Handbook of Alabama Archaeology: Part I Point Types.

by James W. Cambron and David C. Hulse.

PREFACE

For many years there has been a need in the Southeast for a workable system of projectile point cla.s.sification. Any number of people working in archaeology have attempted various taxonomic schemes from time to time in response to this long felt need. In the past, most of these systems of cla.s.sification have been based on certain look-alike characteristics, with an utter disregard for the cultural provenience of the objects being cla.s.sified. Archaeology has been reasonably successful in its cla.s.sification of pottery. Great progress has been made during the past three decades in unravelling the prehistory of the various ceramic cultures in our area. During this same period, however, very little has been ascertained about the several thousand years of pre-ceramic occupations of which the major cultural determinants and diagnostic traits are stone implements, chiefly projectile points of flint.

Tom and Madeline Kneberg Lewis, with the help of interested amateurs within the Tennessee Valley, took the first steps in the ordering of projectile points and other flint artifacts and made plans for the publication of a point type handbook. The retirement in 1961 of Tom and Madeline Lewis halted this project. James W. Cambron, a collaborator and chief contributor to the Lewises' proposed publication, continued his interest and undertook, with the help of David Hulse, the job of producing this handbook.

We have had the pleasure during the past of working very closely with Cambron and Hulse. We have observed how painstaking and careful they are in their evaluations and how they have often refused to place a specimen in a type if all the type attributes were not present. We have also observed in the course of field investigation that, as a result of this taxonomic system, the occurrence of certain types in certain cultural contexts could be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. In other words, this taxonomic system not only allows communication between workers by supplying names for certain cla.s.ses of artifacts, but it also enables the prehistorian to establish event which took place in time and s.p.a.ce. This, after all, is the real test of any artifact taxonomy.

In all systems of taxonomy, whether it is the naming and cla.s.sifying of cave beetles, land snails, snakes, or arrowheads, there are two schools of thought. These can be termed the "splitters" and the "lumpers," and if we might cla.s.sify ourself without splitting or lumping we would type ourself as a "lumper." However, we are thankful that the authors would be typed as "splitters," because without meticulous splitting, lumping or meaningful generalization would be impossible. This is the reason we have been tolerant of the fine divisions and the hairline cases which have often made variants of what looked like to us one and the same type. Like all such systems, this one has its limitations. We do feel, however, that it is a practical cla.s.sification system which has already demonstrated its usefulness in archaeological interpretations.

The senior author, James Cambron, began his interest in archaeology years ago. He is a native of North Carolina and made his first collections in that state. He is a printer by profession and has been connected with the Decatur Daily for over ten years. Most of his fruitful years as a "part time" archaeologist have been spent in the Tennessee Valley near Decatur, Alabama. He has contributed articles to the publications of both the Alabama Archaeological Society and the Tennessee Archaeological Society. He is recognized by both professionals and amateurs for his specialty in the cla.s.sification of flint artifacts.

David Hulse, junior author, is a native of Decatur, and his interest in archaeology is as longstanding as Cambron's. By vocation he is an ill.u.s.trator. His best known ill.u.s.trations are the colored paintings of the water fowl in Birds of Alabama. His work in the ill.u.s.tration of wild life has kept him much of the time on Wheeler Lake near his home in Decatur, and his "part time" archaeological ventures have been in surface collecting on the mud flats which are exposed when the lake level is lowered. Not only has he provided the excellent ill.u.s.trations in this publication, but he has also collaborated in all other aspects of the handbook.

It has been our satisfaction as editor during the past twelve years to see the efforts of these two authors come to fruition as descriptions of point type after point type came into our hands for the comparatively small job of editing. We think you are going to find this handbook a tremendous tool for extracting a great deal of information and pleasure from your collections. Since some readers may want to consult primary sources to find out more about specific types, each point type is given with the name of the cla.s.sifier and the name of the publication in which the type was first described and cla.s.sified. In the text concerning each type, other bibliographic references are cited.

A word of caution--do not try to fit everything into this system. The authors themselves, in cla.s.sifying our material from summer excavations, would cla.s.s only about 25 per cent. Read the full description of the point type and do not rely entirely on the ill.u.s.tration for comparison since certain diagnostic characteristics do not lend themselves to ill.u.s.tration. Since it would have been impractical to show the full range of each type, you will see in each ill.u.s.tration a cla.s.sic example which usually falls in the middle of the range.

David L. DeJarnette, Editor Mound State Monument Moundville, AL 35474

For additional copies of this book and information on other publications of the Archaeological Research a.s.sociation of Alabama, Inc., contact Editor at the above address.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The preparation of the material presented in this book was made possible by many individuals and inst.i.tutions. To them the authors express their grat.i.tude with particular thanks to those listed.

Mrs. T. M. N. (Madeline Kneberg) Lewis is responsible for the basic methods of procedure in cla.s.sification of these point types, many of which the authors identified by working with the Lewises before their retirement from the University of Tennessee.

The princ.i.p.al job of editing the original ma.n.u.script was done by David L. DeJarnette with the help of Mrs. Eleanor Smith Brock and Mrs. Valerie Scarritt, all the University of Alabama. This current revision was edited by David L. DeJarnette with the a.s.sistance of Mrs. Valerie Scarritt and Mrs. Judith Nielsen. The University made available to the authors projectile points from the Tennessee Valley sh.e.l.l mound excavations which were cla.s.sified and used as a chronological control for the original compilation of this ma.n.u.script.

Dr. James B. Griffin of the University of Michigan and Dr. Joffre Coe of the University of North Carolina furnished materials from their areas and contributed information for this study.

Mr. and Mrs. E. Milton Harris, Philip C. Jackson, Jr., James H. McCary III and Brittain Thompson of Birmingham sponsored the original printing of the ma.n.u.script. The Archaeological Research a.s.sociation of Alabama, Inc. has continued the sponsorship through two additional printings and this revision. Brittain Thompson also accepted the tasks of design, preparation and production of all three printings of the original ma.n.u.script and this revision. The Harrises compiled the information for the distributional chart which appeared in the first three printings.

This study has drawn heavily upon "A Survey of Paleo-Indian Sites and Artifacts in the Tennessee River Valley," an unpublished report on three years of field work by Dr. Frank J. Soday and James W. Cambron.

H. B. Dowell, Mrs. James W. Cambron, Rodger Schaefer and Mrs. Don Mayhall, all of Decatur, Alabama, were most helpful in reading, typing, and duplicating ma.n.u.script copy.

Many members of the Alabama Archaeological Society and other individuals loaned their collections, from over the state of Alabama, for cla.s.sification. This material helped establish point type and provided information on the distribution of types.

James W. Cambron

David C. Hulse

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this book is to fill a need for the identification of artifacts and to contribute to a unified nomenclature, especially concerning projectile point types in Alabama and adjoining areas.

Considerable material was cla.s.sified and used to determine types. This includes approximately: 150,000 catalogued artifacts in the collections of the authors from 400 sites, mostly from the Tennessee Valley; about 5,000 Paleo, Transitional Paleo, and early Archaic artifacts from 281 sites cla.s.sified in "A survey of Paleo-Indian Sites and Artifacts in the Tennessee River Valley;" and artifacts from over 250 sites in 27 Alabama counties, 7 Tennessee counties, 1 North Carolina county, 3 Georgia counties and 1 New York county (see distribution tables of state survey) loaned by Alabama Archaeological Society members and others.

Names and code numbers were a.s.signed to each type of artifact.

Combinations of characteristics both cultural and physical, including measurements, shapes, flaking, and materials, were taken from a series of each type and were used to determine each new type. Typical examples were selected to be ill.u.s.trated and the ill.u.s.trations were drawn with great accuracy and are considered superior to photographs, and all named points are drawn actual size. Cultural a.s.sociations were determined by artifacts from excavated control sites. These control sites include Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter, Quad Site, University of Alabama Site Ms 201 (Rock House), Flint Creek Rock Shelter, Little Bear Creek Site Ct 8, and Flint River Mound Ma 48. All artifacts from these sites used in this paper were cla.s.sified by the authors; thus a uniform interpretation of types was a.s.sured. Surface collections from more or less culturally isolated sites were also of value in determining cultural a.s.sociations.

Some projectile points are not distinctive enough to be defined as a type. Provisional types of categories were set up and a.s.signed code numbers in order to place these points in separated groups. Points are not "pushed" into a named type; if the type could not accurately be determined the point was placed in a provisional type. In cla.s.sifying point types it is well to consider that broken points, points with missing parts, and reworked points can be misleading and can make the example appear to be of another type. Differences in patination and flaking technique of the reworked area of a point are helpful in determining the extent of reworking. In cla.s.sifying reworked points if the original type can be identified the point is placed in that type. If a point is reworked into a tool it is still cla.s.sified as a point.

The hafting method and flaking can be helpful in determining point type a.s.sociations in general as the hafting method nearly always determines the shape of the projectile point. Most Paleo Indian types, including fluted points, are auriculate. With exceptions, Transitional Paleo types were still hafted in much the same way. Side notching and beveling of the blade apparently started in this period. Notching and beveling seems to reach a climax on larger points in the early Archaic period. Stemmed points also became important in this period and persisted in importance through Sh.e.l.lmound Archaic and Woodland periods. Auriculate and notched types reappear in the Woodland period. Pentagonal and triangular types persist through all cultural periods. Small triangular points become important in the Mississippian period.

[Ill.u.s.tration: BASIC POINT SHAPES AND FEATURES]

[Ill.u.s.tration: HAFTING AREA TYPES]

[Ill.u.s.tration: STEM EDGE NOMENCLATURE]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FLAKING TYPES]

Explanation of Code Numbers

Code numbers were a.s.signed each point type as they were defined for the purpose of convenience in cla.s.sification and to eventually be used to computerize types for distribution purposes.

Projectile points are divided into two parts: hafting area and blade.

The following outline was used in describing each point type:

I Name--=Named by= (described by, and date)

II General Description: Size, type according to hafting area--auriculate, stemmed, notched, lanceolate, triangular, pentagonal--diagnostic features.

III Measurements

IV Form: Cross section, shoulders, blade type, blade edge features, distal end; hafting area (type and features).

V Flaking: Type and materials.