Cody Complex foragers and their use of grooved abraders in Great Plains and Rocky Mountains of North America

Abstract

Comparison of Late Paleoindian sites of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains reveals 36 site components from 28 sites containing ground stone tools, including nine Cody Complex examples. Much of the ground stone use appears related to generalized activity, as few items have functionally specific forms. However, the Cody components have an unexpectedly higher number of grooved abraders as compared to other complexes. We note that Paleoindian examples contain wider u-shaped grooves compared to Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric abraders related to arrow production. We argue that Paleoindian abraders represent shaft abraders, used in the production of dart shafts within weaponry systems. We propose several hypotheses for the emergence of this technology during Cody times. The most parsimonious explanation is that the specific sites containing these abraders represent large camps, occupied for long periods and containing diverse chipped and ground stone assemblages.

Keywords

Paleoindian ground stone abrader lithic technology

Introduction

Reconstructing past technological systems is difficult, as “simple” archaeological assemblages are but tattered fragments of formerly complex toolkits. In the Paleoindian realm, analysis often falls to the most durable components of assemblages such as chipped stone projectile points (Bradley, 2010: 463). However, ground stone technology remains an underexplored aspect of Paleoindian technology. Early Holocene sites occasionally yield such artifacts, but they are uncommon and their function not well understood. While archaeologists often cite ground stone as one of the hallmarks of the later Archaic period and as an adaptive processing strategy related to increasing dietary breadth, plant use, and storage technology (Frison, 1991: 339–340; Frison, 2007: 57; Kornfeld et al., 2010: 344–349; Larson and Francis, 1997: 4; Willey and Phillips, 1958: 104–111), we suggest that the presence of ground stone in earlier Paleoindian contexts may have little to do with intensive plant processing (e.g., Herzog and Lawlor, 2016). This is not to say that early foragers found plants unimportant, but instead, much of their early plant use did not require dedicated grinding technology (Adams, 2014). But then what was the function of Paleoindian ground stone?

This paper reviews three topics related to the Late Paleoindian use of ground stone technology¹ in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains of North America. First, we compile Late Paleoindian sites containing ground stone, detailing diversity in the types of ground stone technology employed by Early Holocene foraging groups. Second, we discuss grooved abraders, which form a subset of Late Paleoindian ground stone technology. Grooved abraders are particularly abundant in the Cody Complex, as compared to other complexes. Finally, we compare Cody grooved abraders to the Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric (LPP) archaeological record to assess the possible function of this specific tool form, in terms of its size and use.

Ground stone in Late Paleoindian sites of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains

Archaeologists commonly recover ground stone from Middle and Late Holocene aged sites in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains (Gilmore et al., 1999; Kornfeld et al., 2010; Pelton, 2013, 2017; Zier and Kalasz, 1999), yet Early Holocene ground stone technology remains poorly understood, and most research remains descriptive rather than analytical in nature. What conditions this overall lack of discussion regarding an important stone technology? Perhaps it is related to the perceived paucity of ground stone in Late Paleoindian sites, or instead, it might suggest a research bias focused on projectile points, subsistence, and settlement systems.

In order to examine this question, the authors conducted a comprehensive review into ground stone presence as part of a systematic study of the Late Paleoindian period in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains (LaBelle, 2005). The review identified 36 components containing ground stone, derived from 28 sites, with data gathered from primarily published literature representing both well-known and lesser known excavated locales, along with available and relevant grey literature (Table 1, Figure 1). The Late Paleoindian period, as discussed in this paper, falls between 10,000 and 8,000 radiocarbon years before present and does not include fluted point traditions such as Clovis and Folsom for arbitrary reasons only.

Table 1.

Late Paleoindian sites in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains known to contain ground stone implements.

Site number in Figure 1	Site	Component	Complex	State	Type of ground stone	Total	Reference
1	Claypool		Cody	CO	Six fragments of grooved abraders	6	Dick and Mountain, 1960: 228, 230
2	Gordon Creek		Hell Gap?	CO	1 smooth stone, possibly for grinding	1	Breternitz et al., 1971: 176–178; Muñiz, 2004
3	Jurgens		Cody	CO	12 fragments of grinding slabs, 6 handstones, 4 abrading stones, 2 grooved abraders	24	Wheat, 1979: 129–132
4	Browns Valley		Browns Valley	MN	2 sandstone abraders	2	Jenks, 1937: 33
5	Barton Gulch		Alder	MT	Grinding slabs, handstones, anvils and hammerstones		Davis et al., 1994: 123
6	MacHaffie		Cody	MT	1 sandstone abrader	1	Knudson, 1983: Figure 43
7	Mangus	Occupation I	Not identified	MT	2 handstones, 2 grinding stones	4	Husted, 1969: 33–34
8	Allen	IZ	Not identified	NE	Two milling stone fragments	2	Bamforth, 2002; Table 11.2
8	Allen	OL2	Not identified	NE	Single handstone fragment	1	Bamforth, 2002; Table 11.2
8	Allen	OL1	Agate Basin	NE	Five pieces of ground stone, including handstones, milling stones, and sandstone fragments	5	Bamforth, 2002; Table 11.2
9	Hudson-Meng		Cody	NE	3 partial and 3 complete sandstone abraders	6	Agenbroad, 1978: 95–97
10	Lime Creek	Zone I	Cody	NE	Four pieces of ground stone (2 manos, 2 grooved abraders)	4	Bamforth, 2002: Table 6.4; Davis, 1962: 65–66; Hicks, 2002
11	O.V. Clary		Allen	NE	1 grooved abrader	1	Hill et al.,2008; Hill et al., 2011
12	Red Smoke	Zone 83	Not identified	NE	Single piece of ground stone	1	Bamforth, 2002: Table 6.5
12	Red Smoke	Zone 92	Not identified	NE	Single piece of ground stone	1	Bamforth, 2002: Table 6.5
12	Red Smoke	Zone 90	Not identified	NE	Two pieces of ground stone	2	Bamforth, 2002: Table 6.5
13	Blackwater Draw		Portales (Mixed)	NM	1 fragment of a grinding stone	1	Hester, 1972: 142
14	R-6		Cody	NM	Sandstone abrader with multiple grooves	1	Stanford and Patten, 1984: 196
15	Ray Long	Area B	Angostura	SD	3 milling slabs, 5 handstones	8	Wheeler, 1995: 424–426
16	Horn Shelter No. 2		Not identified	TX	Two thin abraders	2	Jodry and Owsley, 2014; Redder, 1985: 43
17	Levi	Zone IV	Not identified	TX	5 hand grinding stones, 1 seed grinding slab	6	Alexander, 1963: 521, Table 2
18	Lubbock Lake		Plainview	TX	Small ground stone fragment	1	Johnson,1987: Table 9.2
19	Ryan’s Cache		Plainview	TX	1 sandstone abrader	1	Hartwell, 1995
20	Wilson-Leonard		Late Paleoindian levels	TX	2 manos, 1 piece of ground stone	3	Bousman, 1998: 183–184
21	Agate Basin	Area 3	Hell Gap	WY	Small sandstone tool abrader	1	Frison, 1982b: 138
22	Betty Greene		Lusk	WY	1 metate, 2 manos, 2 manos or metate fragments	5	Greene, 1967: 57–59
23	Bottleneck Cave	Occupation I	Not identified	WY	1 handstone, 1grinding stone	2	Husted, 1969: 47
23	Bottleneck Cave	Occupation II	Not identified	WY	3 handstones, 1 grinding stone	4	Husted, 1969: 50
23	Bottleneck Cave	Occupation III	Not identified	WY	7 handstones, 3 grinding stones	10	Husted, 1969: 53–54
24	Hell Gap	Locality II	Agate Basin	WY	2 handstones	2	Irwin, 1967: Appendix 3; Irwin and Wormington, 1970: 30
24	Hell Gap	Locality 1	Cody	WY	1 handstone, 1 handstone/hammerstone, 1 grooved abrader	3	Irwin, 1967: Appendix 3; Knell, 2009
24	Hell Gap		Frederick/Allen	WY	2 grooved nether stones, 1 mano, 1 small polished stone	4	Irwin, 1967: Appendix 3
25	Horner I		Cody	WY	2 sandstone abraders	2	Frison, 1987: 262–263
26	Medicine Lodge		Pryor stemmed, other levels	WY	6 grinding stones/manos; 7 abrading stones	13	Frison, 2007: 57–61; Frison and Grey, 1980: 35
27	Osprey Beach		Cody	WY	12 abraders, 1 hide abrader, 1 edge ground cobble	14	Johnson et al., 2004; Johnson and Reeves, 2013
28	Schiffer Cave		Not identified	WY	At least 3 manos, 2 broken grinding slabs	5	Frison, 1973a: 305

Figure 1.

Late Paleoindian sites containing ground stone implements in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. Cody Complex and other sites containing grooved abraders highlighted with filled white circles, whereas other Late Paleoindian sites containing ground stone depicted by black circles. Site numbers correspond to the sites listed in Tables 1 and 2. Illustration by Kelton A Meyer.

While this list is impressive in its geographic extent, the first point to consider is that most Late Paleoindian sites do not contain ground stone, and in those that do, the frequency of specimens is quite low. Almost a third of the 36 components contain but a single specimen, nearly half contain two to five pieces, and only four sites contain more than 10 ground stone artifacts (Table 1, Figure 2). Nearly all the sites containing ground stone represent habitation sites, probably reflecting long term occupation associated with diverse activities beyond (or in addition to) hunting (Blackmar, 2000). In addition, nearly all the sites containing ground stone are found in foothill/mountain settings or along the wooded valleys of the Great Plains (Hill, 2010; Hill and Knell, 2013; LaBelle, 2010). This suggests that activities requiring grinding technology might occur (or was discarded) in only certain site settings or ecosystems. Therefore, the perceived paucity of ground stone might relate in part to an archaeological record dominated by isolated finds and small sites (LaBelle, 2010) and a discipline that focused excavation (for good reasons though) on large bison kills as compared to the more difficult to find camps (Bamforth, 2011; Kornfeld and Larson, 2008). Documentation of these camp sites is therefore critical to fairly evaluating the degree of variation within Paleoindian lifeways, as related to reconstructing subsistence and seasonal rounds (Hill, 2010; Hill and Knell, 2013; LaBelle, 2005, 2010).

Figure 2.

Frequency of ground stone implements recovered from Late Paleoindian sites and/or components examined in this study. Abraders are differentiated from other types of ground stone (handstones, netherstones, and miscellaneous forms).

The distribution of sites with ground stone is also dominated by a swath of sites stretching from northeastern Colorado, through eastern and northern Wyoming, and into southwestern Montana (Figure 1). This might be a sampling issue related to research activity and site visibility, but the pattern does map onto the distribution of foothills/mountain ranges within these three states, again suggesting the importance of these ecotones to hunter-gatherer settlement systems. Then again, these same environments might provide better access to suitable raw material sources for producing ground stone implements as compared to the relatively lithic poor High Plains.

The type of ground stone recovered from Late Paleoindian sites varies, with common forms including handstones and netherstones (Adams, 2014: 102–155), which are occasionally labeled as “manos and metates.” Functional labels such as these are perhaps misleading for Paleoindian specimens, as by definition manos and metates must be used in tandem for grinding purposes (Adams, 2014: 103), and rarely does this seem to be the case in Early Holocene sites. Although specific functions are seldom proposed in the Paleoindian literature, these forms are commonly assumed to assist in food processing. Other uses of ground stone include edge-ground cobbles for hide working (Adams, 1988; Frison, 1991: 366–367; Lewis, 1944; Owens, 2006; Weathermon, 2007), and handstones/netherstones for grinding pigments (such as ochre), bead production, and shell working (Breternitz et al., 1971; Jodry and Owsley, 2014; Muñiz, 2004; Redder, 1985: 43).

It is perhaps telling to note which types of ground stone have not been documented in Late Paleoindian contexts (Turner and Hester, 1999: 286–317). Absent is composite equipment, such as celts for woodworking or plummets/net weights for fishing. Also lacking are intricately shaped forms such as bannerstones/boatstones, gorgets, and stone pipes.² This suggests that most ground stone played a generalized (rather than specialized) role within Paleoindian lifeways, probably used in a variety of ways for grinding and processing and with few tools shaped for specific tasks. Again, it is noteworthy that most of this ground stone is found within long term camps, where generalized activities occurred over the weeks or perhaps months of occupation. Certainly, our synthesis raises more questions than it answers, and use wear and residue studies are needed to further explore this topic (e.g., Herzog and Lawlor, 2016).

Overall, the 36 components show a great deal of variation in ground stone present, with most of the Late Paleoindian ground stone generally lacking a specific function based on morphology alone. There is one notable exception; grooved abraders are the one formal tool consistently present in the sample. Grooved abraders occur in 10 Late Paleoindian components, nine of which are Cody in age.³ This proves to be statistically significant (p < .001, Fisher’s exact test) suggesting strong association of Late Paleoindian grooved abraders with the Cody Complex.⁴ We will return to this statement later in this paper and discuss whether this is an actual cultural pattern or simply a sampling issue.

Grooved abraders

Grooved abraders are a specific type of ground stone tool used in a variety of activities involving sharpening, sanding, or dulling materials through contact with their asperite surface (Adams, 2014: 86–95). They range from informal and expedient to more planned and formal tools in design. The grooves fall into two general categories based on cross-sectional shape. V-shaped grooves are often narrow and deep, indicating sharpening or abrading (Feyhl, 1980; Olsen, 1979: 345; Perino, 1971, 1972a, 1972b). U-shaped grooves are broad and shallow, exhibit a bit more wear and planning, and can indicate smoothing material to a uniform diameter. The latter type of grooves are often found on a specific formal tool known as a shaft abrader (Adams, 2014: 81–95; Cosner, 1951; Flenniken and Ozbun, 1988). And finally, many abraders contain a combination of these forms and grooves, demonstrating a hybrid of expedient and formal design (see Adams, 2014: Figure 4.1 for a useful fuzzy set classification of abraders, smoothers, and polishers).

The grooved abraders discussed here come from ten Cody and Allen sites found in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains (Table 2, Figure 3).⁵ In several cases, the authors personally examined the abraders in museum collections, but in other cases, the authors relied on published descriptions and/or conversation with researchers familiar with the pieces.

Table 2.

Groove morphology for Cody, Allen, and Dalton Complex abraders discussed in this study.

Site number in Figure 1	Complex	Site	Contains a Cody Knife^a?	U-shaped	V-shaped	U and V	Total	Reference
11	Allen	OV Clary	Not applicable;not a Cody site	1			1	Hill et al., 2008; Hill et al., 2011
1	Cody	Claypool	Yes	6			6	This study; Dick and Mountain, 1960
3	Cody	Jurgens, Area 2	Yes	1		2	3	This Study; Wheat, 1979
6	Cody	MacHaffie	No	1			1	Knudson, 1983: Figure 43
9	Cody	Hudson-Meng	Yes				5^b	Agenbroad, 1978: 95–97
10	Cody	Lime Creek	No	2	1	1	4^c	Davis, 1962; Hicks, 2002: 74–76
14	Cody	R-6	Yes		?		1^d	Stanford and Patten, 1984: 196
24	Cody	Hell GapLocality 1	Bifaces present, possible Cody knife fragment			1	1	Bradley 2009: 261–262; Irwin, 1967; Knell, 2009
25	Cody	Horner I	Yes	1			1^e	Frison, 1987: 263
27	Cody	Osprey Beach	Yes	5	3	4	12	Johnson et al., 2004; Johnson and Reeves, 2013
29	Dalton	Brand	Not applicable; not a Cody site				9^f	Goodyear, 1974: 69–71
30	Dalton	Hawkins	Not applicable; not a Cody site	2			2	Morse, 1997: Table 3, page 18
31	Dalton	Sloan	Not applicable; not a Cody site				19^g	Morse, 1997: 46–51

^aBlackmar, 2000.

^bMay be only four total, as fragments might be part of larger specimen.

^cDifficult to classify based on published accounts.

^dListed as a “sandstone abrader with multiple grooves, which could have served as an edge abrader.”

^eTwo fragments, likely part of same abrader.

^fDoes not differentiate between the number of u- and v-shaped grooved abraders.

^gSixteen grooved, three grooved, and notched.

Figure 3.

Frequency of grooved abraders from Cody Complex sites, as compared to several Dalton (Hawkins, Brand, Sloan) and Allen (O.V. Clary) Complex sites.

The grooved abraders from Lime Creek, Hell Gap, MacHaffie, and Horner I (Table 2) represent classic u-shaped designs, with a single large u-shaped groove running along or near the center of the long axis of the abrader. In some cases, such as the Hell Gap specimen, a second u-shaped groove is found on the opposite face of the abrader (Knell, 2009: Figure 12.10). The Hudson-Meng site yielded five u-shaped abraders, with one specimen containing 13 grooves and representing a mix of both u- and v-forms (Agenbroad, 1978). The O.V. Clary site, an Allen campsite in Nebraska, also produced a u-shaped grooved abrader (Hill et al., 2008, 2011). Like Hell Gap, this specimen exhibits grooves on both faces. Claypool is one of the largest Cody abrader assemblages (Dick and Mountain, 1960; LaBelle, 2005), containing six abraders, primarily u-shaped, with several exhibiting multiple grooves. Jurgens also contains several u-shaped abraders, with light v-shaped secondary grooves (Wheat, 1979). Both Jurgens (Figure 4(a) and (b)) and Claypool (Figure 4(c)) represent large Cody campsites, perhaps kill/camps reoccupied over time (cf. Muñiz, 2005; Wheat, 1979). Osprey Beach contains the greatest diversity and number of abraders with 12 total, including a mix of forms with u-shaped, u and v, and more complex v-forms (Johnson et al., 2004; Johnson and Reeves, 2013).

Figure 4.

Examples of Cody Complex grooved abraders from the Jurgens (5WL53; (a) and (b)) and Claypool (5WN18; (c)) sites, Northern Colorado. Illustrations by Tyson Arnold.

Abrader size and shape

What can be said about this population of grooved abraders and their function? First, there are basic trends in the overall tool size. Grooved abraders from Late Paleoindian contexts fall into a generalized size class (Table 3, Figure 5). Most abraders are less than 60 mm in width, with few exceptions. Most are square to rectangular in form, averaging 1.4:1 in their length to width ratio, with few greater than 2:1 and none greater than 3:1. Figure 5 displays the variation in Paleoindian abrader form, with a typical playing card (2.5 × 3.5 in.; 64 × 89 mm) and index card (3 × 5 in.; 76 × 127 mm) included to help visualize abrader size. Many of the smallest circles on the lower left of Figure 5 represent broken specimens, likely discarded at the end of their use lives.

Table 3.

Measurements of Cody, Allen, and Dalton Complex grooved abraders discussed in this study.

Site	Complex	Catalog number	Maximum length (mm)	Maximum width (mm)	Maximum thickness (mm)	Mass (g)	Width/Thickness ratio	Length/width ratio
Claypool	Cody	CL-19	28.11	46.38	14.73	16	3.1	0.6
Claypool	Cody	CL-20	17.47	16.56	8.47	2	2.0	1.1
Claypool	Cody	MGS-1	65	30	15		2.0	2.2
Claypool	Cody	MGS-2	48	28	17		1.6	1.7
Claypool	Cody	MGS-3	69	45	22		2.0	1.5
Claypool	Cody	MGS-4	40	32	19		1.7	1.3
Hell Gap	Cody		49.64	26.36	11.32	19.2	2.3	1.9
Horner I	Cody		41.31^a	38.42^a				1.1
Hudson-Meng	Cody	HM-1384	27.2	33.6	22		1.5	0.8
Hudson-Meng	Cody	HM-1411	17.6	24.2	17.8		1.4	0.7
Hudson-Meng	Cody	HM-945	49.3	22.9	15.9		1.4	2.2
Jurgens	Cody	30206	88.37	50.41	25.76	157	2.0	1.8
Jurgens	Cody	30207	67.15	50.99	29.39	96	1.7	1.3
Jurgens	Cody	30208	30.54	23.54	15.72	14	1.5	1.3
Lime Creek	Cody	7583	36	56	17		3.3	0.6
Lime Creek	Cody	7584	102	56	24		2.3	1.8
Lime Creek	Cody	7585	60	53	22		2.4	1.1
Lime Creek	Cody	8312	43	29	12		2.4	1.5
MacHaffie	Cody	5201	46.6	27.9	13.5	27.6	2.1	1.7
Osprey Beach	Cody	146418	74.9	48.7	24.2	85.4	2.0	1.5
Osprey Beach	Cody	61151	36.1	31	10.2	11	3.0	1.2
Osprey Beach	Cody	66788	80.7	67.4	35.9	179.9	1.9	1.2
Osprey Beach	Cody	66796	34.9	30.4	13.2	10.9	2.3	1.1
Osprey Beach	Cody	66797	58.5	57.2	30.6	84.7	1.9	1.0
Osprey Beach	Cody	66798	83.9	35.8	24.2	45.4	1.5	2.3
Osprey Beach	Cody	66799	42.2	37.8	27.4	20.7	1.4	1.1
Osprey Beach	Cody	66800	107.3	78.5	45.6	316.8	1.7	1.4
Osprey Beach	Cody	66801	38.3	27.5	17	9.5	1.6	1.4
Osprey Beach	Cody	66802	79.3	69.8	25.4	88.9	2.7	1.1
Osprey Beach	Cody	66803	104.2	66	47.1	186.7	1.4	1.6
Osprey Beach	Cody	66845	104.5	97.5	37.7	329.2	2.6	1.1
Brand	Dalton	Fig 23a	54.96^a	25.93^a				2.1
Brand	Dalton	Fig 23b	36.43^a	37.66^a				1.0
Brand	Dalton	Fig 23c	23.05^a	25.05^a				0.9
Brand	Dalton	Fig 23d	44.20^a	20.53^a				2.2
Brand	Dalton	Fig 23e	41.77^a	48.65^a				0.9
Brand	Dalton	Fig 23f	46.56^a	49.79^a				0.9
Brand	Dalton	Fig 23g	42.86^a	33.36^a				1.3
Hawkins	Dalton	H-35	63.1	42.2	18.9		2.2	1.5
Hawkins	Dalton	H-37	86.2	52.8	18.0		2.9	1.6
Sloan	Dalton	129/132	120.0	57.0	24.4	219.3	2.3	2.1
Sloan	Dalton	13	87.0	51.8	22.4	116.1	2.3	1.7
Sloan	Dalton	150	50.6	50.0	20.5	59.7	2.4	1.0
Sloan	Dalton	154	43.8	27.8	14.9	20.5	1.9	1.6
Sloan	Dalton	156	44.4	29.5	12.8	20.8	2.3	1.5
Sloan	Dalton	219	54.9	52.8	17.7	64.5	3.0	1.0
Sloan	Dalton	233	102.0	53.3	25.3	172.1	2.1	1.9
Sloan	Dalton	234	110.5	50.6	26.3	168.0	1.9	2.2
Sloan	Dalton	250	64.8	59.3	27.3	118.0	2.2	1.1
Sloan	Dalton	28	59.9	49.9	14.9	41.5	3.3	1.2
Sloan	Dalton	361	100.8	55.9	28.1	139.6	2.0	1.8
Sloan	Dalton	364	79.8	42.7	21.7	88.5	2.0	1.9
Sloan	Dalton	368	89.8	52.0	19.7	109.1	2.6	1.7
Sloan	Dalton	416	54.7	33.8	20.9	39.5	1.6	1.6
Sloan	Dalton	424/434	52.0	65.4	23.2	108.4	2.8	0.8
Sloan	Dalton	461	66.7	52.8	22.2	56.9	2.4	1.3
Sloan	Dalton	48	60.4	25.5	26.7	34.7	1.0	2.4
Sloan	Dalton	55	61.8	52.2	22.5	74.3	2.3	1.2
Sloan	Dalton	62	72.8	42.1	28.0	84.1	1.5	1.7

^aMeasured from photo in report.

Figure 5.

Bivariate plot of the length and width of Late Paleoindian grooved abraders. Solid black lines denote different length to width ratios, from square shapes (1:1 ratio) to long and narrow forms (greater than 3:1 ratio).

This Late Paleoindian sample represents some of the earliest documented use of formal ground stone technology in North America. In order to more fully explore variation in the Late Paleoindian sample, we compare this population to that of 93 measured abraders from over 31 LPP sites in the Central and Northern Great Plains of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas occupied in the last 1000 years. We gathered these data from the published literature or from examination of extant collections (Table 4).

Table 4.

Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric grooved abraders discussed in this study.

Site	State	Abrader frequency used in this study	Abrader measurements used in this study	Reference
Lykins Valley	Colorado	No	Yes	Newton, 2008
Not Mentioned	Kansas	No	Yes	Blakeslee and Hawley, 2006
White Rock	Kansas	No	Yes	Neuman, 1963
Hagen	Montana	No	Yes	Mulloy, 1942
Big Village	Nebraska	No	Yes	O’Shea and Ludwickson, 1992
Big Village Cemetary	Nebraska	No	Yes	O’Shea and Ludwickson, 1992
Flat Rock	Nebraska	No	Yes	Bleed, 1973
Hill	Nebraska	No	Yes	Wedel, 1936
Lady Jayne	Nebraska	Yes	Yes	Bleed, 1973
Lost Creek Site and others not mentioned	Nebraska	No	Yes	Strong, 1935
Not Mentioned	Nebraska	No	Yes	Steinacher and Carlson, 1998
Biesterfeldt	North Dakota	No	Yes	Wood, 1971
Huff	North Dakota	Yes	Yes	Wood, 1967
Paul Brave	North Dakota	Yes	Yes	Wood and Woolworth, 1964
Shermer	North Dakota	Yes	Yes	Sperry, 1968
Not Mentioned	North/South Dakota	No	Yes	Lehmer, 1971
Black Partizan	South Dakota	Yes	Yes	Caldwell, 1966
Buffalo Pasture	South Dakota	Yes	Yes	Lehmer and Jones, 1968
Crow Creek	South Dakota	Yes	Yes	Kivett and Jensen, 1976
Deep Water	South Dakota	No	Yes	Howard and Gant,1964
Demery	South Dakota	Yes	Yes	Woolworth and Wood, 1964
Fay Tolton	South Dakota	No	Yes	Wood, 1976
Hickey Brothers	South Dakota	Yes	Yes	Caldwell et al., 1964
Hitchell	South Dakota	Yes	Yes	Johnston, 1967
Indian Creek	South Dakota	Yes	Yes	Lehmer and Jones, 1968
LaRoche 39ST232	South Dakota	Yes	Yes	Hoffman, 1968
LaRoche 39ST9	South Dakota	Yes	Yes	Hoffman, 1968
Molstad Village	South Dakota	Yes	Yes	Hoffman, 1967
Spain	South Dakota	Yes	Yes	Smith and Grange, 1958
Talking Crow	South Dakota	Yes	Yes	Smith, 1977
Thomas Riggs	South Dakota	Yes	Yes	Hurt, 1953
Two Teeth	South Dakota	Yes	Yes	Smith and Johnson, 1968

The LPP forms vary little in thickness, averaging 21.9 mm thick, and as before, few of these abraders are wider than 60 mm. However, there are longer specimens, some ranging two to over three times as long as they are wide (Figure 6). They are rectangular in form, often longer during the LPP than Late Paleoindian periods. Regardless of period, grooved abraders are handheld tools. They consistently fit into the palm of your hand, roughly the width of a deck of cards and narrower than the width of your palm.

Figure 6.

Bivariate plot of the length and width of Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric grooved abraders. Solid black lines denote different length to width ratios, from square shapes (1:1 ratio) to long and narrow forms (greater than 3:1 ratio).

The outline measurements of the Late Paleoindian and LPP grooved abrader show little relative variation in size (Figures 5 and 6) suggesting purposeful design of many abraders. Given that form does not dramatically vary over time, it is useful to examine whether their end products vary between the two samples.

Groove sizes and shapes

We separately compared the u- and v-shaped groove widths for the Late Paleoindian sample (Figure 7). The u-shaped grooves are generally wider (mean width = 10.8 mm, minimum = 4.8 mm, maximum = 22.0 mm, σ = 4.5), and the v-shaped grooves are nearly always narrower (mean width = 4.5 mm). The greater-than-expected variability in this sample is in part due to the large number of grooves on the examples from Osprey Beach and Claypool, which numerically dominate the frequency data. Despite this, we feel that we can still make some broad generalizations.

Figure 7.

Groove width frequencies of Late Paleoindian abraders from this study.

Most of the Late Paleoindian v-shaped grooves are less than 5 mm in width, probably related to sharpening bone and wooden tools such as awls (Bamforth, 2007), as well as lithic edge abrasion, based on comparison to experimental examples (Feyhl, 1980; Perino, 1972a). Sixty-two percent of the u-shaped grooves are wider than 10 mm, with most falling between 11 and 14 mm in width. We wonder if these might relate to manufacturing rounded wooden and/or osseous shafts, a topic we discuss later in the paper.

The 79 LPP abraders with u-shaped grooves average 8.7 mm in width, when we removed one notable outlier (31.23 mm) (Figure 8). This represents a normal population, with a slight tail toward larger grooves. It is important to note the consistently larger u-shaped groove width of the Late Paleoindian examples when compared to the LPP sample (Table 5), which is a slightly statistically significant difference using Student’s t-test at p < .05 (Table 6).

Figure 8.

Groove width frequencies of Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric abraders from this study.

Table 5.

Descriptive statistics of the width of u-shaped grooves (from the ground stone abraders) and the width of wooden shafts/bone rods.

Sample	n	Mean (mm)	CV
Cody abrader	27	10.83	0.41
Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric abrader^a	79	8.72	0.25
Arrow mainshaft	118	9.10	0.18
Arrow foreshaft	132	7.30	0.20
Dart shaft	10	10.04	0.12
New World osseous rod	48	17.22	0.37

CV: coefficient of variation.

^aExcluding one extreme outlier (width = 31.23 mm) from sample.

Table 6.

Statistical comparison of sample widths between ground stone abraders and wooden shafts/bone rods.

Comparisons	t	df	p
Cody abrader-Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric abrader	2.32	30.26^a	.03
Cody abrader-Arrow mainshaft	1.94	27.55^a	.06
Cody abrader-Dart shaft	0.82	33.54^a	.42
Arrow mainshaft-Dart shaft	−1.77	126	.08
Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric abrader-Arrow mainshaft	−1.32	134.02^a	.19
Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric abrader-Dart shaft	−2.86	17.36^a	.01
New World osseous rod-Prehistoric/Protohistoric abrader	8.95	53.90^a	<.01
New World osseous rod-Cody abrader	−5.05	68.70^a	<.01

Significance at p < .05 shown in bold.

^aEqual variances not assumed.

When compared to Thomas’s (1978) sample of ethnographic and archaeologically recovered arrows and darts, the LPP and Late Paleoindian abrader samples differ in comparison between groove and shaft widths (Table 5). The abrader samples are more variable than the measured arrow and dart sample. The least variable group is Thomas’s dart width measurement, followed closely by the compound arrow main shaft width. Less variable, more precise shaft width measurements may reflect a particular need for higher standardization in propelled weaponry components.

The LPP abrader sample compares most favorably to the arrow sample (Table 5, Figure 9). In the Thomas sample, arrow foreshafts averaged 7.3 mm in width, while arrow mainshafts averaged 9.1 mm. Dart foreshafts measured slightly larger, at 10.0 mm average width. The shaft width means between the arrow mainshafts and darts in the Thomas sample lack statistical significance slightly (Table 6).

Figure 9.

Foreshaft diameters of arrows and darts, and mainshaft diameters of arrows as presented in Thomas (1978).

The small Thomas dart shaft sample makes it difficult to substantiate definitive arguments. However, statistical tests (using Student’s t-test at p < .05) indicate dart shaft widths conform better to Cody abrader groove widths, and arrow mainshaft widths are most similar to LPP abrader groove widths (Table 6). Given that the LPP abrader sample compares favorably with the Thomas arrow mainshafts, we suggest this indicates association with arrowshaft manufacture.

Analysis shows nonsignificant differences between the u-shaped groove width of Cody abraders and the dart sample (Table 6). This analysis suggests the use of Cody abraders in the manufacture of dart shafts or dart shaft-sized tool components. This supports the common consensus that the adoption and/or invention of bow and arrow technology occurred well after the Cody Complex (Bettinger and Eerkens, 1999; Nassaney and Pyle, 1999; Shott, 1993; Webster, 1980). Based on their general morphological similarity to later arrowshaft abraders, we believe foragers manufactured uniformly shaped cylindrical tool components (i.e., shafts) with the Late Paleoindian u-shaped grooved abraders. The quantitative differences in groove width underscore the difference in shaft diameters between arrows and darts. The larger neck widths of Cody bifacial tools are consistent with our hypothesis that early foragers manufactured larger shafts or handles with grooved abraders.

Ethnohistoric and experimental comparisons

It is clear that arrow-making technology has antecedents in earlier dart manufacture since the arrow is “essentially a miniaturization of the dart, with the same features of point, foreshaft, main shaft, and vanes” (Farmer, 1994: 681). The ethnohistoric records abound with descriptions of arrow manufacture involving the use of grooved sandstone abraders to make arrowshafts straight and uniform. Despite a lack of written ethnohistoric accounts that refer to dart or spear shaft manufacture using grooved abraders, we infer through analogy the association of u-grooved abrader stones found in pre-bow-and-arrow sites with dart shaft manufacture.

The archaeological record provides ample evidence that prehistoric peoples hafted stone tools, ranging from scrapers to mauls (Keeley, 1982). The general lack of abrading stones in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains prior to Late Paleoindian times indicates that, during this time, these abrading tools became important equipment for manufacturing tool shafts or other items. The relative abundance of grooved abraders in Cody assemblages represents the first dedicated use of this tool type and perhaps the standard inclusion in the Cody manufacturer’s toolkit. These flintknappers desired the ability to make a uniform shaft through abrasion (and/or straightening) using a grooved abrader, and thereby improving composite tool performance.

Grooved abraders in the ethnohistoric and archaeological literature demonstrate their importance to arrow making cultures. The Chippewa smoothed arrow shafts using “a grooved piece of sandstone” (Densmore, 1929: 147), as did several groups throughout California (Kroeber, 1925: 530, Plate 49). Ethnographers documented the use of matched pairs of abraders, and archaeologists recovered identical forms from prehistoric sites, especially in the Central Plains (Strong, 1935; Wedel, 1936; Wedel, 1961). The Pawnee buffed arrowshafts by “passing them between two grooved sandstone buffers” (Weltfish, 1965: 391); the Navaho, Cheyenne, and Blackfoot used matched abraders in a similar fashion (Grinnell, 1923: 180; Kluckholm et al., 1971: 44; Wissler, 1910: 83). The Pawnee matched abraders “came in pairs and were oval-shaped with a flat surface, each with a matching groove down the length, through which the shaft was pulled” (Weltfish, 1965: 364). Experimental research also demonstrates the efficacy of shaping arrowshafts using matched abraders (Flenniken and Ozbun, 1988). Cody-aged abraders lack the uniform, planed surface of matched abraders indicating that the Late Paleoindian tools were probably not part of a matched set.

Not only were abraders functional, but their owners placed great value in the items in several documented cases. For instance, grooved abraders occur as funerary objects (Cobb and Pope, 1998) and in Pawnee ritual as part of an arrowmaker’s sacred bundle (Weltfish, 1965: 127).

As tools, grooved abraders were subject to the same contingencies of raw material availability as that of chipped stone tools, influencing their occurrence in the archaeological record. The selection of the proper material for abraders is “[p]erhaps the most difficult task in producing arrow-shaft abraders” (Flenniken and Ozbun,1988: 39). The critical characteristics of high quality ground stone include blank size, weathering, friability, and homogeneity of grain size (Flenniken and Ozbun, 1988: 39). Therefore, a potential explanation for the abundance of grooved abraders in Cody sites stems from knowledge, previously unattained, of ground stone source materials and characteristics. Regardless, the procurement of ground stone became an increasingly important part of Late Paleoindian technological organization.

We would be remiss if we did not discuss the possibility that foragers manufactured bone tools and jewelry with grooved abraders. Archaeological and experimental research of Early Neolithic grooved abraders from northwestern Europe suggests more diverse functions than shaft abrading including making ornaments along with bone and lithic tools (Hamon, 2008, 2016). The southern African San bushmen had stones with u-shaped grooves that “were apparently used in the final process of shaping beads from ostrich-egg shell” (Inskeep, 1978: 42). Bone tool industries in North America and their association with grooved abraders certainly warrants further research (Bamforth, 2007; Griffitts, 2006; Olsen, 1979, 1980; Wedel, 1970).

Grooved abraders compared with bone rods and ice patch finds

The morphology of the Late Paleoindian abraders suggests handheld tools for abrading and shaping cylindrical objects (likely wood and bone) given the width and overall shape of the u-shaped grooves. Unfortunately, we have few examples of perishable technology from the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains from this period (e.g., Frison et al., 1986). One potential source for comparison is bone and ivory rods from Paleoindian contexts. They are well known today, given their initial discovery in the Clovis type site at Blackwater Draw in the 1930s (Boldurian and Cotter, 1999; Cotter, 1937; Hester, 1972) and subsequent discovery in other Clovis sites across North America including Richey-Roberts (Gramly, 1993; Lyman et al., 1998), Sheridan Cave (Redmond and Tankersley, 2005), and Anzick (Lahren and Bonnichsen, 1974; Wilke et al., 1991), among several others (Bradley et al., 2010; Moore and Schmidt, 2009) including later contexts such as the Goshen Complex Sheaman site (Frison, 1982c; Frison and Craig, 1982). Surprisingly, bone rods are not common in Late Paleoindian contexts, suggesting perhaps that bone (and definitely ivory) technology shifted to wooden technology during this later period and thus most examples weathered away millennia ago.

The function of osseous rods is debatable, but based on design elements and morphology, most are thought to serve as foreshafts and/or projectile points, although researchers proposed several other functions (Boldurian and Cotter, 1999; Cotter, 1981; Frison and Zeimens, 1980; Gramly, 1993; Pearson, 1999). Comparative size data compiled by Lyman et al. (1998) and Redmond and Tankersley (2005) are compared here to the grooved abrader samples to further understand the possible uses of the Late Paleoindian examples. There is variability within this osseous rod sample (Figures 10 and 11), with assemblages clustering together in size, such as the comparatively large Richey-Roberts rods and those from the Laugerie-Haute rock shelter from southwestern France (data summarized in Redmond and Tankersley, 2005: Table 6). The North American rods average 17.2 mm in width and 14.7 mm in thickness, suggesting they are not necessarily round in cross-section, but still fairly cylindrical with an average width/thickness ratio of 1.3:1. The greatest breadth measurement of the North American rods suggests that they are generally too large and not manufactured with the u-shaped grooved abrader technology known from Late Paleoindian contexts. Statistical comparison between the two samples substantiates this assertion suggesting a different function (based on groove size) for the more recent Cody abrading tools (Table 6).

Figure 10.

Bivariate plot of the thickness and length of bone rods as presented in Lyman et al. (1998) and Redmond and Tankersley (2005).

Figure 11.

Bone rod width and thickness frequencies as presented in Lyman et al. (1998) and Redmond and Tankersley (2005).

Recent research in the alpine and arctic regions of North America provides another comparative source of data in the form of artifacts eroding from ice patch contexts. Foragers utilized many of the ice patches of the Yukon and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Wyoming/Montana) for big game hunting during the Holocene, including caribou and bighorn sheep (Hare et al., 2004, 2012; Lee, 2012; Lee and Puseman, 2017). These sites have yielded large numbers of dart and arrow shafts, exposing dart shafts as old as 8,360 radiocarbon years before present in the Yukon (Hare et al., 2004) and 9,230 radiocarbon years before present in Wyoming (Lee, 2010). Lee describes the remarkable recovery of a complete dart foreshaft from 48PA3147. The specimen is 107 cm long, with the proximal end notched to receive a projectile point (presumably lost) and the distal end tapered to fit into a main shaft. Lee (2010) mentions that the distal portion width of the specimen is 12.5 mm, which is well within the range of the u-shaped Paleoindian abraders in this study. Based on the ¹⁴C date from this specimen, Lee (2010, 2012) argues that Cody or Alder complex individuals potentially lost the dart in the snow.

Despite differing from the Cody abraders, the mean diameter of osseous rods as well as the ice patch dart is similar to the basal width of several types of Cody tools (Figure 11). Archaeologists have long debated the typological variation within the Cody Complex (Bamforth, 2013; Bradley and Frison, 1987; Knell and Muñiz, 2013), with some tools identified as projectiles and others as hybrid projectile points/knives (cf. Frison, 1991: 314–325). Regardless of the function of these tools, their basal stem widths are fairly uniform in size, and as such likely related to the width of the perishable shaft once hafted to the tool. For example, a sample of 59 Alberta/Cody I, Alberta/Cody II, Scottsbluff, and Eden points from Horner I/II yielded median stem widths ranging 17.0 to 18.0 mm regardless of point type (Bradley and Frison, 1987: Tables 6.1 and 6.2). A sample of Cody knives suggests that their stems are slightly larger, with a median stem width of 19.7 mm (Agenbroad, 1978; Bradley and Frison,1987: Table 6.3 and A2.9; Dick and Mountain,1960; Ingbar and Frison, 1987). As such, Cody points and knives are generally less than 2 mm wider than the average bone rod, and if centered over a rod, the projectile point/knife stems would only extend a millimeter on each side.

If as we propose, Cody knappers used grooved abraders to make (presumably wood and not bone) shafts for their projectile weaponry, those shafts would be 10.8 mm in width on average, but likely larger (e.g., skewed distribution evident in Figure 7). This would leave (based on Horner I/II) perhaps 2–3 mm of the point stem to extend over both sides of the shaft body. A potential trait of this reconstruction might be damage to the ears of Cody projectiles, given they would be exposed in such a hafting scenario. The ears would have been vulnerable to damage during projectile impact, extraction from an animal post-hunt, and/or dehafting back in camp.

Grooved abrader discard

We now examine the frequency of grooved abraders and how this might inform us regarding the scale of tool use. As stated previously, nine Cody components contain grooved abraders, but these occur in unequal proportions (Figure 3). Two-thirds of the sites contain less than five abraders, and at sites such as Claypool and Hudson-Meng, the abundant abrader pieces could represent fragments of larger tools.

Sites with the greatest frequency of grooved abraders, and ground stone in general, are those sites presumably used for longer occupations, specifically seasonal camps (perhaps kill/camps or even base camps) such as Jurgens, Osprey Beach, Hell Gap, and Claypool (Blackmar, 2000). During Cody times, it appears that individuals included grooved abraders within their mobile tool kit, used to make rounded shafts but perhaps not in mass quantities. We believe foragers discarded most of these abraders at the end of their use lives or instead represent lost items; none of the Cody abraders appear in caches or as possible funerary objects (e.g., the Sloan Dalton site; Morse, 1997).

LPP sites show a distinctly different pattern of higher frequency abrader discard and/or loss (Figure 12). The mean and median values for abraders abandoned/lost at the 18 sites in this sample are 40.7 and 25.5, respectively, with a high of 250 abraders at the Talking Crow site. There are several important factors to acknowledge when comparing these two periods, including the group size, site occupation length (mobile vs. sedentary), and importantly, the scale of production. These characteristics represent scalar differences between the two eras, ranging from highly mobile Late Paleoindian foragers to nucleated agricultural communities during the LPP. During latter times, mass production of arrows served the community’s subsistence and defense. As well, individuals likely manufactured larger numbers of arrows per capita, as the technology is smaller and disposable (planned for loss) compared to larger darts. Thus, abraders aided in standardizing this process and these farmers produced and discarded them in higher frequencies.

Figure 12.

Frequency of grooved and shaft abraders recovered from Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric sites examined in this study.

Hypotheses related to the use of grooved abraders

As previously established, there is a distinct association between the Cody Complex and the presence of grooved abraders. We wonder why the need to make consistently formed composite tools appeared during Cody times? We propose several possible scenarios, all of which are working hypotheses at this point. None of these hypotheses are mutually exclusive, and all might contribute to the patterns observed in this study.

First, the appearance of grooved shaft abraders could represent a shift in hafting technology to more consistently formed shafts. Given that hafted projectile points existed well before Cody times (based on lateral grinding along the proximal portions of projectile points), this hypothesis suggests that abrading technology improved shaft or foreshaft design and quality. The fact that this abrading pattern appeared across a wide geographic area suggests a shared (and viewed as important) tradition across the Cody culture, rather than invention and use by a single individual.

Second, shaft abraders may have improved the technological design of Cody hunting weaponry. Perhaps Cody represents a significant shift in weaponry use, moving from thrusting spears and/or throwing javelins and toward atlatl propelled darts. The use of fletching as well as a standard sized foreshaft or mainshaft created with the aid of a grooved abrader provided the ballistic consistency needed for atlatl darts. This is an intriguing scenario, but problematic as well, as we do not have a solid understanding of thrusting/throwing spear versus atlatl technology in Paleoindian societies, and when (or if) one technology replaced the other.

A third possible scenario accounting for grooved abraders might include manufacturing hafted drills, as bow drills (presumably) would perform more efficiently with a uniformly shaped drill shaft. Artists potentially manufactured beads or other small items using these drills. Again, an intriguing idea, but there is no evidence for such widespread practices (e.g., bead industries) in Late Paleoindian times.

A fourth hypothesis is that these tools relate to gender differentiated activities during the Late Paleoindian era. Many of the Cody sites containing grooved abraders also contain Cody knives, occurring in large numbers at sites such as Claypool and Horner I (Table 2). We wonder whether this co-association relates to the gendered or age-class use of these tools? Blackmar (2000) suggested women utilized Cody knives in domestic contexts, and Jodry (1998) made a similar argument for Folsom ultra-thin knives. Ruth (2013) proposed that men fashioned ultra-thin knives along with end scrapers, but that women utilized these tools for their own work. Ruth argued that women were hide workers, and that abrasion with sandstone tools forms one part of the staged process of hide working. Many of the (non-grooved abrader) ground stone tools presented in Table 1 might function in the process Ruth described. Further research should explore the spatial relationship of knives and abraders (both flat and grooved) within Cody sites, to see if they spatially occur in tandem indicating use and/or discard together. This would help strengthen the argument that women used abraders (both forms) in camp activities.

Finally, the appearance and general abundance of grooved abraders might relate to organizational aspects of Cody mobility and settlement systems rather than the function of the tool itself. For instance, the increased presence of abraders might simply represent a shift to longer occupied residences and to certain ecosystems (river valleys and foothills settings). Larger assemblages accumulate in such scenarios, and tool diversity also increases under such circumstances (LaBelle, 2005, 2010). The abundance of abraders may be a function of a larger sample of comparatively longer occupied Cody campsites in the database, as compared to Agate Basin, Hell Gap, or Allen camps. And in this scenario, there is no particular cultural association between abraders and Cody assemblages other than due to our collective sampling of the archaeological record.

Conclusion

Ground stone is present in 36 Late Paleoindian components from the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, but overall ground stone is uncommon (or perhaps rare) as compared to chipped stone technology. Ground stone implements occur most often in large camps occupied for relatively longer periods and in ecotones such as river valleys or the foothill/mountain interface. Most of the Paleoindian ground stone appears as expedient tools and flexible in design, rather than as formal tools. Highly specialized forms, such as net weights, pipes, and celts are entirely absent.

Grooved abraders are a notable exception to this pattern. They appear in considerable numbers during the Cody Complex, and are also present in Allen and Dalton sites. These tools are formal handheld tools likely constructed for the production of uniform wooden shafts. We believe these shafts were portions of dart systems (or perhaps knife hafts) given that Cody abraders contain wider u-shaped grooves than arrow abraders from the LPP periods. Comparison to osseous rods from Early Paleoindian contexts, as well as a wooden dart from a Wyoming ice patch, provides suggestions to the possible shape and size of the Late Paleoindian perishable tools manufactured with this technology.

We proposed several ideas regarding the introduction of this grinding technology during the Cody Complex. At this time, the hypotheses need further refinement, as we simply do not know why the technology emerged. Perhaps the most parsimonious explanation for the high ubiquity abraders during Cody times relates to a shift in settlement systems, where archaeologists recovered these tools from residential camps of longer duration, perhaps occupied in cool/cold seasons. In any case, the abrader tool type demonstrates the diversity of Cody technological organization across the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain (Knell and Muñiz, 2013). As such, this exploratory project underscores the need for additional study of lesser known aspects of Paleoindian systems with the goal of continually improving our collective understanding of these prehistoric technologies.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This paper is adapted from a version presented in a symposium titled “The Cody Complex: Late Paleoindian Lifeways in North America” and organized by Edward Knell and Mark Muñiz for the 65th Plains Anthropological Conference held in Rapid City, South Dakota (Knell and Muñiz, 2013). Ed and Mark are thanked for the invitation to the symposium. Thank you to Deborah Confer and the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History for access to the Claypool and Jurgens collections. Edward Knell, Matthew G Hill, and Donna Roper generously provided grooved abrader illustrations and literature helpful toward developing this paper. Thanks to Kelton Meyer for drafting the map and Tyson Arnold for illustrating the sandstone abraders. Kelton Meyer provided useful comments that helped clarify the arguments presented in this paper. The paper certainly benefited from insightful comments from the reviewers, including Thomas Jennings and Geoffrey Smith.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study received funding from The James and Audrey Benedict Fund for Mountain Archaeology.

Notes

Author Biographies

Jason M LaBelle is an associate professor of Anthropology at Colorado State University, where he directs the Center for Mountain and Plains Archaeology. He received his PhD degree from Southern Methodist University. Over the past 25 years, he supervised field and lab projects related to hunter-gatherer reoccupation, variation in thermal features, high altitude game drives, granaries, and lithic caches.

Cody Newton is an archaeologist who has been working in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains for over 20 years. He holds a PhD in Anthropology from the University of Colorado—Boulder and is currently an archaeology instructor at Central Wyoming College.

References

Adams

(1988) Use-wear analyses on manos and hide-processing stones. Journal of Field Archaeology 15(3): 307–315.

Adams

(2014) Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. 2nd ed. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Agenbroad

(1978) The Hudson-Meng Site: An Alberta Bison Kill in the Nebraska High Plains. Washington, DC: University Press of America.

Alexander

(1963) The Levi site: A Paleo-Indian campsite in central Texas. American Antiquity 28(4): 510–528.

Bamforth

(2002) The Paleoindian occupation of the Medicine Creek drainage, Southwestern Nebraska. In: Roper

(ed.) Medicine Creek: Seventy Years of Archaeological Investigations. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 54–83.

Bamforth

(2007) Chapter 11: Other archaeological evidence. In: Bamforth

(ed.) The Allen Site: A Paleoindian Camp in Southwestern Nebraska. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 184–193.

Bamforth

(2011) Origin stories, archaeological evidence, and Postclovis Paleoindian bison hunting on the Great Plains. American Antiquity 76(1): 24–40.

Bamforth

(2013) A Cody future: Comments. In: Knell

Muñiz

(eds) Paleoindian Lifeways of the Cody Complex. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, pp. 317–331.

Bettinger

Eerkens

(1999) Point typologies, cultural transmission, and the spread of bow-and-arrow technology in the prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64(2): 231–242.

10.

Blackmar

(2000) Cody knives in context: Recognizing gender. Current Research in the Pleistocene 17: 6–8.

11.

Blakeslee

Hawley

(2006) The Great Bend Aspect, in Kansas Archaeology (Hoard RJ and Banks WE, eds). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, pp. 165–179.

12.

Bleed

(1973) A Report on the 1973 Archeological Investigations in the Wood River Valley, Buffalo County, Nebraska, Technical Report No. 74-01. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, Department of Anthropology, Division of Archaeological Research.

13.

Boldurian

Cotter

(1999) Clovis Revisited: New Perspectives on Paleoindian Adaptations From Blackwater Draw. New Mexico: University Museum Monograph, No. 103, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

14.

Bousman

(1998) Late Paleoindian archeology. In: Wilson-Leonard: An 11,000-year Archeological Record of Hunter-gatherers in Central Texas, Volume I: Introduction, Background, and Syntheses, assembled and edited by M.B. Collins, Studies in Archeology No. 31. Austin: Texas Archeology Research Laboratory, the University of Texas, pp. 161–210.

15.

Bradley

(2009) Bifacial technology and Paleoindian projectile points. In: Larson

Kornfeld

Frison

(eds) Hell Gap: A Stratified Paleoindian Campsite at the Edge of the Rockies. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, pp. 259–273.

16.

Bradley

(2010) Paleoindian flaked stone technology on the Plains and in the Rockies. In: Kornfeld

Frison

Larson

(eds) Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the High Plains and Rockies. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc., pp. 463–497.

17.

Bradley

Collins

Andrew

(2010) Clovis Technology, Archaeological Series. No. 17. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory.

18.

Bradley

Frison

(1987) Projectile points and specialized bifaces from the Horner site. In: Frison

Todd

(eds) The Horner Site: The Type Site of the Cody Cultural Complex. Orlando: Academic Press, pp. 199–231.

19.

Breternitz

Swedlund

Anderson

(1971) An early burial from Gordon Creek, Colorado. American Antiquity 36: 170–182.

20.

Caldwell

(1966) The Black Partizan Site, Smithsonian Institution River Basin Surveys. No. 2. Lincoln: Publications in Salvage Archaeology.

21.

Caldwell

Madison

Bernard

(1964) Archeological Investigations at the Hickey Brothers Site (39LM4), Big Bend Reservoir, Lyman County, South Dakota, River Basin Surveys Papers, No. 36. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 189.

22.

Cobb

Pope

(1998) Sixteenth-century flintknapping kits from the King Site, Georgia. Journal of Field Archaeology 25(1): 1–18.

23.

Cosner

(1951) Arrowshaft-straightening with a grooved stone. American Antiquity 17(2): 147–148.

24.

Cotter

(1937) The occurrence of flints and extinct animal in pluvial deposits near Clovis, New Mexico, part IV: Report on the excavations at the Gravel Pit in 1936. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy of National Sciences 89: 1–16.

25.

Cotter

(1981) The Upper Paleolithic. However it got here, it’s here: Can the Middle Paleolithic be far behind? American Antiquity 46(4): 926–928.

26.

Davis

(1962) Archeology of the Lime Creek Site in Southwestern Nebraska, Special Publication No. 3. Lincoln: University of Nebraska State Museum.

27.

Davis

Aaberg

Cummings

(1994) Northern Rocky Mountain paleoecology in archeological, paleobotanical, and paleoethnobotanical perspective. In: Despain DG (ed.) Plants and Their Environments: Proceedings of the First Biennial Scientific Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Technical Report NPS/NRYELL/NRTR-93/XX. Denver: National Park Service, Department of the Interior, pp. 113–130.

28.

Densmore

(1929) Chippewa Customs. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 86.

29.

Dick

Mountain

(1960) The Claypool site: A Cody complex site in Northeastern Colorado. American Antiquity 26(2): 223–235.

30.

Farmer

(1994) The origins of weapons systems. Current Anthropology 35(5): 679–681.

31.

Feyhl

(1980) Tool grooves: A challenge. Archaeology in Montana 21(1): 1–31.

32.

Flenniken

Ozbun

(1988) Experimental analysis of plains grooved abraders. Plains Anthropologist 33(119): 37–52.

33.

Frison

(1973) Early period marginal cultural groups in Northern Wyoming. Plains Anthropologist 18(62): 300–312.

34.

Frison

(1982a) Folsom components. In: Frison

Stanford

(eds) The Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the Northwestern High Plains. New York: Academic Press, pp. 37–76.

35.

Frison

(1982b) Hell gap components. In: Frison

Stanford

(eds) The Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the Northwestern High Plains. New York: Academic Press, pp. 135–142.

36.

Frison

(1982c) The Sheaman site: A Clovis component. In: Frison

Stanford

(eds) The Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the Northwestern High Plains. New York: Academic Press, pp. 143–157.

37.

Frison

(1987) The tool assemblage, unfinished bifaces, and stone flaking material sources for the Horner Site. In: Frison GC and Todd LC (eds) The Horner Site: The Type Site of the Cody Cultural Complex. Orlando: Academic Press, pp. 233–278.

38.

Frison

(1991) Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press.

39.

Frison

(2007) Paleoindian occupations. In: Frison GC and Walker DN (eds) Medicine Lodge Creek: Holocene Archaeology of the Eastern Big Horn Basin, Wyoming, Volume I. Avondale: Clovis Press, pp. 33–67.

40.

Frison

Andrews

Adovasio

, et al. (1986) A late Paleoindian animal trapping net from Northern Wyoming. American Antiquity 51(2): 352–361.

41.

Frison

Craig

(1982) Bone, antler, and ivory artifacts and manufacture technology. In: Frison

Stanford

(eds) The Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the Northwestern High Plains. New York: Academic Press, pp . 157–173.

42.

Frison

Grey

(1980) Pryor stemmed: A specialized late Paleo-Indian ecological adaptation. Plains Anthropologist 25(87): 27–46.

43.

Frison

Zeimens

(1980) Bone projectile points: An addition to the Folsom cultural complex. American Antiquity 45(2): 231–237.

44.

Garcia-Herbst

(1998) Ground stone artifacts associated with Paleoindian Sites: The Lindenmeier Folsom Site, a case study. In: Poster presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Seattle, WA.

45.

Gilmore

Tate

Chenault

, et al. (1999) Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Platte River Basin. Denver: Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists.

46.

Goodyear

(1974) The Brand Site: A techno-functional study of a Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas, Research Series, No. 7. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, NC.

47.

Gramly

(1993) The Richey Clovis Cache: Earliest Americans along the Columbia River. , Kenmore: Persimmon Press.

48.

Greene

(1967) The Betty Greene Site: A Late Paleo-Indian Site in Eastern Wyoming. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

49.

Griffitts

(2006) Bone tools and technological choice: Change and stability on the Northern Plains. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

50.

Grinnell

(1923) The Cheyenne Indians. New Haven: Yale University Press.

51.

Hamon

(2008) Functional analysis of stone grinding and polishing tools from the earliest neolithic of north-western Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 1502–1520.

52.

Hamon

(2016) Technology and function of grooved abraders in the early neolithic of northwestern Europe. Journal of Lithic Studies 3(3): 243–259.

53.

Hare

Greer

Gotthardt

, et al. (2004) Ethnographic and archaeological investigations of alpine ice patches in southwest Yukon, Canada. Arctic 57(3): 260–272.

54.

Hare

Thomas

Topper

, et al. (2012) The archaeology of Yukon ice patches: New artifacts, observations, and insights. Arctic 65(Suppl 1): 118–135.

55.

Hartwell

(1995) The Ryan’s Site cache: Comparisons to plainview. Plains Anthropologist 40(152): 165–184.

56.

Herzog

, and Lawlor

(2016) Reevaluating diet and technology in the archaic Great Basin using starch grain assemblages from Hogup Cave Utah. American Antiquity 81(4): 664–681.

57.

Hester

(1972) Blackwater Locality No. 1: A Stratified, Early Man Site in Eastern. New Mexico: Fort Burgwin Research Center, Southern Methodist University.

58.

Hicks

(2002) Local variability in Paleoindian lifeways: A comparison of the Lime Creek and Allen Site worked stone assemblages, Southwest, Nebraska. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

59.

Hill

Jr (2010) Regional differences in Great Plains Paleoindian occupational intensity and duration. In: Hurst

Hofman

(eds) Late Paleoindians of North America. Lawrence: University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology, No. 25, pp . 73–93.

60.

Hill

Jr and Knell

(2013) Cody in the rockies: The mountain expression of a plains culture complex? In: Knell

Muñiz

(eds) Paleoindian Lifeways of the Cody Complex. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, pp. 188–214.

61.

Hill

May

Rapson

, et al. (2008) Faunal exploitation by early Holocene hunter/gatherers on the Great Plains of North America: Evidence from the Clary Ranch Sites. Quaternary International 191(1): 115–130.

62.

Hill

Rapson

Loebel

, et al. (2011) Site structure and activity organization at a Late Paleoindian base camp in Western Nebraska. American Antiquity 76(4): 752–772.

63.

Hoffman

(1967) Molstad Village, Smithsonian Institution, River Basin Surveys. Lincoln: Publications in Salvage Archaeology, No. 4.

64.

Hoffman

(1968) The La Roche Site, Smithsonian Institution, River Basin Surveys. Lincoln: Publications in Salvage Archaeology, No. 11.

65.

Hofman

(1995) The Busse cache: A Clovis-age find in Northwestern Kansas. Current Research in the Pleistocene 12: 17–19.

66.

Howard

Gant

(1964) Archeological Salvage Investigations in the Gavin’s Point Reservoir Area, Lewis and Clark Lake, Nebraska and South Dakota, 1963-1964. Archaeological Studies. Circular 11. Vermillion: University of South Dakota Museum.

67.

Hurt

Jr (1953) Report of the Investigation of the Thomas Riggs Site, 39HU1, Hughes County, South Dakota, 1952, Archaeological Studies. Circular No. 5. Pierre: South Dakota Archaeological Commission.

68.

Husted

(1969) Bighorn Canyon Archeology, Smithsonian Institution River Basin Surveys. Lincoln: Publications in Salvage Archaeology, No. 12.

69.

Ingbar

Frison

(1987) The Larson cache. In: Frison

Todd

(eds) The Horner Site: Type Site of the Cody Cultural Complex. Orlando: Academic Press, pp. 461–473.

70.

Inskeep

(1978) The Bushmen in prehistory. In: Tobias

(ed.) The Bushmen. Cape Town: Human and Rousseau, pp . 33–56.

71.

Irwin

(1967) The Itama: Late Pleistocene Inhabitants of the Plains of the United States and Canada and the American Southwest. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge.

72.

Irwin

Wormington

(1970) Paleo-Indian tool types in the Great Plains. American Antiquity 35(1): 24–34.

73.

Jenks

(1937) Minnesota’s Browns Valley Man and Associated Burial Artifacts, Memoir No. 49. Menasha: American Anthropological Association.

74.

Jodry

(1998) The possible design of Folsom ultrathin bifaces as fillet knives for jerky production. Current Research in the Pleistocene 15: 75–77.

75.

Jodry

(1999) Folsom Technological Organization and Socioeconomic Strategies: Views from Stewart’s Cattle Guard and the Upper Rio Grande Basin, Colorado. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, American University, Washington, DC.

76.

Jodry

Owsley DW (2014) A new look at the double burial from Horn Shelter No. 2. In: Owsley

Jantz

(eds) Kennewick Man: The Scientific Investigation of an Ancient American Skeleton. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, pp. 549–604.

77.

Johnson

Reeves

(2013) Summer on Yellowstone Lake 9,300 years ago: The Osprey Beach Site. Plains Anthropologist 58(227–228): 1–194.

78.

Johnson

Reeves

Shortt

(2004) Osprey Beach, A Cody Complex Camp on Yellowstone Lake. Prepared for Yellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Lifeways of Canada Limited, Calgary, Alberta.

79.

Johnson

(ed.) (1987) Lubbock Lake: Late Quaternary Studies on the Southern High Plains. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

80.

Johnston

(1967) The Hitchell Site, Smithsonian Institution River Basin Surveys. Lincoln: Publications in Salvage Archeology, No. 3.

81.

Keeley

(1982) Hafting and retooling: Effects on the archaeological record. American Antiquity 47(4): 798–809.

82.

Kivett

Jensen

(1976) Archaeological Investigations at the Crow Creek Site (39BF11). Lincoln: Nebraska State Historical Society Publications in Anthropology, No. 7.

83.

Kluckholm

Hill

Kluckholm

(1971) Navaho Material Culture. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

84.

Knell

(2009) Cody complex at Locality I. In: Lou Larson

Kornfeld

Frison

(eds) Hell Gap: A Stratified Paleoindian Campsite at the Edge of the Rockies. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, pp. 180–194.

85.

Knell

Muñiz

(2013) Introducing the Cody complex. In: Knell

Muñiz

(eds) Paleoindian Lifeways of the Cody Complex. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, pp. 3–28.

86.

Knudson

(1983) Organizational Variability in Late Paleo-Indian Assemblages. Reports of Investigations, No. 60, Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

87.

Kornfeld

Frison

Larson

(2010) Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the High Plains and Rockies. 3rd ed. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc.

88.

Kornfeld

Larson

(2008) Bonebeds and other myths: Paleoindian to Archaic transition on North American Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. Quaternary International 191(1): 18–33.

89.

Kroeber

(1925) Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78.

90.

LaBelle

(2005) Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Variability During the Early Holocene of the Central Plains of North America. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.

91.

LaBelle

(2010) Re(occupation) of place: Late Paleoindian land use strategies in the Central Plains. In: Hurst

Hofman

(eds) Late Paleoindians of North America. Lawrence: University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology, No. 25, pp. 37–72.

92.

Lahren

Bonnichsen

(1974) Bone foreshafts from a Clovis burial in Southwestern Montana. Science (New York, N.Y.) 186(4159): 147–150.

93.

Larson

Francis

(eds) (1997) Changing Perspectives of the Archaic on the Northwest Plains and Rocky Mountains. Vermillion: University of South Dakota Press.

94.

Lee

(2010) Global warming reveals wooden artefact frozen over 10,000 years ago in the Rocky Mountains. Antiquity 84: 325.

95.

Lee

(2012) Withering snow and ice in the Mid-Latitudes: A new archaeological and paleobiological record for the Rocky Mountain Region. Arctic 65(Suppl 1): 165–177.

96.

Lee

Puseman

(2017) Ice patch hunting in the Greater Yellowstone Area, Rocky Mountains, USA: Wood shafts. American Antiquity 82(2): 223–243.

97.

Lehmer

(1971) Introduction to Middle Missouri Archeology. Washington, DC: National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, Anthropological Papers, No. 1.

98.

Lehmer

Jones

(1968) Arikara Archeology: The Bad River Phase, Smithsonian Institution, River Basin Surveys. Lincoln: Publications in Salvage Archaeology, No. 7.

99.

Lewis

(1944) Edged (tanning?) Stones from South Central Montana and North Central Wyoming, their possible use and distribution. American Antiquity 9(3): 336–338.

100.

Lyman

O’Brien

Hayes

(1998) A mechanical and functional study of bone rods from the Richey-Roberts Clovis Cache, Washington, U.S.A. Journal of Archaeological Science 25(9): 887–906.

101.

Moore

Schmidt

(2009) Paleoindian and early archaic organic technologies: A review and analysis. North American Archaeologist 30(1): 57–86.

102.

Morse

(1997) Description of the artifacts. In: Morse

(ed.) Sloan: A Paleoindian Dalton Cemetery in Arkansas. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp . 14–52.

103.

Mulloy

(1942) The Hagen Site, Publications in the Social Sciences, No. 1. Missoula: University of Montana.

104.

Muñiz

(2004) Exploring technological organization and burial practices at the Paleoindian Gordon Creek Site (5LR99). Plains Anthropologist 49(191): 253–279.

105.

Muñiz

(2005) The Cody Complex Revisited: Landscape Use and Technological Organization on the Northwestern Plains. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

106.

Nassaney

Pyle

(1999) The adoption of the bow and arrow in Eastern North America: A view from Central Arkansas. American Antiquity 64(2): 243–263.

107.

Neuman

(1963) Archeological Salvage Investigations in the Lovewell Reservoir Area, Kansas. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 185, pp. 257–306.

108.

Newton

(2008) The Protohistoric Period in Northcentral Colorado: Analysis of the Lykins Valley Site (5LR263). Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

109.

O’Shea

Ludwickson

(1992) Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Omaha Indians: The Big Village Site. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

110.

Olsen

(1979) A study of bone artifacts from Grasshopper Pueblo, AZ P:14:1. Kiva 44(4): 341–373.

111.

Olsen

(1980) Bone artifacts from Kinishba Ruin: Their manufacture and use. Kiva 46(1/2): 39–67.

112.

Owens

(2006) Edge-ground cobble tools of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Southeast Colorado. Southwestern Lore 72(3): 1–27.

113.

Pearson

(1999) North American Paleoindian bi-beveled bone and ivory rods: A new interpretation. North American Archaeologist 20(2): 81–103.

114.

Pelton

(2013) Ground Stone Lithic Technology of the Indian Peaks, Colorado, USA. Unpublished MA Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

115.

Pelton

(2017) Provisioning the high country: A distributional analysis of ground stone tools from the Colorado Front Range. Plains Anthropologist 62(243): 247–268.

116.

Perino

(1971) Sandstone reamers. Central States Archaeological Journal 18(3): 108–111.

117.

Perino

(1972a) Stone tools used in edge-trimming preforms and cores. Central States Archaeological Journal 19(2): 62–65.

118.

Perino

(1972b) More edge-trimming tools. Central States Archaeological Journal 19(4): 148–153.

119.

Redder

(1985) Horn Shelter Number 2: The south end, a preliminary report. Central Texas Archeologist 10: 37–65.

120.

Redmond

Tankersley

(2005) Evidence of early Paleoindian bone modification and use at the Sheridan Cave Site (33WY252), Wyandot County, Ohio. American Antiquity 70(3): 503–526.

121.

Ruth

(2013) Women’s Toolkits: Engendering Paleoindian Technological Organization. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

122.

Sellet

(2018) A Paleoindian stone tube from the Lindenmeier Site, Colorado. PaleoAmerica 4(3): 239–247.

123.

Sellet

Stanford

Jodry

(2010) “Cecin’est pas une pipe?” A Possible Paleoindian Pipe from the Lindenmeier Site. In: Poster presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis, MO.

124.

Shott

(1993) Spears, darts, and arrows: Late Woodland hunting techniques in the Upper Ohio Valley. American Antiquity 58(3): 425–443.

125.

Smith

(1977) The Talking Crow Site, a Multi-Component Earthlodge Village in the Great Bend Region, South Dakota. Lawrence: University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology, No. 9.

126.

Smith

Johnson

(1968) The Two Teeth Site, Smithsonian Institution River Basin Surveys. Lincoln: Publications in Salvage Archaeology, No. 8.

127.

Smith

Roger

Grange

(1958) The Spain Site (39ML301), a Winter Village in Fort Randall Reservoir, South Dakota, River Basin Surveys Papers, No.11. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 169.

128.

Sperry

(1968) The Shermer Site (32EM10. Plains Anthropologist 13(42): 1–88.

129.

Stanford

Patten

(1984) R-6, A preliminary report of a Cody site in North-Central New Mexico. Papers of the Philmont Conference on the Archeology of Northeastern New Mexico, New Mexico Archeological Society Proceedings 6(1): 189–199.

130.

Steinacher

Carlson

(1998) The Central Plains Tradition. In: Raymond Wood

(ed.) Archaeology on the Great Plains. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, pp. 235–268.

131.

Strong

(1935) An Introduction to Nebraska Archeology, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. Vol. 100. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

132.

Thomas

(1978) Arrowheads and atlatl darts: How the stones got the shaft. American Antiquity 43(3): 461–472.

133.

Turner

Hester

(1999) A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group.

134.

Weathermon

(2007) The other lithic technology: Polished-, abraded-, and battered-edged cobbles. In: Frison GC and Walker DN (eds) Medicine Lodge Creek: Holocene Archaeology of the Eastern Big Horn Basin, Wyoming, Volume I. Avondale: Clovis Press, pp. 257–274.

135.

Webster

(1980) Recent data bearing on the question of the origins of the bow and arrow in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 45(1): 63–66.

136.

Wedel

(1936) An Introduction to Pawnee Archeology. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 115.

137.

Wedel

(1961) Prehistoric Man on the Great Plains. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

138.

Wedel

(1970) Antler tine scraper handles in the Central Plains. Plains Anthropologist 15(47): 36–45.

139.

Weltfish

(1965) The Lost Universe: Pawnee Life and Culture. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

140.

Wheat

(1979) The Jurgens site. Plains Anthropologist 24(84): 1–153.

141.

Wheeler

(1995) Archeological Investigations in Three Reservoir Areas in South Dakota and Wyoming: Part I, Angostura Reservoir. Reprints in Anthropology, Vol. 46. Lincoln: J&L Reprint Company.

142.

Wilke

Flenniken

Ozbun

(1991) Clovis technology at the Anzick Site, Montana. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2): 242–272.

143.

Willey

Philip

(1958) Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

144.

Wilmsen

Roberts Frank

(1978) Lindenmeier, 1934-1974: Concluding Report on Investigations, Smithsonian Contributions to Archaeology. No. 24. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 1–187.

145.

Wissler

(1910) The material culture of the Blackfoot Indians. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 5(1): 1–182.

146.

Wood

(1967) An Interpretation of Mandan Culture History, River Basin Surveys Papers, No. 39. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 198.

147.

Wood

(1971) Biesterfeldt: A Post-Contact Coalescent Site on the Northeastern Plains, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, No. 15. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 1–109.

148.

Wood

(ed.) (1976) Fay Tolton and the Initial Middle Missouri Variant. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society, Research Series, No. 13.

149.

Wood

Woolworth

(1964) The Paul Brave Site (32SI4), Oahe Reservoir Area, North Dakota, River Basin Surveys Papers, No. 33. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 189.

150.

Woolworth

Wood

(1964) The Demery Site (39CO1), Oahe Reservoir Area, North Dakota, River Basin Surveys Papers, No. 34. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 189.

151.

Zier

Kalasz

(1999) Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Arkansas River Basin. Denver: Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists.