Laserfiche WebLink
In his concluding remarks on the testing process conducted at SKP139, • <br />Hand (1980, pp. 5.1-52) makes the assumption that the exposed subsurface <br />features can be a~rrelated with the two Scottsbluff II points, thus <br />assigning those features to the Paleo-lndian Cody Complex. 'Phis corre- <br />lation is exceedingly tenuous since these diagnostic points .are not <br />only surface finds but were not even located in the area of primary <br />deposition where the features are found. The McKean point, ]wwever, <br />was located subsurface within the area of deposition. Since this <br />specimen was found at a shallow depth (10 eztt below the ground surface) <br />and substantially above those features which are assumed to be Paleo- <br />Indian, then, a mire recent, Middle Archaic, utilization of the area <br />is apparent. <br />Fadiocart~ dates obtained fran SRT139 clearly do not substantiate a <br />Cody Complex affiliation (see Table 6). The two most reliable dates <br />are 6430 B.P. (5300 B.C.) for Hearth 21 and 5900 B.P. (4800 B.C.) for <br />Hearth ,8, which suggest an occupation of the site which is intermediary <br />between the Paleo-Indien Cody Complex and the McKean Complex; Early • <br />Plains Archaic would be the most appropriate tenQoral affiliation <br />(Frison, 1978, p. 83). The single date of 1130 B.P. (A.D. 850) for <br />Hearth 1 suggests a more recent, Late Prehistoric, occupation. Such <br />an assignation must be viewed cautiously even though it is independently <br />supported by the reoovezy of a Late Prehistoric projectile point fragmant <br />during trendzing activities. It is also possible that this latter date <br />is adjusted upwaris due to the sane factors which have obviously oantami- <br />nated the rema;n~ng samples. It is possible, of course, that the <br />Hearth 8 and 21 dates have been adjusted upwazds due to contamination <br />and may actually be old enou3h to be considered Paleo-lndian. The pro- <br />pinquity of these dates, although not conclusive, arc~~es favorably for <br />their authenticity. <br />If SRT139 is not Paleo-lndian in age, then, an explanation for the <br />presence of the two diagnostic Scottsbluff projectile points must be <br />supplied. The one a~lete Scottsbluff point evinces definite indi- <br />cations of having been resharpened while the fracgnentary condition of • <br />54 <br />