Geometric morphometric analysis of projectile points from the Southwest United States

10.24072/pcjournal.312 - Peer Community Journal, Volume 3 (2023), article no. e80.

Get full text PDF Peer reviewed and recommended by PCI

Traditional analyses of projectile points often use visual identification, the presence or absence of discrete characteristics, or linear measurements and angles to classify points into distinct types. Geometric morphometrics provides additional tools for analyzing, visualizing, and comparing projectile point morphology utilizing the whole or parts of the form in either two or three dimensions. This study is an analysis of the effectiveness of geometric morphometric methods for identifying technological similarity in 2D projectile point outlines for previously classified late prehistoric projectile points found in the U.S. Southwest and unclassified projectile points from Tonto Basin, Arizona. Various methods from geometric morphometrics were compared to determine which method best reproduced the original classification scheme. Elliptical Fourier analysis was compared with various configurations of semilandmark and landmark analyses using generalized Procrustes analysis. These methods were applied to the complete projectile point form, and the landmark analysis was also applied to half of the lower quadrant of the projectile point—essentially one corner of the projectile point. The landmark analysis applied to the corner of the projectile point provided the best results. This method was then applied to the Tonto Basin points. Hierarchical clustering was used on the Tonto Basin projectile point morphometric data to explore the variation in shapes between sites. To demonstrate that geometric morphometric methods can be used without relying on typologies, a network analysis of the morphometric distances was also conducted. This network graph produced distinct clusters of technological similarity in projectile point outlines, while also showing the continuous variation between points. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of geometric morphometrics for the 2D analysis of late prehistoric arrow points in the U.S. Southwest.

Published online:
DOI: 10.24072/pcjournal.312
Keywords: American Southwest; Hohokam; Arizona; projectile points; lithics; computational archaeology; geometric morphometrics
Bischoff, Robert J. 1

1 School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, USA
License: CC-BY 4.0
Copyrights: The authors retain unrestricted copyrights and publishing rights
     author = {Bischoff, Robert J.},
     title = {Geometric morphometric analysis of projectile points from the {Southwest} {United} {States}},
     journal = {Peer Community Journal},
     eid = {e80},
     publisher = {Peer Community In},
     volume = {3},
     year = {2023},
     doi = {10.24072/pcjournal.312},
     language = {en},
     url = {}
AU  - Bischoff, Robert J.
TI  - Geometric morphometric analysis of projectile points from the Southwest United States
JO  - Peer Community Journal
PY  - 2023
VL  - 3
PB  - Peer Community In
UR  -
DO  - 10.24072/pcjournal.312
LA  - en
ID  - 10_24072_pcjournal_312
ER  - 
%0 Journal Article
%A Bischoff, Robert J.
%T Geometric morphometric analysis of projectile points from the Southwest United States
%J Peer Community Journal
%D 2023
%V 3
%I Peer Community In
%R 10.24072/pcjournal.312
%G en
%F 10_24072_pcjournal_312
Bischoff, Robert J. Geometric morphometric analysis of projectile points from the Southwest United States. Peer Community Journal, Volume 3 (2023), article  no. e80. doi : 10.24072/pcjournal.312.

Peer reviewed and recommended by PCI : 10.24072/pci.archaeo.100315

Conflict of interest of the recommender and peer reviewers:
The recommender in charge of the evaluation of the article and the reviewers declared that they have no conflict of interest (as defined in the code of conduct of PCI) with the authors or with the content of the article.

[1] Archer, W.; Pop, C. M.; Rezek, Z.; Schlager, S.; Lin, S. C.; Weiss, M.; Dogandžić, T.; Desta, D.; McPherron, S. P. A geometric morphometric relationship predicts stone flake shape and size variability, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, Volume 10 (2018) no. 8, pp. 1991-2003

[2] Bernardini, W. Hopi Oral Tradition and the Archaeology of Identity, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 2005

[3] Bischoff, R. Supplemental materials for paper: Geometric Morphometric Analysis of Projectile Points from the Southwest United States, 2023 | DOI

[4] Bischoff, R. J.; Allison, J. R. Rosegate Projectile Points in the Fremont Region, Utah Archaeology, Volume 33 (2020) no. 1, pp. 7-48 | DOI

[5] Bonhomme, V.; Picq, S.; Gaucherel, C. a. Momocs: Outline Analysis Using R, Journal of Statistical Software, Articles, Volume 56 (2014) no. 13, pp. 1-24 | DOI

[6] Buchanan, B.; Eren, M. I.; Boulanger, M. T.; O'Brien, M. J. Size, shape, scars, and spatial patterning: A quantitative assessment of late Pleistocene (Clovis) point resharpening, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 3 (2015), pp. 11-21 | DOI

[7] Buchanan, B.; Hamilton, M. J.; Hartley, J. C.; Kuhn, S. L. Investigating the scale of prehistoric social networks using culture, language, and point types in western North America, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, Volume 11 (2017) no. 1, pp. 199-207 | DOI

[8] Burke, A. L. 2D Geometric Morphometrics of Projectile Points from the Southwestern United States, Peer Community in Archaeology (2023) | DOI

[9] Caple, J.; Byrd, J.; Stephan, C. N. Elliptical Fourier analysis: fundamentals, applications, and value for forensic anthropology, International Journal of Legal Medicine, Volume 131 (2017) no. 6, pp. 1675-1690 | DOI

[10] Cardillo, M. Some Applications of Geometric Morphometrics to Archaeology In: Morphometrics for Nonmorphometricians. Ed. by Ashraf M T Elewa, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2010), pp. 325-341 | DOI

[11] Flores, F. C.; Ugalde, F. G.; Díaz, J. L. p.; Navarro, J. Z.; Gastelum-strozzi, A.; Angeles, M. D. p.; Miyatake, M. N. Computer Algorithm for Archaeological Projectile Points Automatic Classification, Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, Volume 12 (2019) no. 3, pp. 1-30 | DOI

[12] Charlin, J.; González-José, R. Testing an ethnographic analogy through geometric morphometrics: A comparison between ethnographic arrows and archaeological projectile points from Late Holocene Fuego-Patagonia, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Volume 51 (2018), pp. 159-172 | DOI

[13] Clark, J. J.; Birch, J. A.; Hegmon, M.; Mills, B. J.; Glowacki, D. M.; Ortman, S. G.; Dean, J. S.; Gauthier, R.; Lyons, P. D.; Peeples, M. A.; Borck, L.; Ware, J. A. Resolving the migrant paradox: Two pathways to coalescence in the late precontact U.S. Southwest, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Volume 53 (2019), pp. 262-287 | DOI

[14] Colton, H. S. Pottery Types of the Southwest, Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series No. 3c, Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, Arizona, 1956

[15] De Groote, I. Femoral curvature in Neanderthals and modern humans: A 3D geometric morphometric analysis, Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 60 (2011) no. 5, pp. 540-548 | DOI

[16] Duff, A. I. Ceramic Micro-Seriation: Types or Attributes?, American Antiquity, Volume 61 (1996) no. 1, pp. 89-101 | DOI

[17] Fisher, P. R. Understanding Culture History using Topographic Morphometrics of Lithic Pro- jectile Points: Paleoindian Case Studies from the Great Plains and Northern Alaska, Department of Anthropology, Washington State (2018)

[18] Fox, A. N. A study of Late Woodland projectile point typology in New York using elliptical Fourier outline analysis, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 4 (2015), pp. 501-509 | DOI

[19] Gingerich, J. A. M.; Sholts, S. B.; Wärmländer, S. K. T. S.; Stanford, D. Fluted point manufacture in eastern North America: an assessment of form and technology using traditional metrics and 3D digital morphometrics, World Archaeology, Volume 46 (2014) no. 1, pp. 101-122 | DOI

[20] Gladwin, W.; Gladwin, H. S. Some Southwestern Pottery Types: Series II, Medallion Papers no. 7

[21] Gower, J. C. Generalized Procrustes Analysis, Psychometrika, Volume 40 (1975) no. 1, pp. 33-51

[22] Gunz, P.; Mitteroecker, P.; Neubauer, S.; Weber, G. W.; Bookstein, F. L. Principles for the virtual reconstruction of hominin crania, Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 57 (2009) no. 1, pp. 48-62 | DOI

[23] Hargrave, L. L. Guide to Forty Pottery Types from the Hopi Country and the San Francisco Mountains, Arizona, Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin, No. 1, Flagstaff, 1932

[24] Hegmon, M.; Freeman, J.; Kintigh, K. W.; Nelson, M. C.; Oas, S.; Peeples, M. A.; Torvinen, A. Marking and Making Differences: Representational Diversity in the U.S. Southwest, American Antiquity, Volume 81 (2016) no. 2, pp. 253-272 | DOI

[25] Herzlinger, G.; Goren-Inbar, N.; Grosman, L. A new method for 3D geometric morphometric shape analysis: The case study of handaxe knapping skill, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 14 (2017), pp. 163-173 | DOI

[26] Hoffman, C. M. Alliance Formation and Social Interaction During the Sedentary Period: a Stylis- tic Analysis of Hohokam Arrowpoints, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State (1997)

[27] Hoggard, C. S.; McNabb, J.; Cole, J. N. The Application of Elliptic Fourier Analysis in Understanding Biface Shape and Symmetry Through the British Acheulean, Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, Volume 2 (2019) no. 2, pp. 115-133 | DOI

[28] Iovita, R. Shape Variation in Aterian Tanged Tools and the Origins of Projectile Technology: A Morphometric Perspective on Stone Tool Function, PLoS ONE, Volume 6 (2011) no. 12 | DOI

[29] Iovita, R.; McPherron, S. P. The handaxe reloaded: A morphometric reassessment of Acheulian and Middle Paleolithic handaxes, Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 61 (2011) no. 1, pp. 61-74 | DOI

[30] James Rohlf, F. The Tps series of software, Hystrix, Volume 26 (2015), pp. 1-4 | DOI

[31] Justice, N. D. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Southwestern United States, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 2002

[32] Kidder, A. V. Pottery of the Pajarito Plateau and of some adjacent regions in New Mexico, Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association, vol. 2, part 6, New Haven, 1915

[33] Kocer, J. M.; Ferguson, J. R. Investigating Projectile Point Raw Material Choices and Stylistic Variability in the Gallina Area of Northwestern New Mexico, KIVA, Volume 83 (2017) no. 4, pp. 532-554 | DOI

[34] Kuhl, F. P.; Giardina, C. R. Elliptic Fourier Features of a Closed Contour, Computer Graphics and Image Processing, Volume 18 (1982), pp. 236-258

[35] Loendorf, C.; Rice, G. E. Projectile Point Typology Gila River Indian Community, Arizona, Anthropological Research Papers No. 2, Gila River Indian Community Cultural Resource Management Program, Sacaton, Arizona, 2004

[36] Loendorf, C.; Rogers, T.; Oliver, T. J.; Huttick, B. R.; Denoyer, A.; Woodson, M. K. Projectile Point Reworking: An Experimental Study of Arrowpoint Use Life, American Antiquity, Volume 84 (2019) no. 2, pp. 353-365 | DOI

[37] Lycett, S. J.; Cramon-Taubadel, N. v.; Gowlett, J. A. A comparative 3D geometric morphometric analysis of Victoria West cores: implications for the origins of Levallois technology, Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 37 (2010) no. 5, pp. 1110-1117 | DOI

[38] MacLeod, N. The quantitative assessment of archaeological artifact groups: Beyond geometric morphometrics, Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 201 (2018), pp. 319-348 | DOI

[39] MacLeod, N. Morphometrics: History, Development Methods and Prospects, Zoological Systematics, Volume 42 (2017), pp. 4-33 | DOI

[40] Martin, P. S.; Willis, E. S. Anasazi Painted Pottery in Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Memoir, 5, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, 1940

[41] Matzig, D. N.; Hussain, S. T.; Riede, F. Design Space Constraints and the Cultural Taxonomy of European Final Palaeolithic Large Tanged Points: A Comparison of Typological, Landmark-Based and Whole-Outline Geometric Morphometric Approaches, Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, Volume 4 (2021) no. 4 | DOI

[42] Mills, B. J.; Roberts Jr., J. M.; Clark, J. J.; Haas Jr., W. R.; Huntley, D.; Peeples, M. A.; Borck, L.; Ryan, S. C.; Trowbridge, M.; Breiger, R. L. The Dynamics of Social Networks in the Late Prehispanic US Southwest, Network Analysis in Archaeology, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 181-202 | DOI

[43] Murtagh, F.; Legendre, P. Ward’s Hierarchical Agglomerative Clustering Method: Which Algorithms Implement Ward’s Criterion?, Journal of Classification, Volume 31 (2014) no. 3, pp. 274-295 | DOI

[44] Nash, B. S.; Prewitt, E. R. The Use of Artificial Neural Networks in Projectile Point Typology, Lithic Technology, Volume 41 (2016) no. 3, pp. 194-211 | DOI

[45] Okumura, M.; Araujo, A. G. Archaeology, biology, and borrowing: A critical examination of Geometric Morphometrics in Archaeology, Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 101 (2019), pp. 149-158 | DOI

[46] Oliver, T. J.; Simon, A. W. Flaked- and Carved-stone Assemblages from U:4:33/132, The Cline Terrace Mound, A Salado Platform Mound on Tonto Creek, Roosevelt Platform Mound (Roosevelt Monograph Studies 7), Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University., Tempe, Arizona, 1997, pp. 363-407

[47] Palaniswamy, S.; Thacker, N.; Klingenberg, C. Automatic identification of landmarks in digital images, IET Computer Vision, Volume 4 (2010) no. 4 | DOI

[48] Peeples, M. A. Connected Communities: Networks, Identity, and Social Change in the Ancient Cibola World, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 2018

[49] Petřík, J.; Sosna, D.; Prokeš, L.; Štefanisko, D.; Galeta, P. Shape matters: assessing regional variation of Bell Beaker projectile points in Central Europe using geometric morphometrics, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, Volume 10 (2016) no. 4, pp. 893-904 | DOI

[50] R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing., 2022

[51] Rice, G. Projectile Points, Bifaces, and Drills In: Archaeology of the Salado in the Livingston Area of Tonto Basin, Roosevelt Platform Mound Study: Report on the Livingston Management Group, Pinto Creek Complex. Part 2. Ed. by Glen E Rice. Roosevelt Monograph Series 3, Tempe: Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University (1994), pp. 727-738 | DOI

[52] Riede, F.; Hoggard, C.; Shennan, S. Reconciling material cultures in archaeology with genetic data requires robust cultural evolutionary taxonomies, Palgrave Communications, Volume 5 (2019) no. 1 | DOI

[53] Rohlf, F. J.; Slice, D. Extensions of the Procrustes Method for the Optimal Superimposition of Landmarks, Systematic Zoology, Volume 39 (1990) no. 1 | DOI

[54] Selden, R. Z.; Dockall, J. E.; Dubied, M. A quantitative assessment of intraspecific morphological variation in Gahagan bifaces from the southern Caddo area and central Texas, Southeastern Archaeology, Volume 39 (2020) no. 2, pp. 125-145 | DOI

[55] Shott, M. J.; Trail, B. W. Exploring New Approaches to Lithic Analysis: Laser Scanning and Geometric Morphometrics, Lithic Technology, Volume 35 (2010) no. 2, pp. 195-220 | DOI

[56] Sliva, R. J. Projectile Points in Regional Perspective, Sunset Crater Archaeology: The History of a Volcanic Landscape. (Anthropological Papers No. 31), Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, 2006, pp. 31-63

[57] Smith, H. L.; Smallwood, A. M.; DeWitt, T. J. Defining the Normative Range of Clovis Fluted Point Shape using Geographic Models of Geometric Morphometric Variation, Clovis: On the Edge of a New Understanding, Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas, 2015, pp. 161-180

[58] Tagg, M. D. Projectile Points of East-Central Arizona: Forms and Chronology, Middle Little Colorado River Archaeology: From the Parks to the (The Arizona Archaeologist No. 27), Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix, 1994, pp. 87-115

[59] Thulman, D. K. Discriminating Paleoindian point types from Florida using landmark geometric morphometrics, Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 39 (2012) no. 5, pp. 1599-1607 | DOI

[60] Watts, J. Traces of the Individual in Prehistory: Flintknappers and the Distribution of Projectile Points in the Eastern Tonto Basin, Arizona, Advances in Archaeological Practice, Volume 1 (2013) no. 1, pp. 25-36 | DOI

Cited by Sources: