Getting to the Point: a Reply to Bradbury Et Al
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
52 Getting To The Point: A Reply to Bradbury et al. David Pollack, C. Martin Raymer, Donald A. Miller, Jimmy A. Railey, and A. Gwynn Henderson Abstract This paper is a response to Bradbury et al.’s critique of the currently used Fort Ancient fine triangular projectile point typology. Drawing on the variation in projectile point morphology they observed at the Early Fort Ancient Elk Fork site in Morgan County, Kentucky, Bradbury et al. concluded that the typology should be abandoned in favor of an attribute approach. We agree with Bradbury et al. that researchers need to determine the extent to which variation in triangular point morphology is related to temporal trends, tool function, or style. However, we disagree that the existing typology cannot be used to address these issues. We have found it to be a good research tool and argue that it should be retained, as we illustrate by a consideration of the regional Fort Ancient database. Introduction In a recent paper in this journal, Bradbury et Updike 1996). They have documented a longer al. (2011) expanded upon Bradbury and time depth for some types (e.g., Type 2 Fine Richmond’s (2004) critique of the Fort Ancient Triangular: Flared Base and Type 5 Fine fine triangular projectile point typology Triangular: Straight Sided) (Carmean 2010; developed by Jimmy A. Railey in 1992. The Henderson 1998e, 2008; Pollack and Henderson typology was developed to account for the 2000) and identified variants of other types (e.g., variation in triangular projectile points observed Type 2.1 Fine Triangular: Basal Ears and Type in the chipped stone tool assemblages recovered 3.1 Fine Triangular: Finely Serrated) from five northeastern Kentucky Fort Ancient (Henderson 1998e, 2008; Miller and Sanford sites. These sites were investigated in the mid- 2010). 1980s as part of the Kentucky Fort Ancient Research Project - Phase Two (Henderson Bradbury et al. used the triangular projectile 1992), one of the goals of which was to identify point assemblage from the Elk Fork site in diachronic changes in Fort Ancient material Morgan County, a small early Fort Ancient culture. In his conclusions, Railey (1992:168) settlement, as a comparative context for their noted that future Fort Ancient studies should evaluation of Railey’s point typology (Herndon concentrate on refining the triangular projectile 2005). In this paper, we identify some problems point sequence he presented for northeastern with Bradbury et al.’s critique of the usefulness Kentucky. of the typology. Then, using a more representative and inclusive set of data than that Over the past 20 years, additional research at used by Bradbury et al., we illustrate how Fort Ancient sites in northern and central Railey’s typology, as currently defined, can be Kentucky has augmented Railey's sample, and used to identify morphological, stylistic, and researchers have, indeed, made modifications to functional trends in Fort Ancient projectile point his original typology (cf., Henderson 1998e; assemblages. Journal of Kentucky Archaeology 1(2):52-64, Winter 2012 53 Bradbury et al.’s Concerns and Our Response Bradbury et al.’s two primary concerns with differences among knappers or cultural groups, a the 1992 typology are: 1) none of the fine knapper’s skill, the species of prey hunted, triangular point types are good temporal hafting methods, and resharpening. To these indicators in and of themselves, and 2) the factors we would add raw material type and its existing types do not adequately account for the availability and limitations, different rates of morphological and stylistic variation in adoption of new styles, the reuse of earlier triangular projectile points observed in the projectile points by later groups, and analytical archaeological record. The former concern is bias. All of these factors have the potential to not surprising, as all of the site contribute to variation observed in the assemblages/components Railey analyzed archaeological record. And all have the contained more than one type. It simply was potential to produce variation in projectile points never the intent of the typology for individual regardless of temporal affiliation. Thus, projectile points to be used to date a site’s attending to these factors is an issue in any occupation. projectile point classification. With respect to the latter, Fort Ancient Bradbury et al.’s proposed alternative to the projectile point stylistic and morphological 1992 typology is to employ a trait-based variation is a result of choices flint knappers approach to Fort Ancient triangular projectile made concerning hafting element and edge point classification. They suggest that treatment. Other contributing factors identified researchers classify specimens according to by Bradbury et al. include idiosyncratic clusters of observable attributes: Attribute Dimension Base Incurvate Excurvate Straight Blade Incurvate Excurvate Straight Serrations None Coarse Fine Basal Flaring Absent Present For example, using their attribute cluster research questions. Then, if it is found wanting, approach, a triangular point could be classified it can be modified as needed. as straight based, straight sided, and coarsely serrated. Using Railey’s typology, the same In deciding whether to employ a previously point would be assigned to Type 3 Fine developed typology, researchers must determine Triangular: Coarsely Serrated. Thus, whether if they have sufficient information, and employing an attribute cluster or a type confidence in their ability, to replicate the types. designation approach, the analyst is using the They also must decide how much variation they same set of observable shared characteristics to are willing to tolerate before they create new group points. And irrespective of which types in an established typology, or decide to approach they employ, an analyst’s particular develop a new typology. That is: are they a research needs and questions help determine “lumper” or a “splitter?” Lumpers will tolerate which attributes they record and whether they more variation in a type, while splitters will tend privilege one attribute over another. to account for variation by creating additional types or varieties. If they decide an existing Once a cluster or type is defined, its utility type/typology encompasses too much variation, can only be assessed and evaluated by they may forgo using it. employing it to classify artifacts and answer Journal of Kentucky Archaeology 1(2):52-64, Winter 2012 54 The amount of variation encompassed researchers no longer use it. Bradbury et al. within a type, then, in large part reflects the (2011) did not assess the utility of the typology analysts’ personal preference. This is true to: characterize site/site component projectile whether they are using a typological or attribute point assemblages; make intersite and cluster approach, since both require analysts to interregional comparisons; identify temporal make classificatory decisions. trends in triangular projectile point morphology; and assess the extent to which changes in A good illustration of this problem, relative triangular projectile points are related to hunting to the Fort Ancient fine triangular projectile practices. point typology under consideration here, is the degree of “coarseness” of serration required for The typology did help Bradbury et al. (2011) analysts to classify a specimen as a Type 3 Fine determine that the Elk Fork site inhabitants used Triangular: Coarsely Serrated point (Figure 1). a variety of triangular projectile points. But Specimens assigned to this type are having established this fact, they never asked distinguished by their coarsely serrated lateral any follow-up questions, such as: margins (Railey 1992:158). Assignment of a point to this type, then, depends on the analyst Why is such a diverse set of projectile recognizing and privileging the presence of points associated with such a small site? coarse serrations over other prominent attributes, such as basal shape. The range of variation Is this assemblage more diverse than subsumed within Type 3 Fine Triangular: contemporary Early Fort Ancient assemblages? Coarsely Serrated points is highlighted in Figure 1. The specimens in the top and middle rows To what extent does the diversity of were recovered from Fox Farm. They are very projectile points within the Elk Fork assemblage similar to those Railey (1992:159) illustrated as reflect this site’s transitional Late examples of this type (recovered mainly from Woodland/Fort Ancient occupation, its Eastern Fox Farm, but also from Thompson and Kentucky location, or the types of activities Augusta). The two on the bottom row are from undertaken there? Elk Fork. In our opinion, the example on the right does not conform to the type, as it is not Railey’s typology is well-suited to address coarsely serrated. all of these questions. To illustrate this point, in the following section, we illustrate how the Bradbury et al. (2011) asked: “Are any of typology can be used to address these issues. We the fine triangular projectile point types, in and will compare the Elk Fork fine triangular of themselves, temporally diagnostic?” Based on projectile point assemblage to those recovered the results of their research, they determined the from 22 Fort Ancient sites in northern, central, individual types were not temporally diagnostic, and northeastern Kentucky (Figure 2 and Table and so they concluded that the typology itself 1). was not valid and they recommended Journal of Kentucky Archaeology 1(2):52-64,