Archaeological Report
Harney County Oregon, Range Seeding Projects

There were 1,162 formal stone tools recognized during these surveys, nearly half of which (560) were projectile points and projectile point fragments. There were 373 bifaces and biface fragments identified, as well as 99 unifaces and 130 pieces of groundstone. An unquantified amount of groundstone was also identified at nine sites, so the figure for groundstone is disproportionately low. Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 illustrate examples of the diversity of lithic tools, pictographs, groundstone and pottery fragments encountered in the surveys. Table 4 displays the number of tools recorded in each seeding by type.

Bifaces and unifaces came in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, but the limits of the recorded data preclude any detailed formal analysis. Most of these tools were sketched in the field, but no cross sections were drawn and the amount of detail shown (flake scars, breakage, etc.) is so variable that no useful conclusions can be drawn. As might be expected, blanks, preforms and finished tools all seem to be represented, but in most cases it is impossible to ascertain the function of particular tools from the drawings.

Groundstone was usually not drawn, but the majority of pieces by far seemed to be mano or metate fragments. Groundstone was present at 34 of the 163 prehistoric sites identified, and one of the 90 isolated tools recorded was groundstone. Even very small sites occasionally contained groundstone, but larger sites were much more likely to have grinding stones in them. Approximately 12% of the sites less than a hectare in size contained groundstone, while 40% of those sites greater than a hectare in size included groundstone. There was no noticeable trend for groundstone to be more prevelant at lower elevations, as suggested by Fagan (1974), but none of these sites (nor the areas surveyed) were over 5,000 feet in elevation so perhaps the range of elevations was too slight to make any difference.

Projectile points were quite abundant in the tool inventory, and among the best documented of artifacts. Of the 560 tools identified as projectile points, 390 were complete enough to assign to one of eight typological categories. Figure 8 shows the number of points assigned to each category. Table 5 gives the metric data for each type. Since this data was derived from drawings it should not be considered absolutely accurate, but should be close enough to be useful. In the case of nearly complete points, estimated figures were also used.

Type 1 points were those identified in the field as crescents. Because of the varying levels of experience and expertise among field crew members, some of these may have been scrapers or knives mis-identified as crescents, though it's impossible to tell for sure from the field sketches. In any case, only four tools fell in this category.

Type 2 points included both lanceolate and leaf-shaped types, such as those normally classified as Humboldt, Pinto Willowleaf, Black Rock, Wendover Nodular, Cascade, etc. The reason for lumping these various types into one is twofold; first, it is often difficult or impossible to distinguish between some of these types based on a drawing of what were usually fragmentary specimens, and secondly, many of these types are themselves ill-defined in the literature. Only 29 projectile points were included in this category so little can be concluded beyond the observation that most of the lanceolate- shaped points in our sample tended to be relatively smaller than the norm for the above mentioned types.

Type3 are large side-notched points, generally referred to as Northern Side-notched, although some authors refer to Bitterroot and Elko Side-notched types. The classic Northern Side-notch point is triangular in shape with deep side notches and a concave base, but flat to slightly convex bases have been included in our sample.

Type 4 points are those usually classified as Pinto types, with a basally indented stem and straight to gently sloping shoulders. Intuitively, there seems to be two broad styles of Pinto type points, one being coarsely flaked, relatively squat and thick with a rounded tip, while the other style is thin and finely flaked, tapering to a long sharp point. Since most of the specimens in our sample have the points broken off, and cross-sections are not shown, it is impossible to distinguish these styles based on the field sketches.

Type 5 are large corner-notched points and include the types generally referred to as Elko Corner-notched, Elko flared and Elko Split-stem. These points are abundant and quite variable within our study area, but no attempt was made to sub-classify them from the drawings.

Type 6 are small corner-notched and stemmed points, most of which would be classified as Rose Spring type, though five specimens could be classified as Eastgate Expanding-stem or Eastgate Split-stem. The long tongs on Eastgate points are easily broken, Leaving a point resembling the Rose Spring type, so there may be more Eastgate types than our small sample suggests. In any case, they are not very numerous. The Rose Spring points, on the other hand, are the most numerous type in our sample, with over 100 specimens.

Type 7 are small side-notched points, generally referred to as Desert Side-notched. Less than thirty of these points were recorded, and fifteen of those came from a single site.

Type 8 are small, triangular, unnotched points, usually identical in shape but slightly larger than the Desert Side-notched and, of course, lacking the notches. These may in fact be preforms for Desert Side-notched points. Again there were fewer than thirty in the total sample, and sixteen of these came from the same site as the numerous Desert Side-notched points.

An examination of Table 4 reveals some interesting facts. Northern Side-notched points tended to be the longest type of points in our sample, though as was noted above, the lanceolate/leaf-shaped points in our sample tend to be shorter than normal for those types. In general, typologically more recent points tend uniformally to decrease in length. Elko and Pinto types tend to be approximately the same Length as do Rose Spring/Eastgate and Desert Side-notch types. Large points all tend to have approximately the same mean width, with the lanceolate and Pinto types only slightly narrower than Elko and Northern Side-notched. Rose Spring/Eastgate and Desert Side-notched are almost identical in width, although when our very small sample of Eastgate points (N=5) are analyzed separately from the Rose Spring type, they are considerably wider with a mean width of 18.8 mm. Notch widths tended to be uniformly large for Northern Side-notch, Pinto and Elko types, decreasing only slightly through time. Rose Spring type points have very narrow notch widths, while Desert Side-notch are relatively wide, although still much narrower than the large points. Our small sample of Eastgate type points yielded a mean notch width of 7.2 mm for five measurements.

The distribution of projectile point types by seeding was quite variable. Figure 9 shows this distribution for the eight seedings that yielded 20 or more projectile points each. In many cases, a great deal of the variability from one seeding to the next is actually due to a preponderance of a single point type at just one site within the seeding. For example, almost all of the Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood Triangular points from the Alkali Field seeding came from a single site. This site did not appear to have been collected over by amateurs, a rare occurrence, so the point types most common at the site are over-represented in the seeding as a whole. Rose Spring points were the type most commonly encountered at all except the Venator, House Butte and Mill Gulch seedings. Both Venator and House Butte seedings had more Elko points than other types, while Mill Gulch had a majority of Northern Side-notched points. Mill Gulch also had high proportions of lanceolate/leaf-shaped and Pinto type points. In general, it seems that typologically early point types are more common northwest of Harney Valley, in the hills and along tributaries of the South Fork of the Malheur, and further south in the valley of the South Fork, but less so up the tributaries in the southern parts.

The only non-lithic prehistoric artifacts encountered during these seeding surveys were a number of potsherds, apparently from a Shoshoni-like pottery type. All the sherds came from a single site. Pottery is quite rare in Oregon, being known from only a couple other sites, so this site was of prime importance. Appendix A gives more detailed information on this site and the materials found there.