Jimmy Allen or Frederick Point? Too Close for Comfort

 

Jimmy Allen or Frederick? Too Close for Comfort

by John Bradford Branney

Figure 1 -  High Plains Jimmy Allen and/or Frederick projectile points. Which is which?

The longest point is 3.25 inches long. John Bradford Branney Collection.   

After the projectile points of the Cody Complex came and went in the archaeological record, an abrupt change took place in projectile point technology on the High Plains. The stemmed projectile points with transverse pressure flaking of the Cody Complex disappeared from the archaeological record and a series of lanceolate-shaped projectile points with parallel-oblique flaking appeared. Instead of stemmed Alberta, Scottsbluff, and Eden points from the Cody Complex, the new projectile point style was indented with concave bases and parallel oblique flaking on many. Why the change from stems to indented bases? It might have been that indented bases worked better with the hafting method at the time, or it might be as simple as human preferences shifted. The indented base probably fit as "snug as a bug in a rug" in the hafting elements of the spear or dart weaponry. Paleoindians used what worked. After all, this was not the first time that indented base technology showed up in archaeological records with Clovis, Goshen, Folsom, and Midland as examples. 

Within this Late Paleoindian timeframe, archaeologists have identified and named a plethora of different indented base projectile point types on the High Plains such as Jimmy Allen, Frederick, Andersen, Angostura, Lusk, and others. 

Figure 4 - 1.7 inch long surface found Jimmy Allen point from eastern Colorado. I already hear some of you screaming 

Dalton! Dalton! Dalton! 

John Bradford Branney Collection. 

The variations in Late Paleoindian indented projectile point types added even more confusion to projectile point typology. If anyone tries to convince you that they have Late Paleoindian projectile point typology down pat, they are either a point-type genius (which is a blessed few) or they are pulling your leg. We find similarities in the different projectile point types such as Jimmy Allen, Frederick, Andersen, Angostura, and Lusk, and we find differences (some so subtle they hardly deserve mention). Were the differences seen by different points driven by other factors such as workmanship, quality, style, knapping skill, and/or raw material?    

Figure Four - A surface found knife form from Wyoming.
It is 2.6 inches long with indented base, polished lower
edges and base, and parallel oblique flaking.
Jeb Taylor identified this as a Frederick point.
John Bradford Branney Collection. 

Archaeologist and flintknapping expert Bruce Bradley (Larson et al 2009:271) explained Late Paleoindian projectile point typology this way; After the Cody Complex, there was a technological horizon on the High Plains incorporating the same basic flintknapping technology, but with slightly different styles of projectile points and knife forms. He included the following projectile point types in his analysis; Jimmy Allen, Frederick, Lusk, Brown's Valley, and Angostura. He noted that each type used the same flintknapping process from bifacial percussion reduction through pressure thinning through a final product of projectile points and knife forms. He also noted that oftentimes these different projectile point types exhibited similarity with their parallel oblique flaking.  

The two projectile points in figures three and four are both Late Paleoindian from the High Plains. Other collectors who have seen them have called them Jimmy Allen or Frederick, or even a mid-continent projectile point type called Dalton. What do I call them? Wait and see.         

Figure 5 - University of 
Wyoming anthropologist
William Mulloy. 

In the late 1940s, an adept amateur archaeologist by the name of Jimmy Allen discovered a Paleoindian bison kill site in the Laramie Basin of Wyoming. In 1959, University of Wyoming anthropologist William Mulloy (Figure 5) and associates excavated what he later named the James Allen site. Investigators recovered thirty fragmentary projectile points, all of which had similar characteristics. The projectile points were unnotched and lanceolate-shaped with indented (concave) bases and rounded corners. Dr. Mulloy named the new projectile point Jimmy Allen after the discoverer of the site.   

In Jeb Taylor's Projectile Points of the High Plains (2006), the author described Jimmy Allen points as lanceolate-shaped with carefully executed diagonal flaking and a pronounced basal concavity. In Greg Perino's Selected Preforms, Points, and Knives of the North American Indians (1985), he described Jimmy Allen points by their side and basal edge grinding, diagonal flaking, basal thinning, and rounded basal corners. Both authors appear to be singing from the same sheet of music when it comes to the description of Jimmy Allen points.    

One important point that I want to make before proceeding is that NOT all Jimmy Allen points have diagonal or parallel oblique flaking and NOT all diagonal or parallel oblique flaked projectile points are Jimmy Allen points! 

Figure 6 - Cynthia Irwin-
Williams. 

Cynthia Irwin–Williams (Figure 6) and her brother Henry Irwin discovered what they thought was a new projectile point type at the Harvard University excavations of the Hell Gap site in east-central Wyoming in the 1960s. They named the new point type, Frederick, after the site's landowner. Investigators unearthed twenty-four examples of the so-called Frederick points. Both Cynthia Irwin-Williams (1973) and Henry Irwin recognized the similarities between their newly named Frederick points and Mulloy's Jimmy Allen points. According to Henry Irwin, he believed that Frederick points had a greater degree of basal concavity and a different width to length ratio than Jimmy Allen points (Byrnes 2009:218). Therefore, the label Frederick stuck for the points found at the Hell Gap site.      

In his book, Jeb Taylor described Frederick points with the same diagonal flaking as Jimmy Allen points but stated that Frederick points were thicker with straighter bases. Taylor's 'straighter base' comment appears to contradict Henry Irwin's comment in the previous paragraph. Irwin stated that Frederick points had a greater degree of basal concavity while Taylor wrote Frederick points had straighter bases than Jimmy Allen points. It cannot be both ways. 

Based on Jeb Taylor's study of the original projectile points from both the James Allen and Hell Gap sites, he believed that there were enough differences between Jimmy Allen and Frederick to warrant two separate projectile point types. Taylor also mentioned in his book that he had a personal conversation with George Frison who told him that before Cynthia Irwin-Williams died, she admitted to Frison that Frederick was most likely the same point type as Jimmy Allen. 

I have not studied 'in hand' the original points from the James Allen and Hell Gap sites, but I have handled enough parallel oblique flaked, indented base Late Paleoindian points to believe that Jimmy Allen and Frederick points are the same point type.  

It appears that Jimmy Allen at the James Allen site and Frederick at Hell Gap overlapped in time, providing a little more evidence for their possible relationship. Irwin-Williams et al (1973) determined that the duration of Frederick at Hell Gap lasted from approximately 8,400 to 8,000 years BP while recent dating techniques at the James Allen bison kill site placed the event sometime around 8,405 years BP (Knudson and Kornfeld 2007).  

To summarize, it is my opinion that Jimmy Allen and Frederick points are the same point type, and as my father used to put it, "That's close enough for government work!"  

REFERENCES CITED  

Byrnes, Allison

2009    Frederick Component at Locality I in  Hell Gap: A Stratified Paleoindian Campsite at the Edge of the Rockies by Mary Lou Larson, Marcel Kornfeld, and George C. Frison.  University of Utah. 

Irwin-Williams, Cynthia, Henry T. Irwin, George Agogino, and C Vance Haynes
1973    Hell Gap: Paleo-Indian occupation on the High Plains. Plains Anthropologist  18(59):40-53.     

Knudson, Ruth Ann, and Marcel Kornfeld  
2007    A New Date for the James Allen Site, Laramie Basin, Wyoming. Current Research in the Pleistocene 24:112-114.  

Larson, Mary Lou, Marcel Kornfeld, and George C. Frison

2009    Hell Gap: A Stratified Paleoindian Campsite at the Edge of the Rockies. University of Utah.        

Perino, Gregory
1985    Selected Preforms, Points, and Knives of the North American Indians, Volume I.  Points and Barbs Press, Idabel, Okla.  

Taylor, Jeb
2006   Projectile points of the High Plains. Sheridan Books, Chelsea, MI.     

Check out my prehistoric book series the SHADOWS 

ON THE TRAIL Pentalogy at the 'link' below. 

CLICK for JOHN BRADFORD BRANNEY BOOKS

      

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.