Who Dun It? - Andersen or Jimmy Allen Point? - Part III

Figure One - In situ of projectile point tip in a dry streambed
on April 19, 2018, in northern Colorado.  

In parts one and two of my Who Dun It? series, I discussed Paleoindian projectile point typology, mentioning on more than one occasion that it can be more art than science. In Who Dun It? - Part III, I will provide another example of a Paleoindian/Early Archaic point that I surface recovered on my Shadows on the Trail prehistoric site on April 19, 2018. In my second most recent book titled CROW and the CAVE, I returned my readers to the valley where the Shadows on the Trail prehistoric site is located. In CROW and the CAVE, I called the site and the general area 'Skull Valley' or in the language of the Lakota Sioux, Páhu Ósmaka. I took the following text in blue from my book CROW and the CAVE. This passage describes Skull Valley or as I called it in the book, Páhu Ósmaka. For context, my main character Hoka just arrived in Skull Valley, alone, some 12,600 years ago.

Figure Two - CLICK for INFORMATION on this BOOK 

Páhu Ósmaka or Skull Valley brought back many memories to Hoka, many good, but a few bad. The Folsom People followed the seasonal migration of the bison herds so Hoka had never known any place as home. Wherever the Folsom People camped was home. But, Hoka had a special connection to Páhu Ósmaka…

…Hoka and the wolf dog reached the middle of the bowl-shaped valley as the sun hung above the sandstone bluffs to the west. Bluffs now surrounded the hunter and his wolf dog on three sides. As they rounded the last bend, Hoka spotted the landmarks that marked the location of wakan ya. The birthplace for the valley’s water lay between two scarred sandstone buttes, jutting up from the valley floor. Crossbedded sandstone from an ancient river system formed the resistant cap on both the buttes. Broken sandstone boulders littered the grassy aprons surrounding the buttes. Arroyos radiated outward from the bottom of the buttes like spider webs. At the top of the hump-backed butte on the south side were two rock shelters in a large mound of rock called Páhu Inyan or Skull Rock.

Figure Three - Projectile point uncovered. Is this the tip of a Jimmy Allen, Andersen, or Frederick point? Or are all three-point types variants of each other?

Today, Páhu Ósmaka is a mystical place. Anyone interested in Prehistoric America could not help but capture 'the prehistoric vibe' when they visit the valley. Hike through the valley and the spirits of prehistoric people practically call out to you. I once visited there in pitch-black darkness with only the stars above. I will readily admit that I was more than a little bit spooked. The presence of spirits is very strong in the valley. If only the land could talk. Páhu Ósmaka has been very good to me over the years. I have recovered and documented hundreds of artifacts from that valley ranging from Clovis to historical Indian tribes and everything in between. 

On April 11, 2018, the valley rewarded me with another artifact. I immediately knew when I spotted the projectile point tip sticking out of the sand in figure one that it was either Paleoindian or Early Archaic. Only the ancient ones possessed the skill and patience to create such masterpieces. I pulled it from the sand and my joy subsided just a tad. The point was broken. The proximal end or base of the projectile point was missing. I dug around in the sand looking for the missing piece, but to no avail. 

Anyone who knows a hoot about projectile point typology realizes that when a projectile point is found out of archaeological or geological context, the hafting base on the point is critical in determining the prehistoric culture. It makes a big difference in identification if the base is indented or thinned or fluted or squared up. In this case, the base of the projectile point was gone (figure three), making it impossible for me to identify the projectile point type with any certainty. Based on its workmanship and the oblique parallel flaking pattern, I am guessing the artifact was a Jimmy Allen or an Andersen, or even a Frederick projectile point type. I leaned toward Andersen at the time even though I have it in the same frame as my herd of Jimmy Allen artifacts.

So, what exactly is an Andersen point? 

Andersen points are one of those “locally named” projectile point types that I mentioned in a previous Who Dun It? article. In my opinion, an Andersen point is just a slimmer version of a Jimmy Allen projectile point. But, my objective here is not to argue the merits of whether there should be an Andersen projectile point type or not. The type exists, at least for some collectors, and that is just the way it is.   

Figure Four - Perry Andersen collecting artifacts in a large 

sand blowout in northeastern Colorado.
Note the deep level of soil deflation. 

Courtesy UNSM.  

How did the Andersen point come about? 

Back in the 1920s and 1930s, there was a farming and ranching family in Yuma County, Colorado by the name of Andersen. Perry, his wife Pauline, and their son Harold "Andy" Andersen started artifact hunting in the area around 1919. Artifact hunting was a passion for the family and they were situated at the right place at the right time. The family took advantage of the best artifact hunting that has ever occurred in eastern Colorado.

Why such good artifact hunting? 

Under the law at the time, the government required homesteaders in Yuma and other counties in eastern Colorado and elsewhere to turn the soil over and cultivate the land. A long, enduring drought came along in the 1930s, followed by strong winds, and the Dust Bowl years were born. The plowed soil in Yuma County ended up in neighboring states, exposing deeply buried layers of soil associated with the time of the Paleoindians. The Andersen family were great amateur archaeologists who meticulously documented their finds and kept in close contact with professional archaeologists about what they were finding. Perry and Harold Andersen systematically collected hundreds of Paleoindian and Early Archaic artifacts in sixty-four sand blowouts in Yuma and Washington Counties in Colorado. 

 

Figure Five - Example of the meticulous note-taking by Perry Andersen.
The upper point is Scottsbluff and the lower point is Folsom. Note 
Mr. Andersen's projectile point typologies. 
Courtesy of  UNSM. 

At that time, most Paleoindian projectile points were classified into a broad category called Yuma points, named after the county of their origin. Over time, archaeologists reclassified the Yuma County projectile points into types reflecting where they were first documented in archaeological sites. For example, at one time Scottsbluff, Eden, Jimmy Allen, Frederick, Midland, Hell Gap, Plainview, Goshen, Plainview, etc. were all classified as Yuma points.  

One unique type of point found by the Andersen family ended up being named after them. Andersen points are slim, triangular, and mostly diagonally flaked. As stated earlier, I personally believe that Andersen points are variants of Jimmy Allen points.

 

Figure Six - Some points from the Andersen Collection, bottom row,

right are examples of Andersen points. Courtesy of UNSM. 

I am not alone in my assessment. Not everyone has accepted Andersen as an 'official' projectile point type. As a test, I randomly selected five well-known, high plains archaeology books out of my library and checked whether the authors (archaeologists in this case) listed Andersen points in the indexes of their books. I found nary a mention of the Andersen projectile point type in any of these well-known books. I understand why. I am certainly not convinced that Andersen points need their own projectile point type name. I see them fitting quite well within the framework of the Jimmy Allen or the Frederick projectile point types. To take my opinion further, I see the Frederick projectile point type also fitting within the Jimmy Allen projectile point type. 

On a positive note, it is nice to see amateur archaeologists like the Andersen family recognized for their contribution to 

high plains archaeology.

Figure Seven - the cream de la cream of points. The original 'Slim Arrow' and the  

type point used for the Andersen projectile point type. The notch on the base
was thought to be intentionally burinated for hafting purposes. Courtesy UNSM.  

I am still calling the point I found on April 19, 2018, an Andersen point, although I should know better and just call it a Jimmy Allen point. My decision to name it that is just more evidence that projectile point typology is much more art than science.    

 

                      CLICK for JOHN BRADFORD BRANNEY books

Who Dun It? Paleoindian Projectile Point Typology Part II

Figure One - What do you call these High Plains surface finds?  The three critical attributes I used to identify them were; 1). Pronounced basal concavity, 2). Carefully executed diagonal flaking, and 3). Edge grinding. The longest point is 3.2 inches. 

John Bradford Branney Collection.  

Identifying Paleoindian projectile points from the High Plains by type is often more art than science. Deciding what kind of projectile point is in your hands can lead to some hand wringing, especially for those projectile points that lie somewhere ‘between’ two known projectile point types. I call these borderline points, 'tweeners'. One of the more confusing arrays of projectile points is the Paleoindian/Early Archaic points with indented bases. For decades, people sorted most indented base projectile points from the High Plains into two buckets; Clovis if it had flutes and Yuma or Plainview if it had basal thinning and no flutes. No doubt that the differences between the various indented base projectile points made by 

My latest book. Click for Information

Paleoindians were subtle enough to get away with that for a while but as more sites were discovered, archaeologists named more projectile point types. Today an indented-based Paleoindian projectile point can fall into a number of buckets depending on its specific attributes. These buckets include Clovis, Goshen, Folsom, Plainview, Jimmy Allen, Midland, and I am sure I am missing a few. And that's just for the High Plains! Figure one shows one group of indented base points from Wyoming and Colorado that I believe are a single type. Do you agree with these points being a single type, and if so, what type do you think they are? I call them Jimmy Allen points. 

The similarities between projectile point types can sometimes be striking and the differences subtle. I have seen two identical projectile points made with the same technology and of similar age called different point types just because they were found in different parts of the United States (figure two). I bet you have, too. This is precisely why I do not get too hung up on projectile point-type names. In my opinion, collectors and archaeologists go way overboard trying to cubbyhole projectile points into specific types. I think there are too many projectile point types now! Coming up with a new projectile point and naming it becomes a status thing, a feather in someone's Easter bonnet. Instead of focusing on the similarities with existing projectile point types, even from another region, the focus is on the differences. An example of this situation is the Jimmy Allen points above in figure one. There is a lot of variation between these points but I lump them into a single projectile point type: Jimmy Allen. If someone found these in the midwest, they might be calling them something else entirely.  

Figure Two - The Texas Panhandle point on the left is 

called Plainview while the northern Colorado point 

on the right is called Goshen. 

Can you see any morphological differences? 

I can't. The longest point is 2.4 inches.

John Branney Collection.  

Editorial: I am straying off topic a bit so let me reel myself in and stay away from the politics of proposing a new projectile point type. Well, maybe I will reel it in after this paragraph. Let me finish my thoughts on the topic. It is almost impossible for an amateur archaeologist or collector to have a new projectile point named and recognized. Professionals have a forum for naming and documenting new projectile point types and there is a lot of politics involved. It can go the other way as well, such as denying the existence of a projectile point type in a certain region. Texas archaeologists have denied the existence of Agate Basin points in Texas for some time as if a manmade border suddenly stopped Agate Basin people from crossing the Texas border twelve thousand years ago. I have personally found and seen Agate Basin points in Texas, but since professional archaeologists have not found them in situ, they deny their existence in the Lone Star State. In most cases, collectors and archaeologists in Texas call them Angostura even though morphologically they are Agate Basin. Politics! Whew, now, that I have my bellyaching out of the way, back to the topic at hand.     

Imagine that you or I discover a new prehistoric site while surface hunting. We find several examples of a different style of projectile point that we have not seen before. Since these are surface finds, there is no archaeological or geological context so we do not know the age of the prehistoric culture they came from. We can take an educated guess on the time period based on the flintknapping style and technology used. The projectile points kind of look like an existing projectile point type, but they are not a complete match. Our projectile points have a couple of features that make them different. We wonder if we found a new projectile point type or just came across a creative prehistoric flintknapper from a known prehistoric culture. What do we do? What would you do? I know a couple collectors who have found new projectile point variants on the surface sites where they hunt and these collectors christen these variants with a localized name. Professional archaeologists might not recognize that local projectile point type, but local collectors do.    

Selecting and recognizing the critical attributes in projectile points can be difficult and subjective. At one extreme, we focus on the general attributes and fit our group of projectile points into an existing projectile point type. At the other extreme, we focus on the minute differences from an existing projectile point type, without regard for variation along a common theme.

Figure Three - What would you call these surface-found projectile points? I call them Midland points

based on three attributes; 1). Thin, 2). Indented to flat bases, and 3). Fine, abrupt, non-invasive

pressure retouch forming regular and straight margins. The longest point is 2.5 inches.
You might call them something entirely different.
John Bradford Branney Collection   

If the description for an existing projectile point type is too tight and rigid, we end up with a plethora of new projectile point types that might reflect the differences in quality, craftsmanship, and/or workmanship, but not the actual prehistoric culture that made them. If the description for an existing projectile point type is too loose and flexible, we might accept large variations which may actually be a change in technology and/or prehistoric culture.

The bottom line is (yes, I do have a bottom line); A PROJECTILE POINT TYPE IS ONLY A NAME. Don't get too hung up on it! The key element in projectile point identification is doing the homework required to identify your Paleoindian projectile point to the best of your ability! But just because you or I or Joe Blow thinks a point is a specific projectile point type doesn't make it necessarily so.   

                 Wanna another Paleoindian Who Dun it? 

Read the second edition of SHADOWS on the TRAIL! 

Figure Four - CLICK for INFO on SHADOWS on the TRAIL

In case you missed "Part I of Who Dun It", CLICK LINK

Who Dun It? Paleoindian Projectile Point Typology - Part I

Figure One - Three thousand years plus of High Plains projectile point evolution. From left to right:

Clovis, Goshen, Folsom, Agate Basin, Hell Gap, and Scottsbluff (3.95 inches long). 

Evolution went from fluted and indented bases to stemmed bases. John Bradford Branney Collection.   

Welcome to Part One of my Who Dun It? articles. In this article, I will approach the topic of Paleoindian projectile point typology from a philosophical slant versus a technical slant.  I hope you enjoy the article.  

Amateur and professional archaeologists spend a lot of time studying and categorizing High Plains Paleoindian projectile points by technology and morphology. These projectile point types are then tied back to the presence of specific Paleoindian cultures or complexes, such as Clovis or Folsom or Agate Basin or Cody, etc. But was there an actual cultural change between, let's say Clovis and Folsom, or was the projectile point style the only major change? In that particular example, Clovis people were hunting mammoths as an important food supply which might have required a thicker, more robust projectile point like a Clovis whereby Folsom people were focused on smaller beasts like bison (not that a bison was small).  

The typical human seeks order and simplicity from disorder and complexity. We identify and classify items that are important to us. When I find a Paleoindian projectile point out on the prairie, the first question I ask myself is 'who dun it?'. I want to know how my newly found projectile point fits into the bigger picture of Paleoindian projectile point typology, so I can add another piece of the puzzle to the site I am surface hunting. The story of an orderly Paleoindian projectile point transition or evolution fits well with our organizational needs as humans, but was Paleoindian projectile point evolution as orderly as we want it to be?  

Figure Two - Wyoming surface found Hell Gap on the left and
a Colorado surface found Alberta on the right. By that time,
stemmed replaced indented base in Paleoindian point
typology. Easy to see how Hell Gap transitioned into Alberta. 
John Bradford Branney Collection.   

In some cases, Paleoindian life seemed quite simple; surviving was the main game in town. The details of what life was really like eleven or twelve thousand years ago are impossible to unravel from a spotty archaeological record. The prehistory of Paleoindians on the High Plains is like a thousand and one-piece jigsaw puzzle. On the cover of any modern-day jigsaw puzzle is a picture of what the completed puzzle should look like. Each piece of the puzzle only gives us a tiny inkling of the overall picture. A jigsaw puzzle is a lot like the Paleoindian archaeological record. In archaeology, we never get a complete picture of what happened at any given archaeological site. Archaeologists' knowledge is limited by the pieces of archaeological data they find. With any archaeological site, there are many knowledge gaps and a lot of conjecture. To compare archaeological data to pieces of a jigsaw puzzle seems to be a good analogy. An archaeologist might have three puzzle pieces from one corner of the site and four pieces from another corner, but they never have a complete picture. Surface artifact hunters like myself are even more limited since the artifacts we find are out of archaeological context. By using various scientific disciplines and the best "Sherlock Holmes" imitations, archaeologists and artifact hunters piece together clues from the incomplete story called Paleoindian prehistory.

My latest book. Search BEYOND the CAMPFIRE by 
John Bradford Branney on Amazon.   

While bone, fabric, and flesh deteriorate in the elements, stone projectile points hold their own, somewhat. We are guilty of using projectile point type as the be-all-to-end-all for identifying and differentiating between Paleoindian cultures or complexes. But what if Paleoindians used more than one projectile point type at the same time and at the same place? That throws a wrench in the orderly sequence of projectile points we all know and love.            

Ruthanne Knudson (2017) wrote it best with her explanation of Paleoindian projectile point typology;  

"Perhaps, the typological labeling of points has resulted in

artificial confusion of “different” complexes when indeed

people living together made differently designed

points at the same time.”        

Bravo! That is worth reading several times. It is amazing how a single sentence can explain and reinforce my belief on the subject of Paleoindian projectile points. Based on current evidence, who can say that there weren’t a few innovative Paleoindians who made Clovis and Goshen-like projectile points at the same time, or that Paleoindians were not experimenting with Folsom fluting at the same time they were making Goshen points. In fact, I have a few Paleoindian points that could be called Midland or Goshen because of the shared attributes. Projectile points are an excellent 'broad brush' technique for identifying Paleoindian cultures or complexes, but we must be wary not to let the 'tail wag the dog'. Based on our current understanding, we know that from the Clovis Complex to the Cody Complex, large mammal procurement was the main survival economy of Paleoindians, only the style of projectile points and some of the prey changed over time. As more pieces of the Paleoindian puzzle are found, we will fill in more of the cover on the Paleoindian puzzle box.  

 

Figure Three - Paleoindians probably spent most of their time trying to survive.

They would probably wonder why 'we' spend so much time and effort 

studying their stone projectile points.  

Knudson, Ruthann

2017    “The Plainview Assemblage in Context” in Plainview: The Enigmatic Paleoindian Artifact Style of the Great Plains. The University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City. 

  

CHECK OUT my WESTERN THRILLER SAND and SAGE