Pryor Stemmed Points - Just Like Rolling the Dice!

Figure One - Probable Pryor Stemmed dart point/knife form in its original
un-resharpened condition. John Bradford Branney Collection.   



"Medium to large stemmed projectile points with alternately beveled edges. Lateral edges vary from parallel to convex and are alternately beveled with the bevel on the right (tip up). Beveling extends at least from the tip to the shoulder, and on some specimens extends the full length of the stem."  

- Wilfred M. Husted's original Pryor Stemmed description.  

The photograph above is probably a 2.1-inch long Pryor Stemmed projectile point or knife form surface found on a private ranch in southern Wyoming. The maker of that point used what appears to be Spanish Diggings orthoquartzite from the famous prehistoric rock quarries in east-central Wyoming. The point exhibits excellent tip-up, parallel-oblique flaking patterns from the lower right to the upper left. The projectile point or knife form appears to be in its first stage, in other words, its original knapped state. Its maker/user never resharpened and/or beveled its edges. 

I wrote probably about the artifact in Figure one because I am not one-hundred percent positive that it is a Pryor Stemmed projectile point as defined by Husted (1969:51). The Pryor Stemmed projectile point type possessed a few distinguishing features according to Husted's point type description but unfortunately not all suspected Pryor Stemmed points possess those distinguishing features. That makes it nearly impossible to identify a Pryor Stemmed point out of archaeological context if it is missing one or two of those distinguishing features. 

I can surface find a Cody Complex or a Folsom or a Clovis point out on the prairie and I pretty much know what I have in my hand. There is usually no mistaking those projectile point types. But, unless I find a Pryor Stemmed projectile point or knife form that possesses one, two, three, or more of its distinguishing features, I cannot be sure that it is a Pryor Stemmed point. They are easily confused with other projectile point types or with no known projectile point type at all. 

Figure Two - A few of the original Pryor Stemmed
points from Bottleneck Cave (Husted 1969:52) 

Where was the Pryor Stemmed projectile point type first documented?     

In an archaeological salvage operation between the years 1962 and 1964, seven archaeological sites along Big Horn Canyon in Wyoming and Montana were investigated. Under the direction of Wilfred Husted (1969) of the National Park Service, the investigators documented the sites and Husted was responsible for proposing the name Pryor Stemmed for a new projectile point type excavated in Bottleneck Cave. The bi-beveled points were named after Pryor Mountain in Montana to the north of the site. Figure two represents Pryor Stemmed projectile points that Husted and associates found in Bottleneck Cave on those salvage operations. 

Later in 1971, Frison (2014:147) excavated Schiffer Cave along the North Fork of the Powder River in the southeastern Big Horn Mountains of Wyoming. The investigators discovered several complete and partial bi-beveled points designated as Pryor Stemmed. The two firepits in the cave dated at around 8,450 RCYBP (uncorrected radiocarbon years).   

George Frison (1991:71) reported that the Pryor Stemmed projectile point or knife form tied to a distinctive archaeological horizon in the Pryor and Big Horn Mountains of Wyoming and Montana. Radiocarbon dates indicated that Pryor Stemmed projectile points were between 8,300 to 7,800 years old (uncorrected radiocarbon years). 

Originally, archaeologists assumed that the distribution for Pryor Stemmed projectile points or knife forms was limited to the mountains and foothills around the Pryor and Big Horn Mountains of Montana and Wyoming, but surface finds at other High Plains locales, including plains and prairie environments broadened that distribution. I have personally surface found several probable Pryor Stemmed projectile points or knife forms as far south as northern Colorado and as far north as Montana. The true distribution range for Pryor Stemmed projectile points most likely exceeds my artifact-hunting range.

What is a Pryor Stemmed projectile point? 

As earlier mentioned, figure two is a drawing of projectile points that the investigators at Bottleneck Cave categorized as Pryor Stemmed points. The following description was given by Husted (1969:51) for the fourteen Pryor Stemmed projectile points excavated at Bottleneck Cave: 

"Medium to large stemmed projectile points with alternately beveled edges. Lateral edges vary from parallel to convex and are alternately beveled with the bevel on the right (tip up). Beveling extends at least from the tip to the shoulder, and on some specimens extends the full length of the stem. Serration of lateral edges ranges from fine and even through rough and irregular to nearly nonexistent. Serrations were made on the beveled edge; The amount of beveling and the quality of material used determined the fineness of the serrations." 

Husted mentioned that stem lengths were from one-fifth to one-third of the total length of the point, that shouldering could be prominent to nonexistent, and that chipping ranged from crude parallel oblique to random. He wrote that description with so much variability that the description is difficult to use for identifying Pryor Stemmed projectile points found outside of archaeological and stratigraphical context.  

CLICK for MORE INFORMATION

The three critical diagnostic features for Pryor Stemmed points in Husted's description were 1). basal stemming, 2). alternate edge beveling, and 3). parallel-oblique flaking. However, not all of the Pryor Stemmed points that Husted found at Bottleneck Cave or other sites possessed the last two diagnostic features. Later in the article, I will explore whether it is even possible to identify Pryor Stemmed projectile points out of archaeological context without those last two distinguishing features. 

Frison (2014:149) further muddied the water with the Pryor Stemmed projectile point type when he noted that the alternate edge beveling was not even present on the archetype (the original point used to define the Pryor Stemmed projectile point type). Frison noted that the alternate edge beveling appeared to be part of an ongoing resharpening process throughout the life of the point. That appears to be the case for the projectile point in Figure one. I believe it was a 'first stage' Pryor Stemmed projectile point that was never resharpened, thus it retained its original form with a lenticular cross-section and parallel-oblique pressure flaking. 

When a prehistoric hunter used a Pryor Stemmed projectile point, it eventually became dull or perhaps broken. The prehistoric hunter would then resharpen the projectile point in a manner that created steep beveled edges on alternate sides of the projectile point. In some cases, the beveling process produced serrated edges depending on the material and the knapping process. With resharpening and beveling, the original lenticular cross-section of the projectile point or knife form became more of a trapezoidal cross-section. There are examples of Pryor Stemmed projectile points and knife forms where the alternate-side beveling was so extensive that the blade edges were much narrower than the stem. 

Figure Three - Probable 2.4-inch long Pryor Stemmed knife form surface
found in northeastern Colorado. John Bradford Branney Collection. 

Figure three is another example from my collection that I believe was a Pryor Stemmed knife form that I surface recovered on private land in northeastern Colorado on July 27th, 2014. Originally, I thought the knife form fell within the realm of the McKean Complex (Middle Archaic) but the more I studied it, the more I convinced myself it was from the Late Paleoindian/Early Archaic time frame and an example of a Pryor Stemmed knife form. The flaking on this knife form was just too fine for McKean and the stem and base were ground and polished smooth. The point was missing parallel oblique flaking but it does have a slight right-hand bevel on one side. The site where I found this point has produced surface finds from Early Paleoindian to Late Prehistoric and everything in between.  

Figure Four - 1.85-inch long Pryor Stemmed
knife form or projectile point, beveled and used 
up. John Bradford Branney Collection.   

Figure four is an example of an exhausted Pryor Stemmed projectile point from my collection, surface recovered on private land in northern Colorado. Note the intense and steep right-hand bevel along the edge of the exhausted point. The other side of the point is beveled as severely as the first side. The prehistoric hunter resharpened that point so many times that the beveled blade edges were narrower than the stem. It is apparent to me that the prehistoric hunter resharpened that point many times while it was still hafted on a knife handle or dart tip. 

Based on archaeological evidence, aggressive beveling was a common practice for the people who used and made Pryor Stemmed projectile points. Deliberate burination appeared on a few Pryor Stemmed points and knives as well. Burination occurred when the knapper used transverse breaks on the point as striking platforms to resolve a hafting issue or to create a chisel-like tip. I personally don't have any Pryor Stemmed projectile points with burins in my collection, but I have a few burinated points from the earlier Cody Complex. 

Where did the Pryor Stemmed projectile point and its technology originate?

Husted (1969:86) hypothesized that Pryor Stemmed technology and form might have evolved from the Scottsbluff point of the Cody Complex. The two projectile point types do share a resemblance. Both point types had basal stemming and the time frame between the two technologies appeared to be reasonable. While the last of the Scottsbluff and other Cody Complex projectile points were transitioning out, Pryor Stemmed projectile points could have stepped in as a new technology. I wrote Pryor Stemmed projectile points could have stepped in as a new technology because the post-Cody Complex period saw a plethora of Late Paleoindian/Early Archaic projectile point types showing up on the plains and in the mountains. Those included Pryor Stemmed, James Allen, Frederick, Lovell Constricted, Lusk, Deception Creek, and several other unnamed point styles. Most of those projectile point types fall within what Frison (1991:67) called the Foothill-Mountain Paleoindian Group or the  Parallel-Oblique Point Complex (Frison 1991:393). The projectile point field became quite crowded with the only common thread between them being the occasional use of parallel oblique flaking.

Brunswig (2007:279) addressed parallel oblique flaking in late Paleoindian artifact assemblages by proclaiming that while early Paleoindians used techniques that created transverse flake scars (blade edge to blade edge), late Paleoindians applied flaking processes that created angled or parallel-oblique flaking scars. Brunswig suggested that although there appeared to be a strong bias toward parallel-oblique flaking in late Paleoindian artifact assemblages, transverse and parallel-oblique flaking patterns were not diagnostic features for either early or late Paleoindians.       

The photograph in Figure five illustrates a possible projectile point evolution from Cody Complex to Pryor Stemmed, and then to the McKean Complex. The High Plains projectile points/knife forms are from my collection and represent three different time periods. The three points in the left row are what I consider Cody Complex points; the three points in the middle row are what I call Pryor Stemmed points, and the three points in the right row are what I cataloged as McKean Complex points from the Middle Archaic. 

Figure Five - Cody Complex, Pryor Stemmed, and McKean Complex projectile points 
and knife forms from the author's collection. 

What happened to the Pryor 

Stemmed projectile point? 

Based on radiocarbon dates, the Pryor Stemmed style appeared in artifact assemblages for a few centuries around 8000 years ago (uncorrected radiocarbon date). After that, Pryor Stemmed disappeared from the archaeological record. Husted (1969:86-87) proposed a possible link between the older Pryor Stemmed projectile point and the younger McKean Complex projectile points. Figure five compares three Pryor Stemmed points and three McKean Shouldered points from my collection. There definitely looks like a connection, but Husted and others could not account for the two to three-thousand-year gap between the end of Pryor Stemmed points and the beginning of McKean Shouldered points. I cannot reconcile that time gap either. 

I emphasized in the article that not all of the Pryor Stemmed projectile points found in the mentioned archaeological sites possessed two of the three distinguishing features defined by Husted for the type: parallel oblique flaking and alternate edge beveling. That makes it a challenge when identifying a surface found stemmed point that does not have those two distinguishing features. Instead of Pryor Stemmed, a point without those distinguishing features could be a McKean Shouldered point or a Cody Complex point! If an archaeologist finds a stemmed point in situ and it has stratigraphic and archaeological control within the right time frame, there is a better than average chance that point is Pryor Stemmed. However, things change out on the wide-open prairie. If I happened to be walking along and stumble upon a stemmed point lying on the ground, it might be a Pryor Stemmed projectile point if it has the parallel oblique flaking or the alternate edge beveling. If it does not have either of those features, identification becomes more difficult, and quite frankly, anyone's guess. Even though I might document that point as Pryor Stemmed, I can never be one hundred percent sure that was what it was. Identifying Pryor Stemmed projectile points is sometimes just like rolling the dice!         

References Cited. 

Brunswig, Robert H., and  Bonnie L. Pitblado. 2007. "Paleoindian Cultural Landscapes and Archaeology of North-Central Colorado's Southern Rockies" in Frontiers in Colorado Paleoindian Archaeology. University Press of Colorado. Boulder.    

Frison, George C. 1991. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Second Edition. Academic Press, Inc. New York. 

Frison, George C. 2014. Rancher Archaeologist. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake.  

Husted, Wilfred M. 1969. Bighorn Canyon Archeology. Publications in Salvage Archeology, Number 12. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C.         

About the Author. 

The historical fiction novels written by John Bradford Branney are known for their impeccable research and biting realism. In his latest blockbuster novel Beyond the Campfire, Branney catapults his readers back into Prehistoric America where they reunite with some familiar faces from Branney’s best-selling prehistoric adventure series the SHADOWS on the TRAIL Pentalogy.

John Bradford Branney earned a geology degree from the University of Wyoming and an MBA from the University of Colorado. John lives in the Colorado mountains with his wife, Theresa. Beyond the Campfire is the eleventh published book by Branney.