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

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.

Prehistoric Burins and the SHADOWS on the TRAIL Pentalogy

Figure One. Scottsbluff knife form from Wilson County, Texas. The most interesting feature 
of this, 10,000 years plus beauty, is its burinated tip.
John Bradford Branney Collection.  

A prehistoric burin is a specialized, chisel-like stone tool created by driving a flake or flakes off the edge of another flake, biface, or blade to produce a ninety-degree edge for working hard substances such as ivory, antler, and bone. The sharp corners created by the burin were so useful that prehistoric knappers deliberately made them. The removed edge fragment is called a burin spall.

In the knapping process called burination, a small, relatively thick flake is removed from a flake, blade, or biface using a snapped termination or previous burination scar as the knapping platform. Burination can also be used to remove a sharp edge for the safe handholding of a knife form. Burination was extremely common in the “Old World” Paleolithic of Europe, Siberia, and Beringia. Paleoindians in North America also made and used burins. For some reason, it appears that the Clovis culture only used burination in rare instances, but it became quite popular during Folsom and Cody Complex times. Most of my stone tools with burins came from my Folsom and Cody Complex sites.

Figure Two. Burin tip (B) of the Scottsbluff knife form
photographed in figure one. The 'stop notch' (N) ensured
that the burin flake did not travel too far down the edge of
the biface or into the body of the biface. 

Figure one is a photograph of a 3.7 inch long Scottsbluff knife form, made from Edwards Chert and found on private land in Wilson County, Texas. This artifact is Early Archaic with an approximate age of 10,000 years. The knife form had two or three resharpenings that have reduced its overall length, but the most interesting feature of this Scottsbluff knife form is its tip (figure two). The tip of the knife form at some time was pressure flaked into a burin tip (an engraver) and was re-tipped two more times. Burination strengthened the tip of the Scottsbluff knife form exponentially, keeping the edge from crushing and failing while engraving hard objects.

Most burins and burin spalls are unspectacular features. Most people do not even recognize them. Caution has to be applied when differentiating an impact fracture from a burin. Not every missing sliver off an artifact is a burin! Finding impact fractures on an artifact is far more common. Usually, after I post artifacts with burins, I receive a rush of requests to look at people's artifacts who think they might have burins. Identifying burins from photographs is difficult at best. It is best to have the artifact in hand so that you can feel the edges for use wear and examine the artifact. All of my artifacts that I claim to have burins have gone through thorough examination and scrutiny.       

Figure Three. My heart was pounding!

Figure three is an in situ photograph of a Scottsbluff (Cody Complex) point half-buried in the sandy creek bottom at my SHADOWS on the TRAIL site in northern Colorado. The day was August 23, 2008, when I spotted this Scottsbluff point lying in the sand. It took my breath away and my heart pitter-pattered. It was obvious what it was, but the tip was buried. The square base and the flaking pattern were definitely Cody Complex. After a somewhat extended photoshoot, I pulled the Scottsbluff point out of its sandy grave. My heart sank when I saw that an impact fracture had taken off the tip of the point.   

Figure Four. Scottsbluff point with a blunted tip.  

I yelled out the PG-13 version of "DRAT!". Quite frankly, even though I had found a tremendous artifact I was disappointed because of the broken tip. My first reaction was that this beautiful 2.8 inch-long Scottsbluff point ended its useful life by hitting bone or rock and fracturing its tip. I pocketed my find and went back to hunting for the rest of the day. It wasn't until I got home later that night and had a chance to study the point that I realized that the original Scottsbluff point was probably decommissioned because of an impact fracture and the creative Cody Complex knapper recommissioned the point into a stone tool by intentionally creating a double-sided burin for use in scraping wood and hides (figure five).

Figure Five. Twin burin edges with a chisel tip. 

My interpretation of the history of this Scottsbluff point goes something like this; The maker of this Scottsbluff point used a dendritic jasper as the raw material. The dendritic jasper looks like some of what I find on the Hartville Uplift of Wyoming. The finished projectile point at some stage suffered damage to its tip. Instead of repairing the projectile point, the Cody Complex knapper refurbished the broken point into a knife form with double burins. He or she removed burin spalls on both sides of the impact fracture (figures five and six). Then the innovative knapper created a chisel-like edge on the rounded tip. He or she could have used this Scottsbluff knife form as a burin, knife, scraper, and chisel for use on meat, bone, wood, and hides.

Figure Six. Chisel tip is well polished.  

The raw material at the tip of this Scottsbluff knife form has a different color and texture than the rest of the artifact. I attribute this to polish or use-wear from the way its owner used it.  There is evidence that the  owner might have re-tipped or repaired the chisel and burins once or twice since that area of the knife form has a different flaking pattern than the rest of the biface.          

Another important feature about burins when found in Paleoindian contexts, they seldom show use wear on the edge near where the burin spall detached in front of the striking platform. Instead, use-wear is usually found on the edge adjacent to the striking platform or tip. In the case of this last Scottsbluff point, the most use wear was at or near the tip.

So, there you have it. A couple of Cody Complex burin examples. You will have to read the SHADOWS ON THE TRAIL Pentalogy to see how the Folsom Complex used burins. All the information needed to order your copies of my book series is below. 

Don't miss out on a prehistoric adventure you will never forget!  

  Click to Order

Click to Order