Are You a Lumper, or a Splitter?

Figure One - Folsom points from the author's collection showing variation in material, form, 
color, and workmanship. The three critical factors identifying Folsom points;
flutes, thinness, and edge retouch. John Bradford Branney photograph. 

There are two opposing factions or "camps" when it comes to prehistoric projectile point typology: there are those who 

lump and there are those who split. 

One thing I have noticed when it comes to the artifact group discussions on social media is that when there is an interesting artifact or even an artifake posted, there are always several different opinions on what the projectile point type is or the material it is made from. Everyone has an opinion. Some people might accuse the artifact of being modern or fake while others defend its authenticity. Some people might call it a Dalton or a Plainview or a Clovis or whatever. Experienced and novice keyboard warriors alike pontificate and opine on everything about that artifact. Some even post their own artifacts as a comparison or to boast that they are just not observers, they have 'skin in the game'. It is something to behold and can be quite educational. That leads me to my main topic on projectile point typology: the lumpers vs. the splitters.  

When it comes to projectile point typology what is a lumper and what is a splitter?  Let me start off with the lumpers.  Lumpers are individuals who embrace the philosophy that current projectile point typology is broad enough to capture a wide range of variations within finished projectile points or knife forms. To a lumper, the fewer projectile point types there are, the better. A lumper focuses on the similarities between different projectile points and tries to categorize projectile points into existing projectile point types. Lumpers recognize that Paleoindians and other prehistoric people did not have blueprints with specifications when they made projectile points and that a wide variation in projectile points occurred because of different levels of knapper skill and experience, the material used, the use of the artifact, and/or meeting a specific hafting requirement. A lumper first looks at existing projectile point types when classifying a point or knife form even if that means evaluating other regions to find a match! 

CLICK for the PENTALOGY

As an example of the variation between different projectile points within a defined projectile point type, figure one shows a few Folsom dart points from my collection. A lumper focuses on the common attributes between the different Folsom points and sees the differences as only variations around a common theme. By contrast, a "splitter" is an individual who follows the philosophy that current projectile point typology is well-defined and that when a group of projectile points or knife forms falls outside of a well-defined description or specification, a new projectile point type is in order. A splitter focuses on the differences between these Folsom points and might suggest that they be broken up into subtypes or maybe a different projectile point type altogether. 

Figure Two - High Plains Midland points showing a variation in form, size, and materials. 
John Bradford Branney photograph and collection.   

Figure two is a photograph of what I call Midland points from around 12,000 years old. I define Midland points by their wide and relatively shallow flaking with flat and thin cross-sections. Midland points are known for their continuous marginal retouch along the edges which eliminated the negative bulbs produced from percussion flaking. Some people might see enough variation within this group of points that they call one or two Milnesand or Goshen or Cody Complex or something else altogether. My tendency to lump only sees Midland points. 

 

We have come a long way from the days when archaeologist E. B. Renaud lumped most Paleoindian point types under a broad and generic category called "Yuma" after the county in Colorado where they were found during the Dust Bowl years. Sometimes I wonder if Dr. Renaud wasn't on to something. It seems we have gone a bit too far with the splitting. The "splitting philosophy" follows the mantra of the more the merrier when it comes to new projectile point types. Splitters avoid knocking a square peg into a round hole when it comes to projectile point typology. 

Paleoindians passed down their projectile point-making from generation to generation verbally. Even with good verbal instruction, there had to be several opportunities for variation. If you doubt me, just look at modern flintknappers who try to replicate the prehistoric technology and critical dimensions of ancient projectile points. Modern flintknappers are all over the map. I can assume the same thing for ancient flintknappers. They dealt with geographic separation between bands and differences in raw material, knapping skills, workmanship standards, and attention to detail. 

Figure three shows the variation that exists in form and material in just one high plains projectile point type called Jimmy Allen.  

 

Figure Three - Variation within the Jimmy Allen projectile point description. 

To summarize, lumpers classify projectile points with some latitude in variation when it comes to placing a particular projectile point into an existing projectile point type. Splitters see the need for new projectile point types when faced with a certain amount of variation within a group of projectile points. My personal philosophy is to lump. This is neither the right answer nor the wrong answer. I believe there should be plenty of room for variation in any projectile point type to accommodate differences in knapping skills and experience, material types, workmanship, and style. In my opinion, “splitters” have carved the meat off the turkey too thin for my tastes and we ended up with far too many projectile point types. That is just my opinion. 

Are you a lumper or are you a splitter? 

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 smack dab in the middle of the late Pleistocene along the high plains of North America. BEYOND the CAMPFIRE is Branney's eleventh book.  

 John Bradford Branney holds a geology degree from the University of Wyoming and an MBA from the University of Colorado.

Agate Basin to Scottsbluff Along the SHADOWS on the TRAIL

Figure One - Development continuum of Paleoindian projectile point types. From left to right, 

oldest to youngest, Agate Basin, Hell Gap, Alberta, and Scottsbluff. All surface finds are from 

private land in Colorado. For scale, the Agate Basin point on the far left is 4.6 inches long. 

John Bradford Branney Collection.  

In my prehistoric adventure series the SHADOWS on the TRAIL PENTALOGY, three Paleoindian tribes clash on the high plains of Colorado. All three Paleoindian tribes lived similar lifestyles as hunters and gatherers but what differentiated them was their stone weapon tips. While the three tribes all used ‘old world’ spearthrower or atlatl technology, their stone projectile points varied in style and technology. Let me guide you on a short journey into the past. Everyone climb aboard my Delorean time machine. Our destination is southern Colorado about 12,600 years ago.  

Figure Two - Delorean time machine from Back to the Future.  

In the first book of the PENTALOGY titled SHADOWS on the TRAIL, warriors from a tribe of people I called the Mountain People brutally attack the village of a peaceful tribe called the River People. When the attack occurred, most River People men were not in the village, but on a hunting expedition. There were not enough spears to defend the village from the brutal onslaught of the Mountain People. The hunters returned and found the complete destruction of their village and the murder of friends and loved ones. The hunters wanted their revenge but they did not know who inflicted that deplorable act upon their people. The only evidence was a spear in the brush left behind by a warrior from the Mountain People. The spear's owner carved a clue for the hunters on the wooden shaft of the spear, and the stone projectile point at its tip was a different kind. The hunter who discovered the spear brought it to his leader, a man named Avonaco and this was what happened; Lights, camera, action:   

Avonaco held the spear in his hands. The spear shaft was the same wood that the River People used, but the stone spear point was different. The stone spear point was thinner and longer than any Avonaco had ever seen and made from a shiny, black rock material. Avonaco ran his thumb down the sharp edge of the spear point and quickly pulled his thumb away.

“Éŝkos!–Sharp!” Avonaco exclaimed, looking down at his bleeding thumb.

He continued to examine the spear point, “I have only seen a spear point like this once made from this black rock. When I was a boy, I found a spear point much like this deep in the mountains. My father told me the black rock comes from the mountains.”

Avonaco then inspected the sinew wrap that connected the stone spear point to the wooden spear shaft. The River People used sinew from deer or bison to attach their spear points.

Avonaco pointed to the sinew and said, “This is too thin, it is not from bison or deer.”

Avonaco ran his fingers down the smooth wood of the spear and noticed it had carvings in it. To see better, Avonaco moved the spear shaft closer to the light of the campfire. Carved into the wood were five green-painted peaks next to two orange-painted suns,   ҉   Ʌ Ʌ Ʌ Ʌ Ʌ   ҉. , Waquini and Vipponah leaned over Avonaco’s shoulders to take a better look.

I wonder if the River People ever got their revenge? If you want to find out, you are going to have to read the second edition of SHADOWS on the TRAIL. CLICK IMAGE BELOW for info on the BOOK. 

CLICK for the BOOK

Now, the rest of the story!

In figure one above, I photographed four different Paleoindian projectile point types, from left to right, the oldest to the youngest; Agate Basin, Hell Gap, Alberta, and Scottsbluff. The cultural adoption of these four projectile point types was widespread from Canada to Texas through much of the Great Plains and the southwestern United States.

We know from archaeological evidence that different Paleoindian cultures used different projectile point types. We know through investigations at single-episode bison kill sites that Paleoindian hunters often used the same projectile point styles. That suggests to me that the specific tribe or culture involved in each bison kill determined the projectile point style and technology used by the hunters who participated in the bison kills. A few examples of High Plains Paleoindian bison kill sites and the respective projectile point types in parentheses are Casper (Hell Gap), Olsen-Chubbuck (Firstview), Hudson-Meng (Alberta), Jimmy Allen (Jimmy Allen), and the Horner Site (Cody Complex). Either that means that everyone in the tribe was flintknapping to the same style of projectile points or perhaps, there were one or two expert flintknappers within the tribe making all the projectile points. 

Figure Three - Agate Basin projectile points and one drill. On some Agate Basin projectile points
the "Hell Gap shoulder" was already developing. For scale, the far left point is 2.2 inches long.
John Bradford Branney Collection.

Based on radiocarbon dating and geologic studies, Agate Basin is the oldest projectile point out of the four artifacts in figure one. Current archaeological evidence proposes that Agate Basin projectile points and knife forms showed up on the high plains around 10,400 years BP, or north of 12,000 years ago in calendar years. Based on radiocarbon dates and geologic studies, the Agate Basin projectile point could have overlapped in time with at least three other projectile point types; Folsom, Hell Gap, and Alberta. We know it overlapped in geographical space! 

Based on stratigraphic evidence at the multicultural Hell Gap site in Wyoming, investigators determined that the Hell Gap culture was younger than the Agate Basin culture, at least at the Hell Gap site. The age most often assigned to the Hell Gap prehistoric culture is around 10,000 years BP or around 11,500 years ago in calendar years. Based on projectile point technology, many investigators believe that Hell Gap projectile points evolved from Agate Basin projectile points. 

In experimental archaeology hunting exercises, Agate Basin proved to be a very effective piece of weaponry, so why did Paleoindians move from Agate Basin to Hell Gap projectile points? One possible explanation could be less time and effort exerted on making Hell Gap versus Agate Basin. If you have ever examined a well-made Agate Basin projectile point, it is obvious that a great amount of time and effort went into its making. In Agate Basin projectile points, fine pressure flaking was used to achieve exceptional point symmetry. Did that extra effort deliver incremental hunting performance? We will never know the answer to that question for sure. Some might call Agate Basin points "flint knapping overkill". The Hell Gap flint knapper usually terminated the finishing process of a projectile point much earlier than an Agate Basin flint knapper (figure four). The Hell Gap flint knapper oftentimes used only pressure flaking on the stems and tips, leaving a rougher and less symmetrical projectile point. And it appears that the Hell Gap shoulders that they introduced made for a better hafting arrangement.  

Figure Four - Hell Gap Projectile Points. The Hell Gap shoulder is fully developed 
on these examples. For scale, the far left point is 2.5 inches long. 
John Bradford Branney Collection. 

Over 11,000 calendar years ago near Casper, Wyoming, Paleoindian hunters used Hell Gap projectile points to kill bison that they stampeded and trapped in sand dunes at what we now call the Casper site. During a similar timeframe in Nebraska, a different group of Paleoindian hunters used what we call Alberta projectile points to dispatch bison they trapped in an ancient arroyo at the Hudson-Meng site. Dr. H. M. Wormington identified and named Alberta projectile points from surface recovered examples found during the dust bowl years of the 1930s in Alberta, Canada. The long stem and abrupt shoulders differentiated Alberta projectile points from both Agate Basin and Hell Gap. We assume that at least some Paleoindians felt the Alberta projectile point design was an advancement in weapon technology over Agate Basin and Hell Gap projectile point designs. When spearing a bison or other game animal, the shoulders and long base of the Alberta projectile point handled much more stress and impact, probably creating a more efficient weapon tip.    

The Alberta projectile point technology and style then gave birth to another projectile point type. The point to the far right in figure one is a Scottsbluff point, a continuation of Cody Complex weaponry and a point design originating from the earlier Alberta projectile points. 

Figure Four - Examples of Cody Complex artifacts, including  Alberta (far left) and 

Scottsbluff (third from left). For scale, the far left point is 2.5 inches long. 

John Bradford Branney Collection. 

The stem and shoulders found on Alberta points existed on Scottsbluff points but what returned was the fine pressure flaking and symmetry of the earlier Agate Basin projectile point.

So, what do you think drove the development continuum of Paleoindian projectile points from Agate Basin to Scottsbluff? Was it technological innovation or were different prehistoric cultures putting their own stamp on weaponry design? Why did Paleoindian cultures adapt the same projectile point type across a wide geographical area? Why did Paleoindians use a specific projectile point type at one bison kill while at a similar timeframe other Paleoindians used a different projectile point type at a different bison kill? Were different people making specific projectile point types? 

Food for thought! 

We can only hypothesize, but isn’t that fun to do?

CLICK for the Journey - SHADOWS on the TRAIL PENTALOGY

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 holds 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.

The Goshen-Plainview Dilemma

Figure One - A Plainview point on the left was surface recovered in Deaf Smith County, Texas.
A Goshen point on the right was surface recovered in Weld County, Colorado.
John Bradford Branney Collection. 

Can you tell the difference between the two prehistoric projectile points in figure one? Quite frankly, I cannot see much of a difference besides the different materials used by the Paleoindians who made them. That is about it! Technologically and morphologically those two projectile points are identical. 

The projectile point on the left side in figure one was surface rescued from private land in Deaf Smith County, Texas. Its Paleoindian flintknapper used Alibates agatized dolomite from the Panhandle of Texas to make that point. I call that projectile point type: Plainview. 

The 2.3-inch-long projectile point on the right side in figure one was a surface recovery from private land in Weld County, Colorado. Its Paleoindian flintknapper used a grayish orange petrified wood to make that projectile point. I call that projectile point type: Goshen.

Hmm...Same style and technology for those two projectile points...Why do two identical projectile points carry different projectile point type names?

Let me explain the backstory behind those two projectile point types, and then I will explain what is happening to sort out the Goshen-Plainview dilemma.  

Figure Two - CLICK for Book INFORMATION

During the summer of 1941, two young cousins named Val Keene Whitacre and Bill Weaks dug into a soft caliche embankment along Running Water Draw near Plainview, Texas. What the two boys discovered advanced our understanding of human prehistory in North America. Whitacre made the critical discovery, finding a long, stone spear point with one end still embedded in thick, fossilized bone. When the boy picked up the bone and artifact, the bone crumbled apart. 

In 1944, two geologists Glen L. Evans and Grayson E. Meade dug into that same caliche bank and found an incredible discovery — a bone bed filled with skeletons and partial skeletons of approximately 100 extinct bison. The two geologists also found stone projectile points, knives, and scrapers associated with the bone bed.

Texas Memorial Museum and the University of Texas's Bureau of Economic Geology continued excavations at the site from June to October 1945 and in November 1949.

Figure Three - Known geographical distribution for Goshen,
Goshen-Plainview, and Folsom points. 

Even though collectors were finding similar styled projectile points of that distinctive type from Canada to Mexico (figure three), the discovery at Plainview, Texas marked the first time anyone found that projectile point type in direct association with fossilized remains of extinct animals. Archaeologists named that point type Plainview after the nearby town. Archaeological and geologic evidence determined that the Plainview projectile point was younger than another famous projectile point type recently discovered in New Mexico called Folsom. Archaeologists originally dated Plainview projectile points at around 10,000 years old.

Figure Four - Montana's Mill Iron Site Goshen projectile points,
practically indistinguishable from Texas's Plainview projectile points,
but over a thousand years older.   

In mid-August of 1966 at the Hell Gap site in Goshen County, Wyoming, archaeologists were ready to conclude their investigation when they discovered a cultural zone below the Folsom level, indicating that the new cultural zone was older than Folsom. A sterile layer of dirt separated the two cultural zones. At first, the archaeologists declared that the first complete projectile point in that new cultural zone was an atypical Folsom projectile point. The archaeologists then proposed that the new projectile point could be a Clovis projectile point but they quickly dismissed that idea. In his study of that projectile point, principal archaeologist Henry Irwin noted the similarities between the newly discovered projectile point at Hell Gap and the Plainview points previously found in Texas. However, Irwin and his associates encountered a dilemma in naming the newly discovered projectile point after the Plainview points in Texas. 

What was the dilemma?   

Plainview points in Texas were found above Folsom points in the geologic column at the Plainview site. Using the geological law of superposition meant Plainview projectile points were younger than Folsom projectile points. However, at the Hell Gap site in Wyoming, that new Plainview lookalike projectile point was discovered below Folsom projectile points making the Plainview lookalike projectile point older than Folsom projectile points. 

In a nutshell, the geological law of superposition states that in any sequence of sedimentary strata not overturned, the youngest stratum is at the top and the oldest stratum is at the base, in other words, each bed is younger than the one beneath it.      

The dilemma was that the projectile points from the Plainview and Hell Gap Sites were morphologically and technologically the same type, but the Plainview projectile points in Texas were younger than Folsom projectile points while at the Hell Gap Site, the Plainview lookalike point was older than Folsom. Therefore, based on that "age discrepancy", Henry Irwin reluctantly proposed a new projectile point type called Goshen, after the county where the Hell Gap site was located.  

Investigators confirmed the time gap between Goshen on the northern High Plains and Plainview along the Panhandle of Texas in the 1980s at the Mill Iron Site in Montana (Figure Four). George Frison (1996) realized there was not much difference between the points they discovered at Mill Iron and the Plainview points in Texas, except of course their ages. He addressed the situation by integrating the two projectile point types into one projectile point technology called Goshen-Plainview.  

How is that discrepancy in age explained? My gut feeling is that Goshen-Plainview technology overlapped with Folsom technology both temporally and geographically. The data at Hell Gap and the Plainview sites reflected two separate incidents for the presence of Goshen-Plainview, one incident in which it was older than the  Folsom occupation (Hell Gap) and one incident in which it was younger than the Folsom occupation (Plainview), but in both incidents, the occupants used Goshen-Plainview technology.  



CLICK for INFO on John BRADFORD Branney Books 


Postscript 

Since I originally wrote that article many years ago, much work has occurred to unravel the age discrepancies between Goshen and Plainview. Waters and Stafford (2014) redated the Goshen strata at the Mill Iron site in Montana and compared it to strata at other high plains Goshen sites such as Jim Pitts and Upper Twin Mountain. They found that Mill Iron showed the oldest age for Goshen while Jim Pitts showed the youngest age. They concluded from the data that Goshen's age range was approximately 12,500 cal BP to 11,800 cal BP. Based on that evidence, Waters and Stafford suggested that Goshen technology emerged sometime after the introduction of Folsom technology and continued into post-Folsom times. That was a big revelation at the time since most people believed that Goshen was older than Folsom based on the stratigraphic evidence from the Hell Gap site and the original dating at the Mill Iron sites.    

Dating the original Plainview site in Texas was always problematic. Buchanan, Collard, and O'Brien (2017) reported that archaeologists sampled four other Plainview sites in Texas: Bonfire Shelter, Lubbock Lake, Lake Theo, and Williamson-Plainview. The archaeologists came up with a minimum age range of between 12,100 cal BP and 11,300 cal BP for Plainview. Based on that data, it appeared that Goshen technology was older to the north, and spread to the south where it became what we call Plainview. Based on those two studies, it seemed that Goshen and Plainview overlapped in the north and south for approximately three hundred years and that Plainview carried on in the south after Goshen disappeared in the north.       

Goshen and Plainview were now in similar time horizons with the technology spreading geographically from north to south. Since investigators recognized the Plainview projectile point type first, perhaps we should abandon the Goshen projectile point type and roll those projectile points and Goshen sites under the Plainview umbrella. 

2017      Buchanan, Briggs; Collard, Mark; and O'Brien, Michael J., 

              "Geometric Morphometric Analyses Support Incorporating the Goshen Point 

             Type into Plainview" in Plainview, edited by Holliday, Johnson, and Knudson.                       History Faculty Publications. 27. 

1996      Frison, George C. 

              The Mill Iron Site. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque.           

2014    Waters, Michael R., and Thomas W. Stafford Jr. 

            "Redating the Mill Iron Site in Montana: A Reexamination of Goshen Complex                    Chronology" in American Antiquity 79 (3), pages 541-548. 

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 holds 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.

 

            

In the Groove with a Midland Projectile Point

Figure One - Side A of 1.8-inch-long Midland dart or spear point showing the remnant of an
impact fracture that put the projectile point out of service until the user hastily repaired the tip.  

Ronny Walker surface rescued the 1.8-inch-long Midland dart or spear point in Figure One from a cotton field in Lynn County, Texas. I acquired this Midland point not for its beauty, even though I think it is beauty, but for its character. This projectile point saw a lot of action in its time, and if it could talk, I imagine it would have a pretty interesting story. Side A of the projectile point in Figure One clearly shows part of the impact fracture that damaged the projectile point's tip. The Paleoindian then repaired the projectile point and did a pretty sloppy job with the new tip.      

Midland projectile points exhibit wide, relatively flat flake scars that produce very flat cross sections. In outline, Midland projectile points resemble Folsom projectile points but are missing the flutes. Collectors and archaeologists often find Midland projectile points associated with Folsom projectile points leading some investigators to call Midland projectile points, unfluted Folsom projectile points. There are a few investigators who believe Midland projectile points and associated artifacts deserve their own cultural designation. Midland projectile points fall within the age range of the Folsom Complex, at around 12,900 to 12,200 years old. In my opinion, the same people made Folsom and Midland projectile points.    

Before this projectile point ended up in my collection, it belonged to Ronny Walker, Tim Elkins, Ed Rowe, Ron Van Heukelom, and Rodney Michel. Dwain Rogers, Bill Jackson, and Rodney Michel certified this projectile point as an authentic Midland projectile point.    

Now, I am going to take you on a quick journey back in time to get you in the groove for further analysis of the Midland projectile point. I am setting the dial on my time machine to 10,600 B.C. We will be going on a High Plains elk hunt with a Paleoindian named Chayton. This hunting excerpt is from the first book in my prehistoric saga titled SHADOWS on the TRAIL.         

Two majestic elk, a young bull and a cow, walked out from behind the trees, heading straight at Chayton. The bull led the way while the cow followed behind. The elk held their heads high and sniffed at the air, smelling for any danger that would set them off running. The elk, upwind from Chayton, did not pick up his scent and kept walking towards him.

Chayton’s left throwing arm was cocked and ready to throw the first spear, but the bull was still walking straight at him. Chayton did not like his chances for a kill with this throw. The bull had no vital organs exposed to Chayton’s line of fire and unless Chayton threw perfectly and severed an artery, the elk would not go down. The last thing Chayton wanted to do was track a wounded elk in this rugged country.

Figure Two - Reconstruction of the SHADOWS on the TRAIL scenario
with Chayton armed with a spear thrower and spear. However, this 
particular drawing is of two caribou bulls and not a bull and cow elk.

Chayton needed the elk to turn and expose its side to his spear. Chayton thought about moving, but one sound and he would send the elk crashing through the trees in the opposite direction. The elk continued to walk straight toward Chayton. Any closer and they would pick up Chayton’s scent.

Chayton searched the ground with his right hand and found a small rock. While his left arm kept his spear ready to throw, he hurled the rock to his right where it ricocheted off a tree. The bull reared back and ran away from the sound, exposing the left side to Chayton's spear. Chayton hurled the spear and the sharp fluted spear point popped when it penetrated the bull’s rib cage. The bull continued to run to the left while Chayton readied another spear. The confused cow ran away from Chayton, crashing through the trees that led back up the bluff. Chayton grabbed the rest of his spears and followed the blood spoor left by the bull.

Figure Three -  CLICK for SHADOWS on the TRAIL

When Chayton's spear smashed into the rib cage of the bull elk, the stone tip of the thin projectile point was most likely damaged and fractured, much like the Midland projectile point that I photographed in Figure One and in later figures in the article. 

Most prehistoric projectile points that I discover on the surface of the ground in the field are damaged in one way or another. On most of the prehistoric projectile points that I find, the damage appears to come from modern-day sources such as cows, plows, or earth-moving equipment. Most of the time the modern-day damage is obvious because of fresh breaks or fractures on the projectile point. However, there are a few projectile points where it is obvious that the damage happened in prehistoric times. The Midland projectile point is one of the latter.  

I seldom find pristine, undamaged stone projectile points. In my earlier artifact hunting days, I used to calculate in my head the ratio of "ninety percent or better complete" projectile points to total projectile point pieces found. I estimated that on average that ratio was somewhere between five and ten percent. That meant for every twenty projectile points, only one or two were "ninety percent or better complete". With each passing year, I am finding fewer total artifacts, and undamaged projectile points are even rarer than they were before. It was much easier to find prehistoric artifacts forty years ago than it is today. As I often remind myself when I am hunting, "Prehistoric artifacts are not a renewable resource."  

Fortunately, I am as interested in broken projectile points as I am in complete projectile points. I love doing what I call "autopsies" on damaged stone projectile points and speculating on how that projectile point ended up in the condition I found it. Please do not get me wrong, I would much rather find unblemished, perfect projectile points, but in today's world, damaged projectile points are the rule and not the exception. A person has to deal with the cards they were dealt.  

The root-beer-colored, semi-translucent Midland point in the figures is quite thin, and the Paleoindian who made the projectile point ground and polished the edges halfway up to the repaired tip (the red dots in Figure Four indicate where the projectile point was ground or polished). The repaired tip is not as noticeable on Side B in Figure Four as it is on Side A in Figure One, but the repaired tip still looks asymmetrical and hastily done and does not meet the same workmanship standards as the rest of the projectile point. 

Figure Four - Side B of the Midland dart showing much of
the original flaking. The repaired tip is evident, but the 
impact fracture is on the other face.     

Most Paleoindian flintknappers ground or polished the edges of their projectile points to ensure the razor-sharp rock did not slice through and damage the animal sinew they used to bind the projectile point onto a spear or dart foreshaft. In studying hundreds of projectile points, it is my experience that when Paleoindians ground or polished the basal edges, they did so for at least one-third to one-quarter of the total length of a freshly made projectile point. When those Paleoindians resharpened their projectile points, the ground or polished edge length increased as a percentage of the total projectile point length. Based on that, I am guessing that the original, undamaged Midland projectile point in Figures One and Four was quite a bit longer prior to the tip damage that occurred.  

This Midland projectile point from Texas saw some action, hunting or otherwise. Something happened to damage the distal end or tip of the projectile point. Perhaps, the projectile point slammed into a bison bone or a rock or something hard enough to shatter the original tip and one edge. The Paleoindian then hastily repaired the tip of the projectile point. Figure Five shows another view of the impact fracture at the tip. Based on the direction of the compression rings, the red arrow indicates the direction that the impact came from. The collision fractured the tip of the projectile point and the fissure advanced through the projectile point like a wave moving through water. Compression rings radiate away from the direction of impact much like ripples on a calm lake after a rock splashes in the water. The fissure began at the tip of the projectile point and traveled through the rock until its energy was dissipated or escaped out of the sides of the rock.  

Figure Five - Side A showing the impact fracture at the tip and the direction
that the force came from that damaged the tip.   

Impact with something hard caused the compression rings and ripples on the damaged tip. Oftentimes, the greater the impact or disturbance, the more severe the ripples and undulations are. Choppy ripples on a Folsom flute or even on an impact fracture indicate erratic bending forces in the rock at the time the fracture was initiated. The amplitude and frequency of the ripples are a rough measure of the amount of energy at the time of fracturing. Of course, flaws or inconsistencies in the raw material can also enhance ripples, but in the case of our Midland point, the ripples came from a front-end collision with a tough material.  

Figure Six - "B" marks the transverse break along the edge.  

The Midland projectile point has more damage from the collision than just the impact fracture. In Figure Six, I labeled a section along the projectile point edge with a "B". That "B" represents a transverse break or burin-like feature that I am convinced was the result of the projectile point's collision.  What is a burin and burination? 

Burination is a process used by prehistoric people to intentionally remove a small, relatively thick flake from another flake, blade, or biface using a snapped termination or a previous burination scar as the striking platform. Burin flakes or spalls run along an edge, rather than on the surface of the artifact's face. The scar left by the removal of the edge often intersects the artifact's face at a right angle, leaving a strong, but sharp edge for scraping or grooving hard materials. 

In the case of the Midland projectile point, I believe the burin-like feature along the edge was a transverse break caused by the same collision that created the impact fracture. Caution is always necessary when differentiating between an impact fracture, a transverse break, or an intentionally-crafted burin. However, on this Midland projectile point, the burin-like feature was not intentional, in my opinion, it was accidental.   

       

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 holds 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.