 |
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
No comments:
Post a Comment