Laserfiche WebLink
BC to 500 AD (Holmer 1986:105). It is clear that stemmed points grade into corner-notched <br />points, obscuring the boundaries between these two broad categories. <br /> <br />Side-notched points exhibit variable morphological attributes ranging from straight <br />to convex to concave basal edges and/or straight to convex blade edges. Notches vary from <br />shallow to deep and can either be situated near the base of the point (low notches) or higher <br />on the blade (high notches). Pronounced basal indentations or basal notching of <br />side-notched points in the area is rare; however, basally indented, slightly side-notched <br />points are well recognized on the Northern Plains and constitute a cultural complex known <br />as Oxbow. In general, side-notched points tend to predate 1800 BC. Examples of <br />side-notched points indicative of the Archaic include: Elko Side-notched, Bitteroot, <br />Northern Side-notched, Hawken, Mallory and Mt. Albion. <br />Corner-notched points evince an even broader range of size and basal diversity than <br />do side-notched points. Generally, corner-notched points are subsumed under the Elko <br />Corner-notched classification. Dates for Elko Corner-notched points are noted by Holmer <br />(1986:102) to range from 7000 BC to 1000 AD, with three date clusters (7000-3750 BC, <br />3750-1250 BC, and 1-1000 AD). A series of distinctive corner-notched points have been <br />stratigraphically date for the Uncompahgre Plateau by Buckles (1971:1220), which have <br />provided a baseline that is of greater utility than those lumped by Holmer into the Elko <br />Corner-notched type. <br /> <br />The proliferation in projectile point styles after the late Paleoindian era is not well <br />understood. It is possible that this phenomenon is simply a byproduct of time. In other <br />words, “the Archaic lasted a very long time and, thus; there was time for this variability to <br />occur” (Reed and Metcalf 1999:83). Alternatively, the multitude of point styles may be a <br />result of decreased mobility. Decreased mobility inhibits the exchange of ideas- relative <br />isolation would allow point forms to diverge. The fact that these divergent styles co-occur <br />within temporally defined archaeological components is more difficult to explain. Reed and <br />Metcalf (ibid.) go on to suggest one possible explanation: “Divergence in styles occurred <br />during the stable periods of relative isolation; sharing of styles occurred during periods of <br />settlement adjustment.” On a more finite scale, variation in styles may reflect functional <br />differences or differences in raw materials. It is also necessary to consider the variation that <br />results from individual manufacture. A less optimistic possibility is that projectile point <br />styles simply do not carry the kinds of cultural or social identity that archaeologists ascribe <br />to them; thus, attempts to explain variation are futile. <br />"At one time, investigators thought that the multitude of styles indicative of the <br />Archaic would eventually sort themselves into chronological and geographic patterns that <br />would make specific point forms diagnostic of temporal periods, and perhaps areas" (ibid...) <br />– but evidence continually arises suggesting a lack of temporal and spatial patterning. For <br />example, Metcalf (1998) attempted to generate a typology for the Uinta Basin Lateral <br />project by sorting points according to overall size, outline, and haft element characteristics. <br />The typology was refined according to details of point form and it was hoped that this would <br />reveal some temporal patterning within these broad categories. The study proved futile in <br />24