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 category, such as Plainview.

Final Reflections

As you can see from this and other articles, projectile point typology is not a clear-cut science. In fact, it can be more art than science. In most cases, the attributes of a Paleoindian projectile point are so well represented that identifying the type is a ‘no-brainer’; in other cases, the point has common features from more than one type. That makes classifying difficult, if not impossible. The ‘point in question’ has common attributes from at least two projectile point types. 

Wheat (1972: 140-152) did not decide haphazardly to create a new projectile point type called Firstview. He realized that Paleoindians were not working from blueprints and that the templates they were using to make projectile points were much less rigorous than our own. He recognized that before creating a new projectile type, he needed to objectively review the similarities and differences between different projectile point types using raw material sources, flintknapper skill levels, geographic distributions, and relative ages. Wheat carefully analyzed Scottsbluff, Eden, San Jon, and Milnesand points from different sites and compared them with the Olsen-Chubbuck points. Eventually, he concluded that a new projectile point type was in order. His analytical approach to ensuring the correct decision cannot be questioned.  

There was only a single radiocarbon date available at the Olsen-Chubbuck Site, and it was obtained from bone collagen: 10,150 ± 500 B.P. (Holliday et al. 1998: 448). However, the investigators wrote that they were uncomfortable with that uncalibrated radiocarbon age because bone was difficult to date, and it was a lone sample with a very large standard deviation. The same investigators reported Firstview at other southern plains sites and established an uncalibrated radiocarbon age between 9400-8300 B.P, still within the range of younger Cody Complex sites but very young for both Milnesand and Midland.    

I do not believe that a Firstview projectile point type was necessary. In my opinion, the projectile point attributes from the Olsen-Chubbuck Site were well within the morphological and temporal range of Scottsbluff and Eden types. Of course, the Olsen-Chubbuck points were slightly different than other Scottsbluff and Eden points found elsewhere, but morphologically they were in the same ballpark. It is my contention that there is a high probability that one or two individuals involved in the bison kill made most of the Olsen-Chubbuck projectile points. That would explain the consistency in form, the impressive flintknapping ability, and the small features that differentiated Olsen-Chubbuck points from Cody Complex points found at other sites. For example, I would be hard pressed to find any significant differences between the Olsen-Chubbuck projectile points and the Scottsbluff and Eden points found at the Horner Site, the type site for the Cody Cultural Complex (Bradley and Frison 1987: 199-231).

After waffling back and forth for several years on whether the ‘point in question’ was Cody Complex or Midland, I settled on documenting it in my artifact database as a Firstview point from the Cody Complex in the Middle Paleoindian Period. I did that even though I made the case for not needing a Firstview projectile point type in the last paragraph. Hypocritical, I know, but since we have a Firstview projectile point type, it might as well be used. I made my 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, does it really matter? Paleoindians living very similar lifestyles made what we call Firstview, Midland, and Milnesand points, and they would probably never believe that ten thousand years later, we would be scrutinizing and cubby holing their tools and weapons into different categories.      

 

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.

Bradley, Bruce A., and George C. Frison

1987  Projectile Points and Specialized Bifaces from the Horner Site. In The Horner Site – The Type Site of the Cody Cultural Complex. Academic Press. New York.    

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.  

Holliday, Vance A., Eileen Johnson, and Thomas W. Stafford Jr.

1998    AMS Radiocarbon Dating of the Type Plainview and Firstview (Paleoindian) Assemblages: The Agony and the Ecstasy. In American Antiquity, 64(3), 1999, pp. 44 41454.

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.

The Goshen-Plainview Dilemma

Figure One - A Plainview point on the left was surface recovered in Deaf Smith County, Texas.
A Goshen point on the right was surface recovered in Weld County, Colorado.
John Bradford Branney Collection. 

Can you tell the difference between the two prehistoric projectile points in figure one? Quite frankly, I cannot see much of a difference besides the different materials used by the Paleoindians who made them. That is about it! Technologically and morphologically those two projectile points are identical. 

The projectile point on the left side in figure one was surface rescued from private land in Deaf Smith County, Texas. Its Paleoindian flintknapper used Alibates agatized dolomite from the Panhandle of Texas to make that point. I call that projectile point type: Plainview. 

The 2.3-inch-long projectile point on the right side in figure one was a surface recovery from private land in Weld County, Colorado. Its Paleoindian flintknapper used a grayish orange petrified wood to make that projectile point. I call that projectile point type: Goshen.

Hmm...Same style and technology for those two projectile points...Why do two identical projectile points carry different projectile point type names?

Let me explain the backstory behind those two projectile point types, and then I will explain what is happening to sort out the Goshen-Plainview dilemma.  

Figure Two - CLICK for Book INFORMATION

During the summer of 1941, two young cousins named Val Keene Whitacre and Bill Weaks dug into a soft caliche embankment along Running Water Draw near Plainview, Texas. What the two boys discovered advanced our understanding of human prehistory in North America. Whitacre made the critical discovery, finding a long, stone spear point with one end still embedded in thick, fossilized bone. When the boy picked up the bone and artifact, the bone crumbled apart. 

In 1944, two geologists Glen L. Evans and Grayson E. Meade dug into that same caliche bank and found an incredible discovery — a bone bed filled with skeletons and partial skeletons of approximately 100 extinct bison. The two geologists also found stone projectile points, knives, and scrapers associated with the bone bed.

Texas Memorial Museum and the University of Texas's Bureau of Economic Geology continued excavations at the site from June to October 1945 and in November 1949.

Figure Three - Known geographical distribution for Goshen,
Goshen-Plainview, and Folsom points. 

Even though collectors were finding similar styled projectile points of that distinctive type from Canada to Mexico (figure three), the discovery at Plainview, Texas marked the first time anyone found that projectile point type in direct association with fossilized remains of extinct animals. Archaeologists named that point type Plainview after the nearby town. Archaeological and geologic evidence determined that the Plainview projectile point was younger than another famous projectile point type recently discovered in New Mexico called Folsom. Archaeologists originally dated Plainview projectile points at around 10,000 years old.

Figure Four - Montana's Mill Iron Site Goshen projectile points,
practically indistinguishable from Texas's Plainview projectile points,
but over a thousand years older.   

In mid-August of 1966 at the Hell Gap site in Goshen County, Wyoming, archaeologists were ready to conclude their investigation when they discovered a cultural zone below the Folsom level, indicating that the new cultural zone was older than Folsom. A sterile layer of dirt separated the two cultural zones. At first, the archaeologists declared that the first complete projectile point in that new cultural zone was an atypical Folsom projectile point. The archaeologists then proposed that the new projectile point could be a Clovis projectile point but they quickly dismissed that idea. In his study of that projectile point, principal archaeologist Henry Irwin noted the similarities between the newly discovered projectile point at Hell Gap and the Plainview points previously found in Texas. However, Irwin and his associates encountered a dilemma in naming the newly discovered projectile point after the Plainview points in Texas. 

What was the dilemma?   

Plainview points in Texas were found above Folsom points in the geologic column at the Plainview site. Using the geological law of superposition meant Plainview projectile points were younger than Folsom projectile points. However, at the Hell Gap site in Wyoming, that new Plainview lookalike projectile point was discovered below Folsom projectile points making the Plainview lookalike projectile point older than Folsom projectile points. 

In a nutshell, the geological law of superposition states that in any sequence of sedimentary strata not overturned, the youngest stratum is at the top and the oldest stratum is at the base, in other words, each bed is younger than the one beneath it.      

The dilemma was that the projectile points from the Plainview and Hell Gap Sites were morphologically and technologically the same type, but the Plainview projectile points in Texas were younger than Folsom projectile points while at the Hell Gap Site, the Plainview lookalike point was older than Folsom. Therefore, based on that "age discrepancy", Henry Irwin reluctantly proposed a new projectile point type called Goshen, after the county where the Hell Gap site was located.  

Investigators confirmed the time gap between Goshen on the northern High Plains and Plainview along the Panhandle of Texas in the 1980s at the Mill Iron Site in Montana (Figure Four). George Frison (1996) realized there was not much difference between the points they discovered at Mill Iron and the Plainview points in Texas, except of course their ages. He addressed the situation by integrating the two projectile point types into one projectile point technology called Goshen-Plainview.  

How is that discrepancy in age explained? My gut feeling is that Goshen-Plainview technology overlapped with Folsom technology both temporally and geographically. The data at Hell Gap and the Plainview sites reflected two separate incidents for the presence of Goshen-Plainview, one incident in which it was older than the  Folsom occupation (Hell Gap) and one incident in which it was younger than the Folsom occupation (Plainview), but in both incidents, the occupants used Goshen-Plainview technology.  



CLICK for INFO on John BRADFORD Branney Books 


Postscript 

Since I originally wrote that article many years ago, much work has occurred to unravel the age discrepancies between Goshen and Plainview. Waters and Stafford (2014) redated the Goshen strata at the Mill Iron site in Montana and compared it to strata at other high plains Goshen sites such as Jim Pitts and Upper Twin Mountain. They found that Mill Iron showed the oldest age for Goshen while Jim Pitts showed the youngest age. They concluded from the data that Goshen's age range was approximately 12,500 cal BP to 11,800 cal BP. Based on that evidence, Waters and Stafford suggested that Goshen technology emerged sometime after the introduction of Folsom technology and continued into post-Folsom times. That was a big revelation at the time since most people believed that Goshen was older than Folsom based on the stratigraphic evidence from the Hell Gap site and the original dating at the Mill Iron sites.    

Dating the original Plainview site in Texas was always problematic. Buchanan, Collard, and O'Brien (2017) reported that archaeologists sampled four other Plainview sites in Texas: Bonfire Shelter, Lubbock Lake, Lake Theo, and Williamson-Plainview. The archaeologists came up with a minimum age range of between 12,100 cal BP and 11,300 cal BP for Plainview. Based on that data, it appeared that Goshen technology was older to the north, and spread to the south where it became what we call Plainview. Based on those two studies, it seemed that Goshen and Plainview overlapped in the north and south for approximately three hundred years and that Plainview carried on in the south after Goshen disappeared in the north.       

Goshen and Plainview were now in similar time horizons with the technology spreading geographically from north to south. Since investigators recognized the Plainview projectile point type first, perhaps we should abandon the Goshen projectile point type and roll those projectile points and Goshen sites under the Plainview umbrella. 

2017      Buchanan, Briggs; Collard, Mark; and O'Brien, Michael J., 

              "Geometric Morphometric Analyses Support Incorporating the Goshen Point 

             Type into Plainview" in Plainview, edited by Holliday, Johnson, and Knudson.                        History Faculty Publications. 27. 

1996      Frison, George C. 

              The Mill Iron Site. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque.           

2014    Waters, Michael R., and Thomas W. Stafford Jr. 

            "Redating the Mill Iron Site in Montana: A Reexamination of Goshen Complex                     Chronology" in American Antiquity 79 (3), pages 541-548. 

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 Hexalogy.

John Bradford Branney holds a geology degree from the University of Wyoming and an MBA from the University of Colorado. Branney lives in the Colorado mountains with his wife, Theresa. Beyond the Campfire is the thirteenth book published by Branney.