Prehistoric Projectile Points

Named projectile point types have usually been defined intuitively, based on their similarity to point forms that were found at a type site or in a type area. At least 29 named types have been reported from Baja California. Of these, about half were originally named on the peninsula, while the remainder were originally designated elsewhere in North America.

AMARGOSA. Malcolm Rogers designated two relatively late phases in the Colorado and Mojave deserts of southern California and adjacent areas as the Amargosa industry, and he noted a variety of large and small projectile point forms (many of which would be classified as Elko points) that were associated with this industry. Erika Moranchel applied the term of Amargosa points to three small, triangular points in northern and central Baja California, two of which had expanding stems and the third had a concave base. (Moranchel 2014; Rogers 1939).

 

CLOVIS. This designation, based on findings at the Blackwater Draw site near Clovis, New Mexico, is applied to large points with convex sides, a concave base, and a fluting scar extending from the base on at least one face (Rondeau et al. 2007). The type has been reported as occurring throughout much of North America, with a time range in the terminal Pleistocene between ca. 11,500 and 9000 B.C. Within Baja California, finds so far have been recovered primarily from the central portion of the peninsula (Aschmann 1952; Des Lauriers 2008; Gutiérrez and Hyland 2002; Hyland 1997, 2006; Hyland and Gutiérrez 1995), but one specimen from the Bajamar-Jatay site complex on the northwestern coast has also been reported (García 2013; García and Ovilla 2017). The specimens are undated.

COMONDÚ. This designation is applied to triangular projectile points, usually small, including both unserrated (“Comondú Triangular”) and serrated (“Comondú Serrated”) types. They appear to be fully equivalent to the points designated as Cottonwood Triangular and perhaps as Desert Side-notched in the western U.S., with the serrated variety corresponding to the Dos Cabezas Serrated type (Wilke and McDonald 1986) in the U.S. These points seem to mark the local appearance of the bow and arrow, and to date from roughly A.D. 1000 into the historic period. They are relatively abundant throughout central Baja California. The late prehistoric Comondú culture was defined by William C. Massey (1966), and the designation of the points associated with it as Comondú points was begun by Eric W. Ritter (1979).

COTTONWOOD. Cottonwood Triangular points take their name from a site in Inyo County, California (Justice 2002a; Riddell 1951). Their distribution includes most of the western United States, and they are associated with a time period subsequent to the introduction of the bow and arrow, perhaps after about A.D. 1000. The points are typically small, with no stems (triangular), concave to straight bases, and straight sides. Cottonwood points have been reported from northern Baja California; in central and southern Baja California, similar points have generally been classified as Comondú, although Eduardo Serafín Esquivel (1995) applied the designation of Cottonwood to central Baja California points.

DESCANSO. This type was defined by Andrew R. Pigniolo and Antonio Porcayo Michelini (2009), based on finds within a relatively small area in northwestern Baja California and southwestern California (see also García 2013). The category includes foliate points with multiple side notches. Chronologically, it has been said to date to around 5000 B.C.

DESERT. Small, triangular, side-notched points were given this designation in Alta California (Baumhoff and Byrne 1959). They have generally been interpreted as belonging to the late prehistoric period, after the introduction of the bow and arrow, perhaps after ca. A.D. 1200 (Justice 2002a:384). The type has been reported from northern and central Baja California, although in the latter region corresponding forms have often been labelled “Comondú.”

DOS CABEZAS. The small, triangular points assigned to this type are similar to Comondú serrated points and to Cottonwood triangular or Desert side-notched points but with marked serration or notching. The type was defined by Philip J. Wilke and Meg McDonald at Indian Hill Rockshelter near Dos Cabezas near the southern extreme of California. Erika Moranchel assigned two small, serrated, convex-based points in northern Baja California to this type (McDonald 1992; Moranchel 2014; Wilke et al. 1986).

EL ARCO. This designation was applied by Erika Moranchel to three large point fragments found in the general area of El Arco, in central Baja California. The points are large and stemmed, but the proximal portions are broken, making the exact morphology uncertain.(Moranchel 2014).

ELKO. This designation was defined on the basis of collections from a site in northeastern Nevada (Heizer and Baumhoff 1961). It has been applied to large, corner-notched, eared, or split-stem points. The forms are relatively common in central Baja California, and they are also reported from the peninsula's northwest region. Time spans suggested for the Elko series outside the peninsula include ca. 6000 B.C. to A.D. 800 (Jennings 1986:117) and ca. 1300 B.C. to A.D. 700 (Thomas 1981:20). Ritter (2006b:143) suggested a time span between ca. 6000-5000 B.C. and A.D. 400 for “Elko-like” points on the peninsula.

EL ZACATECO. Two small, triangular point fragments with concave bases and single lateral notches were assigned to this type by Erika Moranchel. The points were found in northern Baja California (Moranchel 2014).

EXCELSIOR. This type was defined by Fredrickson (1973) in northern California. The form is leaf-shaped or lanceolate. In California, the age range has been estimated as 2000 B.C.-A.D. 500 (Justice 2002). A point assigned to this type has been reported from northwest Baja California (García 2013).

GUAJADEMÍ. The Guajademí Split-stem type includes small points with corner notches and concave bases. The type was defined by Ritter (1979) and takes its name from a community west of Bahía Concepción. Points classified within the type have been reported from central Baja California. Hyland (1997) lumped this type within the Elko series; however, the small size of Guajademí points would seem to make that assignment questionable. In some respects, the Guajademí points seem similar to Rose Spring points, although the latter more commonly have straight or convex bases (Thomas 1981:20). Ritter (2006a:111) considered the Guajademí Split-stem type as one of the hallmarks of the late period between ca. A.D. 500 and 1800.

GUERRERO NEGRO. The Guerrero Negro series was defined by Ritter and Louis A. Payen (1992), based on studies at Laguna Ojo de Liebre, near the central Baja California community of Guerrero Negro. It includes triangular points with concave or straight bases but occurring in both large and small sizes. Ritter (2006b:142-143) suggested that Guerrero Negro points “may possibly have served as harpoon tip insets; their distribution appears to be limited to coastal locations in west-central Baja California.” However, large, triangular points have also been reported from sites elsewhere in Baja California, including interior locations (e.g., Hyland 1997:300).

GYPSUM CAVE. The Gypsum type is based on points recovered by Mark R. Harrington (1933) from Gypsum Cave in southern Nevada. A chronological range between ca. 2600 B.C. and A.D. 400 has been suggested (Jennings 1986:117). These are large, triangular points with tapered or ovate stems. The category is fairly well represented in the central and southern peninsula, where it seems to intergrade with the La Paz type.

HUAMALGÜEÑO. Matthew R. Des Lauriers (2005) defined the Huamalgüeño point type on Isla Cedros (also known as Huamalgua by the Cochimí Indians). The type consists of carefully flaked, medium-sized, narrow, triangular points with multiple side notches, produced from both local and nonlocal material types. Des Lauriers reported that the points were clearly associated with the late prehistoric period (after ca. 600 B.C.).

JATAY. This type was designated by García (2014), based on finds at sites on the northwest coast of Baja California. The type is said to be morphologically similar to La Jolla (Elko) points, but smaller in size.

LA JOLLA. This type was designated by Rubén García (2013, 2014), based on their relatively frequent occurrence in Archaic-period (La Jollan) sites on the northwest coast of Baja California. The type seems to be essentially equivalent to Elko eared points.

LAKE MOJAVE. This type was defined by Charles A. Amsden (1937), based on collections associated with Pleistocene Lake Mojave in the central Mojave Desert of southern California. It has sometimes been grouped with Silver Lake and other forms into a Great Basin Stemmed series. These points are generally dated to the early Holocene, perhaps also extending back into the late Pleistocene. The large points have weak shoulders and long, contracting, rounded stems. Lake Mojave points have been reported from central and northwestern Baja California (e.g., Davis 1968; García 2013; Porcayo 2006; Ritter 2001, 2006a).

LA PAZ. La Paz points are large points with tapered or ovate stems. Massey (1961:418, 1966:45-46) distinguished La Paz points based on their sharp, sometimes-barbed shoulders. He interpreted La Paz points as more finely flaked forms derived from the Gypsum Cave type and as belonging to the Amargosa II complex. The type, named for the city of La Paz, is represented in central and southern Baja California.

LORETO. Massey (1966:46) defined Loreto blades as relatively large points with rounded stems and, sometimes, tangs. As in the case of La Paz points, he interpreted Loreto points as being derived from the Gypsum Cave type and as belonging to the Amargosa II complex. The type, taking its name from the community of Loreto, is represented in central and southern Baja California.

 

MANUELA. Ritter (2006b:143, 2008c:192) defined the Manuela contracting-stem type, named from Laguna Manuela in west-central Baja California. He suggested that the small to medium-sized points dated from the late prehistoric period, although perhaps slightly earlier than other late-period forms.

PINTO. Pinto points were defined in southern California by Amsden (1935; see also Harrington 1957 and Lanning 1963). Considerable disagreement has existed concerning the time range to be assigned to Pinto points; suggestions have included ca. 3000-700 B.C. (Heizer and Hester 1978:158), ca. 6500-500 B.C. (Jennings 1986:117), and ca. 8000 B.C.-A.D. 1 (Schroth 1994:374). As applied in Baja California, the type has sometimes been by used to group points attributed to the middle Holocene Pinto or Amargosa I complex, regardless of the points’ morphological diversity (Massey 1966:45). When defined in a more restrictive sense, the type generally includes roughly flaked points with side- or corner-notching and indented bases.

POINT SAL. Point Sal points were defined in coastal southern California by Justice (2002a). They consist of large points with contracting stems and downward-sloping barbs. This and related forms in California have been estimated to date between 2500 B.C. and A.D. 500. One example is reported from the Bajamar-Jatay site complex on the northwest coast of Baja California (García 2013).

ROMA. This type of small, pentagonal, blunt-ended point was described in central Baja California by Erika Moranchel. It was interpreted as intended to knock down rather than penetrate birds and other small game (Moranchel 2014).

SAN FELIPE. Antonio Porcayo defined this type not on the basis of morphology but based on its production from rounded obsidian pebbles (marekanite). The type is reported from the San Felipe area in northeastern Baja California. At least one of the points has the form of a Desert side-notched point (Moranchel 2014; Porcayo 2014).

SAN PEDRO. This type was defined in southeastern Arizona, in the San Pedro Valley (Justice 2002b; Sayles and Antevs 1941). It includes large points with expanding stems (corner-notched) or, less commonly, wide stems (side-notched), with straight or convex bases. An age range between ca. 1500 B.C. and A.D. 300 has been suggested. Ritter (1979:196-198, 2001:62, 2006a:103) identified San Pedro points in central Baja California.

SILVER LAKE. The type was defined by Amsden (1937), based on collections associated with Pleistocene Lake Mojave in the central Mojave Desert of southern California. It has sometimes been grouped with Lake Mojave and other forms into a Great Basin Stemmed series. Like Lake Mojave points, Silver Lake points are large, with weak shoulders and contracting, rounded stems; however, the shoulders are more clearly defined in the Silver Lake form, and the stems are shorter. These points are generally dated to the early Holocene, perhaps extending back into the late Pleistocene; however, the use of Silver Lake points has sometimes been interpreted as also extending into the middle Holocene. Silver Lake points have been reported from central and northwestern Baja California (e.g., García 2013; Ritter 2001:62, 2006a:103).

 

VALLECITO. This type was described at the Vallecito site in northern Baja California. The points are small and triangular, with relatively distal, weakly defined side notches and strongly concave bases (Moranchel 2014).

VIZCAÍNO. This type was defined by Ritter (2009), based on collections in the western Vizcaíno Desert. It consists of large, corner-notched, convex-base points.

ZACATECAS. This type, identified by Ritter (1979), takes its name from the Sierra Zacatecas, west of Bahía Concepción. Five specimens were reported in the Bahía Concepción area (Ritter 1979:200, 2001:62, 2006a:103). The illustrated specimens are medium to large, with straight sides and broad, straight stems.

---

References Cited

Amsden, Charles A. 1935. The Pinto Basin Artifacts. In The Pinto Basin Site: An Ancient Aboriginal Camping Ground in the California Desert, by Elizabeth W. Crozer Campbell and William H. Campbell, pp. 33-51. Southwest Museum Papers No. 9. Los Angeles.

-----. 1937. The Lake Mohave Artifacts. In The Archaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mohave: A Symposium, by Elizabeth W. Crozer Campbell, William H. Campbell, Ernst Antevs, Charles A. Amsden, Joseph A. Barbieri, and Francis D. Bode, pp. 51-98. Southwest Museum Papers No. 11. Los Angeles.

Aschmann, Homer. 1952. A Fluted Point from Central Baja California. American Antiquity 17:262-263.

Baumhoff, Martin A., and J. S. Byrne. 1959. Desert Site-Notched Points as a Time Marker in California. University of California Archaeological Survey Report 48:32-65. Berkeley.

Davis, Emma Lou. 1968. An Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Central Desert of Baja California. University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report 10:176-208.

-----. 1971. Ancient Man in Baja California. The Masterkey 45:102-107.

Des Lauriers, Matthew R. 2005. Rediscovering Huamalgua, the Island of Fogs: Archaeological and Ethnhistorical Investigations of Isla Cedros, Baja California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

-----. 2008. A Paleoindian Fluted Pont from Isla Cedros, Baja California. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 3:271-276.

Fredrickson, David A. 1973. Early Cultures of the North Coast Range, California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis.

García Lozano, Rubén Fabián. 2013. Tipología y cadenas operatorias de puntas de proyectil de la costa noroeste de Baja California: Estudio de case del sitio Bajamar-Jatay, Ensenada, B.C.

Gutiérrez, María de la Luz, and Justin R. Hyland. 2002. Arqueología de la sierra de San Francisco. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Harrington, Mark R. 1933. Gypsum Cave, Nevada. Southwest Museum Papers No. 8. Los Angeles.

-----. 1957. A Pinto Site at Little Lake, California. Southwest Museum Papers No. 17. Los Angeles.

Heizer, Robert F., and Martin A. Baumhoff. 1961. The Archaeology of Two Sites at Eastgate, Churchill County, Nevada: I - Wagon Jack Shelter. Anthropological Records 20:119-138. University of California, Berkeley.

Heizer, Robert F., and Thomas R. Hester. 1978. Great Basin. In Chronologies in New World Archaeology, edited by R. E. Taylor and Clement W. Meighan, pp. 147-199. Academic Press, New York.

Hyland, Justin R. 1997. Image, Land, and Lineage: Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in Central Baja California, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

-----. 2006. The Central Sierras. In The Prehistory of Baja California: Advances in the Archaeology of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 117-134. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Hyland, Justin R., and María de la Luz Gutiérrez. 1995. An Obsidian Fluted Point from Central Baja California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 17:126-128.

Jennings, Jesse D. 1986. Prehistory: Introduction. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 113-119. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Justice, Noel D. 2002a. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

-----. 2002b. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Southwestern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Lanning, Edward P. 1963. Archaeology of the Rose Spring Site, INY-372. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49:237-336. Berkeley.

Massey, William C. 1961. The Cultural Distinction of Aboriginal Baja California. In Homenaje a Pablo Martínez del Río en el vigésimoquinto aniversario de la primera edición de “Los orígenes americanos”, pp. 411-422. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

-----. 1966. Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Lower California. In Archaeological Frontiers and External Connections, edited by Gordon F. Ekholm and Gordon R. Willey, pp. 38-58. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 4. University of Texas Press, Austin.

McDonald, Alison Meg. 1992. Indian Hill Rockshelter and Aboriginal Cultural Adaptation in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, Southeastern California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

Moranchel Mondragón, Érika Berenice. 2014. Del paralelo 28^o al 32^o: puntas de proyectil de Baja California. Unpublished thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Pigniolo, Andrew R., and Antonio Porcayo Michelini. 2009. Descanso Notched Points: Innovation, Culture, and Interaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Modesto.

Porcayo Michelini, Antonio. 2014. Industria lítica de puntas de proyectil tipo San Felipe. In La industria lítica en el norte de México, edited by Leticia González Arratia y Lorena Mirambell, pp. 31-50. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Riddell, Francis A. 1951. The Archaeology of a Paiute Village Site in Owens Valley. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 12:14-28. Berkeley.

Ritter, Eric W. 1979. An Archaeological Study of South-Central Baja California, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

-----. 2001. Observations Regarding the Prehistoric Archaeology of Central Baja California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 37(4):53-80.

-----. 2006a. South-Central Baja California. In The Prehistory of Baja California: Advances in the Archaeology of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 99-116. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

-----. 2006b. The Vizcaíno Desert. In The Prehistory of Baja California: Advances in the Archaeology of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 135-152. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

-----. 2008. The Practicality of Turning Stones into Flaked Tools among Prehistoric Peoples of West-Central Coastal Baja California. In Memorias de Balances y Perspectivas de la Antropología e Historia de Baja California, 2002-2004, pp. 181-193. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexicali.

-----. 2009. Informe: Investigactiones arqueológicas en Laguna Manuela/Laguna Guerrero Negro y el corredor Rosarito-San Borja, Baja California, México. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Ritter, Eric W., and Louis A. Payen. 1992. Archaeological Discoveries along Laguna Ojo de Liebre, Baja California, Mexico. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by Terry L. Jones, pp. 251-266. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication No. 10. University of California, Davis.

Rogers, Malcolm J. 1939. Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers No. 3.

Rondeau, Michael F., Jim Cassidy, and Terry L. Jones. 2007. Colonization Technologies: Fluted Projectile Points and the San Clemente Island Woodworking/Microblade Complex. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 63-70. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Sayles, E. B., and Ernst Antevs. 1941. The Cochise Culture. Medallion Papers No. 29. Globe, Arizona.

Schroth, Adella Beverly. 1994. The Pinto Point Controversy in the Western United States. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

Serafín Esquivel, Eduardo. 1995. Análisis tipológico de puntas de proyectil del área central de la península de Baja California, México. Unpublished thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Thomas, David Hurst. 1981. How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3:7-43.

Wilke, Philip J., and Meg McDonald. 1986. Flaked Stone Artifacts. In Excavations at Indian Hill Rockshelter, Anza Borrego Desert State Park, California, 1984-1985, edited by Philip J. Wilke, Meg McDonald, and L. A. Payen, pp. 46-71. Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.

William C. Massey (1966) use a key that was based on judgmentally selected point attributes to classify 1,079 projectile points and knives in the Castaldí collection from central and southern Baja California. He considered up to five attributes in classifying each point: the presence or absence of a stem; the stem's width relative to the base; stem shape; shoulder shape; and base shape. The points were assigned to 33 types:

• I. Without stem
  • B. Leaf-shaped: l. Pointed base (n = 7), 2. Convex base (n = 221), 3. Straight base (n = 37), 4. Concave base (n = 23)
  • C. Triangular: 1. Convex base (n = 29), 2. Straight base (n = 72), 3. Concave base (n = 118)
  • D. Diamond: 1. Pointed base (n = 27), 2. Convex or straight base (n = 14), 3. Concave base (n = 2)
• II. With stem
  • A. Stem wider than base: 1. Convex base (n = 5), 2. Straight base (n = 12), 3. Concave base (n = 68)
  • B. Stem narrower than base
    • 1. Tapering stem
      • a. Rounded shoulder: 1. Pointed base (n = 38), 2. Rounded base (n = 55)
      • b. Straight shoulder: 1. Pointed base (n = 35), 2. Rounded base (n = 60)
      • c. Barbed shoulder: 1. Pointed base (n = 17), 2. Rounded base (n = 20)
    • 2. Parallel-sided stem
      • a. Rounded shoulder: 1. Convex base (n = 13), 2. Straight base (n = 22)
      • b. Straight shoulder: 1. Convex base (n = 18), 2. Straight base (n = 12)
      • c. Barbed shoulder: 1. Convex base (n = 6), 2. Straight base (n = 11)
    • 3. Expanding stem
      • a. Rounded shoulder: 1. Convex base (n = 17), 2. Straight base (n = 16), 3. Concave base (n = 60)
      • b. Straight shoulder: 1. Convex base (n = 7), 2. Straight base (n = 4), 3. Concave base (n = 21)
      • c. Barbed shoulder: 1. Convex base (n = 5), 2. Concave base (n = 7)

  ---

  Reference Cited

  Massey, William C. 1966. The Castaldí Collection from Central and Southern Baja California. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 2. Berkeley.

Two studies have classified Baja California projectile points on the basis of numerical taxonomy or statistical cluster analyses. These studies were done by Eric W. Ritter (1979), using points recovered in the Bahía Concepción area, and by Kelli Carmean (1994), using points in the Castaldí collection from central and southern Baja California that had been previously reported and analyzed by William C. Massey (1966).

Eric W. Ritter (1979). Ritter's study involved analysis of a sample of 90 points (excluding small triangular side-notched or serrated points, and points without modified stems). About two dozen metrical and non-metrical attributes were recorded, and a dendrogram was generated, grouping the points statistically into seven clusters, as well as sub-clusters. However, several of the clusters were assessed intuitively as not being meaningful. Ritter (1979:173) concluded, "It seems clear this computerized technique as used here is not very helpful." Consequently, he adopted instead a more traditional, intuitive classification of the points into named types.

Kelli Carmean (1994). Carmean reanalized 137 points from the Castaldí collection. She settled on six attributes to use in the analysis:

• point length
• distal shoulder angle, based on the orientation of the segment of the point extending distally from the distal end of the stem (shoulder orientation)
• proximal shoulder angle, based on the orientation of the segment of the point extending proximally from the distal end of the stem (stem orientation)
• notch opening index, based on the angle between the segments extending distally and proximally from the distal end of the stem
• neck width
• stem length

Using these variables, Carmean distinguished eight statistical clusters. To these she added three more clusters (numbers 9 through 11, below), based on judgmentally selected nominal variables. The total of 11 clusters included:

• Cluster 1 - "small, high-notched" (n = 26). (Note that this cluster included "small" points with measured lengths up to 5.9 cm and point fragments that were evidently originally even larger than that. It included a classic "Desert side-notched" point, as well as large, stemmed points.)
• Cluster 2 - "small, leaf-shaped" (n = 49). (Note that this cluster included "small" points up to 7.5 cm in length, as well as triangular points.)
• Cluster 3 - "medium, low-notched" (n = 11).
• Cluster 4 - "stretched-diamond" (n = 2).
• Cluster 5 - "large La Paz" (n = 3). (The designation of "La Paz" refers to the points' contracting, generally pointed stems.)
• Cluster 6 - "large square-based" (n = 2).
• Cluster 7 - "medium, high-notched" (n = 15). (Note that the "small, high-notched" and "medium, high-notched" clusters overlap substantially in their size ranges.)
• Cluster 8 - "small La Paz" (n = 8).
• Cluster 9 - "serrated" (n = 10). (This includes notched as well as serrated points.)
• Cluster 10 - "prismatic blade" (n = 5). (Carmean noted the possibility that these points, which were all made from chert, were brought to Baja California Sur from mainland western Mexico during the historic period.)
• Cluster 11 - "basal notched" (n = 4).

Carmean (1994:53) concluded, "I do not necessarily wish to suggest that all eleven clusters represent tools with discrete functions....As with Ritter...I do not consider all eleven clusters to be 'good,' reliable form groups that probably related to prehistoric behavior and perception."

---

References Cited

Carmean, Kelli. 1994. A Metrical Study of Baja California Sur Projectile Points. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 30(1):52-74.

Massey, William C. 1966. The Castaldí Collection from Central and Southern Baja California. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 2. Berkeley.

Ritter, Eric W. 1979. An Archaeological Study of South-Central Baja California, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

An alternative to a typology for classifying projectile points is to use selected attributes to describe and analyze the points. Some attributes, individually or in small sets, are hypothesized to have been restricted in their chronological, geographical, or functional distributions. However, the current state of archaeological research in Baja California usually does not yet make it possible to confirm these hypotheses.

In general, attribute classifications are not based on any clear-cut discontinuities. Instead, the differences are gradational, and, to some extent, the divisions are arbitrary. The interpretive value of such classifications is likely to be statistical and probabilistic, rather than being definitive at the level of the individual specimen. It may be possible to say with some confidence, for instance, that small points, or expanding-stem points, or some other attribute category, are likely to be associated with a particular time period, a cultural tradition, or a function. But it is usually not possible to say with complete confidence that an individual specimen must pertain to that period, tradition, or function.

Attributes with Potential Interpretive Significance

Point Size

The size of projectile points may be one of the most interpretively useful attributes. It appears to be strongly correlated with chronology and point function. Specifically, small points may postdate the introduction of the bow and arrow. The timing of that introduction in Baja California is not well established, and it may have varied substantially on a north-south gradient. The bow and arrow were present in western North America by ca. A.D. 400, but they may not have reached the Cape Region until the early historic period.

To measure point size, four possible dimensions are length, width, thickness, and weight; combinations of those are also possible. Aerodynamically, weight seems to be the most logical choice, in that heavy points would likely be unstable on arrows. Franklin Fenenga (1953) looked at a large sample of projectile points from North American sites and found a marked dip in the frequency of weights at 4.0 g. Such a dip is what one might expect if small and large points represented distinct (but overlapping) populations reflecting different technologies. However, this dip is not replicated in a collection of weight frequencies for whole points from California and the Great Basin (Justice 2002:422-442). In the latter data set, the most plausible dip occurs at about 2.2 g. To distinguish late prehistoric points in the Great Basin, David Hurst Thomas (1981) suggested a cutoff of 1.5 g; this weight does not correspond to any dip in recorded point frequencies for Alta California and the Great Basin.

A drawback in using weight as an index for point size is that weights have frequently not been reported for Baja California point assemblages, and weights are less likely than linear dimensions to be measured in the field during non-collecting studies. Graphic illustrations of points include usable information on linear dimensions but not on weights. In some archaeological reports, it may not be clear whether a recorded weight refers to a point fragment or to a whole specimen. For many point fragments, it is possible to extrapolate an original linear measurement, but extrapolating the original weight from a fragment is more problematic.

Alternatives to weight as indices for point size include length, width, and thickness. For thickness, the problem of measurement error is probably most severe. Thickness is not documented for many points that are only recorded through plan-view photographs or drawings. Width may have an advantage of being less subject than length to alteration through point reworking after breakage (cf. Bettinger and Eerkens 1999), but measurement error is probably also higher for width than with length. On balance, length may be the most convenient index of point size.

Plotting the frequencies of length measurements on a sample of points from Baja California, Alta California, and the Great Basin does not suggest any dip in length frequencies that might naturally distinguish large from small populations (Carmean 1994b; Justice 2002; Ritter and Burcell 1998). While point length is correlated with point size in the sample of Alta California and Great Basin points, the relationship is only a rough one. Consequently, defining a dividing line between large and small points based on length is necessarily rather arbitrary at this stage of investigations. Thomas (1981:25) used a cutoff of 3 cm. This may be the most expedient index to use at present.

Stem Morphology

This attribute has figured very prominently in most point typologies. Functionally, it likely relates to the manner in which the points were fastened to the projectile shafts or foreshafts. Six general categories of stem forms may be suggested:

• Triangular (i.e., no stems). These points are widest at their proximal end and are not side-notched.
• No shoulders. These points become narrower toward the proximal end, but there is not a marked contraction immediately after their greatest width. Most such points would also be labeled as “leaf-shaped,” “foliate,” or “diamond-shaped.”
• Wide stem. These points are widest at the proximal end but contain notches on the blade edges near the proximal end. Such points would also be labeled “side-notched.”
• Expanding stem. These points are widest at their shoulders, but their stem expands proximally below the shoulders.
• Straight stem. The stem on these points neither expands nor contracts; the lateral edges of the stem are parallel to the points’ axis.
• Contracting stem. The lateral edges of the stem on these points narrow proximally.

Other attributes relating to point stems have been suggested as significant, at least in some cases. These include stem width and stem length, considered either absolutely or relative to overall point length.

Base Morphology

This attribute has been incorporated in many typologies. Functionally, it may relate to the ways in which points were joined to projectile shafts or foreshafts. The proximal edges of points may be classified as concave, straight, convex, or pointed.

Shoulder Morphology

Occasionally, typologies have taken note of whether points' shoulders are sharp or rounded. Also of interest has been whether the proximal edges below the shoulders slope toward the point's proximal end, are perpendicular to the points’ log axis, or slope back toward the distal end (i.e., are barbed). Points with barbed shoulders may have been designed to be more resistant to becoming dislodged from a wound.

Blade Morphology

The distal edges of a point may be noted as straight, convex, or (much more rarely) concave. Probably more important is the presence or absence of serration or notching. Serrated edges have sharp projections where the indentations overlap; notched points have flat portions of blade between the indentations. Blade serration and notching may have served to increase tissue damage during penetration. A more speculative suggestion is that they may have been designs used to mark ownership of the point.

Width-to-Length Ratio

A width-to-length ratio that is either atypically high or low might be suggestive of point reworking after use damage. In cases of extreme point narrowness, such points may have been quite fragile, perhaps suggesting that they had social or ideological functions rather than being used on utilitarian projectiles.

Thickness-to-Width Ratio

Atypically thick points may have been extensively reworked, or they may have served some particular function. Atypically thin points may have been excessively fragile and might have served other functions, as in the case of atypically narrow points.

Flaking Techniques

Crude or refined flaking, and the use of percussion or pressure flaking techniques, have sometimes been distinguished. Eduardo Serafín Esquivel (1995) classified the flaking of Baja California points as irregular or regular, and in the latter case distinguished wide (>4 mm), medium (2-4 mm), and narrow (<2 mm) flaking. A specific flaking technique of interpretive importance is the removal of fluting flakes from the base of some terminal Pleistocene (“Clovis”) points.

Material Type

The lithic (or non-lithic) material from which a point was manufactured is an attribute of evident potential interpretive significance. While material type has typically been noted in point descriptions, this attribute has not usually been incorporated into type definitions. Materials were variously local or imported, and they may have been selected on the basis of such considerations as their relative availability, nodule size, workability, strength, and durability.

---

Reported Attribute Occurrences

This tabulation draws upon the existing archaeological literature on Baja California projectile points, which relates primarily to the central portion of the peninsula. Distinctions between projectile points and bifacial artifacts that served other functions, such as knives or cores, have not always been consistent; inclusion of artifacts here is based primarily on their identification as projectile points by the original investigators.

Size: lg = large (length at least 3 cm); sm = small (length less than 3 cm)

Stem: tr = triangular point, no stem (the maximum width is at or near the proximal end; no side notches); ns = no shoulders (e.g., leaf-shaped, diamond=shaped point); wi = wide (e.g. side-nothced; thestem is wider than the blade); ex = expanding (e.g., corner-notched point); st = straight; ct = contracting

Base: cc = concave; st = straight; cx = convex; pt = pointed

Other: se = serrated (blade is serrated or has multiple notches); fl = fluted (a fluting flake has been removed from one or both faces of the base); ec = eccentric; ba = barbed (shoulder extends farther proximally than the distal end of the stem)

Type Names: These are designations have been applied to the attribute groups by one or more of the cited sources. They do not represent a consensus terminology.

References: Symbols in parentheses indicate general geographic regions within the peninsula: N = north; C = central; S = south; U = unspecified.

SIZE	STEM	BASE	OTHER	REFERENCES TO ILLUSTRATED EXAMPLES	TYPE NAMES
lg	tr	cc	--	Carmean 1994b:68 (C/S); Des Lauriers 2005:276 (C). 2006:160 (C), 2008b:59; Meighan 1978:16-17 (C); Ritter 1998:25 (C); 2001: 65 (C), 2006b:140, 2008b:65, 74 (C), 2008c:192 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:36-38 (C); Ritter and Payen 1992:258 (C); Ritter et al. 1984:23 (C); Serafín 1995:87 (C)	Comondú; Guerrero Negro
lg	tr	cc	se	Carmean 1994b:66 (C/S); Davis 1968:195 (C); Massey 1966a:43 (C/S); Ritter 1979:179 (C)	Comondú
lg	tr	st	--	Carmean 1994b:62 (C/S); Massey 1955:233 (S), 1966a:43 (C/S); Ritter 1979:169 (C), 2001:62 (C); 2008c:186-187, 192 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:36, 38, 50 (C); Ritter and Payen 1992:258 (C); Serafín 1995:87 (C)	Comondú; Guerrero Negro
lg	tr	st	se	Carmean 1994b:66 (C/S), Des Lauriers 2005:346, 352 (C), 2008b:59 (C)	Huamalgüeño
lg	tr	cx	--	Massey 1955:201, 223, 233, 245 (S); Ritter 1979:200 (C)	Silver Lake
lg	tr	cx	se	Des Lauriers 2005:347 (C), 2008b:59	Huamalgüeño
lg	ns	cc	--	Davis 1968:195 (C); Des Lauriers 2005:199-200, 276 (C); Massey 1966a:42, 45 (C/S); Ritter and Burcell 1998:39 (C); Rosales-López and Fujita 2000:109 (S) ; Serafín 1995:88 (C)	Guerrero Negro
lg	ns	cc	se	Massey 1955:262 (S)	--
lg	ns	cc	fl	Aschmann 1952:262 (C); Des Lauriers 2008a:273 (C); Gutiérrez and Hyland 2002:264 (C); Hyland 1997:506 (C), 2006:123 (C); Hyland and Gutiérrez 1995:127 (C)	Clovis
lg	ns	st	--	Carmean 1994a:37 (S)Davis 1968:195 (C); Gruhn and Bryan 2008:134 (N), 2009:13, 15 (N); Massey 1955:233 (S), 1966a:42, 44 (C/S); Ritter 1998:24 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:50 (C) ; Serafín 1995:88 (C)	--
lg	ns	st	se	Gruhn and Bryan 2009: 15 (N)	--
lg	ns	cx	--	Carmean 1994b:57, 62 (C/S); Davis 1968:195, 197 (C); Des Lauriers 2005: 198-200 (C); Figueroa 2009:41 (N); Gutiérrez and Hyland 2002:261 (C); Massey 1955:201, 210, 233, 258, 262 (S), 1966a:41, 44 (C/S); Porcayo 2007:30 (N); Ritter 1998:23 (C), 2006b:140 (C), 2008b:74 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:46 (C); Ritter et al. 1984:23 (C); Rosales-López and Fujita 2000:108-109 (S); Serafín 1995:88 (C)	Pinto
lg	ns	cx	se	Davis 1968:196 (C); Des Lauriers 2005:198 (C); Gruhn and Bryan 2009:15 (N); Massey 1966a:41 (C/S)	--
lg	ns	pt	--	Carmean 1994b:59 (C/S); Davis 1968: 196 (C); Gruhn and Bryan 2008:133 (C), 2009:7 (C); Massey 1955:223, 233, 262 (S), 1966a:41, 44 (C/S); Ritter 1998:23 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:49 (C); Rosales-López and Fujita 2000:108-109 (S)	--
lg	wd	cc	--	Carmean 1994b:64, 68 (C/S); Figueroa 2009:41 (N); Gutiérrez and Hyland 2002:260 (C); Hyland 2006:123-124 (C); Massey 1955:262 (S), 1966a: 46 (C/S), 1966b:45 (U); Ritter 1979:169, 172 (C), 2001:62 (C), 2006a:103 (C); 2006b:140 (C), 2008b:74 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:41 (C); Serafín 1995:88 (C)	Elko; Pinto
lg	wd	cc	se	Carmean 1994b:66 (C/S)	--
lg	wd	st	--	Massey 1955:233 (S), 1966a:45 (C/S); Ritter 1979:169 (C); 2001:62 (C)	San Pedro
lg	wd	cx	--	Carmean 1994b:56 (C/S); Davis 1968:197 (C); Figueroa 2009:41 (N); Massey 1966a:45 (C/S); Ritter 2006a:103 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:42 (C)	Elko; San Pedro
lg	wd	cx	--	Carmean 1994a:37, 1994b:56, 68 (C/S); Davis 1968:197 (C); Gutiérrez and Hyland 2002:260 (C); Massey 1966a:53-54 (C/S), 1966b:45 (U); Ritter 1979:169, 172 (C), 2006a:103 (C); Serafín 1995:91 (C)	Elko; Pinto; Comondú:
lg	ex	cc	se	Ritter 1979:200 (C)	Pinto
lg	ex	cc	ba	Massey 1966a:55 (C/S); Ritter and Burcell 1998:42 (C); Rosales-López and Fujita 2000:109 (S)	Elko
lg	ex	st	--	Carmean 1994a:37 (S), 1994b:56 (C/S); Massey 1955:246 (S), 1966a:52, 54 (C/S); Ritter 1979:169 (C), 1991:16 (C), 2006a:103 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:41 (C)	Elko; San Pedro; Silver Lake
lg	ex	st	ba	Carmean 1994b:58 (C/S); Massey 1955:246 (S); Ritter 1979:175 (C), 2008c:192 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:42 (C)	Elko
lg	ex	cx	--	Carmean 1994a:37 (S), 1994b:56, 64 (C/S); Figueroa 2009:41 (N); Massey 1955:201, 235, 246, 258, 262 (S), 1966a:52-53 (C/S); Ritter 1979:169 (C), 2008b:66, 74 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:52-53 (C); Serafín 1995:88 (C)	Elko; Vizcaíno
lg	ex	cx	se	Massey 1966a:52-53 (U)	--
lg	ex	cx	ba	Carmean 1994b:56, 58, 65 (C/S); Massey 1955:223, 246, 262 (S), 1966a:55 (C), 1966b:46 (U); Ritter 2008c:192 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:42, 52 (C) ; Serafín 1995:90 (C)	Elko; Gypsum Cave; La Paz
lg	ex	--	--	Ritter 1979:169 (C)	--
lg	st	st	--	Carmean 1994a:37 (S), 1994b:56 (C/S); Davis 1968:196 (C); Massey 1955:258 (S), 1966a:50 (C/S), 1966b:45 (U); Ritter 1979:169, 200 (C), 2001:62 (C), 2006a:103, 110 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:46 (C); Rosales-López and Fujita 2000:108-109 (S)	Lake Mojave; Pinto; San Pedro; Silver Lake
lg	st	cc	ba	Massey 1966a:55 (C/S)	--
lg	st	st	ba	Massey 1966a:51 (C/S); Ritter 1979:175 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:49 (C)	--
lg	st	cx	--	Carmean 1994a:37 (S), 1994b:56, 64 (C/S); Massey 1955:246, 262 (S), 1966a:47, 49-50 (C/S), 1966b:45 (U); Ritter 1979:169 (C), 2001:62 (C), 2006a:103 (C), 2006b:140 (C), 2008c:192 (C)	Pinto; Zacatecas
lg	st	cx	ba	Carmean 1994b:58, 65 (C/S); Massey 1966a:51 (C/S)	--
lg	ct	st	--	Carmean 1994b:56, 60, 64 (C/S); Davis 1968:196 (C); Massey 1955:262 (S); Ritter 1979:172 (C), 1991:16 (C); Serafín 1995:89 (C)	Lake Mojave; Silver Lake
lg	ct	st	ba	Carmean 1994a:37 (S); Ritter 1979:175 (C)	--
lg	ct	st	se	Ritter 2008c:192 (C)	--
lg	ct	cx	--	Carmean 1994b:56 (C/S); Massey 1966a:48 (C/S), 1966b:46 (U); Meighan 1978:17 (C); Ritter 1979:169, 172, 175, 196, 200 (C), 1991:16 (C), 2001:62 (C), 2006a:103 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:49 (C)	Gypsum Cave; Lake Mojave; La Paz; Loreto
lg	ct	cx	ba	Carmean 1994a:37 (S), 1994b:58 (C/S); Massey 1955:210, 258, 262 (S), 1966a:49 (C), 1966b:46 (U); Ritter and Burcell 1998:49 (C)	La Paz; Loreto
lg	ct	pt	--	Carmean 1994b:64-65 (C/S); Davis 1968:195 (C); Hyland 2006:124 (C); Massey 1955:233, 252 (S), 1966a:16-17, 46-47 (C/S), 1966b:45-46 (U); Ritter 1979:169 (C), 2001:62 (C), 2006a:103 (C); Rosales-López and Fujita 2000:109 (S); Serafín 1995:89 (C)	Gypsum Cave; La Paz
lg	ct	pt	ba	Carmean 1994b:60, 61, 65 (C/S); Gutiérrez and Hyland 2002:261 (C); Massey 1955:223, 235, 258 (S), 1966a:48 (C/S), 1966b:46 (U); Rosales-López and Fujita 2000:108-109 (S)	Gypsum Cave; La Paz
lg	ct	--	--	Carmean 1994b:58 (C/S); Ritter 1979:172, 175 (C)	--
lg	--	--	se	Des Lauriers 2006:160 (C)	--
lg	--	--	ba	Carmean 1994b:58, 60 (C/S); Rosales-López and Fujita 2000:109 (S)	--
lg	--	--	ec	Gutiérrez and Hyland 2002:263 (C); Meighan 1978:17 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:45 (C); Serafín 1995:87 (C)	--
sm	tr	cc	--	Carmean 1994b:57, 68 (C/S); Des Lauriers 2005:276 (C), 2006:160 (C); Gutiérrez and Hyland 2002:257 (C); Massey 1955:262 (S), 1966a:43 (C/S), 1966b:45 (U); Ritter 1979:172 (C), 1998:25 (C), 2001:65 (C), 2006b:140 (C); 2006c:173 (C), 2008a:28 (C), 2008c:192 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:36-37 (C); Ritter and Payen 1992:258 (C); Serafín 1995:86 (C)	Comondú; Cottonwood; Guerrero Negro; Pinto
sm	tr	cc	se	Carmean 1994b:66 (C/S); Des Lauriers 2005:243 (C), 2006:160 (C); Gutiérrez and Hyland 2002:258 (C); Massey 1966a:43 (C/S), 1966b:48 (U); Meighan 1978:16; Ritter 1979:179 (C), 1998:26 (C), 2001:62, 69 (C), 2006a:103 (C), 2006c:173 (C); Serafín 1995:86 (C)	Comondú
sm	tr	st	--	Gutiérrez and Hyland 2002:257 (C); Massey 1966a:42, 43 (C/S); Meighan 1978:16 (C); Ritter 1979:179 (C), 1998:25 (C), 2006b:140 (C), 2008b:74 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:37 (C); Ritter et al. 1994:7 (C)	Comondú; Guerrero Negro
sm	tr	st	se	Carmean 1994b:66 (C/S); Des Lauriers 2005:243, 250, 336, 352 (C), 2006:160 (C), 2008b: 59 (C); Ritter 1998:26 (C), 2001:65, 69 (C), 2006b:140 (C), 2006c:173 (C), 2008a:28-29 (C), 2008b:74 (C), 2008c:192 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:37, 45 (C)	Comondú; Guerrero Negro
sm	tr	cx	--	Carmean 1994b:57 (C/S); Des Lauriers 2005:243 (C); Massey 1966a:42 (C/S); Ritter 1998:25 (C); Ritter et al. 1994:7 (C); Serafín 1995:86 (C)	Cottonwood
sm	tr	cx	se	Carmean 1994b:66 (C/S); Massey 1966a: 42 (C/S)	--
sm	ns	cc	--	Carmean 1994b:57 (C/S); Des Lauriers 2005:200 (C); Massey 1966a:42, 45 (C/S)	--
sm	ns	cx	--	Carmean 1994b:57 (C/S); Davis 1968:195 (C); Des Lauriers 2005:243 (C); Massey 1966a:41, 44 (C/S); Ritter and Burcell 1998:46 (C); Ritter et al. 1984:23	--
sm	ns	cx	se	Ritter 1998:26 (C)	--
sm	ns	pt	--	Carmean 1994b:57 (C/S); Massey 1966a:44 (C/S); Ritter and Payen 1992:258 (C)	Guerrero Negro
sm	wd	cc	--	Carmean 1994b:56 (C/S); Davis 1968:194 (C); Gutiérrez and Hyland 2002:260 (C); Massey 1966a:46 (C/S), 1966b:45 (U); Ritter 1979:169, 183 (C), 2006b:140 (C), 2008b:74 (C), 2008c:192 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:41, 46 (C); Serafín 1995:86 (C)	Desert; Elko; Guajademí; Pinto
sm	wd	cc	se	Gutiérrez and Hyland 2002:259 (C); Serafín 1995:86 (C)	Comondú
sm	wd	st	--	Carmean 1994b:56 (C/S); Ritter 1979:172 (C); 1998:26 (C), 2006c:173 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:45 (C)	Comondú
sm	wd	st	se	Ritter 2006c:173 (C)	--
sm	wd	cx	--	Carmean 1994b:56 (C/S); Porcayo 2007:30 (N)	--
sm	ex	cc	--	Massey 1966a:53-54 (C/S), 1966b:45 (U); Ritter 1979:172, 183 (C), 2001:62 (C), 2006a:103 (C), 2006c:173 (C), 2008c:192 (C)	Guajademí; Pinto
sm	ex	st	--	Massey 1966a:52 (S); Ritter 1998:26 (C), 2006c:173 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:42 (C)	Elko
sm	ex	st	ba	Ritter1998:26 (C)	--
sm	st	st	--	Carmean 1994b:56 (C/S); Des Lauriers 2005:199 (C); Massey 1966a:50 (C/S); Meighan 1978:16 (C)	--
sm	st	cx	--	Massey 1966a:49-50 (C/S); Ritter 2001:62 (C), 2006a:103 (C), 2006b:140 (C), 2008b:74 (C); Ritter and Burcell 1998:49 (C)	Zacatecas
sm	st	cxx	ba	Carmean 1994b:56 (C/S); Ritter and Burcell 1998:50 (C); Serafín 1995:90 (C)	--
sm	ct	st	--	Ritter 1998:26 (C); Serafín 1995:90 (C)	--
sm	ct	cx	--	Massey 1966b:45 (U); Ritter 2008c:192 (C); Serafín 1995:87 (C)	Manuela; Pinto
sm	ct	cx	se	Serafín 1995:86 (C)	--
sm	ct	cx	ba	Massey 1966a:47, 49 (C/S)	--
sm	ct	pt	--	Massey 1966a:47 (C/S); Ritter 2006c:173 (C), 2008c:192 (C)	Guerrero Negro; Manuela
sm	ct	pt	se	Meighan 1978:16 (C)	--
sm	ct	pt	ba	Massey 1966a:48 (C)	--
sm	--	--	ec	Carmean 1994b:66 (C/S); Ritter 2006b:140 (C), 2008b:74 (C)	--
--	tr	cc	--	Ritter 1979:200 (C), 2008c:192 (C)	Pinto; Guerrero Negro
--	tr	cc	se	Massey 1966b:49 (C)	--
--	tr	st	--	Davis 1968:195 (C); Massey 1966b:49 (C)	--
--	tr	st	se	Massey 1966b:49 (C)	--
--	ns	cx	--	Massey 1966b:46 (S)	--
--	wd	st	--	Ritter 1979:196 (C)	San Pedro
--	wd	cc	--	Ritter 1979:169, 187 (C)	Elko
--	ex	cc	--	Fujita 2008:316 (S)	Pinto
--	ex	st	--	Fujita 2008:316 (S); Ritter 1979:196 (C)	San Pedro
--	ex	cx	--	Ritter 1979:187, 196, 200 (C)	Elko; San Pedro; Silver Lake; Zacatecas
--	ex	cx	ba	Ritter 1979:187 (C)	Elko
--	st	st	--	Ritter 1979:192, 196 (C)	San Pedro
--	st	cx	--	Ritter 1979:192 (C)	Gypsum Cave; La Paz
--	st	cx	ba	Ritter 1979:192 (C)	--
--	ct	cx	--	Ritter 1979:192 (C)	Lake Mojave; Gypsum Cave; La Paz
--	ct	cx	ba	Massey 1966b:49 (C)	--
--	ct	pt	--	Massey 1966b:46 (S); Ritter 1979:192 (C)	Gypsum Cave; La Paz

 

---

References Cited

Aschmann, Homer. 1952. A Fluted Point from Central Baja California. American Antiquity 17:262-263.

Bettinger, Robert L., and Jelmer Eerkens. 1999. Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-and-Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64:231-242.

Carmean, Kelli. 1994a. Archaeological Investigations in the Cape Region’s Cañon de San Dionisio. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 30(1):24-51.

-----. 1994b.A Metrical Study of Baja California Sur Projectile Points. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 30(1):52-74.

Davis, Emma Lou. 1968. An Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Central Desert of Baja California. University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report 10:176-208.

Des Lauriers, Matthew R. 2005. Rediscovering Huamalgua, the Island of Fogs: Archaeological and Ethnhistorical Investigations of Isla Cedros, Baja California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

-----. 2008a. A Paleoindian Fluted Pont from Isla Cedros, Baja California. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 3:271-276.

-----. 2008b. Proyecto arqueológico Isla de Cedros: ¿una sociedad antigua, marítima e insular? In Memorias de Balances y Perspectivas de la Antropología e Historia de Baja California, 2002-2004, pp. 49-59. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexicali.

Fenenga, Franklin. 1953. The Weights of Chipped Stone Points: A Clue to their Functions. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9:134-141.

Figueroa Beltrán, Carlos. 2009. La arqueología del Holoceno en el corredor costero Colnett-El Rosario (Baja California, México): un análisis orientado a la gestión. Doctoral thesis, Instituto de Investigaciones Oceanológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California.

Gruhn, Ruth, and Alan Bryan. 2008. Reporte parcial sobre dos resguardos rocosos con ocupación del Holoceno temprano en el norte de la península de Baja California. In Memorias de Balances y Perspectivas de la Antropología e Historia de Baja California, 2000-2001, pp. 125-134. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexicali.

-----. 2009. An Interim Report on Two Rockshelter Sites with Early Holocene Occupation in the Northern Baja California Peninsula. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 42(2-3):1-16.

Gutiérrez, María de la Luz, and Justin R. Hyland. 2002. Arqueología de la sierra de San Francisco. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Hyland, Justin R. 1997. Image, Land, and Lineage: Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in Central Baja California, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

-----. 2006. The Central Sierras. In The Prehistory of Baja California: Advances in the Archaeology of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 117-134. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

-----, and María de la Luz Gutiérrez. 1995. An Obsidian Fluted Point from Central Baja California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 17:126-128.

Justice, Noel D. 2002. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Massey, William C. 1955. Culture History in the Cape Region of Baja California, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

-----. 1961. The Cultural Distinction of Aboriginal Baja California. In Homenaje a Pablo Martínez del Río en el vigésimoquinto aniversario de la primera edición de “Los orígenes americanos”, pp. 411-422. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

-----. 1966a. The Castaldí Collection from Central and Southern Baja California. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 2. Berkeley.

-----. 1966b. Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Lower California. In Archaeological Frontiers and External Connections, edited by Gordon F. Ekholm and Gordon R. Willey, pp. 38-58. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 4. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Meighan, Clement W. 1978. Analysis of Rock Art in Baja California. In Seven Rock Art Sites in Baja California, edited by Clement W. Meighan and V. L. Pontoni, pp. 1-18. Ballena Press Publications on North American Rock Art No. 2. Socorro, New Mexico.

Moore, Jerry D. 2006. The San Quintín-El Rosario Region. In The Prehistory of Baja California: Advances in the Archaeology of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 179-195. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Porcayo Michelini, Antonio. 2007. El Complejo San Dieguito analizado desde el sitio Ignacio Zaragoza, Ensenada, Baja California. In Memoria del seminario de arqueología del norte de México, edited by Cristina García M. and Elisa Villalpando C., pp. 25-35. Centro INAH Sonora, Hermosillo. (CD)

Ritter, Eric W. 1979. An Archaeological Study of South-Central Baja California, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

-----. 1991. Los primeros bajacalifornianos: enigmas cronológicos, ecológicos y socioculturales. Estudios Fronterizos 24-25:9-30.

-----. 1998. Investigations of Prehistoric Behavioral Ecology and Culture Change within the Bahía de los Angeles Region, Baja California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 34(3):9-43.

-----. 2001. Observations Regarding the Prehistoric Archaeology of Central Baja California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 37(4):53-80.

-----. 2006a. South-Central Baja California. In The Prehistory of Baja California: Advances in the Archaeology of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 99-116. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

-----. 2006b. The Vizcaíno Desert. In The Prehistory of Baja California: Advances in the Archaeology of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 135-152. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

-----. 2006c. Bahía de los Angeles. In The Prehistory of Baja California: Advances in the Archaeology of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 167-178. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

-----. 2008a. Observations Regarding the Prehistoric Archaeology of Central Baja California. In Memorias de Balances y Perspectivas de la Antropología e Historia de Baja California, 2000-2001, pp. 15-29. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexicali.

-----. 2008b. The Archaeology of the Three Sisters Lagoons, Baja California, Mexico. In Memorias de Balances y Perspectivas de la Antropología e Historia de Baja California, 2002-2004, pp. 61-74. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexicali.

-----. 2008c. The Practicality of Turning Stones into Flaked Tools among Prehistoric Peoples of West-Central Coastal Baja California. In Memorias de Balances y Perspectivas de la Antropología e Historia de Baja California, 2002-2004, pp. 181-193. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexicali.

-----, and Julie Burcell. 1998. Projectile Points from the Three Sisters’ Lagoons of West Central Baja California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 34(4):29-66.

-----, John W. Foster, Robert I Orlins, Louis A Payen, and Paul D. Bouey. 1994. Archaeological Insights within a Marine Cornucopia: Baja California’s Bahía de las Ánimas. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 30(1):1-23.

-----, and Louis A. Payen. 1992. Archaeological Discoveries along Laguna Ojo de Liebre, Baja California, Mexico. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by Terry L. Jones, pp. 251-266. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication No. 10. University of California, Davis.

-----, Louis A. Payen, and Carol H. Rector. 1984. An Archaeological Survey of Laguna La Guija, Baja California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 20(1):17-26.

Rosales-López, Alfonso, and Harumi Fujita. 2000. La antigua California prehispánica: la vida costera en El Conchalito. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Serafín Esquivel, Eduardo. 1995. Análisis tipológico de puntas de proyectil del área central de la península de Baja California, México. Unpublished thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Thomas, David Hurst. 1981. How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3:7-43.

Tuohy, Donald Raymond. 1978. Culture History in the Comondu Region, Baja California, Mexico. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.