One often notices an emphasis on projectile points in archaeological
reports, especially in studies of non-ceramic or pre-ceramic cultures.
Archaeology as a historical science must integrate all the data with
their own context and with events which preceded and followed. In
searching for data that provide such chronological and geographical
correlation (e.g. horizon styles in the sense of Willey and Phillips),
there are certain basic needs. Though any cultural element could be
used in correlations of this kind, some are less useful because their
forms are governed by function, and others are fundamentally common and
form traditions rather than horizon styles (e.g. grinding stones in
some parts of the United States). A horizon marker must have some kind
of stylistic development which allows variation outside of function.
In cultures without pottery, as Willey and Phillips have pointed out
(1958), projectile points become the most important artifacts in
classification and integration because, 1) the usual economic mode of
subsistence of people at this level renders a plentiful supply of such
artifacts, and 2) as artistic representations they are sensitive to
styles yet remain stable for adequate periods of time.
Projectile points from the LoDaisKa Site are therefore treated
differently from certain other artifacts. We have illustrated all of
the projectile points from pre-ceramic levels. Where these make up a
type all of the artifacts of this type, even though it may extend into
ceramic times, are so treated. This has been done for two reasons:
1) A major portion of the material is apparently affiliated with the
Great Basin. Great Basin types are extremely variable and difficult to
classify. 2) Cultures of that area have been, until recently, little
investigated and cultural patterns which are not now recognized may
some day be distinguished; the authors hope to create a record which
will be useful even when new data come to light. For ceramic periods
we forgo such detail for two reasons: 1) Pottery is present as a more
sensitive marker. 2) The points found are usually uniform enough to fit
into a few internally consistent categories.
We have divided projectile points into 16 categories, 8 major ones.
This is primarily for convenience; secondly because some categories
probably do represent cultural types; and thirdly because there are
morphological ranges which may be described briefly in terms of a basic
pattern. We believe with Cressman (1956) that some form existed in
the minds of their makers and that a certain amount of variation is
consistent within a type. It is worth noting the testimony of certain
Ute informants who claimed that each tribe made its own recognizable
form of point. (See below, p. 122.)