Who Dun It? Midland or Firstview, or…?

Who Dun It? Midland or Firstview, or…?

By John Bradford Branney

 

Figure 1. The 2.4-inch-long ‘point in question’ for this exercise

in projectile point typology. Red dots indicate hafting-area grinding.

“Paleoindian components are traditionally seen as distinct cultural complexes, separated in time and space, and characterized by a single type or style of projectile point.” (Sellet 2001: 60).

I have thoroughly studied the ‘point in question’ in Figure 1. That projectile point was surface recovered in Cheyenne County, Colorado. It has attributes from the Midland projectile point type from the Early Paleoindian Period, the Firstview projectile point type from the Cody Complex, and the Milnesand projectile point type from the Middle Paleoindian Period. Even though Goshen-Plainview points can be easily confused with Midland points, I eliminated them from consideration since the ‘point in question’ lacked the characteristic basal thinning strikes which were often associated with the Goshen-Plainview projectile point type.    

Figure 2. Blunted/beveled proximal edge. 

The ‘point in question’ has straight to slightly convex lateral edges with a barely discernible squarish stem created by heavy grinding of the hafting area edges. Grinding or polishing along the proximal and hafting area edges was a common practice in Paleoindian and Early Archaic times. Collectors often use it to differentiate Paleoindian and Early Archaic projectile points from later period projectile points. The proximal edge of the point is straight and blunted/beveled with tiny pressure flakes taken from both faces, giving it a wedge-like appearance. No grinding is evident on the proximal edge. In my artifact database, I labeled the raw material as a dusky red Alibates agatized dolomite, but it could be something else entirely or just a run-of-the-mill dusky red agate. Grayish bands run vertically through the raw material but are only visible under the proper lighting. The flintknapper used well-controlled transverse parallel flaking, which terminated near the middle of the biface, forming a slight medial ridge and a lenticular cross-section.

Figure 3. Cross-section from proximal to distal end
for 'point in question'.   

Firstview. On December 8, 1957, avocational archaeologist Jerry Chubbuck discovered an exposed bone bed, a Paleoindian projectile point, and an end scraper in an eroded field along a tributary of the Big Sandy Creek in Cheyenne County, Colorado.  Chubbuck brought the site to the attention of archaeologist Joe Ben Wheat from the University of Colorado Museum. At that time, Wheat was unable to investigate the site immediately because he and his crew were committed to another project. Archaeologist H. M. Wormington of the Denver Museum of Natural History suggested that Chubbuck and Sig Olsen dig a few test pits near the exposed bonebed while they waited for Wheat to investigate. Chubbuck and Olsen’s investigation yielded a treasure trove of fifty bison skulls, two dozen projectile points or point fragments, and several stone tools.

Figure 4. Projectile points from the Chubbuck and Olsen 
investigation. Note similarities to Cody Complex.   

Examples of the projectile points that Chubbuck and Olsen found are shown in Figure 4. Chubbuck (1959: 4-10) originally classified ten of the points as Eden (4), Scottsbluff (4), and Scottsbluff Variants (2). I wholeheartedly agree with Chubbuck’s original assessment after viewing the five points in Figure 4. If I found any of those points on the ground as isolated finds and before the existence of the Firstview projectile point type, I would have classified them as either Scottsbluff or Eden.     

Figure 5. Wheat (1972: 24).

Joe Ben Wheat visited the site on April 30, 1958, and Chubbuck and Olsen relinquished their digging permit to the University of Colorado Museum. After two seasons of excavation, Wheat interpreted the Olsen-Chubbuck site as a single-event bison kill that took place around ten thousand years ago. Using spears and primitive weapons, the Paleoindian hunters trapped and killed at least 190 extinct Bison occidentalis beasts in a 170-foot-long ancient arroyo.  

The hunters drove so many bison into the arroyo that the investigators found the remains of fourteen animals at the bottom of the bonebed that had never been touched or butchered at all, and another forty-nine bison that were only partially processed for meat. After subtracting 9,000 pounds of meat that was wasted, Wheat (1972: 114) estimated that the Olsen-Chubbuck bison kill produced approximately 60,000 pounds or 30 tons of usable meat. What a haul! Figure 5 is a photograph from Wheat’s investigation of two cross sections cutting perpendicular across the long axis of the ancient arroyo.  

Forty-seven artifacts were found in the bone bed itself or around the bones already weathering on the surface of the ground. Of those artifacts, twenty-seven were either complete or partial projectile points. The projectile point count appeared light for dispatching 190 or more bison. The hunters either retrieved their weapon tips from the kill site or perhaps a lot of the bison were buried and suffocated to death in the arroyo. The dominant material for the projectile points was Knife River Chalcedony (33%) from rock quarries in modern-day North Dakota.

Wheat described the points as full-bodied and lanceolate or leaf-shaped. He noted that most of the projectile points had barely discernible stems, produced by grinding or polishing the hafting-area edges. He remarked that the proximal edges of the points were predominantly straight and wedge-shaped. Wheat reported the range of the projectile points from broad points with flat lenticular cross sections to relatively narrow points with diamond-shaped cross sections. He characterized the overall workmanship as excellent. The similarity in style and the outstanding craftsmanship of the projectile points make me wonder if one or more specialists within the tribe were responsible for making most of the projectile points.

Wheat (1967: 51) originally classified the projectile points as a mixture of Scottsbluff, Eden, and Milnesand points. Five years later, Wheat (1972: 140) revised his opinion and recognized most of the projectile points as a new type he called Firstview, after a nearby town. Wheat believed that a few of the projectile points were from the San Jon point type, named after a single square-based point found associated with Scottsbluff points at the San Jon Site in New Mexico (Roberts 1942). Wheat (1972: 143) commented that if that single square-based San Jon point had been found on the central or northern plains, it would have been called an Eden point. The need for a San Jon projectile point type is openly debated in both academic and artifact-collecting circles.

 

Figure 6. Keith Glasscock, in October 1953, pointing 
where he discovered fossilized human remains.
 (Photo courtesy of TARL Archives). 

Midland.  In 1953, Keith Glasscock, an avocational archaeologist from Pampa, Texas, discovered fossilized human remains in a sand blowout six miles southwest of Midland, Texas. Glasscock also found several fluted Folsom projectile points and an unfluted Folsom-like projectile point.  Understanding the significance of his discovery, he reported his find to archaeologist Fred Wendorf. Glasscock, Wendorf, and others investigated the site and found seven more fluted Folsom projectile points and twenty-one unfluted Folsom-like projectile points. 

Wendorf and his colleagues named the site Scharbauer after the landowner and used the term "unfluted Folsom point" to describe the projectile points found with the fluted Folsom points. The investigators studied the similarities and differences between the two styles of projectile points. They compared the raw material sources for the two projectile point types. The materials were similar and easily fluted, so stone was not the conditioning factor for fluting versus non-fluting. They questioned whether the two styles of projectile point were even contemporaneous. The investigators concluded that the unfluted Folsom points were made on purpose and that they were more than just fluted Folsom point rejects. At first, Wendorf and fellow investigator Kreiger were reluctant to give the unfluted Folsom points a formal status as a type, but in a forthcoming report, they designated them Midland points, after the nearby town.

 

Figure 7. Midland projectile points from the Sharbauer 
Site (Photo courtesy of TARL Archive). 

Figure 7 is a photograph of typical Midland projectile points from the Scharbauer Site near Midland, Texas. Oilfield pipe welder and discoverer of the site, Keith Glasscock, found the Midland point on the bottom row, second from right, within three to four feet of the exposed human bones. (Wendorf et al. 1955: 44-45).  

Figure 8. The 'point in question' is hiding
out with Midland points.

Greg Perino (1985: 253) described Midland points as small, flat points resembling Folsom points but with less basal indentation, and in some cases, straight bases. Bruce Bradley (2010: 474-475) expanded on the definition by stating that Midland points had wide, but relatively flat flake scars and very flat cross sections. He stated that Midland flintknappers used finely controlled percussion flaking to shape the points, but finished with non-invasive, abrupt, marginal retouch, which narrowed the points and eliminated negative bulbs and thinning flakes. Figure 8 shows the ‘point in question’ (second from the left) in a line-up with Midland points from the author’s surface-found collection. The ‘point in question’ looks right at home, doesn’t it? Do you see similarities? Differences?    

Milnesand. Joe Ben Wheat originally suggested that Milnesand points were one of three projectile point types discovered at the Olsen-Chubbuck Bison Kill, so I felt it appropriate to mention them here. E. H. Sellards (1955) investigated a bison kill northeast of Milnesand, New Mexico, where eleven projectile points were found in a bone bed, and another twelve projectile points were found on the surface of the ground. Sellards assigned the name Milnesand to some of the points. H. W. Wormington (1957: 112) described the projectile points, “They are characterized by transverse parallel flaking, but some have a fairly pronounced median ridge. They somewhat resemble Plainview points, but the bases are square, and thinning was accomplished through the removal of more and smaller flakes in such a manner as to produce a bevel. Basal grinding is present on all specimens and often extends one-half or more of the length of the point.”

Figure 9. Drawings of Milnesand points
from Perino (1985: 255).   

Wormington noted that little was known about the age or distribution of Milnesand points, but cited possible examples in Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and even Alaska. Whether Wormington believed those projectile points were a distinct projectile point type called Milnesand or a variety of Cody Complex or Plainview projectile points, we will never know for sure.

Does the Milnesand projectile point have enough variation in shape and features to be considered a different projectile point type? The ‘point in question’ does have transverse parallel flaking, and it does have a square and blunted/beveled base, but those attributes also fit the Firstview and Midland type descriptions. Perino (1985: 255) suggested that Milnesand points shared similar characteristics with Plainview and Agate Basin points. Buchanan et al. (2017: 274-275) noted that Milnesand points were pretty much a single-site occurrence and that the points did not have enough variation in geometric morphometrics from Plainview points to warrant a different projectile point type. Knudson (2017: 56) suggested that the Milnesand type be retained but only as a variety of Plainview points.   

Milnesand never caught on in archaeological or artifact-collecting circles. I grew up knowing very little about the Milnesand projectile point type, and even today, Milnesand is barely mentioned, if at all, in books about High Plains archaeology. Based on what I have read and seen, Milnesand is one of those projectile point types that might better fit into a more widely accepted projectile point type, such as Plainview.

Final Reflections

Projectile point typology is not always a clear-cut task. In many cases, the features on a projectile point are so well defined that identifying the type is a ‘no-brainer’. In other cases, the projectile point has common features with more than one projectile point type. That makes identification more difficult and sometimes even impossible. The ‘point in question’ has common characteristics with at least two projectile point types.  

Over time, I have waffled back and forth between the Firstview and Midland projectile point types for the ‘point in question’. I eventually settled on cataloging the point as a Firstview point from the Cody Complex in the Middle Paleoindian Period. I made that decision based on the barely discernible Cody-like stem that the flintknapper created by grinding in the hafting area. Other evidence included its squarish base and the transverse parallel flaking. Could it be a Midland point? Absolutely. A Milnesand? Perhaps. We will never know for sure, but quite frankly, it does not matter. All three types occurred during the Paleoindian period and were used by humans with very similar lifestyles.    

Comparisons of artifact types can, and will, demonstrate morphological differences, not necessarily cultural ones.

(Sellet 2001: 61)

 

References Cited

Bradley, Bruce A.

2010   Paleoindian Flaked Stone Technology on the Plains and in the Rockies. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the High Plains and Rockies. Left Coast Press. Walnut Creek.

Buchanan, Briggs, Michael J. O’Brien, and Mark Collard

2017  A Geometric Morphometrics-Based Assessment of Point Types on the Southern Plains during Plainview Times. In Plainview – The Enigmatic Paleoindian Artifact Style of the Great Plains. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake.    

Chubbuck, Jerry

1959  The Discovery and exploration of the Olsen-Chubbuck Site (CH-3). In Southwestern Lore 25.  

Knudson, Ruthann

2017  The Plainview Assemblage in Context. In Plainview – The Enigmatic Paleoindian Artifact Style of the Great Plains. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake.    

Perino, Gregory

1985  Selected Preforms, Points, and Knives of the North American Indians -Volume 1.

Roberts, Frank H. H., Jr.

1942  Archaeological and Geological Investigations in the San Jon District, Eastern New Mexico. In Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol 103, No. 4.

Sellards, E. H.

1955  Fossil Bone and Associated Artifacts from Milnesand, New Mexico. In American Antiquity, Vol. XX, No. 4, pp. 336-344.    

Sellet, Frédéric

2001  A Changing Perspective on Paleoindian Chronology and Typology: A View from the Northwestern Plains. In Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 48-63.

Wheat, Joe Ben

1967  A Paleoindian Bison Kill. Scientific American 216: 44-52.

1972  The Olsen-Chubbuck Site – A Paleo-Indian Bison Kill.  In American Antiquity, Volume 37, Number 1, Part 2.  

Wendorf, Fred, Alex D. Krieger, and Claude C. Albritton

1955  The Midland Discovery. Greenwood Press. Westport.

Wormington, H. M.

1957  Ancient Man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History, Popular Series No. 4.      

About the Author

 

John Bradford Branney is the author of the historical fiction series, the SHADOWS on the TRAIL Hexalogy, adventures that took place on the High Plains around 12,600 years ago. Life was difficult for my Paleoindian characters. Every day was a toss-up between surviving and dying. The characters face all the social and physical struggles of being human, plus unpredictable acts of nature, mega predators high up the food chain, adversarial enemies, and the constant search for the next meal. Join me and my characters on an odyssey you will never forget.