“Southern Idaho Plain: What are the Facts?”: A Reply to Butler

In a recent paper I (Plew 1979b) discussed the distribution of Fremont-like ceramics in southwestern and southern Idaho and sug gested that the pottery, which I called Southern Idaho Plain, may have been introduced by northward expanding Sho shoneans familiar with Fremont wares. But ler's rhetorical question "What are the Facts?" seems enigmatic in view of the fact that his comments are peripheral to the central theme of my paper, a theme also discussed by Butler (1979a, 1979b). Unfortun ately, I learned sometime after the submission of my paper, that Butler (1979a) had independently arrived at similar conclusions concerning some of the southern Idaho pottery. Butler (1981:157) has suggested that I have misrepresented the data and left out crucial information. I am substantially criticized for a 1976 report which Butler (1981:157) implies forms the underpinning of my pottery paper. The paper to which Butler refers is a preliminary report submitted to the Bureau of Land Management as a report on an inventory survey of the Camas Creek drainage basin in southwestern Idaho. The 1976 report does not provide the basis for my recent paper (Plew 1979b). It was, however, cited (see Plew 1979b:330) as a reference for my initial work in southwestern Idaho, from which an interest in the problem was derived. Butler (1981:157) states that the provenience and site distribu tion of the 16 sherds referred to in my 1976 report are not mentioned in the text. In fact the distribution of pottery is reported in the text (see, e.g., Plew 1976:77, 93; see also Idaho State Survey Files). The typology presented in the 1976 report represented an analysis which placed empha sis on splitting rather than lumping of types. In this regard, Butler notes deficiencies in the illustrations and tables. He is in substantial error concerning these instances. For ex ample, Butler (1981:158) states that "only one Type A (Shoshoni) sherd was found in the entire inventory effort, yet three Type A sherds are shown in Figure 38." Only one Type A sherd is depicted in Figure 38 (Plew 1976:172). Additionally, Butler (1981:158) at tempts to equate the lettered types of the 1976 report with Great Basin equivalents. For example, Butler (1981:158) considers my Type B projectile point as a Great Basin type Cottonwood Triangular point. While the type description might be misleading, the refer ence to a comparable type (Type 13, Swanson et al. 1964) leaves no doubt as to the fact that this is a lanceolate projectile. In this context, Butler (1981:158) has selected type names and descriptions from my paper which are arranged in tabular form. These are improperly referenced and do not correspond to the illustrations in my 1976 report (see Plew 1976:149-157). I am further criticized for ignoring the presence of Cottonwood Trian gular and Desert Side-Notched points while emphasizing the association of Southern Idaho Plain sherds with Rose Spring-Eastgate points, especially at 10-OE-602. Butler (1981: 158) notes that Cottonwood Triangular and Desert Side-Notched points are hallmarks of Late Archaic (Butler 1978). However, while noting variability in the temporal distribution of Rose Spring points, he does not note the occurrence of such points in periods predat ing the Late Archaic (see, e.g., Aikens 1970:56; Webster 1978). In his discussion, he ignores more recent findings relevant to this issue (Plew 1979a) which are also cited in my text (Plew 1979b:331). Though Butler (1981: 158) criticizes my lack of references to Late