59 II. PROJECTILE POINTS FROM SITE NV-Ch-15, CHURCHILL COUNTY, NEVADA Robert F. Heizer and C. W. Clewlow Site NV-Ch-15, sometimes known as the Humboldt Lakebed site, lies in the Lower Humboldt Valley near Lovelock, Nevada. It is an enormous and extensive surface site which through the years has yielded an astonishingly large number of artifacts. L. L. Loud collected there for the University of California Museum of Anthropology in 1912, and published an account of the materials recovered some seventeen years later (Loud and Harrington 1929:124-151). Skeletal material from sites NV-Ch-15 and NV-Ch-18 (Lovelock Cave), recovered by Loud, was described by Gifford (1926:382). Most impor- tant among the artifacts from site NV-Ch-15 has been a large collection of projectile points. Since this assemblage has served as a reference collec- tion for comparison with points from other Great Basin sites for a number of investigators, and since several named types have been identified on the basis of this collection, it is felt that a short history and description of the specimens collected should be provided. The site is located in a very dry, sandy, deflated area which was once the tule swamp margin of Humboldt Lake. It lies 4.4 miles west-northwest from Lovelock Cave (Loud and Harrington 1929; Grosscup 1960), 7.5 miles southwest from site NV-Pe-5 (Elsasser 1958), and 3.5 miles southwest from site NV-Pe-67, as indicated on Map 1. Each of these sites has produced a large collection of projectile points, and in their totality they cover a long span of time. The majority of the points from site NV-Ch-15 were collected in July, 1950, by a University of California summer field class under the direction of Professor Robert F. Heizer, and included the following persons: M. A. Baumhoff, Thomas Bolt, John Costa, A. E. Elsasser, Cherie Gregoire, G. L. Grosscup, Mary Hall, Winifred Hawxhurst, Harry Millman, Arnold Pilling, James Robson, Norman Roust, and Clara Stern. The major effort of the group was devoted to the excavation of Leonard Rockshelter (Heizer 1951) and several small caves in the lower Humboldt Valley (Baumhoff 1958; Roust 1966), but a brief investigation of site NV-Ch-15 provided an opportunity for sur- face collections to be made. Occasional visits were made to the site during the next fifteen years, and a few points were collected each time. During the summer of 1965, eight more projectile points were found in the course of limited work at NV-Ch-15. These were added to the previous 60 dune s XNV-Pe-5 Dunes with some evidence of occupa.(on A I.IO ,.I - -., H u e m ., ^< b r 0 V-Ch-l8. d Lovelock Cave t R a 11 g \ e f loor n-ormal lake -* margin 4. U0.5 miles , (approx.) Map 1. Schematic drawing of location of site NV-Ch-15 aind other sites in the Lower Humboldt Valley. 61 collections, bringing the total number of pieces collected at the site to 988. Thus the Lowie Museum of Anthropology has in its possession a very large type collection in which multiple examples of many named types occur, and with which it has been possible to define the range of varia- tion of a number of types which have been found at other sites but in more limited numbers. Many named types originally identified in nearby areas occur in the NV-Ch-15 collection. These include the Elko and East- gate types (Heizer and Bauhoff 1961; Clewlow, this volume; O'Connell 1967), Rose Spring' and Cottonwood types (Lanning 1963), Desert Side-notched (Baumhoff and Byrne 1959), Gypsum Cave points (Harrington 1933) and Pinto types (Harrington 1957). Three new types-Humboldt Concave Base A, Humboldt Concave Base B, and Humboldt Basal Notch- are named in the collection, and a number of other possible types, not yet completely defined, are lettered A-K. Unique points and forms of which there are only two or three examples are not classified unless they are shown to be of importance in some neighboring area. Four probable Martis points (Heizer and Elsasser 1953; Elsasser 1960) are so designated. Due to the size of the collection, and in consideration of the diffi- culties inherent in any typological classification, it is of importance to mention the basic process which was followed in treating the NV-Ch-15 point collection. To begin with, information from sequences established by excavation in neighboring areas was used to sort out all of the known temporally significant types. Although the large number of points in the collection results in a greater range of variation in any given type than one would find in a smaller site, the type range which is allowed in the NV-Ch-15 points is nonetheless based upon information derived from point specimens retrieved from a temporal context. There remained a residue of classifiable points which had no references in stratified situations. These are classified on the basis of formal criteria alone, and are let- tered A through K, as noted above. These lettered categories are quite finely split, but if future distributional or stratigraphical information should justify lumping, they could easily be combined into meaningful units. In classifying the points, two problems were particularly bothersome: point size, and the degree of variability which is permissible in the definition of a given type. Point size is a problem because certain fea- tures, such as the forms of split-stemmed, corner-notched, and concave- base points, are repeated in points of all sizes. Since point size is probably of chronological significance in the Great Basin, a certain amount of caution is necessary in dealing with surface artifacts on a typological basis. In the NV-Ch-15 collection, no single weight limit is used to divide large from small points; each form was divided at the most convenient point. 62 That is, what could be termed "large" and "small" in any large group of points of similar shape was used to divide the series. A more meaningful division, which might or might not correspond to this dual division, could be made if we knew the time relations of all of the individual points of one series, and if we knew their function as well. Thus large points might be knives, spearpoints, or atlatl points, and small points might be arrowpoints, but unless we knew beforehand all of the temporal-functional facts, we should be doing nothing more than arbitrary guessing. It is precisely this kind of lack of information that makes projectile point typologies attempts to impose some order in an otherwise chaotic miscellany of formal-physical-functional attributes. In the Humboldt Concave Base types, letter designations are used to distinguish large from small points. The question of variability in form, which in many cases is a propor- tional one linked to differences of size, is almost necessarily a subjec- tive matter, since rarely will two classifiers include and/or exclude exactly the same variants in a given type. The problem is magnified theo- retically when, as is done here, type names applied in other areas are used. For example, when the range of variation is not the same in two areas, should the type bear the same name? On the whole, this has been solved by permitting considerable variation in the named types. Leniency has been exercised, with the view that a wide range of tolerance is both preferable and more culturally meaningful than a welter of distinctions whose origin may lie in sampling error. Thus, for example, in the NV-Ch-15 collection, the smaller split-stemmed points have been typed as Eastgate Split-stemmed, and the larger ones as Pinto Square Shoulder, even though most of the smaller ones are larger than the stratigraphically collected type specimens from Wagon Jack and South Fork shelters in central Nevada, and the larger ones are equivalent only to the best-made specimens at Little Lake (type site for the named Pinto series used here). Nonetheless, it is felt that most of the categories will meet with agreement from most other classifiers. A total of thirty-two projectile point types, including the lettered categories A through K, are recognized in the NV-Ch-15 collection and are described here. 63 Classification Pinto Shoulderless (fig. lh, i). Large, leaf-shaped point, poorly made, with concave or notched base. 2 points. Pinto Sloping Shoulder (fig. 2f-j). Large point with rounded, up-sloping shoulders, large, straight-sided stem, and concave or notched base. 7 points. Pinto Square Shoulder (fig. 2a-e). Large point with rounded, up-sloping shoulders, large, straight-sided stem, and concave or notched base. Combines Harrington's Square-shouldered and Barbed types. 31 points. Pinto Single Shoulder (fig. 2k-q). Point resembles Pinto Square Shoulder, but shouldered on one side only. 8 points. Humboldt Basal-notched (fig. 3c-h). Long, flat, triangular point with broad notch in base. Usually shows finely controlled diagonal ripple flaking. 33 points. Humboldt Concave Base A (fig. la-d). Large point, leaf-shaped in outline, thick, with narrow concave base. 30 points. Humboldt Concave Base B (fig. 3i-n). Small point of the same form as Base A. 33 points. Gypsum Cave (fig. 3a, b). Large point with convex-sided blade, square shoulders, and broad contracting stem. 2 points. Elko Eared (fig. 4a-h). Large point, side or corner notched, with markedly expanding stem. Base is notched or deeply concave. 72 points. Elko Corner-notched (fig. 4i-n). Large corner-notched point with a straight, slightly convex, slightly concave base. Barbs tend to be small. 13 points. Elko Side-notched (fig. 4o, p). Medium sized point with side notches low on the sides, convex base. 2 points. Eastgate Expanding Stem (fig. 5a-h). Small, usually very well made point with long broad barbs, two basal notches, and broad stem which is straight or -slightly expanding. 143 points. Eastgate Split Stem (fig. 5i-p). Similar point to above, but often less well made and with small barbs; like a small version of the Pinto Square Shoulder type. The base is rather narrow with a deep notch in the center. 26 points. 64 Rose Spring Side-notched (fig. 6a-h). Small, rather poorly made, point, with triangular blade and fairly deep side notches. 16 points. Rose Spring Corner-notched (fig. 6i-o). Like the preceding point but corner notched, with square shoulders or small pointed barbs. The stem varies from slightly to markedly expanding. 131 points. Rose Spring Contracting Stem (fig. 6p-w). Like the two preceding types, with a narrow, contracting stem. 53 points. Cottonwood Triangular (fig. 7a-h). Small triangle with a straight con- cave or notched base. A single convex-based specimen is included, although this varient does not occur in Iny-2., the type site. 71 points. Cottonwood Bipointed (fig. 7i-m). Small bipointed type with a slight shoulder usually about one-third of the way up from the base. 8 points. Cottonwood Leaf Shape (fig. 7n-r). Small convex-sided point with straight or convex base. 11 points. Desert Side-notched (fig. 8e-r). Small point with notches high on the sides, base concave, V-shaped, or single notched. 170 points. Martis (fig. 8a-d). Four basalt points , which do not fit other local types, resemble points from the Martis Complex and may be trade pieces. Three are side notched and one contracting stem. 4 points. Type A (fig. 9a-f). Large leaf-shaped point with narrow convex or straight base. Harrington's "willow-leaf" type at Little Lake. 12 points. Type B (fig. 9g-1). Very large point, usually broad and flat, with side notches and straight or rounded base. 12 points. Noteworthy for large size and emphasis on chert. Type C (fig. 9m-q). Large point with side notches, broad concave base., and sides which contract below the notches. Type is important at Danger Cave and at Madeleine Dunes in Lassen County. 3 points, possibly imported. Type D (fig. lOa-s). Small side or corner-notched point with markedly expanding stem and notched base. Small counterpart of Elko Eared. 18 points. Type E (fig. 1Ot-y). Extra large point, broad and flat, with square shoulders and broad., slightly expanding stem. 9 points. Noteworthy for large size and emphasis on chert. 65 Type F (fig. lla-f). Large point, short and thick, with very large, broad, expanding stem. 6 points. Type G (fig. llg-1). Very large point, broad and flat, with sloping shoulders and broad, slightly contracting stem. Noteworthy for large size and emphasis on chert. 6 points. Type H (fig. 12a-h). Large point with square or sloping shoulders. Stem is narrow, straight, or slightly contracting. These may be related to the Elko Contracting Stem type, but are quite different in over-all form. 9 points. Type I (fig. 12i-o). Small point with very large, broad stem and rounded base. 7 points. Type J (fig. 12p-t). Large pentagonal point. 6 points. Type K (fig. le-g). Double-notched point. Has two side notches on each side, or one side and one corner notch. 3 points. The entire Lowie Museum collection of points from NV-Ch-15 is tabulated in Table 1 according to distribution of materials. As may be seen, obsidian is the predominant material used for almost all the points of nearly every type. Of the named types, only the Humboldt Concave Base A, Gypsum Cave, and Martis points (the latter being possible trade pieces) are seen to have more non-obsidian than obsidian specimens. It is of interest and signifi- cance that these three types are probably the oldest relative types present in the collection. All of the lettered types, except D, F, and I, seem to be of predominantly non-obsidian materials, but little is known about these types in a stratigraphical context and it is difficult to comment further on them at this time. Point Types B, E, G, and J form a particularly inter- esting group and are probably related to each other. They are made almost exclusively of chert, are broad and f-lat, are generally quite large, and include the largest points in the collection. The emphasis on chert could indicate a difference in time or function, or, alternatively, the pieces could be intrusive. If, however, Jennings' Types W-12 and W-15 at Danger Cave (Jennings 1957:111, 113) are correctly identified as NV-Ch-15 Type G, this would suggest that it is an early type, and the difference in material at NV-Ch-15 would be due to these types being earlier than the others represented in the collection. In addition to the Lowie Museum collection, two other collections of points from NV-Ch-15 were examined and typed. These are the Newhall 66 TABLE 1 Distribution of Projectile Point Materials at NV-Ch-15 fObsid-I I Other I I I I ian |Basalt | Igneous | SilicatejOther|Total Pinto Shoulderless 2 - 2 Pinto Sloping Shoulder 5 2 - - - 7 Pinto Square Shoulder 18 2 1 10 - 31 Pinto Single Shoulder 4 1 - 3 - 8 Humboldt Basal-notched 31 - - 2 - 33 Humboldt Concave Base A 14 3 1 12 - 30 Humboldt Concave Base B 27 - - 6 - 33 Gypsum Cave - - - 2 - 2 Elko Eared 43 6 1 22 - 72 Elko Corner-notched 8 3 1 1 - 13 Elko Side-notched 2 - - - - 2 Eastgate Expanding Stem 95 - 1 47 - 143 Eastgate Split Stem 19 - 3 4 - 26 Rose Spring Side-notched 11 1 1 3 - 16 Rose Spring Corner-notched 104 1 2 24 - 131 Rose Spring Contracting Stem 34 - 1 18 - 53 Cottonwood Triangular 51 1 6 13 - 71 Cottonwood Leaf Shape 6 1 - 4 - 11 Cottonwood Bipointed 7 - - 1 - 8 Desert Side-notched 111 - 7 52 - 170 Martis - 4 - - - 4 Type A 4 2 - 6 - 12 Type B 1 - 2 9 - 12 Type C - - - 2 1 3 Type D 14 1 1 2 - 18 Type E - - 1 8 - 9 Type F 5 1 - - - 6 Type G - - - 6 6 Type H 4 3 - 2 - 9 Type I 6 - - 1 - 7 Type J 2 - - 4 - 6 Type K 1 - - 2 - 3 Unclassifiable - - - - - 31 Total 988 67 collection and the M. R. Harrington collection of 1924, now in the South- west Museum. The numbers of the various point types in each collection, as well as the rough percentages of each type in each collection, and the total number of points of each type from all three collections, are shown in Table 2. It is of interest that there is a rough correlation between the size and lateness of a given point type and its percentage in the total collection. Thus, late points such as Desert Side-notched and the Rose Spring series are well represented, whereas representation decreases for Pinto and Humboldt Concave Base A points. Whether this is because fewer people used the Humboldt Lakebed site in earlier times, or later peoples used more points, or both, cannot be surmised. Whatever the case, it may at least be deduced that the site was used over a long period of time, probably by considerable numbers of people. The existence of three separate collections presents a unique opportu- nity to gain insight into the effects of random collecting at a site over an extended period of time. With large samples such as the Lowie Museum and Newhall collections, it should be possible to see to a certain extent the results of collecting patterns reflected in the relative percentage of various point types in each collection. For the most part, the Lowie Museum collection was obtained in 1950. The Newhall collection was made after that date and shows some interesting percentage differences. For example, seven types are present in the Lowie Museum collection which are not found among the Newhall collection specimens. All of these (Pinto Shoulderless, Gypsum Cave, Elko Side-notched, and Types E, F, G, and K) are relatively large points, and it is suggested that their absence from the Newhall collection may be due to their being larger and therefore more easily seen and removed by earlier visitors to the site. In addition to the types which are completely absent from the Newhall collection, there are a number of forms (e.g. Pinto Square Shoulder, Humboldt Basal-notched, Humboldt Concave Base A, Elko Eared, and Elko Corner-notched) which show a drastic decline in representation in the later collection. Smaller points show a more constant percentage in both collections. This again would seem to indicate that the larger points were first eliminated from the surface site due to the greater ease with which they could be spotted in comparison to the smaller points. While this would also hold true to some extent for trained workers, it is noted here as more of an insight into the effects that extensive amateur collecting may have on surface collections. Site NV-Ch-15 has been much visited by local collectors, and it is quite possible that many of the larger and older points are now in unknown private collec- tions. One hundred and forty-nine small, somewhat nondescript, pieces which make up nearly one-quarter of the Newhall collection have been tentatively designated "Small (I)" types. None of these appear in the Lowie Museum or Harrington collections. 68 TABLE 2 Total Number of Points of Each Type in Three Collections Collections 11 t Museum || Newhall ||1 Harrington || Total No. I %*| No. %* No. %* No. %* Pinto Shoulderless J 2 0.2 11 - - - - B 2 0.1 Pinto Sloping Shoulder 1 7 0.7 2 0.3 ]J - - || 9 0.4 Pinto Square Shoulder | 31 3.1 || 5 0.7 | 2 1.1 1| 38 2.1 Pinto Single Shoulder | 8 0.8 || 2 0.3 | 1 0.5 I 1 0.6 Humboldt Basal-notched 1 33 3.3 1 1 0.1 B 3 1.6 || 37 2.0 Humboldt Concave Base A J 30 3.0 11 5 0.7 BL 1 0.5 || 36 1.9 Humboldt Concave Base B | 33 3.3 | 47 7.3 ]J 6 3.3 || 86 4.7 Gypsum Cave 1 2 0.2 - - Bt - - I 2 0.1 Elko Eared 1 72 7.2 4 15 2.3 B 7 3.9 II 94 5.2 Elkln Clrnror-nntrhoAl i 1ll 1 , IL t () A II - - II 17 n 0 Elko Side-notched Eastgate Expanding Stem Eastgate Split Stem Rose Spring Side-notched Rose Spring Corner-notched Rose Spring Contracting Stem Cottonwood Triangular Cottonwood Leaf Shape Cottonwood Bipointed Desert Side-notched Martis Type A Type B Type C Type D Type E Type F Type G Type H Type I Type J Type K "Small (I)l' ? Unclassified Total 1 2 1 143 1 26 1 16 1 131 . 53 1 71 1 11 1 8 1 170 1 4 1 12 12 .1 - --3 1 18 46 1 9 0.2 14.3 2.6 1.6 13.1 5.3 7.1 1.1 0.8 17.0 0.4 1.2 1.2 0.3 1.8 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.9 11. 11- 11- L1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 -11- 42 39 26 61 28 30 16 12 87 2 3 1 2 35 8 v~ 6 U 11 -11. 6.5 L_ 6.1 IL 4.0 IL 9.5 11 4.3 B 4.7 B_ 2.5 _L 1.8 B 13.6 J_ 0.3 II 0.4 f_ 0.1 BL 0.3 IL 5.4 II - 11 - II... - 11 -1L. 1. 2 It - - 34 8 41 36 11 7 1 14 3 1 1 19.2 4.5 23.1 20.3 6.2 3.9 0.5 7.9 1.6 0.5 0.5 A "I .11 At It At At At At At At It At At At At At I1 11 .L 1 2 219 73 83 228 92 101 34 21. 271 6 15 16 5 54 9 7 6 17 U, 7 0.1 12.1 4.0 4.6 12.6 5.1 5.6 1.8 1.1 15.0 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.2 2.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.9 -' 0.7 - 2 0.311 - - 11 9 0.4 6 0.6 1B 1 0.1 11 - - 11 7 0.3 3 0.3 11 - - fI - - 41 3 0.1 A - - 11 149 23.3 11 - - 41 149 8.2 1 31 3. i 11 11 1.7 11 - - 41 42 2.3 1 988 11 636 11 177 .111801 I I I II I * Percentages rounded off to the nearest tenth 69 The Harrington collection, while formed earlier than either of the other two, is comparatively small,and it is likely that the absence of a number of types in it results from the diminutive size of the sample. The Medithermal point sequence (Lanning 1963:267-281; Clewlow 1967: 144-145) is well represented at NV-Ch-15, and there is some evidence that the site may have been occupied even earlier. That is, Humboldt Concave Base A points found in the Mud Flow Gravels at Hidden Cave may indicate that this type had its origin in the Altithermal. While the type certainly persisted much later, it would not be surprising if future evidence should further substantiate an early occupation for site NV-Ch-15 where the type occurs in some quantity. One radiocarbon date of 733 + 250 years B.C. (M-649; discussed by Grosscup 1958:19) has been obtained for material from a burial at the site, but on typological grounds alone, earlier dates may be postulated for initial habitation of the site. [Accession Figure 1 Explanation of Illustrations numbers are those of the Lowie Museum of Anthropology] a-d Humboldt Concave Base A projectile points a. 1-65076 b. 1-65041 c. 1-65364 d. 1-39073 e-g Type K projectile points e. 1-65586 f. 1-65263 g. 1-65262 h,i Pinto Shoulderless projectile points h. 1-65036 i. 1-65039 Figure 2 a-e Pinto a. b. c. d. e. f-j Pinto f. g. h. i. J. Square Shoulder projectile points 1-65363 1-65623 1-65650 1-65655 1-65571 Sloping Shoulder projectile points 2-73274 1-18915 1-65253 1-18957 1-65357 70 Figure 2 (cont'd.) k-q Pinto k. 1 . m. n. 0 . p. q. Single Shoulder projectile points 1-17536 1-65651 1-18921 1-25450 1-66237 1-17558 1-18933 Figure 3 a,b Gypsum Cave projectile points a. 1-39075 b. 1-65505 c-h Humboldt Basal-notched projectile points c. 1-45481 d. 1-65335 e. 1-65289 f. 1-65333 g. 1-18927 h. 1-45482 i-n Humboldt Concave Base B projectile points i. 1-39072 j. 1-65078 k. 1-65043 1. 1-66198 m. 1-65091 n. 1-39067 Figure 4 a-h Elko Eared projectile points a. 1-65633 b. 1-65620 c. 1-65564 d. 1-65634 e. 1-17545 f. 1-65569 g. 1-66543 h. 1-65252 i-n Elko Corner-notched projectile points i. 1-65561 j. 1-65560 k. 1-19052 1. 1-65628 m. 1-65604 n. 1-65564 o,p Elko Side-notched projectile points o. 1-65521 p. 1-65527 71 Figure 5 a-h Eastgate Expanding Stem projectile points a. 1-65483 b. 1-65444 c. 1-65492 d. 1-65450 e. 1-65457 f. 1-17464 g. 1-65497 h. 1-17559 i-p Eastgate Split Stem projectile points i. 1-65579 j. 1-65647 k. 1-16712 1. 1-65578 m. 1-19056 n. 1-19039 o. 1-65627 p. 1-18783 Figure 6 a-h Rose Spring Side-notched projectile points a. 1-19106 b. 1-65563 c. 1-65581 d. 1-18670 e. 1-65427 f. 1-65319 g. 1-65509 h. 1-65314 i-o Rose Spring Corner-notched projectile points i. 1-17467 j. 1-18745 k. 1-65617 1. 1-18670 m. 1-65618 n. 1-18715 o. 1-65606 p-w Rose Spring Contracting Stem projectile points p. 1-65382 q. 1-19025 r. 1-65506 s. 1-65387 t. 1-65385 u. 1-65389 v. 1-65408 w. 1-65403 72 Figure 7 a-h Cottonwood Triangular projectile points a. 1-65085 b. 1-56290 c. 1-65276 d. 1-65296 e. 1-66272 f. 1-65092 g. 1-42010 h. 1-18978 i-m Cottonwood Bipointed projectile points i. 1-65021 j. 1-65372 k. 1-65015 1. 1-65371 m. 1-66273 n-r Cottonwood Leaf Shape projectile points n. 1-17586 o. 1-65017 p. 1-78503 q. 1-66266 r. 1-19112 Figure 8 a-d Martis a. b. C. d. e-r Desert e. f. g. h. j. is k. 1. Mn. n. 0. p. q. r. projectile points 1-65313 1-42005 2-25449 1-65375 Side-notched projectile points 1-65111 1-65127 1-65166 1-65204 1-65131 1-65125 1-65162 1-65221 1-65327 1-65212 1-65199 1-65174 1-65331 1-65151 73 Figure 9 a-f Type A a. b. Co d. e. f. g-1 Type B 'O h. 1i. iJ k. 1. m-q Type C m. n. O. p. q. Figure 10 a-s Type D a. b. Co d. e. f. g. h. 10 i- k. 1. m. n. O. P. q. r. sI t-y Type E t. U. V. projectile points 2-25452 1- 19118 1-65010 1-65034 1-65019 1-18958 projectile points 1-65412 1-65517 1-65309 1-66190 1-65310 1-19008 projectile points 1-65360 1-65137 1-65249 1-65107 1-66183 projectile points 1-65362 1-65340 1-65254 1-65365 1-65706 1-65361 1-18914 1-65639 1-66238 1- 18741 1-65315 1-65102 1-65706 1-65048 1- 18998 1-65674 1-66249 1- 18973 1-66234 projectile points 1-65411 1-65456 1-65588 74 Figure 10 (cont d.) w. X. Y. 1-55400 1-65420 1-65428 Figure 11 a-f Type F a. b. C. d. e. f. g-1 Type G g. h. i. ij k. 1. Figure 12 a-h Type H a. b. Ce d. e. fe g. h. i-o Type I 1. is k. 1. m. n. O. p-t Type J P. q. r. S. t. projectile points 1-65424 1-65425 1-66230 1-18981 1-66182 1- 18870 projectile points 1-65410 1-65414 1-65416 1-65415 1-65413 1-65456 projectile points 1- 18862 1-65398 1-65392 1-65373 1-19058 1-65376 1-65507 1-65429 projectile points 1-65016 1-18942 1-66267 1-66271 2-25238 1-65391 1-65018 projectile points 1-65307 1-65370 1-65369 1-65423 1-65422 75 b d a c e f. g h i Figure 1 76 N) I I II t N Pt ,1 > ( 1'?' ?2j 'I I Ai -1 I / \tr a I - S if - N.- is r ? / \1 ?M *I%? Vt c d e a /1 ? II I--' 1, 9 ) -'--7 a Id - 11 'I "1 I rI 5 \ V -9 '/ tN N - V 'N ? - A **?.7) 2 f '' 'N >xi' /1\ g \ )L 22 7,') i I' j 2" N - 2 -?> / -r '<') ,?(( - N N? V-' 9,. / 'K' /1 ?> >7< I / 1 m n 0 p q I k Figure 2 77 a b f d e g c h I i %I i\ j .1 N I) it y n k Figure 3 78 c d b a IW 4 \ '4 e f I ( g I It nT k 1 m i i IN p Figure 4 0 79 a b c \4' I f-I f g i I k d e h 1 .0 m n 0 p Figure 5 80 3? A a b c d e 1 f m "I g I h i j k n 0 AI w p q r s t u v Figure 6 a 81 b c d e f g ) I \1 I N -4kI' --lo ( -% I L. h Figure 7 82 0~ ~~I ,,0 .\ ;\ A~ '':8 R ) A XA A ( M k Figure 8 83 e a b c d f g h i i k 1 m n o p q Figure 9 84 I C a b d I' j I .-J f e k g i in n 0 p q r s t u v w x y Figure 10 85 a b c d e f g h i i k 1 Figure 11 86 a b c d e f g h j k AX [IL n I i m p q r s t Figure 12 87 Bibliography Baumhoff, 1958 Baumhoff, 1959 M. A. Excavation of a Cache Cave in Pershing County, Nevada. Univ. Calif. Arch. Survey Report No. 44: 2:14-25, Berkeley. M. A. and J. S. Byrne Desert Side-Notched Points as a Time Marker in California. Univ. Calif. Arch. Survey Report No. 48:32-65, Berkeley. Clewlow, C. W., Jr. 1967 Time and Space Relations of Some Great Basin Projectile Point Types. Univ. Calif. Arch. Survey Report No. 70:141-150, Berkeley. 1968 Projectile Points from Lovelock Cave. Univ. Calif. Arch. Survey Report No. 71:89-101, Berkeley. Elsasser, 1958 A. B. The Surface Archaeology of Site Pe-5, Pershing County, Nevada. Univ. Calif. Arch. Survey Report No. 44: 2:26-51, Berkeley. 1960 The Archaeology of the Sierra Nevada in California and Nevada. Univ. Calif. Arch. Survey Report No. 51:1-93, Berkeley. Gifford, E. W. 1926 Californian Anthropometry. Univ. Calif. Publs. Amer. Arch. and Ethnol., 22: 2:217-390, Berkeley. Grosscup, 1958 G. L. Radiocarbon Dates from Nevada of Archaeological Interest. Calif. Arch. Survey Report No. 44: 1:17-31, Berkeley. Univ. 1960 The Culture History of Lovelock Cave, Nevada. Arch. Survey Report No. 52:1-72, Berkeley Univ. Calif. Harrington, M. R. 1933 Gypsum Cave, Nevada. Southwest Museum Papers, No. 8. 1957 A Pinto Site at Little Lake, California. Southwest Museum Papers, No. 17. Heizer, R. F. 1951 Preliminary Report on the Leonard Rockshelter Site, Pershing County, Nevada. Amer. Antiquity, 17: 2:89-98. 88 Heizer, R. 1961 Heizer, R. 1968 Heizer, R. 1953 F. and M. A. Baumhoff Wagon Jack Shelter. Univ. Calif. Anthrop. Records, 20: 4:119-138, Berkeley. F. M. A. Baumhoff and C. W. Clewlow, Jr. Archaeology of South Fork Shelter (NV-El-ll), Nevada. Univ. Calif. Arch. Survey Report No. F. and A. B. Elsasser Some Archaeological Sites and Cultures of the Nevada. Univ. Calif. Arch. Survey Report No. Elko County, 71:1-58, Berkeley. Central Sierra 21, Berkeley. Jennings, J. D. 1957 Danger Cave. Soc. Amer. Archaeol., Mem. No. 14. Lanning, E. P. 1963 Archaeology of the Rose Spring Site (Iny-372). Univ. Calif. Publs. Amer. Arch. and Ethnol., 49: 3:237-336, Berkeley. Loud, L. L. and M. R. Harrington 1929 Lovelock Cave. Univ. Calif. Publs. Amer. 25: 1:1-183, Berkeley. Arch. and Ethnol.9 O'Connell, 1967 J. F. Elko Eared/Elko Corner-Notched Projectile Markers in the Great Basin. Univ. Calif. No. 70:129-140, Berkeley. Points as Time Arch. Survey Report Roust, N. L. 1966 The Archaeology of Granite Point, Pershing County, Nevada. Univ. Calif. Survey Report No. 66:37-72, Berkeley.