High Plains Mystery - A Middle Archaic Trio

Figure One - The artifact trio. From left to right:
McKean Lanceolate point, goose effigy, and 
McKean Lanceolate point.  

This document presents a trio of prehistoric artifacts recovered as a group in the 1960s by a ranch manager named Don on the Whiskey Mountain Ranch a few miles east of Dubois, Wyoming. The assemblage included a handheld effigy or figurine resembling a goose and two small projectile points (figure one). We will never know the exact discovery location on the ranch, and we can only speculate as to whether the prehistoric owner of the artifacts stashed them for later pickup, lost them, or left them as an offering.

I identified the two small projectile points from a Middle Archaic type called McKean Lanceolate. Wheeler (1952) was the first to document and describe McKean Lanceolate points at the McKean-type site in Crook County, Wyoming. Wheeler and William Mulloy (1954) could not determine the age of human occupation at the type site, but a 1983 reinvestigation of the site yielded a date of around 4600 years BP (Kornfeld et al. 1995). 

Figure Two -  High Plains McKean Lanceolate points. The 
two subject points of the article are on the bottom row, left.  

The two McKean Lanceolate points are small for the type. Figure two shows the two projectile points on the bottom row, left with other High Plains McKean Lanceolate points from my collection. Since there is no scientific evidence that the bow and arrow weapon system existed in North America as early as the Middle Archaic, I assume the two projectile points were used as darts in an atlatl weapon system, or as standalone spear points.

The two McKean Lanceolate projectile points are similar in size, shape, and flaking pattern, and since they were found together I surmise that the same individual made both points. The maker of the projectile points used high-quality raw materials: Wiggins Fork petrified wood for the projectile point on the left and Big Horn chert for the projectile point on the right. Both materials were sourced in northwestern Wyoming.

Both McKean Lanceolate projectile points were well crafted. That was atypical for McKean Lanceolate points during the Middle Archaic. The workmanship quality of projectile points dropped significantly from the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods to the Middle Archaic period. Functionality became the main driver for Middle Archaic projectile points with aesthetics and craftsmanship coming in at a lower priority. Workmanship quality is one way to differentiate McKean Lanceolate points from earlier Paleoindian and Early Archaic points on the High Plains. Another way is that Middle Archaic flintknappers rarely ground/polished the blade edges in the hafting area of the points while Paleoindian flintknappers did that much of the time. 

Taylor (2006: 324) described McKean Lanceolate points as follows:

“McKean lanceolate points resemble earlier point types in outline, but they are morphologically and technologically quite different. Some were well made. However, most of them exhibit asymmetrical vertical cross sections and rather casually executed selective flaking.”

Figure Three - Fly, birdie, fly. The waterfowl or goose effigy
was found with two projectile points. Note wings and beak.  

The small goose figurine or effigy is the most unique and rarest member of the three artifacts. Animal effigies in Prehistoric America came in all shapes and sizes from large-scale landscape mounds in the middle of the continent to the petroglyphs and pictographs of animals in the Rocky Mountains and Southwest. While their exact purpose will never be known, animal effigies appeared to be art forms with a ritualistic or religious slant. 

Fagan (1987:73-77) reported that the modern human species arrived in the Old World between 40,000 and 35,000 years ago, displacing or absorbing the Neanderthal population. According to Fagan, modern humans introduced creativity and complexity into art forms. A few millennia after their arrival in Europe, modern humans had developed an art culture and inventory that included engravings, cave paintings, and other art. For example, 25,000 years ago in the Czech Republic, modern humans were responsible for creating the Venus figurines while humans were decorating mammoth bones and ivory with red ocher, and engraving human figures, animals, and geometric designs in Ukraine.

Why were animals so often used as artistic models by prehistoric humans? Cohen (2003:289) summarized it by stating that harmony with nature brought health and good fortune while disharmony with nature brought disease and famine. Prehistoric humans seemed abundantly clear about the delicate balance with nature. Their lives depended on it. If humans overhunted a certain animal species or location that could lead to bad consequences such as a disrupted food supply. There was no one to step in and help prehistoric humans if they depleted their food source. Prehistoric humans needed to understand nature and respect it. A way for prehistoric humans to demonstrate respect for nature was by honoring animals through rituals, prayer, and art forms.

Figure Four - waterfowl effigy found in German cave.
It is somewhere between 31,000 and 33,000 years old 

The earliest known representation of a bird in prehistoric art is currently an Upper Paleolithic waterfowl carved from mammoth ivory and found in two pieces in Hols Fels Cave in Germany (figure four). Scientists determined the age of the waterfowl effigy somewhere between 31,000 and 33,000 years old with a probable origin from an Early European modern human culture named Aurignacian. According to Conard (2003a:830), the handheld sculpture represented a water bird such as a diver, cormorant, or duck. The extended neck of the bird suggests the waterfowl model was in flight or diving in the water. Conard (2003 b) stated that experts in shamanism believe birds, especially waterfowl, were favorite prehistoric shamanistic subjects and symbols. In an interview, Conard said, "Advocates of the shamanistic hypothesis are going to be very happy about these finds."

I found little information on handheld prehistoric bird effigies and figurines for the High Plains of North America. I attribute that to the scarcity of authentic prehistoric effigies. One-off artifacts like the goose effigy do not lend themselves to much study. Plus, there is an authentication issue with effigies and figurines in general. Touting modern reproduction animal effigies and figurines as prehistoric is unfortunately quite prolific. 

Anyone who has visited a tourist shop in the western United States has probably seen examples of modern reproductions of prehistoric animal figurines and effigies. The shops might label them as reproductions or authentic, but in all cases, buyers beware. Examples include clay and flint-knapped thunderbirds, bears, and lizards sold to an unwary public. Modern reproductions are so prolific in the artifact world that my first inclination when I see one is to assume the item is fake.

Figure Five - Bird effigy made from 
ruby red glass (Parman 1989:30)

Figure five is a drawing of a modern reproduction of a bird effigy made from ruby red glass (Parman 1989:30). That particular example was in Robert C. Parker’s collection in Casper, Wyoming. Its owner believed it to be an authentic Native American ceremonial piece. The piece originated in the 1930s collection of Horace Evans who operated the tourist center at Hell’s Half Acre west of Casper. While that bird effigy might be an early Twentieth-century antique, it is not prehistoric.

One of the more commonly replicated bird effigies is the thunderbird. Figure six is an example of a flint-knapped thunderbird with a stated provenance near Oregon Buttes in north central Sweetwater County, Wyoming (Parman 1989:17). That example was in the Alfred and Virginia Lindell of Lander, Wyoming collection. The big question is whether it is prehistoric or not. That cannot be determined from the drawing alone.  

Figure Six - Thunderbird effigy reportedly from 
the Red Desert of Wyoming (Parman1989:17)   

According to Warren (2007:124), ethnographic accounts and archaeological evidence determined that the thunderbird was a widespread component of Native American cultures. According to the author, the thunderbird was a supernatural deity representing thunderstorms and warfare to Native Americans. He reported that thunderbirds were prominent in the Mandan and Hidatsa tribes living along the Missouri and Knife rivers in the Dakotas. Warren surmised that those thunderbird effigies might have originated in the eighth century AD from the Woodland cultures in the Midwest or an earlier Mississippian culture south of there.

Bear effigies are another prime target for reproduction by modern craftsmen. Whenever I see a flint knapped or clay bear effigy claiming to be prehistoric, my first inclination is fake. However, there is at least one authentic handheld bear effigy. Thomas (1994:61) reported on the grizzly bear effigy in figure seven. I must admit that when I first saw a photograph of that grizzly bear without knowing its history or provenance, I thought a modern-day flintknapper had fun making it. Archaeologists discovered the bear effigy in an archaeological site in San Diego County, California. They dated it at around 8,000 years old, and the people of California made that grizzly bear effigy their state artifact. We will never know why the grizzly bear's maker made it but the moral of that story is one cannot always judge a book by its cover.

Figure Seven - California State Artifact. 
(Thomas 1994:61)

Steege and Welsh (1967:21) reported that the highest concentration of rare handheld effigies were from the Mississippi Valley and northeastern Oklahoma. The authors noted that eagles and turtles were the most popular designs but that there were also snakes, lizards, flying birds, and even human faces.  Wedel (1978) added that animal effigies were more common on the east side of the Great Plains than on the west. He cited nineteenth-century archaeological sites in Kansas with small pottery figurines and the Spanish Fort site where archaeologists discovered clay fragments representing animals, humans, and a horse head with a carved bridle. Steege and Welsh noted that the authenticity of effigies was an issue.

Russell (1974:150) declared that stone effigies were rare in the Rocky Mountain region and that the commonest animal effigy was the eagle followed by lizards, turtles, trees, wild geese, and snakes. Russell agreed that the authenticity of animal effigies was a big problem. Ironically, Russell showed a drawing on page 147 of his book with an elaborately knapped eagle and fishhook. I would bet my eyeteeth that the eagle was a modern reproduction, and I have yet to see any flint-knapped fishhooks that I would call authentic. Native Americans used bone for most fishhooks. The eagle and fishhook could be prehistoric, but modern reproductions of effigies and figurines raised the skepticism.  

Of all the mighty predators and prey animals inhabiting the High Plains during the Middle Archaic, why would the prehistoric sculptor pick a goose or waterfowl as the model? In my research, I looked for other examples of geese or waterfowl in hand-held effigies from the High Plains. They might exist but are yet undocumented. I found a documented Hopewell duck effigy pipe from Ohio and part of the Museum of Native American History (2023) but that is a good distance from the High Plains and significantly younger than Middle Archaic.  

Francis and Loendorf (2002:113-114) investigated ethnographic accounts from the Shoshone Indians and tied them back to the petroglyphs and pictographs found along the Upper Wind River of Wyoming. The Upper Wind River is geographically close to where Don the ranch manager discovered the goose effigy and the two McKean Lanceolate points. Historical accounts from Shoshone Indians might seem a “bridge too far” when trying to tie their ethnography to a five-thousand-year-old goose with two Middle Archaic projectile points. I will play that hand anyway since it is the only hand I have to play. I will borrow an old geology axiom called Uniformitarianism which states that the “present is a key to the past.”  

Francis and Loendorf reported an abundance of flying and winged creatures represented on petroglyphs and pictographs along the Upper Wind River. Bird-type creatures inspired the prehistoric artists’ imaginations. There are examples of a cannibalistic owl the Shoshone Indians call wokai mumbic. That owl shook the earth and caused thunder when it flew. There are members of the Shoshone tribe who still believe owls predict evil. According to Shoshone legend, a tiny hummingbird-like creature on the rock art symbolized a thunderbird and the eagles on the rock art could create lightning just by flapping their wings. One bird type missing from the rock art was any type of waterfowl.

What intrigued the Middle Artisan sculptor into picking a goose as his subject? For one thing, migratory bird journeys are harrowing and unpredictable experiences. Geese survive those journeys by sticking together and helping one another. Gaggles of geese fly in a V-shaped formation or an echelon to conserve energy and increase the overall distance they can fly. When an individual goose flaps its wings, it creates an updraft which reduces the amount of energy used by the goose flying behind it. When flying in a V, energy conservation occurs throughout the gaggle for all geese except the lead goose. The lead position in the echelon is the most demanding. That is why gaggles share that responsibility among its members.

Figure Eight - Profile shot of the goose effigy.
The material appears to be claystone or limestone.   

The migration of waterfowl could have inspired our Middle Archaic artisan. Bird flight must have seemed quite magical five thousand years ago. The physics behind flying was still far in the future during the Middle Archaic. Imagine trying to understand flight five thousand years ago without the knowledge we have today. Gaggles of geese honking away above while flying in an orderly fashion must have appeared almost mystical. 

In an analysis of spirit animals, Bobby Lake-Thom (1997:110-111) wrote that geese provided Native Americans an indication of the changing of seasons. Triggered by temperature, food supply, and sunlight, flocks of geese gather together to migrate south for the winter and then repeat the process when they return north in the spring. Waterfowl migrations might have initiated action from prehistoric humans such as their own seasonal migration to the south.

Why did that Middle Archaic artisan select a goose as his or her model? One theory might be that the goose effigy represented a spirit animal to a shaman or artisan. Questions remain. For example, what is the significance of the two nearly identical McKean Lanceolate projectile points found with the goose effigy? And were the projectile points ever used or were all three artifacts part of a shaman’s medicine pouch? We will never know for sure.

What are your thoughts?

Figure Nine - Ventral view of goose effigy. 

References Cited

Cohen, Kenneth

2003         Honoring the Medicine: The Essential Guide to Native American Healing.                             Random House Inc. New York.

Conard, Nicholas
2003a      Palaeolithic ivory sculptures from southwestern Germany and the origins of                         figurative art. Nature, Vol 426, 18/25 December 2003.

2003b      30,000-year-old figurines found in cave. NBC News. Source: Associated Press.

Fagan, Brian M.
1987        The Great Journey: The Peopling of Ancient America. Thames and Hudson Ltd.                    London. 

Kornfeld, Marcel, George C. Frison, and Mary Lou Larson 

1995        Keyhole Reservoir Archeology, Glimpses of the Past from Northwest Wyoming.                    Occasional Papers on Wyoming Archeology, No. 5. Laramie.
2010        Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the High Plains and Rockies. Third Edition. Left                 Coast Press Inc. Walnut Creek.

Lake-Thom, Bobby
1997         Spirits of the Earth. The Penguin Group. New York.

Museum of Native American History

2023         Duck Effigy Pipe. http://www.monah.org. Bentonville, AR.

Mulloy, William

1954       The McKean Site in Northeastern Wyoming, published in Southwestern Journal of                Anthropology, Volume 10, Number 4.

Parman, Ray Jr.

1989      Rare and Unusual Artifacts. Fred Pruett Publishing. Boulder.

Russell, Virgil Y.
1974      Indian Artifacts. Johnson Publishing Co. Boulder.

Steege, Louis C., and Warren W. Welsh

1968     Stone Artifacts of the Northwestern Plains. Northwestern Plains Publishing                  Company. Colorado Springs.  

Taylor, Jeb

2006      Projectile Points of the High Plains. Sheridan Books. Chelsea.

Thomas, David Hurst

1994   Exploring Ancient Native America: An Archaeological Guide. Macmillan Publishing.    New York.

Warren, Robert E.
2007    Thunderbird Effigies from Plains Village Sites in Northern Great Plains in Plains                Village Archaeology, edited by Stanley A. Ahler and Marvin Kay. Pp. 107-125.                    University of Utah Press. Salt Lake.

Wedel, Waldo R.
1978    Prehistoric Man on the Great Plains. University of Oklahoma Press. Norman.

Wheeler, Richard P.
1952     A Note on the McKean Lanceolate Point. Plains Archaeological Newsletter, Vol. 4,             No. 4, pp. 45-50.

 

About the Author

John Bradford Branney is a geologist, prehistorian, and author. Born and raised in Wyoming, his grandfather's artifact collection drew him to his strong interest in prehistoric man at a very young age. Since then, he has found and documented thousands of prehistoric artifacts. 

Branney has published twelve books and around one hundred articles on archaeology, geology, and his wandering. He resides in the Colorado mountains with his family.    

 

        

Who Were Those Guys? A Shadows on the Trail Adventure

Who Were Those Guys?

A Shadows on the Trail Adventure

by John Bradford Branney

Figure One - The red arrow indicates the location where I found a 1.8-inch-long  
Washita arrow point. Prehistoric rockshelter in the background.   

The northeastern Colorado ranch is located in a large bowl-shaped basin. A small intermittent creek drains the basin to the southeast. The creek is fed cool water from several natural springs along its route. The creek was quite prolific in the past, meandering and braiding its way tens of miles until joining the South Platte River. Over the last hundred years, agricultural use caused a few of the creek's water sources to dry up.

The headwaters of the creek butt up against sandstone bluffs of the Oligocene-Miocene geological age. In the past, finding extinct mammal fossils was as easy as pie; it is not so easy these days. It was also easy to find prehistoric artifacts a few decades back, but now I have to work for every artifact. In the past, I found chipping debris galore, fire-blackened rocks eroding out of embankments, and several artifacts on any given day. Over the past forty years of hunting the ranch, I have discovered everything from Clovis to historical Indian artifacts and every prehistoric culture between. It would be a shorter list for me to name the High Plains projectile point types I have not discovered on the ranch versus listing the projectile point types that I have discovered. But over the last decade, my artifact finds have dwindled. I still hunt the ranch two or three times a year, and occasionally I land a nice artifact, but the glory days of artifact hunting are gone. However, I still have a few stories about artifact hunting on the ranch.        

In September 2003, I returned to the High Plains from my home in Texas to hunt artifacts. Originally, I was not scheduled to hunt the ranch because I wanted to let natural erosion catch up with my artifact-hunting pressure. However, I found an extra day in my schedule with nothing planned so I told myself, “Why not hunt that ranch?” And I am glad I did. I found a couple of beautiful end scrapers, several broken projectile points, a mano, several other worked pieces, and the "prize of the day." This story is about that "prize of the day" and the people who probably made it.    

Figure Two - In situ photograph of the 1.8-inch-long
Washita arrow point.

The "prize of the day" was a beautiful 1.8-inch-long Washita arrow point eroding from an embankment approximately twenty to thirty meters down the hill from the prehistoric rockshelter in Figure One. To this day, it is one of the finest Washita points that I have ever found (Figures Two and Three).  

Figure Three - 1.8-inch-long Washita arrow point made
from what I believe is Smoky Hills Jasper out of Kansas.    

The prehistoric humans who made that projectile point used a raw material called jasper. Prehistoric people liked jasper, and based on this jasper's yellowish tone, the projectile point's raw material might be Smoky Hills Jasper out of Kansas but I cannot be sure.

  

Central Plains Tradition

From around A.D. 900 to A.D. 1000, the people of the Missouri River areas of Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota, in what archaeologists call the Central Plains tradition, were influenced by the prolific Mississippian culture to the east. The people of the Central Plains tradition shared similar technologies, subsistence patterns, and socio-economic systems across a wide geographical area. Archaeologists have traced the Arikara, Mandan, Pawnee, and other historical Indian tribes along the Missouri River Basin to the Central Plains tradition. 

The Republican River is a small tributary of the Missouri River with its headwaters originating in eastern Colorado. The river flows from its headwaters in Colorado across northwestern Kansas into southwestern Nebraska and then back into north central Kansas before joining with the Kansas River, which ultimately joins the Missouri River.

The discovery by archaeologists of prehistoric hamlets in central and eastern Nebraska and Kansas gave rise to a phase within the Central Plains tradition called Upper Republican (Strong 1934). Based on radiocarbon dating, the Upper Republican phase began around A.D. 1000 and lasted until around A.D. 1400. There are various hypotheses as to what happened to the people of the Upper Republican phase but that topic is outside the scope of this article. 

Horticulture, hunting, and gathering drove the Upper Republican economy and lifestyle. Archaeological evidence indicates that the Upper Republican people grew maize, gourds, squash, beans, and sunflowers. They cultivated their crops with hoes made from the scapula bones of bison. Evidence shows that the Upper Republican people on the Central Plains supplemented their farming and hunting with wild plant harvesting, fishing, and mussel gathering.

The Upper Republican phase on the Central Plains was characterized by substantial earth-lodge dwellings (Wedel 1961:94). The people lived in rectangular to semi-rectangular lodges built slightly below the ground surface. The lodges ranged from 500 to 1200 square feet with covered entrances facing south or east, away from the prevailing winter winds. A central fire pit and one or more subterranean cache pits were located within each lodge. Posts outlined the perimeters of each lodge with four or more postholes found in the middle for roof support. The lodges were randomly placed along mostly stream terraces and exhibited little or no central planning. (Steinacher and Carlson 1998).

The main chipped stone tool assemblages of the Upper Republican phase were associated with hunting, butchering, and animal hide processing. Artifact assemblages included bifaces of various sizes and shapes for cutting and chopping, end scrapers, engravers, and drill forms. The projectile points associated with the Upper Republican phase were usually small and triangular, with side-notches and tri-notches. When found on the High Plains, artifact hunters like myself classify those small triangular side-notched and tri-notched projectile points as Washita and Harrell arrow points. Figure Four is a photograph of examples of Washita and Harrell arrow points that the author surface found in northeastern Colorado. The centerpiece is the Washita point photographed in Figures Two and Three.     

Figure Four - Examples of side-notched and tri-notched arrow points surface
recovered on the High Plains of northeastern Colorado. The author assumes 
these points originated in the High Plains Upper Republican phase.  
Is that a good assumption?    

Upper Republican ground stone tools included pipes, abraders, hammerstones, spheres, manos and metates, nutting stones, and disks. Bone implements included bison scapula hoes, splinter awls, eyed needles, fishhooks, beads, tubes, and shaft wrenches. Less dominant bone tools included engraved bison bone toes, eagle bone whistles, and in one case an engraved human skull fragment (Steinacher and Carlson 1998; Wedel 1986:108). I have found examples of some of those ground stone tool types on the High Plains but since other prehistoric cultures used them as well, I cannot attribute my surface finds to the Upper Republican phase.   

Figure Five - from Cassell (1997:214)

A thinner-walled, globular ceramic pottery design from the Upper Republican phase replaced the thicker-walled, conoidal ceramic pottery design from the earlier Plains Woodland tradition (Figure Five). According to Ellwood (2002:34), Upper Republican people constructed ceramic pottery using a lump or patch accretion method. Then they finished by rolling a cord-wrapped, dowel-like instrument along the surface to seal the junctures. Raw materials for the vessels consisted of locally derived crushed sedimentary rock, clay, and granite. Upper Republican ceramic pottery was jar- to pot-sized and exhibited high shoulders with narrow necks and collared or braced rim mouths (Wedel 1986:106). 

The Upper Republican potters often decorated the collars with two to eight incised horizontal lines, repeated triangles, or excised nodes. The surface finish exhibited short, choppy cord marks, with obliteration or smoothing of the cord marks, especially near the bottom of the pot. Handles or lugs were rare on Upper Republican ceramic pottery. 

Wedel (1986) proposed that Upper Republican ceramic pottery might have been used to boil meat or vegetables, such as maize, beans, and wild tubers; or for dry storage; or as water containers. The Upper Republican ceramic pottery design from the Central Plains carried over onto High Plains sites which I discuss in the next section.       

Figure Six - Upper Republican potsherds from eastern Colorado. Bottom row left
to right: Weld County, Lincoln County, Lincoln County. Top row: Weld County.   

Sigstad (1969:18-19) identified two classes of Upper Republican ceramic pottery. Class I  Frontier Ware exhibited collared rims while Class II Cambridge Ware exhibited flared rims. Figure Six exhibits Upper Republican potsherds which I surface recovered on the High Plains. On July 6, 1986, I found the rim fragments in the center and right of the lower row. I discovered them near a north-facing rock shelter on private land near Cedar Point in eastern Colorado. Note the incised horizontal lines near the bottom of each fragment. Both pieces appear to have originated from the same ceramic pot. I recovered the other two rim fragments from multicultural sites in Weld County, Colorado. Those rim fragments fall within Sigstad’s Class II Cambridge Ware category also. 

I have found hundreds of potsherds while surface hunting for artifacts in northeastern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming. The potsherds are usually small, measuring one inch by one inch or smaller. On that scale, it is nearly impossible for me to tell whether the potsherd originated from an Upper Republican or Plains Woodland ceramic pot. Identification of the culture is much easier if the potsherd is from a distinctive rim or is large enough to see the curvature of the original pot. 

Elwood (2002:40) suggested Upper Republican and Plains Woodland ceramic pottery can be differentiated using form and surface finish. While Plains Woodland vessels were conoidal in shape, Upper Republican vessels were globular in shape (Figure Five). That only helps if the potsherds are large enough to determine the curvature of the original pot. Elwood stated that while Plains Woodland exhibited clear and deep cord marks, Upper Republican cord marks were often choppy, smoothed over, or partially obliterated. Figure Seven shows a few potsherds I found in northeastern Colorado. Note the clear and deep cord marks on most of the pieces. I believe all of the potsherds in the figure originated as Plains Woodland pottery except perhaps the bottom pieces on the left which could be Upper Republican.  

Figure Seven - Surface found potsherds from northeastern Colorado.
Did these come from Plains Woodland or Upper Republican?  

    The High Plains Upper Republican Phase

At the same time that Upper Republican people were inhabiting small hamlets in central Kansas and Nebraska, a similar-aged culture existed along the grasslands of western Kansas and Nebraska, eastern Colorado, the panhandle of Nebraska, and southeastern Wyoming. I will refer to that similar-aged culture as High Plains Upper Republican even though I believe its relationship to the original Upper Republican phase on the Central Plains is unknown. Archaeological evidence suggests that High Plains Upper Republican people occupied sites along the escarpment ridge flanking the Colorado Piedmont, (Irwin and Irwin 1957; Wood 1967), the northern and southern tributaries of the South Platte River, and the Arikara-Republican drainage system (Withers 1954).

High Plains collectors and professionals discovered artifacts in rock shelters, on buttes and bluffs, and along stream terraces similar to those documented at the Upper Republican hamlets in central Kansas and Nebraska. The rock shelter sites were quite small and occupation zones consisted of diffused middens containing chipping debris, animal bone fragments, hearths, and ashy soil. The butte and bluff campsites offered excellent views but meant hauling water upslope and those sites did not offer protection from cold northerly winds.  

Archaeologists investigated and documented several High Plains Upper Republican campsites in eastern Colorado including the Peavy, Smiley, Agate Bluff, and Happy Hollow rock shelters and the Buick, Kasper, Biggs, and Donovan open campsites. Radiocarbon dating suggested occupations between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1400 (Wood 1990). 

In comparing the original Upper Republican sites in central Kansas and Nebraska with the High Plains Upper Republican sites to the west, Laura L. Scheiber (2006:135) wrote, "These western sites are known more for what they lack (houses, hoes, and corn) than for what they possess." The Upper Republican people on the Central Plains held different lifestyles than those on the High Plains. To the east, the Upper Republican people placed heavy emphasis on horticulture and permanent dwellings while in the west there was little or no horticulture and permanent dwellings. Thus far, the only evidence of any horticulture for the High Plains sites was a single maize kernel buried four and a half feet deep at the Agate Bluff site in northeastern Colorado. Cassell (1997) also noted that bison scapula hoes, prominent on the Upper Republican sites on the Central Plains were completely absent on the High Plains sites. During my research, the closest I found for permanent dwellings on High Plains Upper Republican sites were the pit houses archaeologists investigated at Cedar Point Village (Wood 1971:55-56). Wood (1971:81) suggested that "Cedar Point pit houses are not comparable to any of the five-post foundation structures reported by Gunnerson for Dismal River."

Scheiber (2006:135) stated above what was missing from the High Plains sites, so what did the High Plains sites have in common with the original Upper Republican sites on the Central Plains? Based on radiocarbon dating, sites on the Central Plains and High Plains existed contemporaneously from around A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1400. Archaeologists have also identified the same styles of ceramic pottery and projectile points on the High Plains and Central Plains sites. 

Figure Eight - Washita-lookalike arrow point surface recovered on
private land in southwestern Wyoming on 9/3/2013. I cataloged
this arrow point as a Plains Side-Notched.      

When I surface recover a Washita or Harrell projectile point in eastern Colorado or southeastern Wyoming, I assume the High Plains Upper Republican people made that point. Is that a good assumption? Probably not since I find Washita and Harrell lookalikes outside the known geographical range for High Plains Upper Republican. Figure Eight is such an example. I discovered that 1.1-inch long Washita lookalike point on September 3, 2013, on a private ranch west of Baggs in southwestern Wyoming. It looks like a Washita arrow point in every aspect but I found it well outside the geographical range for High Plains Upper Republican. In southwestern Wyoming, that type of projectile point is not called a Washita, it is called a Plains Side-Notched.   

The side-notched point in Figure Eight is not an anomaly. I have found many Washita and Harrell lookalikes across the High Plains. Washita and Harrell point lookalikes are found all across Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas to the north, and as far south as Oklahoma and Texas. Similar point types are found in the Southwest and across the Great Plains. Collectors and archaeologists have christened them with names such as Plains Side-Notched, Plains Tri-Notched, Billings, Desert Sierra, Desert Delta, Reed, Peno, Cahokia, Irvine, and Emigrant, just to name a few.  

Were those projectile point designs a convergent technology developed independently from the Upper Republican phase? Did those projectile point designs originate in the Central Plains and spread from there or did those designs originate someplace else? Does the lack of High Plains sites underestimate the geographical range of the Upper Republican phase? Were the Washita and Harrell projectile points I photographed in Figures Three and Four made by High Plains Upper Republican people? Those are unanswered questions I found no answers to during my research.   

Of course, people have opinions, but opinions are only sometimes backed up with facts. Bottom line, side-notched and tri-notched projectile points like Washita and Harrell were widely used, far beyond the known range of High Plains Upper Republican. The design swept across the entire western part of the continent. Surface finding Washita and Harrell projectile point types in the geographical range for High Plains Upper Republican is still not conclusive evidence for the presence of High Plains Upper Republican.  

  

Figure Nine - A small rockshelter I discovered in eastern Colorado in the 1980s.
The roof of the rockshelter collapsed a couple of decades ago, burying 
the remaining prehistoric occupation levels under rocks.     

Figure nine was a small south-facing rockshelter I discovered in eastern Colorado in the early 1980s. On my initial visit, I found ash, charcoal, burned bone, and chipping debris on the ground in and around the shelter. Most of the rockshelters I have investigated faced south. Facing south meant the rockshelter captured sun rays in the winter and the rock behind the rockshelter blocked those nasty winter winds. That particular rockshelter was small and could only accommodate a single family. The roof of the rockshelter looked unstable so I contacted a local university to see if they were interested in investigating it. The university never bothered to get back to me, so I proceeded with my salvage operation.    

In that rockshelter, I found a lot of chipping debris and burned bone. I also found a couple of bone awls, several Late Prehistoric projectile points including Plains Woodland and Upper Republican types, scrapers, and a couple of flake knives. On the pasture in front of the rockshelter, I discovered several Late Prehistoric and Late Archaic artifacts. The roof collapsed on the rockshelter fifteen to twenty years ago, burying the remaining occupation levels under massive sandstone boulders.

     

Theories of Origin for High Plains Upper Republican 

Any viable theory on the origin of High Plains Upper Republican must provide evidence that answers basic questions. Did earth-lodge dwellers from the Upper Republican phase of the Central Plains tradition abandon their earth-lodge homes and lifestyles and head west to the High Plains? If so, was that move to the High Plains seasonal or permanent? Or did indigenous people already living on the High Plains interface and trade with the original Upper Republican people from the Central Plains?

Lindsey and Krause (2007:96) encapsulated the wide range of theories by stating, "Ceramic-bearing campsites in eastern Colorado and western Nebraska have been attributed to Woodland stage hunters and gatherers, mobile hunting/gathering populations making Upper Republican-like pottery, and Upper Republican cultivators ranging to the west to hunt." 

Wedel (1961:102) suggested that there was a need for more evidence to be collected and analyzed from the High Plains sites before questions of origin could be answered. He stated that it was impossible to determine whether Upper Republican material on the High Plains sites marked seasonal hunting camps for the Upper Republican horticulturists out of the Central Plains. 

Wood (1969) proposed that the Upper Republican campsites on the High Plains were occupied by Upper Republican earth-lodge dwellers from the Central Plains during seasonal hunting forays. Wood's evidence was based on a lack of burial sites, horticultural tools, and permanent structures at the High Plains campsites. Wedel (1970:7-10) and Reher (1973:119) argued that Wood's theory was illogical. Reher refuted Wood's claim that earth-lodge dwellers would travel two hundred miles across excellent bison hunting grounds to hunt other bison on the High Plains. 

By comparing artifact inventories reported from historical Pawnee hunting trips to the artifact assemblages in Upper Republican campsites on the High Plains, Roper (1990) argued that the artifact assemblages on the High Plains were too culturally diverse and well-represented to be from temporary hunting camps.  

Steinacher and Carlson (1998:248) summarized three hypotheses for the High Plains Upper Republican sites. The first hypothesis was the Wood proposal above where earth-lodge dwellers from the east made periodic or seasonal trips to the High Plains to replenish their resources. The authors noted that raw material originating in the High Plains was used almost exclusively on stone tools discovered in some Upper Republican sites in Kansas and Nebraska. That raw material could only get to the Central Plains from the High Plains by trading or transporting it. 

Using geochemical analysis, Roper et al (2007) determined that a few of the ceramic pots discovered in High Plains Upper Republican sites used clay from the Medicine Creek area of southern Nebraska. That was evidence that at least a few Upper Republican ceramic pots were transported from the Central Plains to the High Plains. The researchers also noted that during the excavation of House 5 in the Medicine Creek area of Nebraska investigators discovered a large quantity of Flattop Chalcedony from eastern Colorado. That provided evidence of raw material movement from the High Plains to the Central Plains during the Upper Republican phase.         

The second hypothesis suggested by Steinacher and Carlson was that some people from the east gave up their sedentary horticultural lifestyles on the Central Plains and took up nomadic hunter and gatherer lifestyles on the High Plains. That is a logical hypothesis if we assume that some humans around A.D. 1000 were as adventurous as the pioneers who settled in the western United States in the 1800s. Humans have a desire to live their lives the way they want. Some people prefer a predictable lifestyle while other people like taking bigger risks. The High Plains Upper Republican people might have abandoned their farming hamlets along the tributaries of the Upper Republican River in Kansas and Nebraska to head west just like the pioneers of historical times did.       

The third hypothesis that Steinacher and Carlson suggested was that indigenous people already occupying the High Plains established trade with the Upper Republican people in the east. We already know that Upper Republican people along the Central Plains ended up with raw material originating from the High Plains, and ceramic pottery from the Central Plains ended up in High Plains Upper Republican sites. Was that material shared between two groups from the same phase or two entirely different phases or societies?

Figure Ten - 1.1-inch-long Washita arrow point that the author found on 
May 18, 2024, in Logan County, Colorado. Over the decades, 
the author has found many Washita and Harrell
arrow points and potsherds in the area.  

Conclusions 

Is it a good assumption that High Plains Upper Republican was the western extension of the Upper Republican phase of the Central Plains? 

Based on archaeological evidence, the Central Plains and High Plains people lived vastly different lifestyles. On the Central Plains, horticulture was an important part of the economy while on the High Plains horticulture appeared to play little or no role. Even with the different lifestyles, there was a relationship between the High Plains and Central Plains people during the Upper Republican phase. At High Plains sites, archeologists found Upper Republican pottery manufactured with clay from the Central Plains, and at Central Plains sites, archaeologists found raw material originating on the High Plains. We know that the Upper Republican people from the Central Plains and High Plains used the same styles of side-notched and tri-notched projectile points. 

That is clear-cut evidence that material moved between the Central Plains and High Plains populations during the Upper Republican phase. However, the evidence of material movement does not define the social relationship between two groups of people. Were those people kinfolk or not related? Did the Upper Republican phase on the Central Plains use the High Plains as outposts or for seasonal hunting trips? I found no smoking guns or evidence that conclusively answered those questions. 

When excavating a Late Prehistoric site on the High Plains, archaeologists have three markers used to identify the presence of Upper Republican. First, the age should fall between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1400. Second, small, triangular side-notched and tri-notched projectile points should be in the artifact inventory. And most importantly, the distinctive Upper Republican ceramic pottery must be present. If there is evidence of horticulture (corn), working hoes made from bison scapula, and permanent dwellings that is a bonus, even though Scheiber (2006:135) reminded us that, "These western sites are known more for what they lack (houses, hoes, and corn) than for what they possess." 

Surface finds of Upper Republican material are an entirely different ball game. For one thing, it is impossible to accurately date materials out of archaeological and stratigraphic context. Secondly, the presence of side-notched and tri-notched arrow points of the Washita and Harrell variety may or may not be associated with High Plains Upper Republican. The most important artifact for determining the presence of High Plains Upper Republican is the distinctive ceramic pottery. Of course, the potsherds must be large enough to differentiate them from earlier Plains Woodland ceramic pottery. Of course, finding an entire High Plains Upper Republican pot would be a surefire indicator. I have been searching for that well-preserved ceramic pot for decades. Unsuccessfully, I might add. Finding a well-preserved Upper Republican ceramic pot is as rare as finding moose feathers. 

References Cited

Cassell, E. S.

1997    The Post-Archaic of Eastern Colorado. In The Archaeology of Colorado, pp. 215-219. Johnson Books. Boulder.  

  

Cooper, Steven R.

                2018   The Official Overstreet Indian Arrowheads Identification and Price                                             Guide. Stevens Point, WI.     
 

Ellwood, Priscilla B.

2002    Middle Ceramic Period in Colorado. In Native American Ceramics of Eastern Colorado. University of Colorado Museum. Boulder.                                  

Irwin, Cynthia, and Henry Irwin

             1957      The Archaeology of the Agate Bluff Area. Plains Anthropologist                                            8:15-38.               

Lindsey, Roche M., and Richard A. Krause

             2007        Assessing Plains Village Mobility Patterns on the Central High                                           Plains in Plains Village Archaeology, edited by Stanley A. Ahler and                                Marvin Kay.       

Reher, Charles A.

1973       A Survey of Ceramic Sites in Southeastern Wyoming. The Wyoming Archaeologist. XVI, pp 1-2.     

Roper, Donna C.

1990      Artifact Assemblages Composition and the Hunting Camp Interpretation of High Plains Upper Republican Sites. In Southwestern Lore,

                56(4): pp. 1-19.  

Roper, Donna C., Robert J. Hoard, Robert J. Speakman, Michael D. Glascock, and Anne Cobry DiCosola
                2007    Source Analysis of Central Plains Tradition Pottery Using Neutron                                           Activation  Analysis: Feasibility and First Results. Plains Anthropologist,                              Vol. 52, No. 203 (August 2007), pp. 325-335. 

Scheiber, Laura L.

                 2006  The Late Prehistoric on the High Plains of Western Kansas, High Plains                                Upper Republican and Dismal River in Archaeology of Kansas, edited by 

                            Robert J. Hoard and William E. Banks. Lawrence, KS.           
 

Steinacher, T. L., and G. F. Carlson

    1998   The Central Plains Tradition in Archaeology of the Great Plains, edited by W. Raymond Wood. University Press of Kansas. Lawrence.

Strong, William Duncan

                 1934    An Introduction to Nebraska Archeology. Miscellaneous Collections 93(10): iii-323.     

               

Wedel, Waldo R.

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

1970        Some observations on “Two House Sites in the Central Plains: An experiment in Archaeology. Nebraska History 51(2) pp. 1-28.  

 

1986        Central Plains Prehistory: Holocene Environments and Cultural Change in the Republican River Basin. University of Nebraska. Lincoln.

 

Withers, Arnold M.

              1954         University of Denver Archaeological Fieldwork. Southwestern Lore                                   19(4):1-3.         

Wood, J. J.

1967        Archaeological Investigations in Northeastern Colorado. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Colorado, Boulder, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.  

Wood, W. Raymond

1969         Ethnographic Reconstructions. In Two House Sites in the Central Plains: An Experiment in Archaeology, edited by W. Raymond Wood, pp. 102-108. Memoir 6. Plains Anthropologist.     

              1971         Pottery Sites Near Limon, Colorado in Southwestern Lore, Vol. 37,                                   No. 3, December 1971.  

                             

1990        A Query on Upper Republican Archaeology in Colorado. In Southwestern Lore, 56:3-7.        

 

About the Author

 

John Bradford Branney began collecting and documenting prehistoric artifacts in Wyoming with his family at the ripe old age of eight years old. He has amassed a prehistoric artifact collection numbering in the thousands. He has written eleven historical fiction books and over ninety papers and articles about Paleoindians, prehistoric artifacts, and geology. The author holds a B.S. degree in geology from the University of Wyoming and an MBA in finance from the University of Colorado. He lives in the Colorado Mountains with his family.