HANDBOOK

OF

ALABAMA

ARCHAEOLOGY

PART I POINT TYPES

by
JAMES W. CAMBRON
DAVID C. HULSE

Edited by
DAVID L. DEJARNETTE

SPONSORED by

PUBLISHED BY
The Archaeological Research Association of Alabama Inc.

Contents

HANDBOOK

OF

ALABAMA

ARCHAEOLOGY

Part I
Point Types

FIRST PRINTING
NOVEMBER 1964

SECOND PRINTING
AUGUST 1965

THIRD PRINTING
OCTOBER 1969

REVISED
NOVEMBER 1975

PREFACE

For many years there has been a need in the Southeast for a workable system of projectile point classification. 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 classification have been based on certain look-alike characteristics, with an utter disregard for the cultural provenience of the objects being classified. Archaeology has been reasonably successful in its classification 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 classes of artifacts, but it also enables the prehistorian to establish event which took place in time and space. This, after all, is the real test of any artifact taxonomy.

In all systems of taxonomy, whether it is the naming and classifying 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 classify 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 classification 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 classification 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 illustrator. His best known illustrations are the colored paintings of the water fowl in Birds of Alabama. His work in the illustration 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 illustrations 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 classifier and the name of the publication in which the type was first described and classified. 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 classifying our material from summer excavations, would class only about 25 per cent. Read the full description of the point type and do not rely entirely on the illustration for comparison since certain diagnostic characteristics do not lend themselves to illustration. Since it would have been impractical to show the full range of each type, you will see in each illustration a classic 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 Association 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 institutions. To them the authors express their gratitude with particular thanks to those listed.

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

The principal job of editing the original manuscript 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 assistance of Mrs. Valerie Scarritt and Mrs. Judith Nielsen. The University made available to the authors projectile points from the Tennessee Valley shell mound excavations which were classified and used as a chronological control for the original compilation of this manuscript.

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 manuscript. The Archaeological Research Association 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 manuscript 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 manuscript copy.

Many members of the Alabama Archaeological Society and other individuals loaned their collections, from over the state of Alabama, for classification. 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 classified 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 classified 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 assigned 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 illustrated and the illustrations were drawn with great accuracy and are considered superior to photographs, and all named points are drawn actual size. Cultural associations 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 classified by the authors; thus a uniform interpretation of types was assured. Surface collections from more or less culturally isolated sites were also of value in determining cultural associations.

Some projectile points are not distinctive enough to be defined as a type. Provisional types of categories were set up and assigned 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 classifying 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 classifying 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 classified as a point.

The hafting method and flaking can be helpful in determining point type associations 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 Shellmound 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.

BASIC POINT SHAPES AND FEATURES

Explanation of Code Numbers

Code numbers were assigned each point type as they were defined for the purpose of convenience in classification 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.

VI Comments: Derivation of name, location of specimens, cultural associations, etc.

INDEX

ABBEY, Hulse (This paper): A-122

GENERAL DESCRIPTION: This is a medium sized, stemmed point with incurvate blade edges that are beveled on each side of both faces.

MEASUREMENTS: Measurements of 12 cotypes (including the illustrated example) from which features were taken ranged as follows: length—maximum, 51 mm.; minimum, 38 mm.; average, 42 mm.: width at shoulders—maximum, 49 mm.; minimum, 32 mm.; average, 41 mm.: stem width—maximum, 21 mm.; minimum, 14 mm.; average, 18 mm.: stem, length—maximum 12 mm.; minimum 7 mm.; average, 9 mm.: thickness—maximum, 9 mm.; minimum, 6 mm.; average, 7 mm.

FORM: The cross-section is flattened. The shoulders are expanded and are usually horizontal, but may be inversely tapered. The blade is incurvate, beveled on each side of both faces, and is in rare instances serrated. The distal end is acute. The stem is usually straight but may be expanded. The basal edge may be either slightly excurvate or straight and is usually thinned.

FLAKING: This type displays well controlled, broad, shallow, random flaking. The blade and stem edges were retouched by shallow, regular, pressure flaking. Good local materials were used. All examples are patinated.

COMMENTS: The type was named from sites near Abbey Creek in Henry and Houston counties, Alabama. They were associated with Elora and Maples points and probably were used during the Archaic period.

ADENA, Bell (Bell, 1958): A-1

GENERAL DESCRIPTION: This is a medium to large point with a long, very broad, sometimes rounded stem.

MEASUREMENTS: The measurements of seven homotypes from which traits and measurements were taken are: length—maximum, 65 mm.; minimum, 50 mm.; average, 56 mm.: shoulder width—maximum, 35 mm.; minimum, 32 mm.; average, 34 mm.: stem width—maximum, 27 mm.; minimum, 18 mm.; average, 24 mm.: stem length—maximum, 30 mm.; minimum, 15 mm.; average, 21 mm.: thickness—maximum, 9 mm.; minimum, 7 mm.; average, 8 mm.

FORM: The cross-section is biconvex with wide proportions. The shoulders may be horizontal or tapered, with an occasional weak barb. The blade shape is excurvate. The distal end is usually acute. The stem may be straight, contracted or slightly expanded. Some examples can be described as having a rounded stem. The stem base is either straight or excurvate. The basal edges may be lightly ground.

FLAKING: The blade and stem are shaped with strong random flaking, with some retouch along most edges.

COMMENTS: The name Adena is derived from the point's association with the Adena culture. The illustrated specimen is from Cambron Site 48, Lincoln County, Tennessee. The measured examples are from this site and Cambron Site 50, Limestone County, Alabama. Most examples are made from local materials. The type is associated with early Woodland in the eastern United States. Kneberg (1956) indicates an Archaic association in Tennessee. In Alabama, the Adena point seems to appear on both Archaic and Woodland sites. One example was found in Level 1, Zone A, and one example in Zone C at the Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter (DeJarnette, Kurjack and Cambron, 1962). One example was found in Stratum II (Archaic) at the Flint Creek Rock Shelter (Cambron and Waters, 1961). Scattered examples are known from most of North Alabama. The Alabama points closely resemble examples from Ohio, illustrated by Bell (1958) and Webb and Baby (1957), as well as some examples from an Adena mound at Natrium, West Virginia (Solecki, 1953). Examples from New York with unground bases are described by Ritchie (1961). Radiocarbon dates from Adena sites in Ohio and Kentucky (Webb and Baby, 1957) suggest an age of from 800 B. C. to 800 A. D.

ADENA NARROW STEMMED, Cambron (This Paper): A-1-a

GENERAL DESCRIPTION: This is a medium to large point with a long, rounded stem and a long, excurvate blade.