TIME, FORM AND VARIABILITY: LAKE MOJAVE AND PINTO PERIODS IN MOJAVE DESERT PREHISTORY Claude N. Warren Introduction: Time, Culture, and Chronological Types, Disagreements and controversy regarding the age of cultural assemblages and the basis for establishing cultural sequences have characterized the archaeol- ogy of California and southern Nevada deserts since the first cultural chronology was established. Eliza- beth and William Campbell (1935, 1937; E. Camp- bell 1936), M. R. Harrington (1933) and M. J. Rogers (1939) all attempted to develop a method of estab- lishing a cultural sequence in the Mojave Desert, where there are few stratified sites and where most known archaeological assemblages were recovered from the surface of the ground. Harrington (1933) reported the association of the Gypsum point with dung of the ex- tinct ground sloth in Gypsum Cave, and claimed a Pleistocene age for the Gypsum point type. The Campbells, in collaboration with Antevs and other geologists, reported the association of Lake Mojave points with the shorelines of Pleistocene Lake Mojave (Campbell, et al. 1937), and Pinto points with ancient stream channels in Pinto Basin (Campbell and Camp- bell 1935). The Campbells claimed late Pleistocene and early post-Pleistocene ages for the Lake Mojave and Pinto points. Rogers (1939), held that these point types were associated with topographic features of the later wet period of the Little Ice Age. All of these authors attempted to demonstrate the relationships between a point type and a dated geological feature. Once such a connection was made it was then pos- sible to use typological cross dating for other assem- blages containing the same point types. After 1950, radiocarbon dating was applied where possible in conjunction with typological cross dating of projectile points. The difference between cultural equivalency and temporal equivalency became more significant as the amount of information to be synthe- sized increased. The concept of chronological period (a unit of time), based on radiocarbon dates and typo- logical cross dating using projectile points, emerged next. This concept has been used successfully in the Mojave Desert since 1974 (Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Warren 1980a, 1984; Warren and Crabtree 1986); how- ever, it is important that concepts of time such as pe riod and horizon, remain distinct from concepts of cul- tural units, such as component and phase. Period and horizon are both concepts that assist the archaeologist in organizing temporal relationships, e.g., chronology. The period is a unit of time, not a unit of culture. When that unit of time is recognized by the presence of an artifact type (called a period marker), then the temporal distribution of the artifact type becomes the basis for defining the unit of time, although they seldom are congruent. A period may be long or short. It is identified by a period marker; other artifacts and cultural materials associated with that period marker are thus considered to fall within the same period of time. This concept organizes ar- chaeological materials into periods of either short or long duration. The shorter the periods, the more sen- sitive the chronology is to changes in aspects of the prehistoric culture other than the period marker. The horizon is also a unit of time marked by an artifact type, an attribute such as a pottery design, or even a widespread geological stratum such a volcanic ash. The horizon is conceived as a very short span of time or a distinct break in the cultural sequences that extends through a wide area of space in a "geological instant." The horizon concept is a means of identify- ing chronologically equivalent points in time in two or more cultural sequences. Therefore, the shorter the duration and the wider the distribution, the better the horizon marker. The concept of component and phase are both cul- tural units that are defined without regard to temporal placement. A component is an assemblage of arti- FENENGA VOLUME facts derived from a spatial unit, e.g., a stratum or ar- bitrary unit of midden or an entire site, of appropriate size for use by a population. The "appropriate size" will vary with the complexity of the cultural remains, the intensity of occupation, and the rate of geological deposition. A component is placed in time by means of dating that is independent of the specific component's definition. Components are organized into larger cultural units called "complexes," "phases," "cultures" or "cultural traditions" on the basis of similarity among the arti- fact assemblages of the different components. The content of the cultural remains is the basis for defin- ing these concepts, and their temporal placement and extent are determined by independent means. In the California and southern Nevada deserts ty- pological cross dating has been primarily based on "traditional" projectile point types, and secondarily on "traditional" types of other artifact categories. These traditional types ideally should have been de- fined on the basis of time sensitive attributes. How- ever, traditional projectile point types have been intu- itively identified and described; no time sensitive at- tributes have been formally identified for the Califor- nia and southern Nevada deserts. As a result, archae- ologists have not been consistent in their type descrip- tions and there are disagreements as to which attributes are characteristic of any given type. Most of the pro- jectile points from the early assemblages of the Mojave Desert fall within the traditional Lake Mojave, Silver Lake, and Pinto types. All other types are represented by small numbers of specimens. All other types are represented by small numbers of specimens. The Lake Mojave and Pinto projectile point types appe to func- tion as period markers in a limited but useful way. Types of types and the Chronological Type An artifact typology most often communicates a description of classes of objects based on selected "im- portant" attributes for each class. Such a typology is too often used as the basis for seriation and chrono- logical placement, for functional categories, for illus- trating "culture change." It is then said to represent the "mental template" of the makers of the artifacts. It should not be surprising that such typologies do not function well in all, or even any of these endeavors. To answer questions of technological trajectory, eth- nic identity, artifact function, or chronology, requires different sets of data and therefore different types of types. Whether or not a type represents the "mental template" is both irrelevant and unprovable. To dis- tinguish between several taxonomies and apply dif- ferent typologies to different problems as needed should be a common practice for archaeologists. Types are conceptual tools for the archaeologist. They work best when designed for specific tasks, and more than one taxonomic system may be required to answer the questions the archaeologist asks (or test the hypoth- eses the archaeologist constructs). As Vaughan and Warren (1987:199) state: The necessary quality for a temporal type is the correlation of physical attribute(s) with a unit of time. It matters not if the attribute(s) results from a change of cultural preference or a change in the availability of a lithic source. We need not know whether the forms we observe result from patterned resharpening of reoccurring fractures patterned by use, from intractability of the preferred raw material, or from the "men- tal template" of the prehistoric craftsman. The only necessary qualities are reoccurring attribute(s) that are restricted to a definable period of time. The temporal type is the archaeologist's tool for constructing chrono- logical units, not cultural units. It need reflect the cultural behavior of the prehistoric people no more than does the charcoal used in radio- carbon dating. The Lake Mojave series and Pinto series point types are tentatively defined below. These definitions should be recognized as working definitions of chronologi- cal types. However, it is stressed that these defini- tions are tentative because they have their foundations planted firmly in the early descriptions of Lake Mo- jave, Silver Lake, and Pinto points by Amsden (1935, 1937), Rogers (1939) and Harrington (1957). There- fore, the attributes used in the definition cannot be shown to be time sensitive and their validity must be tested. Amsden (1935, 1937) provided the type de- scriptions for the Lake Mojave, Silver Lake, and Pinto points. Rogers' (1939) and Harrington's (1957) de- scriptions vary somewhat from Amsden's in that their types include more attributes and more variations in 130 LAKE MOJAVE AND PINTO PERIODS IN MOJAVE DESERT PREHISTORY forms. Furthermore, Rogers (1939) and Harrington (1957) each had goals quite different from each other and from those of Amsden. The typology that follows is not a combination of the types established by Amsden, Rogers, and Harrington. The attributes selected were based on observations made by these three early archaeologists, but they often disagreed on the importance of the va- lidity of specific characteristics (most obvious in Rogers' leaf shaped variant of the Pinto point). In the discussions below decisions were based on the argu- ments presented by each of these men and on the ba- sis of my own experience in developing a chronology for the California and southern Nevada deserts. It must be clearly understood that the selection of the attributes and their variables, to some degree, has been estab- lished intuitively. Consequently, these type descrip- tions must be tentative and have yet to be adequately tested. However, if the key presented below sepa- rates the Lake Mojave, Silver Lake and Pinto points into units that are consistent in form and in chrono- logical placement, then they are valid temporal types and the taxonomy is to some degree successful. Other archaeologists are currently developing defi- nitions of these traditional point types and their tax- onomies as well as definitions that may be quite dif- ferent from those presented here. Basgall and Hall's (1993) paper on more than 300 points from 24 sites promises the first definition of Pinto points based on an adequate sample and statistical analysis. The Taxonomy and Types We follow Thomas' (1970,1981) taxonomic meth- ods, but use attributes based on the descriptions of the traditional point types of the early occupations of the Mojave Desert. Nearly all of the points of the Lake Mojave and Pinto series defined here are relatively large and stemmed. Consequently, the first few steps of this taxonomic key are equivalent to those of Tho- mas'. After these initial comparisons, however, the two keys are quite different in terms of attribute varia- tions. The criteria used herein to distinguish the pro- jectile point types in the Mojave Desert center on length of stem and width of shoulders, attributes not included in Thomas' key. Therefore, these types are not comparable to Thomas' without applying the same criteria to those defined by Thomas (1981). Lake Mojave and Silver Lake Types: The Lake Mojave Series The Lake Mojave and Silver Lake types were first described by Amsden (1937:80-84) more than 50 years ago. Although the phrasing of that description ap- pears archaic and ambiguous today, the attributes cited by Amsden cited as characteristic of the Lake Mojave point type are: 1. Long tapering stem; 2. Slight (narrow) shoulders (if present); 3. Generally diamond-shaped with longer stem than blade; and 4. Varies in form between an oval form on one hand and the Silver Lake type on the other. The Silver Lake type by contrast is said to exhibit: 1. Greater definition of shoulder than the Lake Mojave type; 2. A shorter stem than the Lake Mojave type, never more than one-half the length and usually about one- third of the length; and 3. Convex base. Rogers (1939:35) placed both Lake Mojave and Sil- ver Lake points in a single "Stemmed Blades" cat- egory. He states that this category is: Characterized by a long, broad stem with a rounded base. It was constructed from a leaf- shaped blade by reducing the width of the blade from the base end toward the tip for a distance of one-half to two-thirds the total length. This usually left pronounced shoulders at the junc- tion of the stem and blade. The blade section is usually short, stubby and obtusely pointed (Rogers 1939:35). Rogers (1939:35) also notes that Amsden subdivided this category into Lake Mojave and Silver Lake types. In this paper the Lake Mojave and Silver Lake types are recognized as a morphologically and technologi- cally related series of forms herein called the Lake Mojave series. Amsden's (1935, 1937) and Rogers' (1939) de- scriptions formed the basis for the traditional intui- tive types even though Amsden's descriptions were Warren 131 FENENGA VOLUME based on only twelve Lake Mojave and fifteen Silver Lake points (Amsden 1937:80, 84), and Rogers' (1939:35) were based on a total of twenty-five speci- mens. The attributes given priority by Rogers and Amsden and apparently by later archaeologists were: the Length of Blade (LB), Length of Stem (LS), Proxi- mal Shoulder Angel (PSA), Basal Width (WB), and Width of Shoulders (WS). The Width of Shoulders measurement is calculated by subtracting the Neck Width (WN) from the Maximum Width at the Shoul- ders (MWSh). These attributes are described here as linear mea- surements and degrees of angles. A "type" is assumed to represent patterned behavior by the makers; these measurements will reflect that behavior. As Thomas (1981:14-15) notes, however, there are changes that occur in these measurements after manufacture, due to wear, breakage and maintenance. These "use-life modifications" change the measurements and intro- duce variability that is not a result of the patterned behavior of point manufacture. Rogers (1939:35) states that among his "Stemmed Blades" category "many.. .have blunted irregular tips as if they had been broken and resharpened." Tuohy (1969) describes the pattern of breakage and resharpening on similar points from the western Great Basin. There is ample evidence for breaking and resharpening of blades, with breaks often occurring just above or just below the shoulder (Tuohy 1969:138). The attributes of the blade as originally flaked, are often missing and when present, are highly variable because of the use-life modification. Because of this high degree of variability in blade form the use of blade attributes in defining the types is limited here to only those relevant to the shape and size of the shoul- ders. This, unfortunately, eliminates one of the tradi- tional attributes for distinguishing lake Mojave from Silver lake points: the length of stem relative to length of blade. Pinto Point Series In the original description of Pinto points, Amsden (1935:44) notes as major attributes the "definite al- though narrow shoulders and usually.. .incurving [con- cave] base," as well as the relatively great thickness. Rogers (1939:54) later subdivided Pinto points into four stemmed types and a leaf-shaped type. The four- stemmed types were based on attributes of stem form. In 1957, Harrington (1957:51-53) redefined the Pinto types so as to include five stemmed forms based pri- marily on shoulder attributes. Harrington (1957:51) notes the resharpening of the blades of the Pinto points and its effect on the overall form; however, neither Rogers (1939) nor Amsden (19350 make similar observations. The major crite- ria for determining the Pinto types are attributes of the shoulders and stem. Most blade attributes are again omitted from the definition of the types. The basal concavity is recognized by Amsden (1935) and Harrington (1957) as a distinguishing characteristic of the Pinto types, but Rogers' (1939:54-55) Type 2 Pinto exhibits a straight base in all examples he illus- trates. In recent years the indented base has become an element of the Pinto point definition (Thomas 1970, 1981; Vaughan and Warren 1987). The definition of the Pinto point is recognized by archaeologists of the desert west as a problem in need of clarification and resolution (Basgall and Hall 1993; Schroth 1994; Warren 1980a, 1980b; Warren and Vaughan 1987). Warren and Vaughan (1987) address some of the problems, but without a large sample of points and innovative typological analyses, the prob- lem of type identification cannot be resolved (Schroth 1994; Vaughan and Warren 1987). The Pinto point, as defined here, is essentially what traditional knowl- edge of Mojave Desert archaeology recognizes as Pinto points. The goal here is to describe the shape of the stem and shoulders of the traditional Pinto points in terms of linear and degrees of angle measurements, clear descriptive observations which can be duplicated by other archaeologists. Definition of Attributes The attributes listed here (Figure 1) include some borrowed directly from Thomas (1981) and others that experience has demonstrated to be important in dis- tinguishing points of the Lake Mojave and Pinto se- ries in the Mojave Desert. These are as follows: Distal Shoulder Angle - DSA. The Distal Shoul- derAngle is that angle formed between line (A) de- fined by the shoulder at the distal point of juncture and line (B) drawn perpendicular to the longitudinal 132 LAKE MOJAVE AND PINTO PERIODS IN MOJAVE DESERT PREHISTORY DISTAL SHOULDER ANGLE (DSA) PROXIMAL SHOULDER ANGLE (PSA) BASAL W DTH (MM) NECK WEDTH (WN) MIAXIUM WIDTIH AT SHOULDERS (IWSh) BASAL INDENTION RATIO (BER) POSITION OF LAXLMUM WIDTH (PoNM _ J..28f Do2l I I, I &^ w- v 1 0 "- I I I I --r--X A - I~ i-L- II Figure 1: Projectile Point Attributes Warren 133 FENENGA VOLUME axis (C) at the intersection of A and C. DSA ranges between 290 and 270 degrees. If points are asym- metrical, the small angle value of the DSA is mea- sured. DSA is recorded to the nearest 5 degrees (Tho- mas 1981:11). Proximal Shoulder Angle - PSA. The Proximal Shoulder Angle is that angle formed between the line (D) defined by the proximal point of juncture and line (B) plotted perpendicular to the longitudinal axis at the intersection of C and D. PSA ranges between zero and 270 degrees. If points are asymmetrical, the larger angle for the PSA is measured. (Thomas measured the smaller angle. However, by measuring only the smaller angle the possibility of recording use-life modification is increased.) PSA is recorded to the near- est five degrees (Thomas 1981:11). Basal Indentation Ration - BIR. The length mea- sured along the longitudinal axis (C) divided by the maximum length measured parallel to the longitudi- nal axis (C). The Basal Indentation Ratio ranges be- tween .0 and about .90 (Thomas 198 1:11). Basal Width - WB. The width of the widest por- tion of the base (Thomas 1981:13). Neck Width - WN. The width of the stem at the intersection of the stem and shoulders. Maximum Width of Shoulder - MWSh. Width of blade at the intersection of blade edge and shoulder. Shoulder Width-Maximum Width at Shoulder Ra- tio - WSh/MWSh. Ratio of the Shoulder Width to the Maximum Width at the Shoulder. Shoulder Width- Maximum Width at Shoulder Ratio = WSh/MWSh. Stem Length - LS. Stem Length is the length of the stem from base to intersection with shoulder, mea- sured parallel to Longitudinal Axis. If shoulders are asymmetrical the smaller value is measured. An additional term needs to be defined before this key can be used in a consistent manner. The term "shoulder" is not defined by Thomas (1970, 1981) although the primary division in his key is based on the presence or absence of this attribute. In most cases the presence or absence of a shoulder would be agreed upon by most archaeologists. However, as the shoul- der becomes less pronounced and as the DSA and PSA approach a difference of 180 degrees, agreement as to the presence or absence of the shoulder will certainly decrease. Lake Mojave points often exhibit very slight or no shoulders with the difference between the DSA and PSA approaching or equaling 180 degrees. There is also a clear continuum from these "lanceolate" points to the clearly shouldered points within what traditionally is called the Lake Mojave point type. The term "shoulder" clearly needs a definition which can be objectively identified. The terms "shoulder" and "stem" refer to the proxi- mal end of the projectile point, from the location where the width is reduced to facilitate hafting, to the base. The angle formed by the shoulder and the stem equals the angle of the notch opening (Thomas 1981:14). As the notch opening increases the differentiation between the shoulder and the stem decrease. When the notch opening reaches 180 degrees the shoulder and the stem are no longer differentiated and the point becomes "lanceolate" or "diamond" shaped, and is often de- scribed as lacking a stem. However, the taxonomy used here defines the widest point on lanceolate and diamond shaped forms as the shoulder with the stem defined by measurable Proximal Shoulder Angle and Distal Shoulder Angle. If the edge below the shoul- der is convex so the DSA and PSA cannot be mea- sured, or if the difference between the PSA and DSA is greater than 180 degrees, then the projectile points is classed as shoulderless and nonstemmed. It should also be noted that lanceolate and diamond shaped shouldered points can be segregated from the "traditionally" shouldered and stemmed forms by the Shoulder Width (Maximum Width at Shoulder [MWSh] minus Neck Width [WN], MWSh- WN=WSh). All lanceolate and diamond shaped points will have a shoulder width of zero (MWSh-WN=0) whereas all points with notch openings less than 180 degrees will have Shoulder Widths greater than zero (MWSh-WN>0). The Taxonomy: Key I for Lake Mojave and Pinto Series The taxonomic system utilized here is borrowed directly from Thomas (1,981); the initial steps are iden- tical to those described in Thomas' Monitor Valley Projectile Point Key (Thomas 1981:25). Because the unstemmed, side-notched and small stemmed points are not part of the Lake Mojave and Pinto Series points that portion of the key has not been reproduced here. The following represents steps added to the Monitor Valley Projectile Point Key in order to incorporate the Pinto, Lake Mojave, and Silver Lake Points from the Mojave Desert. 134 LAKE MOJAVE AND PINTO PERIODS IN MOJAVE DESERT PREHISTORY Key I: Lake Mojave and Pinto Point Series Point is unshouldered Point is shouldered Point is side-notched Point is stemmed Point is small. Neck width < 10.00 mm Point has neck width >10.00 mm Point has basal width ? 10.00 mm Point has basal width < 10.00 mm Point has BIR < .98 Point has BIR ? .98 Point has thickness < 6.4 mm Point has thickness ? 6.4 mm and WSh < 12.75 mi Point has WSh/MWSh ration ? 7.4 mm and WSh 2 Point has WSh/MWSh ratio ? .15 Point has WSh/MWSh ratio > .15 Point has PSA ? 105 Point has PSA > 105 Point has PSA ? 80 Point has PSA < 80 Point has DSA > 80 Point has DSA < 80 Point has DSA ? 220 Point has DSA < 220 Point has Basal Width ? MWSh Point has Basal Width < MWSh Point has DSA ? 220 Point has DSA < 220 Point has LS/MWSh ratio < .68 Point has LS/MWSh ratio ? .68 Point has LS/MWSh ratio ? .45 Point has LS/MWSh ratio > .45 Point has PSA > 85 Point has PSA ? 85 Point has 8.5 mm ? ShW ? 2.0 mm Other Point has LS/MWSh ratio ? .25 Point has LS/MWSh ratio < .25 Out of key (2) Out of Key (3) Out of Key (4) (5) (14) (6) (17) Elko or Gatecliff Series m (7) > 12.75 Elko or Gatecliff Series Pinto Series (8) (9) (12) (10) Out of key (11) Out of key Pinto sloping shoulder with straight stem Pinto square shoulder with straight stem Out of key (13) Pinto sloping shoulder with expanding stem Pinto square shoulder with expanding stem (15) (16) Out of Key Lake Mojave Short-stem (formally Silver Lake) Lake Mojave Short-stem (formally Silver Lake) Lake Mojave Long-stem (formally Lake Mojave) (18) Out of Key Silver Lake Rectangular Out of Key 1. la. 2. 2a. 3. 3a. 4. 4a. 5. 5a. 6. 6a. 6b. 7. 7a. 8. 8a. 9. 9a. 10. 10a. 11. 1la. 12. 12a. 13. 13a. 14. 14a. 15. 15a. 16. 16a. 17. 17a. 18. 18a. Warren 135 FENENGA VOLUME Discussion The method of typological cross dating appears to be relatively simple and straight forward, but differ- entiation between periods and horizons, and between these concepts of time and the concepts of cultural units are not consistently recognized. The following discussion contains descriptions of two uses of the time sensitive artifact types, the (through convention) are forms that are easily recognized, relatively complex, and preferably numerous. Such artifacts may be ei- ther horizon markers or period markers, and the dif- ference between them requires different applications for developing chronologies. Because the differences between the two concepts is not always recognized, scholars have arrived at incorrect evaluations of the effectiveness of typological cross dating. Meighan (1989) presents a critical review of the two articles that concerned the age of the Pinto points. These articles (Jenkins 1987; Vaughan and Warren 1987) were the result of archaeological investigations at Fort Irwin, and used the Warren (1980, 1984; War- ren and Crabtree 1986) chronology. Meighan's com- ments illustrate some misconceptions regarding the use if this projectile point chronology. Both of these articles, and most previous work- ers, started with the assumption that Pinto points were time markers and that they could be used to delineate reasonably short time periods (Meighan 1989:114). The Pinto period in Warren's chronology extends over 3000 years (4000 to 7000 B.P.) and Jenkins (1987) argues for a beginning date of 8400 B.P. for Pinto points, giving the Pinto points at least a 4400 years time span. Clearly, neither Jenkins nor Vaughan and warren assumed that Pinto points "could be used to delineate reasonably short time periods." There are few projectile point forms in the Cali- fornia and southern Nevada deserts that can be shown to have persisted for only a brief period of time, and there is much temporal overlapping of the projectile point forms. This leads to a problem of the "tradi- tional" use of time sensitive artifact types in construct- ing chronologies. Most often time periods are assumed to be equivalent to the temporal distribution of the "time marker" projectile point type. If this were cor- rect, either there is overlapping of time periods (which is neither logically correct nor archaeologically desir- able), or one time-sensitive projectile point type re- places an earlier one in an instant, and they do not co- exist. To assume that a projectile point form, charac- teristic of a temporal unit, would be immediately RE- PLACED by another projectile point form character- istic of the succeeding period is to embrace the un- likely. About the only way such a change of point types could take place is I the people of the later pe- riod occupied it. That is a scenario that seldom oc- curs in the prehistory of the world, and is of limited use to archaeologists attempting to establish a chro- nology. Although his numbers may prove to be wrong, Meighan's (1989:114) point is well taken when he writes: Pinto points may well occur over a period of more than 5000 years, and published age esti- mates span 7000 years. If this is so, use of these points as a time marker provides a pretty blunt instrument for observing climatic or any other sequential changes... The Pinto point type is defined here as a part of a chronological model that makes it possible to demon- strate cultural continuity and change throughout the early prehistory of the Mojave Desert. This model is neither fine grained nor chronologically fixed. It is a model designed to reflect the real time of the past and as such must be modified and adjusted as additional data are recovered. The Awl site, CA-SBr-4562 (Basgall and Hall 1992; Jenkins and Warren 1984; Jenkins; Warren and Wheeler 1986); site CA-SBr-5251 (Hall 1992); Rogers Ridge, CA-SBr-5250 (Hall 1992; Jenkins 1985, 1986); and sites on Nelson Wash (War- ren 1991) have provided data that clearly support an initial age for Pinto points greater than the 3000 to 4000 years ago, generally accepted in 1980. The new dates for the appearance of Pinto points eliminates the hiatus between the Lake Mojave and Pinto occupa- tions and illustrates a cultural continuity between the two periods. A single cultural tradition extends from the begin- ning of the Lake Mojave period (which is not yet ad- equately dated) at earlier than ca. 9500 years, to well into the Pinto period. The Lake Mojave period is char- acterized by the Lake Mojave projectile point types as defined above, e.g., Short Stemmed and Long Stemmed Lake Mojave points. The characteristic 136 LAKE MOJAVE AND PINTO PERIODS IN MOJAVE DESERT PREHISTORY cultural assemblage of this period (e.g., San Dieguito or Lake Mojave complex) includes (in addition to the projectile points) a larger number of leaf-shaped bifaces that served as cutting and piercing tools, cores from which flakes could be removed as needed, and other functions still unknown. Other characteristics of this assemblage are: well formed domed unifaces ("scrapers"), shaped rather like tortoise shells; flaked stone crescents and eccentrics; small beaked engrav- ers, and manos and metates (rare). The materials used in the production of the flaked stone tools are oddly patterned. The bifaces were pro- duced most often from basalt and other fine grained volcanics and more rarely of cryptocrystalline mate- rials and obsidian. The unifaces, on the other hand, were most often made on flakes of cryptocrystalline materials, with basalt and other fine grained stones making up a smaller percentage of these tools. The transition from the Lake Mojave complex to the Pinto Basin complex of the Pinto period does not occur at a single moment; but over some as yet unde- termined span of time, which may be on the order of 500 to 1000 years. The changes that occur include a change in projectile types with: first an addition of Pinto points and unnamed forms resembling Pinto and Silver Lake points; an increase in the use of milling stones; the disappearance of the crescents, eccentrics, and small beaked gravers; and the addition of drills. The uniface types continue as do the bifaces. Fur- thermore, the pattern of tool stone use, with basalt and other fine grained volcanics preferred for the manu- facture of bifaces and cryptocrystalline materials most common for unifacial tools, is found throughout at least the first half of the Pinto period. The end of the Pinto period is marked by the intro- duction of the Gypsum and Elko series points. There is an associated change in artifact assemblages with a greatly reduced use of the large, well-formed domed unifaces, and the occurrence of large numbers of unifacially worked flakes. In addition, cryptocrystal- line materials were used for the production of uni- faces and bifaces in very high percentages. Theoretically, the early (Lake Mojave-Pinto peri- ods) portion of the cultural sequence of the California and southern Nevada deserts can be subdivided into at least three periods based on the occurrence of pro- jectile point types (Figure 2). Lake Mojave points characterize the Lake Mojave period. The end of the Lake Mojave period is marked by the introduction of the Pinto points. Thus the initial, or early, Pinto pe- riod contains both Lake Mojave and Pinto points, to- gether with Silver Lake and other point forms. Fol- lowing this initial Pinto period the Lake Mojave points are no longer found, but Pinto and Silver Lake forms continue and other forms are developed. This model predicts the projectile point assemblages of the Rogers Ridge site (Jenkins 1987) and the Awl site (Basgall and Hall 1992). However, the validity of this hypo- thetical period has been criticize (Basgall and Hall 1992) because they do not accept the dates obtained, or the association of Pinto and Lake Mojave points in the same geological unit. Chronological periods are units of time marked by the use of diagnostic projectile points. Thus the Lake Mojave period begins with the introduction of the Lake Mojave point series; the Pinto period with the first occurrence of Pinto point types, and the Gypsum pe- riod with the occurrence of the Elko point series, Gyp- sum point type, and/or Humboldt point series. Each period ends when a new diagnostic projectile point type first occurs, not when the characteristic point type no longer occurs. When referring to chronological periods there are no "transitions" between periods, as there are no tran- sitions between years, or months, or days. The defi- nition of a chronological period is not a definition of a cultural unit. Cultural units do undergo transforma- tions, and those transformations may occur within or across boundaries of chronological periods; or in rare instances correspond to the boundary of chronologi- cal periods. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Pinto period is a time of major cultural transforma- tions. The cultural assemblage that is characteristic of the late Pinto period is poorly represented, may be absent in the central Mojave, and where it occurs else- where in the Mojave may be very different from the artifact assemblage that characterizes the early Pinto period. If the concept of periods, marked by a Lake Mo- jave and Pinto point series, is used as a chronological framework, the cultural data associated with them are the material remains of Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene peoples. When this chronological framework is used in conjunction with absolute and relative dating tech- niques, such as radiocarbon, obsidian hydration, se- riation, etc., the associated cultural data can then be Warren 137 FENENGA VOLUME FINAL PINTO PERIOD (COITJ.ECTOR STRATEGY WITH SITE SPECIALIZATION) 9~~~~~~~~~~~~~ INITIAL PINTO PERIOD (FORAGER STRATEGY) 0 0 IWU3 -4 I.' I Pinto (FORAGER STRATEGY) 9 _~ ~ ~~~~~~A 0 0 31 w-. Lake Mojave 9*k Silver Lake Figure 2: Lake Mojave and Pinto Periods in the Central Mojave Desert '4 - I v  -Ailk - I ,4 t.-Ak-J 138 Am- 5- Am LAKE MOJAVE AND PINTO PERIODS IN MOJAVE DESERT PREHISTORY analyzed for spatial/temporal units of cultural simi- larities, and for variability of cultural data. The units of cultural similarity are the building blocks of cul- tural history; but the framework of temporal periods facilitated the identification of a single cultural tradi- tion for the Lake Mojave and Pinto periods. The temporal units, i.e., periods, identified by time markers and subdivided by means of horizon mark- ers, radiocarbon dates, obsidian hydration readings, seriation of artifact types, and other forms of chrono- logical orderings, facilitate in the identification and analysis of variability within the cultural data. We have identified the Lake Mojave-Pinto cultural tradi- tion that persists for several thousand years. During these several thousand years the Mojave becomes in- creasingly arid and resources, including artiodac- tyls, decrease. The human populations must adapt to these changing conditions or decrease in number. Warren has postulated certain kinds of changes under these conditions by use of a "subsistence focus model" (Warren 1986; Warren and Lyneis 1986). Focusing...may be viewed as the process in which a group of individuals directs its inter- ests and energies toward a production system and its application to the environment. This results in the acceptance of innovation arising within the subsystem and resistance to change originating outside the focus. The subsistence focus thus has an internal dynamic that is sepa- rate from, but interacts with, environmental and demographic forces. Changes in the subsistence system result from these dynamic systems. The subsistence focus model predicts a two- stage response to declining resources. Because the subsistence focus is the production system where creativity is most freely expressed and resistance to innovation minimized, the initial response is an attempt to increase productivity within the subsistence focus through manipu- lation of the technology and its application, and intensification of these procurement activities. If productivity continues to decrease then the second stage response may begin, taking the form of a decrease in population and/or gen- eral reduction in cultural complexity and cost of its maintenance. This entails some degree of cultural disintegration, which in turn weak- ens the subsistence focus. If the second stage response is initiated then new emphasis is placed on manipulation of, and experimenta- tion with the technologies of other production systems and their application, creating diversi- fication within the subsistence system (Warren 1986:8). As a point of illustration, the first stage response is considered here. On the basis of the subsistence fo- cus model it may be predicted that as the Mojave Desert dried and artiodactyls became increasingly difficult to take, the first reaction of the hunters would be to manipulate elements of the artiodactyl hunting focus. This manipulation would be seen archaeologically in an increased variability in the hunt- ing tools; for example, increased number of types, and/ or increased variability of forms within types. In or- der to demonstrate the correlation of the increased variability with changing resources chronological con- trol must be maintained. This is most cleanly done when the chronological framework is conceptually distinct from the cultural units. It is in the correlation of cultural variability within the Lake Mojave-Pinto tradition with the increased aridity and changes of local resources that the cul- ture-environment relationships are to be found. These relationships form the basis for the study of the ecol- ogy of this prehistoric cultural tradition. This corre- lation of changing cultural variability with changing environmental conditions would not be easily made if the chronological unit were congruent with the cul- tural unit. Changing diversity and variability may be identified within the Lake Mojave-Pinto cultural tra- dition, and it is the flexibility of this framework of temporal periods that allows for the investigation of cultural ecological processes. In summary, the period concept allows for the in- ferential establishment of culture history, but contains the flexibility necessary for the investigation of cul- tural processes that involve changing cultural variabil- ity through time, space and cultural units. References Cited Amsden, Charles A. 1935 The Pinto Basin Artifacts. Southwest Museum Papers 9:33-50. Los Angeles. 1938 Lake Mojave Artifacts. In The Ar- Warren 139 FENENGA VOLUME chaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mojave: A Sym- posium, by Elizabeth W. Crozer Campbell, W. H. Campbell, E. Antevs, C. A. Amsden, J. A. Barbeiri, and F. A. Bode. Southwest Museum Papers 11:51-98. Los Angeles. Basgall, M. E. 1991 The Archaeology of Nelson Basin and Adjacent Areas, Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County, California. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. Davis, CA. Basgall, M. E., and M. C. Hall 1991 Archaeology of the Awl Site (CA-SBr- 4562), Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County, California. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles. 1993 Observations on Temporal and Mor- phological Variation in Pinto Point Forms from the Southwestern Great Basin. Twentyseventh Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Asilomar, California. Bettinger, Robert L., and R. E. Taylor 1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeologi- cal Sequences of the Great Basin in Interior Southern California. Nevada Archaeological Survey Research Papers 5:1-26. Reno. Campbell, Elizabeth W. Crozer 1936 Archaeological Problems in the Southern California Deserts. American Anti- quity 1(4):295-300. Menasha. Campbell, Elizabeth W. Crozer, and W. H. Campbell 1935 The Pinto Basin Site: An Ancient Ab- original Camping Ground in the California Desert. Southwest Museum Papers 9. Los An- geles. 1937 The Lake Mojave Site. In The Ar- chaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mojave: A Sym- posium. Southwest Museum Papers 11:9-44, Los Angeles. Campbell, Elizabeth W. Crozer, William H. Camp- bell, Ernst Antevs, Charles A. Amsden, Joseph A. Barbieri, and Francis D. Bode 1937 The Archaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mojave: A Symposium. Southwest Museum Papers 11. Los Angeles. Hall, M. C. 1992 Final Report on the Archaeology of Tiefort Basin, Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Los Angeles District, by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. Davis, CA. Harrington, M. R. 1933 Gypsum Cave, Nevada. Southwest Museum Papers 8. Los Angeles. 1957 A Pinto Site at Little Lake, Califor- nia. Southwest Museum Papers 17. Los Ange- les. Jenkins, D. L. 1985 Rogers Ridge (4-SBr-5250): A Fos- sil Spring Site of the Lake Mojave and Pinto Periods - Phase 2 Test Excavations and Site Evaluation. Fort Irwin Archaeological Re- search Report 18. Wirth Environmental Ser- vices, San Diego. 1986 Flood, Sweat and Spears in the Val- ley of Death: Site Survey and Evaluation in Tiefort Basin, Fort Irwin, California. Fort Irwin Archaeological Research Report 17. Wirth Environmental Service, San Diego. 1987 Dating the Pinto Occupation at Rogers Ridge: A Fossil Spring Site in the Mojave Desert. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 6:44-60. Jenkins, D. L., and C. N. Warren 1984 Obsidian Hydration and the Pinto Chro- nology in the Mojave Desert. Journal of Cali- fornia and Great Basin Anthropology 6:44-60. Jenkins, D. L., C. N. Warren, and T. Wheeler 1986 Test Excavation and Data Recovery at the Awl Site, SBr-4562: A Pinto Site at Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County, California. Fort Irwin Archaeological Research Report 22. Wirth Environmental Services, San Diego. Meighan, C. W. 1989 Further Comments on Pinto Point and their Dating. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 11 (1): 113-118. Rogers, M. J. 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers 3. San Diego. Schroth, Adella B. 1994 The Pinto Point Controversy in the Western United States. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of 140 LAKE MOJAVE AND PINTO PERIODS IN MOJAVE DESERT PREHISTORY California, Riverside. Thomas, David Hurst 1970 Archaeology's Operational Impera- tive: Great Basin Projectile Points as a Test Case. University of California Archaeological Survey Annual Report 12:27-60. Los Angeles. 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. In Journal of Cali- fornia and Great Basin Anthropology 3:7-43. Tuohy, Donald R. 1969 Breakage, Burin Facets, and the Prob- able Linage Among Lake Mojave, Silver Lake, and Other Varieties of Paleo-Indian Projectile Points in the Desert West. Nevada State Mu- seum Anthropological Papers 14:132-152. Carson City. Vaughan, Sheila J., and Claude N. Warren 1987 Towards a Definition of Pinto Points. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthro- pology 9(2):199-213. Warren, Claude N. (ed.) 1991 Archaeological Investigations at Nelson Wash, Fort Irwin, California. Fort Irwin Archaeological Project Research Report 23. Dames and Moore, San Diego. Warren, Claude N. 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Re- view and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32:168-187. 1980a The Archaeology and Archaeological Resources of the Amargosa-Mojave Basin Plan- ning Units. In A Cultural Resource Overview for the Amargosa-Mojave Basin Planning Units, pp. 1-134. Claude N. Warren, Martha Knack, and Elizabeth von Till Warren, eds. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, CA. 1980b Pinto Points and Problems in Mojave Desert Archeology. Anthropological Papers in Memory of Earl H. Swanson, Jr., pp. 67-76. L. B. Harten, C. N. Warren, and D. R. Tuohy eds. Idaho State Museum of Natural History, Pocatello. 1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, pp. 339-430. Michael Morrato ed. Academic Press, Orlando. 1986 Early Holocene Cultural Adaptation in the Mojave Desert. Paper presented at the World Archaeological Congress, 1-7 Septem- ber, Southampton and London. Warren, Claude N., and Robert H. Crabtree 1986 Prehistory of the Southwestern Area. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol- ume 11: Great Basin, pp. 183-193. Warren D'Azevedo ed. Smithsonian Institution, Wash- ington D.C. Warren, Claude N., and Margaret Lyneis 1986 Fort Irwin Preservation Plan, Volume 2: The Research Overview. Coyote Press, Sali- nas, CA. Warren 141