Unwinding a Twister - Goshen-Plainview and Midland

Unwinding a Twister – Goshen-Plainview and Midland

by John Bradford Branney

Figure One – A handful of Goshen, Plainview, Midland, and Folsom points from my collection. These were surface found in Kansas (1), Texas (1), and Colorado (3). Can you guess which is which?

Figure one shows a photograph of five projectile points from my collection. These points were all surface finds, recovered out of archaeological and geological context. I have classified these points as Paleoindian-made based on my experience at projectile point identification. I determined that there are probably four projectile point types in this batch of five. The objective for this photograph is to show readers how difficult and subtle it is to categorize projectile points that have many of the same features.

Originally, archaeologists interpreted the sequence of Goshen to Folsom to Midland to Plainview as more or less a serial transition, moving from one projectile point type to the next while the culture and lifestyle of the people making the projectile points remained much the same. Radiocarbon dating on old and new archaeological sites challenges the original interpretation of that serial transition.

In my article, Goshen-Plainview Dilemma (Branney 2017), I explored the relationship between the Goshen Complex on the northern plains to the Plainview Complex on the southern plains. In that article, I recounted how several investigators believe that Goshen and Plainview projectile points are morphologically and technologically the same projectile point type. Figure two shows Goshen, Plainview, and Midland points from the Mill Iron site of Montana and the Plainview site of Texas. I challenge readers to identify each point type without peeking at the caption describing the photograph. It is difficult to see much difference between the projectile points even though the photograph represents three projectile point types!

Figure Two – Goshen, Plainview, and Midland projectile points. Can you tell the difference without reading the above caption? The photograph was taken from The Mill Iron Site (Frison 1996)  

The concern that kept Goshen and Plainview separated into two projectile point types for decades wasn’t their morphology or technology, it was their age relative to the Folsom Complex. At the Hell Gap site in Wyoming, investigators found that Goshen was older than Folsom while earlier investigators at the Plainview site in Texas found that Plainview was younger than Folsom. Therefore, the investigators at Hell Gap concluded that they must have a different projectile point type (Frison 1996: p. 1-2)! In my article, I covered how recent scientific work was unraveling the age discrepancies between Goshen on the northern plains and Plainview on the southern plains. It appears that the Goshen-Plainview technology overlapped in time with Folsom technology and that Goshen-Plainview technology can be both younger and older than Folsom (Waters et al. 2014).

Based on the radiocarbon dating and analysis of projectile points at several Goshen and Plainview sites, investigators proposed that Goshen on the northern plains was technologically the same thing as Plainview on the southern plains. They proposed that Goshen-Plainview technology began in the north as Goshen and eventually migrated to the south where earlier archaeologists dubbed the technology, Plainview (Waters et al. 2020; Holliday et al. 2017). Another way of putting that theory is that it appears that Plainview projectile point technology was the southern extension of Goshen projectile point technology to the north.

In my article, I suggested that it was unnecessary to have both projectile point types, i.e., Goshen and Plainview, for what seems to be the same technology. Since investigators ‘christened’ Plainview before Goshen, there was now ample evidence to drop the Goshen name. However, since my words are not gospel by any stretch of anyone’s imagination, I will refer to the lithic assemblages of Goshen and Plainview as the Goshen-Plainview continuum.

I will now delve into the relationship between Goshen-Plainview, Folsom, and Midland and I will then opine on whether one of these projectile point types should drop in favor of the other two. In looking at the three projectile point technologies, it is readily apparent that Folsom is unique enough to stand on its own distinguishable characteristics. For Folsom, there is no debate. However, in my opinion, there is room to debate whether we need two projectile point types for Goshen-Plainview and Midland. That question becomes even more relevant when we look at the results of radiocarbon dating which indicates that Goshen-Plainview, Folsom, and Midland overlapped in time. We already know from archaeological evidence that we find them in the same geographical space.

Figure Three – Age ranges for five high plains Paleoindian complexes.

I guide you to my hand-drawn, ‘primitive’ jotting in figure three. The chart shows some of the latest projected age ranges for five high plains Paleoindian complexes. On the far right, I cite the scientists who have proposed age ranges based on updated radiocarbon dating. I have previously documented the pros and cons of the radiocarbon dating method, so I won’t revisit that in this article (Branney 2019). In some cases, the scientists back up the radiocarbon dating with stratigraphic and geologic relationships between the Paleoindian complexes. I will leave it up to readers to research the conclusions of these papers on their own.     

The X-axis on figure three reads ‘years ago’. I scaled that axis from 13,000 to 10,000 years ago. The Y-axis shows the respective Paleoindian complex from Clovis to Midland. The bars below the name of each complex represent the proposed age range based on the work of the scientists listed on the far right. For example, Michael Waters and associates (2020) proposed in their paper that the age of Clovis was around 13,050 to 12,750 years ago while Marcel Kornfeld (2013) quoted the age range for Folsom around 12,900 to 12,200 years ago.  

The key takeaway from figure three is the generous amount of temporal overlap for the different Paleoindian complexes. That leads me to believe that there is a high probability that Paleoindians were using multiple projectile point technologies/designs at the same time and place. In this day and age with all the archaeological evidence currently available, that conclusion is not exactly earthshattering, but when I was growing up in the 1960s, books on high plains archaeology tended to lean toward Paleoindian projectile point evolution/development as more of a serial process than a parallel process. The early books I read noted that Clovis was first, then came Folsom, followed by Agate Basin, Hell Gap, Cody Complex, and others. That made for a nice, simple story that was easy to follow, even though it appears now that Paleoindian projectile point evolution was anything but simple. The transition from one type of Paleoindian projectile point overlapped with its predecessor in both time and space. My cartoon image in figure three allows readers to visualize the proposed timeline based on the cited archaeological papers and books.

You will note that in figure three I have dashed the line for Midland because scientists have yet to define the age range for Midland. Most investigators believe that Midland and Folsom were somehow related, and current archaeological evidence establishes that Midland is slightly younger or coeval with Folsom.  

Let me now delve into the technological relationship between Goshen, Plainview, Midland, and Folsom. I will begin with Midland points. An amateur archaeologist by the name of Keith Glasscock reported to archaeologists what would become the Scharbauer site in Texas, the Midland projectile point type station (Wendorf et al. 1955). Glasscock surface recovered several fluted Folsom projectile points along with a few unfluted Folsom look-alike points. Archaeologist Fred Wendorf originally called Midland points, unfluted Folsom points. It was archaeologist Marie Wormington who first coined the term Midland for those unfluted Folsom look-alike points.

The type-point that defined Midland projectile points at Scharbauer is on the left in figure four alongside a 2.8-inch-long Goshen point from my collection on the right. The Goshen was surface found in the Sand Hills of Nebraska. When it gets down to it, there is not a lot of difference between these two points. In my opinion, I could call a Midland point a Goshen-Plainview point, or a Goshen-Plainview point a Midland point without much reservation.  

Figure Four – On the left is the Midland-type point from the Scharbauer-type site near Midland, Texas. On the right is a surface recovered Goshen point from my collection, a surface recovery from Cherry County, Nebraska.

I do a lot of walking when I surface hunt for prehistoric artifacts. Since I am finding artifacts lying on the surface of the ground or eroding out of a gully or cutbank, I have to be on my game to identify the projectile point type. Most of the time that identification is easy but once in a while, it is not so easy, especially when it comes to differentiating between indented base Paleoindian points like Midland and Goshen-Plainview.

Noted archaeologist and master flintknapper Bruce Bradley (2009: p. 260) provided an analysis on the differences between Goshen-Plainview and Midland points. He stated that the flake scars on Midland points were wider and deeper than Goshen-Plainview points, and that Midland points possessed smoother surfaces than Goshen-Plainview points. Of course, that was a qualitative assessment by Bradley based on his experience since there are no established parameters to quantify adjectives such as wider and deeper and smoother.

Haynes and Hill (2017: p. 272) attempted to quantify the differences between Midland and Goshen-Plainview with computer modeling, and in my opinion, they were not successful. I doubt that Midland and Goshen-Plainview flint knappers were meeting some dimensional tolerances or using spec sheets when they were making their stone tools. A higher priority for Paleoindians than conformity in tool making was probably hunting their next meal. I have found projectile points from the same site that look like the same person made them. Flintknapping specialists within a tribe or band could have occurred. It is easy for me to imagine a good hunter bartering animal hides or meat for a few projectile points from the best flintknapper.

Bradley added that Midland points showed fine, abrupt non-invasive pressure flaking along the edges resulting in even, straight margins. In contrast to Midland, the distinguishing characteristic of Goshen-Plainview points were invasive thinning strikes originating from the base or proximal end of a projectile point. Bradley pointed out that although Midland on the southern plains might resemble Goshen-Plainview, Midland points are smaller, flatter, thinner, and narrower. Again, smaller, flatter, thinner, the narrower is not a quantifiable measurement.  

As a critique of Bradley’s analysis, Goshen-Plainview points can also be thin and have micro retouching along the edges. Study how the original investigators classified the points in figure two. One of the Midland points in the photo has invasive thinning strikes originating at the base and one of the Plainview points does not. The only criteria that I use to distinguish surface found Goshen-Plainview from Midland points is the aggressive basal thinning strikes on the Goshen-Plainview points. But (yes, I do have a but), small and flat points that I determined are Midland points might have one face with basal thinning strikes. So, never say never!

Figure Five – A few high plains Midland points from my collection. I could call one of these points Cody Complex without much argument and another one of these points I could

easily justify as a Goshen-Plainview point without a concern? Do you see why?

Bruce Bradley (2009:259-262) in his analysis of bifacial technology at the Hell Gap site in eastern Wyoming struggled with the relationship between Goshen-Folsom-Midland. The Hell Gap site is unparalleled in North America for its continuous record of Paleoindian deposits. Over the years, Bradley was involved in the Folsom-Midland debate and later in the Goshen-Plainview debate. At the Hell Gap site, Bradley was attempting to determine the cultural and technological relationship between Folsom and Midland, and Goshen and Plainview.   

Bradley moiled over tangible differences between Midland and Goshen-Plainview and could not come up with any. He analyzed eight projectile points recovered from the Midland component at Hell Gap and identified one point as Folsom, two points as Goshen, one point as unclassified, and four points as Midland.

After the analysis, Bradley concluded, “As I look back at these classifications and reevaluate them in light of my confusion over the separation of the unfluted points, I am as unsure as ever that these categories are really meaningful. Nevertheless, I maintain my original classifications for those discussions.”

There, you have it, even an expert like Bradley struggle over the veracity of splitting Goshen-Plainview from Midland, based on the flintknapping technology and the final projectile points.       

All of this seems crystal clear, doesn’t it? But like most everything else in life, it is not crystal clear. Especially when we try to differentiate Midland points from their kissing cousins, the Goshen-Plainview points. As my chart in figure three indicates, Goshen-Plainview was around the same time as Folsom and Midland. So, is there really any reason to worry about differentiating between a Goshen-Plainview point and a Midland point? Personally, I do not think so.

 

REFERENCES

2017  Blaine, Jay C., Molly Hall, and Alan Skinner

“The Saga of Winkler-1: A Midland Site in Southeast New Mexico” in PaleoAmerica. January 2017.    

2009  Bradley, Bruce A.

“Bifacial Technology and Paleoindian Projectile Points” in Hell Gap, a Stratified Paleoindian Campsite at the Edge of the Rockies. The University of Utah Press. Salt Lake.  

2017  Branney, John Bradford
          Goshen-Plainview Dilemma in Academia.

2019  Branney, John Bradford
          Radiocarbon Dating 101 – The Process in Academia.

1996   Frison, George C.
           The Mill Iron Site. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque.    

2017   Haynes, C. Vance, and Matthew E. Hill Jr.

“Plainview-Goshen-Midland Typological Problems” in Plainview – The Enigmatic Paleoindian Artifact Style of the Great Plains. The University of Utah Press. Salt Lake.    

 2017  Holliday, Vance T., Eileen Johnson, and Ruthann Knudson

Plainview – The Enigmatic Paleoindian Artifact style of the Great Plains. The University of Utah Press. Salt Lake.

 

2017  Holliday, Vance T., Eileen Johnson, and D. Shane Miller

“Stratigraphic Context and Chronology of Plainview Sites on the Southern Great Plains” in Plainview – The Enigmatic Paleoindian Artifact style of the Great Plains. The University of Utah Press. Salt Lake.

2013  Kornfeld, Marcel

The First Rocky Mountaineers – Coloradans Before Colorado. The University of Utah Press. Salk Lake.  

2014   Waters, Michael R., and Thomas W. Stafford Jr.
           “Redating the Mill Iron Site, Montana” in American Antiquity, 79(3), 2014.

2020  Waters, Michael R., Thomas W. Stafford Jr., and David L. Carlson

“The age of Clovis-13,050 to 12,750 cal yr. BP” in Science Advances, vol. 6, no. 43.     

1955  Wendorf, Fred, Alex D. Krieger, and Claude C. Albritton
          The Midland Discovery. Greenwood Press, Publishers. Westport.

 

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 readers back into Paleoindian 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. Beyond the Campfire is Branney's eleventh book.