Conclusion

Almost one in four projectile points from Fremont sites dating after AD 1000 is a Rosegate point, indicating that these points were still manufactured and used alongside other point types. We are not the first to suggest this; for example, long before the current typology was developed, Wormington (1955:109) stated that corner-notched points were never completely abandoned. This recognition is far from universal, however, and recent discussions of Rosegate chronology focus almost exclusively on the western Great Basin. We do note that Fremont sites with a large number of Rosegate points and no later point types likely date early in the Fremont period, although this interpretation should be made cautiously. The modest GM study conducted here demonstrates a significant overlap between Rose Spring and Eastgate points. Given that the term Rosegate has long been used, we recommend continued use of the term Rosegate for future studies. Although our conclusions are not novel, our aim is to more clearly define the chronology and form of Rosegate points to increase compatibility between projectile point studies. Furthermore, there is evidence that Rosegate points have high concentrations in some areas after AD 1000, such as along the Sevier River. While they are generally found throughout the Fremont region, further analysis may identify material culture complexes that include higher than usual numbers of Rosegate points. This line of inquiry may clarify some of the internal complexity recognized within the Fremont region.

While types are a useful analytical construct, GM techniques provide a method to move beyond simple typologies. These methods provide continuous variables that can demonstrate how closely related forms are and are a useful way to gauge the similarity between different projectile points without reliance on classification. These methods are adaptable and the analysis we conducted requires only a photograph or illustration of each projectile point. The application of GM methods to a regional study of Fremont projectile points will likely provide a number of insights into social relations between different areas.

Acknowledgments. We gratefully acknowledge Michael Searcy and David Yoder for providing unpublished projectile point data from Hinckley Mounds and Joel Janetski for providing what was at that time unpublished data for Kay’s Cabin. We also thank Joel Janetski, Lane Richens, Dennis Weder, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful ideas and comments, and we acknowledge the many individuals who contributed to the excavation, analysis, and publication of the data used in this study.

Data Availability Statement. All unpublished data is held at the Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures and can be obtained by contacting the authors in order to protect site locations. Non-location data, R code used in this study, and a bibtex file of citations included in this paper are available in an OSF repository (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3UFTE) or on GitHub (https://github.com/bischrob/Rosegate-Projectile-Points-in-the-Fremont-Region).