.Using a Spectrace 5000 energy dispersive XRF spectrometer, labstaff determined the trace element composition of the artifacts andcompared them to the geochemical profiles of geologic sourcesamples. The sourced artifacts that comprise the materials used inthis study are presented in Table 1; trace element data for eachartifact are found in Appendix C of Smith (2006). Fig. 2 shows thelocations of these geologic sources of toolstone e all occur innorthwestern Nevada, northeastern California, and southcentralOregon. We grouped artifacts in the sample into three broad cate-gories: (1) projectile points, which include stemmed and concavebase points; (2) bifaces, which include specimens discarded atvarious stages of reduction; and (3) unifaces, which include side

Fig. 1. Location of the Parman localities and

and end scrapers, wedges, notches, gravers, retouched (i.e., utilized)flakes, and tools containing multiple working edges (i.e., combi-nation tools) (Fig. 3). Five cores and two pieces of unmodifieddebitage submitted for geochemical characterization and reported

Lake Parman, northwestern Great Basin.

Fig. 2. Location of obsidian sources represented in the Parman locality 1 and 3 artifactsample.

G.M. Smith et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 4180e4188 4183

elsewhere by Smith (2006, 2007) are not included here. Althoughcollapsing diverse lithic assemblages into the broad categories ofprojectile points, bifaces, and unifaces undoubtedly obscures somevariability, our primary interest here lies in the condition of localand non-local artifacts as assessed using more objective metricattributes rather than more subjective typologies.

1 Kuhn (1990) initially calculated t (the thickness of the flake blank at the pointwhere retouch scars stop) by multiplying the depth of retouch (D) by the sine of theretouched edge angle (a), and divided the result values by T, such that GIUR ¼ t/T.He recommended recording t at three points along the retouched lateral marginand dividing each by a single T value before averaging the three scores so thatGIUR ¼ ((t1 þ t2 þ t3)/3)/T. More recently, he advocated abandoning D and sine aand calculating t by simply measuring the thickness of the blank at the point whereretouch scars stop (Steve Kuhn, personal communication, 2013). Later, Hiscock andClarkson (2005) recorded three T values at points along the tool blank where tvalues were recorded so that GIUR ¼ (t1/T1 þ t2/T2 þ t3/T3)/3 and we follow theirapproach here.

3.2. Methods

To identify potential shifts in provisioning strategies betweenwhen Paleoindians moved across the landscape and when theyoccupied the Parman localities, we divided our artifact sample intotwo groups: (1) artifacts made on local material, which consists ofMassacre Lake/Guano Valley (ML/GV) obsidian available 3e5 km ofboth localities (a single day’s roundtrip [see Kelly, 2007 forethnographic data on single-day foraging radii]); and (2) artifactsmade on non-local material, which consist of 15 geochemicallydistinct obsidian types found 17e229 km from the localities(roundtrip distances greater than a single day’s travel). To comparelocal and non-local projectile points, bifaces, and unifaces, wegenerated a variety of nominal- and ratio-scale data. For points, werecorded length, width, thickness, and weight for complete speci-mens and noted whether specimens were complete or broken. Wecalculated width-to-thickness ratios (WTR) for specimens withcomplete widths and thicknesses, and calculated Hafted BifaceRetouch Index (HRI) values for complete projectile points. The HRIprovides a measure of the extent to which a projectile point hasbeen reworked by scoring the presence and intensity of secondaryretouch chipping along its lateral margins, which are divided into16 equal sections. It is calculated as HRI ¼ P

Si/n, where Si is the

sum of all section scores and n is the total number of sections.Values range from 0 (no retouch) to 1 (completely retouched)(Andrefsky, 2006:746e747). For bifaces, we recorded basic metricdata (length, width, thickness, weight) for specimens possessingthose complete dimensions. We also noted whether or not eachspecimen was complete or broken and calculated WTRs for speci-mens possessing complete widths and thicknesses. Finally, forunifaces, in addition to recording basic metric attributes andwhether specimens were broken or complete, we recorded thepresence/absence of cortex and two additional measures of useintensity designed specifically for flake tools: (1) the Index ofInvasiveness (II); and (2) Geometric Index of Unifacial Reduction(GIUR). The II was designed by Clarkson (2002) for use on completeflake tools. Similar to the HRI, it divides flake tools into 16 segments(eight per face) and scores retouch invasiveness in each segment. Itis calculated as II ¼ total segment scores/total segments. Valuesrange from 0 (no retouch) to 1 (completely retouched) (Clarkson,2002:68). The GIUR was developed by Kuhn (1990) to score theextent of retouch on the lateral margins of unifacial flake tools.Since its inception, there has been some debate over potentialbiases related to flake cross-section morphology (Dibble, 1995);however, many researchers (e.g., Clarkson, 2002; Eren andSampson, 2009; Hiscock and Clarkson, 2005) agree that whenused appropriately, the GIUR is useful for quantifying retouch in-tensity. The GIUR expresses the relationship between T (maximumthickness of the tool blank) and t (thickness of the tool blank at thepoint in its cross-section where retouch stops) and values rangebetween 0 (no retouch) and 1 (the thickness of the blank at thepoint of retouch [t] equals the maximum thickness of the blank atthat cross-section [T]).1 We calculated GIUR values for eachretouched lateral margin on unifaces and included them in pools oflocal and non-local values.

3.3. Hypotheses and expectations

Using these materials and methods outlined, we developed andtested two hypotheses regarding Paleoindian provisioning strate-gies and how they may have varied with shifts in mobility andoccupational spans at the Parman localities:

H0. there are no significant differences between tools made onlocal and non-local rawmaterials. We would interpret these resultsas evidence that groups stopped at the Parman localities briefly butdid not stay long enough to warrant a shift in provisioning strate-gies from one emphasizing individuals to one emphasizing places.

H1. non-local tools are significantly smaller, lighter, and exhibithigher rates of breakage and greater retouch (i.e., they are more“used up”) than local tools. We would interpret these results asevidence that groups stayed at the Parman localities for extendedperiods of time and shifted technological provisioning strategiesfrom one emphasizing individuals to one emphasizing places.

Expectations for H0 (no significant differences in local and non-local tools) and H1 (significant differences in local and non-local

Fig. 3. Select stemmed projectile points (top row), bifaces (middle row), and unifaces (bottom row) from the Parman localities (adapted from Smith, 2006).

2 Smith (2006, 2007) separated formal unifaces (i.e., scrapers, combination tools)and informal unifaces (i.e., retouched flakes) when the Parman assemblages wereoriginally analyzed, and reported some statistically significant differences in GIURvalues between local and non-local formal unifaces. In the seven years since thatinitial analysis, he has found that differentiating unifaces into formal and informalcategories is highly subjective and has limited utility in some cases. We avoidedseparating specimens here, which produced results different than those initiallyreported.

G.M. Smith et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 4180e41884184

tools) regarding the various attributes andmeasures outlined earlierare summarized in Table 2; in short, we expect that if Paleoindiansshifted provisioning strategies from one focused on individualswhile moving between wetland basins (including Lake Parman) toone focused on places while occupying the Parman localities, thentools made on non-local raw materials should be lighter, thinner,shorter, less complete, more invasively retouched, and in general,more “used up” than tools made on local rawmaterials, which werepresumably made, used, and discarded at the sites.

4. Results

Table 3 summarizes the results of comparisons of local and non-local points. Basic metric attributes (length, width, thickness,weight) do not differ significantly between the two groups, nor dobreakage rates, WTRs, or HRI values (see Supplemental Tables 1e3for data for each artifact). The results presented in Table 3 supportH0: there are no significant differences in the use intensity of localand non-local tools. Table 4 shows that like projectile points, localand non-local bifaces generally do not differ significantly in basic

metric attributes, WTR ratios, or breakage rates. The only exceptionto this trend is that non-local bifaces are significantly narrowerthan local bifaces (p ¼ .042). Again, these trends support H0 (thereis no difference in local and non-local tools). Finally, Table 5 in-dicates that local and non-local unifaces do not differ significantlyin basic metric attributes, presence/absence of cortex, and degree ofretouch as scored using both the II and GIUR.2 The lone significantdifference (p ¼ .006) is that non-local unifaces are on averagelonger than local unifaces e an unexpected finding that runscounter to the expectations outlined in Table 2. Results of ourcomparison of local and non-local unifaces also support H0.

Table 2Summary of expectations for local and non-local tools from the Parman localities.

Artifact type and measure of use Toolstone origin

Non-local Local

Projectile pointsLength (mm) � þWidth (mm) � þThickness (mm) � þWeight (mm) � þBreakage þ �Width-to-thickness ratio (WTR) þ �Hafted Biface Retouch Index (HRI) þ �BifacesLength (mm) � þWidth (mm) � þThickness (mm) � þWeight (mm) � þBreakage þ �Width-to-thickness ratio (WTR) þ �UnifacesLength (mm) � þWidth (mm) � þThickness (mm) � þWeight (g) � þBreakage � þCortex � þIndex of Invasiveness (II) þ �Geometric Index of Unifacial Reduction (GIUR) þ �

Table 3Results of comparisons between local and non-local projectile points at the Parmanlocalities.

Measure of use Toolstone origin

Local Non-local

Length (mm)n 5 7m 46.2 48.4s 7.7 7.0Statistical test U ¼ 15.0, Z ¼ �.407, p ¼ .684Width (mm)n 32 47m 24.4 24.9s 4.6 5.0Statistical test t ¼ �.446, df ¼ 77, p ¼ .655Thickness (mm)n 35 48m 6.7 7.1s 1.0 1.4Statistical test t ¼ �1.137, df ¼ 81, p ¼ .259Weight (mm)n 5 7m 8.9 9.2s 2.8 4.8Statistical test U ¼ 15.5, Z ¼ �.325, p ¼ .745W/T ration 33 47m 3.7 3.6s .8 .9Statistical test t ¼ .115, df ¼ 78, p ¼ .908Hafted Biface Retouch Index (HRI)n 5 6m .775 .656s .1 .3Statistical test U ¼ 11.5, Z ¼ �.643, p ¼ .520BreakageComplete 5 7Broken 30 41Statistical test c2 ¼ .001, df ¼ 1, p ¼ .970

Table 4Results of comparisons between local and non-local bifaces at the Parman localities.

Measure of use Toolstone origin

Local Non-local

Length (mm)n 6 1m 52.9 3.3s 3.3 e

Statistical test U ¼ .0, Z ¼ �1.500, p ¼ .134Width (mm)n 58 21m 39.1 34.0s 10.5 6.9Statistical test t ¼ 2.068, df ¼ 77, p ¼ .042Thickness (mm)n 66 21m 10.1 8.9s 3.9 2.0Statistical test t ¼ 1.332, df ¼ 85, p ¼ .187Weight (mm)n 5 1m 18.7 10.5s 23.2 e

Statistical test U ¼ 2.0, Z ¼ �.293, p ¼ .770W/T ration 56 20m 4.1 4.0s 1.1 0.9Statistical test t ¼ .488, df ¼ 74, p ¼ .627BreakageComplete 5 1Broken 67 24Statistical test Fisher’s exact test: p < .999

G.M. Smith et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 4180e4188 4185

In sum, comparisons of basic metric data and multiple mea-sures of reduction/use-intensity of Paleoindian projectile points,bifaces, and unifaces at the Parman localities indicate that thereare essentially no differences in the condition of implements madeon local and non-local toolstone. This finding is contrary to theresults of other studies focused of lithic assemblages from varioustimes and places (e.g., Andrefsky, 2010; Bamforth, 1986; Beck et al.,2002; MacDonald, 2008; Morrow, 1997; Shott, 1986) which showthat in general, non-local tools are smaller, lighter, and were usedmore intensively than local tools. Such differences are oftenattributed to the fact that artifacts were used and maintained (i.e.,“curated”) in transit to the locations where they were ultimatelydiscarded (Andrefsky, 2010; MacDonald, 2008; Morrow, 1997;Shott, 1986).

The lack of significant differences in the use intensity of localand non-local artifacts suggests that PHT groups visiting or occu-pying the Parman localities discarded lithic tools at roughly thesame point in their use-lives independent of distance to source.Modeling the degree to which artifacts were used relative to theirmaximum potential utility in any great detail (e.g., Shott, 1995) isbeyond the scope of this paper; however, mean HRI values for localand non-local projectile points (.775 vs. .656) and mean II (.310 vs..388) and GIUR values (.606 vs. .646) for local and non-local uni-faces suggest that most tools were discarded with some potentialutility remaining.

5. Discussion

Previous studies (e.g., Andrefsky, 2010; Bamforth, 1986; Becket al., 2002; MacDonald, 2008; Morrow, 1997; Shott, 1986) showa predictable relationship between artifact transport distance andartifact use intensity. Differences in the degree of reuse of local andnon-local artifacts are usually attributed to the fact that groupsused and maintained lithic tools e a subtractive process e as they

Table 5Results of comparisons between local and non-local unifaces at the Parmanlocalities.

Measure of use Toolstone origin

Local Non-local

Length (mm)n 27 6m 48.1 65.6s 10.7 21.8Statistical test t ¼ �2.959, df ¼ 31, p ¼ .006Width (mm)n 51 12m 37.9 34.8s 9.0 10.1Statistical test t ¼ 1.048, df ¼ 61, p ¼ .299Thickness (mm)n 64 13m 8.8 9.7s 2.8 4.3Statistical test t ¼ �.971, df ¼ 75, p ¼ .335Weight (mm)n 25 6m 16.6 24.2s 9.6 19.7Statistical test t ¼ �1.383, df ¼ 29, p ¼ .177Presence/Absence of CortexPresent 40 8Absent 25 4Statistical test Fisher’s exact test: p > .999Index of Invasiveness (II)n 24 5m .310 .388s .1 .1Statistical test t ¼ �1.251, df ¼ 27, p ¼ .222Geometric Index of Unifacial Reduction (GIUR)n 66 17m .606 .646s .2 .1Statistical test t ¼ �.905, df ¼ 81, p ¼ .368BreakageComplete 25 6Broken 40 6Statistical test Fisher’s exact test: p ¼ .523

G.M. Smith et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 4180e41884186

moved across the landscape. This relationship is not present in oursample of artifacts: multiple comparisons of three common artifactclasses from Parman localities 1 and 3 show that there are essen-tially no differences in the degree of reuse of tools made on non-local raw materials and presumably transported to the sites fromdistant geologic sources, and tools made on local rawmaterials andpresumably used and discarded at the Parman localities.

While a positive relationship between artifact transport dis-tance and use intensity is commonly reported, it is by no meansuniversal. Drawing upon data from Paleoindian assemblages on thePlains, Bamforth (2009) notes that non-local and local projectilepoints do not always differ significantly in size. He proposes twoscenarios that might account for this trend: (1) groups tradedfinished but unused projectile points great distances across thelandscape; and (2) multiple groups geared up at different quarriesand traveled variable distances to communal hunts during whichprojectile points from far and near sources alike were used anddiscarded. Regarding the first scenario (that unused artifacts weretraded between groups), we acknowledge that Paleoindians mayhave traded tools on an informal basis when they came into con-tact, perhaps to mediate interactions and facilitate information andmate exchange (see Kelly, 2007 for examples of such behavior).However, like other researchers focused on the PHT (e.g., Beck andJones, 2011; Hayden, 1982; Jones et al., 2003), we discount thepossibility that most toolstone e a critical resource ewas obtainedthrough trade. As Hayden (1982:113) points out, “to argue that the

exchange of any bulk item, especially over long distances, wasimportant among prehistoric hunter/gatherers, there should begood reasons for believing that there was a lack of important re-sources in specific band-sized areas or larger.” On a lithic landscapeas rich as that of northwest Nevada, high quality raw material wasnever lacking and exchange can likely be ruled out as a majormechanism of toolstone transport during the PHT.

Regarding Bamforth’s (2009) second scenario, that multiplegroups geared up at different quarries and traveled variable dis-tances/directions to communal gatherings, it is possible that for-agers from different parts of the northwestern Great Basintransported unused tools to the Parman localities, where they wereused and discarded alongside tools made on local raw material.Previously, Smith and Kielhofer (2011) argued that the high tool-stone diversity exhibited by the Parman localities sample couldreflect such behavior; however, ethnographically-documentedcommunal gatherings typically occurred at times and placeswhere abundant resources could temporarily support populationaggregations (Steward, 1938). Although Paleoindian subsistencestrategies, especially those related to communal hunting, remainpoorly understood in the Great Basin (Haynes, 2007), sufficientresource availability would have always been a necessary prereq-uisite for such gatherings. As Hockett et al. (2013:3) point out,“procuring the amount of food necessary to support these gather-ings required seasonally abundant and predictable resources.”Given the small size of Lake Parman and the limited subsistenceresources that it likely offered during the PHT, we are now less opento the possibility that periodic population aggregations producedthe trends noted in the Parman lithic assemblages.

High mobility is another possibility that could account for thelack of significant differences in the use intensity of local and non-local tools at the Parman localities. Working with 3500e1500-year-old assemblages in Owens Valley in the western Great Basin,Eerkens et al. (2008:676) concluded that a lack of size differencebetween local and non-local flakes “suggests an extreme degree ofmobility, so high that the time it took to travel 120e140 km resultedin little additional reduction than the time it took to travel 50e60 km”. As outlined earlier, multiple lines of evidence suggest thatPaleoindians operated within broad geographic ranges, relocatedresidential campsites often, and employed a settlement strategyfocused on redundant and repeated use of wetlands (see Joneset al., 2003 for a detailed discussion of this model). In their previ-ous study, Smith and Kielhofer (2011) also acknowledged that hightoolstone diversity could reflect repeated short stays by small,isolated groups who used Lake Parman e one of the only pluvialbasins in northwest Nevada e as a temporary stopover betweenlarger and more productive basins to the north (e.g., Warner Valley,the Alvord Desert) and south (Lahontan). Given that Lake Parmanwas the third smallest pluvial lake during the PHT (Mifflin andWheat, 1979), short stays within that patch are in line with bothMadsen’s (2007) predictions based on patch-choice models andDuke et al.’s (2011) predictions based on GIS modeling of the PHTlandscape. Short stays could also account for the lack of significantdifferences between projectile points, bifaces, and unifaces madeon local and non-local toolstone found there.

Regardless of whether multiple groups of Paleoindians cametogether at the Parman localities for communal gatherings, groupsrepeatedly stopped there en route to more productive wetlands tothe north and south, or both, when Kuhn’s (1995) concept of pro-visioning strategies is applied to our dataset, we conclude that theoccupants of the Parman localities rarely if ever transitioned fromprovisioning individuals while moving across the landscape toprovisioning the place while occupying the sites. We attribute thislack of evidence for a shift in provisioning strategies to the fact thatstays were generally short, perhaps due to the small size of Lake

G.M. Smith et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 4180e4188 4187

Parman and its limited ability to support groups for prolongedperiods in a way that seems to have been possible in the ORB delta(Duke, 2011; Duke and Young, 2007; Schmitt et al., 2007), LongValley (Beck and Jones, 2009), and other large pluvial basins duringthe PHT. At those locations, far-ranging foragers e either smallisolated groups or larger communal aggregations e appear to havemoved residential camps less frequently.

Data from the Parman localities, situated around one of thesmallest PHT wetlands, and sites in the ORB delta, situated withinthe largest PHT wetland, present contrasting pictures of Paleo-indian lifeways united by a common focus on lacustrine settings. Atthe former, residential stays were brief and groups do not appear tohave altered their technological provisioning strategies. At thelatter, although residential stops at any one locationwere likely alsoshort due to declining returns within the effective foraging radiiaround camp (sensu Kelly, 2007), the overall length of time spent inthe ORB delta appears to have been longer, and groups elected toprovision that place with lithic raw materials because they recog-nized that it is toolstone-poor and theywould either be there for anextended period or return to it at some point in the future (Dukeand Young, 2007). The relationship between technological provi-sioning and occupation span suggested by work at these two areascorresponds reasonably well with patch choice models (e.g.,MacArthur and Pianka, 1966), which Madsen (2007) applied to thePHT in the Great Basin to predict that larger resource patches (i.e.,wetlands) should have fostered longer overall occupations becauseit would have taken longer for return rates within such patches todrop below the average for all other patches than in smallerpatches. As such, additional studies of lithic technology and sourceprovenance data at Paleoindian sites in PHT basins with well-understood environmental and cultural histories may be used tofurther develop our understanding of the factors that influencedwhen, where, and why early groups in the Great Basin elected torelocate their residential camps. Duke et al.’s (2011) efforts tomodel environmental conditions in different basins during the PHTrepresents the important next step towards this goal, and re-searchers should focus their attention on conducting futureresearch on the relationship between patch size, occupation span,and technological provisioning strategies during the PHT in theGreat Basin.

6. Conclusion

The record of human occupation in the Great Basin during thePHT is dominated by open-air lithic, surface scatters comprised ofartifacts made on obsidian and FGV toolstone. Using this record toaddress certain questions about when was the region was firstoccupied has proven challenging; however, it is well-suited foraddressing questions related to land-use and settlement strategies.In this paper, we have provided an example of how lithic scattersremain a valuable source of information about Paleoindian life-ways. We applied Kuhn’s (1995) model of technological provi-sioning to consider occupation span at Parman localities 1 and 3,two Paleoindian sites situated along the former shores of LakeParman e one of the smallest pluvial basins in Nevada during thePHT. Patch choice models predict that stays at the Parman localitiesshould have been short due to limited resource availability, but inthe absence of direct subsistence and environmental data, thisprediction can only be tested using proxy data.

Our analysis of the conditions of flaked stone artifacts revealsthat there are no significant differences in tools made on local andnon-local toolstone. When considered using the concept of tech-nological provisioning, we interpret this lack of differences toreflect the fact that groups never shifted from provisioning moremobile individuals to provision places occupied by less mobile

individuals. This possibility is in accordance with theoretical andGIS-based predictions that stay at the Parman localities should havebeen brief. We currently do not know if such occupations were bysmall, isolated groups using Lake Parman as a stopover betweenmore productive locales or by periodic population aggregations,althoughwe increasingly favor the former possibility. In either case,stays appear to have been short. This finding contrasts with recentwork in other larger pluvial basins, where there is evidence forlonger stays and a concomitant shift in the way that groups sup-plied themselves with toolstone. Continued studies incorporatingboth source provenance and technological data in other basins ofvarying size and quality should begin to fill in gaps in our under-standing of how Paleoindians altered their land-use and settlementstrategies in response to variable local conditions during the PHT.

Acknowledgments

Funding for the XRF analysis of artifacts from the Parman lo-calities was provided by the Sundance Archaeological ResearchFund (now the Great Basin Paleoindian Research Unit), UNRDepartment of Anthropology, Northwest Research Obsidian StudiesLaboratory, and the Desert Research Institute. Thanks are due toTom Layton for establishing much of what we know about thearchaeology of northwest Nevada and supporting our ongoingwork. Craig Skinner conducted the geochemical analysis of artifactsfrom the sites at a discounted graduate student rate, the Winne-mucca Field Office of the BLM facilitated our work at the Parmanlocalities, and students from the UNR Department of Anthropologyparticipated in fieldwork at the sites. Stephen “Joey” LaValleydiscovered that Bog Hot Springs obsidian, whose geologic sourcelocation was previously unknown, is geochemically identical toCraine Creek obsidian, whose geologic source is known. DeborahChan recorded some of the metric data on artifacts used in thestudy. Chris Morgan and Bob Kelly commented on earlier versionsof this manuscript. Finally, thank you to the anonymous reviewersfor their positive feedback. Any errors remain our own.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.06.024.

References

Andrefsky Jr., W., 1994. Raw-material availability and the organization of technol-ogy. American Antiquity 59, 21e34.

Andrefsky Jr., W., 2006. Experimental and archaeological verification of an index ofretouch for hafted bifaces. American Antiquity 71, 743e757.

Andrefsky Jr., W., 2010. Human land use strategies and projectile point damage,resharpening and discard patterns. Human Evolution 25, 13e30.

Bamforth, D.B., 1986. Technological efficiency and tool curation. American Antiquity51, 38e50.

Bamforth, D.B., 2009. Projectile points, people, and Plains Paleoindian perambula-tions. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28, 142e157.

Beck, C., Taylor, A.K., Jones, G.T., Fadem, C.M., Cook, C.R., Millward, S.A., 2002. Rocksare heavy: transport costs and paleoarchaic quarry behavior in the Great Basin.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21, 481e507.

Beck, C., Jones, G.T., 2009. The Archaeology of the Eastern Nevada Paleoarchaic, Part1. In: The Sunshine Locality. Anthropological Papers, vol. 126. University of Utah,Salt Lake City, UT.

Beck, C., Jones, G.T., 2011. The role of mobility and exchange in the conveyance oftoolstone during the Great Basin Paleoarchaic. In: Hughes, R.E. (Ed.), Perspec-tives on Prehistoric Trade and Exchange in California and the Great Basin.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 55e82.

Binford, L.R., 1979. Organization and formation processes: looking at curatedtechnologies. Journal of Archaeological Research 35, 255e273.

Binford, L.R., 1980. Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: hunteregatherer settlementsystems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45, 4e20.

Clarkson, C., 2002. An index of invasiness for the measurement of unifacial andbiface retouch: a theoretical, experimental and archaeological verification.Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 65e75.

G.M. Smith et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 4180e41884188

Close, A.E., 1999. Distance and decay: and uneasy relationship. Antiquity 72, 24e32.Dibble, H., 1995. Middle paleolithic scraper reduction: background, clarification,

and review of the evidence to date. Journal of Archaeological Method andTheory 2, 299e368.

Duke, D.G., 2011. If the Desert Blooms: a Technological Perspective on PaleoindianEcology in the Great Basin from the Old River Bed, Utah (Unpublished Doctoraldissertation). Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

Duke, D.G., King, J., Young, D.C., 2011. A chronological GIS model for Paleoindianland use in the Great Basin. In: Paper Presented at the 77th Annual Meeting ofthe Society for American Archaeology, Sacramento, CA.

Duke, D.G., Young, D.C., 2007. Episodic permanence in paleoarchaic basin selectionand settlement. In: Graf, K.E., Schmitt, D.N. (Eds.), Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic?:Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition. Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 123e138.

Eerkens, J.W., Spurling, A.M., Gras, M.A., 2008. Measuring prehistoric mobilitystrategies based on obsidian geochemical and technological signatures in theOwens Valley, California. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 668e680.

Elston, R.G., Zeanah, D., 2002. Thinking outside the box: a new perspective on dietbreadth and sexual division of labor in the prearchaic Great Basin. WorldArchaeology 34, 103e130.

Eren, M., Sampson, C.G., 2009. Kuhn’s geometric index of unifacial stone toolreduction (GIUR): does it measure missing flake mass? Journal of Archaeolog-ical Science 36, 1243e1247.

Fieldel, S.J., Morrow, J.E., 2012. Comment on “Clovis” and western stemmed: pop-ulation migration and the meeting of two technologies in the intermountainwest” by Charlotte Beck and George T. Jones. American Antiquity 77, 376e385.

Goebel, T., 2007. Pre-archaic and early archaic technological activities at BonnevilleEstates Rockshelter: a first look at the lithic record. In: Graf, K.E., Schmitt, D.N.(Eds.), Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic?: Great Basin Human Ecology at thePleistocene-Holocene Transition. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT,pp. 156e184.

Goebel, T., Hockett, B.H., Adams, K.D., Rhode, D., Graf, K., 2011. Climate, environ-ment, and humans in North America’s Great Basin during the Younger Dryas,12,900e11,600 calendar years ago. Quaternary International 242, 479e501.

Graf, K.E., 2001. Paleoindian Technological Provisioning in the Western Great Basin(Unpublished Master’s thesis). Department of Anthropology and Ethnic Studies,University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Grayson, D.K., 2011. The Great Basin: a Natural Prehistory. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley, CA.

Hayden, B., 1982. Interaction parameters and the demise of Paleoindian crafts-manship. Plains Anthropologist 27, 109e124.

Haynes, G., 2007. Paleoindian or paleoarchaic? In: Graf, K.E., Schmitt, D.N. (Eds.),Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic?: Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 251e258.

Hiscock, P., Clarkson, C., 2005. Experimental evaluation of Kuhn’s geometric indexof reduction and the flat-flake problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 32,1015e1022.

Hockett, B., Creger, C., Smith, B., Young, C., Carter, J., Dillingham, E., Crews, R.,Pellegrini, E., 2013. Large-scale trapping features from the Great Basin, USA: thesignificance of leadership and communal gatherings in ancient foraging soci-eties. Quaternary International 297, 64e78.

Jenkins, D.L., Davis, L.G., Stafford Jr., T.W., Campos, P.F., Hockett, B., Jones, G.T.,Cummings, L.S., Yost, C., Connolly, T.J., Yohe II, R.M., Gibbons, S.C., Raghavan, M.,Rasmussen, M., Paijmans, J.L.A., Hofreiter, M., Kemp, B.M., Barta, J.L., Monroe, C.,Gilbert, M.T.P., Willerslev, E., 2012. Clovis age western stemmed projectilepoints and human coprolites at the Paisley Caves. Science 337, 223e228.

Jones, G.T., Beck, C., 1999. Paleoarchaic archaeology in the Great Basin. In: Beck, C.(Ed.), Models for the Millennium. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT,pp. 83e95.

Jones, G.T., Beck, C., Jones, E.E., Hughes, R.E., 2003. Lithic source use and paleo-archaic foraging territories in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68, 5e38.

Jones, G.T., Fontes, L.M., Horowitz, R.A., Beck, C., Bailey, D.G., 2012. ReconsideringPaleoarchaic mobility in the central Great Basin. American Antiquity 77, 351e367.

Kelly, R.L., 1988. The three sides of a biface. American Antiquity 53, 717e734.Kelly, R.L., 2007. The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in HuntereGatherer Lifeways,

second ed. Percheron Press, New York.

Kelly, R.L., Todd, L.C., 1988. Coming into the country: early Paleoindian hunting andmobility. American Antiquity 53, 231e244.

Kuhn, S.L., 1990. A geometric index of reduction for unifacial stone tools. Journal ofArchaeological Science 17, 583e593.

Kuhn, S.L., 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology: an Economic Perspective. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, NJ.

Lafayette, L.M., Smith, G.M., 2012. Use-wear traces on experimental (replicated) andprehistoric stemmed points in the Great Basin. Journal of California and GreatBasin Anthropology 32, 141e160.

Layton, T.N., 1970. High Rock Archaeology: an Interpretation of the Prehistory of theNorthwestern Great Basin (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Department ofAnthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Layton, T.N., 1979. Archaeology and paleo-ecology of pluvial Lake Parman, north-western Great Basin. Journal of New World Archaeology 3, 41e56.

MacArthur, R.H., Pianka, E.R., 1966. On optimal use of a patchy environment.American Naturalist 100, 603e609.

MacDonald, D.H., 2008. The role of lithic raw material availability and quality indetermining tool kit size, tool function, and degree of retouch: a case studyfrom Skink Rockshelter (46NI445), West Virginia. In: Andrefsky Jr., W. (Ed.),Lithic Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 216e232.

Madsen, D.B., 2007. The paleoarchaic to archaic transition in the Great Basin. In:Graf, K.E., Schmitt, D.N. (Eds.), Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic?: Great Basin HumanEcology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition. University of Utah Press, SaltLake City, UT, pp. 3e20.

Mifflin, M.D., Wheat, M.M., 1979. Pluvial Lakes and Estimated Pluvial Climates ofNevada. In: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin, vol. 94. University ofNevada, Reno.

Morrow, J.E., 1997. End scraper morphology and use-life: an approach for studyingPaleoindian lithic technology and mobility. Lithic Technology 22, 70e85.

Oviatt, C.G., Madsen, D.B., Schmitt, D.N., 2003. Late Pleistocene and early Holocenerivers and wetlands in the Bonneville basin of western North America. Qua-ternary Research 60, 200e210.

Schmitt, D.N., Madsen, D.B., Oviatt, C.G., Quist, R., 2007. Late Pleistocene/early Ho-locene geomorphology and human occupation of the Old River Bed delta,western Utah. In: Graf, K.E., Schmitt, D.N. (Eds.), Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic?:Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition. Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 105e119.

Shott, M.J., 1986. Technological organization and settlement mobility: an ethno-graphic examination. Journal of Archaeological Research 42, 15e51.

Shott, M.J., 1995. How much is a scraper? Curation, use rates, and the formation ofscraper assemblages. Lithic Technology 20, 53e72.

Smith, G.M., 2006. Pre-archaic Technological Organization, Mobility, and SettlementSystems: a View from the Parman Localities, Humboldt County, Nevada (Un-published Master’s thesis). Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada,Reno.

Smith, G.M., 2007. Pre-archaic mobility and technological activities at the Parmanlocalities, Humboldt County, Nevada. In: Graf, K.E., Schmitt, D.N. (Eds.), Paleo-indian or Paleoarchaic?: Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 139e155.

Smith, G.M., 2010. Footprints across the black rock: temporal variability in prehis-toric foraging territories and toolstone procurement strategies in the westernGreat Basin. American Antiquity 75, 865e885.

Smith, G.M., 2011. Shifting stones and changing homes: using toolstone ratios toconsider relative occupation span in the northwestern Great Basin. Journal ofArchaeological Science 38, 461e469.

Smith, G.M., Kielhofer, J., 2011. Through the high rock and beyond: placing the LastSupper Cave and Parman Paleoindian lithic assemblages into a regional context.Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 3568e3576.

Steward, J.H., 1938. Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. In: SmithsonianInstitution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, vol. 20. United States Gov-ernment Printing Office, Washington DC.

Surovell, T.A., 2009. Toward a Behavioral Ecology of Lithic Technology: Cases fromPaleoindian Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.

Wigand, P.E., Rhode, D., 2002. Great Basin vegetation history and aquatic systems:the last 150,000 years. In: Hershler, R., Madsen, D.B., Currey, D.R. (Eds.), GreatBasin Aquatic Systems History. Smithsonian Contributions to Earth Sciences No.33. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 309e367.